Subscribe via RSS Feed

Category: Opinion

Trade and TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)

By Dr. Adrian H. Krieg CMFGE | TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) is an intended treaty involving 14 nations, essentially an expansion of “Free Trade” the “Trojan Horse” of multinational and globalist interests. The planned treaty consists of 29 chapters only 5 of which deal with trade, not unlike NAFTA that comprise two entire books and over 1,000 pages of text. The intended treaty will encompass 40% of the worlds GNP. 600 multinational corporations are the authors of the plan and members of the “partnership”. It is the largest planned international treaty ever considered in world history. The treaty will cover international relationships between Banking, Internet, Labor, Hospitals, Healthcare, as well as environmental issues. TPP is secret; no portion of it has been released. Congressmen are allowed to read it but must submit any notes to review (censorship); no one outside the 600 multinationals has a full copy. We know this from the three chapters revealed by Julian Assange of WIKILEAKS. The American US Chamber of Commerce is the major drumbeater for TPP. The Chamber claims that TPP will increase trade, employment, improve infrastructure and many other things; proof of the assertions is sadly missing, evidence is contrary. TPP benefits multinational corporations and nothing else.

TPP Map

Free trade treaties (actually to this date only agreements) are a national scandal demonstrated by NAFTA whose deleterious results are; 11.7 million lost blue-collar jobs, 57,000 small business closures, my corporation included, and an annual trade surplus of $5.7 billion with Mexico turned into a $56 billion deficit. The fact that TPP is intended as a treaty makes things much worse. If TPP is passed by congress it becomes part of constitutional law and American challenges to any segment of the treaty will have to be approved by all signatories, i.e. all 12 nations that signed onto TPP and require a 2/3rds majority in congress to change it. This makes modification, possible challenge and change to the treaty virtually impossible. If enacted TPP will destroy any remaining family businesses and farms with multinational corporations overtaking all production. Hello New World Order!

A large portion of the intended treaty deals with the Internet, regulating what service providers must collect, what content shall be allowed, and how it will be regulated. Present American control of ICANN is planned to be terminated and the Internet to be controlled by an international body. (Good-bye net neutrality, 4th amendment and 1st amendment)

Local i.e. national labor, marketing, distribution, and sales regulations will be terminated and surpassed by TPP regulations. Protection of domestic industries will be terminated—no protective duties or tariffs. A local American producer will be forced to compete with any producer of the 12 signatories to TPP as well as the six of NAFTA & CAFTA, (Dominica, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua) which are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zeeland, Peru, Singapore, Viet Nam and USA, (18 nations). Already existing free trade through NAFTA/CAFTA are [USA/Canada/Mexico], Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Presently existing “Free Trade” agreements have resulted in 10 years of annual trade deficits totaling over $ 4 trillion. Put more clearly for 240 months we have as a nation imported more than we export. We additionally have free trade agreements with Panama and South Korea. Let me simplify this; we will have treaties and agreements with 20 nations, every one but Canada of which has lower wages, less regulations, lower or no social labor protections, and our manufacturing industries are supposed to compete with them based on production, regulatory and environmental regulations that make manufacturing in America from 1 to 80 times more expensive.

The plan simply is to eliminate small and family owned business, long the bane of multinationals, and total control of the world economy by 600 multinational corporations. Governments love this idea; multinational corporations are large like governments, inefficient, and generally do not develop new products, services, or inventions, but steal them from those smaller firms who produce them.

In the to-date released chapters we learn of a peculiar provision in the plan to stifle competition. Assuming that some governmental authority decided to build or grant to a business a toll bridge over a river, but a private contractor owned a highway bridge nearby, under TPP that contactor can sue the government for loss of business. This would equally apply to healthcare facilities, hospitals, or sports stadiums. It is nothing but protection from competition for existing large business.

Examining the basic concept put forward by progressives is the theory that through the increase of interdependence between nations through the liberalization of trade and elimination of tariffs and duties, the world will become more peaceful because we will all be dependent upon each other. This concept has no credibility at all; it is a theory that has over time been proven wrong. Mexico has demonstrated a worsening relationship with America, as has China and we have trade agreements with both of them. All that this has produced is loss of American manufacture, loss of blue-collar employment, and drastic increases of trade deficits. Let me be very clear here; any nation that produces year on year trade defects will at some point see the erosion of value of their currencies. Any nation that does not manufacture becomes the colony of the nation that manufactures! The ultimate cost of continued deficits is monitory inflation, i.e. a continuation of ever-rising prices. Present American dollar inflation is about 10.7% annually not the Disneyworld on the Potomac claimed 1.7%.

If TPP were to be passed, inflation and unemployment will grow drastically. Many more family owned businesses will go down the tubes. Manufacturing will in America end. Why? Because the average wages in America and Canada are about $32.50 per. hrs. China is $0.75C, India is $0.81C, Mexico is $4.04, Japan is $27.80, S. Korea is $16.20, and Singapore is $ 18.72, (Switzerland with the highest hourly wage at $43.28 also has the lowest unemployment rate, because most employment is super high skilled). To ovoid embarrassment I will not list hourly wages in nations of CAFTA. In crass terms manufacturing costs can be separated into labor, raw materials, and government costs. Of these, raw materials are in most cases the lowest portion, and labor is the highest. For this reason many manufacturing enterprises farm out labor-intensive portions of production to places where costs, especially labor and government regulations are lower. Beginning with the Maquiladora programs (w. Mexico) that pre-date NAFTA. American manufacturers transferred well over two million jobs prior to NAFTA, to Mexico, and that’s just in the automotive, TV/radio industries. In case you have not noticed America who invented TV no longer makes them. Instead of addressing this problem Washington claims that TPP will offset China’s huge trade imbalance with America, it will do no such thing. The ultimate outcome of TPP will be a shift of trade imbalance from China to Asian TPP members, which will result in China aggressively soliciting high labor cost parts manufacture from TPP member states to China to keep their costs low.

We have reached the point where we are so dependent on Japan, S. Korea, and China that we are no longer able to produce military hardware to supply our defense needs. TPP will expand this dependency. Conversely, no other nation is so dependent upon foreign suppliers as is America.

International trade is exactly that, we purchase goods overseas and they collect dollars for it. We set the value of the dollar because it is the international reserve currency, something that like the English Pound (£) was, that will soon end. When we then consider the result of the loss of the dollar as international reserve currency, forcing American business to purchase goods in other than dollar denominated currency, combining it with TPP, we see the end of America and the beginning of an international multinational business cartel controlling 40% of the world’s economy.

TPP has nothing to do with trade, free or otherwise. TPP is an instrument to eliminate competition from the multinationals and to once again jack up their profit margins, as usual at the expense of the American Middle Class. All this smells of Obamacare and its 20,000 pages of rules and regulations, we will again be told; “you must pass this so that we call all find out what’s in it” (Nancy Pelosi)

Dr. Adrian KriegDr. Krieg was on the CT/RI DEC (District Export Council), an international trade advisory body to the USDC for 15 years from the Reagan Admin to the Clinton Admin. He was opposed to NAFTA from its proposal days, having lived in Mexico he was well informed on Mexican production costs.

For more information go to: www.a2zPublications.com

European people should organize and advance their own interests just like every other group. Join our fight for Heritage and Identity!

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:


The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!


European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


Jews and Their Effect on Russian-American Relations

By Robert Litoff | My father was a Jew who was born in Belarus and my mother’s parents were Jews from Poland. My parents were members of a conservative synagogue and bought their meat from a kosher butcher shop. When I was 17 years old, I had a 16 year old Jewish girlfriend. I told her that I did not want to practice Judaism because Jews were disloyal. She told me that I should go with her to the Young Israel Synagogue, an orthodox synagogue which was down the street from my home, the next Saturday and that I would see a difference. But, when we got there, Rabbi Hecht, stated in his sermon, that there was no such thing as American Jews, nor Russian Jews, nor British Jews etc. There are only Jews living in America, Jews living in Russia, Jews living in Great Britain etc. (really, I forgot which nations he used as his examples, but that is irrelevant to the point which he was making). He stated that Jews have just one nationality which is Jewish and we have no other nationality wherever we may live. And, that is the truth as to how almost all Jews think.

Sen. Charles Schumer and the former Sen. Joseph Lieberman are the most gung-ho for war with Iran. And, they are not really American senators; their only loyalty is to Israel. And, rich Jews such as Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban make huge political contributions to American politicians based on only one thing which is their willingness to support Israel on all matters. And, Jews have also greatly influenced our relations with Russia. According to Henry Ford, Czarist Russia saved America twice in the nineteenth century. I would not go that far. But, the Russian Empire was America’s best friend in Europe in the nineteenth century. It was Czar Alexander I who mediated the treaty ending the War of 1812 and the terms in the Treaty of Ghent were quite favorable to America. The War of 1812 had not gone well for America. America’s attempt to take Canada had failed. And, Washington had been taken by the British and our capitol had been burnt down. Now, it is important to know that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed, but the battle was fought because both sides in that battle did not know that the war was already over.

Russian Frigate Osliaba 1863

When the Treaty of Ghent was signed — where the British gave up their claim to the Louisiana Purchase which they had been planning to take from America — Americans did not know that we would have a great victory in the Battle of New Orleans, so it was great deal for America. The Battle of New Orleans turned out to be a great victory for us, perhaps we could have gotten the same deal after that battle, had the Treaty of Ghent not already been signed. Czar Alexander I had a special influence over the British because it was the Russians who destroyed Napoleon’s army and it was Alexander I who entered Paris with his victorious Russian Army. Also, the British did not want to provoke Alexander I because they feared a Russian invasion of India from the North. The second time in which Russia came to America’s aid during the nineteenth century was during the American Civil War when Russian Navy docked in the harbors of New York, Boston and San Francisco. Czar Alexander II had promised — if the British or French tried to break the North’s blockade of the South, the Russian Navy would join the American Navy in fighting the British or French navies.

Regarding, our commercial relations with Czarist Russia, a trade treaty with Russia was signed in 1832 which was extremely beneficial to American business. Russian and German Jews began coming to America and staying here only long enough to get American citizenship. Then they would go to Russia and claim the special privileges which were granted to American citizens under the trade treaty. However, Russia did not consider them Americans. The Russians considered them as Jews, which they were. Now, by 1920, when Henry Ford began publishing his columns about the International Jew, Jews had already gained control of America’s newspapers and entertainment industry. Jews had gained control of the newspapers by Jewish retailers selectively advertising in newspapers which acquiesced to the bias demanded by the Jews. Thus, Jews made the newspapers which would not submit to be unprofitable or reduced their value to the point where Jews could buy those papers for a very low price. This is the same media that will not inform you of horrible crimes committed by blacks against white victims such as the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The same media that gives huge publicity to anything which can be made to look like crimes committed by whites against blacks, for example, the Tawana Brawley and Duke Lacrosse “non-rape” cases.

