Raising Red Flags About Red Flag Laws

Who will decide if a gunowner is a threat, and can we trust the decision?

By Mark Anderson

It’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the ruling elite want more stringent gun confiscation laws enacted. One proposed way to do this is via the institution of “red flag” laws. Red flag laws are allegedly designed to prevent future mass shootings as they empower courts to take guns away from “potentially dangerous” people, as if we can actually trust the courts to be impartial arbiters in this matter. We wish we could.

Red flag laws have already been put in place in 17 states, of which 12 enacted them after the Parkland, Fla. school shooting in February 2018. Four other states have proposed such laws. For the record, the two states in which high-profile multiple shootings recently took place—at an El Paso, Texas Walmart and a Dayton, Ohio entertainment venue—do not yet have red flag laws on the books, though Ohio had already proposed such a law.

National Coin Investments

On the federal level, at a March 26 congressional committee hearing entitled “Red Flag Laws: Examining Guidelines for State Action,” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) noted:

While Republicans and Democrats, on this Committee and across America, can disagree on the Second Amendment, what’s clear . . . is that recent tragedies in the United States are examples of . . . a failure to identify and lessen risk from individuals who may be showing signs of distress and the willingness to hurt themselves or others. … The use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders also known as “Red flag” orders have shown promise in the states.

… Red flag laws generally work by a family or household member or law enforcement officer petitioning a court to temporarily restrict an individual’s ability to buy or access fire – arms. The burden of proof is placed on law enforcement to prove the person in question has become an imminent danger and there is a Due Process right for the individual to challenge the determination. . . . Politically, these laws are found in red, blue, and purple states. In March 2018, the Trump Administration called on every state to enact Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

The potential for President Trump to bend to media-induced pressure, perhaps to protect himself politically as the 2020 election nears, is high given the tense and uncertain climate created by news of the latest shootings.


The key to understanding the potential problems with red flag laws is realizing that such laws could easily morph into large-scale disarmament of law-abiding civilians based upon their political philosophy. Indeed, confiscations could become ever more frequent. Not just family members and police,  but also neighbors, acquaintances, and coworkers, possibly with an axe to grind, could conjure up reports of your “suspicious” or “errant” behavior, leading to firearms confiscation pending a review of your “mental stability.”

In Connecticut, the justifications for gun confiscation have included such simple concerns as “conflict between intimate partners, emotional distress over finances, and sadness of loss in old age,” as reported Feb. 25 in The Denver Post.

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

Interestingly, the Post, citing the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012, added: “Connecticut law enforcement had been temporarily taking weapons from at-risk people for more than a decade at the time of the shooting. According to the Duke University study, about 140 orders were issued in 2012.”

But Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old responsible for that elementary school massacre, wasn’t the registered owner of the guns he used to commit murder. Investigative reports insist he used his mother’s guns to kill her at home and 26 children and adults at the elementary school.

Another more troubling aspect of the situation is that mainstream controlled media reports on mass shootings are not based in reality. They invariably portray the shooter as a trigger-happy “white supremacist,” despite any real facts to support that contention. Thus, the first segment of the population to be disarmed—due to fake news-induced media hysteria—would most likely be white nationalists, just the very people who are most resistant to the expansion of the New World Order police state. Coincidence? Probably not.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. Email him at <[email protected]

Internet Censorship Nightmare: AI (Artificial Idiocy) Rules the Day

Much of what we’ve long considered free speech, or simply just humor, is no longer acceptable to our robot Internet-censor overlords. Here are a few absurd examples of this censorship. 

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

As Internet censorship rages ever-further out of control, content creators have joked that soon the only acceptable posts will be cat-chasing-laser-pointer videos. The way things are going, however, even the cats are starting to worry. There are so many instances of egregiously idiotic Internet censorship that no brief article could possibly even scratch the surface, so I will limit myself to a few cases that have recently come to my attention.

Comedian Adam Garrison makes his living—or should I say made his living, before the censorship hammer came down—poking fun at both liberals and conservatives. He lampoons a liberal character, Dan Myers, and his conservative doppelgänger, Rusty Myers.

Suddenly, for no discernable reason, and with no explanation, Facebook deleted his account, wiping out all of his videos, which totaled tens of millions of views. Simultaneously YouTube banned only his “conservative” Rusty Myers videos, but not his “liberal” Dan Myers ones.

Faraday Twins ad

Is YouTube run by conservatives who don’t mind comedians poking fun at liberals but can’t handle anyone ridiculing Trump supporters? Hardly. The truth is precisely the opposite: YouTube’s liberal owners, or their AI (artificial idiocy)-driven censorship algorithms, thought “Rusty Myers” was a real Trump supporter, and banned him on that basis.

On “BlackOpRadio,” Adam Garrison explained: “I think they’re trying to silence anything, especially getting close to the 2020 election (supporting Trump) . … As the Rusty Myers character, I always wore a Trump shirt in the videos, and they took it down because they don’t like people, even in jest, agreeing with President Trump.”

Prior to 1987, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to provide balanced coverage. Today, Internet oligarchs, who command audiences even bigger than the broadcast networks, apparently think they can ban anyone who even appears to support the “wrong” presidential candidate, or who otherwise disagrees with them in any way.

If President Donald Trump wants his supporters to continue to enjoy their constitutional right to free speech, he should consider ordering the FCC to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. The new Fairness Doctrine for the Internet Age should make it clear that big social media companies must respect the First Amendment: Constitutionally protected speech obviously cannot be banned from the new digital town square of social media.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Better yet, Trump should order the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department to seize the big social media companies, which are illegal monopolies, and either break them into tiny pieces or run them as public utilities under the full protection of the First Amendment. The latter option makes more sense, because social media outfits are natural monopolies, like the Post Office, the Highway Department, the public schools, and the utilities that provide us with electricity and water.

Another example of the absurd overreach of the current censorship epidemic: On July 21, YouTube banned my interfaith dialogue with Doooovid, a Jewish American from Detroit who is one of the most eloquent advocates for his chosen faith. According to YouTube, we had violated their guidelines prohibiting hate speech, but there was nothing remotely hateful in our friendly, respectful conversation.

I can only think of two possible reasons why the video could have been banned. First, the word “Jew” occurs twice in the title: “Kevin Barrett asks Doooovid ‘What Makes a Jew a Jew?’ and ‘What Is Anti-Semitism?’ ” The same artificially idiotic algorithm that thought Adam Garrison’s “Rusty Myers” character was a real Trump supporter may have thought that only Jew-haters use the word Jew.

Coddling of the American Mind
Good intentions and bad ideas… at AFP’s Online Store.

Additionally, Doooovid and I are both critics of Zionism. Maybe YouTube’s AI thought that anyone who criticizes Zionism and uses the word Jew is a suitable censorship target.

In any case, after review by actual human beings, YouTube upheld my appeal and reinstated the video. Unfortunately, this rare example of sanity is the exception that proves the rule.

While I was battling YouTube over the Doooovid interview, Vimeo suddenly banned my Internet TV show “False Flag Weekly News.” Their new guidelines prohibit “content that falsely claims that mass tragedies are hoaxes.” The word hoax is defined as “a humorous or malicious deception,” so telling the truth about the mass tragedy of 9/11—that it was a malicious deception— is no longer permitted on Vimeo.

The unfortunate truth is that many if not most “mass tragedies” are in fact “malicious deceptions.” Every war is a “mass tragedy.” And virtually every war is a malicious deception in that people are conned into going to war by lying politicians.

The Charles Manson murders and the Jones – town massacre were “mass tragedies.” And both were “malicious deceptions” orchestrated by such CIA mind-control specialists as Dr. Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West.

False flags are by definition “mass tragedies” based on “malicious deception.” But in post-9/11 America, are we allowed to say that?

