Israel at 70: Bibi’s Troubled Hour of Power

President Donald Trump and the Congress continue to seemingly answer to Israel’s prime minister in foreign policy decisions, yet how long can such unwavering support continue in light of Israel’s ongoing slaughter of innocent Palestinians and keeping Gazans penned up in the world’s largest open-air concentration camp? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

For Bibi Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister save only founding father David Ben-Gurion, it has been a week of triumph.

Last Tuesday [May 7], President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal as Bibi had demanded. Thursday, after Iran launched 20 missiles at the Golan Heights, Bibi answered with a 70-missile attack on Iran in Syria.

“If it rains on us, it will storm on them. I hope we have finished the episode,” Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, boasting that Israel’s raids hit “nearly all Iranian infrastructure in Syria.”

The day before, Bibi was in Moscow, persuading Vladimir Putin to cancel the sale of Russia’s S-300 air defense system to Damascus.

Yesterday [May 13], in an event televised worldwide, the U.S. embassy was transferred to Jerusalem, with Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner doing the honors in what Bibi called a “glorious day.” Few can recall a time when Israel seemed in so favorable a position.

The White House and the Republican Party that controls Congress are solidly behind Israel. Egypt is cooperating to battle terrorists in Sinai.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Israel has a de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf royals. And the Palestinians have never been more divided, isolated, and alone.

Yet, there is another side to this story, also visible this last week.

As the transfer ceremony of the Jerusalem embassy was taking place, TV split screens showed pictures of protesting Palestinians, 52 of whom were shot dead Monday, with thousands wounded by snipers. Some 40,000 had rallied against the U.S. embassy move.

Even before Monday’s body count, the Gaza Health Ministry said that, over the previous six Fridays of “March of Return” protests, 49 Palestinians had been killed and 2,240 hit by live fire from Israeli troops.

Those dead and wounded Palestinians are not likely to be forgotten in Gaza. And while Israel has never had so many Arab regimes willing to work with her in pushing back against Iran, Arab League Chief Ahmed Aboul Gheit called the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem a “clear violation of international law.”

Gheit added: “The fall of Palestinian martyrs by the bullets of the Israeli occupation must ring an alarm . . . bell to any state that does not find anything wrong with the immoral and illegal stance that we are watching.”

Last week, Hezbollah, which arose in resistance to the 1982 Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and expelled the Israeli army 18 years later, won Lebanon’s elections. A Hezbollah-backed coalition will likely form the new government in Beirut.

Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the U.S. and Bibi ally, said that any attack by Hezbollah, which fought Israel to a standstill in 2006, should bring an Israeli declaration of war—on Lebanon.

While Israel launched some 100 strikes on Syria in recent years, Syrian President Bashar Assad has survived and, with the aid of Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, won his civil war.

Assad and his army and allies are far stronger now, while President Trump, Israel’s indispensable ally, speaks of bringing U.S. troops home from Syria. In polls, a majority of Americans lines up behind Israel in its clashes, but a majority also wants no more U.S. wars in the Middle East.

Also, Sunday, the U.S. sustained another major political defeat.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi lost his re-election bid. Based on early results, the winning coalition was that of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, against whose forces U.S. troops fought a decade ago.

Running second was a ticket led by a Shiite militia general close to Iran. When a new government is formed in Baghdad, the orientation of Iraq seems certain to shift away from the United States.

The Wandering Who? Atzmon
From world renowned jazz musician and humanitar-ian Gilad Atzmon … Now available at the AFP Online Store.

While the Israelis are the most powerful nation in the region, how long can they keep 2 million Palestinian Arabs confined in the penal colony that is the Gaza Strip? How long can they keep the 2 million Palestinians of the West Bank living in conditions even Israeli leaders have begun to compare to apartheid?

Across the West, especially in universities, a BDS movement to have students, companies, and consumers boycott, divest, and sanction Israeli-produced products has been gaining ground.

The Palestinians may have been abandoned by Arab rulers and the wider world. Yet, history teaches that people forced to survive in such conditions eventually rise in rebellion and revolution, take revenge, and exact retribution for what was done to them and their own.

Republican leaders often say that we cannot permit “any daylight” between the U.S. position and that of Israel.

But can the country that decried for decades the panicked reaction of an Ohio National Guard that shot and killed four students at Kent State University sit silent as scores of unarmed protesters are shot to death and thousands are wounded by Israeli troops in Gaza?

Bibi and Israel appear to be on a winning streak. It is difficult to see how, over the long run, it can be sustained.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



EMF Dangers Censored

Are Wi-Fi, microwave ovens, and cell phones attacking our health? Numerous studies are showing those “crazy” researchers who have been warning of EMF’s dangers to our health—from brain tumors to infertility and more—for years may not have been so crazy after all. 