Pres. Taft tried to stand up to the pressure because he did not want to end a trade treaty which was of great economic value to America on behalf of a small group of “Americans” who were affected by the Russian refusal to recognize them as Americans. But the Jews were subsequently able to have the treaty terminated. This did not end trade between Russia and America. But, now the trade had to go through middle men who just happened to be German Jews who took their cut of the profits. According to Henry Ford, Jews instigated Theodore Roosevelt to run as the candidate of the Progressive Party for president, thereby splitting the Republican vote and guaranteeing the election of the Jewish puppet, Woodrow Wilson.

Jewish-owned media gave huge publicity to the pogroms in Russia. The riots in Russia were not due to the Jews being of a different religion. If the Jews had just wanted to keep their religion in Russia, there would have been no problem. It was the predatory economic practices of the Jews which created the hostility towards the Jews in the Russian Empire. Many Jews were usurers and they were also the middlemen who bought the produce of the peasant farmers, in essence forming a cartel. So, the Jews could exploit the peasants both with loans and influence what prices the farmers could get for their produce. Also, Jews were very active in the liquor sales and owned most of the brothels. The pogroms were set off by Jewish behavior like all the other problems which the Jews have gotten themselves into throughout history.

The pogroms were a lot less violent and not attacks against defenseless women and children as most people have been led to imagine. While Jews did not live in the countryside, they had very large populations in the cities in which they lived and had militias which could provide a defense until Russian authorities would quell the disturbances. The Russian authorities acted as quick as they could to end the disturbances. And, do not expect to read anything about the Russian Orthodox priests who told their congregants that it is a sin to participate in a pogrom. For the most part Jews, lived better than most of the other peoples of the Russian Empire. And, most of the time they lived in peace. Russian diplomats had to explain to naïve American diplomats that the riots had nothing to do with religious differences. They were in response to Jewish predatory business practices.

An American (born and raised in Germany) Jewish Banker, Jacob Schiff, led a consortium of Jewish bankers in providing important financing for Japan for the Russo-Japanese War. Also, Jewish bankers interfered with the floating of bonds issued by the Czarist Russian government. Jacob Schiff’s daughter, Frieda, married Felix Warburg, the brother of Paul Warburg, who did not arrive in America until 1911, but who quickly created our Jewish Federal Reserve Bank. Also, Jacob Schiff helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Isn’t that amazing that a rich banker would provide financing for a revolution whose goals is the confiscation of private property and private businesses. And, once in power, the communists, who had seized all the privately owned wealth in Russia, paid back the loans they had received from Jacob Schiff with interest exactly in accordance with their agreement. The reason for these seemingly amazing happenings is that Jews made up a huge part of the leadership of the Bolsheviks. So, it was a matter of Jews helping Jews which trumped the seemingly huge chasm between their political and economic ideologies.

Jews remain the biggest factor with the military-industrial complex second in our monstrous middle east interventionist actions. The media can call it nation building or exporting democracy or the Arab Spring, but in every case it has brought great misery and death to every middle eastern nation in which America has intervened. No matter what the prior circumstances in the countries in which we have intervened were, we have made the situation worse for peoples in the those countries. Why does America, supposedly a mostly Christian country want to overthrow Bashar al-Assad when all religious groups including Christians were safe in Syria which also had generous benefits for its people under his leadership, and in trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, create fanatic pseudo-Muslims who murder the once safe Christians. That is mostly due to our zionist Jewish controlled media.

America needs to have the courage to reduce our military spending to the level of our real defense needs and use our genius — which was used to create great weapons — for the creation of great consumer product industries which will be able to compete with the production capabilities of low-wage countries. Japan is already doing it, so why can we not also do it. Judaism is not really a religion; it is a form of racism. What unites Jews, orthodox and atheist alike is the narrative “Wherever we go there are those who rise up against us to destroy us.” But, the more truthful narrative should be “Where we go our predatory behaviors sooner or later create hostility for us among all those who live around us.”

European people should organize and advance their own interests just like every other group. Join our fight for Heritage and Identity!

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:


The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!


European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


What Are They Up To?

Dr. A. H. Krieg | Well, I can tell you…they are in the process of creating a one world monetary system of plastic money, controlled by the New World Order bankers. Who are those N.W.O guys? Well, I can tell you that also; they are the bankers, media, and judicial Ashkenazim that have been at this project for many years. How are they doing this? Well, that’s a rather long and much more complicated story that has grown exponentially in just the last five decades.

One of my favorite economists is Ludwig von Mises, he made a startling observation in the 20th century, “artificially low interest rates cause economic bubble economies” We saw that in the electronics and then housing bubbles and are now seeing it in the oil bubble. The next fall guy will be the stock market bubble that is now totally out of logical control. The “Funny Money” (my inventive phrase of 2,000) created by quantetive easing and $85 then $55 billion a month off book entries by the 12 FRS banks will ensure that.

Dr. Adrian KriegAn interesting side note is the fear by the rich brought on by this N.W.O. plan and its effect on the art and old car markets. Old restored cars are selling like hotcakes, and old master art objects are following that trend. The prices paid in many instances are just plain nuts. Why, you ask? Because the dollar is basically worthless the EURO is worthless, all the worlds currencies values are based on BS and nothing more. Stocks are artificially inflated by 85%, silver is leveraged with short orders to an extent greater than the total annual production, and the big banks have been playing with gold like monopoly money, UBS was just fined, others will follow. What are the wealthy to do? Real estate is not really an option because under any terms you don’t own it the government does! Why are you paying property taxes for something you paid for and the government has no financial interest in? Oil is in serious decline; coal is by environmental decree dead. Green energy is a pipe dream that would collapse the moment government stopped price supports, and endless financial backing on every level to that industry. Proof of that pudding is the $6 billion lost, on over 20 environmental projects by Dr. Chu of the U.S. Energy Department, all lost in bankruptcies, and that’s with government support. The only logical investment for assets is something that historically never fails, is in limited supply, and has risen in value for all past history, and that’s art and old cars.

The stock markets are at historic highs, but if we examine this subject in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, (GAAP) the Earnings Per Share (EPS) the actual 2014 market is 1.3% lower and 2015 will be lower still. This indicates a continuation of lower wages, a problem that has plagued America for the last five decades.

The stock markets are over inflated because the Fed has continuously and many times reduced, the interest rates. Additionally every time the marked hiccups the “Plunge Protection Team” now numbering over 1,000 traders jumps into the act and begins buying. At least someone in San Francisco FRS appears awake, they issued a warning that in their opinion the market will fall in the future because of baby boomer retirements. Baloney the issue is interest rates, which are now at 0.25%, the only place they can go is up, and when they go up things will become very dicey. Our on the books national debt is now over $18 trillion, then we have to add the quantetive easing’s and the $85 and the $55 billion a month monetary expansion that combined are $ 7 trillion, not counted in the national debt, which does not even consider the over $100 trillion projected debt over the coming two decades. So you figure it out, if they raise the interest rate to over 2.5% it will consume every penny of paid taxes out of our $ 14.7 trillion dollar economy just to service the debt interest.

The unconscionable bank bailouts beginning in November 2008 with QE-1 of $600 billion, Nov. 2010 $600 billion, then $ 75 billion per month, then $85 billion per month then $55 billion per month—well all at once we are talking about real money! And the question is—What have the banks done with all that cash?—they were obviously not lending it to industry or business. That one is simple—If you can borrow money from the Fed at 0.25%, or better yet, just increase your book balance by $ 140 million per month, you invest in the markets. If you are even moderately astute you can make about 7.5% borrowing at 0.25% and earning at 7.5% gives you a net profit of 7.25% while sitting on your butt, with little or no risk. There is no risk, because your institution has been deemed too large to fail and if over $50 billion is pumped into the stock market monthly the only place it can go is up. And if you were to fail it will just be another bailout!

As all good things (for bankers) all this has to come to an end at some point. We are in my opinion very close to that. Bankers have painted themselves into a corner. They created a debt that is impossible to re-pay, when they lower interest rates below reason, they reduced through this the ability of the economy to re-pay the artificially created stock bubble. They cannot continue the relentless bailouts and quantetive easing; they cannot up the interest rates to where they belong at about 4.5%. What will they do?

The plan is not new, after all, the entire problem is not new; we have gone through this time and time again. We had a Civil War because of banker’s manipulation of the economy through tariffs; we had the Napoleonic wars, in which the bankers were the prominent agents, we had WWI because the Rothschild’s wanted to up their profit margins, we had WWII because Hitler refused to deal with the Ashkenazi banking cartel that made their declaration of war in the London (HQ of the Diaspora) Ashkenazi news paper Daily Express, Friday March 24th 1933.

It would appear by looking at past history that every time the bankers paint themselves into a corner, they start another war; usually by financing both sides. There is of-course another possibility. Today the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency. That appears by all financial indication to be in its last death throws. The bankers from day one have manipulated this. Governments strongly support this move because the replacement of the dollar will be with an international currency that is digital. In other words they plan to eliminate physical money replacing it with a special credit card. The credit (phony fiat money) will be backed by nothing, have no actual value, purchasing power to be determined by bankers artificial valuation, giving government the ability to know every detail of your personal financial situation, and know everything you do, and banksters to reap trillions of profit in the phony asset held by them.

It will permanently and forever removes the people’s access to control of interest rates, eliminate congressional oversight of the national debt, allow bankers to totally control the legislative, and executive branches of the government, and turn the citizenry into serfs just as they were in the Middle Ages. If you plan to oppose this system once established, they could confiscate your imaginary assets, make you destitute, and thus will control everyone and everything. Please now Welcome the New World Order coming soon to your neighborhood.

European people should organize and advance their own interests just like every other group. Join our fight for Heritage and Identity!

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:


The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!


European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


Tom Sunic’s Southern California Speaking Tour

AFP Director and Croatian diplomat, Tom Sunic, engaged in a successful speaking tour of Southern California during the latter part of September 2014. On September 19th, Prof. Sunic spoke at the Santa Barbara public library. He spoke on the topic of “The Decline & Fall of Modern Higher Education: From the Maximizing to Minimizing Universal Knowledge (how low can “dumbing down” go?).” The speech was well received and generated no controversy on any level.

Tom Sunic California Speaking TourThen, on Saturday, September 20th, Prof. Sunic spoke at the Institute for Historical Review in Santa Ana, California. Mark Weber, an old friend of Prof. Sunic, introduced him and gave a speech as well. The topic of Tom Sunic’s speech was: 1400 Years of Islamic Imperialism: Real or Surreal Menaces to Europe from the Medieval Caliphates, to the Ottomans at the Gates of Vienna, to the New Islamic Terror and “Voluntary” Invasion-Repopulation of Europe.” The attendees (numbering about 40) were mostly AFP supporters. As a result, the question and answer session went on well into the evening.

On Sunday, September 21st, Tom Sunic spoke at a Jewish (!) community center. The moderator was a white Australian who converted to Judaism, but inexplicably is pro-white and pro-European. The topic was again on Islamic Imperialism. Attendees were from varied backgrounds; several Jews, a vocal woman from Mongolia and White Nationalists. The event went well. They only fall out came from various White Nationalist groups that denounced Tom Sunic for speaking at a Jewish community center.

