Deep State Targets Corsi Over Russiagate Rubbish

Jerome Corsi, now embroiiled in the “Russiagate nonsense,” says they are “desperate to put me into prison and shut me up.” He talked with author and now radio show host Donald Jeffries about why he believes Robert Mueller has come after him, and what he intends to do about it.

By Donald Jeffries

This writer was privileged to interview Jerome Corsi recently on the weekly radio show, “I Protest.”* Corsi has become embroiled in the “Russiagate” nonsense, with inferences that he somehow “colluded” with shadowy Russians and/or banished whistleblower Julian Assange. The establishment contends that Corsi “obstructed justice” by destroying or lying about emails.

“I’m 72 years old and have never committed a crime,” Corsi declared. “I don’t have as much as a parking ticket to my record.”

Early on in the interview Corsi said in regard to his legal issues, “I can talk about every single aspect of it. I intend on exposing [special prosecutor Robert] Mueller. I know that they are desperate to put me into prison and shut me up.”

At another point, he declared, “I think my two biggest crimes are that I supported Donald Trump, and I believe in Jesus Christ. . . . Coming from Harvard, that makes me some kind of criminal.”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Corsi spoke of the two groups of Russians Mueller has indicted, none of whom will be coming to America for trial.

“They’re all just show indictments,” said Corsi.

He rightly pointed out that most Americans are too “dumbed down” to know the difference between an indictment and a conviction.

“Why doesn’t Mueller just indict Putin?” Corsi asked. “Another Russian who’s never going to stand trial.”

Corsi described as “grueling” the 40 hours, in six sessions, that he spent talking with Mueller. Corsi set out to cooperate to the best of his ability, bringing in his laptops and external hard drive, which had a “time machine” application.

“Nothing could be permanently erased,” Corsi stated. “It was still in the backup system.”

Corsi gave them his cell phones, user names, and passwords to his email accounts, “anything they wanted.”

“I didn’t lie,” Corsi maintained. “I had memory mistakes. With the way they question you, it’s impossible not to have memory mistakes. They have an eight-inch-thick book with everything from me in it. They won’t let you see it.”

Regarding the plea deal offered him, Corsi said, “I just could not bring myself to swear to God that I committed a crime I didn’t commit.”

The plea deal was hardly lenient anyhow. For a full year, if Corsi said or wrote anything they didn’t like, he could be brought back before a judge and “get five years or whatever in prison.”

Corsi told them, “If that’s what America has come to, then take a 72-year-old guy and throw me in prison. I’ll die in prison. I’m not going to lie to save my hide.”

He added, “Our government has become the George the Third that our founding fathers rebelled against, on steroids. If the government is saying something, my first assumption is they’re lying.”

He likened the “abusive techniques” of American investigators to those of the KGB or Gestapo.

The mainstream media has peddled the ridiculous “Russiagate” story, which is a twisted foster child of the very real corruption revealed in DNC emails, exposing efforts to undermine the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, in order to benefit Deep State favorite Hillary Clinton. There was the corresponding murder of young DNC staffer Seth Rich, whom Assange all but named as the leaker of the emails involved.

Corsi is determined to fight the absurd allegations, declaring that the cause of freedom has “been paid for with the lives and blood of a lot of patriots.”

Corsi said he authorized Mueller and his team to get his phone records.

“Mueller doesn’t have a crime,” he said. “They have invented a crime—collusion with Russia.”

Hidden History, Jeffries
Exposing modern crimes, conspiracies and political coverups at the AFP Online Store!

The real reason for the show trial, said Corsi, was that Mueller was out to get Donald Trump indicted or impeached from the beginning and was only looking for evidence to fit his predetermined conclusion that the president is a criminal.

Corsi is not some predictable right-wing zealot. He went to Harvard and wrote his dissertation on the right of The New York Times and The Washington Post to publish the “Pentagon Papers,” the lengthy report that was leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the media and showed how the U.S. had engaged in a secret war in Vietnam and Cambodia unbeknownst to the American people.

Full disclosure: Corsi has written blurbs for all of this writer’s books, including Survival of the Richest: How the Corruption of the Marketplace and the Disparity of Wealth Created the Greatest Conspiracy of All, not exactly standard conservative reading.

The idea that Corsi, or Roger Stone, or Steve Bannon, or Paul Manafort, or Donald Trump himself, “colluded” with Russia to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency ought to be scoffed at by even the most gullible members of the public. America has a long history of voting fraud, from “Landslide” Lyndon Johnson and his dead demographic base to the widespread corruption exposed in the Collier Brothers’ book Votescam. The Russians had nothing to do with any of that.

Corsi’s legal case demonstrates that legal and political persecution are alive and well in this country.

*“I Protest,” the weekly radio show hosted by Donald Jeffries, airs Fridays from 7-9 p.m. Eastern on the huge “IHeartRadio” network, and online at

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.

Parkland Shooting Report Released

The Florida commission that reviewed the actions before, during and after the Parkland high school shooting on Valentine’s Day 2018 has recommended that districts allow trained school teachers to be armed as well as new law enforcement procedures.

By S.T. Patrick

On Valentine’s Day in 2018, a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School in Parkland, Fla. Seventeen students and staff members were killed, while 17 others were injured. Nearly one year later, the MSD Commission investigating the case has made its final recommendations. The commission’s suggestions may be more controversial than the theories surrounding the original case.

The section immediately highlighted and criticized by the local media was the recommendation that Florida educators who volunteer and undergo training be allowed to carry firearms in schools. The teachers union—relatively weak in Florida, a right-to-work state—and the state PTA both oppose the recommendation of the 446-page report that was unanimously approved by the commission.

Understanding Crime & Gun Control Laws, at the AFP Store.

The report, however, is not law. The Florida state legislature would have to approve the proposals before they could be enacted by the state’s 67 countywide school districts. Every private school, religious and secular, would then have to create their own separate guidelines, as private entities can still legally ban guns on private property.

The more notable areas of the report deal with criticisms of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, whose active shooter policy is said to have contributed to the chaos of the event. The ambiguous policy of Sheriff Scott Israel read that deputies “may” rather than “shall” or “will” confront an active shooter. This gave several deputies a reason to not enter the building to subdue any threat that may have existed. Even Deputy Scot Peterson, who was assigned as the school’s on-site resource deputy, chose to remain outside.

While Israel expressed his disappointment regarding the inaction of Peterson, he justified the previous policy by saying that he didn’t want law enforcement to engage in “suicide missions.”

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, an MSD commissioner, described the generally worded active shooter policy. “ ‘May’ gave them [deputies] the out not to enter,” said Sheriff Judd. “They decided to be cowards instead of heroes.”

Broward County has recently changed its active shooter policy, indirectly accepting some responsibility for the failures of law enforcement. The policy now reads “shall” instead of “may,” which, according to the commission, is more consistent with standard law enforcement procedures.

Other suggestions were contained within the report: that law enforcement officers assigned to public schools undergo annual active shooter training, which would include situations when they are alone; that neighboring, local police forces have radios that can easily communicate between cities; that Florida school districts allow law enforcement real-time access to their internal video surveillance systems; and that schools have single, monitored, staffed points of entry and exit.

Coddling of the American Mind
New at AFP’s Online Store

There was much discussion about safety within classrooms, themselves. The recommendations were that all classrooms have automatically locking doors, windows that can be quickly covered, and two-way intercoms that can be easily accessed in case of emergency. Modern classrooms regularly have school-wide email or messaging systems, but few schools in the age of technology have improved and modernized their intercom systems.

Still perplexing are the mandatory emergency drills conducted by schools every year. Since many school shooters are students who actually attend the school, the mandatory drills do little but to inform the future school shooters of the procedures that will be taken when he or she engages in the act. The mandatory safety drills then become an informational part of the shooter’s planning.

Parkland remains a lightning rod within the alternative political analysis communities. While it appears that a majority of observers do believe that MSDHS was the site of a tragic Valentine’s Day massacre in 2018, there are still some, such as editor Jim Fetzer (The Parkland Puzzle) and commentator Ole Dammegard, who believe that it was a false-flag operation used to heighten the police state and strengthen the anti-gun movement.

The chaos of the day and the ineffective nature of law enforcement behaviors only add to myriad questions that are still asked.

S. T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected]

Radical New Democrats Big Spenders

Newly elected socialist/communist politicians in the U.S. want you to open your purses wide. Do they not know that there will be no free program, as every program will have a cost paid by individual taxpayers and small business owners.

By S.T. Patrick

The mainstream media have spent months lauding the influx of radical new Democrats that walk the halls of Capitol Hill since winning the 2018 midterm elections. While their ideas can seem dangerously far-left, they are not new. They are also not a result of an isolated movement contained within the Democratic Party itself.

