By Dr. Matthew Johnson —
Imagine a third world country where, during an election cycle, a large corporation with ties to the ruling party hires thugs to destroy opposition candidates. They threaten the lives of its leaders, shut down rallies and assault hundreds of opposition supporters. There are several assassination attempts against the opposition leader during the presidential race. The state media refuses to report on the subject except to blame the opposition for its “provocation.” It invents stories about “opposition violence” without evidence so as to placate the ruling party.
In such a circumstance, the United States press would be up in arms, attacking and threatening that nation with the full might of the “free world.” The resulting election would be deemed invalid and sanctions probably placed on the offending country. It would finance the opposition even to the point of starting a violent civil war. Unfortunately, the above scenario is a depiction of the 2016 election cycle in the U.S. and Donald J. Trump is the “opposition.”
In Arizona, just before the primary election there, an armed group with ties to billionaire financier George Soros and the corporate-funded La Raza organization “briefly blocked access to Republican presidential candidate Trump’s rally.” They prevented attendees from approaching the arena and blocked traffic so attendees could not get there. The sheriff’s department arrested several criminals and traffic was restored. Trump’s crime? Statements like “So much crime. Drugs pouring though the border. People are now seeing it. And you know what? We’re going to build the wall and we’re going to stop it. It’s going to end.”
Crime and drugs coming over the Mexican border is extremely violent and immense. The Drug Enforcement Administration reports yet again that it is the Mexican gang culture that is the greatest threat to American safety in the southwest. It would take about five seconds to amass empirical evidence for this. This is not a partisan opinion, but a fact of criminal justice. For this truth, Trump must be destroyed. However, this amounts to voter intimidation in a blatant way, which means that not only protesters and their corporate backers, but major media are now a part of the largest organized voter intimidation scheme in American history.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and state police research units often issue “Gang Threat Assessment.” There is tremendous pressure to include “white gangs.” Since there is no such thing, they needed to go to political groups such as the Aryan Brotherhood with its handful of active members. This is seen as a threat equal to the tens of thousands of drug-dealing, wealthy and well-armed Mexican cartels in southern California. The National Gang Center states clearly that only between 8% and 9% of gang membership is white in the U.S., and these are often Hispanics. In these analyses, the tiny “white supremacist” groups are treated as “gangs” and their numbers are inflated.
Corporate backed rapper YG, under contract with several major record labels, wrote “Fuck Donald Trump,” designed to be an anthem threatening Trump and his supporters. Corporate Thugz Entertainment (CTE) is the “label” under which he operates, which is a meaningless shell company. Corporate elites use rappers’ street names and reputations to create “record labels” under corporate control. They make finding their financial fingerprints very difficult and give the impression that the “artists” run things on their own. CTE is part of both Atlantic and Warner media conglomerates. Media without fail report that the “rappers themselves” created these labels to avoid “mainstream censorship.”
Therefore, it was these corporate giants that issued the death threats against Trump since they, not this pitiable YG, produces, owns and profits from his “music.” They say,
I like white folks, but I don’t like you
All the niggas in the hood wanna fight you
Surprised El Chapo ain’t tried to snipe you
Surprised the Nation of Islam ain’t tried to find you
Have a rally out in L.A., we gon’ fuck it up
The execrable drug kingpin El Chapo Guzmán, lionized by corporate America, has offered $100 million for Trump’s death. Billboard celebrated the song on March 29. This shows tremendous elite acceptance of such behavior. This elite publication owned by publicly traded corporate capital called it “harmless protest,” while The Baltimore Sun defended the song on April 4 and hence, became an accomplice to a federal crime. The violent rapper was called a “local humorist” and defended the song as “schoolyard” style taunts.
As of July 2016, thousands of death threats, many credible, have been sent to Trump. Riots have erupted at each major rally of his, forcing several to be shut down. Since Trump is now the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, he receives Secret Service protection. Shutting down a rally during election season is a blatant violation of voter intimidation laws, rending the 2016 elections likely invalid.
Major media have covered up these threats, instead publishing thousands of speculative stories on Trump’s “supporters” issuing “threats” to GOP bureaucrats. All major media reported the scoop that Trump’s butler was a racist and wanted “Obama killed.” Finding nothing on Trump, they will attack anyone even remotely related to him. No evidence was offered. No names are mentioned and no investigation is ongoing. It is written as a lie—its authors know it is not true. It’s merely a cover up of the violation of America’s voter intimidation laws in this 2016 cycle.
