Enemies Within: President Trump Is In Extreme Danger


President Trump may have escaped the clutches of Hillary Clinton. But can he escape the danger posed by the Democratic/Communist Party who are agents of the globalists and whose main goal is the destruction of the United States?

The following comprise the “hit team” who want to take him out and subjugate the American people.

Enemies Within

President Trump faces an unthinkable challenge. He is not only faced with dealing with over 80 Congressmen who are members of front organiztions for the Communist party and the Muslim Brotherhood, he has many of these philosophical traitors to the Republic serving in senior and mid-level managment in the various agencies of the Federal government. In other words, the President is surrounded by traitors who are dedicated to the destruction of the United States. Their traitors are your enemy whether you realize it or not!

Please allow me to superfically review how extensive the treason to the Republic is. This will be followed up by a stunning revelation as the end of the article.

Treason In Our Midst

Was anyone else bothered by the fact the large body count of Democratic Congressmen who did not attend the Inauguration. These unpatriotic Congressmen were led by the very radicalized John Lewis. Lewis belongs to the Progressive Caucus which a clear front organization  for the Communist Party as are the other disloyal Congressmen.

At minimum, I am concerned because these Congressmen demonstrated that they will not work with this President. This is troublesome because the Congress and the President must work together for the good of the country.

At maximum, I am concerned about this development because questions about these Congressmen are being asked by my audience with regard to their real motivation. Many of my readers and viewers are questioning if these Congressmen want to simply be “out of the blast zone” for what is coming. In other words they are positioning themselves to survive the coup that is coming.

New Zealand Journalist, Trevor Loudon, documents, through his new documentary entitled The Enemies Within) how the Communist Party of the USA itself has adopted a stealth plan to achieve revolutionary goals by decisions made in the 1970s to infiltrate and manipulate the Democratic Party. Loudon’s newest work documents how Lewis is a member of several front organizations with strong ties to the Community Party.

“The Communist and Muslim Brotherhood infiltration plan is to form alliances with the radical elements in organized labor in conjunction with radicals in the African-American community and the feminist movement to establish a progressive coalition on the left that could dominate the national political agenda for decades to come.”  John Lewis is a member of the Progressive Caucus which is a front group for the Communist Party. Lewis is not alone, but his actions and allegiances speak to his lack of commitment to the Republic and most importantly, the Constitution of The United States.
With these associations and his continual efforts in dividing the country, this Congressman should resign. Our country has reached its saturation point with treason from its public officials. Lewis has lost all credibility. Fromer Congressman, Alan West, has identified 80 of these Congressman as belonging to front groups for either the Communist party or the Muslim Brotherhood, or both.

The Muslim Brotherhood Invasion of  DHS and the White House

Is any interpretation needed to see where this is headed?

The Deputy Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin

This section is not about Muslims serving in the White House. America has no problem with this so long as they uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. This section is also not about The embarrassed and disgraced wife of deposed Congressman, Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin, has undeniable family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In an interview with FrontPageMag, anti-Islamist activist and author Walid Shoebat explained that Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, is and was deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and that Huma’s brother, Hassan, is on the board of the Oxford Centre For Islamic Studies (OCIS) where he is a fellow and partners with other board members including “Al-Qaeda associate, Omar Naseef and the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi; both have been listed as OCIS Trustees.” Has the FBI stopped vetting Federal governmental employees in highly sensitive positions?

Department of Homeland Security Deputy Mayor, Arif Alikhan


In the publication, Discover the Networks, the editors discuss the background as it relates to highly sensitive federal agency employment (e.g. DHS) and the Muslim terrorist affiliations ofArif Alikhan. Alikhan’s resume is very impressive.

  • “Former deputy mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles

  • Was responsible for derailing the LAPD’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community

  • Was appointed as assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development in Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2009

  • Became a Professor of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism in 2010.”

  • Now serving as a distinguished, visiting professor at the National Defense University.

Alikhan was responsible for derailing the LAPD‘s efforts to monitor radical and potentially terrorist activities within the city’s Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques were known to have provided aid and comfort to the 9/11 hijackers.