By John Tiffany

Cellphones, laptops, microwave ovens, and other fancy devices have become almost a necessity of modern life, as well as a convenience. Wireless connections, known as Wi-Fi, are increasingly ubiquitous. All this high technology depends on a kind of microwave radiation known as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, RF-EMF. Ten or 20 years ago, this was rare and almost unknown. Now we are all exposed to it, even our children. But is it safe? The evidence shows it is not.

According to a major review in The International Journal of Oncology, those who do not use cellphones face a lifetime risk of brain tumor of approximately one in 167. But for those using cellphones, the risk is one in 128. This would seem to indicate cellphones (and presumably other Wi-Fi devices) cause tumors and likely cancer, but some (especially industry spokesmen) say the link is still unproven.

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

Two 2017 reviews, however, add to the evidence, showing a 33% to 46% increased chance of brain tumors on whichever side of your head you habitually hold your phone.

The radiation penetrates a few inches or about halfway through an adult’s head. But for a small child, the radiation can penetrate right through the head. An added concern for children is that they may be using cellphones for many decades over their lifetimes, compared to today’s adults who may experience many fewer years of exposure. Thus, the chance of tumors and cancer developing in children increases due to their increased years of exposure.

RF-EMF radiation, unlike nuclear radioactivity, does not damage DNA directly but can damage DNA indirectly by creating free radicals, which can damage DNA and cell membranes.

Some scientists are advocating the World Health Organization should “bump up” the warning about cellphones from “possible carcinogen” to “probable carcinogen” or even “known carcinogen,” at least for brain cancer and inner ear tumors.

Dr. Michael Greger, M.D., of “Nutritionfacts.org” advises those who use a cellphone, “It’s best to use a headset or the speakerphone option and limit the time children use [such devices].”

A hands-free operational mode, including Bluetooth headsets, reduces brain exposure by a factor of 100 or more.

And don’t use so-called anti-radiation gizmos that may actually worsen things by causing your phone to boost the signal.

It may be wise to keep your phone turned off when not in use or expecting a call, and to avoid placing it in the vicinity of your head or genitalia. One study found sperm motility to be reduced by 8% in men using cellphones. This may be a result of carrying the phone in a trousers pocket. There is also evidence using a laptop on your lap, if you are a man, can result in damage to your reproductive organs.

Some population studies found increased risk, while others did not. Interestingly, it was studies funded by the telecommunications industry that had about 10 times less likelihood of finding adverse effects. This can be compared with industry-funded studies done on pharmaceutical drugs (about four times as likely to not find adverse effects of their product), or tobacco—where a whopping 88 times the likelihood was noted. A similar, but more extreme, bias was found in studies of the dangers of nuclear power plants such as Chernobyl.

Don’t expect the government to warn you of these dangers, as they are influenced by the industry, which wants to pooh-pooh the hazards possibly associated with their products.




Google: Christianity Must Be Censored

Internet giant Google now says a popular Lutheran publisher’s faith-based advertising is bad for business. Concordia Publishing’s CEO explains that the company is standing firm: “We are not willing to sacrifice our beliefs to comply with Google’s requirements.”

By Dave Gahary

Concordia Publishing House (CPH) is the publishing arm of the 2 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a conservative denomination that rejects ordaining women, abortion, and homosexual marriage. Founded in 1869, CPH is the oldest publishing company west of the Mississippi River and the world’s largest distinctly Lutheran publishing house. According to its website, it publishes “the world’s most widely circulated daily devotional resource,” printing and distributing over 850,000 copies quarterly, and its children’s books have been published in the millions of copies. But none of this matters to the world’s most visited website, Google.com, who has refused to do business with CPH.

CPH president and CEO Dr. Bruce G. Kintz explained in a Facebook post: “Google ads will no longer accept anything related to the cph.org domain. They stated the reason is because of the faith we express on our website. [A CPH associate] was told, as an example, that things like our Bible challenge on our [Vacation Bible School] webpage would clearly need to come down before they could consider us for ads.”

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

Google uses its AdWords division to bring in almost 100% of its revenue. It also owns censor-crazy YouTube, which has recently banned thousands of online videos on “controversial” topics like the “Holocaust” and school shootings, topics that have the potential of threatening the powers-that-be.

This newspaper’s website has been the target of YouTube’s censors, who took particular interest in audio interviews this reporter has done about the many anomalies of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which many believe did not unfold the way the government-mainstream-media complex has presented. In fact, AFP’s YouTube page has been scoured and purged of all interviews that present an alternative view of Sandy Hook. The most recent one removed simply discussed the results of a court case involving a parent of one of the victims and researcher Wolfgang Halbig, the school safety consultant at the center of the campaign to get more answers from government and school officials about what happened there.

Google, however, is itself not free from controversy. It is the target of criticism over “privacy concerns, tax avoidance, antitrust, censorship, and search neutrality.” Its mission statement, “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” had as its unofficial slogan, “Don’t be evil,” which if it wasn’t so pathetically ironic might be funny. In 2015, “Don’t be evil” was replaced by “Do the right thing,” another laughable phrase.

