Inside the Poison Papers

“Poison Papers” is the sadly appropriate name for an online compilation of documents that reveal decades of government cover-ups on the use of toxic chemicals, collusion between the chemical industry and regulatory agencies, deceit, incompetence, fraud, and ultimately an utter lack of concern for life itself. 

By James Spounias

Carol Van Strum desired a simple life when she and her family moved to Oregon’s idyllic Siuslaw National Forest in 1974. Little did she know that she would become a curator of information indicting powerful chemical companies and government agencies, which resulted in the creation of an online library known as the “Poison Papers,” or that she would suffer personal tragedy as well.

Published by the Center for Media and Democracy and the Bioscience Resource Project, the Poison Papers lay out “a 40-year history of deceit and collusion involving the chemical industry and the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be protecting human health and the environment,” according to Peter von Stackelberg, a journalist who helped establish the online collection, as reported by Sharon Lerner on the news website “TheIntercept.com.”

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate, attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

The saga began in the 1970s when Ms. Van Strum asked U.S. Forest Service employees to stop spraying herbicides in the area of her home. In one incident, her children had been directly doused as they fished in a nearby river.

Ms. Lerner reported: “Immediately after they were sprayed, Van Strum’s children developed nosebleeds, bloody diarrhea, and headaches, and many of their neighbors fell sick, too. Several women who lived in the area had miscarriages shortly after incidents of spraying. Locals described finding animals that had died or had bizarre deformities—ducks with backward-facing feet, birds with misshapen beaks, and blinded elk; cats and dogs that had been exposed began bleeding from their eyes and ears. At a community meeting, residents decided to write to the Forest Service detailing the effects of the spraying they had witnessed.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Ms. Van Strum thought, as any reasonable American would, once the agency knew how detrimental the spraying was “they wouldn’t do it anymore.”

She discovered that the herbicide used by the Forest Service contained an active ingredient used in Agent Orange, which even the U.S. military stopped using in Vietnam after it became known it caused serious harm to humans and the environment. Ms. Lerner reported that “between 1972 and 1977, the Forest Service sprayed 20,000 pounds of 2,4,5-T (an active ingredient in Agent Orange) in the 1,600-square-mile area that included Van Strum’s house and the nearby town of Alsea.”

The Forest Service refused Ms. Van Strum’s request, so she, along with her neighbors, took them to court, which resulted in a victory of sorts. A temporary ban was issued on the use of 2,4,5-T in 1977, and it was ultimately stopped in 1983, according to Ms. Lerner.

“We didn’t think of ourselves as environmentalists; that wasn’t even a word back then. We just didn’t want to be poisoned,” Ms. Van Strum said.

Tragically, Ms. Van Strum’s four children died in a 1997 home fire, which spread suspiciously quickly and was not investigated. Ms. Lerner reported: “Firefighters who came to the scene said the fact that the whole house had burned so quickly pointed to the possibility of arson. But an investigation of the causes of the fire was never completed.”

Today, Ms. Van Strum lives in an outbuilding next to the cleared area where her home once stood and has accepted the fact she will “never really know” whether foul play was involved.

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., cofounder and director of the Bioscience Resource Project and director of the Poison Papers, explains how things got to the point where bureaucratic agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), don’t care about the public they are charged with protecting.

When agency scientists discover wrongdoing, such as fraud by major chemical companies, they “don’t do anything about it because they have to pass it up the line” to their senior administrator (and ultimately) to the president, who will have to take a stand against a toxic chemical and its producer, Dr. Latham told Todd Zwillich on WNCY radio on July 31.

Latham said bad news doesn’t travel up the agency, leaving a “closet full of skeletons,” which aptly describes the Poison Papers.

For instance, a company called Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) was responsible for up to 40% of all chemical safety tests.

Monsanto and other giants used this testing company, which got some media attention in light of a negative report issued by the Food and Drug Administration. Top bureaucrats had to “do something.”

Rebekah Wilce reported on “independentsciencenews.com” that testing animals would decompose so quickly that “their bodies oozed through wire cage bottoms and lay in purple puddles on the dropping trays” and that IBT invented an acronym “TBD,” later discovered to mean “too badly decomposed.”

Poison Papers documents reveal a secret meeting with the EPA, Canada’s Health Protection Branch, and top chemical companies on Oct. 3, 1978 at the Howard Johnson Motor Inn in Arlington, Va.

Government bureaucrats “kicked the can down the road,” giving IBT a chance to resubmit studies, according to Latham. He noted that, “Meanwhile, you’re not telling the public that the chemicals that they’re using in their households and yards and that are in their food have unsound tests behind them.. . . In some cases, 100% of the tests were unsound.”