The most prominent media darling of the new crop has been 29-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has announced that she will favor enacting a “Green New Deal.” The goal of the plan would be to end nearly all fossil fuel use by 2030. The plan is largely economic, but it also details environmental regulations and changes that would require expensive upgrades to every home and business.

In hindsight, leading Democrat analysts have decried Obamacare, explaining the failure was that it didn’t reach far enough. The Green New Deal calls openly for a single-payer healthcare system. As an attempt to solve the economic inequity that exists between the top and the bottom, Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a “basic income” program, as well as a federal jobs guarantee, which seeks to bring the unemployment rate to zero by using the government as the employer of last resort (ELR).

The Green New Deal is not the brainchild of one of the first millennials elected to Congress. It has its origin, at least in part, in the Canadian “Leap Manifesto” that socialist candidates have been endorsing there for over a decade. The Leap Manifesto called for a 100% dependency on green energy by 2050, a massive government program to retrofit housing, and a universal basic annual income. To finance the sea change in infrastructure needed, a stiff tax hike would be combined with the institution of a carbon usage tax.

Colleagues of Ocasio-Cortez—those labeled as the “radical new Democrats” by Fox News—are Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). In addition to supporting the Green New Deal, they all support free college for all, free healthcare for all, and the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While this insurgency of new, young Democrats is the favorite story for stations such as MSNBC and CNN, many of the same ideas within the party were popularized by 77-year-old Sen. Bernie Sanders, who those same stations helped to defeat in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

America's "War on Terrorism," Chossudovsky
America’s “War on Terrorism” in the Wake of 9/11, from Michel Chossudovsky, at AFP’s Online store.

The “radical new Democrats” also identify as a group with “Justice Democrats,” who favor free maternity care, free child care, expanding anti-discrimination laws, and funding Planned Parenthood. To their credit, Justice Democrats also support ending the war on drugs, pardoning Edward Snowden, reforming the police to ensure accountability, renegotiating trade deals, opposing the World Trade Organization, ending the death penalty, and ending the practice of unilaterally waging war. But defenders of the limitless tax-and-spend ideologies have never had a realistic grasp of real-world costs to individuals.

It is much more difficult and much more expensive to repair an electric car, for example. College instructors have to be paid. Is there a point when regulations or a tax burden on a small business becomes too onerous to keep the doors open and the lights on? How does a small business owner afford a much larger minimum wage? There will be no free program, as every program will have a cost paid by individual taxpayers and small business owners. Every dollar given to someone must be taken from someone else, either voluntarily or by the force of law.

Survival of the Richest, Jeffries
How the corruption of the marketplace and the disparity of wealth created the greatest conspiracy of all… at the AFP Online Store.

The Republicans can be indignant and self-righteously angry at the fire in the belly of the new Democratic representatives, but there should also be a modicum of self-evaluation happening within the GOP. The party has long supported a corrupt war state, a crippling war on drugs, harmful trade policies, and an economic inequity that hurt American workers. These “new” Democrats are a reaction to a GOP that laughed at Occupy Wall Street rather than taking it seriously, rather than hearing it. The anger didn’t end up in front of a video screen after all; it found its way to the nation’s capital at a swearing-in ceremony for the new Congress. The GOP is a party deficient of genuine concern for average Americans trying to live a life by classically conservative principles.

The American system of capitalism is far from ideal. Donald Jeffries brilliantly wrote about the “survival of the richest,” a game by which the system has been intentionally rigged to benefit those who were born into it and then stay at the top of the economic ladder.* But for even the most admirable staples of the American system to work, there must be a much larger group of givers than there are takers.

Though Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged topped out at over 1,100 pages, its message is rather simple. Every giver has a moment when they assess their place in line at the counter of American capitalism. At the point when it becomes more profitable to be in the taker line, that person simply shrugs and steps right over, never to return.

If the Green New Deal and economic platform of the Justice Democrats ever become law, the givers that are expected to fund such initiatives may leave the line en masse, and America as we know it may never return.

S. T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected]

Israel Running Risks in Trying to Exploit U.S. Exit from Syria

With the U.S. withdrawal of its forces from Syria will Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recklessness lead to confrontation with Russia? 

By Richard Walker

In an effort to exploit the planned exit of U.S. special forces and mercenaries from Syria, Israeli officials are promising to continue bombing that country in violation of international law.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted as saying it would be business as usual, but he might want to consider the fact that Russia will not allow him free rein to bomb Syria as he likes. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it clear to him that there are some lines he should not cross. One is killing or targeting Russian military personnel in Syria. Another is Russian personnel becoming collateral damage of Israeli attacks on other targets.

In the past three years, Israel has bombed Syria several hundred times in a clear breach of international law. It claims that its bombing of a sovereign state is justified by its need for defense. Of course, this is a false legal argument.

UN Charter 51 states specifically that a UN mandate is required by any country wishing to launch a war against another, and if self-defense is used as justification, the country launching a war must have been attacked. Syria has never attacked Israel, but as with so much of Israel’s foreign policy, it has been willing to flout international law, because Israelis know there will be no repercussions for its lawlessness. There are few countries in the region that have not been the target of Israel’s air force or of its assassination squads.

President Donald Trump’s decision to fulfill his electoral promise to take troops out of Syria has angered Israel because it has consistently used U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict as a cover for launching hundreds of air and ground strikes into Syria and Lebanon. With the White House announcement of the pullout, Netanyahu and members of his hard-right cabinet announced that attacks on Syria would continue unabated and might be increased.

Israel’s strategy has been to exploit the Syrian conflict to target Iranian military advisers and Iranian-backed militias who have been fighting ISIS, al Qaeda, and the al-Nusra Front alongside Syrian and Russian military forces. In contrast, ISIS has never been Israel’s priority. In fact, Israel has armed, trained, and provided medical care to al-Nusra fighters. It has been focused on killing Iranians, hoping to goad Iran and Hezbollah into a full-blown conflict that would draw in the U.S. military and Netanyahu’s new allies, the Saudis. In that respect, Netanyahu likely has a backer in National Security Adviser John Bolton, who has made it clear he would like to bomb Iran. Netanyahu, nevertheless, has been accused by Israelis of bombing Syria and hyping an Iran threat from there to deflect from corruption charges he faces at home as new elections get closer.

With the U.S. pullout, Israeli military planners are facing a new and potentially deadly issue, namely the continued presence of Russian forces and their S-400 missile batteries. Those, and the S-300 batteries Moscow gave the Syrian government, have already had a limiting effect on Israeli air incursions into Syrian airspace. Russia’s military has warned Israel that there will be serious consequences if it targets Russian forces or if Russian military personnel are casualties of an attack on Syria or Iranian targets.

There is no love lost between Putin and Netanyahu following the shooting down of an Ilyushin IL-20M Russian surveillance plane over Syria in 2018. The downing of the plane resulted in the deaths of 15 Russian personnel on board.

Is there a plan to confront Russia in Iran? More at the AFP Online Store.

The propeller plane, a flying command post, was shot down by missiles fired from older Russian S-200 anti-aircraft batteries operated at the time by the Syrian military. Russian military investigators, however, quickly determined that blame lay with Israel. According to Russian experts, two of four Israeli jets that entered Syria to carry out attacks used the cover of the larger II-20M. An S-200 missile fired at the jets locked instead on the larger Russian plane. Israel, as it always does, blamed the Syrian military, but operators of highly advanced S-400 batteries protecting the Russian Kheimim Air Base in Syria had recorded everything.

According to reports, Putin was so angry with Netanyahu’s and Israel’s denials that he immediately upgraded Syria’s S-200 batteries to the S-300.

The U.S. exodus will reduce American military traffic in the region, allowing Russian and Syrian missile operators to concentrate on all Israeli military fighter aircraft exiting Israel en route to Syria.

Gideon Levy, a leading columnist with Ha’aretz, one of Israel’s prominent news outlets, was alarmed after the downing of the Russian plane. He warned Israel that its actions in Syria were “reckless” and would “come with a price.” His views were not given an airing by the U.S. mainstream media, more than likely because they were highly critical of Israel’s Syria interventions.

With the U.S. withdrawal, Netanyahu’s tendency to recklessness could well lead to a confrontation with Russia over the skies of the Middle East.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Gillette Feels Backlash After Running Male-Bashing Ad

By Donald Jeffries

A new ad promoting Gillette razors exemplifies the radical left social justice mindset that has taken a firm hold on American culture. As is typical of commercials these days, the white males are portrayed negatively, with women and non-white males attempting to free them from their astounding incompetence and bad behavior.