Google informed CPH on April 23 that all the publishing house’s ads were “disabled due to a violation of Google’s policy for advertising based on interests and location.”

Specifically, the type of ads targeted are known as “remarketing” ads. As explained in a post on the CPH website, entitled “Concordia Publishing House Responds to Google Disabling of Faith-Based Advertising,” these type of “ads reach out to individuals who have made a decision to visit a CPH webpage. Google defines this as showing ads to people who’ve visited your website or used your mobile app. When people leave your website without buying anything, for example, remarketing helps you reconnect with them by showing relevant ads across their different devices.”

On its website, under the “Prohibited categories” heading, Google AdWords spells out what is verboten, which they consider “legally or culturally sensitive”:

Alcohol; gambling; clinical trial recruitment; restricted drug terms; users under 13; personal hardships; health; negative financial status; relationships; commission of a crime; abuse and trauma; imposing negativity; identity and belief; sexual orientation; political affiliation; political content; trade union membership; race and ethnicity; religious belief; marginalized groups; transgender identification; sexual interests; birth control; non-family safe and adult content.

The Internet is, primarily, a tool to get information and products, as is illustrated in the top 20 keywords that demand the highest costs per mouse click: “insurance; loans; mortgage; attorney; credit; lawyer; donate; degree; hosting; claim; conference call; trading; software; recovery; transfer; gas/electricity; classes; rehab; treatment; cord blood.” Keywords refers to words that are used most often in searches to find products or information.

After their ads were rejected, CPH contacted Google and was told “remarketing ads based on religious beliefs was not allowed.” CPH then requested a manager review this decision, which was denied, and were told the only way to bring the ads “into compliance” was to remove all “faith-based content.”

Soon after, a Google AdWords representative explained, “the disapproval resulted from the fact that the items in the ad and on the CPH website refer to Jesus and/or the Bible.” If CPH removed all references to Jesus or the Bible, their ads would be reinstated.

AFP Book Sale
Feeling lucky? Take a chance and help AFP and yourself! $200 of books for $100, U.S. shipping included!

Kintz wasn’t amused.

“[W]e are not willing to sacrifice our beliefs to comply with Google’s requirements,” he said in a statement. “It’s no secret that society is becoming increasingly hostile to the Christian faith. This increasing hostility makes our mission of proclaiming that faith through the books, Bibles, and curriculum that we produce all the more important. We will continue to proclaim the faith because we know without a doubt that the Word of the Lord endures forever.”

The way Google treated CPH is all the more incredible and disgusting knowing that in the U.S., the largest advertising market in the world, most Americans are exposed to around 4,000 to 10,000 advertisements each day, mostly revolving around the three Ss: sex, stocks, and sports.

Hey, Google! Let us see all the ads out there, and let us decide. Do the right thing.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See the website erasingtheliberty.com or call (850) 677-0344 for more information.




Pros and Cons of Fasting Explored

Diminishing your food intake has surprising benefits for careful fasters, and dieticians are rethinking “established wisdom” on the topic.

By John Tiffany

Fasting—fad or science? Fasting in general, and something called intermittent fasting in particular, are emerging trends in the health-conscious community.

But fasting is no fad, since people have done it for health and spiritual reasons for at least thousands of years. Pythagoras extolled its virtues, as did Hippocrates and Plutarch. Plato said he fasted for greater physical and mental efficiency. Aristotle also fasted, and Galen and Avicenna prescribed fasts for their patients.

Animals abstain from eating when they are sick; when health returns, appetite returns—and humans have the same instinct. Millions of years of evolutionary adaptation have ensured our bodies are very capable of storing energy resources and drawing on them when food supplies are scarce. It has been said that fasting awakens the body’s own inner physician. And, unlike medicine, fasting is free—one reason why your own physician may not prescribe it.

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

In 1971, a 27-year-old, 456-pound man referred to as “Patient A.B.” was advised to stop eating altogether for a short stint. He responded so well to it he decided to continue and wound up fasting for more than a year—382 days. He suffered little or no untoward effects, ingesting only yeast, vitamins, and non-caloric fluids, and lost 276 pounds.

A prolonged fast, while highly beneficial, is a serious matter, involving going three or more days and nights eating nothing at all, then slowly, over five days or more, transitioning back to your normal diet, starting with just barley water the first day. A prolonged fast allows you to enjoy the full benefits of ketosis and autolysis, making it the golden grail of the fasting world.

Intermittent fasting is much easier to undertake and can be used as an introduction to fasting. It can be as simple as skipping breakfast—abstaining from food starting with the end of dinner the day before. You can then work up to also skipping lunch, so that you eat one meal a day (no snacks, of course). Another style of intermittent fasting has you eating some days and fasting other days.

Some fasters do not abstain from all food but ingest small amounts of low- or no-calorie foods and drinks while fasting.