On Tuesday, September 23rd, Tom Sunic spoke to an over-flow crowd sponsored by the John Birch Society in La Crescenta, CA. His intended topic was From Democracy to Plutocracy; Institutional, Financial and Economic Crisis of the European Union”. The audience, however, would have none of it. Calls from the floor requested that he speak on the pending death of Europe as a result of the immigrant invasion.

Tom thus tailored his speech to their requests and expertly spoke for an hour extemporaneously. His insights were amazing and the audience was held in awe. This event was held at the La Crescenta Sheriff’s Station. We all thought it was a great venue because no one would come to protest a sheriff’s station. Turns out, it was our trickiest location because even though the John Birch Society reserved the meeting room, the deputy in charge took a strong bureaucratic stance stating: “We have the John Birch Society down as showing a video. You can’t have a speech. That is political and we can’t have political groups meet at our Station.” The organizer stressed that the John Birch Society is 100% political and has been using the site for years. After fifteen minutes of discussion whereby the Sheriff deputy was able to show how much power he possessed, he let the throngs standing outside in and the meeting went forward.

On Wednesday, September 24th, Tom Sunic spoke at Orange County: Woman’s Civic Club of Garden Grove. Tom’s speech was sponsored by an anti-immigration group that takes great pains to not be called racist. This was his largest speaking engagement (although most in attendance were senior citizens). Tom spoke on the European immigration crisis and sold almost all his books. He took a hardcore stance that multiculturalism is killing the white race and the issue is not legal or illegal immigration but that non-white immigration is problem.

The entire audience was white except for one new member of the group who was from Mexico. He made comments about how he paid his taxes, was pro-Reagan and that while we must stop illegal immigration legal immigrants (like him) were a very good thing. He spoke of the plight of the poor immigrant who must come to the U.S. to live in the slums of Santa Ana or Anaheim instead of upscale communities. Large numbers of attendees clapped in support of his statements. (He was the only one they clapped for and they clapped to show they weren’t racist). This was after Tom Sunic had just spoken about 40 minutes on how it is the race that matters. One women in he audience then challenged the Mexican’s comments and pointed out that Santa Ana and Anaheim were lovely cities when its denizens were white. Others chimed in in support and the Mexican member slinked out the door.


There are no better people to run America than European American people. European peoples should organize and advance their own interests just like every other group. Join our fight for Heritage and Identity!

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:


The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!


European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


American Freedom Party
American Freedom Party
American Freedom Party
American Freedom Party – Metapedia, the free encyclopedia
The American Freedom Party (formerly the American Third Position Party or A3P) is a third positionist nationalist American political party which promotes America first!
American Freedom Party – Metapedia, the free encyclopedia
American Freedom Party
American Freedom Party
American Freedom Party

International Finance: America’s Most Deadly Poison

By George Bancroft | The present affliction of America’s economic system and its detrimental performance in our economy is closely related to the international banking cartel. The well-known effects; high unemployment, falling middle class income, lower then 2008, private sector falling employment, rising consumer prices, and loss of manufacturing are all related to the policies of the FRS, BIS, IMF, WB, ECB, open immigration, and Free Trade policies enacted by the Republocrats under the Cartels direction. The principal economic and political direction for the banking cartel over the last 100 years has been a single world currency and the elimination of nation states and their borders. The American Freedom Party is diametrically opposed to all of this.

A European Historic Perspective

The first act of the Rothschild banking enterprise was to be the middleman for the King of England in the purchase of soldiers from the Margrave of Hesse for the American revolutionary war. The House of Rothschild earned billions in that deal. The Margrave is often called the Elector, and is related to the royal houses of England, Greece, Denmark, and Sweden. In the second act at the close of the Napoleonic wars in Europe, the Rothschild’s family London based bank, which had the best and quickest communications system in Europe, announced in London after the battle of Waterloo that Napoleon had been defeated the Anglo-Prussian alliance. This caused the London stock and commodities markets to collapse. The Rothschild banks began an expansive purchasing program and by the end of the day when the truth came out they owned 80% of England. Their third act was after WWI when England was bankrupt Rothschild offered to bail out the Bank of England under two conditions, 1) Rothschild would from there forward control to the Bank of England and 2) The Crown would provide an instrument to allow Jews to take over the Levant, which condition was met by the Balfour Declaration. It made the Rothschild Bank the largest financial institution in the world. Lord Rothschild was the president of the World Zionist Federation.

Banking in America

The concept of an American banking cartel has been a fact of history since the early 1700’s. The control of that system by European interests dates to the early 1800’s. The first bank of the United States actually begun as Bank of the United States operated from 1700 to 1799. The Biddle family ran the Second Bank of the United State from Philadelphia 1800 to 1811. It was the second attempt to create a federally controlled national banking system mirroring that of England. The banks primary opponent was Andrew Jackson who proved that with a $30 million investment the bankers had absconded with many millions. In Jackson’s second term he succeeded in closing the bank. America then developed strong individual state banking systems that prevailed until 1913.

The creation of the Federal Reserve System (FRS)

Federal Reserve - We Sell Money to the GovernmentIn 1910 the major American bankers and their political allies had a meeting on Jekyll Island Georgia to establish a fourth attempt by the Bankers to establish a central bank like the banks in Europe. The noteworthy participants were: Paul M. Warburg (Partner in Kuhn Loeb & Co. agent for the Rothschild groups and author of the Federal Reserve Act); Nelson W. Aldrich (B) Republican Whip in the Senate, Chairman of the National Monetary Fund, & father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller (B); Henry P Davidson Sr. (B) Partner J.P. Morgan & Co.; A. Piatt Andrew, Assist. Sec. of the Treasury; Charles D. Norton Pres. 1st Nat Bank of NY; Frank Vanderlip Pres. Nat. City Bank of NY agent of William Rockefeller (B); and Benjamin Strong Director of J. P. Morgan, Bankers Trust Co. These men combined in 1910 controlled over 75% of the world’s entire value. They jointly created the 16th amendment the 17th amendment and the subsequent Federal Reserve Act.

What this meant

The 16th amendment established the FRS and the Federal Reserve Act. It transferred the power to tax, set interest, collect taxes, issue money, change hard asset backed money to 1) debt based asset 2) petrodollar based asset 3) totally ‘backed by nothing’ fiat money, from congress to the FRS. With the 17th Amendment they transferred the right of states to appoint senators to a popular election thereby eliminating the power of states to control banking within their borders and eliminating their prime completion of state banks.

What was promised and what was delivered?

The culprits who did all this at Jekyll Island in congressional testimony before congress and committees promised the establishment of their FRS would for all time end the destructive market fluctuations. It would stabilize the currency, and stop inflation. They lied.

  1. The dollar has fallen every single year since 1913.
  2. Inflation has been beginning in 1913 9.9% to a total combined 1913 to 2014, 232.957% in the last 100 years.
  3. As for market fluctuations (Industrial activity) 1913-14 -19.8%; 1918-19 -14.1%; 1920-21. 32.7%; 1923-24, -22.7%; 1926-27. -10,0% 1929-1933, -26.7%; 1937-38, -18.2%; 1945, -12.7% 1949, -1.7%; 1953, -2.6%; 1958, -3.7%; 1960-61, -1.6%; and you know what’s going on now. They lied.

AFP Rises to the Challenge

AFP considers the existing banking enterprise a criminal one, established by congress when they surrendered the people’s right to control their currency by enacting the 16th and 17th amendment in 1913. We believe that the established monopoly stands in violation of our laws. We believe that the most pressing issue is the reestablishment of a legitimate hard asset based currency and to restore power to the individual states, and to rid America of the predatory fiat money based usury banking system. This Jeffersonian idea will be enacted when we take power. We further will repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution. By these actions we will return the powers to tax, set interest rates, and all monetary policy back to the people and the states. Only with sound money policies can America as a nation survive.

Deleterious effects of the existing system

The system established in 1913, which is an internationals monopoly consortium of people whose only interests lie in self-enrichment, has virtually destroyed the middle class. In the last ten years America has suffered with; a 9.7% increase in healthcare due to Obamacare, 6.5% fall in private sector employment, 107% of inflation, 47 million Americans on food stamps, 7.8% increase in federal employees, 24 million illegal immigrants, dollar value fall of ½, 11% approval rating for Congress, 37% approval rating for the president, 2014 produced the worst congress in American history with the exception of 2013, more debt in the last ten years than the previous 42 presidents, a fall of 22% in economic activity worldwide by America, 63,000 small manufacturing companies closed, 11.7 million lost manufacturing jobs, a drop in employment from 1950 to 2013 of total population employment from 80% to 65%, not a single private sector employed citizen on the executive advisory team, private homeownership at an 18 year low, 49% of Americans now live in a home in which at least one person is on government payola, the government now runs 83 different welfare programs and 35% of Americans are participants, Projected Social Security debt is facing a $75 trillion shortfall in the coming 75 years, AFP want to reverse all of that.

The Beast has many names

What we call it is basically irrelevant, The New World Order, 1000 points of light, the bankers, The Order, or the Illuminati. The fact of the matter being is, that they control banking, the media, and most politicians through campaign contributions. The 87+% of incumbent re-elections testifies to that. Patriots and nationalists like Henry Ford ?, K. Chesterton ?, Ezra Pound ?, Dr. A. H. Krieg, Congressman Larry McDonald ?, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, and Eustace Mullins ?, can all testify to that. This international banking monopoly is the organization responsible for most of the wars and economic problems of the world. Money (Greed) is the root of all-evil. The principal solution to this is twofold: 1) a mandatory national balanced budget and 2) a monetary system based on hard assets not fiat species. AFP is the only political party that supports all those reforms.

Prosperity is not an illusion, it is attainable

The greatest economic expansion and era of prosperity in America was from 1900 to 1914. The Federal Reserve act and 16th & 17th amendment brought that to an end. In that period everything in America boomed. There was no EPA, CIA, NSA, NIOSH, OSHA or any other of the alphabet soup of federal agencies. Contrary to present belief the air was cleaner, industrial accidents by percentage of employed we about the same, and global warming, AKA climate change due to man was as non-existent then as it is now. The greatest difference was that the government was not in the business of indoctrinating the public with false propaganda. America had no troops overseas we were at peace. Business was self-financing expansion and not dependent upon the predatory banks with their usury compound interest. In 1914 the average house cost $6,156. The average income for labor in 1914 was $60 per week. That indicates that the average worker earned $3,120 per year or ½ of the total cost of a home. In 2012 the average American worker made $44,321 and the average home costs $347,900 or 3/4 of the average workers income. Inflation over the last ten years as noted above is over 100%. AFP does not believe that we are headed in the right direction. America is over taxed, over policed, and over regulated on the state as well as federal level.

What is the cause of this?

