George Soros Backed Inauguration Weekend Mayhem

On Jan. 20, numerous protest groups demonstrated against the inauguration of Donald Trump. The next day, many more came out to protest for “women’s rights.” According to a report on a website affiliated with The New York Times, as many as 50 of these groups are directly funded by billionaire troublemaker and ultra-liberal agitator George Soros.

By John Friend

Thousands of anti-Trump protesters, Hillary Clinton lovers, free traders, anarchists, black victimization theory proponents, and other radical leftists descended upon Washington, D.C. the weekend of Jan. 20-22, wreaking havoc on the streets of the nation’s capital during the inauguration of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Protesters attacked private businesses, engaged in physical confrontations with law enforcement officials, and even assaulted several Trump supporters over the course of the weekend.

According to an article in The New York Times by Asra Nomani, a Muslim feminist activist, as many as 50 protest groups that were active over the course of that weekend received financial support from billionaire slash-and-burn speculator George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

The inauguration ceremony was an elegant and classy affair, featuring several righteous speeches, including an inspiring acceptance speech by Trump himself, wherein the populist businessman doubled down on his “America first” stance on the key issues facing this once-great nation.

Blocks away, however, protesters smashed store windows, set fire to cars, and threw bricks at police. Protesters were seen jumping on vehicles, shattering the windshields of multiple cars and a limo owned by a Muslim immigrant.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to city Police Chief Peter Newsham, at least 217 individuals were arrested for their participation in the violence and mayhem during the inauguration.

“The charge is rioting,” Newsham explained to reporters. “Our intention going into this event was to make zero arrests, and unfortunately, they forced our hand.”

According to a variety of media reports, the majority of those arrested will face felony rioting charges.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the offense is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000,” CBS News reported. Several police officers were injured during the protests, and court documents filed in the case allege that rioters caused over $100,000 in damage.

Protests against Trump continued over the weekend in D.C. and around the world. In nearly every major American city, protesters organized to voice their hysterical opposition to Trump, which is fueled largely by the dishonest fake news media and hostile political establishment. Protests also manifested in dozens of cities in the United Kingdom, Europe, Mexico, Australia, and other foreign nations. The largest protest in D.C. over the weekend was dubbed the “Women’s March on Washington,” and featured millions of anti-Trump partisans voicing their disapproval of the president’s perceived misogynist, racist, and fascist views, themes echoed by the radical leftist and anarchist protesters who took to the streets the day before.


In a revealing article published by The New York Times, Asra Nomani documented the close connection billionaire George Soros, a top Clinton supporter and donor, has to the various groups who organized the “Women’s March on Washington,” which many media outlets falsely described as a “grassroots” and “organic” protest. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as Soros’s Open Society Foundations has been instrumental in financing and organizing the radical left in America for decades.

In documents published late last summer, it was revealed that Soros’s organizations are involved in funding and sponsoring not only the Black Lives Matter movement, a destructive terrorist organization that is responsible for violence and mayhem in dozens of U.S. cities, but also a number of other radical leftist causes, including increasing the number of so-called “refugees” the U.S. admits each year.

According to Ms. Nomani, “Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s ‘partners,’ including ‘key partners’ Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s right-to-life policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies.”


Other organizations connected to Soros that were involved with the Women’s March include, the National Action Network, the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, among others.

A spokeswoman for Soros’s Open Society Foundations denied Soros or his organizations are funding the protests that have swept the nation following Trump’s election and recent inauguration.

However, it is clear that dozens of organizations involved with the protests have intimate financial and organizational ties to Soros, and are working to advance his radical leftist ideological agenda.

As the left becomes more emboldened and outraged with a Trump administration that eschews political correctness and is openly hostile to many of the key agendas that it tirelessly champions, tensions may continue to rise.

The polarization in America could not be more obvious, and the lines are clearly being drawn.

Will Trump muster the will to stand up to the violent, terroristic antics of the radical left and prevent them from wreaking even more destruction and chaos than they already have?

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

No, Trump Did Not Ban Muslims from the U.S.

Despite what you may have read, President Donald Trump has not banned Muslims from entering the United States. He has paused immigration from seven countries where terrorism is rampant pending an in-depth probe by U.S. law enforcement to ensure the safety of all Americans, not just refugees from wars instigated under past presidents.

By John Friend

Last Friday, President Donald Trump signed what has proved to be an extremely controversial executive order that temporarily bans visas and entry to the United States for individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries that are vulnerable to terrorism. The countries, which include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, had previously been identified by the Obama administration as countries whose citizens deserved closer scrutiny and a stronger vetting process before being granted a visa and entry into the United States.


The hostile mass media and leftist agitators were quick to denounce Trump’s rational and commonsense executive order as a blanket “Muslim ban,” stirring up echoes of racism and oppression. Protests were organized across the country at numerous major airports, while political leaders of both parties as well as some government bureaucrats and officials voiced their opposition and attempted to set up roadblocks to implementing and complying with Trump’s executive order.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Just yesterday, Trump fired Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general who had been appointed by former President Obama and was set to serve as attorney general until Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s pick to head the Justice Department, was officially confirmed. Ms. Yates openly defied the president and refused to enforce his order. What did she think was going to happen? Did she believe the White House would back down?

Following Ms. Yates’s dismissal, the Trump team chose Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to replace the disgraced former attorney general, who Trump argued had “betrayed” the U.S. government and American people. Boente will serve as attorney general until Sessions is officially confirmed by the Senate, which could take place this week.

“Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,” the Trump administration declared in a statement released following Ms. Yates’s termination. “It is time to get serious about protecting our country.”

The hysteria and mindless fury generated as a result of Trump’s executive order demonstrates once again the extreme hostility the mass media and political establishment have toward the Trump administration and its America-first mindset. Trump’s executive order is essentially following a proposal originally put forth and implemented by the Obama administration, which did not generate nearly as much controversy as Trump has with his recent order.


“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,” Trump said in an official White House statement. “The seven countries named in the executive order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

Trump went on to emphasize that his order is “not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.”

“This is not about religion. This is about terror and keeping our country safe,” Trump stated. “There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.”

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

Immigration: The First Firestorm

The globalists and the mainstream media are in a tizzy over President Trump’s new executive order that halts U.S. immigration for two to three months while officials work on ways to vet potential terrorists. While these elites claim his policies are un-American, to the man-in-the-street, they look like they’d rather have Paris-style killings than stop future acts of terrorism.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

That hysterical reaction to the travel ban announced Friday is a portent of what is to come if President Donald Trump carries out the mandate given to him by those who elected him.

The travel ban bars refugees for 120 days. From Syria, refugees are banned indefinitely. And a 90-day ban has been imposed on travel here from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Was that weekend-long primal scream really justified?