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

Campus Free Speech Is Dead

Once bastions of free thought and speech, colleges are now leftist censorship centers.

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that the University of California, once a bastion of free speech, now is opposed to it. The university now punishes people for opinions expressed outside the classroom and the university.

Not that long ago, American universities emphasized tolerance of all views so that truth would not be obscured by dogmas. Little doubt this emphasis traced its heritage back to the church’s interference in the scientific question whether the Earth was the center of the solar system. In order to save their lives, astronomers were forced to renounce their findings and to assert the truth of dogmas that they knew to be wrong.

Today the same thing is happening in American universities, only the deadly controversies are over race and gender issues, not whether the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Faraday Twins ad

When I was a student, liberal professors found Voltaire to be an exemplar of the correct attitude toward free speech. Voltaire quotes were used everywhere in the halls of learning:

  • “Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too.”
  • “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.”
  • “Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.”
  • “Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.”
  • “It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Today, Voltaire is never heard from. Dogma has shoved aside tolerance and taken control of American universities in which political correctness, an ideology or religion in which emotion-based beliefs of certain “preferred” groups with aristocratic or Vatican privileges, such as black activists, abortionists, and sexual deviants, cannot be “offended” by facts or by someone’s contrary opinion.

The latest case of academic persecution is Laura Tanner, a doctoral candidate and teaching assistant in the Department of Feminist Studies at the Santa Barbara campus of the University of California, formerly a great university, now a cesspool of intolerance and identity politics.

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

Despite her feminist credentials, Tanner is under attack, not for what she said in the classroom, but for what she expressed in social media tweets. She expressed her opinion that “It’s not possible to be born in the wrong body.” Therefore, a man in a man’s body cannot claim to be a woman. This exercise in plausible deductive reasoning resulted in Tanner being labeled “transphobic.”

A former student of Tanner’s, an academic terrorist—Kremina Youssef—seems set on destroying Tanner’s career prospects simply because Tanner expressed an opinion on Twitter with which Youssef disagrees. Students and alumni have taken the position that although Tanner excels in her teaching role, she should be fired for her “distressing” view on transgenderism. The fact that the vast majority of Americans do not find Tanner’s view distressing is considered irrelevant.

Laury Oaks, the chairperson of the Feminist Studies department, believes that a Title IX civil rights complaint can be filed against Tanner. The position taken by the intolerant freaks attempting to destroy Tanner for “distressing” a newly invented gender based on self-declaration is:

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

We acknowledge that the gender binary, as it is commonly understood in the U.S., is rooted in the logics of colonialism, racism, and gendered domination, and that fighting transphobia is integral to resisting and healing from the harms that these systems create. The violence of transphobia, particularly trans-misogyny, falls especially hard on communities of color and contributes to the exploitation, criminalization, and incarceration disproportionately experienced by black, brown, immigrant, and working-class people. As queer students, students of color, and/or allies, our visions of feminist futures include and affirm people made invisible by and marginalized by the gender binary. In our classrooms, we are committed to holding space for trans students, including taking seriously trans students’ experiences, standpoints, and intellectual contributions.

Note that among this collection of nonsense words there is space “in our classrooms” for transgender ideology, but no space outside the classroom for other views on the subject.

To see the undeniable total collapse of university education and the very pillars of Western civilization, ask yourself what Voltaire would have said about this.

What is happening in American universities is far worse than papal objections to astronomers’ findings. It seemed to the church that the astronomers were contradicting the very basis of the church’s religious teachings. But Tanner, who, unlike the pope in those long-ago days, is powerless to impose her views on anyone. Yet, the “transgender community” is determined to impose their views on everyone and to destroy the career of a young feminist. It looks like they will succeed.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities and is the author of numerous books available at the AFP Online Store.

Assange, Free Speech in Peril

By Dr. Ron Paul

More than seven years ago, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted asylum by the government of Ecuador over fears that espionage charges were being prepared against him by Washington. He spent those years in a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy in London without sunlight. Without fresh air. Without exercise. Without medical treatment.

Assange’s critics mocked him for entering the embassy, saying his fear that the U.S. government would indict him was paranoia. Then the U.S.-controlled International Monetary Fund dangled a $4 billion loan in front of Ecuadorian president Lenin Moreno (elected in 2017, replacing the president who granted Assange asylum), and Moreno eagerly handed Assange over to British authorities who the same day hauled him before the court to answer for skipping bail. No medical examination after what was seven years of house arrest. Straight to court. He was sentenced to 50 weeks—the maximum sentence.

And what happened while he was serving time in the notorious Belmarsh prison? The Trump administration decided to go where the Obama Administration before him did not dare to tread: He was indicted on 17 counts under the U.S. Espionage Act and now faces 170 years in prison—or worse—once the formality of his extradition hearing is over. He faces life in prison for acting as a journalist—publishing information about the U.S. government that is clearly in the public interest.

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

But do they really want to put him up on trial?

When U.S. citizen Otto Warmbier died in a wretched North Korean prison cell after being denied proper medical treatment, the Western world was disgusted by Pyongyang’s disregard for basic human rights. Now we have Julian Assange reportedly too sick to even appear by video at his own court hearings. UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer has investigated the treatment of Assange over the past nine years and has determined that the journalist has been the “victim of brutal psychological torture.”

Melzer concluded, “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence, and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonize, and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for . . . the rule of law.”

Governments hate it when the truth is told about them. They prefer to kill the messenger than face the message.

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote last week that, “the whole purpose of the First Amendment . . . is to promote and provoke open, wide, robust political debate about the policies of the government.”

We need to understand that it is our First Amendment that is on trial right there along with Assange. The Obama administration—no defenders of civil liberties—wanted to prosecute Assange but determined that his “crime” was the same kind of journalism that the U.S. mainstream media engages in every day.

Let’s hope President Donald Trump recovers from his amnesia—on the campaign trail he praised WikiLeaks more than 100 times but now claims to know nothing about them—and orders his attorney general to stand down. Assange deserves our gratitude, not a lifetime in prison.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, online at www.ronpaulinstitute.org.

If Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Lose, Journalism May Never Recover

The question of whether WikiLeaks employees and volunteers are journalists and the outcome of the legal attacks on Julian Assange will significantly impact the future of journalism. 

By S.T. Patrick

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is starting to rack up some small victories that may have big cumulative results, though the question of whether or not he can maneuver from beneath the great legal behemoth of U.S. law is still yet to be determined. All well and good that he is achieving at least some positive results, as WikiLeaks has been a valuable contributor to the field of journalism and the most vital entity forcing government transparency in the digital age.

In May, the UN’s special reporter on torture, Nils Melzer, issued a statement clearly chastising the United States, Great Britain, Ecuador, and Sweden for their treatment of Assange.

The public rebuke of those nations against Assange has been a breath of fresh air to observers who clearly see the freedom-disparaging precedents that any Assange prosecution would set. Melzer summed up what the WikiLeaks founder has experienced for nearly a decade.

“In the course of the past nine years,” Melzer continued, “Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment, and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults, and humiliation to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.”

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

In early June, Swedish courts declined to issue an arrest warrant for Assange, eight years after the European arrest warrant was believed to have been issued. Seeking a new warrant against Assange, Swedish prosecutors failed to get the expected rubber stamp. Rather, the court said that an issuance would be “disproportionate.” This is a blow to many leftists in the UK and the U.S., who so desperately wanted Assange to have “rapist” permanently embedded next to a bullet point on his bio. Some leftists hate Assange, believing that he and Wikileaks worked with Donald Trump to undermine the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Now that there is no arrest warrant from Sweden, there is also no extradition warrant from there, either. Regarding Sweden, Assange’s record is hereby clean.