In the 1880’s the British Fabian socialist Society came to be, it met regularly at the Webb house where the symbol of Fabian socialism, a wolf dressing in a sheepskin is located on a stained glass window on the landing between the first and second floor. The Fabian went on to take over the British Labor party, and eventually to infiltrate the American Democrat party. The present Democrat parties that can be considered aligned with the Fabians who in America are called Progressives. Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are all progressives. The CT 3rd district congresswoman Rosa DeLauro was chairman of the Democrat Progressive Caucus (CPC) it has 69 members. They represent the political part of the N.W.O. The social media and banking part is centered in The Order, whose members (Bonesmen) are active in those fields. To make this clear, the two presidential candidates in the 2008 election John Kerry and W. Bush were both (B). The head of J.P. Morgan Chase is Rockefeller a (B); the largest American private bank is Brown Bros Harriman & Co. it has been run by (B) since its foundation in 1818. The merger of the London based Brown Bros. Harriman bank Averill Harriman (B) George W. Bush (B) George Herbert (Bret) Walker (B) had been instrumental in merging W. A. Harriman & Co. with British Brown Bros. in 1931. All were closely related to Fritz Thyssen who had set up Union Banking Corp. in NY in 1923 to fund Hitler. This is no different than a century before when in June of 1815 at the battle of Waterloo the Rothschild’s had funded all, the British the French, and the Prussians.

What of Today?

With the continual centralization of Banking and the elimination of smaller banks and in America State banks, capital has centralized in a very small number of billionaires, and meg-banks that rule the roost. The relationship between government and banking became much more prevalent, with well over half political financing through this source. Certain people (George Soros; Georgy Schwarz real name) became billionaires and with those funds wreaked havoc on nations and people. Soros, who with his Jew father together turned Hungarian Jews over to the SS for a percentage of the take, is a left wing nut ideologue. His Open Society Institute has financed with $7 billion, to date; La Raza, SPLC, ACORN, the Apollo Alliance, The Huffington Post, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and worst of all The Tides Foundation. Soros would not be welcome in Hungary where he was born, he is not wanted in England, Thailand or any of the Balkans, AFP when elected will demand his deportation to any nation foolish enough to accept him. His agenda is: Control of American elections, end of American sovereignty, elimination of the 2nd amendment, legalization of drugs, massive green indicatives, $110 billion in Obama’s budget, taxing churches, $20 million to groups opposed to Republicans, the list is endless, look it up on the Internet. AFP is determined to brake up large mega banks and remove people whose ideology is contrary to American interests; the FRS and the media monopoly that is now controlled by less than ten corporations.

Who we are, what we want, how we propose to move us in the right direction

We are the American Freedom Party. Our party was established in 2010 and as the youngest political party facing unbelievable opposition from government was successful in running a 2012 presidential campaign against all odds. Our candidate was blacklisted, refused attendance at debates, the FEC refused to qualify the party even though we had meet all their requirements, several states in which we had attained ballot access petitions state attorney generals refused to accept large numbers of qualified petitions claiming signers were not by them qualified, they refused to provide lists of accepted residents. We are a party that is inclusive of all European Americans, we are not opposed to any others, but prefer to support our own group. If Hispanics can have La Raza, Blacks can have NAACP, Jews have over 100 organizations, we can have the American Freedom Party.

What We Stand For

Smaller government, less regulations, ending Obamacare, support of the 2nd amendment, a dollar backed by silver and gold, no more wars for Israel, no more foreign entanglements, controlled borders, an end to illegal immigration, immediate deportation of all illegal felons, a path to citizenship for illegals including getting at the back of the line, paying all due taxes and fines, and taking English American history and civics exams, English as the national language, repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments, a balanced budget amendment, disbanding of the IRS and replacing it with a 14% national sales tax, , cancellation of the Federal Reserve Act, closing the NSA Utah operation, reinstatement of the rule prohibiting the CIA and NSA from domestic action, a total moratorium on drones inside American borders, breaking up the baking and media cartels, Disbanding the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban development, and Labor, making the US Coast Guard, Secret Service and FBI separate and totally independent organizations, removing the appointing authority from the Executive for the head of the Department of Justice making the office elected by the house and senate in a joint vote., returning the draft and reducing the professional military size, all able bodied males must server two years in the military, immediately terminate all foreign wars. Recall all troops from Japan, Germany, Italy, and the Balkans. – Walk softly but carry a big stick!

In Banking and Government

The elimination of interest taxes on savings accounts, ending capital gains taxes, ending inheritance taxes, a 14% national sales tax on all goods with the exception of the primary home and one car per family, stopping the ability of banks to trade on the capital markets, Eliminate the WB, disband the IMF, grant all corporations 30 days tax holiday for any funds held by them overseas brought back to America, eliminate all free trade deals with the exception of Canada, Chile and S. Korea. Implement strict usury laws restricting the charges of interest to 2% above that paid by government bonds. Welfare and food stamp payments will be terminated. The government will pay people on welfare and a salary for learning a trade the government shall pay for the cost of this education so long as the student maintains a grade average above C+ this subsidy will continue for the duration of the learning cycle it will terminate 30 days after graduation.

A new banking system

The government shall open a post office based banking system wherein depositors will be paid 2% interest on deposits quarterly. There will be no fees or taxes on these accounts. Depositors will be able to draw checks on the balances. The system shall be national. Loans to qualified citizens shall charge interest rate of 4% quarterly. Interest rates shall not be compounded.

Abbreviations:
FRS—Federal Reserve System
BIS—Bank of International Settlements
IMF—International Monetary Fund
WB—World Bank
ECB—European Central Bank (EU)
EU— European Union
N.W.O. New World Order
(B) Bonesman

The Case for Proportional Representation vs. Winner Take All

Nearly all elections in the United States are based on the winner-take-all principle: voters for the candidate who gets the most votes win representation; voters for the other candidates win nothing. This system is unjust and unnecessary. It is unjust because it leaves minorities (whether racial or political) unrepresented. As John Stuart Mill said, “It is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be adequately represented. No real democracy, nothing but a false show of democracy, is possible without it.” It is unnecessary because we have immediate opportunities, at local, state, and national levels, to join the vast majority of mature democracies that have already adopted systems of proportional representation.

Proportional RepresentationProportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100 percent of the representation to a 50.1 percent majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation.

How does this work? A typical winner-take-all system of divides voters into “one-seat districts,” represented by one person. With PR, voters in a constituency instead have several representatives: ten one-seat districts might, for example, be combined into a single ten-seat district. A party or group of voters that wins 10 percent of the popular vote in this district, then, would win one of the ten seats; a party or slate of candidates with 30 percent of votes would win three seats, etc. Various mechanisms work to provide proportional representation, and the details of different systems matter. But the principle of full representation is fundamental. Acceptance of it changes the way one sees electoral politics.
What’s the Problem?

Consider three current failures of our winner-take-all system of representation:
* Members of racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented;
* Voters’ choices are restricted to candidates within the two-party, Republican/Democratic monopoly;
* Most legislative elections are effectively “no-choice” contests in districts dominated by a single party.

By restricting voters’ choices and underrepresenting voters from minority groups, winner-take-all elections devalue the right to vote, our fundamental democratic right. Correcting these failures requires PR. No other political reform currently on the table–public financing of elections, term limits, fusion, or universal voter registration–will suffice to correct these deficiencies in our democracy.

Representation of Racial Minorities. At every level of government, the proportion of black, Latino, and Asian-American elected officials lags far behind these groups’ share of the electorate. When members of a racial or ethnic group make up a majority of the electorate in a winner-take-all election, they tend to elect a member of their racial or ethnic group. Every majority-black US House district has a black representative; and in the 49 white-majority states, 144 of 147 US senators and governors are white. Most racial minorities clearly prefer representatives of their race, but winner-take-all elections often deny them a realistic opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. A quarter of our population is black or Latino, but these groups are in the minority in every state and as a consequence hold only one of 100 US Senate seats. The fact of such underrepresentation throughout our legislatures undercuts their legitimacy and effectiveness in addressing issues of concern to racial and ethnic minorities.

Two Parties. Winner-take-all elections prop up our two-party monopoly. Since 1960, new parties have formed at comparable rates in the United States and in European democracies using PR. But new parties in the United States are almost completely shut out of representation, whereas half the new parties in the European systems eventually have won seats–and the influence and organizing ability that comes from electoral viability. Polls show most Americans would like to see a third party electing candidates at every level of government, but only three of our nearly eight thousand state and congressional legislators were elected on a minor party ticket–all of them in Burlington, Vermont.

Minor parties by definition begin with minority support, which wins nothing in winner-take-all elections unless it is geographically concentrated. With little chance to win, minority party candidates cannot build or sustain support. Ross Perot’s well-financed independent candidacy in 1992 won 19 percent of the vote, but he did not finish first in any congressional district. In 1996, his vote was reduced by more than half, although one voter in ten still voted for minor-party presidential candidates, and half of all eligible voters saw no reason to participate.

No-Choice Elections. One-party dominance of most American legislative districts provides a more subtle, but more sweeping, indictment of our winner-take-all system. Most Americans, most of the time, experience “no choice” elections for city council, state legislature, and the US House of Representatives. In the last ten House elections, for example, more than 90 percent of incumbents were reelected. The average margin of victory in House races is consistently over 30 percent. More than one-third of state legislative races in the 1990s were not even nominally contested by both major parties; fully 68 percent were not contested in Massachusetts in 1996. So-called “swing” legislative districts feature genuine competition and a chance for voters to cast a meaningful vote, but they are exceptions.

The dominance of one-party districts should be no surprise: gerrymandering allows legislators to choose their constituents in redistricting before their constituents go to the polls to choose representatives. Even though political intentions can be removed from, the redistricting process–as in Iowa’s criteria-driven procedure, for example–its political effects are unavoidable. Given that some (perhaps most) districts will be non-competitive in winner-take-all elections, all districting ends up being a form of gerrymandering.

The ramifications of our fundamentally lopsided political landscape are often ignored in debates over term limit proposals and campaign finance reform. The real culprit for non-competitive elections is winner-take-all elections, not incumbency and inequities in campaign spending. In most districts, a clear majority of voters prefers one party’s political philosophy to that of the other party. Consider open-seat elections, with no incumbent competing for the seat, and none of the financial advantages that come with incumbency. In 1996, Republicans won 29 of 35 open House seats in districts where Bill Clinton ran behind his national average, despite being outspent in a third of their victories. Yet Republicans won none of the 18 districts where Clinton ran ahead of his national average, despite being financially competitive in half of those defeats. This trend is not confined to elections in presidential years. Overall, Democrats hold 99 of the 100 US House districts where Clinton ran most strongly in 1996. Of the 150 districts where he ran most weakly, Republicans hold 134.