The Gillette ad comes complete with a suitable title, “Believe.” Clearly referencing the #MeToo movement, the company has declared that men must hold each other “accountable.” The commercial was watched an incredible 2 million- plus times in the first 48 hours, and the response was decidedly negative, receiving only 23,000 “likes” and 214,000 “dislikes.”

In one scene, an absurdly over-the-top-lecherous white male with a Snidely Whiplash look on his face is reaching out to grab the backside of an African-American maid. The faces of male “reason” in the ad were all black, attempting to hold back their misogynistic, bullying white counterparts.

Irate viewers commented that the ad was “feminist propaganda,” and one wrote, “In less than two minutes you managed to alienate your biggest sales group . . . .”

“Boycott Gillette” was quickly trending on Twitter, with untold numbers of former Gillette customers swearing off the brand’s products forever.

Kingdom Identity

So far, Gillette, which is owned by Procter & Gamble, is refusing to apologize or back down. Gillette president Gary Coombe stated, “Effective immediately, Gillette will review all public-facing content against a set of defined standards meant to ensure we fully reflect the ideals of respect, accountability and role modelling in the ads we run, the images we publish to social media, the words we choose, and more.” In today’s corporate world, there are obviously agendas beyond profits.

The Gillette commercial is bad enough by itself, but, in today’s culture of political correctness run amok, the trouble keeps piling on.

In early January, the American Psychological Association, one of the governing bodies for U.S. psychologists, issued new guidelines for clinicians working with boys and men that suggest traditional masculinity is “psychologically harmful,” a pathology that should be discouraged in men and boys.

Ryon McDermott, a psychologist at the University of South Alabama, who helped draft the guidelines, stated, “What is gender in the 2010s? It’s no longer just this male-female binary . . . . If we can change men, we can change the world.”

So what kinds of masculine traits do these radical activists say are bad? Bizarrely, they claim that even a male characteristic like “competitiveness” leads to bad behavior and is something that should be discouraged, especially among boys.

“You would never know that maleness was ever synonymous with anything good, reading this report,” said American Enterprise Institute scholar and former ethics philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, among other titles, and cohost of the popular “Femsplainers” podcast. (See other article posted today, “Femsplainers Battle Radical Feminism.”)

Hillary Clinton & Radical Feminists
Texe Marrs predicted today’s radical feminism in 1993! Read his warnings, now deeply discounted at the AFP Online Store.

Today, American television viewers are all too familiar with the goofy, clueless father (especially white fathers), whose wife utterly dominates him and whose children have zero respect for him. This weak, worthless stereo typical figure has supplanted the strong, dominant fathers in sitcoms decades ago, in programs like “Father Knows Best” and “Leave it to Beaver.”

Today’s commercials are even more poisonously anti-male. They all seem to meld into one: The white male, in particular, is dumpy and woefully ignorant with a face that cries out to be dominated. The woman is bright, competent, and very, very aggressive. The white male’s children roll their eyes in exasperation at him and can fool him without the slightest effort.

In a 2018 essay in The New York Times, Michael Ian Black wrote: “The past 50 years have redefined what it means to be female in America. Girls today are told that they can do anything, be anyone. They’ve absorbed the message: They’re outperforming boys in school at every level. But it isn’t just about performance. To be a girl today is to be the beneficiary of decades of conversation about the complexities of womanhood, its many forms and expressions. Boys, though, have been left behind. No commensurate movement has emerged to help them navigate toward a full expression of their gender. It’s no longer enough to ‘be a man’—we no longer even know what that means.”

It doesn’t take a sociologist to understand how damaging all of this can be to boys today. Is it any wonder that suicide among white males has skyrocketed in the past few years?

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.

‘Femsplainers’ Battle Radical Feminism

Not all women support overzealous political correctness, man-bashing, and today’s growing victimization cult. One podcast aims to counter radicalized feminism with a common-sense response. 

By Tilton Adler

Amidst the overzealous political “correctness” that’s being stuffed down Americans’ throats, a weekly podcast series published on the Internet is proving to be a welcome antidote.

Christina Hoff Sommers, author and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Danielle Crittenden, author, editor, and self-proclaimed “sarcastic siren,” have joined forces to host the “Femsplainers” podcast, where they verbally break down both serious and lighthearted subjects from a rational, reasonable perspective.

Taken from the popular term “mansplaining,” wherein a man is accused of “explaining” something to a woman in a condescending manner, the title of the show, “Femsplaining” is a tongue-in-cheek response to modern political correctness that demonizes men.

On the Internet today, people can ask questions of all sorts with the understanding that the answers will be explained to them as if they were five years old—“#ExplainLikeI’mFive.” For those of us over the legal drinking age, Sommers and Crittenden take a similar approach when it comes to controversial subjects—except, instead of explaining things like their listeners are five years old, they break down important topics ranging from the #MeToo movement to thoughts on life after turning 50 in a more mature, thoughtful way that we can all appreciate—that is, all of us with common sense, who are generally fed up with the mainstream’s incessant political correctness and unquestioning defense of all things left.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Now three seasons deep, the Femsplainers continue providing listeners a direct, no-nonsense, and often humorous replay of current events—without the politically correct babble that has come to be espoused by mainstream pundits.

For example, episode three in season one, titled “Sex, Lies & Presidents,” which originally aired May 21, 2018, tackles the morally questionable similarities in the conduct of presidents spanning several decades. Without focusing on the morality of their conduct, which often becomes convoluted and highly partisan, the podcast panelists discuss the root of the issue: Should we focus on the possibility that the commander-in-chief could be blackmailed? The Femsplainers wager few among us would approve of our nation’s leader being animated by the strings of any foreign power.

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

Moving past the presidential flings and the inherent amorality within our political structure, the panelists speak to the #MeToo movement and about the changing roles of women today.

Conservative columnist Mona Charen joined them to discuss the vast differences between the sexual harassment that women experienced in the 1960s and 1970s versus the abhorrent sexual abuse that women report today—the passive-aggressive shoulder rubs and patted behinds of those early years compared to Harvey Weinstein’s serial rapes. In what world did these two offenses become equal, ask the Femsplainers?

Only in today’s politically correct world could someone even try to argue their similarities. Rational-minded people understand the difference between assault and insult.

The Femsplainers allow for, and encourage, the understanding that not all man-centric sin is created equal. Thus, our approach and our embrace of the #MeToo movement does not need to be one-size-fits-all, as popular pundits would lead you to believe.

In an era of all masculinity being deemed “toxic”—see related article from Donald Jeffries posted today, “Gillette Feels Backlash After Running Male-bashing Ad“—and all demographics requiring their own letter of the alphabet, the Femsplainers work to de-politicize the conversation.

It’s about time someone had the gall to do it.

Tilton Adler is a freelance journalist based in Florida.

Famed Activist Red Beckman Dies

This friend to American liberty lovers and truthseekers and IRS critic worked six decades teaching fellow patriots their constitutional rights. His was a life lived well and for the greater good, and he will not be forgotten.

By Pat Shannan

On Dec. 30, 2018, American liberty lovers and truthseekers lost a great friend with the passing of Martin J. “Red” Beckman. Born in 1928, Beckman had just celebrated his 90th birthday during the recent Thanksgiving week.

Since discovering truth, Beckman had spent most of the past half-century writing books, lecturing, producing television videos, and being interviewed on various talk shows. Many of these books he made available to readers of American Free Press through the full-page advertisements he regularly placed in this country’s last, real national newspaper.

Remembering his military oath taken during the Korean Conflict to defend his nation “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” it took Beckman a few years after returning home to realize just who these “domestic enemies” were that were threatening the freedoms of the American people far more than any foreign enemies.

Beckman had been introduced to the terrorist tactics of the IRS in 1957 as a contract logger in Montana. He had a good crew and a growing company, and he and his wife, Earlene, were happily raising an expanding family. That is, as he said to this writer, “Until we were confronted with the most corrupt powers that we hard-working people could ever imagine.”

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Beckman was able to win that first IRS battle and had a brief reprieve until the next confrontation in 1963. He won again that time and had no more problems until 1973-74. When the IRS meddlers next decided to become a problem for the Beckman family, they made a big mistake. He didn’t foolishly load his rifle, an act that he knew would be futile, but instead began to fire a different round of bullets—those of information to others.

His books have since brought an inspiring message of patriotism to untold thousands of truth-seekers. And, we must remember, this was accomplished without benefit of the advertising funds from the giant publishing companies. All the Beckman books were self-published.

Lost Sheep Found, Red Beckman
Lost Sheep Found, from Red Beckman, is available at AFP’s Online Store.