The mainstream media’s tirades against Assange have been perplexing and self-serving. While they have been using Assange’s more disorganized, less rote collection of whistleblowers as stories and sources of stories for over a decade, they are now using Assange and WikiLeaks as a means by which they can delineate between “real journalists” and “mere leakers.” There has been no acknowledgment of the changing face of journalism, the dwindling importance and viewership of the mainstream, and, more importantly, the governmental accountability that WikiLeaks has forced.

Since publishing its first document in 2006 (a signed decision by a Somali sheik to assassinate government officials), WikiLeaks has released over 10 million documents. In their first two years alone, WikiLeaks exposed the daily protocol of the U.S. Army at Guantanamo Bay, that some Gitmo prisoners were off-limits to the Red Cross, the illegal activities of banks in the Cayman Islands, “the secret bibles of Scientology,” the contents of Sarah Palin’s Yahoo! email account (hacked by the group Anonymous), and a list of members in the British National Party.

WikiLeaks was never accused of being a tool of the American political right or any of its politicians then. That is a new delusion perpetrated by angry partisans. WikiLeaks was valuable and trusted through the final Bush years and even more so during the presidency of Barack Obama when it exposed the war crimes of the U.S. military.

Deep Truth Journal
The inaugural issue of Deep Truth Journal is now at the AFP Store.

In February 2010, WikiLeaks began publishing documents sourced from Army Private Bradley (Chelsea) Manning. The most notable was the “Collateral Murder” video of a 2007 airstrike in Baghdad that resulted in the killing of two Reuters reporters by U.S. pilots who mistakenly thought they were carrying weapons.

What turned Assange, unfairly, into a partisan figure was the 2016 release of 1,258 emails from a personal server illegally kept in the home of then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Also released were 20,000 emails and 8,000 documents from the Democratic National Committee, many of which showed a concerted internal campaign against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton.

Are the employees and volunteers of WikiLeaks journalists? They’ve won The Economist New Media Award, Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, the Sam Adams Award for Integrity, the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, the Voltaire Award for Free Speech, and a variety of journalism awards in Brazil, Kazakhstan, Italy, and the U.S. WikiLeaks was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for six consecutive years (2010-2015). Today, its founder sits in jail for exposing financial abuses, human rights abuses, and war crimes.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication available at the AFP Online Store.

Riot Act Razed?

A federal judge has struck down the Anti-Riot Act as unconstitutional, due in part to the efforts of the fledgling Free Expression Foundation. This story was front-page news in the latest issue of American Free Press. If you’re a digital subscriber, click here to read your paper. Not yet a subscriber? Click here to review options. 

By the AFP Staff

In a stinging defeat for the hard left and its media enablers and collaborators and a momentous victory for constitutional liberty, on June 3 federal District Court Judge Cormac Carney granted the defense motion to dismiss the indictment in the Justice Department’s highly political prosecution in California of members of the Rise Above Movement (RAM) under the federal Anti-Riot Act.

In a solidly reasoned opinion, Carney struck down the Anti-Riot Act as unconstitutional and ordered the defendants’ immediate release. The RAM members, brought into the courtroom in shackles, were unshackled and walked away free men.

While primary credit must go to the hardworking defense counsel, the Free Expression Foundation (FEF) played an important role, providing legal analysis to the defense and submitting an amicus curiae brief that Carney, over the government’s opposition, accepted for filing. In short, right out of the gate FEF has had a major victory for free speech for all Americans.

National Coin Investments

As explained in a recent AFP article (April 8, 2019), the U.S. government’s attempted revival of the long-dormant Anti-Riot Act poses a grave threat to Americans’ First Amendment rights. The act improperly criminalizes mere intent alone, is in manifest discord with recent Supreme Court decisions, is flagrantly overbroad, and gives far too much discretion to the government to enforce it selectively on purely political grounds. And selective enforcement is precisely what happened in the RAM prosecutions. The government, bending to political pressure, averted its eyes from clear evidence that antifa groups attacked and disrupted pro- Trump rallies in California and the Charlottesville assembly. Of the hundreds of rowdy people at the rallies, only the eight RAM members were charged by the government.

Carney began his opinion by observing:

It is easy to champion free speech when it advocates a viewpoint with which we agree. It is much harder when the speech promotes ideas that we find abhorrent. But an essential function of free speech is to invite dispute. Speech “may in deed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). Frequently, the public arena is the stage for these disputes. In the Civil Rights Era, for instance, protestors took to the streets to contest segregation and Jim Crow. Today, people continue to take their message to the streets, advocating on hotly contested issues, whether it be abortion, Black Lives Matter, climate change, or healthcare. One person’s protest might be another person’s riot.

Then, carefully analyzing the act, he noted,

[The act] covers far more than acts of violence. It also criminalizes activities that precede any violence and . . . reaches speech and expressive conduct. . . . No violence even need occur. A defendant could be convicted for renting a car with a credit card, posting about a political rally on Facebook, or texting friends about when to meet up.

Carney then identified a critical failing of the act: In manifest discord with Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) and other Supreme Court precedents, it does not require that advocacy be directed toward inciting or producing imminent lawless action. He further observed:

A riot is closely intertwined with political activity. A rioting crowd is often protesting the policies of a government, an employer, or some other institution, or the social fabric in general. A riot may well erupt out of an originally peaceful demonstration. The political nature of a riot increases the risk that the Anti- Riot Act criminalizes a substantial amount of protected expressive activity. To protect citizens’ important rights of speech and assembly, courts must be wary of government attempts to censor a particular view, especially on the basis that certain ideas cause “disturbances.” New ideas, more often than not, create disturbances. And to this end, speech may best serve its “high purpose.”


Attorneys Andrew Allen and Glen Allen, who acted on behalf of FEF in this matter, were jubilant about the decision.

“The act is flagrantly unconstitutional,” Glen Allen remarked, “and the fact that the government invoked it against only RAM members and not antifa calls into question the government’s fairness and impartiality. Thank God there is still sufficient integrity in our judicial system to check such abuses.”

Glen Allen also noted that the FBI and Justice Department relied heavily on reports from “Propublica” and a “Frontline” documentary in preparing the indictment and ignored the more balanced “Heaphy Report.”

Although the California RAM defendants are now free, the Charlottesville RAM defendants, unfortunately, remain in prison. Judge Norman K. Moon in the Charlottesville prosecution, in a prior decision on May 2, 2019, had upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act.

Free Expression Foundation

Support Free Expression

Right out of the gate, The Free Expression Foundation has had a major victory for free expression, free speech and the right of assembly. Though it certainly will do nothing for his career, a California judge has ruled that the Anti-Riot Act is unconstitutional. But FEF has more work to do, and one of those tasks is to help attorney Glen Allen in his suit against the Southern Poverty Law Center, which used its influence to smear him as a “racist” and get him fired. Click the FEF banner above to learn more about FEF and help Glen with his promising lawsuit.

The Absurdity of ‘Virtue Signaling’

Most Americans don’t realize that the term “politically correct” was originally used in recurring sketches on “Saturday Night Live” back in the 1990s. What was once fodder for absurdist comedy has now become the backbone of our increasingly distasteful culture.

By Donald Jeffries

In late May, stories broke all over the mainstream media, asking breathlessly whether weddings are “too white.” Evidently, a heretofore obscure Nigerian-born British woman, Assumpta Vitcu, was looking through some wedding magazines, in preparation for her upcoming wedding. As her white Romanian fiancée scrutinized the photos in the magazines, he became alarmed that there were no black faces.