To be sure, congressional winners usually outspend their opponents. But that is because money follows power: to gain access, most major campaign contributors invest in candidates they expect to win. The great majority of voters are consistent in their voting patterns both between and within elections. We should be relieved that voters are well-grounded in a political philosophy, but frustrated that this consistency leads to most of them experiencing no-choice elections.
Why PR?
Support for PR as an alternative to winner-take-all politics has come from a diverse and distinguished group, including Alexis de Tocqueville, Charles Beard, Walter Lippman, Jane Addams, A. Philip Randolph, Robert Kennedy and, quietly, Franklin Roosevelt. The most outspoken early supporter of PR was John Stuart Mill, in his Representative Government (1861)–written less than two decades after the first works detailing possible PR systems.
The Majoritarian Argument
Perhaps Mill’s most important contribution to the case for PR was his argument that majority rule itself is improved by full minority representation. By maximizing the number of voters who elect candidates, he pointed out, PR increases the chances that a legislative majority has support from a majority of voters; it is required for full representation, with voters having the power to elect representatives reflecting a range of opinion; and it fosters a deliberative legislative process which improves the majority view by ensuring that minority opinions are represented and heard.
As Mill observed, any particular majority is a collection of minorities, not a monolithic bloc. Once some voters are excluded from representation, policy can be passed without the support of a majority of the electorate. Suppose, for example, that all representatives win their elections with only 50.1 percent of votes. A law passed with support from only 50.1 percent of the legislators then would have backing from only a quarter of votes cast. Mill’s point is no mere theoretical concern. In the 1994 “Republican revolution,” in which Democrats lost their 40-year stranglehold on the US House of Representatives, fewer than one in four eligible voters voted for a winning House candidate. As a result, House passage of any particular bill in 1995 required the votes of representatives elected by only 13 percent of eligible voters.
By contrast, legislation in democracies with PR generally requires the support of representatives elected by a far higher percentage of the electorate. In Germany’s 1994 elections with PR–with a high turnout and a high percentage of effective votes typical of European PR elections–more than 3 in 4 eligible voters elected candidates. (4 in 5 eligible Germans participated, and 19 in 20 voters elected a representative.) So passage of a bill required the votes of representatives elected by nearly 40 percent of eligible voters.
Majority rule also is undercut by winner-take-all elections because they drive voters into two camps. But two-choice elections obscure shades of difference and create the illusion of majority support for the winner. Mill stressed the importance of voters having a full range of choices and representation of their different communities of interest. “I cannot see,” he wrote, “why the feelings and interests which arrange mankind according to localities, should be the only ones thought worthy of being represented.” The notion that geography should be the primary basis of representation is even more antiquated now, given the increased mobility of our population, ease of communication across distances, and importance of economic, social, and political associations without geographic definition.
Finally, PR is important for majority interests because, as Mill argued, it provides represented minorities with a platform to challenge conventional wisdom. An advocate of universal suffrage, Mill still was sympathetic to conservative concerns about educated minorities being outvoted by newly enfranchised, less-educated voters. Assuring a voice to the minority eliminated his fears because of his faith in the results of a fully democratic process, with open and organized discussion among competing political ideas and projects. By allowing dissenters to win representation, PR fosters ongoing challenges to majority opinion, and thus complements our First Amendment freedoms.
In conjunction with attack ads, polling, and focus groups, the system of winner-take-all elections has made it extremely difficult to have reasoned political debate on certain contentious issues. These issues can assume great symbolic weight for swing voters–ironically, because they are among the relatively few voters with so little political grounding that they will support either party. The death penalty, for example, has come to represent “toughness” on crime. Because winner-take-all elections make nuanced positions difficult, and require that candidates win the support of politically indifferent swing voters, opponents of the death penalty find it hard to run credible campaigns for president or for most legislative offices. As with a whole range of issues–from drug policy to abortion rights to welfare reform–debate in political campaigns tends to lock into place, making it that much more difficult to challenge public opinion.
Mill’s majoritarian argument for PR gains empirical support from a recent statistical comparison of 12 democracies in Europe. John Huber and G. Bingham Powell contrast a “Proportionate Influence Vision” of democracy, in which “elections are designed to produce legislatures that reflect the preferences of all citizens,” with the “Majority Control Vision,” in which “democratic elections are designed to create strong, single-party majority governments that are essentially unconstrained by other parties in the policy-making process.” They conclude that “governments in the Proportionate Influence systems are on average significantly closer to their median voter than are governments in the Majority Control and Mixed systems. . . . If voters are presented with a wide range of choices and electoral outcomes are proportional, governments tend to be closer to the median.”
In short, governance is more likely to take place at the center of the political spectrum with PR, since the electorate is fully represented and voters are able to express a wider range of preferences. At the same time, fair representation of the margins provides a mechanism to transform policy by shifting the political center. Opposition voices will be heard, and their ideas will be far more likely to be debated. If those ideas win growing support, the major parties will adjust accordingly in order to hold onto their supporters.
Other Reasons for PR
Mill’s majoritarian argument is not the only case for PR. Four other claims are commonly offered in its support:
1. PR increases voter turnout. Voter turnout is generally estimated to be 10-12 percent higher in nations with PR than in similar nations using winner-take-all elections. This difference is understandable. In the United States, as we indicated, relatively few legislative elections are competitive, and our analysis of recent House elections demonstrates a strong correlation between the degree of competition and the level of participation.6 People in non-competitive districts–whether supportive of the majority or minority–might better invest their time and resources by supporting candidates in competitive races elsewhere than by voting in their own.
In PR systems, winning fair representation is dependent on voter turnout. Because nearly every vote will help a party win more seats, voters have more incentive to participate, and parties have incentives to mobilize their supporters. Moreover, parties and other electoral organizations have strong incentives to keep their supporters informed, and informed citizens are more likely to vote.
2. PR provides better representation for racial minorities. The 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act resulted in more districts drawn with majorities of racial and ethnic minorities. This increase in “majority-minority districts” produced a remarkable leap in representation of people of color in the US House in 1992. Between 1990 and 1992, the number of black and Latino House members jumped from 35 to 55.
In a series of recent rulings against so-called “racial gerrymandering,” the Supreme Court has made it much harder to establish majority-minority districts; the result is almost certain to be a decrease in the number of elected black legislators. Lani Guinier, Jesse Jackson, and other civil rights leaders have argued for PR as an alternative, and already more than 75 localities have adopted semi-proportional systems to settle voting rights cases.7 By building from a fundamental principle of political fairness, PR could secure voting rights of racial minorities, without specifically targeting minority voters (just as Social Security protects low-income seniors by providing benefits for all).
In addition to winning a fair share of seats, minorities would have greater opportunities to negotiate for influence because they could “swing” among parties. South Africa used PR in its first all-race elections in 1994, and the two leading parties–the African National Congress and the National Party–ran multiracial slates with messages of inclusion. When New Zealand had its first PR election in 1996, the first Asian citizen was elected, and Pacific Islanders and indigenous Maoris tripled their representation. A Maori-backed party formed a coalition government with the governing party–a party whose relationship with Maoris had been analogous to Republicans’ post-1960 relationship with American blacks.
By improving representation, PR in turn encourages minority communities to mobilize and win access to power. From 1925 to 1955, Cincinnati used the “choice voting” form of PR to elect a nine-seat city council. (See sidebar for an explanation of choice voting.) In 1929, when blacks were barely 10 percent of the population, a black independent candidate ran a strong campaign. In the next election, he was added to the Republican party’s slate and was elected. In 1947, when blacks were 15 percent of the population, a former president of the Cincinnati NAACP ran in large part to defend the choice voting system that was under attack from Republicans seeking to restore their old domination of the council. In an indication that any substantial group of voters cannot be ignored with PR, the other major party slate supported him in 1949. He was elected, resulting in black representatives holding two of nine seats.
3. PR increases the number of women in office. The percentage of women elected to office in the United States–only 11 percent of the US Congress–is scandalously low, particularly in light of the relative strength of the American women’s movement compared to other nations with far higher percentages of women legislators. Studies show that women representatives make a qualitative and quantitative difference in the type of legislation introduced and passed, yet the growth of women in state legislatures and Congress has stalled since 1992 despite relatively high turnover and the historic high in women’s candidacies in 1996.
In state legislative elections, women win seats in significantly higher percentages in multiseat districts than in one-seat districts. The major reasons for this difference are that women are more likely to run and voters are more likely to seek gender balance when there is more than one seat to fill. Because PR expands options, PR systems give women additional leverage to force the major parties to support more women candidates. In 1994, a threat by women supporters of the major parties in Sweden to form a new women’s party led to women winning 41 percent of seats in 1994 because the major parties recruited more women candidates. New Zealand, Italy, and Germany are among a growing number of democracies that use systems with a mix of winner-take-all districts and PR seats. It is instructive that women in all three countries are three times more likely to win seats elected by PR than to win in one-seat districts.
4. PR ends gerrymandering. Drawing district lines for political purposes has occurred from the first redistricting–the term “gerrymander” refers to a Massachusetts district plan drawn in 1812. But gerrymandering has become far more potent in an era of powerful computers, more detailed census information, and better techniques for measuring voter preferences.
As one example, Democrats in control of the redistricting process in Texas in 1991 placed the eight Republican incumbents in districts that were packed to be among the most conservative in the nation. These incumbents were easily reelected in 1992, but Democrats won 21 of the remaining 22 seats with only 50 percent of the statewide vote. Only one race was won by less than 10 percent, and the three open seats went to state legislators serving on redistricting committees. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, the primary architect of the plan, admitted in 1997 that the redistricting process “is not one of kindness. It is not one of sharing. It is a power grab.”
PR makes gerrymandering of any sort far more difficult. The smaller the percentage of votes that can be “wasted” on losing candidates–49 percent in a winner-take-all race, but less than 20 percent in a five-seat PR election and less than 10 percent in a 10-seat PR election–the harder it is for legislators to manipulate electoral outcomes.
Progressives Need Multiparty Politics
The case for PR is fundamentally non-partisan. Voters across the spectrum can support greater democracy or feel poorly represented by winner-take-all elections. But American political progressives have a particularly urgent need to support PR because of the growing problems created by the lack of a serious electoral vehicle to the Democrats’ left. Many progressives overrate their current degree of support in the electorate, while others leap in equal error to desperate conclusions about the electorate’s likely conservatism. The more complicated reality is disguised by winner-take-all elections, which divide voters into two camps and leave much progressive thought on the margins of political dialogue and influence.
A progressive party that won 5-10 percent of legislative seats in PR elections could have a great impact on public discourse, cross-issue organizing, and the policies of the Democratic Party. Electorally, this party could check the Democrats’ rightward drift. It would give the base of the Democratic Party–labor, African Americans, feminists, environmentalists, defenders of civil liberties–a credible alternative, and thus an influence within the Democratic Party similar to that now held by the relatively few “swing” Democrats willing to vote for Republicans. When all voters, not just the centrist fringe, can swing their votes, the major parties must pay more attention to their base.