Those who wonder what is causing so much illness, such as cancer, dementia, and other problems, may have an answer, and it lies in chemical exposure, said Latham.

The evidence continues to mount daily against big business and government.

If the words of those who poison and the bureaucrats who cover up and do nothing won’t convince us we need to take action, what will?

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine. To receive a free issue of Carotec Health Report—a monthly newsletter loaded with well-researched and reliable alternative health information—please write Carotec, P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101 or call 1-800-522-4279. Also included will be a list of the high-quality health supplements Carotec recommends.




NRA Gunning for ‘Fake News’ Flagship

The most recent video ad from the National Rifle Association targets The New York Times—or as NRA national spokesperson Dana Loesch calls it, the “old gray hag”—with a hard-hitting denouncement, telling the paper it is not “in any way truth- or fact-based journalism.”

By Dave Gahary

In a clear nod to the message this newspaper has been delivering since its inception, the country’s oldest “continuously operating civil rights organization,” the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), has the country’s “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, in its sights.

In a powerful, new 53-second video ad, the NRA unleashes a blistering, withering assault on the Times and uses spokesperson Dana Loesch to deliver its message.

Ms. Loesch (pronounced “lash”), who was hired in June of last year to be the NRA’s national spokesperson, is an award-winning journalist and television and talk-radio conservative political commentator, appearing on Fox News, CNN, CBS, ABC, and HBO among other outlets. She’s intelligent, attractive, and easy to listen to, with a delivery reminiscent of the late populist patriot Jim Traficant.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate, attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

In the video ad, Ms. Loesch tells the Times:

We the people, have had it. We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your Democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth- or fact-based journalism. Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. We’re going to “fisk” [refute] The New York Times and find out just what “deep rich” means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy, dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three, more decades. We’re gonna laser-focus on your so-called honest pursuit of truth. In short, we’re coming for you.

The video can be viewed online by searching for the title, “Dana Loesch: We’re coming for you New York Times.” It’s certainly worth the watch.

Needless to say, “the ad sparked a serious backlash, with critics claiming it promotes violence,” as “Fox News Insider” reported, and it led one CNN analyst to claim he “reported” the NRA for “hate speech.”

IRS Loses Cases

An earlier NRA video ad from April of this year also raised the ire of the left. This 59-second video is quite powerful as well, and targets the Marxist factions intent on the destruction of this once-great nation.

They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the “resistance,” all to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia, to smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding, until the only option left, is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness. And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with a clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.

The soft terrorist group Black Lives Matter calls the ad “an open call to violence to protect white supremacy,” and a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama called it “revolting and frightening.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) went so far as to say: “I think the NRA is telling people to shoot us. Now might be the right time to cancel your membership.”

This video can also be viewed on the Internet by searching for the title, “Freedom’s Safest Place: Violence of Lies.” It, too, is certainly worth the watch.

No matter the so-called controversy created by the video ads, this is a good thing, and we say, “Hey, NRA, welcome to the real resistance. It took you long enough.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information.




Charlottesville: Gladio Meets Cointelpro?

Thinking people who have watched any video of the violent clashes in the streets of Charlottesville, Va. surrounding the legally permitted Unite the Right rally and Antifa’s “counter-protest” are surely scratching their heads along with us, wondering why law enforcement not only failed to keep the two opposing groups separate, but apparently pushed them together–all while standing back and watching the assaults happen without taking action to prevent or stop the mayhem. Kevin Barrett offers one explanation, based in well-documented history, to explain why the event may have unfolded as it did.

By Kevin Barrett

America’s liberal mainstream media is blaming violence in Charlottesville on the so-called alt-right. According to the dominant narrative, crazed neo-Nazi hooligans descended on a quiet college town and started beating people up and running people over. But when a violent, galvanizing, hyper-mediated event occurs, and the mainstream immediately tells us who to blame, I immediately think of 9/11 and all the other false-flag outrages that have done so much damage to our country.

As I wrote in the immediate aftermath of the Charlottesville clashes:

The recent ultraviolence in Charlottesville bears some of the hallmarks of a contrived event: It was shocking, spectacular, hyped by mainstream media, and seemingly designed to cast blame on a demonized ‘other’ (in this case, the alt-right white nationalist movement). Additionally, it could be seen as furthering a ‘strategy of tension’ pitting left against right, multiculturalism against racial nationalism, Bernie Sanders extremists against Donald Trump extremists, and so on.

Deep-state operations designed to polarize societies pursue a “strategy of tension.” They manipulate public opinion by making their opponents, whether on the left or the right, look like violent, dangerous extremists.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

Operation Gladio, a Pentagon program run through NATO, pursued this “strategy of tension” in Cold War-era Europe. Infiltrating and manipulating both right-wing and left-wing groups, deep-state operators incited terrorism and violence, thereby discrediting opposition to NATO-bankster rule and frightening voters into supporting the establishment.