Vitcu became more infuriated after she went to a wedding show that featured hundreds of firms marketing their products and services, and “felt almost invisible.” She claimed to have stood at one stand while a jeweler waited on a previous customer. “He didn’t acknowledge me once,” she complained. “Then two Caucasian women walked over and he immediately said, ‘Please give me a moment and I’ll be right with you.’ ”

Such is the predictable world of identity politics. Many questions arise about this particular story. First, how did this previously unknown Nigerian immigrant attract the interest of the biggest mainstream media outlets in the UK, including the BBC? To no one’s surprise, the wedding industry instantly genuflected before Vitcu, with an editor for huge online wedding site “Confetti” issuing the standard apology. “There’s been a long overdue awakening,” Zoe Burke explained. “For a long time there’s been a growing consciousness that the industry as a whole hasn’t been reflective of the society that we live in.”


What followed was a brief explosion from the usual suspects, with further allegations of various discriminations against black brides and ridiculous statements about there being a “bizarre silence” surrounding them. One black woman, Nova Reid, blasted wedding shows that hand out tanning products, exclaiming, “It was as if these shows were not expecting black women to be coming through the door, not expecting us to be getting married.”

It is impossible to spoof the virtue signaling “left” at this point. The term “virtue signaling” refers to actions taken or statements made intended to “signal” to others one’s moral correctness or “virtue.” In recent years, charges of “racism” have been leveled at bandages and brown paper bags. A few years ago, ESPN actually fired an Asian announcer because someone complained about his birth name—Robert Lee. The BBC stopped using the terms “B.C.” (Before Christ) and “A.D.” (Anno Domini, meaning “In the Year of Our Lord”) years ago.

A school in Seattle renamed offensive “Easter eggs” as “spring spheres.” As far back as 2016, American school systems began instructing their teachers to cease using the terms “boy” and “girl” to describe their students. This has been increasingly happening not only in the United States, but in countries all over the Western world. In 2014, a feminist campaign began getting traction in the mainstream media, whereby it was claimed that the term “bossy” was an unacceptable slur against little girls. Celebrated females such as Condoleezza Rice, Beyoncé, Jennifer Garner, and the Girl Scouts organization jumped on this bandwagon.

Once the term “hate speech” was introduced into our lexicon by the establishment, it was inevitable that free speech would be endangered. Indeed, just one of the putrid byproducts of the Patriot Act was the creation of “free speech zones,” which permit befuddled Americans to be ushered into an enclosed area where they can express their increasingly restricted right to free expression.

Most Americans don’t realize that the term “politically correct” was originally used in recurring sketches on “Saturday Night Live” back in the 1990s, which starred the late Phil Hartman. What was once fodder for absurdist comedy has now become the backbone of our increasingly distasteful culture.

Free Expression Foundation

It was bad enough that many blacks, when a dog barks at them, have suggested that the white owner somehow instilled “racism” in them. Now, one Ben Faulding, of The Washington Post, has taken the next step and simply declared that dogs themselves are “racist.” Faulding utilized his best social warrior lingo by concluding man’s best friend is a “tool of white supremacy and gentrification.”

Faulding went on to explain: “That’s not just my opinion. There is research that shows how white newcomers dog-walking routes stake out territory. And white owners use their pets to socialize with other white owners excluding minorities.”

Someone replied to this on Twitter with a reference to students at traditionally black Washington, D.C. Howard University feeling “disrespected” by whites cutting through the campus while walking their dogs. Alicia Sanchez Gill, of Safe Spaces DC, tweeted “White folks, I don’t care how nice your dog is, dogs have been used as a tool of white control, dominance and violence, from slavery, through civil rights to police dogs today.”

Even 10 years ago, such virtue signaling terms as “body shaming” and “gender neutral” would have been scoffed at by most Americans. It is now being seriously claimed that biological men can give birth. Identity politics is incompatible with a free society. Someone has to have the courage to point out the emperor is wearing no clothes.

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.

Antifa Bitten by Legal Watchdog

A California district judge has issued a rare legal smackdown of politically correct neo-Bolshevik agitators, thanks to determined efforts by watchdog group Judicial Watch.

By Donald Jeffries

A California U.S. district judge has awarded Judicial Watch $22,000 in legal fees emanating from a suit filed by an antifa organizer. Yvette Felarca, a Berkeley middle school teacher, and two co-plaintiffs were ordered to pay Judicial Watch’s attorney fees and litigation costs. The suit had attempted to stop Judicial Watch from obtaining information about Felarca’s activities.

Felarca holds a prominent position in the group By Any Means Necessary, which was founded by the Marxist Revolutionary Workers League. This outfit, in typical social justice warrior style, works feverishly to thwart speaking engagements they don’t approve of. Felarca is still awaiting trial for a 2016 incident where she and two others were charged with several crimes, including felony assault, while inciting a riot in Sacramento. She also was arrested for battery and resisting arrest during a 2017 confrontation with members of Patriot Prayer.

Felarca lost in the courts last year as well; in January 2018, a different judge ordered her to pay more than $11,000 in legal and court fees for her frivolous effort to obtain a restraining order against former head of the California Berkeley College Republicans Troy Worden. Worden had actually sued Felarca for $100,000 in damages, claiming he didn’t feel safe or comfortable on campus and called Berkeley “the place where America’s conservative youth are daily under threat of violence, lacking the support of the university administration, police, or city. The Free Speech Movement is dead, and the left has killed it.” Berkeley is ironically still associated in the minds of many with noble protests and radicals fighting for the right to speak out against those in power.

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

“This is a huge victory for Judicial Watch against antifa and the violent left,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Ms. Felarca attacked Judicial Watch without basis and the court was right to reject her ploy to deny our ‘right to know’ because we don’t share her violent left views.”

The alternative right is fighting back legally against the aggressive authoritarianism of groups like antifa and Black Lives Matter. In January 2018, four individuals who came to UC-Berkeley to hear controversial conservative Milo Yiannopoulos lecture sued the city and the school for failing to protect them from violent leftists.

“In this case we had four innocent people who were not doing anything to provoke anyone,” said Bill Becker of the Freedom X law firm, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “The problem was created by the campus administration, the UC Police Department, and Berkeley Police Department not doing their job to protect the public.”

A judge would later dismiss another lawsuit from a woman who was pepper sprayed during the violent protest that resulted in the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’s appearance. That suit was filed in late August 2017 by Larry Klayman and Freedom Watch against antifa, in Northern California’s U.S. District Court. Earlier, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter’s speech was also cancelled by the university after violent leftist protests.

Hate Crime Hoax
How the Left is selling a FAKE race war, now at AFP’s Online Store

The Felarca case represents an extremely rare legal victory for reason and common sense. High profile alt-right figure Mike Cernovich spoke frequently in 2017 about working with the FBI and hiring attorneys to launch lawsuits against antifa. Because the establishment “left” has lost its collective mind and clearly doesn’t believe in free speech, if any of these lawsuits winds up in a courtroom presided over by a “liberal” judge, it will be virtually impossible to win. Last October, Bethany Sherman, owner of a marijuana testing lab in Eugene, Ore., filed a defamation lawsuit against anonymous “anti-fascist” activists who tied her to white nationalists. They even began derisively referring to her as the “Weed Nazi.” One of the absurd allegations against Sherman leveled by Eugene antifa involved her supplying swastika-shaped cookies to gatherings celebrating Adolf Hitler’s birthday.

As a story about this case on “Oregon Live” admitted, “antifa groups, of which there are now dozens in the U.S., routinely publicize personal information of those they deem threats to people in their communities, a practice called doxing.” The left used to hold the right to privacy in great regard, but they appear to have abandoned every classical liberal tenet in a crusade to crush dissent and inflict their will upon others.