While that lengthy fight with the IRS was still going on, Beckman authored his first book in 1979, Born Again Republic, a delightful reminder to Americans of the blessed founding of the U.S.A. and how the unconstitutional IRS was stealing their wealth and liberties.

Known as “Montana’s Fighting Redhead,” “The Grandfather of FIJA” (Fully Informed Jury Association), and “America’s Oldest Living Patriot,” Beckman said only last year that one of his neighbors had just read Born Again Republic and thought it was the best book he had ever read on the subject and that the information therein is more appropriate and applicable today, 40 years later, than it was when he wrote it.

Beckman had a great marketing plan. He was more interested in spreading his message than he was in making money with his mission, so whenever he was invited to speak, he came up with an offer no group leader could refuse.

“Just give us a meal and a room for the night and buy a case of books for your own distribution,” he would say.

Born Again Republic was so well-received by American truth-seekers that Beckman realized he was harboring more suppressed information and began to write again. A lifelong Christian, he admitted that he was wrong when as a young man he trusted and believed what preachers from the 501(c)(3) corporate churches were teaching, and in 1984 published The Church Deceived, which defines the many lies spread from America’s pulpits as “gospel truth.” Deceived churches are a very serious problem,” said Red, “because they betray the trust and confidence of the people.”

The 501(c)(3) tax status, which lured naïve church leaders into incorporating as a business (so parishioners could deduct their tithes and offerings), was the brainchild of a criminal U.S. senator from Texas by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson. Of course, church gifts were already tax deductible, but Johnson had contrived a plan for eventual control of which messages would be preached from America’s pulpits and which would not.

Beckman was constantly reminding reading and listening audiences that they had three votes in this nation, and the one on election day might be the least important. The forgotten other two are the grand jury vote (whether or not to indict a fellow citizen) and that from the petit jury box determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant—especially those accused of crimes without a victim. Beckman found it horrifying that Christians were sending Christian brothers and sisters to jail for the alleged crime of not filing papers with the government.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

In 1990, Beckman followed with Walls in Our Minds, a multi-chapter compilation of essays depicting the many other aspects and methods politicians are using to deceive us daily and the indoctrination process used by the news media to keep us that way.

One of the most popular books of all—with an intriguing title—Why the Militia? (1997) commanded the attention of both the pro-constitutionists and those who had been news-media brainwashed against the “evils” of an armed populace.

One amusing anecdote surfaced a couple of years later when an IRS-targeted young man appeared in federal court as a pro se defendant against “willful failure” charges. Following their normal habitude, the IRS had previously released a few derogatory characterizations of “John” the defendant to the news media, and now in his opening statement, the prosecuting attorney had further attempted to demean the young man by telling the court among other things that he was a “militia leader.”

It was an “aha moment.” Since reading Why the Militia? “John” had been motivated to brush up on the history of the People’s Militia since the 18th century and included his new-found knowledge within his opening statement to sling egg all over the prosecutor’s face.

First, “John” told the court about the media smear campaign that had gone on, designed to bias the jurors against him, and then said that the prosecutor had just attempted the same thing “by calling me a militia leader. However, the fact is, I have documentary evidence right here,” as he waved some handheld papers in the air, “that the prosecutor himself is actually a secret member of the people’s unorganized militia.”

The 35-year-old assistant U.S. attorney went berserk with a loud objection and screamed that such a thing was a lie. “John” then motioned that the prosecutor be sworn in and put on the witness stand, but the judge would not allow it, so “John” began to read from the Militia Act of 1792 that conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company,” which, of course, exposed the ignorance of the prosecutor and entertained the jurors, some of whom suddenly realized that they were militia members as well.

Ironically, Beckman’s greatest effort became his least appreciated. In 1981, Beckman and a group calling themselves the Montana Historians organized and financed the research and travel of former investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue Bill Benson to collect the records from all the state capitals in the lower 48 states, which applied to and proved (or disproved) the 1913 lawful passing of the 16th Amendment. The results of that research showed an astounding, documented fact: The amendment purportedly authorizing a tax on personal income had never been lawfully ratified by the states. In fact, it had not even come close.

The Law That Never Was became what must be the most censored and government-suppressed book of the 20th century, if not in all the history of the United States.

In 1983, before The Law That Never Was was published, Beckman was called as an expert witness in a criminal tax trial in Fort Worth, Texas. He presented some of Benson’s documents to the court, but the judge not only refused to let the jury see them or hear his testimony but ordered marshals to remove Beckman from the courtroom, thereby displaying more collusion between the courts and the IRS.

Shall Not Be Infringed
On the importance of the Second Amendment, at the AFP Online Store.

Following publication, Beckman, Benson, and the Montana Historians funded the delivery of 535 copies to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.—one to each senator and representative—but never received even a “thank you” or any sort of acknowledgment from a single congresscritter.

Beckman came close to dying two years ago, but with prayer, good nutrition, and the avoidance of medical doctors and big pharma he fought it off more than once. For awhile there, he was even talking about writing another book, but the rheumatoid arthritis he had been fighting for a decade or more had recurred to the point that he couldn’t even type on the keyboard.

The arthritis came and went and came again, and in his last few weeks he was saying, “I don’t think God is going keep me here much longer,” and “I’m ready to go home.”

On the last Friday of the year, Earlene reached out to friends and family that she thought the end was near.

“He can’t walk, and he can’t talk,” she told me. “I just wanted you to know,” and that night I said a little prayer asking for his comfort.

After hearing no news on Saturday, I gave Earlene a call on Sunday to see how he was doing. “No change,” she said. “He can’t get out of bed, and he can’t talk.” We chatted another minute, and then she put the nurse on to tell me something.

“Wanna’ talk to him, Pat?”

I said, “How am I going to talk with him? You just told me he can’t talk.”

“Right,” she said, “but he can hear you when I put you on speaker phone. I know he’d like to hear your voice.” She walked into the bedroom, and a few seconds later she said, “Go ahead, Pat. He can hear you now.”

I thought for a moment and told him, “Hey, old pal. You’re a tough ol’ coot, but it’s okay if you go on up now. We’ll see you up there later.”

Nurse Carrie said he showed a slight smile and nodded his head just a little.

Only a few hours later they called me back to say, “He just passed away 15 minutes ago.”

Pat Shannan is a longtime writer and currently publishes articles and commentaries on the website “News Behind the Façade” located at

Trump vs. the Spy Chiefs: Who’s Right?

In the Trump vs. Intel “war,” both sides have valid points. Pat Buchanan notes, “While it’s not unusual for a president and the intel community to diverge on the gravity of threats, what is astonishing is that the intel leaders would declare a president to be flat-out wrong. Yet the confrontation is not unhealthy . . . .”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

To manifest his opposition to President Donald Trump’s decision to pull all 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria, and half of the 14,000 in Afghanistan, Gen. James Mattis went public and resigned as secretary of defense.

Now Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, in public testimony to Congress, has contradicted Trump about the threats that face the nation.

Contrary to what the president believes, Coats says, North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons. ISIS remains a serious threat, even if the caliphate has been rolled up. And there is no evidence that Iran, though hostile and aggressive, is acquiring nuclear weapons.

CIA Director Gina Haspel agreed: Iran remains in compliance with the nuclear treaty that Trump has trashed and abandoned. The treaty is still doing what it was designed to do.

At this perceived public defiance, Trump exploded:

“The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! . . . They [the Iranians] are testing rockets (last week), and more, and are coming very close to the edge. . . . Be careful of Iran.”

Trump added: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

Trump then brought up the epochal blunder of U.S. intelligence in backing the Bush II claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (a “slam dunk”) and was a grave threat to the U.S.A.

Born of incompetence and mendacity, that counsel led to the greatest strategic blunder of the 21st century, if not of U.S. history — the second Iraq War. Launched by George W. Bush, this invasion plunged us into the Middle East’s forever war and got the Republican Party ejected from power in 2006 and 2008.

While it’s not unusual for a president and the intel community to diverge on the gravity of threats, what is astonishing is that the intel leaders would declare a president to be flat-out wrong.

Yet the confrontation is not unhealthy, for it reflects reality. On foreign policy, we are divided not only on means but ends.

And the division calls to mind Walter Lippmann’s words, after U.S. political clashes and unpreparedness in FDR’s New Deal decade led to the early disasters at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and Corregidor.

“For nearly 50 years,” wrote the dean of American columnists, “the nation had not had a settled and generally accepted foreign policy. This is a danger to the Republic. For when a people is divided . . . about the conduct of its foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or to safeguard successfully its peace.”

We seem to be in just such a situation today.

Indeed, Trump is president because of the foreign policy disasters produced by his predecessors, who leaned on the U.S. intel community, and because Trump, in 2016, appeared to read the nation right.