Swiss professor Daniele Ganser and other researchers have shown that virtually all of the “left-wing terrorism” in Europe during the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s was actually perpetrated by Operation Gladio. Likewise, most “right-wing violence” was also a Gladio product.

Could Cointelpro, a domestic U.S. equivalent of Operation Gladio, be infiltrating both white nationalist groups and their “Antifa” opposition? Undoubtedly. Could deep-state operators be fomenting violence in an effort to discredit populism? Quite possibly.

The 2016 presidential elections delivered a slap to the face of America’s deep-state elite. Left-wing populist Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and could only be kept out of the White House through election fraud. Right-wing populist Donald Trump won an overwhelming, fraud-proof victory in the Republican primaries, then defied polls and pundits by winning the general election.

Populism is surging. Elites are panicking. The mainstream media’s stranglehold over public opinion is eroding.

America’s self-appointed platonic guardians are scrambling to adjust to the new reality. They appear to be resorting to ever-more-extreme measures in a desperate effort to shore up their dominance.

Their primary target is free speech on the Internet.  The Trump-Sanders phenomenon was the result of 15 years of alternative media chipping away at consensus reality in general and the official story of 9/11 in particular. A deep sentiment of mistrust now pervades the populace.

IRS Loses Cases

The Platonic Guardians and the deep state they rule are desperately seeking ways to muzzle Internet-based alternative media. During the past several months, their pet CIA search engine, Google, has been systematically tweaked in an effort to hide alternative news websites from the general public. This has resulted in a 60% decline in readership for such truth-telling websites as GlobalResearch.ca. The deep state is also trying to cut truth-tellers’ financial lifelines by such means as removing AFP’s credit card processing capabilities, nuking my GoFundMe platform, orchestrating the suspension of truth-seeking academicians like Professor Anthony Hall and Joy Karega from universities, banning history books from Amazon, removing alternative media from YouTube advertising programs, and otherwise trying to starve truth-seekers into submission.

But these attacks on alternative media can only be effective to the extent that public opinion acquiesces. To overcome America’s traditional affinity for free speech, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the deep state needs to convince the public that the Internet is populated by dangerous, violent extremists who must be muzzled in the name of public safety and “homeland security.”

And that is where events like Charlottesville come in. Observers have noted that heavily militarized police and National Guard units initially showed up in force­­—then conveniently disappeared just before the violence was incited.

And why were demonstrators allowed to carry weapons? Normally police prevent marchers from carrying objects that could be used as fighting implements. Yet Charlottesville demonstrators carried pepper spray, clubs, weaponizable torches, and so on.

Finally, why does big media obsessively focus on certain self-appointed “leaders” who do everything they can to make the alt-right look bad?

Could the people who benefit the most from “populist” violence—the anti-populist elite—be up to their usual tricks?

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.




Trump Wants Immigration Cut

The recently introduced RAISE Act–Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy–would utilize a merit-based point system to increase the English language fluency and technical skills level of foreign citizens accepted into the U.S. while at the same time decreasing the total number approved for entry. While countries around the world have just such a commonsense system in place, left-leaning groups in America are screaming “racism” and “discrimination” over the idea the U.S. would implement a similar strategy. 

By John Friend

In yet another effort to fulfill his campaign promises, President Donald Trump recently announced a major new immigration proposal designed to significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants entering the U.S. each year.

The president has been and remains a vocal critic of illegal immigration and has taken serious and commendable measures to crack down on it. However, legal immigration is arguably an even more urgent problem that needs to be addressed, as over 1 million legal immigrants enter the U.S. each year, and this proposal aims to tackle this issue head-on.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

The bill is known as the RAISE Act, which stands for Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act. It seeks to transform the current immigration paradigm to incentivize highly skilled immigrants by creating a merit-based system for prospective migrants, a stark departure from the previous immigration model that allowed family members and relatives of immigrants already settled in America to gain residency regardless of their skills, education, and economic prospects upon entering the U.S.

The Trump administration has been working closely with two key GOP lawmakers—Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.)—to craft the legislation and announced their proposal last week during a White House ceremony.

Trump explained to reporters that the proposed legislation “would represent the most significant reform to our immigration system in a half a century.”

During the presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump regularly criticized America’s broken immigration system, which he correctly argued has harmed America’s economy and its workers, jeopardized American national security, and facilitated the resettlement of millions of largely unskilled, uneducated immigrants who have little to offer the U.S. economy.