Antifa and Black Lives Matter members have been caught on countless videos physically assaulting those they disagree with, especially open Donald Trump supporters. It has not been generally publicized that the name antifa derives from a moniker used by the German Communist Party, as early as 1932. Much of the left today appears to believe that hitting and assaulting those who offend them is perfectly proper. The meme “punch a Nazi in the face” is popular with them, and they aren’t picky about how they define Nazi. The legal system must act appropriately to preserve our civil liberties.

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.

Internet Free Speech All But Dead

Unelected, unnamed censors are operating across the Internet to suppress “unapproved” content.

By Philip Giraldi

The Internet was originally promoted as a completely free and uncensored mechanism for people everywhere to exchange views and communicate, but it has been observed by many users that that is not really true anymore. Both governments and the service providers have developed a taste for controlling the product, with President Barack Obama once considering a “kill switch“ that would turn off the Internet completely in the event of a “national emergency.”

President Donald Trump has also had a lot to say about fake news and is reported to be supporting limiting protections relating to the Internet. In May, a “net neutrality” bill that would have prevented service providers from manipulating Internet traffic passed in the House of Representatives, but it is reported to be “dead on arrival” in the Senate, so it will never be enacted.

Social networking sites have voluntarily employed technical fixes that restrict some content and have also hired “reviewers” who look for objectionable material and remove it. Pending European legislation, meanwhile, might require Internet search engines to eliminate access to many unacceptable old posts. YouTube has already been engaged in deleting existing old material and is working with biased “partners” like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to set up guidelines to restrict future content. Many users of Facebook will have already undoubtedly noted that some contacts have been blocked temporarily (or even permanently) and denied access to the site.

National Coin Investments

Google now automatically disables or limits searches for material that it deems to be undesirable. If Google does not approve of something it will either not appear in search results or it will be very low on the list. And what does come up will likely favor content that derives from those who pay Google to promote their products or services. Information that originates with competitors will either be very low in the search results or even blocked. Google is consequently hardly an unbiased source of information.

In May 2017 Facebook announced that it would be hiring 3,000 new censors, and my own experience of social networking censorship soon followed. I had posted an article entitled “Charlottesville Requiem” that I had written for a website. At the end of the first day, the site managers noticed that, while the article had clearly attracted a substantial Facebook readership, the “likes” for the piece were not showing up on the screen counter, i.e., were not being tabulated. It was also impossible to share the piece on Facebook, as the button to do so had been removed.

The “likes” on sites like Facebook, Yahoo! news comments, YouTube, and Google are important because they automatically determine how the piece is distributed throughout the site. If there are a lot of likes, the piece goes to the top when a search is made or when someone opens the page. Articles similarly can be sent to Coventry if they receive a lot of dislikes or negative marks, so the approvals or disapprovals can be very important in determining what kind of audience is reached or what a search will reveal.

In my case, after one day my page reverted to normal, the “likes” reappeared, and readers were again able to share the article. But it was clear that someone had been managing what I had posted, apparently because there had been disapproval of my content based on what must have been a political judgment.

A couple of days later, I learned of another example of a similar incident. The Ron Paul Institute (RPI) website posts much of its material on YouTube (owned by Google) on a site where there had been advertising that kicked back to RPI a small percentage of the money earned. Suddenly, without explanation, both the ads and rebate were eliminated after a “manual review” determined the content to be “unsuitable for all advertisers.” This was a judgment rendered apparently due to disapproval of what the institute does and says. The ability to comment on and link from the pieces was also turned off.

Dissident British former diplomat Craig Murray also noted in April 2018 the secretive manipulation of his articles that are posted on Facebook, observing that his “site’s visitor numbers [were] currently around one-third normal levels, stuck at around 20,000 unique visitors per day. The cause [was] not hard to find. Normally over half of our visitors arrive via Facebook. These last few days, virtually nothing has come from Facebook. What is especially pernicious is that Facebook deliberately imposes this censorship in a secretive way.

Artificial Reality
New DVD at AFP Online Store: “Artificial Reality”

The primary mechanism when a block is imposed by Facebook is that my posts to Facebook are simply not sent into the timelines of the large majority of people who are friends or who follow. I am left to believe the post has been shared with them, but in fact it has only been shown to a tiny number. Then, if you are one of the few recipients and do see the post and share it, it will show to you on your timeline as shared, but in fact the vast majority of your own friends will also not receive it. Facebook is not doing what it is telling you it is doing—it shows you it is shared—and Facebook is deliberately concealing that fact from you. Twitter has a similar system known as ‘shadow banning.’ Again, it is secretive and the victim is not informed.”

More recently, pressure to censor Internet social networking and information sites has increased, coming both from government and from various interested constituencies. In late May, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with French President Emmanuel Macron to discuss how to eliminate “hate speech” on the Internet. The two men agreed that the United States Internet model, in spite of already being heavily manipulated, is too laissez faire, and expressed an interest in exploring the French system where it is considered acceptable to ban unacceptable points of view. Zuckerberg suggested that it might serve as a good model for the entire European Union. France is reportedly considering legislation that establishes a regulator with power to fine Internet companies up to 4% of their global revenue, which can in some cases be an enormous sum, if they do not curb hateful expressions.

So unelected, unnamed censors are operating all around the Internet to control the content, which I suppose should surprise no one, and the interference will only get worse as both governments and service providers are willing to do what it takes to eliminate views that they find unacceptable—which, curiously enough, leads one to consider how “Russiagate” came about and the current hysteria being generated in the conventional media and also online against both Venezuela and Iran. How much of the anger is essentially fake, being manipulated or even fabricated by large companies that earn mega billions of dollars by offering under false pretenses a heavily managed product that largely does what the government wants? Banning hate speech will be, unfortunately, only the first step in eliminating any and all criticisms of the status quo.

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.

San Diego 9/11 Truth Group Perseveres

This longstanding gathering of dedicated patriots continues meeting and working to educate the public and demand an honest investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks.

By John Friend

Few 9/11 Truth groups in the country are as active, passionate, and dedicated as the group of citizen activists comprising the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth group based in America’s finest city.

Founded in 2005, the group is dedicated to “uncovering the truth behind the wrongful deaths that took place on Sept. 11, 2001,” according to the group’s official website. “Concerned about evidence that contradicts the official account published in The 9/11 Commission Report, the group is calling for a reopening of the case and an unbiased investigation into the events of 9/11.”

This reporter has been involved with the group since the fall of 2009 after attending one of their monthly meetings, which always takes place on the second Sunday of each month. The group rents the Joyce Beers Community Center, a modest city-owned facility in Hillcrest, a neighborhood in the heart of San Diego, the second largest city in California.

National Coin Investments

A dedicated core group of activists regularly attend the monthly meetings, as well as other interested persons from across Southern California. The monthly meetings oftentimes feature a special guest speaker or presenter, who is first introduced by a member of the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth group. In recent years, the SD 9/11 Truth group has featured a number of top 9/11 researchers and activists, including Barbara Honegger, Dylan Avery, and Christopher Bollyn, among many others.

9/11 Truth documentaries are also often screened at monthly meetings, and an open discussion or question and answer session follows, which is always lively. Members of the SD 9/11 Truth group are extremely knowledgeable about the events of 9/11, as well as other political and historical topics, making the open discussion period a fast-moving and informative experience.

Franklin Stiles, a key organizer and activist for the SD 9/11 Truth group and a subscriber to this newspaper, spoke with this reporter about the importance of 9/11 Truth and the work the local group does.

“There are many reasons 9/11 is still important and relevant, even now after almost 20 years,” Stiles explained. “This manufactured, uninvestigated, unsolved, heinous crime serves as the pretext and the catalyst for the global war on terror and the control of humanity. We’ve lost civil rights, our privacy, and many other rights, plus we have these unending wars overseas, all based on lies.”