Due to Trump’s desire that American laws are enforced on illegal immigrants and legal immigration be curtailed, corporate America attempted to starve the Trump organization of money. Serta, Macy’s NBC, ESPN, and dozens of others attempted to derail Trump’s campaign. This, among other things, shows how dependent on illegal labor these capitalist giants have become. Yet, Trump’s positions are normal, mainstream ones. Capitalism, dependent on this cheap labor, has been in the forefront of the anti-Trump movement and was the first to organize protests against his candidacy in November and December of 2014.
The first time Trump had to cut short a speech was on December 4 in North Carolina. This is a federal crime for a federal candidate for office under the authority of the above mentioned cases. March of 2015 saw his Chicago rally canceled due to threats of violence; again, a blatant violation of federal law. In March of 2015, protesters threw rocks at exiting attendees, threatening them against continuing to support Trump. In Burlingame, California, the protests were so vicious that Trump had to enter the arena where he was speaking via a rear fence in secret.
Thus far, an organized campaign of violence and intimidation against Trump and his supporters is established. Then, their elite and corporate backers were identified. Thus, there is an elite-financed movement to violate federal law and intimidate voters. This is serious business. Even the act of “divesting” in a candidate that is otherwise acceptable by conglomerates is highly dubious. It is an attempt to use their monopoly position to charge a political rent: that only “acceptable” candidates will be permitted to function in business in the U.S. This is the clear message since there was no economic reason given (by ESPN, for example). It was purely out of political consideration.
Soros has already spent over $15 million to mobilize anti-Trump organizations, despite the fact that he is not a U.S. citizen. “Immigrant Voters Win” is Soros’ group that sponsors both violent protests as well as mobilizing Hispanics. The slogan is that Hispanics will be “slaughtered like sheep” if Trump is elected. Trump has merely demanded that U.S. immigration laws be enforced. The Center for Community Change and America’s Voice are also behind the violence and are financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and Soros. Politico published an article in its March edition that reads in part:
Today we are calling for a massive nonviolent mobilization of working people, students, immigrants, children of immigrants, great-great-grandchildren of immigrants, people of color and white people, the unemployed and under-employed, people of faith, retirees, veterans, women, and men—anyone who opposes bigotry and hate and loves freedom and justice—to stand up to Trump’s bullying and bigotry.
This is hysterical and alarmist. It is a call for aggression and violence regardless of the token use of the term “non-violent” in the first sentence. Since the group says that Trump would destroy America, “non-violent” measures would make no sense. If this is really Trump’s intention, then certainly violence would be justified. It is even more about the total decay of basic standards of decency in political debate, orchestrated as it is by the media oligopoly.
A fair election cannot have elites and their thugs shutting down opposition rallies. The shutdown of the Chicago rally was organized by MoveOn, La Raza and other corporate-financed elements. La Raza has organized the violence and is financed by AT&T, Bank of America, Chevron, GM, McDonalds, TimeWarner, Shell, Walmart and others. This is the elite of American society shutting down an opposition candidate. Even a very conservative interpretation of vicarious liability would hold these companies responsible for the violence.
“Democracy Spring” is bankrolled by American finance capital, and seek a “color revolution” in the U.S. that would ensure no rightist candidates ever reach far in electoral life. The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) is also financing this new organization. IPS’s most recent (2015) financial report is nothing but a “Who’s Who” of corporate and government elite financiers. This is a violent group promising “chaos” in American politics. Mocking the public, Soros and Goldman Sachs have their minions say in the introduction page of “Democracy Spring”:
But if the status quo goes unchallenged, the 2016 election—already set to be the most billionaire-dominated, secret money-drenched, voter suppression-marred contest in modern American history—will likely yield a President and a Congress more bound to the masters of big money than ever before. And our planet and people just can’t afford that.
This group is financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, Ben & Jerry’s and George Soros. This elite-financed movement is threatening, quite openly, mass “civil disobedience” actions against Trump. They threaten the “largest civil disobedience action of the century” and to cause “chaos” in America to keep Trump from winning the election. This is a blatant admission of voter intimidation. These are not only criminal acts, but also additionally illegal in an election cycle if it interferes with supporters right to vote or otherwise participate in political life.
On June 12, 2016 in Las Vegas, a UK citizen was arrested trying to pull a gun from a security officer’s holster to shoot Trump. There have been numerous calls for black violence and rioting at the Republican National Convention, especially if Trump ends up victorious. Loring Wirbel, the Jewish board member for the Colorado ACLU, wrote:
The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, “This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.” They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force, as Laurie would say.