Alikhan, an openly devout Sunni Muslim, has openly participated in a Muslim Public Affairs Council fundraiser titled “Be the Change,” in order to support that organization’s leadership-development programs which openly advocates for the Sharia Law takeover of the United States. The open support for this Sharia Law intention to overthrow the U.S. government, on the part of an American citizen, is illegal. When such an advocate is a Federal employee in a sensitive position this person should disqualify one from holding sensitive positions within the government.

Obama Administration Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel

If you were on the FBI team vetting Presidential appointees, would you grant your seal of approval to the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and who has defended the convicted WTC bombers. Well, somebody thought Eboo Patel, the man in question would make a splendid member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

Additionally, Patel, himself, spoke at a Muslim Students Association and ISNA Convention, while appearing on a panel, and also being partnered with Tariq Ramadan.

Ramadan is the grandson of Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and has defended the convicted WTC bombers. Wahhaj  advocates for the Islamic takeover of America under the banner of Sharia Law.

All of these people combined, plus GEORGE SOROS, are poised to overthrow this government and the intention, to do so, extends deep into every agency. Obama had 8 years to plant subversive time bombs.

State Department Employee, Monika Wesolowski

For the past 72 hours, I have covered the case of State Department employee, Monika Wesolowski. Through and off-handed, unintentional comment, Monika revealed that State Department brochures obfuscate the presence of child-sex trafficking inside the territorial boundaries of the United States.

Since I published the two part story about Monika, I have heard from several Federal employees who verify the aforementioned concern and futher, they make claims that parts of our Federal government are actually involved in facilitating child-sex trafficking and the people’s resources are involved.

Report: Sanctuary Cities Received $27 Billion From Feds Each Year

1 in 5 city residents in Los Angeles are illegal immigrants

Look Who Funds The Group Behind The Call To Arms At Milo’s Berkeley Event

The Alliance for Global Justice

Media ‘Legitimizing Violence’ To Foment Civil War – Berkeley ‘Was Just The Beginning’


By Susan Duclos – All News PipeLine

The night before last it was rioting at Berkely because a conservative speaker was slated for an event, and yesterday it was New York University, where the “weaponized snowflakes” as Stefan Stanford called them yesterday, where once again out of control, and attempted to prevent a speaker who held different ideological views from the protesters, from speaking, which resulted in 11 arrests.

An NYU spokesman expressed disappointment “that many students on this campus are so disrespectful when it comes to hearing opposing speakers.” The statement continued “There’s a strong idea on this campus that the slightest opposing views are completely unwelcomed.We understand that his presence was controversial but we didn’t expect these outburst [sic] from this institution. We hope that in the future, NYU students will be more open to hearing ideas that are different from their own.”

This is the type of behavior we documented throughout 2016, but it is just a symptom of a much bigger issue, where liberal politicians, along with the MSM in the U.S., are deliberately trying to legitimize violence against conservatives.

Let me make myself crystal clear to the MSM, and to the liberal politicians deliberately attempting to label conservatives and trying to foment civil war in America…… If you force us to defend ourselves, you will lose…….and the blood of every American caught up in your war, will be on your hands.



As I was furiously scribbling on my legal pad, and gathering links to highlight the points I am noting while browsing news, to prioritize them into bullet points of importance, so the “big picture” I am cataloging in my head ends up being comprehensive as I lay it out in an article, I ran across a statement from Milo Yiannopoulos from his interview with Tucker Carlson regarding the riot that prevented his event at Berkeley, which succinctly summarizes the conclusion that my four pages of notes (front and back of legal sized paper), had led me to.

He said in the interview you will see below, “The real people that I want to hear from are the guys who are on CNN, who are legitimizing ordinary conservatives being called white supremacists, anti-Semites, racists, sexists, when they’re not. There’s inevitable, obvious consequence to this. … The media has created this environment in which it’s okay to say almost anything about somebody who is right of Jane Fonda. If you have slightly conservative, or even libertarian points of view, especially if you are persuasive and charismatic and funny and effective, like we both are, you will get called the most appalling things. And it’s a way of legitimizing, in some cases, as happened last night, violent responses.”