As of Monday, no one was being detained at a U.S. airport. Yet the shrieking had not stopped. All five stories on page one of Monday’s Washington Post were about the abomination. The New York Times’s editorial, “Trashing American Ideals and Security,” called it bigoted, cowardly, xenophobic, Islamophobic, un-American, unrighteous.

This ban, went the weekend wail, is the “Muslim ban” of the Trump campaign. But how so, when not one of the six largest Muslim countries—Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey—was on the list? Missing also were three-dozen other Muslim countries.

Of the seven countries facing a 90-day ban, three are U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror, and the other four are war zones. Clearly, this is about homeland security, not religious discrimination.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The criterion for being included in the travel ban appears to be that these places are the more likely breeding grounds for terrorists.

Yet there are lessons for the Trump White House in the media-stoked panic and outrage at the end of his first week in office.

First, Steve Bannon’s observation that the media are “the opposition party,” is obviously on target. While Sen. Chuck Schumer was crying on camera that the ban was “un-American,” the media were into the more serious business of stampeding and driving the protesters.

A second lesson is one every White House learns. Before a major decision is announced, if possible, get everyone’s input and everyone on board to provide what Pat Moynihan called the “second and third echelons of advocacy.” Those left out tend to leak.

A third lesson Trump should learn is that the establishment he routed and the city he humiliated are out to break him as they broke LBJ on Vietnam, Nixon on Watergate, and almost broke Reagan on the Iran-Contra affair.

While the establishment may no longer be capable of inspiring and leading the nation, so detested is it, it has not lost its appetite or its ability to break and bring down presidents.

And Trump is vulnerable, not only because he is an envied outsider who seized the highest prize politics has on offer, but because his agenda would cancel out that of the elites.

They believe in open borders, free trade, globalization. Trump believes in securing the Southern border, bringing U.S. industry home, economic nationalism, “America first.”

They want endless immigration from the Third World to remake America into the polyglot “universal nation” of Ben Wattenberg’s utopian vision. Trump’s followers want back the America they knew.

Our foreign policy elites see democratization as a vocation and an autocratic Russia as an implacable enemy. Trump instead sees Moscow as a potential ally against real enemies like al Qaida and ISIS.

There is another reason for the reflexive howl at Trump’s travel ban. The establishment views it, probably correctly, as the first move toward a new immigration policy, built on pre-1965 foundations, and rooted in a preference for Western-Christian immigrants first.

When the Times rages that “American ideals” or “traditional American values” are under attack by Trump, what they really mean is that their ideology and agenda are threatened by Trump.

We are headed for a series of collisions and crises, and what has happened in Europe will likely happen here. As the Third World invasion and growing Islamization of the Old Continent—which the EU has proven unable to stop—has discredited centrist parties and continuously fed a populist-nationalist uprising there, so may it here also.


And Trump not only appears to have no desire to yield to his enemies in politics and the media, he has no choice, as he is now the personification of a surging Middle American counterrevolution.

Undeniably, there are great numbers of Americans who agree with the libels the Times showered on Trump and, by extension, his backers whom Hillary Clinton designated “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … deplorables.”

But by whatever slurs they are called, Middle Americans seem prepared to fight. And history shows that such people do not calmly accept the loss of what is most precious to them—the country they grew up in, the country they love.

They have turned to Trump to lead them. Why should he not, having been raised up by them, and knowing in his own heart what the establishment and the media think of him and would do to him?

Ten days in, and already it is “Game On!”

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Michael Piper’s Final Judgment on JFK Assassination Now Back in Stock

Author Michael Collins Piper’s famous work Final Judgment is being reintroduced by American Free Press for the first time in many years. The book is currently at the printer, but you can advance order copies in our shopping cart starting today. Order now and get free media-mail shipping on all orders of the book in the United States.

By Christopher J. Petherick

In the years before Michael Collins Piper passed away on May 30, 2015, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, he told many of us here at AFP that he was working on some minor updates for his highly acclaimed book, Final Judgment. He wanted to reintroduce the book, which was already in its sixth edition, because he knew it was nearly impossible to get it anymore. Sadly, that never came to fruition before his unfortunate death, and you can now only find used copies on the Internet, at very, very steep prices.

Over the years, we can’t think of any other book in our inventory that readers have requested as much as Final Judgment. However, at over 800 pages, the sheer size of the book has made republishing it a daunting effort, and we have repeatedly hedged, telling people that, some day soon, we hope we’ll have it back in print.

Well, we have good news to report today. We are offering print copies of Mike’s incredible book once again—only this time we will be breaking it up into two manageable volumes of around 400 pages each. At this size, it will be easier to read and we have been told that the book binding will hold up for many more years than if we tried to cram over 800 pages into one softcover book.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

For those who don’t know, Final Judgment is considered to be one of the definitive books on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Through meticulous research, Mike pieced together multiple disparate theories on who was behind the murder, ultimately placing the blame for orchestrating this tragic event and the resultant cover-up on the Israeli government. Not surprisingly, the story is complicated. But, according to Mike, the reason Kennedy was in the crosshairs was largely due to his unwavering opposition to Israel getting the atomic bomb.

To this day, Mike’s book still stands the test of time. Of course, it is well known in conspiracy circles. But Final Judgment has also been cited by court historians and mainstream researchers, who find that Mike’s logical conclusions and in-depth analysis play an important role in finding out what really happened on that fateful day in Dallas.

If you would like to help us fund this project by ordering copies in advance, that would be much appreciated. Volume I contains the main text of the Final Judgment book plus Mike’s amazing photo section. It is 425 pages and will sell for $25 plus $4 S&H in the U.S. Volume 2 comprises the 10 extremely detailed appendices referenced again and again in the main body of the book. Volume 2 is 374 pages and will also sell for $25 plus $4 S&H in the U.S.

However, if you want to advance purchase the two-volume set right now, we will get it to you when it comes off the presses in about a month for just $40—and we’ll pay the S&H anywhere in the U.S. until March 1, 2017.


We also want to thank Mike’s good friend Prof. Ray Goodwin of Texas, an indomitable JFK researcher himself, who agreed to write the foreword to this 2017 commemorative edition. Ray is a strong supporter of Mike’s work and is a member of The Barnes Review history magazine’s editorial board.

To order in advance, click here, call 1-888-699-NEWS to charge, or send payment to AMERICAN FREE PRESS, 16000 Trade Zone Ave., Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, Md. 20774. Please write “Final Judgment 2017” on the memo line.

Christopher J. Petherick is the executive editor at American Free Press.

We Told You So: Antibiotic Resistance & the Food Supply

Two decades ago, health pioneers warned the world about the deadly effects of overuse of antibiotics. In the past few years, we have seen allopathic medications creating bacteria that are completely resistant to all forms of medicine known to doctors. Are we seeing a new age where otherwise healthy people will die of once-common ailments?