“As a candidate, I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers, and that’s why we are here today,” Trump told reporters during the White House ceremony announcing the legislation.

The bill’s proponents argue that it will “spur economic growth and help raise working Americans’ wages” by “ending chain migration, giving priority to the most highly skilled immigrants from around the world, and reducing overall immigration by half,” according to a fact sheet released by Cotton and Perdue.

“Only 1 out of every 15 U.S. immigrants come here because of their skills, and we do not prioritize the ultra high-skilled immigrants who spur innovation, create jobs, and make America more competitive,” the fact sheet contends. “At the same time, the United States accepts 1 million immigrants annually—the equivalent of adding the entire state of Montana each year—and most are low- or unskilled. A generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrant labor has put downward pressure on the wages of working Americans, with recent immigrants’ wages hardest hit.”

The bill seeks to upend America’s disastrous immigration policy by tackling these issues head-on.

The RAISE Act would establish a skills-based points system that prioritizes visa applicants based on a number of important factors, including their education, English-speaking ability, job offers, and overall economic prospects. It would also outright eliminate granting visa preference for the extended family members and relatives of immigrants already settled in the United States, and would eliminate the State Department’s so-called “Diversity Visa Lottery,” which the bill’s authors argue is “plagued with fraud” and “advances no economic or humanitarian interest.” Finally, the bill would limit the total number of refugees seeking permanent residency each year to 50,000.

“Immigrants coming here on skills-based visas will be better educated, more skilled, more fluent in English, have more working-age years ahead of them, and have a stronger entrepreneurial spirit,” proponents of the bill contend. “They will have a greater shot at becoming successful Americans, which will work to the benefit of all Americans in the form of an expanded and more competitive economy.”

The legislation has been praised by a number of conservative groups and leaders as well as a variety of immigration think tanks that favor more restrictions on immigration, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, while Democrats, the radical left, and a variety of ethnic lobbying organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have hysterically condemned the proposed legislation.

“This proposed legislation is cruel, anti-family, and un-American,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, stated in response to the RAISE Act. “These are the types of policy markers that exacerbate immigrant bashing and nativist attitudes in this country. Diversity is our country’s strength and immigration has made America great.” Greenblatt and other opponents of the bill have pledged to “work hard against this cruel legislation.”

A number of prominent Republicans have also voiced their suspicion and outright hostility toward the RAISE Act, complicating matters for the president. Passing the legislation will no doubt prove to be a challenge, as has virtually everything else Trump has attempted to accomplish.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Tech Giants Have the Right to Censor Internet, Says Free Speech Lawyer

Recent court rulings seem to favor Amazon and Google in the ongoing battle over Internet censorship. AFP asked a professor who specializes in Internet law to explain how such tech giants are legally allowed to censor the Internet. 

By Dave Gahary

As readers and supporters of American Free Press and its sister publication The Barnes Review are well aware, books and videos considered to be verboten by the reigning tech giants have been removed for sale or distribution from these companies’ bookstores and websites.

“In early March, to the shock and dismay of free speech advocates around the world, Internet retail giant Amazon caved to pressure from special interest groups and mainstream news outlets and quietly pulled at least 100 political and historical books from its website,” wrote Paul Angel recently in AFP.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

Prior to this mass book banning, YouTube, the video-sharing website created by three former PayPal employees in 2005 and bought by Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, has come down hard on videos on AFP’s website, by sending a shot across our bow in the following email:

As you may know, our Community Guidelines describe which content we allow—and don’t allow—on YouTube. Your video ‘Jewish Groups Shut Down Canadian Newspaper’ was flagged for review. Upon review, we’ve determined that it violates our guidelines. We’ve removed it from YouTube and assigned a Community Guidelines strike, or temporary penalty, to your account.

We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express their points of view, even if unpopular. However, YouTube doesn’t allow hate speech. Sometimes there’s a fine line between what is and isn’t considered hate speech. If you’re not sure whether or not your content crosses the line, we ask that you don’t post it.

This is the first strike applied to your account. We understand that users seldom intend to violate our policies. That’s why strikes don’t last forever—this strike will expire in three months. However, it’s important to remember that additional strikes could prevent you from posting content to YouTube or even lead to your account being terminated.

The video cited, “Jewish Groups Shut Down Canadian Newspaper,” was simply an audio interview this reporter conducted with Dr. James Sears, editor-in-chief of Your Ward News, a quarterly local newspaper distributed in Toronto, discussing the fact that Jewish groups had complained to Canadian politicians about Sears’s newspaper. In response, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada Judy Foote ordered Canada Post to stop the distribution of the paper, which was called “anti-Semitic” and “racist” by its critics.