In addition, a progressive party would provide an opportunity for progressive activists to join together to build an infrastructure of independent politics–work that is very difficult to pursue in a two-party system that pushes activists into single-issue politics. It would give progressives greater access to media and an ongoing means to challenge conventional wisdom. It is one thing for the media to ignore activists who have no strong supporters in Congress; it would be more difficult to ignore a congressional contingent that consistently demonstrated a credible level of national support.
A progressive party would force healthy, if difficult, policy debates among progressives. Winning 10 percent of the vote in a PR system is hard work. The German Greens have never reached 10 percent nationally, yet have had a remarkable impact on German policy and the environmental positions of both major parties. They are partners in governing coalitions in several German states and may be part of the next national government. At the same time, Greens have made great strides in building coalitions among their members. Organizing a party need not replace other grassroots organizing: a study of German Greens found that over 80 percent of members were active with an organization outside the Greens. But having the Green Party as a unifying electoral presence has made their other work more effective. American progressives urgently need PR to create a similar unifying electoral vehicle.
With PR, a progressive party also could find unexpected allies. Progressives might not outdo conservatives in winning over the majority. But a winner-take-all, two-party system facilitates “divide and conquer” strategies in which a conservative party can cut into the potential economically progressive majority with such wedge social issues as gun control, gay rights, affirmative action, and abortion.
In a two-party system, conservatives can create an electoral majority with a set of positions that can be opposed by the majority of voters, but bring together fervent minorities willing to accept positions they oppose in exchange for support for their issue: social liberals seeking low taxes, blue-collar Catholics opposing abortion, labor union members opposing gun control, and so on. With electable choices across the spectrum, a multiparty system based on PR would allow us to find out where the American people really stand–and on many issues, they arguably will stand to the left of current policy. The political center of most of Europe, with its policies on health care, welfare, worker rights, and the environment, is where American progressives would love to be.
Why Now?
Many reformers will quickly accept theoretical arguments for proportional representation, but question the viability of a PR movement. Some mistakenly think PR would require constitutional change or demand overly dramatic changes in our political culture. Others confuse PR with parliamentary government, although PR directly affects only how one elects a legislature, not governmental structure. Forms of PR could work extremely well with simple statutory changes, and a confluence of events in the 1990s provides a remarkable opportunity to work for PR’s adoption. These developments include:
1. Winner-take-all politics cannot be fixed. We have a particularly realistic opportunity to promote PR because of how well it addresses widely accepted failures in winner-take-all politics. Some of the most egregious problems reflect irreversible changes in technology, campaign techniques, and demographics. Without PR, no political reform–including the best of campaign finance reforms–can prevent most campaigns from being developed from focus groups of swing voters rather than principled policy positions. Campaign consultants know too much about how to win elections under winner-take-all rules. By freeing the majority to elect candidates they want, PR would weaken the stranglehold of the swing voters that give campaign consultants such power in winner-take-all elections.
2. Other reforms face barriers. The most electorally successful political reform movement of the past decade has been the effort to put limits on the number of terms that legislators can serve. The Supreme Court has quashed term limits for congressional elections and may follow suit for state legislative elections. But the goals of term limit supporters are in any case only partly achieved by limits: most voters continue to live in one-party districts and to be frustrated by poll-driven politicians. Moreover, for all the voter disgust with money in politics, campaign finance reformers now seem to be at an impasse at the federal level. The Buckley v. Valeo ruling, independent expenditures, and wealthy self-financed candidates bedevil reformers. Public financing supporters are making an expensive, potentially historic effort at the state level, and soon we will see how voters respond. But some analysts are skeptical that public financing can win in many states in the current climate of political depression. And even if it succeeds, the fundamental injustice of winner-take-all elections will remain. As Lani Guinier points out, it is not enough to take the money out of elections; we need PR to put the people in.
In any event, PR is an attractive complement to other reforms. And all of the reform energy that has developed in recent years provides an infrastructure of support for PR campaigns.
3. The opportunity to build a powerful coalition. As already discussed, women, racial minorities, advocates of term limits and campaign finance reform, minor party supporters, and progressive constituencies within the Democratic Party all have particular incentives to support PR. Republicans also are facing growing splits, particularly on social issues, and losers in those internal Republican debates may be ready for opportunities to maintain and build representation with PR. The Center for Voting and Democracy is developing working relationships with representatives of most of these constituencies, who together form a majority coalition similar to those that developed in recent successful campaigns for PR in New Zealand and Scotland.
Getting Started
Efforts to bring PR to American elections build on a rich history. Earlier this century, two dozen cities, including Cincinnati, Cleveland, and New York, adopted the choice voting method of PR by initiative. Today’s movement can learn much from this early PR movement. Choice voting was successful in achieving its reformers’ primary goal: undercutting the power of one-party political machines. Unfortunately, this success led to these machines’ unrelenting hostility. Although only two of the first 26 attempts to repeal choice voting in cities around the nation were successful, the previously dominant political forces eventually outlasted reformers and won repeals everywhere except Cambridge, Massachusetts. But the primary vehicles of anti-PR attacks–racist and anti-communist appeals and concerns about costly electoral administration–can be addressed far better today.
PR activism is on the rise again. Rep. Cynthia McKinney has introduced the Voters’ Choice Act (HR 3068) to restore the option states had before 1967 to elect their Congressional delegations by PR. The bill is acquiring a growing number of co-sponsors, and other pro-PR legislation likely will be introduced in Congress in 1998. Several state groups have formed to promote PR, and recent PR initiatives in two major cities–Cincinnati and San Francisco–won 45 and 44 percent of the vote, respectively, despite limited funding and media exposure.
To be sure, many Americans–particularly elected officials–may be cautious about moving away from our political traditions. Moreover, much voter attention will continue to focus on “single-winner” executive offices–such as president, governor, and mayor–which do not allow for PR, since PR requires multiseat districts. Even so, there still are immediate opportunities to reform plurality methods that are used in most states.
Instant Runoffs
For executive offices, Australian-style instant runoff voting (IRV) would provide both better majority representation and minority participation than plurality voting. Australia uses IRV for parliamentary elections, Ireland uses it to elect its president, and the United Kingdom may well adopt it within two years in a national referendum on parliamentary elections.
With IRV, voters rank candidates in order of choice: 1, 2, 3, and so on. Each voter still has only one vote, but ranking candidates allows the ballot-count to simulate a series of run-off elections. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated. Ballots cast for that candidate are redistributed to each voter’s next choice. This process of elimination occurs until a candidate wins majority support.
In the many states and localities still using traditional runoffs for primary or general elections, IRV would save money for taxpayers and campaign cash for candidates by combining two elections into one. Moreover, elected officials can appreciate IRV because it eliminates the “spoiler” problem created by minor parties–a problem for the major parties that the Reform Party and Green Party show great interest in expanding. And for minor parties, IRV reverses the “wasted vote” calculation. IRV allows minor party candidates to participate fully and potentially build their party’s support. At the same time, Australia’s experience with IRV demonstrates that it gives a minor party some leverage over major parties. A minor party candidate can call on supporters to hold back from casting second-choices for a major party candidate unless that candidate agrees to support some of the minor party’s issues.
States that likely will debate IRV legislation in 1998 include Alaska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont. An IRV state initiative may be launched in California in 1998; IRV could even be adopted for presidential elections by state legislation or initiative.
Three-Seat Districts
City, state, and national efforts for instant runoff voting would complement another modest modification of our rules that has the potential to draw support from the current political establishment: three-seat legislative districts with a 25 percent victory threshold.
From 1870 to 1980, Illinois used the semi-proportional system of “cumulative voting” in three-seat districts to elect its lower house. Illinois elections were a modest departure from winner-take-all elections. Voters had three votes, but had the option to put all three votes on one candidate. If 25 percent of voters supported only one candidate, that candidate was sure to win. That is the mathematics of PR in a three-seat district: just over 25 percent wins one seat, just over 50 percent wins two and over 75 percent of votes is necessary to sweep the district.
This relatively minor modification of winner-take-all rules had a profound impact on Illinois politics. Perhaps most significantly, nearly every constituency had two-party representation. Although most one-seat districts now are safe for one party, both in Illinois and around the nation, there are relatively few areas where at least 25 percent of voters are not ready to support another party–Bill Clinton won at least 25 percent of the vote in all U.S. House districts in 1996. A semi-proportional system gives these minority voters a chance to win representation.
In Illinois, most constituencies typically had two representatives reflecting two major factions within the majority party and one representative from the smaller party. These minority-backed legislators played a creative role in the legislature. In 1995 the Chicago Tribune editorialized in support of cumulative voting’s return, writing that “[M]any partisans and political independents have looked back wistfully at the era of cumulative voting. They acknowledge that it produced some of the best and brightest in Illinois politics.”
The Center for Voting and Democracy recently commissioned a study of Illinois’ use of a semi-proportional system. Interviews with Illinois political leaders show strong bipartisan support for cumulative voting, including support from the state senate’s majority leader and minority leader. A recurring theme is that semi-PR systems in three-seat districts actually provided better geographic representation than smaller, one-seat districts with monopoly representation. Constituents had more options when provided with access both to representatives in the majority party and the minority party. And both parties had direct interests in serving the needs of all parts of the state. The loss of cumulative voting has meant loss of bipartisan support for policies of particular interest to one-party strongholds; Chicago, for example, has been a big loser in equitable funding of public schools.
Three-seat districts are particularly promising as an alternative means to enforce the Voting Rights Act. If North Carolina adopted a proportional system with four, three-seat districts for U.S. House elections, it would likely result in a greater number of competitive black candidates than the controversial redistricting plan that triggered several rulings against race-conscious districts around the nation. Such plans in the south also would increase representation of women and white moderates. Of 36 House members in the deep south (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana), only one is a woman and only four are white Democrats.
Though cumulative voting has attractions, it also suffers from serious flaws, so we prefer either choice voting or an open party list system in such three-seat plans. Choice voting allows voters to rank candidates and have their votes coalesce behind candidates with the strongest support within major constituencies. In an open party list system, all votes for candidates from a particular party’s “team” of candidates will boost the party’s chances of winning seats.
As a first step toward change, we urge that states form commissions on reapportionment. These commissions could address issues such as: the number of legislators in a state; the problems deriving from the increased ability to gerrymander lines; and the potential of semi-PR and PR plans. An influential commission established in the mid-1980s in New Zealand surprised most political leaders by recommending replacement of the nation’s winner-take-all system with a fully proportional system; that system was adopted by the voters in 1993 despite intense and well-financed opposition. Given the power of the argument for at least some modifications of winner-take-all elections, any commission with a degree of independence may well generate surprises in the United States as well.
Some Objections
To conclude, we consider some familiar objections to PR systems.