By James Spounias

Antibiotic resistance is in the news again, but there’s nothing new about this pervasive problem. In the Feb. 26, 2001 edition of The Spotlight, Tom Valentine warned about the danger of  antibiotics in America’s food supply, predicting that “antibiotic ‘wonders’ may be turning into a terrible health catastrophe, as greed and abuse provoke a serious ‘counter-revolution’ by pathogenic bacteria. Today virtually every public health institution is wary that antimicrobial resistance is a problem of ‘growing urgency.’ ”

The galling aspect of Valentine’s story was that antibiotics were not used for the health of animals but rather to fatten them up so they will fetch more money. The fatter the animal, the more money big agriculture gets, health be damned.

Valentine chastised big agriculture, big pharma, and do-nothing federal agencies for allowing this practice, without any concern for the health and welfare of the American people.

Valentine quoted the Union of Concerned Scientists, who issued a stern warning: “Tetracycline, penicillin, erythromycin, and other antimicrobials that are important in human use are used extensively in the absence of disease for nontherapeutic purposes in today’s livestock production. Cattle, swine, and poultry are routinely given antimicrobials throughout much of their lives.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

While the prospect of antibiotic resistance has been reported for a long time, alarm bells should now be ringing loudly, not just every time someone is said to have died of “antibiotic” resistance.

Is it any surprise that big agriculture, big pharma, and government ignore the obvious except when they desire to promote some other agenda?

Sixteen years after Valentine’s Spotlight article, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, on Dec. 22, 2016, that more antibiotics are being used in agriculture, in spite of the marketing pitches of restaurants and food companies pledging to sell animal products with minimal or no antibiotics.

NPR reported: “The FDA and other public health agencies have been pushing farmers to rely less on these drugs. Heavy use of antibiotics both in human medicine and in agriculture has led to the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria, complicating the task of treating many infections.”

Let’s get this straight: State and federal agencies have conducted SWAT team raids on raw-food providers, vitamin sellers, and medical professionals practicing alternative medicine, but somehow can’t “push” farmers (i.e., big agriculture) to use fewer or no antibiotics, which they know are putting the nation’s health at risk?

Such wimpy sentiment would be comical were the health of Americans not in peril. One case in September 2016, involving the death of a Reno, Nev. woman, who passed away due to antibiotic resistance, received national attention, but not without an agenda.

The unnamed woman’s case was reported in the Jan. 13 Centers for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which noted that the patient had Klebsiella pneumoniae, a bug that is often implicated in urinary tract infections and is in a class of bacteria known as carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which is considered highly resistant.

Doctors in Reno stated the patient’s infection was resistant to 14 different antibiotics, and samples sent to the CDC in Atlanta showed resistance to 26 antibiotics.

Dr. Alexander Kallen of the CDC stated: “I think it’s concerning. We have relied for so long on just newer and newer antibiotics. But obviously, the bugs can often [develop resistance] faster than we can make new ones.”

With all due respect, “newer and newer antibiotics” are not the solution, as we in the sane health movement have been warning for decades.


It’s also worth noting that because the patient had traveled to India and received medical care there, the CDC’s handwringing involved mention of the need to find out where patients had traveled and whether they’ve been hospitalized abroad.

How curious, given the fact that antibiotic resistance is anything but a “foreign” problem.

The unstated agenda of keeping more extensive track of Americans via microchips or other high-tech means will be seeded into the subconscious part of American “memory” as necessary to thwart the spread of superbugs.

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.

What Trump’s Wall Says to the World

What message does President Donald Trump’s wall on the U.S. border with Mexico send to the world? In his latest column, Pat Buchanan argues that this marks a line in the sand being made to preserve the old culture and heritage of the United States that has been embodied in the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” wrote poet Robert Frost in the opening line of “Mending Walls.” And on the American left there is something like revulsion at the idea of the “beautiful wall” President Donald Trump intends to build along the 1,900-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico.

The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much.

Yet something deeper is afoot here. The idea of a permanent barrier between our countries goes to the heart of the divide between our two Americas on the most fundamental of questions.

Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?

Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place.

It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education, and healthcare. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Two decades ago, the Old Right and the neocons engaged in a ferocious debate over what America was and is.

Were we from the beginning a new, unique, separate, and identifiable people like the British, French, and Germans?

Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and Dr. King?

The Old Right contended that America existed even before the Revolution, and that this new nation, this new people, wrote its own birth certificate, the Constitution. Before Washington, Madison, and Hamilton ever went to Philadelphia, America existed.

What forced the premature birth of the nation—was the Revolution.

We did not become a new nation because we embraced Jefferson’s notion about all men being “created equal.” We became a new people from our familial break with the Mother Country, described in the Declaration as a severing of ties with our “brethren” across the sea who no longer deserved our loyalty or love.

The United States came into being in 1789. The Constitution created the government, the state. But the country already existed.

When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.

Not until decades after the Great Migration of 1890-1920, with the common trials of the Depression, World War II, and Cold War, were we truly forged again into one united nation and people.

By 1960, almost all of us shared the same heroes and holidays, spoke the same language, and cherished the same culture.

What those with memories of that America see happening today is the disintegration of our nation of yesterday. The savagery of our politics, exemplified in the last election, testifies to how Americans are coming to detest one another as much as the Valley Forge generation came to detest the British from whom they broke free.

In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.

To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism.

The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.

Given that 80% of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.

Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?


Old Europe never knew mass immigration until the 20th century.

Now, across Europe, center-left and center-right parties are facing massive defections because they are perceived as incapable of coping with the existential threat of the age—the overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East.

Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders.

The crisis of our time is not that some Americans are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Good News: Trump Dumps TPP

Yesterday, on his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pulling the U.S. out of the negotiations over the largest free trade deal ever created, the Trans Pacific Partnership. It was a great move for American workers and was immediately celebrated by populists, nationalists, and others who put America first.

By Mark Anderson

Things are looking a lot brighter for Americans and others who’ve had their fill of treacherous trade treaties.

On Jan. 23, during his very first full day in office, newly sworn-in President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order pulling out of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, a “crown jewel” of trade treaties in the eyes of rapacious plutocrats whose plunder via previously enacted trade treaties has so diminished the U.S. industrial base that former factory towns became “tombstones” across the country, as Trump stated in his Jan. 20 inaugural address.

Trump, who just concluded an important White House meeting with both labor leaders and corporate bosses to secure better labor-management relations, clearly saw that if past multilateral trade deals did so much damage, why should he expect a 12-nation monster like the TPP to be any better?

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

His press spokesman Sean Spicer clarified that the president would seek bilateral trade deals that are easier to manage and tend to preserve U.S. sovereignty.

The TPP would’ve added to the existing treachery wrought by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has eroded nationhood through mandated globalization of production-distribution-consumption—so no one nation can stand on its own feet and limit its trading mainly to vitals that cannot be domestically produced.

Besides, the privately run banking system, and its debt-based usurious money system, tends to diminish the domestic purchasing power of individual nations, who are economically compelled to over-rely on exports so that product inventories can be sold by accessing the purchasing power of other nations.