Naturally, Foote would not make such a move unless someone complained, and that someone, as is clearly documented, was Jewish groups. So there was nothing “hateful” about the interview. Sears was just explaining what happened.

IRS Loses Cases

YouTube attacked some other videos as well, claiming they were not “advertiser friendly.” This is quite odd, as the videos merely discussed a very hot topic: the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. These videos, which were simply audio interviews adapted to video format, can garner income, depending upon how many views or listens they accumulate. YouTube would have none of that with this video:

Hi American Free Press,

Thanks for submitting your video(s) for monetization. We didn’t approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly. If you believe that the content in your video is advertiser- friendly, you can request an additional review below:

“Wolfgang Halbig Gains Some Ground”

Please note that review times may vary, and YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision whether to monetize a video. All videos are subject to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, and may be removed from the site if they don’t meet those standards.

Thanks,
The YouTube Team

AFP received a nearly identical warning when it came to the interview we conducted with Dr. James Tracy titled “Firing of Professor for Sandy Hook Beliefs Cowardly.”

NO RECOURSE

Do booksellers and content creators have any recourse if Amazon and YouTube remove content they deem to be “offensive”?

The short answer is “no,” as this newspaper discovered via an email exchange with one of the nation’s top Internet law professors.

Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law in California, where he teaches and publishes in the areas of Internet law, intellectual property, and advertising and marketing law.

This reporter became acquainted with Goldman via an article he wrote for Forbes entitled “Can YouTube ‘Remove and Relocate’ User Videos Capriciously?” The article makes reference to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is central to understanding why these tech giants can do as they wish.

The act was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which amended or repealed sections of the Communications Act of 1934 and was the first major overhaul of U.S. telecommunications policy in nearly 62 years. It allows Internet service providers (ISPs) and other service providers to restrict customers’ actions without worrying about being found legally liable. Specifically, the act states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Section 230 had its beginnings in protecting children, and was passed in part in reaction to 1995’s Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., “which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers.” Section 230 was passed to allow service providers to delete and monitor content without becoming publishers.

Gideon Elite book cover

The court stated in another lawsuit, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., (where the plaintiff, Kenneth M. Zeran’s phone number was posted on an Internet bulletin board that glorified the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which Zeran had no connection to or involvement with) that:

Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision. Under that court’s holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher.

Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted §230’s broad immunity ‘to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material,’ and ‘the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering.’ The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems.

Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect.

AFP asked Goldman about the significance of Section 230. “Section 230(c)(2) is directly relevant by providing websites with a safe harbor for removing content they consider objectionable,” he explained. “The website’s terms of service are also highly relevant, such as where the sites say they can terminate accounts or delete content at their discretion.”

Since Section 230 allows these companies to censor any material they wish, AFP asked if it is foolish for someone “to piggyback on the audience aggregated by third party intermediary publishers,” like YouTube, since “the cloud service provider’s policies and practices can easily moot those investments with little recourse, judicial or otherwise.”

“I don’t think it’s foolish at all,” Goldman said. “Usually, content producers must rely on third party intermediaries for ‘distribution,’ i.e., to reach a broader audience. However, if the distributor has the contractual and legal right to pull the rug out from under the content producer at any time, then the content producer either needs to accept that contingency or bargain for a better deal.”

AFP asked what would be an example of “the contractual and legal right to pull the rug out from under the content producer at any time.”

“A clause like, ‘We can terminate your account or delete your content at any time in our sole discretion,’ ” he explained.

It’s worth emphasizing that Goldman inexplicably disagrees with the argument that Amazon and Google, which operate as virtual monopolies when it comes to book sales and advertising on the Internet, should not censor media companies, given that even Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., conceded to Business Insider recently, “[Google] was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking.”

AFP finally asked Goldman about Amazon’s book banning binge and if Section 230 allows Amazon to get away with this.

“Probably, but we may not need to get that far,” he said. “Retailers are not required to put any particular item on their shelves.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information.




Monsanto Caught Red-Handed

Despite the mega-corporation’s desperate attempts to keep company secrets secret, internal emails written by top Monsanto executives that were gathered during the discovery phase of a lawsuit now underway have been unsealed. What did this treasure trove of darkness reveal? The claim being made by hundreds of plaintiffs in the current combined cases in federal court is not nonsense, as the company has long insisted. These executives did indeed cover up the known carcinogenic dangers of Roundup. Will the U.S. Congress and the federal agencies responsible for Americans’ health and safety finally ban the substance, as the European Union, Sri Lanka, El Salvador and others have wisely done?

By James Spounias

The evidence against Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides containing glyphosate may not get any clearer, even to the thickest-headed believers of Roundup’s safety.