But what does science say?

A growing body of research suggests intermittent fasting works just as well as dieting for folks who want to lose weight—and many people find it easier to stick with this approach, since it allows windows of time when you don’t have to restrict your eating. Some nutritionists who previously advised against skipping meals have changed their minds, influenced by new research.

Registered dietician Katherine Tallmadge said, “We in the nutrition community always thought it was bad [to skip meals], but based on my experience and these studies combined, I think it’s great.” She now recommends a variation of intermittent fasting to a small minority of her clients.

A problem arises for some who use intermittent fasting as a temporary thing—there’s a risk you could gain all the weight lost back unless you can stick to a maintenance diet plan afterward. Of course, you don’t need to worry about that if you make intermittent fasting a permanent lifestyle.

Fasting results in a drop in your blood sugar, for which the body compensates by drawing on your sugar stores, first in your liver, then in your muscles. Eventually your body turns to burning up your fat supply, leading to weight loss and a state called ketosis, because the fats are turned into chemicals known as ketone bodies.

Cancer cells need high levels of sugar and tend to die when blood sugar is low.

There is evidence fasting actually leads to the formation of new brain cells—which at one time was believed to be impossible. It also leads to detoxification and a condition called autophagy, in which the body tears down old and damaged cells and organelles, including mitochondria, and builds new, more efficient ones.

Skipping breakfast, maybe lunch, and maybe not eating at all for a whole day now and then is fine and probably will do most people good.

However, be cautious of going overboard with fasting. There is a potential for significant lean tissue losses when full fasting days are more frequent than once or twice per week.

If you take medications for diabetes and/or high blood pressure, these require expert management when initiating a fast of more than 24 hours to avoid significant health risks.




Are Bibi and Bolton in the Wheel House Now?

Pat Buchanan asks, and with good reason given President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, “Is the foreign policy that America Firsters voted for being replaced by the Middle East agenda of Bibi and the neoconservatives?”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Brushing aside the anguished pleas of our NATO allies, President Trump Tuesday contemptuously trashed the Iranian nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions.

Prime Minister Theresa May of Great Britain, President Emmanuel Macron of France, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were put on notice that their ties to Iran are to be severed, or secondary sanctions will be imposed on them.

Driving the point home, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin ordered Airbus to cancel its $19 billion contract to sell 100 commercial planes to Iran.

Who is cheering Trump’s trashing of the treaty?

The neocons who sought his political extinction in 2016, the royals of the Gulf, Bibi Netanyahu, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC had warned Iranians that the Americans were duplicitous.

When Trump finished speaking, Bibi launched strikes on Iranian bases in Syria, and flew to Moscow to persuade Vladimir Putin not to give the Iranians any air defense against Israeli attacks.

Iranian forces responded with 20 missiles fired at the Golan, which ignited a massive Israeli counterstrike Thursday night, a 70-missile attack on Iranian bases in Syria.

We appear to be at the beginning of a new war, and how it ends we know not. But for Bibi and National Security Adviser John Bolton, the end has always been clear—the smashing of Iran and regime change.

Tuesday, Trump warned that Iran is on “a quest for nuclear weapons,” and “if we do nothing . . . in just a short period of time, the world’s worst sponsor of state terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.”

And where is the evidence for this Bush-like assertion?

If Iran is on a “quest” for nukes, why did 17 U.S. intel agencies, “with high confidence,” in 2007 and 2011, say Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program?

Saddam Hussein could not convince us he had no WMD, because the nonexistent WMD were the pretext, the casus belli, for doing what the War Party had already decided to do: invade Iraq.

We were lied into that war. And how did it turn out?

Why has the Foreign Relations committee not called in the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies and asked them flat out: Does Iran have an active nuclear bomb program, or is this a pack of lies to stampede us into another war?

If Iran is on a quest for nukes, let the intel agencies tell us where the work is being done, so we can send inspectors and show the world.

Efforts to pull us back from being dragged into a new war have begun.

The Europeans are begging Iran to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal, even if the Americans do not. But the regime of Hassan Rouhani, who twice defeated Ayatollah-backed candidates, is in trouble.

The nuclear deal and opening to the West were the reasons the children of the Green Movement of 2009 voted for Rouhani. If his difficulties deepen because of reimposed U.S. and Western sanctions, his great achievement, the nuclear deal, will be seen by his people as the failed gamble of a fool who trusted the Americans.

Should Rouhani’s regime fall, we may get a Revolutionary Guard regime rather less to the liking of everyone, except for the War Party, which could seize upon that as a pretext for war.

Kingdom Identity

What happens next is difficult to see.

Iran does not want a war with Israel in Syria that it cannot win.

Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, which just swept democratic elections in Lebanon, does not want a war with Israel that would bring devastation upon the nation it now leads.

The Russians don’t want a war with Israel or the Americans.