Trump’s new strategy “starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the president will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA,” the Trump White House’s website further explains.


United Automobile Workers (UAW) union President President Dennis Williams had this to say about the end of TPP: “UAW members around the country have long rallied against the deeply flawed corporate driven TPP that puts quarterly profits before worker paychecks. We commend President Trump for withdrawing from the TPP and congressional leaders, such as Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow, for their leadership in opposing this job killing trade agreement. This is a victory for American workers and families.”

From this point onward, AFP will keep close tabs on Trump’s NAFTA actions and other trade related proposals amid his historic moves to improve America’s economic lot.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Historic Day Marks Beginning of America First Era

On Jan. 20, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States. AFP was there, covering the historic event right from the Capitol grounds. Read our on-the-scene report from AFP’s roving editor Mark Anderson and listen to his comments and interviews with Americans who were there to witness the swearing-in and the parade.

By Mark Anderson

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Donald John Trump took to the podium on the Capitol building’s west side with a look described by Connecticut resident Ann Marie Murray as one of “humility”—just before Trump was sworn in Friday as the 45th president of the United States by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The event clearly was seen as inspiring by many. Chicago resident Doug Sparkman, moments after Trump’s inaugural address, agreed that he found Trump’s remarks to be rather “Jeffersonian,” in the sense of being people-based. In that vein, he yearns for a country run on the basis of principle, not party. And given what he heard in Trump’s address, he feels that’s possible under the new administration.

“Action, and putting politics aside, is what we really need for this country,” Sparkman added.

With the whole inaugural ceremony some 20 minutes behind schedule, Trump and his family, looking regal and acting highly anticipatory of the challenges that await them, arrived at the Capitol around 11:15 a.m. The new first lady, Melania, was escorted to the west balcony to be seated first, wearing a stunning high-necked blue outfit that brought “oohs” from many in the massive crowd—whose view was aided by large screens on both ends of the Capitol.

Trump himself, appearing reflective and solemn, emerged alongside Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and was seated at 11:32. As the somewhat chilly day spat a little rain here and there, you could feel the heavy anticipation to hear Trump take the oath of office. And soon after former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was sworn in as vice president by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Trump proceeded to begin taking his oath when a group of six agitators erupted in a flurry of slogans and declarations—precisely when Trump began repeating the words “I do solemnly swear . . .”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

This writer, some 10 feet from the protestors in the section eight seating area reasonably close to the presidential podium, could see the anguish on the faces of many of the nearby inaugural attendees, a number of whom traveled long distances to hear their new president take the oath. But from their vantage point, Trump’s exchange with Roberts was largely drowned out. It’s a testimony to the manners and restraint of the pro-Trump attendees that they did not “escort” the protestors out by force.

Accompanied by political figures ranging from former President Jimmy Carter and wife Rosalyn, to former President George W. Bush and wife Laura, former President Bill Clinton and wife (and former Trump opponent) Hillary, former President Obama and wife Michelle, and several others—the Trumps were greeted with tremendous fanfare. The Marine Corps Band superlatively performed the spirited marches of John Philip Sousa and other patriotic compositions, such as the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” with soaring dynamics and clocklike cadence.

And as the protestors were escorted out by security for being highly disruptive—not to negate their right to dissent—you could sense the thud of cannon fire that accented the seating of a new president, who, without saying a word about the disruption of such a pivotal moment, unflinchingly gave an inaugural address that many found to be concise, heartfelt, and inspiring.

Trump immediately noted that he and his administration will undertake a “great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people.” He continued, “Together, we will determine the course for America and the world for many, many years to come.”

He went on to say: “We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done. . . . Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another; but we are transferring power from Washington D.C. and giving it back to you . . . .”

He added: “For too long a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government, while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself. . . . Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrate in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”

He continued, “That all changes, starting right here and right now,” while the crowd erupted into especially loud applause as the new president also said to them: “This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, this is your country. What truly matters is not which party controls our government but whether our government is controlled by the people. Jan. 20, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.”

And as more sustained applause subsided, Trump went on: “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to be part of an historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction—that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.


“These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people . . . but for too many of our citizens a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner-cities; rusted-out factories, scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge. And the crime, and the gangs, and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now. . . .

“The oath of office I took today is the oath of allegiance to all Americans,” he added, drawing still more applause. “For many decades we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries, while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We’ve defended other nations’ borders while refusing to defend our own . . . and spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.”

Listen to AFP’s candid interviews with regular Americans, who were there to witness the inauguration, by clicking on the image below.

John Medved of Golden, Colo., speaking with AFP, said of Trump’s speech minutes after its conclusion: “I think Mr. Trump, our president, said everything that everybody’s been thinking for the last eight years. . . . And finally it feels like the sun came out and we can go ahead and think what we really think and try to make our country great again.”

“It really was a move of God, this whole election,” Ann Marie Murray, from Connecticut, also said, echoing remarks that Medved and other people shared with this AFP writer as everyone departed Capitol Hill.

And early on, before the sun even rose, Nevin Shafer of Florida remarked that he expects from Trump: “Normal stuff, like balanced budgets and secure borders. I do believe if you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. When not traveling for AFP, he spends his time between Michigan and Texas.

Will Trump Fight the Bush-Obama Legacy?

The Republican-led House recently passed a bill to increase the military budget, among other things, and add to the national debt. President Donald Trump has said that he will be making major cuts to the budget to put the U.S. on the path to financial stability. Will he fight the RINOs, or give in to embrace big spending like presidents before him?

By Dr. Ron Paul

This week, Congress passed a budget calling for increasing federal spending and adding $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. Most so-called “fiscal conservatives” voted for this big-spending budget because it allows Congress to repeal some parts of Obamacare via “reconciliation.” As important as it is to repeal Obamacare, it does not justify increasing spending and debt.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obamacare repeal would be used to justify increasing spending. Despite sequestration’s minor (and largely phony) spending cuts, federal spending has increased every year since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Some will attribute this to the fact that the Republican House had to negotiate with a big-spending Democratic president—even though federal spending actually increased by a greater percentage the last time Republicans controlled the White House and Congress than it did under President Obama.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The history of massive spending increases under unified Republican control of government is likely to repeat itself. During the presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump came out against reducing spending on “entitlements.” He also called for a variety of spending increases, including spending $1 trillion on infrastructure.

One positive part of the infrastructure proposals is their use of tax credits to encourage private sector investments. Hopefully this will be the first step toward returning responsibility for building and maintaining our nation’s infrastructure to the private sector.

Unfortunately, the administration appears likely to support increased federal spending on “shovel-ready” jobs. Claims that federal spending helps grow the economy rely on the fallacy of that which is not seen. While everyone sees the jobs and economic growth created by government infrastructure projects, no one sees the greater number of jobs that could have been created had the government not taken the resources out of the hands of private businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. Despite what some conservatives seem to think, this fallacy applies equally to Republican and Democrat spending.