Excellent points made in the interview below by both Carlson and Milo. It doesn’t matter if one agrees with his lifestyle, his ideology, his terminology, as long as he is not trying to incite violence against anyone, he is entitled to speak at an event he was invited to. No one was attempting to force those protesters to listen, to join in the event or to agree with him.

From Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters “deplorable” while trying to label them white supremacists, xenophobics, homophobics and a whole host of other tags she tried to put on them, to Nancy Pelosi irresponsibly calling Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist to President Trump, a “white supremacist,” just this week, to the media’s consistent Trump bashing, they are all trying to normalize violence against anyone that disagrees with their liberal agenda, to which Trump is dismantling at a dizzying pace.


While Milo and Tucker discuss the latest lunacy from CNN in their attempt to legitimize violence against conservatives and libertarians, one of the links I bookmarked yesterday highlighted how the New York Times managed to launch 31 attacks against President Trump in just one issue of their paper, dated January 30, 2017. Just look at the front page of Washington Post online, on any given day and see how many of their articles focus on President Trump. One would think by looking at their papers that the whole world simply revolves around him and we are all suffering from the Trump-ocalypse!

Look at one of the recent headlines from Foreign Policy, published by the FP Group, which just happens to be a division of Graham Holdings Company, formerly known as The Washington Post Company, which states “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020, which includes their suggestion of a “military coup.”

We also note how a New York Times journalist, India Knight, recently “joked” about assassinating the president of the United States, saying on Twitter “The assassination is taking such a long time,” which followed  a German editor saying “murder in the White House” could be a way to end the “Trump catastrophe” on a German television program.

The inarguable fact here is that the mainstream media fought hard against Donald Trump when he was the Republican candidate for President, while actively promoting Hillary Clinton….. and they lost. The skewed coverage, the polls that over sampled Democrats to make it appear that Clinton couldn’t lose, with NBC’s Chuck Todd recently admitting that the MSM knew how “hated” Hillary Clinton was in the heartland and they deliberately “underplayed” it.

“If we sort of were straight-up honest and blunt about hey do we understand the level of hatred that’s out there and you know, all the Hillary for Prison signs that are out there, we certainly would have at least made the viewer know, hey, you know, she’s not well-liked in some places in this country in ways that’s times 10 when it comes to Trump,” he said.

Let that sink in for a moment…. they knew and they deliberately chose to mislead their audience. It doesn’t matter what reasons or justifications Todd offers for why they did it, he admitted they did it during the general election cycle.

Despite that…. Americans largely ignored them. The “heartland,” the sea of red in the election map which gave Trump and electoral victory, completely tuned them out.



US News and World Report details a debate within Democratic ranks, where the more moderate Democrats are wondering if the “perpetual outrage” is self-defeating, driving people away, asking ” If they cry wolf every 12 hours, will the effect of their urgency wane over time? Instead of presenting an alternative vision, will they end up looking simply like a party of outrage?”

The more liberal portion of the Democratic party, the hard-core progressives, want four years of Democrats declaring out-right war on everything the new administration does. In the article, the writer points something out that in my opinion, is a critical piece of the puzzle:

Yet given that Trump’s approval rating is hovering between a respectable 45 and 49 percent depending on the poll, the fury emanating out of Washington and other major American cities is likely disproportional to the country at large. To some Democrats, this is a flashing alarm that incessant full-throated opposition is counterproductive.

In other words, to slap a visual on that statement, the anger coming from the portions of the map above in blue, is not being felt in the swaths of America shown in red above.

Which brings me back to the deliberate phrasing House minority leader Nancy Pelosi chose to use in reference to Steve Bannon, when she publicly attempted to label him a “white supremacist.”

Hillary Clinton tried that, with the MSM pushing that meme for her consistently throughout the general campaign. I refer to you back to the map above when I say… they failed.

Say what you want about Pelosi, but she was the House majority leader at one point, she has been in politics for what seems like 100 years, and she is now the House minority leader, we may not like her ideology, her stances, her actions…. but she is not without intelligence, so what possible reason would she use an argument that failed so spectacularly and in such a public manner during the election cycle?