In response, the official official newspapers of record wrote non-cited stories about Trump’s intimidation of delegates in preparation for the Republican convention. Thus, without question, this sort of violence has official and elite sanction. The key court case here is Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967). In this case, several thugs sought to disrupt a peaceful civil rights march in Alabama.
The convicted parties conspired together, with each other and with other persons to the Grand Jury unknown, to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate citizens of the United States in the vicinity of Selma and Montgomery, Alabama in the exercise and enjoyment of certain rights and privileges secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States . . .
This led to severe penalties to the convicts. Yet, this is identical (in fact, less radical) than what is currently happening to the Trump campaign. At least in 1967, elite money was not backing the rioters. The court continued:
It was part of the plan and purpose of the conspiracy that the defendants would harass, threaten, pursue and assault citizens of the United States in the area of Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, who were participating in or had participated in, or who were lending or had lent their support to a demonstration march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, pursuant to the plan referred to above, that was approved by the order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on March 17, 1965.
There is presently a campaign by “Democracy Spring” called “Vote for Trump and Get Jumped.” There is no evidence that this is not the good sort of “jumped.” “Kill Trump” threats are a daily event on Twitter and, again, the media has, in response, flooded the wires with stories of alleged threats by Trump supporters. This is an obvious attempt to cover up the seriousness of the actual, real and documented threats screeched to potential voters at each protest rally against a Trump event. This is yet another form of voter intimidation and suggests official sanction. Personally, this writer has seen about a hundred printed death threats against Trump and his potential voters without the much action taken against the flagrant violation of federal law. There have been a handful of arrests for death threats, but these cases are presently unresolved.
The famed “Mississippi Burning” trial of United States v. Price (1966) is almost identical in this respect: various death threats and organized methods of intimidation against voters exercising basic rights is a serious federal crime. Price was not primarily about the plot to murder civil rights workers, rather it was a civil case dealing with the chilling effect such threats and plots would have on activists. United States v. Guest (1966) went further, making the bold claim that private actors, not just governments, can be a threat to the rights of Americans. Private conspiracies—precisely those that exist against Trump today—are quite illegal when they have voter and activist intimidation as its end.
On May 25 of this year in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a riot led to Trump voters being escorted by police out of the hall to their cars. They were verbally assaulted and clearly threatened by hundreds of hysterical protesters. There is no way that voter intimidation could be more blatant. This was deliberately left out of local media reports and only glowing descriptions of the protesters were permitted, though there were a handful of notable exceptions. Eyewitness accounts, however, did gradually leak out until it became undeniable.
To their credit, The Atlantic is publicly worried about the nature of these protests, though is loath to bring up the federal precedent for their prosecution. They wrote:
In San Jose on Thursday, a volatile crowd outside a Donald Trump rally assaulted numerous attendees. They punched a man in the face, knocking him to the ground; bloodied another man by bludgeoning the side of his head with a duffel bag; trapped a woman against a glass door, pelting her with an egg and other objects; snatched a cap off a man’s head, lighting it afire on the street soon afterward; and perpetrated other hateful acts against total strangers, with many fellow protesters cheering them on and a brave few fervently pleading for nonviolence.
This today is par for the course. Despite this belated admission that death threats based on one’s voting preference is wrong, The Atlantic’s basic thesis is that it’s all Trump’s fault because of his “rhetoric.” This is important to signal other elite media outlets they’re still on board and in no way support Trump. Since Trump’s “rhetoric” has been “violent,” the protesters, while criminals, are understandable. Yet, the facts are clear: nothing in Trump’s rhetorical arsenal is violent or hateful. These are Orwellian buzzwords used on people too lazy to actually read the man’s statements. There is nothing morally wrong with his moderate positions that illegals should be deported and Islamic groups need to be monitored. Gangs are a non-white phenomenon as are the drugs they peddle. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that these are sources of violence in American life.
The U.S. State Department, through its Institute of Democracy, published its Electoral Security Best Practices Guide under the authority of the U.S. Agency for International Development. This is the blueprint for analyzing foreign elections and deciding on whether or not they meet democratic standards. It is precisely this sort of intimidation abroad that leads to the U.S. condemnation of elections as “fraudulent.” In other words, by the State Department’s own standards, this present cycle is already vitiated and invalid.
Their lists of prohibitions “include hate speech, defacing campaign posters, disrupting campaign events, and intimidation of voters. Positive actions include engaging women as candidates and party leaders as well as the involvement of youth in party activities.” Over and over again, the State Department decries the “atmosphere of intimidation” concerning elections in Belarus or Russia, usually when the wrong candidate is elected. Far more violence has occurred in the U.S. than occurred in places like Belarus, whose president is genuinely popular. In other words, using the standards of the State Department in evaluating overseas elections, the Americana election of 2016 is invalid and illegitimate.