Brainwashed for War, Chang
FROM AFP Publishing: Mathias Chang on the Zionist Global War Agenda

Stiles, like other SD 9/11 Truth activists, has dedicated significant time to researching 9/11 and related topics, as well as engaging in activism and outreach in the community in an attempt to bring the truth to more people.

“The most tragic aspect, as I see it, is a great many people don’t realize that 9/11 represents a genuine existential threat to their and our lives, our society, our country,” Stiles continued. “And now with a greater understanding of the event it becomes apparent that this engineered attack is part of a Jewish, Zionist agenda intended to lead to total global control, loss of national sovereignty, and ultimately the enslavement of humanity. It doesn’t take a lot of research to reach these disturbing and dramatic conclusions.”

Rob Baldwin, another long-time member and activist with the SD 9/11 Truth group who also subscribes to this paper, described the purpose of the 9/11 attack, which he views as instrumental in the advancement of the New World Order agenda.

“The 9/11 event was a major kickoff in regard to moving the New World Order agenda to another level of completion,” Baldwin told this reporter. “As such, we need to watch all that follows. We got to see how important the role of the media was in controlling the fallout from the 9/11 event and stuffing the false-flag exposure before the truth was able to gain traction. We have been fighting an uphill battle ever since.”

In addition to organizing monthly public meetings, the group also engages in activism and public outreach on a regular basis. The SD 9/11 Truth group has had a presence at the annual Earth Day Festival in Balboa Park for years, after having successfully booked a spot at the festival, allowing them to set up a booth with information about 9/11. The group also attends other public events, such as the Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade, and regularly conducts outreach efforts near the USS Midway, a major tourist attraction in the heart of downtown San Diego.

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

“We in the SD 9/11 Truth group feel that since this event was a major push to install the next level of the New World Order, we are a critical component in the defense of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,” Baldwin noted. “We are committed to continue our efforts in exposing the crimes of our government and associated NWO players. If not us, who else is going to raise awareness of these issues?”

Engaging in public outreach about 9/11 can be a difficult task, given the controversial and emotional nature of the information. Mike Chickey and his wife, Ann, both regular 9/11 Truth activists, try to be as non-confrontational and respectful as possible when interacting with the public.

“My style of public outreach is to try and remain non-confrontational, plant some seeds, so to speak, and let them do their own research,” Mike explained to this reporter. “I never want to pressure them or insult them for not knowing this material.”

Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett
9/11 Truth on sale now at the AFP Online Store.

Ann is equally as cautious when inter acting with the public and recognizes the importance and gravity of 9/11 Truth.

“It is imperative that people understand what really happened in order to lift this veil of deception that so many of us live under,” she noted. “So many of the folks we interact with have some inherent understanding that something about the official story is not right, but they haven’t looked into it. These are the folks who stop by to check out the boards but end up walking away, shaking their heads in disbelief saying it is too much to absorb. Deception causes inner conflict, it rots the soul, and that is what has happened to the soul of our nation. It is frightening to confront the truth, but once you do, it is the most liberating thing on the planet.”

Despite the challenges, the SD 9/11 Truth group presses on, with yet another monthly meeting scheduled for next month and other plans for activism and public outreach in the near future.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

‘White Rights’ Get Radio Host Fired

Georgia “Peach” got the boot from a conservative-leaning AM radio station in California after acknowledging that “white genocide” is for real. Apparently, discussion of “white rights” is just too politically incorrect for some to stomach.

By John Friend

In yet another indication that political correctness is stifling free speech and the First Amendment in America, an outspoken conservative local talk radio host was terminated recently as a direct result of her controversial political views.

Georgia “Peach” was one of the most popular hosts on KSCO, a local conservative-leaning AM radio station headquartered in Santa Cruz, Calif., one of the most liberal cities in one of the most liberal states in America. Georgia, who had hosted a live two-hour open-phones program twice per week on KSCO for years, was recently fired by the station owner. Georgia was known for her politically incorrect views and passionate defense of whites in America and around the world, who she views as under attack culturally and demographically.

“My firing had all to do with my speaking up for white Europeans,” Georgia explained to this reporter in a recent interview. “The minute that started, I became a target.”

National Coin Investments

Georgia highlighted some of the issues she was most concerned with during the interview. “The issues I am most passionate about are my pride in what our people have created, not just for America, but for Western Civilization,” Georgia stated. “I want us to have the right to continue to exist. I am deeply concerned about our losing our civil rights. Whites no longer have civil rights in their own homeland. We no longer have a homeland of our own. We have a two-tiered justice system—one for us and one for non-whites. I am passionate about preserving our history. I am passionate about setting the record straight about our history.”

Georgia also became increasingly focused on what she describes as white genocide, a topic she elaborated on during the interview with this reporter.

“White genocide is very real,” she noted. “When I first used those words on AM radio, people were shocked and confused. I spoke about the Kalergi Plan. I explained about the slow ethno-cleansing of our people, which would lead to the genocide of us. People started to catch on and get it. They started using those words, which meant my message was effective.”

Georgia had always been a conservative-leaning presenter on KSCO, which features local broadcasters from the Santa Cruz area with a wide range of political views and interests, along with more mainstream nationally syndicated talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and George Noory, who hosts the popular Coast to Coast program focusing on paranormal activity and other controversial topics.

Over time, however, Georgia became more focused on what she describes as white genocide and the systematic discrimination against white Americans, and she was not afraid to speak out in opposition to it. As she gained more and more popularity—and notoriety in her critic’s eyes—she became a target of radical left-wing journalists and antifa activists, ultimately resulting in her recent termination by station management.

“The official explanation was they wanted to go in a different direction—in other words, no real talk radio, but moderate pabulum talk to keep everyone dumbed-down and asleep,” Georgia explained. “As long as I stayed on mainstream conservative talking points, without touching the real issues behind the destruction of our country, of our people, I was okay. There were no complaints or attacks. However, as I became more and more vocal, my audience began to grow, and they began to speak up. I had given them a safe platform to do so. That is when the witch hunt and the agenda to find a way to get rid of their most popular show on KSCO began.”

Free Expression Foundation

Local journalists began targeting her for focusing on the topic of white genocide and other racial issues, which she became increasingly passionate about.

“There were all kinds of attacks, campaigns, petitions to pressure the station to fire me,” Georgia said. “It was ongoing with many newspaper articles. It was an all-out attack with only one purpose, which was to silence me.”

Ultimately, the pressure proved to be successful, and Georgia is no longer with the station, although she was one of the most popular hosts on the entire network. Her show host page on the KSCO website was removed along with all of her archived programs. She had even helped the station raise money to fund the network, only to be fired after having successfully raised roughly $8,000, according to Georgia.

“The owner of the station did an editorial asking people to donate to my show,” Georgia noted. “He took the money and killed my show.”

Despite the setbacks, Georgia is determined to continue speaking out on these and other controversial topics. She recently appeared as a guest on “The Jeff Rense Program,” one of the most popular and longest running alternative media programs in America. No doubt Georgia will be back on the air soon, more focused and determined than ever. “As for my future, who knows?” Georgia concluded. “One door closes, another one opens.”

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Father Seeks Justice for Activist Son

A young man who went to Virginia to protest the tearing down of a monument now faces years in jail. Recently, AFP spoke with Thomas Gillen’s father about the case and what can be done to help him.

By John Friend

Last October, four young men associated with the Rise Above Movement (RAM)—a physical fitness and self-improvement club affiliated with the broader alt-right movement—were arrested in California and eventually flown to Virginia to face federal conspiracy to riot charges as a result of their participation in the Unite the Right rally in August 2017.

The four men—Benjamin Drake Daley, 25, Thomas Walter Gillen, 24, Michael Paul Miselis, 29, and Cole Evan White, 24—are all native Californians who had been active with the RAM organization and had participated in various political rallies both in California and Virginia.