The argument that the “deplorables,” being Trump supporters, were all a bunch of white supremacist, racist, reprobates, didn’t work during the election, and the media and politicians like Pelosi know those arguments are not and will not sway the “heartland” voters now, so their constant attempts to use inflammatory rhetoric as a way to legitimize violence, and is being done to further weaponize snowflakes and to incite more protests and riots throughout the country.



Conservatives told themselves and each other that the protests and riots that occurred after the election would calm down once Hillary supporters got over the shock, which they only felt because the media refused to inform them how much Clinton was truly hated in the heartland. We told ourselves that the recount efforts were simply last acts of desperation. The death threats against the electors were their Hail Mary’s, but once that all failed, things would mellow out.

Then the attempts to stop the inauguration began, then the riots that followed the inauguration, along with the vulgar vagina march, where “nasty women” talked about blowing up the White House.

Perhaps the best proof of my assertion that liberal politicians and their progressive brethren, including Holly-whores, along with the mainstream media, are so angry at “heartland” Americans, they would rather bring about a civil war than to accept the election results and the subsequent policy changes that comes with a new administration from the opposing party, is a direct threat by a liberal, which has since been deleted, where Comedy director Judd Apatow threatened Americans who support Donald Trump, in response to a CNN article about the Berkeley riots, where he said “This is just the beginning. When will all the fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?” (Seen in the screen shot of the deleted tweet above)

I will end this the way I began it, with a warning to Pelosi and progressives, the Holly-whores threatening us, and to the mainstream media…. if you force us to defend ourselves, you will lose.

Disclaimer – While ANP has never condoned the incitement of violence, and never will, we have always been proponents of self-defense in protection of self, family, property and community.

In the video below, CBS SF Bay Area names the anti-fascist  “black bloc” group as the ones starting the violence at the protests, with USA Today reporting they have been linked to “a number of modern protests, most recently in efforts opposing President Donald Trump. The Nation credits a Black Bloc protester with punching alt-right leader Richard Spencer in the face on Trump’s inauguration day.  The Washington Post said Black Blocs were involved with violent protests in Washington, D.C. on inauguration day and in Portland following Trump’s election win.”

As further evidence that media outlets like CNN are deliberately providing their audience with outright “fake news,” compare the news CBS SF Bay Area was reporting live, with the CNN video below it, where their fake news of the day is a claim the black bloc group were really “right-wingers,” claiming he heard a rumor they were affiliated with Breitbart.



Ex-Obama Official Suggests ‘Military Coup’ Against Trump

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump stands at his podium during the Presidential Debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016 in Hempstead, New York. The first of four debates for the 2016 Election, three Presidential and one Vice Presidential, is moderated by NBC's Lester Holt. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Aaron Klein

In a blog post for Foreign Policy magazine, Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official, outlined four ways to “get rid” of President Trump, including declaring him mentally unfit for command or carrying out a military coup.

Brooks is a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation, which is funded by billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. She served from 2009-2011 as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and served as a senior adviser at Obama’s State Department.

Her posting is titled “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020,” although the piece actually outlines four ways.

In what seems to be a deliberate tactic, Brooks repeatedly questions Trump’s mental stability, claiming that the president’s first week in office “has made it all too clear: Yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared.”

Brooks, who is not a mental health professional, offered no evidence for her armchair psychological evaluation other than citing policies that she doesn’t like.

Remember those optimistic pre-inauguration fantasies? I cherished them, too. You know: “Once he’s president, I’m sure he’ll realize it doesn’t really make sense to withdraw from all those treaties.” “Once he’s president, surely he’ll understand that he needs to stop tweeting out those random insults.” “Once he’s president, he’ll have to put aside that ridiculous campaign braggadocio about building a wall along the Mexican border.” And so on.

Nope. In his first week in office, Trump has made it eminently clear that he meant every loopy, appalling word — and then some.

Brooks listed four ways to get rid of a “crummy” president.