Yet there is common ground between Trump and the spy chiefs.

Coats and Haspel are correct that the U.S. faces a Russia and China that are closer and more collaborative than they have been since the 1950s, before the Cuban missile crisis, which Mao saw as a Moscow capitulation.

And as we have more in common with Russia, with its historic ties to the West, and Russia appears by far the lesser long-term threat, how do we split Russia off from China? Here, Trump’s instincts are right, and the Beltway Russophobes are wrong.

As for Iran, the intelligence community is consistent.

In 2007 and 2011, the CIA declared “with high confidence” that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. Now, with UN inspectors crawling all over Tehran’s nuclear facilities under the treaty, the CIA and DNI are still saying the same thing.

Is there a plan to confront Russia in Iran? More at the AFP Online Store.

What of the contention that Iran is seeking hegemony in the Middle East?

Really? How? Would a nuclear-armed Israel, which has launched 200 strikes on Iran’s allies in Syria, accept that? What would Turkey, with the second-largest army in NATO, Egypt, the largest Arab nation, and Saudi Arabia have to say about that?

How could Shiite Iran, whose Persian majority is nearly matched by its Arab, Azeri, Baloch, and Kurdish minorities, gain dominance over a Middle East where the vast majority is Sunni Arab? How is Iran a threat to us over here, compared to the threat we pose to Iran over there?

Iran broke out of its isolation for two reasons. First, George W. Bush came in and overthrew its Taliban enemies on its eastern border, and then he overthrew Saddam Hussein, the enemy on its western border.

As Trump contends, ISIS has been defeated and driven from its twin capitals—Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. But it is also true that ISIS and al Qaeda still have tens of thousands of jihadists living among the peoples of the Middle East.

And the great question remains:

Are U.S. troops necessary over there—to prevent terrorists from coming over here? Or are they over here—because we are over there?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


How to Start a World War

Provoking an “incident” or a false flag would be the best way to keep the U.S. in the Middle East forever, for Israel’s benefit. Philip Giraldi warns that “the current lineup of administration hotheads is so devoid of scruples that it might well be planning to either provoke or false-flag the United States into the longed-for war against Iran.”

By Phil Giraldi

The White House decision to withdraw American troops from Syria as soon as possible may or may not be on track depending on whom one believes. But one thing that is for sure is that the recent suicide bomber attack in Manbij, Syria, which killed four Americans and has been attributed to ISIS, has inspired the opponents of the drawdown to renew their claim that the terrorist group is still an active threat to the United States. President Donald Trump is now being subjected to heavy bipartisan and media pressure to reverse his decision.

It is perhaps a coincidence that the attack should take place not long after the White House announcement of the withdrawal, thereby giving ammunition to those who wish to stay in Syria, admittedly illegally, for the foreseeable future. Or is it perhaps something else? Why, one must ask, did ISIS do something against its own interests by attacking Americans and thereby increasing the odds that U.S. armed forces would remain in Syria? Wouldn’t it have been preferable to just let the American military leave, thereby eliminating one enemy from the playing field?

Former arms inspector Scott Ritter, in a detailed analysis of what is going on in Syria, has asked those questions and comes up with an explanation. Far from being an enemy of ISIS, the U.S. has actually served to protect the group. American presence in northeast Syria, where the ISIS remnants are still holding on, has actually prevented the final destruction of the terrorist group. Without the U.S. serving as an impediment, the armed forces of Syria aided by Russia and Iran would have already crushed ISIS in its remaining enclaves.

Thus it is, against all conventional wisdom, the United States that is serving as ISIS’s protector, and the group staged the bombing deliberately with that in mind because it is better from their viewpoint to have American forces remain. They also clearly understood enough about American politics and its media to realize that they would be giving fuel to those in Congress and among the mainstream punditry to put more pressure on Trump to have the troops remain in place.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

That is how you start a war, or at least keep one going. It is called deception, or, when carried out by a state actor, a false flag in that the event is capable of being misinterpreted or mis-attributed to produce a desired result. There have been numerous deception operations throughout history used to start wars. The battleship Maine was not blown up by the Spaniards in Havana Harbor in 1898, but it served as a useful pretext to start a war that stripped Spain of its colonies. The Zimmerman telegram in World War I was a phony, but it helped bring the U.S. into the war against Germany. More recently there were the two Gulf of Tonkin incidents, both lies, which dramatically increased American involvement in Vietnam. And one should not forget the largely fabricated humanitarian and national security arguments made to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

If one goes by the message coming out of the White House and State Department, it would appear that the next country being targeted by the U.S. for regime change is Iran. And the best way to start the war would be to have the Iranians, or someone pretending to be the Iranians, attack a U.S. naval vessel in the Persian Gulf. If it were carried out by, let us suggest, the Israelis or Saudis, both of whom have motive to do so, it would be a false-flag operation leading to war. It would also be a false flag if the U.S. itself were to carry out the attack pretending to be Iranians. One recalls from the movie “Patton” the general’s hatred of the Russians and his rant at the end of the film, “In 10 days I’ll have us at war with those sons of b****** and I’ll make it look like their fault.” There are, unfortunately, many in D.C. who would support such an approach, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Some observers are concerned that the current lineup of administration hotheads is so devoid of scruples that it might well be planning to either provoke or false-flag the United States into the longed-for war against Iran.

Unfortunately, to a certain extent, Iran is playing into the scheming by America’s hawks. Early in December, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani threatened to stop all shipping passing through the Strait of Hormuz if Washington moves to block Iranian oil exports when sanctions kick in early in May. He said, “If someday, the United States decides to block Iran’s oil, no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf.”

Ten Myths About Israel, Ilan Pappe
Outspoken Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of the contemporary state of Israel. New at the AFP Store.

Washington for its part is also upping the ante, having sent an aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, to the Persian Gulf recently as part of a “show of force.” Iran has also beefed up its forces by deploying a considerable naval force to the Indian Ocean near the Persian Gulf, ready to move into the strait and close it if ordered to do so. Iran claims that it “completely controls the strait.”

As nearly 30% of all seaborne oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz with the Stennis and Iranian forces on standby in the same area, the possibility of a fight starting either deliberately or by accident is growing. In early December, State Department Special Representative on Iran Brian Hook declared during a press conference that Washington would “not hesitate to use military force when our interests are threatened . . . the military option on the table.”

One does not have to suggest that either the United States or one of its alleged allies in the Middle East will inevitably take the low road and stage an incident, but the possibility remains it will occur to someone that this would be the easiest path to war. Others, who want war but are more cautious in terms of how they will initiate it, are probably waiting for the May 5 deadline when the U.S. embargo on Iranian oil sales kicks in. Iran will be forced to react, and the U.S. is no doubt preparing to strike back. We will thereby have a new war that serves no one’s interest apart from Israel and the Saudis and which will potentially devastate the region.

The American people will have to do the actual fighting and dying while also paying the bills afterwards and will emerge as the biggest losers.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.

GOP Strips Young Activist of Position for ‘Racism’

Republicans are yet again bending over backwards to appear adequately politically correct, to the extent party faithful have removed a longstanding party supporter from his legitimately elected precinct position in order to separate themselves from the target of more hysterical accusations by the radical left.  

By John Friend

James Allsup, a young, conservative, independent journalist and rising YouTube star, was stripped of his elected position as a local precinct committee officer (PCO) for the Whitman County Republican Party in rural eastern Washington, it was recently reported. Allsup had been legitimately elected as a PCO in Whitman County in the summer of 2018.

PCOs are members of the overall County Central Committee of their respected party and help organize events and activities as well as represent the party at the local level. While attending college at Washington State University in nearby Pullman, Wash., Allsup was president of the College Republican Club on campus and was heavily involved with the local Republican Party throughout the heated 2016 election season. He helped organize events both in the community and on campus, recruited other Republicans, and encouraged voters to support Republican candidates in the election.

Allsup also launched a YouTube channel, began hosting and participating in various radio programs, and eventually became a leading figure among young conservatives. After his participation in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. in the summer of 2017, radical left-wing media outlets and activists began targeting Allsup in an attempt to demonize and discredit the young activist and political organizer whose political views were becoming more and more widely known.

Following his successful election in the summer of 2018 as a PCO for the local GOP, a number of malicious articles appeared in the left-wing media, including a hysterical piece published by The Daily Beast entitled, “Charlottesville Hate Marcher Elected by Republican Party.” The Republican National Committee (RNC) immediately denounced Allsup after news of his election spread.

“We condemn this individual and his hateful, racist views in the strongest possible terms,” an RNC spokesperson was quoted as stating in The Daily Beast article. “There’s no place for it in the Republican Party.” The Washington State Republican Party likewise denounced Allsup and his views, telling The Daily Beast: “We condemned this hateful ideology before, we condemn it today, and will continue to condemn it in the future.”

Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, whose district Allsup lived in, also attacked the young Republican activist, saying she was “disappointed” that Allsup was being allowed to represent the party following his successful election.

Rep. Rodgers also claimed Allsup promoted “white supremacy, racism, and bigotry,” and that “our communities must not include space for individuals who promote, condone, or participate in racism and violence,” an arguably libelous accusation against Allsup.

Now the Whitman County Republican Central Committee has voted unanimously to essentially expel Allsup from the local party, despite his legal status as an elected official with the party. On Jan. 5, the committee met and voted overwhelmingly to unseat Allsup from his position, meaning he has no vote on the committee and is not recognized by the party, although he continues to technically retain the position as a PCO due to his successful election.

In a YouTube video made in response to his expulsion from the local GOP, Allsup criticized the Whitman County Republican leadership as “spineless” and cowardly for being intimidated by the media and outside pressure groups.

“It’s disappointing to see spineless Republicans cower in fear of leftists all because they’re afraid of mean comments from the journalists that hate them anyway,” Allsup stated in response.

By his own account, Allsup was one of the most energetic and effective GOP activists in the area and had been for years. Yet his expulsion from the party did not surprise him, considering the pathetic state of the mainstream Republican Party and its leadership.

“Of course, as you well know, I have never advocated for any sort of racial supremacy—not here, not on podcasts, not anywhere,” Allsup stated in a recent YouTube video. “Many people [who] claim to be conservatives are so cowardly, they would rather go along with the left and the media and falsely call someone a ‘racial supremacist,’ even if it’s someone on their own side of most issues and even if there is no evidence for that claim. That’s what we saw here.”

Despite being ejected by the local party, Allsup remains optimistic about the future of the GOP and encourages other young activists to get involved in politics.

“The fact that I was able to run for office as a PCO—and win—should be seen as excellent news,” Allsup recently wrote on Facebook.

“Young people are the future of the party and the nation. It’s time to get involved—and I encourage all of you to follow my example, win your local elections, and begin solidifying our political base for years to come.”

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Life in the Marxist Age

As political correctness continues its meteoric rise and career-lynchings increase, a university professor now faces firing after his spoof academic papers were published, fooling (then embarassing) leftists. 

By Donald Jeffries

Portland State University philosophy professor Peter Boghossian recently attempted to expose how ludicrous political correctness has become. Unfortunately for him, his attempt succeeded all too well—and now he may be out of a job.

Over the course of a few years, Boghossian and two academics produced 20 hoax essays, collectively called “the Grievance Studies” experiment, that were written to be as ridiculous as possible and designed to appeal to small special interest groups made up of mostly far-left scholars.

Seven of Boghossian’s bogus studies were accepted for publication by social science journals, including a feminist rewrite of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The journal Gender, Place, and Culture bit on a piece claiming to study “canine rape culture.”

In that study, Boghossian and his colleagues charged that, “dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and a place of rampant canine rape culture and systemic oppression against ‘the oppressed dog’ through which human attitudes to both problems can be measured.” Boghossian’s team even claimed to have “tactfully inspected the genitals of slightly fewer than 10,000 dogs whilst interrogating owners as to their sexuality.”

In another eagerly accepted article, the hoaxers demanded that the world of bodybuilding recognize “fat bodybuilding, as a fat-inclusive politicized performance.”

For his efforts, which once brought to light should have caused academia to engage in some self-analysis, Portland State University moved to fire Boghossian.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

“I truly hope the administration puts its institutional weight behind the pursuit of truth, but I’ve been given no indication that’s what they intend to do,” Boghossian said.

All of the journals involved are part of the dubious field of “grievance studies.” Some in the mainstream media attempted to rationalize and defend academia’s attachment to the most extreme, and in these cases totally fabricated, areas of identity politics that focus on gender and race.

A group of 11 Portland State professors and one graduate student published an anonymous letter in the student newspaper Vanguard, which featured a menacing image of Boghossian equipped with a Pinocchio nose. They charged Boghossian’s team with repeated “fraudulent behavior violating acceptable norms of research in any discipline” and castigated the beleaguered professor for inviting James Damore, who was fired by Google for exercising his right to free speech, to an event at the university.

“Boghossian has not only indicated his less-than-collegial attitude through his hoaxes,” they charged, “but has actively targeted faculty at other institutions. None of us wish to contend with threats of death and assault from online trolls.”

Coddling of the American Mind
New at AFP’s Online Store.

Some in the academic world displayed a degree of rationality. Yascha Mounk, a Harvard lecturer in government, condemned what he viewed as unfair attempts to undermine the hoaxers.

“Even if all of the charges laid at the feet of Boghossian [and the two other authors] were true, they would have demonstrated a very worrying fact,” Mounk wrote. “Some of the leading journals in areas like gender studies have failed to distinguish between real scholarship and intellectually vacuous as well as morally troubling [expletive deleted].”

In a recent YouTube video, Boghossian read out an email from Portland State, which threatened an investigation and sanctions against him.

“I think that they will do everything and anything in their power to get me out,” he stated. “And I think this is the first shot in that.”

Boghossian’s case is merely the latest example of political correctness run amok on college campuses across the country. Earlier this month, it was widely reported that Washington, D.C.’s American University would be hosting a multisession seminar aimed at getting faculty to combat “white language supremacy.” The seminar will also propose “alternative” methods of assessing writing other than quality, such as “labor-based grading contracts.”

While even the most unthreatening and lukewarm “conservative” voices have been denied the opportunity to speak at various universities, some astonishingly anti-white figures have been welcomed.

Christian evangelical Wheaton College, not a typical leftist institution, permitted Emory University philosophy professor George Yancy to speak there in 2017, in the esteemed Billy Graham Center on campus. His speech was filled with expletives and hateful declarations like, “To be white is to be racist.” Stephens College, a women’s college in Columbia, Mo., recently announced that it will “admit and enroll students who were not born female, but who identify and live as women.” All-women Mount Holyoke College canceled plans to change its logo due to protests that it could be perceived as not being inclusive to transgender students.

Boghossian merely demonstrated what is obvious: In today’s America, satire is impossible while a frighteningly authoritarian political correctness rules the day.

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold at the AFP Online Store.

Congressman Vilified for Comments

The mainstream media are crying racism as they excoriate Rep. Steve King over trivial “politically incorrect” statements. 

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Let me preface what I am about to say by disavowing all forms of racism and hatred. I am classified as “white” according to the simplistic ethnic-identity system that prevails in the United States, but the last I checked that wasn’t a crime, just a cause for guilt, hand-wringing, and hypocrisy.

I am pretty sure I’m not particularly racist. I spent many years living in mostly black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area and loved it. I was happy when a close high school friend married an African-American woman, not because she was black, but because she was gorgeous, friendly, and down-to-earth. My own wife is an American who immigrated from Morocco, and whose ancestry stems from much of Europe, Asia, and Africa. I have no personal interest in preserving the “purity” of any race. My race is the human race.

That said, I am not about to join the lynch mob hounding Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) who represents a district about an hour’s drive from my house. The New York Times is hounding King over his “history of racist remarks.” House Republicans have obediently removed King from his committee assignments and may join Democrats in formally censuring him. Yet, by any sane measure, most of King’s supposedly racist statements are monumentally less offensive than what the whole U.S. government has been doing to black, brown, and yellow people since World War II: massacring them in ongoing military and CIA interventions that scholar and author William Blum has called “the American holocaust,” whose total number of victims is reliably estimated to be around 60 million, as tallied in a book by Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek titled On Western Terrorism.

Compared to the ongoing American holocaust of 60 million non-white people, the supposed speech crimes of King are pretty mild.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Consider the first “racist remark” on King’s Times rap sheet. King introduced a bill, stating, “That the U.S.A. is the unchallenged greatest nation in the world and that it has derived its strength from . . . Christianity, free-enterprise capitalism, and Western civilization.”

That statement may be banal. It may be parochial. It may overestimate “free-enterprise capitalism,” which has metastasized into today’s global neoliberal cancer. But racist?

The Times continues listing King’s speech crimes: “Mr. King is the chief sponsor of a law making English the official language of Iowa . . . (then) introduces the English Language Unity Act, a bill to make English the official language of the United States. . . . Mr. King sues the Iowa secretary of state for posting voting information on an official website in Spanish, Laotian, Bosnian, and Vietnamese.”

Okay, so the guy isn’t so good with foreign languages, like most Americans. But what does any of this have to do with racism? Aren’t the real racists those people who believe that today’s mostly non-white immigrants, unlike the mostly white immigrants of yesteryear, are too stupid to learn English?