Thomas T. Cullen, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, announced the charges in early October 2018, yet all four men are still awaiting adjudication. The men stand accused by federal prosecutors of traveling “to Charlottesville for the August 2017 United the Right rally with the intent to encourage, promote, incite, participate in, and commit violent acts in furtherance of a riot,” an incredibly dubious charge that is largely based on malicious “journalism” emanating from left-wing news outlets and activist organizations, including Pro-Publica and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as radical antifa activist groups.

“This case should serve as another example of the Department of Justice’s commitment to protecting the life, liberty, and civil rights of all our citizens,” Cullen stated in a press release when announcing the highly questionable charges. “Any individual who has or plans to travel to this District with the intent to engage in acts of violence will be prosecuted and held accountable for those actions.”

All four men accused are facing at least five years in federal prison if found guilty. Other members of RAM, as well as countless conservative and alt-right activists who have engaged in public demonstrations and political rallies protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, have also been maliciously slandered by left-wing news outlets, and dubiously prosecuted by authorities.

Subscribe to AFP

Jim Gillen, the father of Thomas, recently spoke with this reporter to offer more insight into the truly outrageous federal criminal charges being pursued against his son and his fellow activists.

“My son has been held in solitary confinement, without bail, in a Charlottesville jail,” Gillen stated.

Thomas Gillen and the other RAM members facing federal charges have since been transferred to the general prison population, but all were held in solitary confinement for a significant portion of their time in federal custody. Gillen went on to describe the charges his son is facing as well as the treatment he has received by federal authorities as “unjust, unfair, un-American, and outrageous.”

“I am a fair and honorable man and I want you to know my son Tom is, too,” said Gillen, a Southern California resident who works as a fireman. “He does not mistreat anyone. I might not agree with all his opinions, but I know the narrative that has appeared in some mainstream media that Tom and the other Charlottesville defendants plotted to intentionally hurt people is simply not true. That is not Tom, and not what the evidence shows.”

Confederate Monuments, Seabrook

Gillen believes the federal charges leveled against his son and others are politically motivated. “I strongly feel the charges against Tom and the others—which threaten them with felony convictions and five years in federal prison—are political in nature,” Gillen stated. “Any impartial person who looks at the evidence would think so. If these charges are not political, why have the antifa demonstrators who openly provoked and committed violence in Charlottesville not been charged with conspiracy to riot?”

Gillen went on to note that antifa activists “have a history of committing and provoking violence all around the country,” as demonstrated at countless conservative rallies and political events over the course of the past four years at least.

“They don’t deny it. They brag about it,” Gillen noted. “They have specifically admitted they did so at Charlottesville.”

“I have looked at numerous videos from Charlottesville and California, and I do not think Tom did anything wrong,” Gillen continued. “At most he was involved in some scuffles in which no one was seriously hurt or injured and which the antifa [activists] themselves provoked. And I am not the only one who thinks antifa provoked these violent encounters. Timothy Heaphy, a prominent Virginia attorney and the former U.S. federal attorney for Virginia, was hired by the City of Charlottesville to investigate the Unite the Right rally and the city’s response, and he and his team did a thorough job. Mr. Heaphy’s report describes how antifa and other counter-protesters blockaded the Unite the Right protesters, who had obtained legal permits to hold their rally, preventing them from carrying on their legal demonstration, while Charlottesville police stood idly by and allowed the inevitable confrontations to take place.”

Gillen was referring to the independent review of the Unite the Right rally published by Hutton & Williams LLP, the law firm where Heaphy formerly worked while conducting the independent review.

Heaphy’s report made clear that the Charlottesville police failed to keep the Unite the Right attendees and counter-protesters, which included radical, violent antifa activists, separated during the day’s events. Even worse, local authorities and law enforcement officials appeared to want the inevitable violent confrontation to take place in order to justify declaring an unlawful assembly, which is precisely what took place.

“We have evidence from the command center that the chief actually said, ‘Let them fight’,” Heaphy stated during a press conference in December 2017 when his report was initially released. “Let them fight for a little while and it’ll make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”

Since publishing his damning report, Heaphy has moved on to accept a position as the top lawyer for the University of Virginia.

Free Expression Foundation


“We have the facts from a respected source, and they show that antifa and their hard-left allies provoked confrontations, and the Charlottesville police did nothing to stop them,” Gillen concluded during his conversation with this reporter. “The hard left gets a free pass, but my son and the other defendants face years in prison, are falsely portrayed in the media, and have been miserably treated while in federal custody, held without bail. This should not be happening in America.”

Readers are encouraged to support the Gillens in their efforts to free their son, who is still in federal custody in the state of Virginia. Tax deductible donations may be sent to: Free Expression Foundation, P.O. Box 1479, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Activists Call for Ouster of Canada’s Trudeau as Yellow Vest Protests Spread Across Nation

President Trump’s populist message has obviously spread across our northern border, as the “yellow vest” movement has grown there demanding the ouster of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his globalist policies.

By Mark Anderson

Conservative Canadian activist groups have joined forces over the last three years and now are bringing France’s “yellow vest” movement into the fold, as group members take strong issue with Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and what they see as his globalist-Marxist policies.

Although Canada’s “yellow vests” may not be quite as forceful as those who birthed the populist movement in France, Trudeau’s apparent perfidy and his distressing declaration that Canada is the world’s first “post-national” state very well could spark a repeat of what’s been happening in France.

British Columbia resident Tanya Gaw of the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Government and members of several other groups, including Act for Canada, regularly take to the streets across their vast nation to protest Trudeau’s policies, including his move to pinch Canadians ever-harder with the carbon tax that’s tied to what these groups see as a phony “climate change” ideology.

They also say that Trudeau’s especially loose immigration laws are watering down Canada’s cultural and national identity.

Kingdom Identity

“We’re having 170 rallies per weekend—some at city halls, some at highway overpasses. It’s an opportunity for the people to get united,” Ms. Gaw told AFP. “The Oct. 21, 2019 federal election is our opportunity to get Justin Trudeau out of office. Now that the yellow vest movement is here in Canada, this is fabulous. We’ve been getting lots of people honking and showing their support with thumbs-up at the rallies.”

Asked whether the stark contrast between President Donald Trump and Trudeau has had a discernable effect on Canadians’ political outlook, Ms. Gaw said that despite frequent distortion of Trump’s words and actions by mainstream Canadian media, “there are many supporters of Donald Trump in Canada. Trump has given this grassroots movement a big push in Canada and even in the EU.”

Ms. Gaw and her fellow activists are eyeing Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier of the new People’s Party of Canada as a potential replacement for Trudeau. She recalled that Bernier, when he was a Conservative Party member, took on former House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer in the spring of 2017 in the election for the party’s leadership. The race was close, but Scheer got elected to the leadership post under questionable circumstances, including the destruction of some 7,000 ballots, making a desired recount impossible.

This apparent election theft was coupled with betrayal. Scheer—once considered to be an able leader for Canadian social and constitutional conservatives—eventually followed the script often used by sold-out Republicans in name only in the U.S. and abandoned his core supporters by dropping his opposition to same-sex marriage and watering down his opposition to abortion.

“He did an about-face on these social issues,” Ms. Gaw said, adding that while some people claim Bernier will split the ticket, more and more people are jumping ship from both the Liberal Party and National Democratic Party, which could very well help the People’s Party. Bernier started the Peoples Party from scratch, and has reportedly laid the groundwork for brisk growth as disenchantment toward Trudeau grows.