President-elect Trump has criticized the past two administrations’ reckless foreign policy, and he has publicly shamed the powerful Lockheed Martin company for wasting taxpayer money. Yet he continues to support increasing the military budget and has called for increased military intervention in the Middle East.

The fact is the United States already spends too much on militarism. Not only does the United States spend more on the military than the combined military budgets of the next eight highest spending countries, but Pentagon waste exceeds the total Russian military budget.


America can no longer afford to waste trillions of dollars on a militaristic foreign policy. Trump should follow-up his attacks on wasteful military spending by dramatically changing our foreign policy and working to cut the Pentagon’s bloated budget.

If the new administration and Congress increase spending, they will need the Federal Reserve to monetize the growing debt. The need for an accommodative monetary policy gives the Federal Reserve and its allies in Congress and in the deep state leverage over the administration. This leverage could be used, for example, to pressure the administration to abandon support for the Audit the Fed legislation.

Fed action can only delay the inevitable day of reckoning. Raising levels of federal spending and debt will inevitably lead to a major economic crisis. This crisis is likely to be reached when concerns over our national debt cause more countries to reject the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The only way to avoid this crisis is to stop increasing spending and instead begin reducing spending on all aspects of the welfare-warfare state.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his column “Texas Straight Talk” for the Ron Paul Institute.


A New President, New World Starts Today

Today is a new day for the United States with the inauguration of President Donald Trump. While the elites whine and moan about the end of their precious experiment in globalism at all of our expense, across the country, the man in the street celebrates the return of jobs and a boost to the economy as the new president puts America first.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Don’t Make Any Sudden Moves” is the advice offered to the new president by Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has not traditionally been known as a beer hall of populist beliefs. Haass meant the president should bring his National Security Council together to anticipate the consequences before tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or shooting down a missile being tested by Kim Jong Un. In arguing against rash action, Haass is correct.

Where the CFR and the establishment are wrong and Donald Trump is right, however, is in recognizing the new world we have entered.

The old order is passing away. Treaties and alliances dating from the Cold War are ceasing to be relevant and cannot long be sustained.

Economic patriotism and ethnonationalism, personified by Trump, seem everywhere ascendant. Transnationalism is yielding to tribalism.

The greater danger for Trump is that the movement he led will be abandoned, its hopes dashed, and the agenda that Trump rejected and routed will be reimposed by a Republican establishment and its collaborators in politics and the press.

Again, it was Trump who read the nation right, which is why he is taking the oath today.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The existential threat to the West no longer comes from the East, from a Russian army crashing through Poland and Germany and driving for the Elbe and Fulda Gap.

The existential threat to the West comes, instead, from the South.

The billion-plus peoples of the Maghreb, Middle East, and sub-Sahara, whose numbers are exploding, are moving inexorably toward the Med, coming to occupy the empty places left by an aging and dying Europe, all of whose native-born populations steadily shrink.

American’s bleeding border is what concerns Americans, not the borders of Estonia, South Korea, Kuwait, or the South China Sea.

When Trump calls NATO “obsolete,” he is saying that the great threat to the West is not Putin’s recapture of a Crimea that belonged to Russia for 150 years. And if the price of peace is getting out of Russia’s face and Russia’s space, maybe we should pay it.

George Kennan himself, the architect of Cold War containment of Stalin’s Russia, admonished us not to move NATO to Russia’s border.

Of Brexit, the British decision to leave the EU, Trump said this week, “People, countries want their own identity and the U.K. wanted its own identity . . . so if you ask me, I believe others will leave.”

Is he not right? Is it so shocking to hear a transparent truth?

How could Europe’s elites not see the populist forces rising? The European peoples wished to regain their lost sovereignty and national identity, and they were willing to pay a price to achieve it.


Apparently, the Davos crowd cannot comprehend people who believe there are more important things than wealth.

Yet while Trump should avoid rash actions, if he is to become a transformational president, he will spurn an establishment desperately seeking to hold onto the world that is passing away.

Article V of the NATO treaty may require us to treat a Russian move in the Baltic as an attack on the United States. But no sane president will start a war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia.

No Cold War president would have dreamed of so rash an action.

Rather than risk such a war, Ike refused to send a rifle or bullet to the heroic Hungarian rebels in 1956. Painful, but Ike put America first, just as Trump pledged to do.

And given the strength of ethnonationalism in Europe, neither the eurozone nor the EU is likely to survive the decade. We should prepare for that day, not pretend that what is taking place across Europe, and indeed worldwide, is some passing fever of nationalism.

Notwithstanding Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson’s diktat, the United States is not going to force China to vacate the fortified reefs in a South China Sea she claims as her national territory.

Stick to that demand, and we best prepare for war.


As for the Taiwan card, it was played in 1972 by Richard Nixon as the price of his opening to China. Four decades ago, Jimmy Carter cut diplomatic ties to Taiwan and terminated our security pact.

For Xi Jinping to accept that Taiwan might be negotiable would mean an end of him and the overthrow of his Communist Party of China.

The Chinese will fight to prevent a permanent loss of Taiwan.

The imperative of the new era is that the great nuclear powers—China, Russia, the United States—not do to each other what Britain, France, and Germany did to each other a century ago over a dead archduke.

Trump should build the wall, secure the border, impose tariffs, cut taxes, free up the American economy, bring the factories home, create millions of jobs, and keep us out of any new wars.

With rare exceptions, wars tend to be fatal to presidencies.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Dreading De-Globalization in Davos

Corporate executives, top bankers, global speculators, and power brokers at the annual Alpine retreat in Davos, Switzerland are complaining openly that the rise of populism and nationalism across the United State and Europe is a serious threat to globalism and the New World Order. Ending globalization is apparently hitting them in the pocketbook.

By Mark Anderson

Many of the gilded glitterati gathering in Davos, Switzerland amid the towering Alps for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) see the populism sweeping much of the world as a fascinating trend. They certainly enjoy talking about it. But their academic chitter-chatter is starting to take on a panicked tone over the implications of the common man demanding a better life—a life without poverty in the face of plenty and without nonstop unwinnable wars, among other vexing problems.

Even before this year’s WEF started on Jan. 17, American public television personality Charlie Rose—a frequent attendee of the much more exclusive Bilderberg meetings that AFP has doggedly covered since 1975—was interviewing several guests about this topic on his well-known talk show, as this AFP reporter flipped on the TV during recent travels. Rose’s esteemed guests fretted over several trends that suggest there’s a devolution from globalism in the works—call it “de-globalization.”

Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and Chicago Council on Global Affairs President Ivo Daalder in early December 2016 confided to Rose that they’ve got the jitters over the current populist surge, most visibly represented by brash businessman Donald J. Trump’s ascent to the presidency—and above all by what his election says about the worldview of a sizable cross section of the American people. Simply put: Globalization is losing its grip on the human psyche.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Daalder feebly tried to say that largely unregulated “integration” is the Western “tradition,” without mentioning that the kind of forcible integration that’s taking place—largely due to wars waged by Western powers that force people out of their homelands and into places they wouldn’t otherwise live, in most cases—creates cultural clashes, crime, and upheaval. This could all be avoided if world government promoters would chill out on trying to mold the world according to their portfolios and to their impractical, sometimes demented visions of world governance.

Rock band U2’s vocalist, Bono, and Ian Brenner of the Eurasia Group were among other guests on Rose’s show in early January. They, too, greeted the populist revival with a mix of fascination and barely muted alarm.

So, silver-spoon WEF attendees—and the likeminded corporate media that usually does their bidding—are acknowledging more than ever before that populism is undermining what’s typically called globalism. This is the credo practiced by those who want to knit the world into a singular economic-political-cultural construct lacking the rich and varied landscape that can only be produced by a world of distinct nation-states with unique cultures.

In other words, if money can’t buy you true love, perhaps it also cannot ultimately buy total world-rule, either, because there’s something in human nature that naturally rejects a mechanistic existence that lacks heart and soul and a real sense of heritage.

This doesn’t mean, though, that those bent on world-rule are about to flatline. The private, usurious central banking system that stole the people’s credit and put everyone’s land and labor in hock is their chief weapon. Without it, their press control would shrivel and the rest of their influence would wane to, or almost to, the breaking point. But at least real freedom-seekers know that key monetary and financial reforms of the proper sort are the core pathway to ending the “new world order.”


“Davos Glitter in the Gloom of Populism” topped the front page of the Jan. 17 New York Times on the first day of the WEF, which runs through Jan. 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration as the 45th U.S. president—the first one ever so clearly defined as a “populist.” The Times sub-headline added: “Elites grapple with working-class rage.”

The article itself noted that the 2017 WEF attendees included Bilderbergers like International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde and Microsoft co-founder-turned-“philanthropist” Bill Gates, along with smug mattoids like JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon and film stars like Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie. Also attending this year’s Davos event is Chinese president Xi Jinping, who reportedly stated that populism, defined as “support for the concerns of ordinary people,” is seen as a threat to globalism.

Populism is basically a system wherein people of all classes and creeds, from the bottom up and not the top down, secure their share in the economic pie and are therefore ensured upward mobility in alliance with secure voting rights and the ability to effect change, while having the freedom to preserve their property—and their family, community, and ethnic-national heritage—without undue “political correctness” fouling up the works. In its purest form, populism opposes business monopolies and vaguely defined free-market ideologies, especially predatory banking, and therefore seeks an economic democracy. It’s not precisely right-wing, nor is it left-wing.

The above-noted Times article succumbed to the realization that the elites’ long-sought notion of world government may be fundamentally doomed.

Each year, the WEF crowd talks (mainly on the basis of global investment-class perspectives) about their typical topics of climate change, inequality, and the economic challenges facing developing and emerging nations. But, as the Times continued, “Missing from these high-minded conversations have been meaningful challengers or critics of the underlying theme that was seemingly stipulated from the birth of this (WEF) 46 years ago: Globalization has the potential to benefit everyone.”

Of particular note, the Times piece quoted economist John Mauldin as saying: “Trump’s election victory is a clear indication that the majority of people are not interested in a world government, but want to return to a classical local democracy. Strange as it may seem to the Davos men, most people tend to love their ‘patria,’ the land of their fathers.”

This is not to say that all WEF attendees are deluded power-mongers or vain pseudo-intellectuals. Many have considerable expertise in various fields and clearly have some worthwhile perspectives and ideas to share, especially in the technological realm. Their problem, however, is philosophical, not intellectual.


Several other recent headlines from big media outlets similarly represent the same basic admission by the plutocratic oligarchy (rule by the rich few who constitute “the establishment”) that they are on particularly shaky ground due to the populist tremors emanating from recent events including the pending Trump presidency, the June 23, 2016 affirmative “Brexit” vote that, if fully consummated, would allow the UK to officially exit the European Union, from the prospect of noted populist candidate Marie Le Pen gaining even more political ground in France, and so on.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor and has covered the last few Bilderberg gatherings since the death of James P. Tucker Jr.

Radicals Busted Trying to Shut Down Washington on Inauguration Day

Radical leftist groups and anarchists have been gathering across the country to discuss criminal efforts to shut down not only the Jan. 20 inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump but bridges, major highways, public transportation including the metro, and several events that are being held to celebrate the Nov. 7 election of Trump.

By John Friend

Radical leftists, anarchists, and self-proclaimed anti-fascists are actively planning to disrupt and sabotage President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration as well as other events scheduled in Washington, D.C. to celebrate the billionaire businessman’s presidential victory.

Leaked audio reveals that organizers plan to “do everything [they] can from trying to stop people from being able to access the inauguration.” They plan on holding a massive demonstration in front of Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s private residence in Chevy Chase, Md., just outside D.C., before moving into the city where “stuff” will “be happening all day,” according to the leaked audio.

“Early in the morning, we’re going to be doing blockades,” an anarchist organizer declares in the audio recording. “We’re going to be blocking checkpoints into the security zones. We’re also going to be blocking roads and other modes of transit into the event.”

Project Veritas is an independent non-profit organization founded by James O’Keefe. The group’s goal is to “investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society.”

Project Veritas recently released two separate videos detailing plans by the DC Anti-Fascist Coalition and other members of the #DisruptJ20 coalition to disrupt and ultimately shut down the “DeploraBall 2017” event scheduled to take place the night before the inauguration at the National Press Club.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

An undercover journalist from Project Veritas was invited to a private residence where members of the DC Anti-Fascist Coalition discussed their plans for disrupting the DeploraBall event. After the initial meeting, a follow-up meeting was held at the infamous Comet Ping Pong, a pizza parlor connected to the Pizzagate scandal that broke late last year, where members elaborated on their plans for disrupting the event, which include criminal tactics. The Project Veritas journalist filmed the meeting unbeknownst to the anti-fascist participants.

According to Project Veritas, Luke Kuhm, “Scott Green,” Colin Dunn, and Casey Webber of the DC Anti-Fascist Coalition were present at the meeting at Comet Ping Pong. The anti-fascist organizers discussed using butyric acid to shut down the DeploraBall event.

“If you had a pint of butyric acid, I don’t care how big the building is, it is closing . . .,” Kuhm stated in the video.

“And this stuff is like very efficient, it’s very, very smelly and it lasts a long time,” Green noted. “A little bit goes a long way.”

Butyric acid is a foul-smelling substance protesters use to make noxious stink bombs. It smells a lot like human vomit.

The organizers discussed different ways of getting butyric acid into the ventilation system of the National Press Club, sabotaging the entire event.