Like President Donald Trump, King has made ill-informed remarks exaggerating the crime threat posed by illegal immigrants. Some of these statements could conceivably be called “racist” in that they unfairly and inaccurately denigrate an ethnic group, Hispanics, so I won’t defend those. But the majority of King’s supposed speech crimes are either positive statements about his own groups (whites, “Western civilization,” Americans) or reasonable expressions of concern about those groups’ demographic decline. The Times thinks King is a racist for saying: “Preventing babies being born is not medicine. That’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birthrate get down below the replacement rate, we’re a dying civilization.” That statement obviously is not racist. What’s more, it is largely accurate. So why is it such a problem?

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

By addressing the issue of the demographic decline of white Americans, and people of European ancestry in general, King is touching on realities that are currently unspeakable in mainstream discourse. But when America’s liberal gatekeepers clamp a tight lid on this subject, they simply increase the pressure inside the pressure cooker, increasing the likelihood of an eventual explosion.

When colonial France sent more than a million white French settlers into Algeria, the native Algerians understandably rebelled. The result was a horrific war.

When European Jews flooded into Palestine against the wishes of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians understandably rebelled. The result is endless regional war—a war that has taken more than 10 million lives and is far from over.

It is normal for people to defend their own ethnicity and its claim on territory occupied for generations. White Americans, scheduled for minority status by 2050, are increasingly unhappy with that prospect. And why shouldn’t they be?

This taboo topic calls for thoughtful conversation, not shaming and silencing.

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.

Christian Kids Victimized, Vilified

The leftist print and electronic media have smeared a group of young students with a fake news report based on a snippet of video of an incident in D.C. that went viral before anyone took time to learn the whole story. The hatemongers have lost this battle, however, as onlookers posted video of the entire exchange, and the student most directly attacked responded with a polite, honoring statement explaining his point of view on what happened to him and his classmates. Bravo, Mr. Sandmann!

By John Friend

Fresh on the heels of a far-left media company claiming erroneously that President Donald Trump had told his former attorney to lie to Congress, a storm of fake news circulated the third weekend in January purporting to show a group of entitled, pro-Trump boys disrespecting an elderly Native American.

The story had all of the hallmarks of the phony modern narrative the anti-Trump media loves to promote. Here was a group of young, mostly white males supposedly shouting, “Build the wall,” and mocking a minority group, in this case, Native Americans, one of whom falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran. Partial video footage of the encounter, which supposedly proved the reports’ veracity, went viral on social media and was picked up by countless mainstream media outlets in a blatantly dishonest attempt to portray the high school students, who had just participated in a pro-life rally in the nation’s capital earlier that day, as entitled, disrespectful, hateful bigots.

It turns out, that is not at all what happened.

In the age of cellphones, individuals who were on the scene at the time posted video to the Internet that showed that none of what the media and far-left activists online were claiming actually happened.

Kingdom Identity

So what really took place?

At 4:30 p.m. on Jan. 18, a group of mostly white high school students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, many of whom were wearing President Donald Trump’s iconic red “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hat, arrived at the Lincoln Memorial with adult chaperones to wait for their bus to travel back to Kentucky.

Upon arriving at the Memorial, four protesters from a crazy group that calls itself the Black Hebrew Israelites began engaging the boys, taunting them and calling them vulgar, hateful names. In response, the students began chanting school spirit songs that are normally reserved for high school football and basketball games.

Soon thereafter, a group of Native American protesters, who were also at the Memorial for an event, confronted the students and began chanting and playing a drum.

The partial video footage initially picked up by the fake news media only shows the students chanting at the Native American protesters, giving the false impression that the high school students confronted and surrounded the Native Americans. Media narratives emerged contending that the students were disrespectful, racist, and bigoted, when in reality they were simply waiting for their bus to arrive and were themselves confronted by both the Black Hebrew Israelite protesters and the Native American protesters. It was made worse by the fact that the elderly Native American man in the picture, Nathan Phillips, told media outlets that the children were shouting “build the wall” at him during the encounter—a claim that has been disproven by video that shows the entire encounter from start to finish.

Phillips is a member of the American Indian Movement, or AIM, which has a long history of provocations, including a now-infamous incident at an Indian reservation in South Dakota that resulted in the deaths of two federal law enforcement agents.

Intimidation Game, Strassel
Political correspondent Kim Strassel on increasing intimidation by the Left to bully Americans out of free speech. On sale now.

Left-leaning activists and personalities were outraged at the footage, with many prominent figures calling for the students to be “doxxed”—having their personal information exposed online in an attempt to defame, slander, and harass the students—while others called for violence.

“The reply from the school was pathetic and impotent,” Kathy Griffin, a radical left-wing, anti-Trump actress, tweeted following the incident. “Name these kids. I want names. Shame them.”

Jack Morrissey, a well-known Disney film producer, posted an image on Twitter of a fictional person being shoved into a woodchipper with fake blood spewing from the machine with the caption: “#MAGAkids go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper.” The tweet has since been deleted, but not before it caught the attention of numerous journalists and social media users.

It was so bad that some of the students’ names and home addresses were uncovered by liberal activists. Nick Sandmann, the boy who can be seen awkwardly smiling at Phillips in the commonly posted video of the incident, has received death threats and other forms of harassment and ridicule following this dishonest media reporting.

Following the publication of more detailed and objective analyses of the encounter, which gave a fuller picture of what really transpired, a number of journalists and pundits have had to apologize for their rush to judgment of the high school students.

Nick Sandmann issued a public statement describing his experience at the memorial and what has transpired in the aftermath.

[You can read Sandmann’s full statement below this story.]

President Trump has offered support for the students, tweeting that the students were “treated unfairly with early judgements proving out to be false—smeared by media.” In a separate tweet, the president lambasted the fake news media for disseminating the highly distorted and dishonest narrative that initially emerged.

“Nick Sandmann and the students of Covington have become symbols of fake news and how evil it can be,” Trump tweeted. “They have captivated the attention of the world, and I know they will use it for the good—maybe even to bring people together.”

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Fake News Blows Up in Media’s Face: 16-year-old schools media, activists after being smeared by hatemongers

The following statement was written by Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic High School junior who was attacked and smeared in the mainstream media and on the Internet on Jan. 20 when far-left activists, celebrities, and national media outlets parroted totally false information concerning a protest Sandmann and his fellow classmates found themselves in near the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

I am providing this factual account of what happened on Friday afternoon at the Lincoln Memorial to correct misinformation and outright lies being spread about my family and me. I am the student in the video who was confronted by the Native American protestor. I arrived at the Lincoln Memorial at 4:30 p.m. I was told to be there by 5:30 p.m., when our buses were due to leave Washington for the trip back to Kentucky. We had been attending the March for Life rally, and then had split up into small groups to do sightseeing.

When we arrived, we noticed four African American protestors who were also on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I am not sure what they were protesting, and I did not interact with them. I did hear them direct derogatory insults at our school group.

The protestors said hateful things. They called us “racists,” “bigots,” “white crackers,” “faggots,” and “incest kids.” They also taunted an African American student from my school by telling him that we would “harvest his organs.” I have no idea what that insult means, but it was startling to hear.

Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public, a student in our group asked one of our teacher chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group. The chants are commonly used at sporting events. They are all positive in nature and sound like what you would hear at any high school. Our chaperone gave us permission to use our school chants. We would not have done that without obtaining permission from the adults in charge of our group.

At no time did I hear any student chant anything other than the school spirit chants. I did not witness or hear any students chant “build that wall” or anything hateful or racist at any time. Assertions to the contrary are simply false. Our chants were loud because we wanted to drown out the hateful comments that were being shouted at us by the protestors.

After a few minutes of chanting, the Native American protestors, who I hadn’t previously noticed, approached our group. The Native American protestors had drums and were accompanied by at least one person with a camera.

The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face. I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.

I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.

During the period of the drumming, a member of the protestor’s entourage began yelling at a fellow student that we “stole [Indian] land” and that we should “go back to Europe.” I heard one of my fellow students begin to respond. I motioned to my classmate and tried to get him to stop engaging with the protestor, as I was still in the mindset that we needed to calm down tensions.

I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protestor. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he’d singled me out for a confrontation, although I’m not sure why.

The engagement ended when one of our teachers told me the buses had arrived and it was time to go. I obeyed my teacher and simply walked to the buses. At that moment, I thought I had diffused the situation by remaining calm, and I was thankful nothing physical had occurred.

I never understood why either of the two groups of protestors were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I’ve ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.

I was not intentionally making faces at the protestor. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation. I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me—to remain respectful of others and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.

I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person’s right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make.