New World Order Exposed, Thorn
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

These activists’ concerns also extend to Canada under Trudeau adopting highly objectionable United Nations policies, such as what Ms. Gaw described as “vile sex-ed resources” going into Canadian schools connected to the UN’s promotion of the LGBTQ movement, unchecked immigration and open borders, and, among other matters, the rise of political Islam with allegations, based on a special report, that the government is giving tax dollars to terrorist outfits via Islamic charities.

Signs at the groups’ rallies say things like “Trudeau is Treason,” “Stop Globalism; No Carbon Tax,” and, “We did not elect the United Nations to govern our country.”

As for the yellow vests, whose website is UnitedYellowVestsCanada.ca, they’ve issued a mission statement which says, in part: “We, the citizens of Canada, have come together under the yellow vest banner for the sole purpose of protesting and rallying against our successive establishment governments who have sold our sovereignty to the UN through the carbon tax/pipelines (Paris Agreement], the migrant compact, and ultimately the sustainable development agenda.”

Another component of this burgeoning grassroots movement is a planned truck convoy to the national capital of Ottawa, Ontario, slated to take place Feb. 19, according to organizer Ron Barr.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Biggest Video Website Will Censor ‘Conspiracy’ Topics

Another hypocritical censorship campaign’s goal is to fight “fake news.” YouTube’s “shadow ban” will “protect” viewers from controversial videos. 

By Donald Jeffries

YouTube recently made it official: It announced its plan to tweak the computer code that is used to maintain the website in order to block so-called conspiracy videos from potential viewers. Called essentially a “shadow ban,” the popular online video service will be suppressing key words that will effectively prevent viewers from being able to watch any videos that its corporate owners view as controversial.

The announcement, authored by “the YouTube team,” went on to declare, “We’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways.” What kinds of videos will this entail? YouTube says it will specifically target “videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the Earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”

Regular perusers of YouTube have noticed over the past few years that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find results when searching for alternative takes on historical or current events.

This is the latest in a series of overt attempts to censor the Internet, which began in earnest last August when the most high-profile figure in alternative news, Alex Jones, was summarily banned by all social media platforms. To add insult to injury, Jones was even banned by PayPal. Twitter permanently banned Jones, as well as his vocal supporter Roger Stone, for unclear and largely laughable “abuses.”

Meanwhile, actor Peter Fonda, who last year suggested putting 10-year-old Barron Trump into a cage with pedophiles, was never punished and remains free to tweet.

In the wake of a recent media-fueled attack on a group of Catholic boys from Kentucky, a “Saturday Night Live” writer tweeted out an offer to provide sexual services to anyone who “punched the MAGA kid in the face.” Even worse, a Disney producer tweeted out a graphic image along with a proposal for running these high school kids through a woodchipper. Those, and numerous other high-profile figures who urged violence on these underage kids, didn’t even receive a timeout from Twitter.

The ostensible reason behind this censorship is a desire to keep the public safe from the “fake news” of alternative sites. However Microsoft recently had to concede that, when it comes to its new blacklisting tool called NewsGuard, many of the outlets it lists as credible—which is basically any mainstream outlet—have themselves been guilty of spreading false information.

As Breitbart News discovered, NewsGuard continues to list the most absurd, thoroughly discredited stories as legitimate, including the retracted 2014 gang-rape hoax at the University of Virginia.

When Breitbart questioned NewsGuard about this, they received the following reply: “News- Guard rates the credibility and transparency practices of websites as a whole, *not* individual stories.

A green icon means that the website has not failed enough of our nine journalistic criteria to get a red rating, but does not mean that specific article is ‘verified.’ ”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Needless to say, Infowars and the other alternative outlets have never been permitted to be mistaken about a particular story or stories yet still maintain their overall credibility.

Whatever one may think about Jones, every American should be worried that he was banned from social media for “objectionable content,” while the most vile and obscene threats against Donald Trump or those who support him are allowed free reign.

The First Amendment once meant something. Most Americans don’t realize that even the “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” restriction didn’t come about until a Supreme Court decision was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes during World War I, to justify the government’s imprisonment of those who opposed the conflict.

The advent of radio and television didn’t result in any extension of free speech to those unforeseen venues; instead, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created to police these new means of communication in ways that were entirely inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Because the FCC doesn’t and can’t control content online, those who have restricted the parameters of debate in other forms of media have long desired to crush the egalitarian, unfettered nature of the Internet. The Internet makes anyone a potential journalist, and gives everyone a space to voice their opinion. Forbes magazine spoke for the entire Deep State with its headline, “YouTube Stops Recommending Conspiracy Videos, Finally.”

This has been an ongoing effort since it began nearly a year ago, when YouTube announced it was going to link directly to Wikipedia, “to fight conspiracy theories.”

As the Guardian wisely warned, “Taking them down fuels it more.” Such heavy-handed censorship kind of verifies what all those “conspiracy videos” are saying. Either we have the right to free expression, or we don’t.

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.

SPLC Sued Again

AFP’s front-page article of Issue 7&8 covers the good news that the world’s premier “hate arbiter” is being challenged in court yet again. If you’re an AFP Online subscriber, log in here to read your paper now. If you’re not yet a subscriber to American Free Press click here to review print and/or digital subscription options (and don’t miss this special offer for one-year subscriptions or renewals).

By John Friend

Gavin McInnes, the popular political pundit and cofounder of Vice Media who worked at the outlet until 2008, is suing the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for maliciously targeting the outspoken and politically incorrect host and comedian for unspecified damages, it was recently reported.

McInnes, who also founded the Proud Boys, a pro-Western fraternal organization that has been hysterically demonized by the mass media and radical leftwing groups, has been a target of the SPLC for years.

The federal civil suit, filed in the Middle District of Alabama where the SPLC is headquartered, argues that the SPLC has targeted McInnes and his associates for “personal and professional destruction” in order to achieve “the SPLC’s own ideological, political, and financial (i.e., fundraising) ends.”

“The primary method SPLC uses to achieve its goals and those of its donors is by identifying activists, political figures, and groups as targets or enemies of society and designating its enemies ‘extremists,’ ‘white supremacists,’ ‘hate groups,’ and the like,” the lawsuit argues.

The SPLC designates its political and ideological enemies as “hate groups” in order to “cause its victims to be ‘deplatformed,’ or deprived of access to online and inperson venues in which they were, prior to being deplatformed, able to express their views to those who choose to listen, or ‘defunded,’ meaning blocked from access from both social-based-crowdfunding sources and payment processors,” according to the suit.

Ship of Fools, Carlson
Brand new and available now from AFP, Tucker Carlson’s “Ship of Fools”

As a result of pressure from the SPLC and other leftwing media outlets, McInnes and the Proud Boys organization have been banned from a number of popular social media outlets, including Twitter and Facebook, as well as online payment processors such as PayPal.

The lawsuit correctly describes the SPLC as a “self-appointed enforcer” of cultural and political orthodoxy and argues that it uses its power and influence in society to maliciously target its political rivals.

In a letter to supporters, SPLC President Richard Cohen argues that McInnes’s suit is an attempt to “deny us our First Amendment rights” and that the suit “has no merit.”

“The fact that he’s upset tells us that we’re doing our job exposing hate and extremism,” Cohen states in the letter.

McInnes joins a growing list of individuals and organizations that have or are currently suing the SPLC, one of the most influential leftwing smear groups operating in America.

Last summer, the SPLC settled a lawsuit brought against the group by Maajid Nawaz and his anti-extremism organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for $3.375 million, a major setback for the radical, un-American organization. The SPLC is also currently being sued by attorney Glen Allen for maliciously targeting him, which resulted in Allen’s outrageous termination as an attorney for the City of Baltimore, a job he had performed in exemplary fashion—fighting for justice for people of all colors, creeds, and religions without a single complaint—for many years.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.