They also speculated that they may be able to set off the fire alarm or sprinkler system in the National Press Club, forcing the venue to shut down the event. The group then discussed their plans to survey the building in order to carry out their subversive criminal act.

“The reconnaissance went pretty well, and we left with the confidence that we can accomplish our objective with no negative consequences for our side, nor any collateral damage,” Green wrote in an email to other anti-fascist organizers after casing the National Press Club. The email was also sent to the undercover Project Veritas journalist, who made the information public.


Project Veritas has released a follow-up video highlighting various members of the #DisruptJ20 coalition’s plans to shut down D.C. by blocking major intersections and checkpoints throughout the city, as well as disrupting D.C. Metro trains, causing chaos in the city.

Representatives of Project Veritas have disclosed their findings to a number of law enforcement entities, including the D.C. Metropolitan police, the FBI, and the Secret Service.

“We’re thankful that the FBI and the task force is looking into this, and we hope that there will be charges brought soon,” Ben Barr, a legal representative for Project Veritas, stated in the video after meeting with law enforcement officials.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

Is the Iran Nuclear Deal Alive or Dead?

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump said the U.S. deal with Iran over its nuclear program was a mistake. However, the deal was unprecedented in how far it went to shut down a burgeoning nuclear program. Also, the Iranians have been honorable and lived up to the agreement. With the U.S. fighting a half-dozen wars, why tear it up now?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Though every Republican in Congress voted against the Iran nuclear deal, “Tearing it up . . . is not going to happen,” says Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Hopefully, the chairman speaks for the president-elect.

During the campaign, Donald Trump indicated as much, saying that, though the U.S. got jobbed in the negotiations—“We have a horrible contract, but we do have a contract”—he might not walk away. To Trump, a deal’s a deal, even a bad one. And we did get taken.

In 2007 and 2011, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies assured us, “with high confidence,” that Iran did not have an atomic bomb program.

Yet our folks forked over $50 billion for an Iranian show and tell to prove they were not doing what our 17 intelligence agencies told us, again and again, they were not doing.

Why did we disbelieve our own intelligence, and buy into the “chicken little” chatter about Iran being “only months away from a bomb”?

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Corker also administered a cold shower to those who darkly warn of a secret Iranian program to produce a bomb: “In spite of all the flaws in the agreement, nothing bad is going to happen relative to nuclear development in Iran in the next few years. It’s just not.”

Under the deal, Iran has put two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges at Natanz in storage, ceased enriching uranium to 20% at Fordow, poured concrete into the core of its heavy water reactor at Arak, and shipped 97% of its enriched uranium out of the country. Cameras and United Nations inspectors are all over the place.


Even should Iran decide on a crash program to create enough fissile material for a single A-bomb test, this would take a year, and we would know about it.

But why would they? After all, there are sound reasons of state why Iran decided over a decade ago to forego nuclear weapons.

Discovery of a bomb program could bring the same U.S. shock and awe as was visited on Iraq for its nonexistent WMD. Discovery would risk a pre-emptive strike by an Israel with scores of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia and Turkey would have a powerful inducement to build their own bombs.

Acquiring a nuclear weapon would almost surely make Iran, a Persian nation on the edge of a sea of Arabs, less secure.

If, however, in the absence of a violation of the treaty by Iran, we tore up the deal, we could find ourselves isolated. For Britain, France, and Germany also signed, and they believe the agreement is a good one.

Do we really want to force these NATO allies to choose between the deal they agreed to and a break with the United States?

If the War Party is confident Iran is going to cheat, why not wait until they do. Then make our case with evidence, so our allies can go with us on principle, and not from pressure.


Also at issue is the deal signed by Boeing to sell Iran 80 jetliners. Airbus has contracted to sell Iran 100 planes, and begun delivery. List price for the two deals: $34.5 billion. Tens of thousands of U.S. jobs are at stake.

Is a Republican Congress prepared to blow up the Boeing deal and force the Europeans to cancel the Airbus deal?

Why? Some contend the planes can be used to transport the Iranian Republican Guard. But are the Iranians, who are looking to tourism, trade, and investment to rescue their economy, so stupid as to spend $35 billion for troop transports they could buy from Vladimir Putin?

The Ayatollah’s regime may define itself by its hatred of the Great Satan. Still, in 2009, even our War Party was urging President Barack Obama to publicly back the Green Movement uprising against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In 2013, moderates voted Hassan Rouhani into the presidency, where he began secret negotiations with the United States.

New elections will be held this year. And while the death of ex-President Rafsanjani this weekend has removed the powerful patron of Rouhani and strengthened the hard-liners, Ayatollah Khamenei is suffering from cancer, and the nation’s future remains undetermined.

Iran’s young seek to engage with the West. But if they are spurned, by the cancellation of the Boeing deal and the reimposition of U.S. sanctions, they will be disillusioned and discredited, and the mullahs will own the future.

How would that serve U.S. interests?

We still have sanctions on Iran for its missile tests in violation of Security Council resolutions, for its human rights violations, and for its support of groups like Hezbollah. But we also have in common with Iran an enmity for the Sunni terrorists of al Qaeda and ISIS.

We are today fighting in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as the War Party works to confront Beijing in the South China Sea, Russia in Ukraine, and North Korea over its nuclear and missile tests.

Could we perhaps put the confrontation with Iran on hold?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Inauguration Disruption

This Jan. 20 won’t be the first time that radicals, anarchists, social justice warriors, and racists have planned to protest Inauguration Day. It happened to Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. But this year, it could be far worse than anything seen before as tens of thousands of professional protesters descend on the nation’s capital.

By Dave Gahary

The inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the next president of the United States is shaping up to be one for the history books, and not in a good way. Individuals upset with November’s election results are vowing to disrupt the ceremony in a variety of ways, some even intent on preventing Trump from ascending to the White House.

The inauguration of the president takes place for each term, even if the president continues in office for a second term. Jan. 20 has been Inauguration Day since 1937, and the president’s term commences at noon, when the chief justice of the Supreme Court administers the oath to the president.

The last time a U.S. presidential inauguration was protested to a similar degree as what is promised for Trump was in 1969 and 1973 for Richard M. Nixon. At Nixon’s first inauguration ceremony, a three-day “counterinauguration” took place, complete with parade, reviewing stand, and even a ball. Thousands of protesters threw sticks, stones, and smoke bombs at the presidential limo, marking the first interruption of an inaugural parade by demonstrators. Horse manure was thrown at Vice President Spiro T. Agnew’s well-dressed guests, and rocks, tomatoes, and smoke bombs were tossed at Nixon’s motorcade as it cruised along Pennsylvania Avenue.