As reported by this writer earlier this year in American Free Press, Monsanto is being sued by individuals in federal court in San Francisco, on the basis that its herbicide Roundup brought on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in individuals.

Documents released by one of Monsanto’s law firms cast a dark shadow on the company’s knowledge of the danger of Roundup and its main ingredient, glyphosate. Monsanto claims that the documents were released against attorney-client confidentiality. The law firm countered that Monsanto did not properly protect the documents in question, and the documents have now been made public, irrespective of the quibbling of lawyers.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

Monsanto fought releasing these and many other documents, but now that they’re out, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, Scott Partridge, argues that they include “some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” which don’t affect “the substance and science,” reported The New York Times on Aug. 1.

One can judge the seriousness of Partridge’s assurances of safety versus the mother lode of admission made in following emails. The Times notes a Monsanto scientist wrote in a 2001 email, “If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react—with serious concern.”

The story also quotes a 2002 email in which a Monsanto executive wrote, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies—Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

This 2002 snippet corroborates this writer’s Dec. 9, 2016 American Free Press story that quoted Dr. Robin Mesnage, a cancer expert with the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at King College in London, who provided evidence for the statement that adjuvants make glyphosate 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Also, in the Sept. 18, 2015 issue of American Free Press the fact that adjuvants make glyphosate worse was explained by this writer, quoting professor Robert Belle who stated “it would be necessary to look more closely at the numerous additives that go into [Roundup] and their interaction,” in light of the fact that glyphosate, not Roundup, was registered in Europe. Roundup, again, includes adjuvants that make glyphosate more dangerous.

Another gem of a snippet, written by a different Monsanto executive in a 2003 email, is included in the Times’s Aug. 1 story: “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen . . . we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” Yet the same executive added, “We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”

No reason to “infer” Roundup would cause cancer flies in the face of data released as early as 1981 suggesting that glyphosate does cause cancer, according to information leaked by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Is there enough evidence to initiate a criminal investigation in light of these emails?

Mike Papantonio, a noted American trial lawyer, author, and host of “America’s Lawyer” on RT, believes so, saying the Department of Justice has these facts and can issue subpoenas and indictments.

“But you watch,” Papantonio told Thomm Hartmann on RT’s “The Big Picture” on Aug. 4. “They won’t do it,” suggesting that corporations of Monsanto’s stature will at worst get a “slap on the wrist” via fines.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have evidently been completely bought by Monsanto and other substantial corporations that, not so ironically, are closely tied to the six corporations that run the media.

The alternative media has reported extensively on the vast dangers of glyphosate, particularly how it disrupts gut-bacteria and how its introduction and proliferation correlates to numerous disease states, such as autism and many other conditions, as reported by Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel.

Will these latest admissions by Monsanto finally trigger a tipping point at which polluters and government toadies begin to be brought to heel?

Spread the word and be part of the worldwide movement to make it happen.

RELATED: Glyphosate & Roundup Tied to Serious Health Problems

Glyphosate, an ingredient in Monsanto’s Round up, impairs male offspring reproductive development, according to a study published in the Archives of Toxicology, where study authors concluded “maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters.” Keep in mind that we’re literally drinking, breathing, and swimming in glyphosate (it has contaminated streams, rivers, and lakes across the U.S.). In a 2015 study published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction, the authors detailed how pesticides, among other factors, lower testosterone levels, leading to reproductive dysfunction and infertility. What was fairly unknown 20 years ago is now common today, with younger and younger generations of men and women facing hormonal and reproductive issues, much more so than in the past. —CAROLE VALENTINE, Carotec co-founder




Coconut Oil Unjustly Attacked

The mainstream medical monopoly continues waging a war of lies on saturated fats, supported by the majority of corporate media parroting the establishment line as to what is and is not healthy for us. Apparently, we should simply believe the “experts” and never ask qui bono . . . who benefits? 

By James Spounias

A recent American Heart Association (AHA) “presidential advisory,” posing as science, blasted coconut oil as part of a larger attack on saturated fats. The advisory was published in the association’s journal, Circulation, in June.

The topic of coconut oil’s benefits was sparked in the 1990s by Tom Valentine, host of “Radio Free America,” in interviews with Dr. Mary Enig, who explained how coconut oil was maligned.

Dr. Enig, a founding board member and later vice president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, brought to light the dangers of man-made trans-fatty acids (hydrogenated oils), a blight on American health that is still abundant and “legal” in America’s food supply.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

Valentine was never credited for his daring reporting, likely because Liberty Lobby, Radio Free America’s sponsor, was blacklisted as a source of news long before the issue of so-called fake news became part of the national conversation.