I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family’s name. My parents were not on the trip, and I strive to represent my family in a respectful way in all public settings.

I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue.

I love my school, my teachers and my classmates. I work hard to achieve good grades and to participate in several extracurricular activities. I am mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen—that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans. I did not do that, do not have hateful feelings in my heart, and did not witness any of my classmates doing that.

I cannot speak for everyone, only for myself. But I can tell you my experience with Covington Catholic is that students are respectful of all races and cultures. We also support everyone’s right to free speech.

I am not going to comment on the words or account of Mr. Phillips, as I don’t know him and would not presume to know what is in his heart or mind. Nor am I going to comment further on the other protestors, as I don’t know their hearts or minds, either. I have read that Mr. Phillips is a veteran of the United States Marines. I thank him for his service and am grateful to anyone who puts on the uniform to defend our nation. If anyone has earned the right to speak freely, it is a U.S. Marine veteran.

I can only speak for myself and what I observed and felt at the time. But I would caution everyone passing judgment based on a few seconds of video to watch the longer video clips that are on the Internet, as they show a much different story than is being portrayed by people with agendas.

I provided this account of events to the Diocese of Covington so they may know exactly what happened, and I stand ready and willing to cooperate with any investigation they are conducting.

Big Pharma’s Greed

Front-page news from American Free Press Issue 5 & 6: Drug peddlers ring in 2019 with price increases and funerals. Subscribers can log in now and read your digital version of the paper, AFP Online. Not yet a digital subscriber? Click here.

By Dave Gahary

While the Top 10 CEOs of some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world have pay packages averaging $30 million a year, average Americans who depend on the products these masters of industry sell are dying to buy their drugs, literally. And this is not new to 2019. Ordinary Americans who can’t afford the thousands of dollars it costs to stay alive have been dying for decades, as a direct result of the massive price increases Big Pharma has been getting away with since that time.

Take 26-year-old Alec Smith from Minnesota, a type 1 diabetic.

Because of his condition, Smith was required to take insulin every day, which was not an issue when he was on his parents’ health insurance. But when he turned 26, he was forced off their insurance policy and became responsible for the $1,300 a month it cost for him to stay alive. Unable to afford the insulin, Smith began rationing, which resulted in him falling into a diabetic coma. He died alone in his apartment.

This tragedy is made much worse, because the inventors of the 97-year-old medication, synthetic insulin, “sold the patent for about $3 to get the drug to as many diabetics as possible.” But drug makers have gotten around patent expirations like this by making small tweaks to their products, allowing them to keep patent protection ongoing for years, to the detriment of those whose lives depend on these medications. As an example, the price of insulin tripled from 2002 to 2013, with three of the top manufacturers hiking the price at least 10 times over the past decade.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

For the more than 1,000 drugs whose prices are being raised this year, the average increase will be around 6%, incredibly a much smaller percentage price hike than in previous years. In 2018, there were around “2,100 price increases with a median increase of 9%, compared to just under 1,400 hikes with a typical jump of 9.1% a year earlier,” according to a stock market analyst.

Drug powerhouse Allergan, whose CEO Brenton L. Saunders brought home nearly $40 million last year, raised prices on over half its portfolio—51 drugs—on Jan. 1. “Some 27 medications saw a 9.5% jump and the rest a 4.9% increase,” reported CBS News.

For Americans who have watched their real wages steadily decline for over three decades and have been forced to spend over half a trillion dollars on prescription medications in 2018, this is a most unwelcome trend.

While straight-out price gouging is adding to the daily misery of millions of Americans, shortages and recalls are also leading drug makers to raise prices.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Jan. 18 that numerous drug manufacturers “have sharply boosted prices of some older, low-cost prescription medicines amid supply shortages and recalls—in some cases, by threefold and more.”

The paper highlighted the popular blood-pressure drug valsartan, which has seen its price skyrocket “since a series of safety-related recalls of the drug by other manufacturers began last summer.” A Houston retiree who was paying $13 for a 90-day supply of the drug is now forced to pay over $100. Even worse, the muscle relaxant methocarbamol saw one supplier raise the price of a bottle from $8.49 to $105 due to an alleged “supply shortage.”

“Of the nearly 120 drugs listed by the Food and Drug Administration as currently or recently in shortage,” reports the Journal, “about one-third had price increases after the shortages started.”

President Donald J. Trump has made reining in drug price increases a top priority, and his administration issued a 44-page plan last year on his “vision for increasing competition, reducing regulations and changing incentives for players in the industry.”

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 for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

Democrats’ America: The Heart of Darkness

Based on public comments during the week of  MLK Day, Democrats seem to believe America has become the “heart of darkness” rather than Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.” Can those who believe this to be true, that the U.S. is a “sinkhole of racism,” effectively maintain positions of national leadership?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If it was the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that black and white would come together in friendship and peace to do justice, his acolytes in today’s Democratic Party appear to have missed that part of his message.

Here is Hakeem Jeffries, fourth-ranked Democrat in Nancy Pelosi’s House, speaking Monday, on the holiday set aside to honor King:

“We have a hater in the White House. The birther in chief. The grand wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. … While Jim Crow may be dead, he’s still got some nieces and nephews that are alive and well.”

At the headquarters of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, wrote The New York Times, Jeffries’s remarks were “met with … much cheering.”

At a Boston breakfast that same day, Sen. Elizabeth Warren chose to honor King’s memory in her way: “Our government is shut down for one reason …. So the president of the United States can fund a monument to hate and division along our southern border.”

At a rally in Columbia, South Carolina, Sen. Cory Booker declaimed—in what could be taken as a shot at his New Jersey colleague, the lately acquitted Sen. Bob Menendez—”We live a nation where you get a better justice system if you’re rich and guilty than poor and innocent.”

Booker urged the crowd “to apply the ideals of Dr. King” and avoid vitriol in dealing with political adversaries.

But his Senate colleague Bernie Sanders, also in South Carolina, wasn’t buying it. Routed by Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina primary in 2016, Sanders is determined not to lose the party’s African-American majority that badly in 2020.

“Today we talk about racism,” said Sanders. “It gives me no pleasure to tell you that we now have a president of the United States who is a racist.”

Sanders apparently connected, with his remarks “drawing applause.”

Joe Biden spoke in D.C. in the full apology-tour mode made famous by his former boss, Barack Obama. He brought up the 1994 crime bill he shepherded though the Senate, which treated consumption and distribution of crack cocaine as more serious crimes than the use of powder cocaine, and then confessed to the crowd that it was “a big mistake.”

“We were told by the experts that, ‘crack you never go back,’ that the two were somehow fundamentally different. It’s not. But it’s trapped an entire generation.”

Biden meant that lots of black folks got locked up for a long time, unjustly, conceding, “We may not have always got things right.”

Biden then proceeded to slander the nation that has honored him as it has few of his generation: “Systematic racism that most of us whites don’t even like to acknowledge” is “built into every aspect of our system.”

Is America, 50 years after segregation was outlawed in our public life, really a land saturated with systemic racism?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was also in D.C.

The mayor’s problem with African-Americans is that he pursued a policy of stop-and-frisk with criminal suspects in New York. So, he sought to find common ground with his audience by relating “a series of events that had shaped his recent thinking about race.”

The mayor said he had “recently learned about the deadly race riots in which white residents destroyed the Greenwood district of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, and murdered several dozen black residents.”

But why did his honor have to go all the way back to 1921 and Tulsa to find race riots, when Harlem, in the heart of the town he served as mayor for 12 years, exploded in a riot in 1964 that spread to Brooklyn and Queens and lasted six days?

Why did Bloomberg not bring up the worst riot in U.S. history, when Lincoln sent Union veterans of Gettysburg to shoot down Irish immigrants protesting the draft in New York?

“It’s up to us to bring these stories out of the shadows so they never happen again,” said the mayor.

But where are black communities threatened by white mob violence in 2019? Was the Watts riot of 1965, were the Detroit and Newark riots of 1967, was the rioting, looting, and arson that ravaged 100 cities after King’s death a result of rampaging whites assaulting black folks?

Was the LA riot of 1992, which targeted Koreatown, the work of white racists?

Monday, after a meeting with Sharpton, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand offered her message of conciliation. Said the successor to Sen. Hillary Clinton, President Trump has “inspired a hate and a darkness in this country that I have never experienced myself.

“It is wrong to ask men and women of color to bear these burdens every single day. … White women like me must bear part of this burden.”

Does there not come a time when the pandering has to stop?

Ronald Reagan preached America as the Pilgrim fathers’ “shining city on a hill.” For Democrats today, America is the heart of darkness.

Can people lead a republic that they have come to see as a sinkhole of racism?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.