Four years later, while being administered the oath of office, two antiwar protesters continuously shouted “Killer! Killer! Killer!” and “Stop the war! Stop the war!” when Agnew was sworn in.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Forty-four years later, plans to ensure a smooth presidential transition does not take place reached a fever pitch on Jan. 7, when The New York Times printed a full-page “call to action” ad supported by thousands of activists, entertainers, journalists, scientists, and others, to make clear their rejection of Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

The ad, which refers readers to the website, and details their desperation, is composed of large lettering that says: “No! In the name of humanity we refuse to accept a fascist America!”

The bottom half of the ad, filled with purple prose, encourages participants to actively prevent Trump from becoming president, and reads in part:

The Trump Regime Must and Can Be Stopped Before It Starts!

This is not wishful thinking but could be made a reality if all who hate what is represented by this fascist regime translate our outrage into massive mobilization to create the political conditions which make this possible.

Our only recourse now is to act together outside normal channels. Every faction within the established power structure must be forced to respond to what we do—creating a situation where the Trump/Pence regime is prevented from ruling.

We call on each and every one who opposes what this regime stands for, and what it will do, to take part in and actively build, this resistance and refusal.

Organize. Plan. Act. The Month of Resistance must grow to millions—becoming protests that don’t stop—where people refuse to leave, occupying public space, and more and more people stand up with conviction and courage demanding: “Stop the Trump/Pence regime before it starts! In the name of humanity we refuse to accept a fascist America!”

Other groups, such as DisruptJ20, plan similar actions. The spokesperson for the group told U.S. News and World Report: “One of the goals of the group is to block major transportation routes into and throughout our nation’s capital.”

Though he refused to give any specifics, Legba Carrefour, the spokesperson for DisruptJ20, added: “We are planning to shut down the inauguration.”


“We’re pretty literal about that. We are trying to create citywide paralysis on a level that I don’t think has been seen in D.C. before. We’re trying to shut down pretty much every ingress into the city as well as every checkpoint around the actual inauguration parade route.”

Washington, D.C. officials have called in thousands of police officers and National Guard members from across the U.S., the Guard specifically reassigned for the weekend. The Washington Post is reporting that officials expect over 1,500 charter buses, with hotels filling up quickly.

About 1 million spectators are expected for the events, including a “still-undetermined” number of protestors.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s “Underground Interview” series.

“Pizzagate”—The Dark Side of Politics

This article contains highly disturbing subject matter that should not be read by children. Sensitive readers are advised to exercise appropriate caution. Late last year, allegations of ritualistic pedophilia involving top Democrats began surfacing online. AFP writer Ronald Ray looks into these charges. Another case of fake news, or could it be true?

By Ronald L. Ray

Why are the mainstream media and governments in the U.S. and Europe suddenly obsessed with crushing “fake news,” as though it were the use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists? Is it really about Russia trying to influence American elections? Is it even really about alternative media allegedly influencing someone to fire rifle shots in a purported family pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C.? Or is it really about covering up activities of powerful and influential people?

The Russia “hacking” story is a ruse, seeking to deflect from the likely criminal content of thousands of emails from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, released by WikiLeaks just before last November’s election. Even the unsupported “fake news” allegation about “Pizzagate” is a deception to mislead entertainment-obsessed Americans, whose political memory lasts about 15 minutes.

All but forgotten is that the revelation at the beginning of November 2016 that Hillary Clinton and others were potentially involved in sex crimes against children originated, not with Russia or WikiLeaks, but with a New York City Police Department investigation into pervert politician Anthony Weiner’s illicit activities with minor children.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Emails on Weiner’s computer seemingly pointed to involvement by Clinton, her campaign manager, John Podesta, et al., in satanic “spirit cooking” and possible ritual sexual abuse of children. Donald Trump’s nominee-to-be for national security advisor, Gen. Mike Flynn, even posted it on Twitter.

Then WikiLeaks revealed the Clinton presidential campaign emails, demonstrating evidence of large-scale money-laundering and bribery—and some very peculiar activities of Podesta and his family and friends.

A number of Podesta’s emails revealed adults excited over “pizza” and “hot dog” parties. One email exchange was about a swimming pool party involving three minor children as young as “about seven” brought over as “entertainment.” “Pizza,” “hot dogs,” and other food terms seem to be code language. Some messages do not make sense otherwise.

The seemingly frequent appearance of such words suggests either a lot of wealthy pizza addicts or that Podesta and his associates consciously employed terms well known to have sexual connotations among homosexuals and other perverts.

Here are a few of the double meanings: hot dog = boy; pizza = girl; cheese = little girl under six; pasta = little boy under six; ice cream = male prostitute; walnut or nuts = person of color or infant girl genitalia; map = semen; sauce = orgy.

So why did one email author consider “ice cream” “serious business,” warning against connecting that word and “free” together? Why would Susan Sandler write with concern to Podesta, “The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? [sic]” Either Podesta wrote a street map on a handkerchief, or something more disturbing is being communicated, like a reference to evidence from a satanic sex ritual.

Why was Todd Stern “dreaming about [Podesta’s] hotdog stand in Hawaii?” Why did Tony Podesta send his brother, John, an email saying, “Last night was fun,” and, “Still in torture chamber?” Why did Andrew Breitbart in 2011 accuse Podesta of being an “underage sex slave op[eration] cover-upperer? [sic]”

Ties emerged to James Alefantis, a Washington, D.C., restaurateur who owns Comet Ping Pong, an alleged family-oriented pizzeria. The business name employs sexual code words, while the bathrooms, until recently, had creepy, satanic, and sexually-themed “art” painted on the walls, including a symbol used by child-rapists.

Alefantis is a notorious homosexual disturbingly obsessed with children, demonstrated by bizarre photos on his Instagram account. The same account also featured several grotesque, essentially pornographic images. One showed a toddler girl with her hands bound by tape to a table. Alefantis was once listed by GQ magazine as the 49th most powerful person in D.C. Really? Granted, he is a major Democrat fundraiser, but is something more at work here?

The Podesta emails are not unique. The Spotlight helped the late FBI agent, Ted Gunderson, to expose a satanic child-rape operation at the highest government levels.


WikiLeaks exposed similar “pizza” emails from private intelligence firm Stratfor. The British government has tried for years to prevent full exposure of child-rape operations among its elites, immigrants, and soccer teams, while similar diabolical deviancy has been revealed in Israel, France, Germany, Norway, Hollywood, the CIA, and elsewhere. Barack Obama had a private “pizza/dogs” party at the White House.

The Podesta emails, which have been verified, do not prove a satanic child-rape operation, but they do provide significant circumstantial evidence. If President-elect Donald Trump wants to “drain the D.C. swamp,” he needs to start here, with a nationwide law enforcement investigation of those involved and of decades of half-whispered accounts of the rich and powerful of the U.S. raping and murdering children.

Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions should prosecute all involved—even if it is the likes of Congress, the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Podestas, and even Trumps of the world. The countless children who have been ritually raped and sacrificed demand justice.

Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and assistant editor of The Barnes Review. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence. Contact Ron by email at [email protected]