Therefore, to conclude, there are two prongs to understand the anti-Trump violence legally: first, that it violates the standards of Price and similar cases where interference in democratic rights is a federal crime. Second, that it violates the State Department’s own standards in evaluating foreign elections.
Several things can happen. First, the regime will simply ignore this, and use whatever means it requires to keep Trump out of office or make his life miserable when inside. Second, it could prosecute—as is the legal requirement—these organizations for their support of violence. This would be to attack some of the most elite sources of finance capital in the world. Third, it could declare this round of elections invalid and have Obama (or whoever) as interim president for a period of time.
Unfortunately, this demonstrates that violence is the future of American politics. As the “far right” predicted decades ago, this sort of immigration, both legal and illegal, from the third world will lead to ethnic militancy and violence against whites. Today, daring to say that the federal prosecutor’s office needs to round up illegals is sufficient to get one beaten or killed. This is the reality. What Joe Six Pack does with it is another matter.
Donsanto, C.C. (2007) Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Election Crimes Branch Public Integrity Section, Department of Justice
“Donald Trump takes on protesters at rally” USA Today
Stableford, Dylan (July 23, 2015) “Trump tours Mexican border despite ‘great danger’” Yahoo News
Ranzenberger, Katherine (August 11, 2015). “Nearly 150 Trump protesters greet attendees at the Birch Run Expo Center” Mlive
“Donald Trump vs. Univision’s Jorge Ramos” CNN
Schleifer, Theodore (August 26, 2015) “Trump ejects Univision anchor from press conference” CNN
Valdes, Marcela (September 25, 2015) “Jorge Ramos’s Long Game” The New York Times
Nakamura, David (September 4, 2015) “Trump security detail makes headlines, just like the candidate” The Washington Post
“Trump supporters and protesters clash at Richmond rally” CBS 6
“Hundreds Protest Donald Trump’s Hosting Gig on ‘Saturday Night Live’” NBC News
“Donald Trump ends speech after 10 protest interruptions” MSNBC
Isenstadt, Alex (April 22, 2016) “Stop Trump movement goes to work on GOP leaders” Politico
Howell, Kellan (March 5, 2016) “Glenn Beck under investigation for alleged threat against Donald Trump” CBS DFW
“Secret Service Investigating Anonymous Hack of Donald Trump” TIME
March 18, 2016, by Associated Press (March 18, 2016) “FBI investigating after threatening letter sent to Donald Trump’s son” WHNT
O’Brien, Keith (March 13, 2016) “Inside the Protest That Stopped the Trump Rally” Politico
Gralia, Joan (March 19, 2015) “Anti-Trump demonstrators rally in Manhattan” Newsday
Moreno, Cynthia (April 30, 2016) “State Republicans still looking to attract Latino voters” Vida en el Valle
“‘Shut Down Trump!’: Mass show of force in Burlingame, Calif.” LiberationNews.org
“Anti-Trump Protesters Tangle With Drivers, Police In Costa Mesa” CBS Los Angeles
Stephenson, Emily (May 27, 2016) “Trump’s San Diego rally draws more than 1,000 chanting protesters” Reuters
“San Jose protesters attack Trump supporters with punches, egg” FoxNews.com
Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .
 Just a few samples from a Google search using “Death threats against Trump” as search terms: “Delegates face death threats from Trump supporters” from Politico, and “Donald Trump supporters make death threats against GOP delegates” from the New York’s Daily News. Hence, even the Google search algorithm will not bring up the proper stories.
 This is detailed in the Wikipedia listing of anti-Trump actions during the campaign. The first recorded actions were by capitalist conglomerates, not street protesters.
Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, an Orthodox priest and the author of several books, is a scholar of Russian Orthodox history and philosophy, whose research focuses on ethnic nationalism, Eurasianism and the Orthodox tradition as forms of rebellion against globalism. He is a former professor of both history and political science at the University of Nebraska, Penn State University and Mount St. Mary’s University. The massive increase in writing on Russian politics over the last few years has granted him the honor of being one the most plagiarized men on the Internet.
American Free Press is not endorsing Trump. Nowhere in the context or text of the article does AFP outright say it is supporting Trump. The context of the article is in regards of the violations of the voter intimidation laws against the man.
Secondly, how does Michael Collins Piper come into play here? Why would he care one or another if AFP supported any candidate? Do you know the mind of MCP? Did you know him personally?
It is quite evident your reading comprehension is not up to par. Re-read the article.