But as Putin came to the rescue of a Syria imperiled by ISIS and al Qaeda, to save his ally from a broad insurgency, he is not likely to sit impotently and watch endless air and missile strikes on Syria.

Trump has said U.S. troops will be getting out of Syria. But Bolton and the generals appear to have walked him back.

There are reports we are reinforcing the Kurds in Manbij on the west bank of the Euphrates, though President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has demanded that the Kurds vacate all Syrian border towns with Turkey.

Americans are also reportedly on the border of Yemen, assisting Saudi Arabia in locating the launch sites of the rockets being fired at Riyadh by Houthi rebels in retaliation for the three years of savage Saudi assault on their country.

Meanwhile, the news out of Afghanistan, our point of entry into the Near East wars almost a generation ago, is almost all bad—most of it about terrorist bombings of Afghan troops and civilians.

Is the foreign policy that America Firsters voted for being replaced by the Middle East agenda of Bibi and the neoconservatives? So it would appear.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



No Evidence of Chemical Attack

Evidence and eyewitness testimony presented to the International Criminal Court demonstrates the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, blamed on al-Assad, never happened. Didn’t hear that on U.S. mainstream media? That’s why you’re reading American Free Press.

By John Friend

More evidence and eyewitness testimony has been presented regarding the alleged “chemical attack” purportedly carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government in early April demonstrating that the entire narrative—concocted largely by the Syrian “White Helmets” and other forces hostile to the Syrian government—was and remains fake news designed to justify Western military intervention in the region.

In late April, eyewitnesses and survivors of the events that unfolded in Douma, a suburb of Damascus in the Eastern Ghouta region that has been the scene of a power struggle between armed terrorist groups attempting to overthrow Assad—many of which are backed by Western military and intelligence agencies—and the Syrian military, presented testimony at The Hague that undermined the narrative blindly disseminated by the Western media and political establishment.

“We were at the basement and we heard people shouting that we needed to go to a hospital,” Hassan Diab, an 11-year-old resident of Douma who was present during the purported “chemical attack,” explained to reporters at The Hague. “We went through a tunnel. At the hospital they started pouring cold water on me.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Douma and the entire Eastern Ghouta region are known for their extensive underground tunnel systems, which are used to transport goods, people, and weapons in the ongoing Syrian civil war. Following an extensive bombing campaign carried out by the Syrian military on rebel and terrorist-held areas in Douma, many local residents experienced respiratory problems including smoke inhalation. Syrian “White Helmets” insisted a chemical attack had taken place and began filming the residents who were seeking medical treatment at the hospital. The “White Helmets”—anti-Assad so-called medical aid workers backed by the West—began shouting that a chemical attack had taken place and began spraying residents at the hospital with water hoses, causing chaos and panic and implanting a false narrative that a chemical attack had indeed taken place.

“There were people unknown to us who were filming the emergency care. They were filming the chaos taking place inside, and were filming people being doused with water,” Ahmad Kashoi, an administrator at a medical emergency center in Douma that treated local residents, explained to reporters at The Hague. “The instruments they used to douse them with water were originally used to clean the floors actually. That happened for about an hour. We provided help to them and sent them home. No one has died. No one suffered from chemical exposure.”

The traumatic footage that emerged from Douma, captured and released exclusively by the “White Helmets” and other groups hostile to the Syrian regime, was presented uncritically by the Western press and blindly accepted by virtually the entire Western political establishment, including President Donald Trump’s administration, resulting in U.S.-led airstrikes on Syrian targets.

Halil al-Jaish and Muwaffak Nasrim, medical workers in Douma, also testified at The Hague, insisting that none of the patients they assisted showed any legitimate signs of exposure to chemical weapons. All of the patients, the medical workers explained, showed signs of respiratory problems, including smoke inhalation and dust asphyxiation, as a direct result of the Syrian military strikes in the area targeting rebel forces.

Russian Col. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy, the chief of the main operational directorate of the Russian General Staff, announced that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons found no evidence that chemical weapons were stored or manufactured at the Barzeh research center in Damascus, which was targeted by airstrikes in the aftermath of the alleged “chemical attack” in Douma.

“Immediately after the attacks, many people who worked at these destroyed facilities and just bystanders without any protective equipment visited them,” Rudskoy explained. “None of them got poisoned with toxic agents.” Had chemical weapons actually been stored or manufactured at this research facility, those who worked there and lived in the area would surely have been exposed to toxic chemical agents.

Rudskoy also stated that the Syrian air defense systems, which were sold to the Syrian regime by the Russians, performed spectacularly, destroying 46 of the cruise missiles launched by the U.S., the UK, and France during the recent airstrikes.

Meanwhile, in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated that the U.S. will expand its role in Syria, leading to conflicting policies espoused by the Trump administration. Trump has often indicated he wishes to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria, stating recently U.S. forces would be “coming home relatively soon,” but that America would leave a “strong and lasting footprint” in the embattled country.