  • Elect him out of office after his four-year term. “But after such a catastrophic first week, four years seems like a long time to wait,” she wrote.
  • Impeachment. However, she lamented, “impeachments take time: months, if not longer — even with an enthusiastic Congress. And when you have a lunatic controlling the nuclear codes, even a few months seems like a perilously long time to wait.”
  • Utilizing a claim of mental instability to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which sets the path for the commander-in-chief’s removal if the “president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
  • A military coup. She writes: “The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.”

Regarding her suggested military coup, a creative Brooks proposes preposterous scenarios that she fears Trump might try to play out:

What would top U.S. military leaders do if given an order that struck them as not merely ill-advised, but dangerously unhinged? An order that wasn’t along the lines of “Prepare a plan to invade Iraq if Congress authorizes it based on questionable intelligence,” but “Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!” or “Start rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them to Guantánamo!” or “I’m going to teach China a lesson — with nukes!”

When it comes to invoking the 25th Amendment, Brooks argues for appealing to the “ambitions” of Vice President Mike Pence.

That Amendment states:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

“Surely Pence wants to be president himself one day, right?” Brooks writes. “Pence isn’t exactly a political moderate — he’s been unremittingly hostile to gay rights, he’s a climate change skeptic, etc. — but, unappealing as his politics may be to many Americans, he does not appear to actually be insane. (This is the new threshold for plausibility in American politics: ‘not actually insane.’)”

During the 2016 presidential campaign, opponents of Trump similarly attempted to delegitimize his policies by raising questions about his mental health.  As I wrote at the time, the template for such attacks may have been set more than five decades ago when such claims were deployed against Senator Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign, which was widely considered a threat to the political establishment.

That theme has continued into Trump’s first two weeks in office.

Earlier this week, U.S. News and World Report ran a story titled, “Temperament Tantrum: Some say President Donald Trump’s personality isn’t just flawed, it’s dangerous.”

Apparently violating the so-called Goldwater Rule, established by the American Psychiatric Association after similar attacks against Goldwater, the magazine quoted numerous health care professionals attempting to categorize Trump’s mental stability. The APA’s Goldwater Rule forbids psychiatrists from commenting on someone’s mental status unless they first carry out an examination and the doctor is authorized by the patient to speak to the public.

The U.S. News story, for example, quotes John D. Gartner, described as a “practicing psychotherapist who taught psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School” as claiming Trump is “dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being president.”

The Independent newspaper this week ran a story that also attempted to diagnose Trump. It was titled, “’Malignant narcisissm’: Donald Trump displays classic traits of mental illness, claim psychologists.” The article similarly cited mental health professionals commenting on Trump’s alleged psychological disorder.

The Independent article partially drew from a New York Daily News story from this week titled, “President Trump exhibits classic signs of mental illness, including ‘malignant narcissism,’ shrinks say.”

“Narcissism impairs his ability to see reality,” Dr. Julie Futrell, a clinical psychologist, told the newspaper while pointing out that she never actually treated Trump.

During Goldwater’s candidacy, the campaign to distort the public’s perception of the politician culminated in an infamous 1964 article in Fact Magazine, which surveyed members of the American Psychiatric Association, or APA, on Goldwater’s mental stability, though none of the psychiatrists had personally examined the presidential candidate.

The New York Times reported on the Goldwater smear:

The survey, highly unscientific even by the standards of the time, was sent to 12,356 psychiatrists, of whom 2,417 responded. The results were published as a special issue: “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.”

The psychiatrists’ assessment was brutal. Half of the respondents judged Mr. Goldwater psychologically unfit to be president. They used terms like “megalomaniac,” “paranoid,” and “grossly psychotic,” and some even offered specific diagnoses, including schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder.

Only 27 percent of the respondents said Mr. Goldwater was mentally fit, and 23 percent said they didn’t know enough about him to make a judgment.

Brilliant Explanation Of What Trump…And We…Are Now Facing

So the Clinton’s/Bush’s invested into the private prisons, shipped in the cocaine, stopped the money going to public defenders, and told kids to take a plea deal. . . . .


Well worth the listen. (20 minute mark for the break down)