1. Political instability. True, Israel and Italy both use forms of PR and have faced problems of governmental instability. We could explore the historical and political complexities of these countries and their systems in order to exonerate the principle of PR, but suffice it to say that most mature democracies with PR are not plagued by falling coalitions or right-wing religious parties.If we don’t condemn winner-take-all elections by citing Algeria, Pakistan, and India, then why condemn PR by citing Italy and Israel? There are currently 36 nations with more than two million people and high 1995 ratings from the human rights organization Freedom House. Of those 36, fully 30 use PR to elect their most powerful legislature, while only three–the United States, Canada and Jamaica–elect all national bodies with a winner-take-all system.

2. Excessive gridlock. Some argue that we have enough gridlock with two parties and that adding more to the mix will simply make things worse. One answer to this concern again is empirical: nearly every major democracy has more than two-party representation, and most are not paralyzed by gridlock. In fact, many PR democracies–including Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, and Switzerland–have developed far more comprehensive policy than the United States on such major issues as health care and immigration. A two party democracy rewards constant mud-slinging and obstructionist posturing because if one party can drive up the negatives of the other, voters have only one place to go. “Zero sum politics” translates into “zero sum governance.”
3. Loss of district representation. The advantage of district representation, it is said, is that all areas have someone to hold accountable for district issues. The problem is that most residents don’t vote for their representatives and can’t even identify them.

Furthermore, voters can take little comfort from being represented by someone who is sharply opposed to their own political philosophy. PR takes a different approach. All voters deserve an opportunity to choose a representative who thinks like them. With PR, voters find an ideological “home” rather than a geographic one. Their choice of representation may be influenced by local considerations, and systems can be designed to ensure some geographic representation, but geographic interests are not assumed to be paramount.

These three objections to PR do not exhaust the conventional list of concerns. But virtually every additional objection to PR, like those addressed here, is founded on the insulting theory that voters cannot handle the demands of making real choices. The typical winner-take-all advocate wants to keep things simple for the “poor bastards,” who, left to their own devices, will keep electing unworkable governments and dangerous extremists. Empirical study and democratic principle condemn this charge. It is as objectionable as arguments against full suffrage.

We are skeptical, too, about arguments based on American exceptionalism. Yes, we are a continental democracy, with a unique constitution that makes accountability difficult, and long-standing traditions that should be modified with care. So we need to think hard about how best to realize the moral and political imperative of full representation. But that imperative itself retains its full and compelling force.

Committed democrats should act on it, and the ideal opportunity is quickly emerging. The redistricting process is the Achilles heel of our winner-take-all system. Behind closed doors, once every decade, the duopoly carves up the electorate, leaving most of us with another decade of no-choice legislative elections. The next gerrymandering is set for 2001. With 50 states as potential battlegrounds and voter frustration everywhere, a movement for PR has a perfect opening and a natural rallying cry that fits with its own democratic impulse: “This time let the voters decide.”


There are no better people to run America than European American people. European peoples should be able to organize and advance their own interests just like every other group.

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:


The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!


European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


Driving Old Whitey Down

By Homeless Jack | In the latest attempt to erase any vestiges of Whiteness, there is now a bill before the California State Legislature to ban any uses of the Confederate flag on state owed property.

It seems that Black California Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Los Angeles–a member of the Legislative Black Caucus–didn’t like seeing the Confederate flag on trinkets being sold in the gift shop in the state house in Sacramento so he came up with the idea to ban them.

Now, one can look at this and say it’s no big deal, just ban the image, but there are larger issues here about how all vestiges of Whiteness are being removed one by, not only in California but all across the U.S.

A town in New Jersey is changing the name of its Kennedy Center to the Obama Center after a Black politician suggested the change.HERE

It’s like the old Soviet Union where historical figures and history itself were changed from time to time. Tear down the old statue and put up a new one and tear out the pages in the history books about that person and erase him from history.

The difference today, is that the disappearing of this or that person is now about disappearing the entire White race and any expressions of Whiteness or White pride or identity.

Oh, perhaps the California White Legislative Caucus will understand the deeper things going on here and step in and protect Whiteness, White Identity, White people? Of course not, silly. There is no California White Legislative Caucus. Whites have no representation as Whites. Each White is on his or her own to be picked off by anyone who hates Whites.

And, in case you’re a new reader, here’s my short essay about a lack of a White Legislative Caucus in Sacramento (and perhaps in every other state legislature as well).

EUROPEAN-AMERICANS NEED A CAUCUS IN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

by H. Millard

It was recently announced that State Senator Marty Block, (D-San Diego), started the Legislative Jewish Caucus and that this caucus will also form a political action committee to raise money for Israel-friendly candidates. Block told the press that the Legislative Jewish Caucus “isn’t a religious based organization. We see this as an ethnic organization.” This statement was presumably made to both forestall Muslims from starting a Muslim Legislative Caucus and also to head off complaints that the Legislative Jewish Caucus is breaching the wall between religion and state.

At any rate, the Legislative Jewish Caucus, as an ethnic/racial organization, now joins the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus and the Latino Legislative Caucus.

These caucuses work, sometimes behind the scenes and out of public view, to represent the interests of their ethnic/racial groups. They write legislation and take other actions on behalf of their particular ethnic/racial groups even though the people they are acting on behalf of may not live in their districts. In other words, unlike the traditional American political notion that people elected to public office represent a specific geographic area, these ethnic caucus members represent “their people,” no matter where they live in the state.

An example of what the members of these ethnic/racial caucuses do was presented in the Daily Pilot recently in a story about State Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, a member of the Latino Legislative Caucus, who has authored a bill that would force cities such as Costa Mesa to end city wide voting and replace it with district voting. District voting is a scheme that will lead to gerrymandered districts in Costa Mesa, in an attempt to include Latino voters in certain districts and exclude White voters from the districts.

On the welcome page of the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus we read this: “[T]he Caucus was founded in 2001 and serves to represent and advocate for the interests of the APIA community….”

On the Website of the Latino Legislative Caucus we read: “The Mission of the California Latino Legislative Caucus is to identify, promote and advocate on behalf of the professional, educational, social, political and cultural interests of the Latino Community.”

And, on the Website of the Legislative Black Caucus we read: “The continuing mission of the CLBC is to provide our unwavering commitment and support to our goal of achieving full inclusion of our state’s Africans American residents in every aspect of California life – from education and employment to housing and health to commerce and government services.”

So, there you have it. Four ethnic/racial organizations all advocating for the interests of their people. Who advocates for White people? No one.

Now, some who haven’t kept up with the news may say that a White Legislative Caucus isn’t needed because Whites are in the majority in the state. Actually, we’re not. Latinos have ether reached numbers parity or have exceeded the size of the White population. Some others may argue that Whites are not an ethnicity, but a race, and that we shouldn’t lump the various White ethnicities (or people who originated in many different European nations) together under one rubric such as White. Well, the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus lumps various Asian and Pacific Islander populations together, and the Legislative Black Caucus is based on race.

I’ll ask and answer this question once again: Who represents Whites and White interests? No one.

It’s time to change that. Will we now see some White legislators start a White Legislative Caucus? Probably not. Why? Because Whites have been so brow beaten about race that it seems many are even afraid to order a gallon of white paint at the hardware store lest they be called racist. The result of this racial intimidation that Whites have undergone for years is that Whites are left without any real representation for their particular interests (and we have many) in the state legislature.

Those timid souls who are so brow beaten that they run from the word “white,” can simply use the term European-American if it makes them feel more comfortable.


There are no better people to run America than European American people. European peoples should be able to organize and advance their own interests just like every other group.

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:


The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!


European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


US Politicians Who Hold Dual US/Israeli Citizenship

“If Americans were ever polled on it—and they never are—the majority who now object to increasing aid to Israel would also likely object to quasi-governmental and governmental positions being staffed by people who — by citizenship or sheer strength of identity politics — are primarily occupied with advancing Israeli interests rather than those of the United States. It is obvious that the real reason AIPAC and its economic luminaries such as Fischer never substantiate any of the advertised benefits the U.S. – Israel “special relationship” delivers to America in return for all of the costs is simple—there simply aren’t any. As greater Dual Citizennumbers of Americans become aware that the entire “special relationship” framework is sustained by nothing more than Israel lobby campaign-finance and propaganda networks, the harder the lobby will have to work… In the very short term, Americans can only fight such undue Israel lobby influence by again — like during the drive to attack Syria—staging a mass action to demand their senators reject Stanley Fischer’s nomination,” Grant Smith, IRMEP

Past and Present:

1. Attorney General – Michael Mukasey
2. Head of Homeland Security – Michael Chertoff
3. Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle
4. Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) – Paul Wolfowitz
5. Under Secretary of Defense – Douglas Feith
6. National Security Council Advisor – Elliott Abrams
7. Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff (Former) – “Scooter” Libby
8. White House Deputy Chief of Staff – Joshua Bolten
9. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – Marc Grossman
10. Director of Policy Planning at the State Department – Richard Haass
11. U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) – Robert Zoellick
12. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – James Schlesinger
13. UN Representative (Former) – John Bolton
14. Under Secretary for Arms Control – David Wurmser
15. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Eliot Cohen
16. Senior Advisor to the President – Steve Goldsmith
17. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Christopher Gersten
18. Assistant Secretary of State – Lincoln Bloomfield
19. Deputy Assistant to the President – Jay Lefkowitz
20. White House Political Director – Ken Melman
21. National Security Study Group – Edward Luttwak
22. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Kenneth Adelman
23. Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) – Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
24. National Security Council Advisor – Robert Satloff
25. President Export-Import Bank U.S. – Mel Sembler
26. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families – Christopher Gersten
27. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs – Mark Weinberger
28. White House Speechwriter – David Frum
29. White House Spokesman (Former) – Ari Fleischer
30. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Henry Kissinger
31. Deputy Secretary of Commerce – Samuel Bodman
32. Under Secretary of State for Management – Bonnie Cohen
33. Director of Foreign Service Institute – Ruth Davis
34. Federal Reserve Chair – Janet Yellen
35. Federal Reserve Vice-Chair – Stanley Fischer

Current (and past) Members of Senate:

  • Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)
  • Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)
  • Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)
  • Representative Howard Berman (California)
  • Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)
  • Representative Susan Davis (California)
  • Representative Eliot Engel (New York)
  • Representative Bob Filner (California)
  • Representative Barney Frank (Former) (Massachusetts)
  • Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)
  • Representative Jane Harman (California)
  • Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)
  • Representative Steve Israel (New York)
  • Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)
  • Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)
  • Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)
  • Representative Nita Lowey (New York)
  • Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)
  • Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)
  • Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)
  • Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
  • Representative Adam Schiff (California)
  • Representative Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)
  • Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)
  • Representative Brad Sherman (California)
  • Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)
  • Representative Henry Waxman (California)
  • Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)
  • Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)
  • House of Representatives (or lower chamber of the United States Congress):

  • Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)
  • Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)
  • Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)
  • Representative Howard Berman (California)
  • Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)
  • Representative Susan Davis (California)
  • Representative Eliot Engel (New York)
  • Representative Bob Filner (California)
  • Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts)
  • Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)
  • Representative Alan Grayson (Florida Alan Mark Grayson (born March 13, 1958) is an American politician who was the United States Representative for Florida’s 9th congressional district and a member of the Democratic Party. The United States House of Representatives is the lower chamber of the United States Congress which, along with the Senate, composes the legislature of the United States.)
  • Representative Jane Harman (California)
  • Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)
  • Representative Steve Israel (New York)
  • Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)
  • Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)
  • Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)
  • Representative Nita Lowey (New York)
  • Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)
  • Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)
  • Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)
  • Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
  • Representative Adam Schiff (California)
  • Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)
  • Representative Brad Sherman (California)
  • Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)
  • Representative Henry Waxman (California)
  • Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)
  • Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)
  • Political Power for European Americans!

    European peoples should organize and advance our own interests just like every other group. Join our fight for Heritage and Identity!

    The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!

    Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans. Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can or click here:

    $


    Nationalism! Not Globalism! America First! Not America Last!
    Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party! Political Power for European-Americans!

    European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist Party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!



    Dennis Kucinich Says he Favors Proportional Representation

    by Richard Winger | Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich was recently on the Amy Goodman radio show. Goodman asked him, “Proportional representation is really the name of the game in Sweden, right? Anyone who gets – I think it’s 4% of the vote, can be represented in Parliament. Can you comment on this? It’s a growing movement in the United States.

    Kucinich replied: “Well, it should happen. So, it’s really a step towards democratization, so that points of view that are held in the general populace are not squelched because they don’t reach some numerical sigificance that we call a majority. You know, majority politics are all very interesting, but what’s happening in the United States, with increasingly blurring the differences between the two parties, there’s a hunger for alternatives, and there’s a hunger for those alternatives to find a means of inclusion into the process. So, certainly, that’s one way to do it. And we need to broaden our discussion in America. When you come here (to Sweden) and you see so many different political persuasions represented, and our politics back home are monochromatic – I mean, increasingly. It’s grey, and you can’t really tell the difference. Here, you can. But at the same time, there’s a common commitment to the nation. We need to awaken those sentiments in America. And one way to do it is proportional representation.”

    Thanks to Steve Hill for this information.


    There are no better people to run America than European American people. European peoples should be able to organize and advance their own interests just like every other group.


    The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


    Support and maintain American Freedom Party growth and the spread of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


    Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
    Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!

    The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:

    European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


    The Rise and Demise of the EU: A Short History of A Big Failure

    Several costly mistakes were made by the founding fathers of the European Union (EU):

    • economics, and not politics, was thought to be the best tool to bring about the unification of Europe;
    • unclear plans about the limits of the enlargement of the European Union;
    • the unexpected and ongoing floods of non-European immigration as a result of the iron law of capitalism, combined with starry-eyed, guilt-feeling Christian inspired “love thy colored neighbor” ecumenism.

    The first signs of the decline did not wait to occur. The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, the Nice Treaty of 2001, and the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 became face-saving attempts at rectifying the failures already embedded in the founding myth of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

    "Prague Street" by Otto DixQuite revealing is the fact that the predecessor of the European Union, the European Economic Community (EEC), following the Treaty of Rome in 1957, had adopted the “economic” name and not the name of “political community.” The underlying belief, inherent to liberalism, was that only thorough economic benefits — only through the removal of trade barriers and state borders, and with the free flux of people, goods and capital — would age-old interethnic hatreds among Europeans disappear. The results of such delusions are becoming visible every day.

    Nor has the EU been very democratically minded toward its member states. In 1992 Denmark voted in a referendum against the Maastricht Treaty; in 2001 Ireland voted against the Nice Treat, and then Ireland again voted in 2008 against the Lisbon Treaty. The popular outcome of those national referendums was each time shrugged off by the EU leaders with the words: “try again next time.” Concerning the main EU mover and shaker, Germany, all referenda on any subject are forbidden by law, due to Germany’s post-WWII legal status. To put it in a less politically correct language and in plain English, Germany is an occupied country with 50.000 US troops still stationed on its soil.

    Transfer Union: Austerity Union

    The centralized bureaucracy in Brussels regulates every aspect of life among European member states. When a country faces default, the EU is slated to become a “transfer union,” with rich countries, like Germany, setting the rules for defaulting countries. Subsequently, based on the latter’s financial (in)discipline, hand- out money is to be delivered to insolvent banks of a state facing default. This practice is in contradiction with Article 125 of the Maastricht Treaty forbidding any EU member state to bail out another member state. But who cares. The mystique of the market needs to prevail in the EU — in this regard, it is quite similar to the enforcement of the former Marxist mystique in the former Soviet Union. For instance, given the disparity in economic performance between Romania and Germany and their divergent taxation systems, blind faith that the market can smooth out all difficulties appears to be another illusion.

    The Euro, introduced as the single currency in the economies of the 17 member states in the early 2000’s with the hope of accelerating the convergence of national economies, has instead worsened the living standards of EU citizens. The EU removal of all obstacles to free trade has resulted in the influx of cheap non-European goods produced in emerging economies of the Far East, engaged in dumping in all forms (social, fiscal, environmental, etc.). The labor market in Pacific Rim countries, including India and China, with the population of well over 3.5 billion people, has a huge comparative advantage in supplying cheap labor and inexpensive goods to Europe. This inevitably results in the sharp decline of wages of Europeans, followed by incessant outsourcing of local labor-intensive manufacturing industry.

    The Euro could make sense if two conditions had been met: the existence of the strong custom union with protective tariffs and the awareness that economic disparities between the rich and the poor member European states would not go away with a stroke of a pen. This, however, was not the case. The single European currency imposed a single interest rate on the 17 member states and the remaining 11 states which do not use the Euro, but whose own local currency is pegged to the Euro. The European Central Bank in Frankfurt, similar to the Federal Reserve in the U.S., is a true political sovereign in Europe; it has more clout in foreign and domestic policy than any member state or any local government in the EU.

    Another worrisome project is the soon-to-be launched Euro-American “New Transatlantic Economic Partnership” (TTIP), created in 1998. This joint body, consisting of the European Commission and US government officials, is scheduled to create a transatlantic market in all aspects of trade and investment. In June 2013, the European Commission negotiated with the U.S. government a large transatlantic common market designated to eliminate trade barriers between the EU and USA and allegedly bring more prosperity to the citizens of the EU and the U.S. Similar rhetoric about “prosperity for all European citizens” could be heard in Europe on the eve of the Maastricht Treaty when the European Commission pontificated about the implementation of the single European market, scheduled for 1992 and thought to be able to generate between 2 and 5 million new jobs. Where are those jobs? Instead, as of June 2014, there were well over 25 million unemployed in the EU, part-timers not included.

    The Wall Street Journal of February 2, 2014 quotes the European Commission saying that the “TTIP is the cheapest stimulus package imaginable.” The WSJ author of the article continues in an upbeat vein, adding that “the EU and the U.S. can expect more than $250 billion in additional GDP and hundreds of thousands of jobs from a successful partnership, according to the Center for European Policy Analysis.” Such ecstatic rhetoric is worthy of former Soviet fable tellers.

    What the TTIP does not mention is securing of rights of the labor; nor does it mention the vanishing role of trade unions in Europe, which have, over the last century, even more than in the USA, been the only safety net for European workers. However, in a global world today, in order to stay competitive, a firm or an enterprise must lower the costs of production. Obviously, this must entail the constant reduction in workers’ wages, benefits, and, generally speaking, the reduction of budgetary allocations for the welfare state in Europe.

    Another factor affecting meager growth in Europe, as Alain de Benoist writes in his new book dealing with the coming European apocalypse, is the huge pressure of big shareholders. In the modern capitalist system, both in the US and EU, companies finance shareholders and not the other way around. Modern shareholders always assume that a company or an enterprise must be in their service — starting with investment funds. Predictably, shareholders want to maximize the value of their capital gains even if that means for a national company or a firm to cut wages, carry out mass layoffs and relocate domestic citizens to faraway countries.

    Capitalism and Christianity Breeding Interbreeding

    A third and the most serious problem the EU Commission is aware of, but does not want to tackle in public, is social and racial costs of non- European immigration to Europe. Immigration has always been a phenomenon linked to big business. As of now, according to official statistics, the European Union, with its 500 million people, has over 71 million immigrants, as reported by the very politically correct, French mainstream daily, Le Monde.According to recent statistics Spain, Germany and UK have more than half of all immigrants in the EU, that is, 6.5% of the EU population. There were 47.3 million foreign-born residents in the EU in 2010, corresponding to 9.4% of the total population. Of these, 31.4 million were born outside the EU with 16 million born in another EU member state. In 2007, out of 82.3 million inhabitants in Germany, 15.4 million had — what the German authorities and media euphemistically and in a politically correct German vernacular call — “migrant background” (Migrationshintergrund), meaning in plain English, non-White immigrants.

    One must be careful though with the statistical body counts of immigrants, a procedure often falsely viewed in academia as the most reliable empirical basis for the study of immigration. The figure of 71 million immigrants in the EU does not specify whether this figure includes the number of illegal immigrants, or the number of White European immigrants relocating to other EU member states, or immigrants of color. In France, for instance, millions of Moroccan or Algerian residents and/or their descendants are not counted as immigrants, many being already naturalized and many holding two citizenships. The French law prohibits making statistics on the basis of racial affiliation; therefore, one cannot tell by official statistics the exact number of the non-Whites in France.

    Acquisition of citizenship is also on the rise in the EU. In 2009, 776.000 persons obtained citizenship in 28 states comprising the European Union. However, millions of Africans and Asians, already naturalized in the UK and France, are not included in this figure. They are already considered “Europeans.” Also, by U.S. Department of State estimates, as of 2011, there were 1.6 million Americans in Europe, the US military and diplomatic personnel not included. One could cautiously put the overall numbers of naturalized citizens of color, along with non-naturalized legal and illegal immigrants of color residing in the EU at 10 percent, i.e. roughly 50 million non- Whites in Europe.

    Contrary to a widespread belief among many European and American Whites, not only the leftists or the antifas and other non-White ethnic activist organizations are advocates of non-European immigration. Big companies, big business and the Church bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for bringing in non-European immigrants. The merchant, just like his counterpart, the Communist commissar or the Christian prelate, does not like borders. In particular the Catholic Church in Europe has been over the last several decades the most outspoken champion of multiracial society. Theologically speaking, any state border is in contradiction with the spirit of Christian ecumenism, and its end result resulting in race mixing. In historical perspective, one only needs to briefly look at the open advocacy of race mixing by the Church in Latin America from the 17th to the 20th century. From the perspective of capitalist free trade, however, immigration is in full accordance with the spirit of capitalism aiming at the erasure of all ethnicities and of all national borders (“laissez faire, laissez passer”).

    Most non-European immigrants, both legal and illegal, owe their mass arrival to Europe to guilt-ridden, Christian-inspired, Good Samaritan humanitarianism professed by the Church combined with the so-called outsourcing brought about by the very logic of capitalism. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, at the beginning of the 19th century, capitalists have dreamed of the increased mobility of labor as well as continuous migration of people and races across the earth. This time around, big business has finally reached its hand to the Marxist inspired far-left and to modern Christian disciples of various stripes, the former aiming at dismantling the welfare state, considered too costly, the latter killing off the nation-state viewed as an unchristian entity or considered a legacy of fascism.

    One should examine first the Christian belief in egalitarianism and universalism and its secular economic and ideological derivatives, such as communism and capitalism, before criticizing non-European immigrants storming into Europe and the USA.

    Dr. Tom Sunic is a former political science professor and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Freedom Party. His new book is Chroniques des temps postmodernes (Avatar, 2014)


    There are no better people to run America than European American people. European peoples should be able to organize and advance their own interests just like every other group.


    The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


    Support and maintain American Freedom Party growth and the spread of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


    Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
    Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!

    The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:

    European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


    Top