“Right now we are not withdrawing,” Mattis told Congress. “We are continuing the fight. We are going to expand it and bring in more regional support. This is the biggest shift we’re making right now.”

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.




Fake News Conglomerate Strangling AFP

Attacks by Some of the Biggest Companies in the World Threaten to Cripple Our Honest Newspaper

Dear AFP Reader,

Here’s a hearty thanks from all of us here at AFP for your continued support of the efforts of American Free Press newspaper.

It’s obvious the “powers that be” don’t like AFP. In the past several years we’ve been attacked by the likes of Google, Amazon, PayPal, Wells Fargo, The Huffington Post, the SPLC, the ADL, CNN, The Times of Israel and a multi-million-dollar Soros/Clinton front group called Media Matters for America. They say AFP is too politically incorrect. Now you can add another outfit to the list of those out to silence us. The New York Times has slammed AFP for interviewing political candidates who were against illegal immigration! For a small newspaper, we sure do make a lot of waves, but only with your extra help can we survive to fight on. . . . Please support us in this struggle with a donation today.

You are among a select group of patriots who understand how important it is that AFP stay in business and continue to fight for ALL the American people. We are asking that you please take the time to make a donation of $15 or more to AFP today and, in return, we will reward your generosity by sending you a copy of a booklet we’ve recently published called What Ails the President and Other Essays of a Patriotic Bent.

What Ails the President

What Ails the President is a 61-page collection of three powerful, in-depth articles by Barnes Review history magazine editor John Tiffany that have never before appeared in print

The first section of this booklet takes us on a tour of the various health maladies of the presidents, from Washington up to the modern era. When did their illnesses affect their ability to run the nation, and which of their health problems was kept from the public? You might be surprised to learn just which presidents had some very serious health problems and how their presidencies were affected by their ailments.

In the second section, Tiffany gives us the history of the right and duty of the citizenry to arm itself, not only to ward off invaders but also for personal protection. It’s a long and proud history going back to the days of the kings of England, now ingrained in our American psyche.

And, finally, Tiffany discusses the legality of the Internal Revenue Service. We’ve all heard about the strange 16th Amendment, that may or may not have been ratified, but why else does the author consider the IRS a “questionable agency”? And how long will its reign of terror continue? Find out from an author who has himself been battling the myrmidons at the IRS for the past 25 years!
Priced at $15 including S&H, this never-before-offered collection of articles in an attractive format will be sent to you when you make a donation of $15 or more to AFP.

PLEASE RESPOND TODAY . . .

Make a donation of $15 or more to quickly receive your copy of What Ails the President (glossy color cover).

And please accept our sincere thanks again for your support of AFP. No one else is doing what AFP is doing: fighting rampant political correctness and the massive controlled media monopoly that are, together, twisting the facts about so many important issues.

Unfortunately, not enough people know what YOU know about politics and history. But they would if they subscribed to AFP, so please keep up the good work and thanks for supporting AFP!

Sincerely,
Paul Angel signature
Paul Angel
AFP Managing Editor/Art Director

DONATE $15 or more now and get your copy of What Ails the President

$15buttontransparent.gif.png

You can make your much-needed donation to AFP using one of these easy methods:

  • Donate $15 online now using your credit card or PayPal account at the AFP Store by clicking the button at right;
  • send check or money order to: AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774;
  • call AFP toll free at (888) 699-6397 to donate using your credit card or cryptocurrency, Mon.-Thu. 9-5 ET;
  • email Christopher Petherick at [email protected] to donate cryptocurrency;
  • donate another amount online at the AFP Store by clicking here.

Thank you!




Trump’s Foreign Policy Scorecard

While President Trump’s “strategy of tension,” as described by French President Emmanuel Macron, appears to be effective with North Korea, though calling it a strategy at all, says Phil Giraldi, is questionable given the administration dysfunction. On other fronts, including Iran, Syria and Afghanistan, Trump is failing miserably on his foreign policy scorecard.

By Philip Giraldi

As Donald Trump is currently embarking on a 90-day agenda that has major foreign policy implications for the Koreas and Iran in particular, it is perhaps a good time to reflect on what has been accomplished, or otherwise, in his first 15 months in office.

French President Emmanuel Macron, having recently completed a state visit to Washington, reportedly has described the Trump program as “a strategy of tension,” which seeks to make adversaries uncertain of what the next step by the United States will be in an effort to obtain concessions that might not otherwise be likely.

It might be argued that the “strategy of tension” has worked with regard to North Korea, which might be considering détente with Seoul as an alternative to an attack by the United States. And Trump might even be right when he declares that previous U.S. presidents failed in their duty to strike a deal with Pyongyang. North Korea has long sought an end to the Korean War, which is still in armistice status, but its “unacceptable” condition has been that it should include a pledge of non-aggression from Washington, which successive administrations have refused to agree to lest their hands be tied if the North were to again become aggressive. And it would be conditional on the U.S. withdrawing its forces from the peninsula, knowing that once they are gone they will never return, so some might regard the North Korean overtures as little more than a trick to force the United States to depart before resuming business as usual by the hardline communist state.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

Even giving Trump credit for positive developments in Korea, however, it is far from clear that it was part of some kind of strategy, as the White House team has been largely dysfunctional while the president’s grasp of the niceties of international interrelations appears to be minimal.