The AHA admitted in its recent advisory that there are no studies directly indicting coconut oil: “Clinical trials that compared direct effects on CVD (cardiovascular disease) of coconut oil and other dietary oils have not been reported.”

So, why the fuss?

The AHA cherry-picked four studies to support the wrong-headed conclusion that saturated fats increase cholesterol levels, which in turn increase cardiovascular disease. The selected studies are problematic.

For instance, the study with the largest number of participants (skewing results) was not a randomized control trial, and it involved hospital patients who were being treated with antipsychotic medications, which were later found to increase heart disease.

Studies that support the idea that saturated fats are not implicated in heart disease or may be beneficial for heart health and cancer prevention were excluded.

Many factors impair cardiovascular health, such as hydrogenated fats, fluoridated water, and many prescription drugs, particularly by causing inflammation.

The hydrogenation issue is the elephant in the room, so to speak. As Dr. Enig wrote in 2009, many of the studies used to blame coconut oil for cardiovascular ill-health were done using hydrogenated coconut oil.

Dr. Enig wrote on “WestonPrice.org” that “saturated fats do not clog arteries, whether they are the short- and medium-chain type in coconut oil or the longer-chain fatty acids in beef, cream, and cheese.”

Even The New York Times on March 1, 2011 confirmed what Dr. Enig wrote by quoting Thomas Brenna, professor of science at Cornell University: “Most of the studies involving coconut oil were done with partially hydrogenated coconut oil, which researchers used because they needed to raise the cholesterol levels of their rabbits in order to collect certain data.” Dr. Brenna explained, “Virgin coconut oil, which has not been chemically treated, is a different thing in terms of a health-risk perspective. And maybe it isn’t so bad for you after all.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Yes, you read that correctly: Even The New York Times wrote that hydrogenated oils were used to raise cholesterol levels. The tepid conclusion, “isn’t so bad for you after all,” doesn’t go nearly far enough, though. Coconut oil’s benefits include its powerful antibacterial and anti-microbial properties, as well as the fact it is used by the body for a solid source of “energy” rather than storage.

Dr. Enig pointed out that flawed coconut oil studies didn’t involve only the cholesterol/heart disease fallacy, but included the area of cognitive function as well. Dr. Enig wrote, “It is important to explain why so many animal studies get negative results for coconut oil. The coconut oil used in laboratory studies is usually fully hydrogenated coconut oil. The process of full hydrogenation gets rid of all the unsaturated fatty acids in coconut oil.

“Researchers began using fully hydrogenated coconut oil to study the effects of essential fatty acid (EFA) deficiency. They used coconut oil because it is the only fat that can be fully hydrogenated and still be soft enough for rats to eat. The poor results obtained in these studies, such as mental impairment, are due to EFA deficiency and not the fault of the saturated fats in coconut oil. It is extremely deceitful for commentators to blame coconut oil in studies such as these, as they often do.”

Coconuts and coconut oil have been used for thousands of years in native diets without any indication that coconut oil contributes to heart (or other) disease. In fact, population studies have shown less cardiovascular insult in those who consumed coconut and other tropical oils.

In the 20th century, polyunsaturated vegetable oils became an industry favorite, and science was “bought” to attack saturated fats to favor certain vegetable oil interests.

AHA scientists are not stupid people, but rather part of an organized movement to keep people misinformed enough to not deeply question our food supply and pharmaceutical interventions. There’s pushback, though. Truth will win out.

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.




Sheriff Arpaio Announced Guilty of Criminal Contempt in Unprecedented Move by Judge

The non-jury trial of former Maricopa County “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio concluded with the judge announcing her guilty decision via electronic communication, rather than by reading the verdict aloud during a hearing with the defendant in attendance, and omitted significant portions of evidence in reaching her conclusion. One defense attorney says this unprecedented and unconstitutional action is grounds for an appeal.

By Mark Anderson

PHOENIX, Ariz.—Former Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on July 31 was found guilty of misdemeanor criminal contempt—for what the government claims was his willful decision to disregard a 2011 federal injunction, issued to bar him from rounding up illegal aliens during his time as sheriff of a border county. And that county is often nearly overrun by the mass migration of illegal aliens.

This federal district court verdict came down sooner than defense attorneys expected, amid other twists and turns in this case. However, there’s a story behind the story that few media outlets are discussing: According to the defense, the verdict was announced in a manner that’s unconstitutional and against important legal precedent.


Accordingly, Arpaio plans to appeal this decision of Judge Susan Bolton, who issued her verdict after a brief non-jury trial that ran four days in late June and concluded July 6. Arpaio had unsuccessfully sought a jury trial.