Iran is another clear case where “tension” is being applied to compel the Iranians to give up their ballistic missile developments to supplement their participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to downgrade their nuclear energy program. The decision on whether the United States will withdraw from the agreement will likely be made in the next 10 days [this article was originally published in last week’s AFP Issue 19 & 20, before Trump’s decision on Iran was announced–Ed.], and the signs coming out of White House meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Macron are unfavorable regarding continued U.S. participation. Iran will likely dig in its heels, and there is a real possibility that it will consider a nuclear weapons program plus a functional delivery system to defend itself against the U.S. and nuclear armed Israel. There will be no coercion of Iran, which will actually fight hard using all its resources to resist an American effort at regime change.

And then there are Afghanistan and Syria. Afghanistan consists of doubling down on the mistakes made in that country since 2001, in the unfortunate belief that they can be corrected. Afghanistan will require some kind of settlement with the Taliban, which currently de facto controls more than half of the country, and which will have to become a partner in government like it or not. As the country is not a vital interest to the United States, extrication of U.S. forces after arranging for some kind of governing formula is the appropriate solution. Taking whatever steps are necessary to escape from a quagmire is acceptable.

Syria is Trump’s reversion to the same bad policies that resulted in Iraq, leading to the creation of ISIS among other consequences, not to mention a cost estimated to be $5 trillion. Syria, like Iraq, is a neocon exercise in delusion. Israel wanted Iraq to become a weakened state divided into ethnic and religious groups, a situation that still prevails in a country that is Shi’a dominated yet contains powerful Sunni and Kurdish regions that challenge the reinstatement of a national identity. Israel also wants the same for Syria, and the United States is complying by trying to create separate security zones that will not only include a large part of the country to the east along the Euphrates River and also to the north, but will also incorporate Syria’s oil production region, sharply diminishing the central government’s income. The formula will not work even though Israel and many in Washington are pushing hard for it.

Suicide of a Superpower, Patrick Buchanan
Will America survive? Available from AFP Online Store.

The fundamental problem is that the United States under Trump persists in believing, as did the former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that the U.S. is the “essential nation” that is able to “see far” and provide leadership for the rest of the world. This kind of thinking is bollocks, as the British are accustomed to saying. The United States foreign policy is driven by special interests, the most prominent of which is Israel and its supporters, in its attempt to remake the Middle East. Can anyone doubt at this point that the world, as well as the United States itself, would be far better off now if it had not invaded in Afghanistan and decided to stay there to fix it, if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq in 2003, and if the Bush and Obama administrations had not been driven by hubris to continue the process in Syria, a drama without any end in sight?

So on balance, Trump might actually deserve an “A” on North Korea, if it turns out that his form of intervention actually brought about some kind of resolution to a problem that has been festering for 65 years. But he deserves a “D” on Afghanistan, which is a classic case of democracy-building gone crazy and an “F” for both Syria and Iran, which are reflective of Israeli desires rather than actual American interests.

There is still time to fix what is going wrong, but it depends on an understanding of what “America first” should actually mean, which is that the demands of hegemonistic foreign clients should no longer guide U.S. policy. Israel should be told that if it wants to attack Iran it should go right ahead, but it should not expect the United States of America to be joining in the effort.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.




Was FDR a Victim of Assassination?

While FDR was pronounced dead of a massive cerebral hemorrhage by his cardiologist, a new book from Steve Ubaney, author of the Who Murdered . . . ? series, believes the evidence tells quite a different story. Ubaney says Stalin and the president’s inner circle plotted to remove FDR from postwar decisions, and he was the victim of a “meticulous, systematic poisoning.”

By S. T. Patrick

By March 29, 1945, the United States could sense an end to the war that had both ravaged the globe and rescued the American economy from the straits of the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt had just entered his fourth term as president. Whenever the stresses of the nation’s highest office demanded a calming respite for the ailing president, an excursion to the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga. was scheduled.

Recuperation was needed. FDR was about to attend a series of organizational meetings to charter the United Nations. In that all-important and lucrative practice of parsing and restructuring the world after a war, Roosevelt was to be the lead figure, maneuvering the chess pieces across the grandest of geopolitical boards. The general secretary of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, had led his country for two decades and was about to preside over his army’s victorious march through the streets of Berlin. Stalin believed that he, himself, had earned the right to helm the division of spoils emanating from the Second World War.