When this AFP writer asked one of the defense attorneys, Mark Goldman, if “ruled from the chamber” would be a better description of Judge Bolton’s decision-making process, Goldman agreed that was a perfect way to define such a back-room manner of carrying out “justice.”

A July 31 press release from the defense clarified: “Judge . . . Bolton violated the U.S. Constitution by issuing her verdict without reading it to the defendant in public court. Her verdict is contrary to what every single witness said in the case. Arpaio believes that a jury would have found in his favor, and that it will.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More.

Goldman, who’s been an attorney for 29 years, also told AFP: “We expected more time because it’s improper for her to just send it [her decision] out [via Internet] without a court hearing. I’ve never seen anything like it before. There’s a [previous] court of appeals case where the defendant has the right to be present during sentencing.”

What’s especially interesting is that the first indication to the defense that the judge had ruled at all—since her decision was expected to come later—came when reporters called the defense seeking comment, before the team had even learned of the verdict. Goldman explained that a July 31 court-issued “internal electronic communication” addressed to the defense, time-stamped 11:08 a.m. Mountain Standard Time, arrived after those media calls.

“The media was tipped off,” he said, adding that the ruling establishment that excuses the virtually unrestrained entry of illegal aliens into the U.S., many of whom commit additional crimes some of which are serious, has “won the battle but not the war.”

So, in summary, verdicts are to be conveyed at a hearing, with the defendant present, during which the judge reads the verdict aloud. Citing legal precedent, Goldman shared the following excerpt from legal sources:

             In United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352, 360 (2d Cir. 1997), the Second Circuit specifically found that “the district court’s deliberate decision to mail its decision to the parties rather than reconvene the proceedings to announce its verdict in open court violated both his right to be present at all stages of his trial and his right to a public trial.” The defendant “first learned that he had been convicted two weeks later by reading a newspaper.” . . . . “A leading principle that pervades the entire law of criminal procedure is that, after [an] indictment [is] found, nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner.” . . . . “The right [to be present] extends to all stages of trial, including the return of the verdict, to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by [the defendant’s] absence.” . . . . The Second Circuit also specifically found that this doesn’t just apply to jury verdicts, it applies to bench verdicts, too. It remanded to the district court for it to reconvene with the defendant present and publicly announce the verdict.

Also, the official record of Judge Bolton’s ruling is larded with remarks that the fact Mexican nationals, Central Americans, and others were entering the U.S. illegally, by itself, does not meet the threshold at which Maricopa Sheriff’s deputies under Arpaio should’ve been allowed to arrest illegal aliens and turn them over to federal authorities, as was done.

Gideon Elite book cover

Judge Bolton thus basically scolded the Sheriff’s Department for not limiting its roundups to those who entered the country illegally.

Asked why the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not intervene in The United States of America v. Joseph M. Arpaio, where the defendant is well-respected by President Trump but was targeted under the Obama White House, Goldman said the DOJ lawyers who initiated this case are the same ones who continued to prosecute it, even after the new attorney general had taken office.

“It’s hard to walk into the DOJ and reverse the course of public prosecutions,” he said, adding that he had written to Sessions to inform him that Arpaio was being sued under “the wrong statute,” even while Sessions, on the one hand, disagrees with sanctuary cities and believes local police should aid in apprehending illegal aliens and hold them for federal custody. Yet Sessions didn’t help Arpaio in return for having been a good lawman and carrying out apprehensions in the same manner.

Moreover, while Judge Bolton’s written ruling, at face value, makes it sound like Arpaio willfully defied the 2011 injunction, including snippets of his comments quoted in various news reports, Goldman said the judge’s “findings of fact are not supported by the record, including trial testimony and documentary evidence.”

Furthermore, the judge is seen as having omitted most or all testimony that mitigated against her narrative that Arpaio defied the injunction, including the testimony of Tim Casey, an outside lawyer retained by Arpaio’s Sheriff’s Department who received free reign from the department to communicate with all its employees on injunction compliance. And the Human Smuggling Unit within the department had unfettered access to Casey. Arpaio, from this vantage point, simply entrusted injunction compliance to others and carried out his duties as he saw fit, not having been advised to do otherwise.

However, Casey allegedly had reasons in court to protect himself more than he did Arpaio. But still, when called to the stand by the prosecution, he admitted during cross-examination by the defense that the injunction was ambiguous and not clear and definitive, as the prosecution argued and Bolton ruled. The catch, however, is that Judge Bolton, defense attorneys say, omitted Casey’s testimony and that of just about everyone else who countered the “defiant Joe” meme.

Notably, while Arpaio is generally expected to get six months behind bars—if sentencing proceedings take place Oct. 5 as planned—the defense, while appealing the verdict, is asking for the sentencing date to be held later.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at [email protected]