On the afternoon of April 12, Roosevelt, who felt increasingly ill, said, “I have a terrible headache,” and slumped forward in his chair, unconscious. After being carried to his bedroom, FDR was pronounced dead of a massive cerebral hemorrhage by his cardiologist Dr. Howard Bruenn. Vice President Harry Truman, an unassuming machine politician from Kansas City, became FDR’s successor.

Stalin must have seen a clearer path upon FDR’s death. In fact, it would be the beginning of a remarkably fatal 18 days. Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini was assassinated on April 28 and Stalin was led to believe that the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler had committed suicide on April 30. Churchill’s Conservative Party would soon lose an election, forcing the resignation of the prime minister, and France’s Charles de Gaulle had neither the financial stability nor the military fortitude to demand a powerful seat at the table of postwar politics.

While many characterize FDR’s death as the culmination of an adulthood riddled with health emergencies, author Steve Ubaney believes the evidence tells quite a different story. Ubaney is the author of the Who Murdered . . . ? book series. His volumes Who Murdered Elvis? and Who Murdered FDR? have questioned the official causes of death, and his upcoming Who Murdered JFK? will focus on the 2017-2018 JFK records releases. Ubaney believes the evidence shows that FDR was not solely suffering from the physical difficulties of a man who had contracted polio, a paralytic illness, in 1921 at the age of 39. Ubaney describes a situation in which Roosevelt was the victim of a meticulous, systematic poisoning that began around the time of the Tehran Conference in December 1943.

Kingdom Identity

When examining the suspects, Ubaney writes as an investigator, examining means, motive, and opportunity. No one is off limits. He examines Eleanor Roosevelt’s growing anger over FDR’s trysts with Missy LeHand, his personal secretary, and Lucy Mercer, Eleanor’s social secretary. FDR was so fond of LeHand that he included her in his will after she suffered a stroke. Mercer was with FDR in Warm Springs when he died. FDR had refused his wife’s request for a divorce, leaving her fastened to a loveless marriage.

Harry Hopkins, FDR’s chief diplomatic advisor and friend, is the book’s most interesting character. Long treated by Roosevelt biographers as the heroic architect of New Deal implementation, Ubaney details Hopkins’s ties to Soviet intelligence, going so far as to label him “a Soviet spy and operative.” Hopkins had always been closer to the Soviets than many American diplomats had wished him to be. When FDR was going through a more difficult stint of immobility, Hopkins would act as the mouthpiece and legs of the president.

Ubaney writes that Hopkins was “the most important man that no one ever knew.”

Elizabeth Schoumatoff and Nicholas Robbins were also present in Warm Springs when FDR died. Schoumatoff, a friend of Mercer, was a Russian-born painter tasked with capturing FDR’s likeness in his fourth term. Robbins was a photographer and longtime friend of Schoumatoff. Both shared Russian backgrounds, ties to high-level anti-FDR financiers, and a presence in Warm Springs.

When Ubaney discusses the practicalities of poisoning, characters reminiscent of the board game Clue enter the story. There is Arthur Prettyman, one of FDR’s personal valets, Howell Crim, the chief usher of the White House, and the cooks who prepare Roosevelt’s daily meals, about which FDR had increasingly complained throughout his presidency.

After his death, many of FDR’s medical records at Bethesda were either lost or stolen. We know this because Mrs. Roosevelt had her own suspicions approximately 10 years later. She wanted a re-evaluation of her husband’s medical history and the records of his death. She soon discovered that what was not locatable could not be re-evaluated.

Though Roosevelt was only 63 when he died, he appeared much older, as many onlookers observed. The severe decline began after Tehran and then seemingly hit bottom after the Yalta Conference of February 1945. Ubaney points out that

the closer FDR traveled in proximity to the Russian delegation, the worse his health deteriorated.

Ubaney writes, “Are we really expected to believe that (FDR) died of natural causes at the same time the Allied troops were closing in on Hitler’s bunker? Are we really expected to believe that Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini died within 18 days by coincidence?”

Though the lions of the Second World War were gone or removed from office, Stalin did not have complete autonomy. He had underestimated both Truman’s resolve and corporate America’s desire to control new markets. What he may have done, however, is end the fourth term of FDR prematurely. Ubaney admits that Stalin is the puppetmaster in the plot. The remainder of Who Murdered FDR? answers the questions of the players, their roles, and the strategies used to poison an American president.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected]




Iranians Have Kept Up Their End of the Nuclear Bargain

By all accounts, Iran has kept up its end of the JCPOA bargain, and most of the world is imploring Donald Trump to leave it alone, and not withdraw from the plan. The president knows “that such a move could lead to Iran resuming its earlier efforts to build a nuclear bomb, thereby destabilizing the Middle East and inviting a major war. Such a war would be applauded by Israeli hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his allies in the Saudi Royal Family, and Zionist elements on Capitol Hill.” Indeed, much is at stake. . . . 

By Richard Walker

According to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, Iran has honored its commitments to the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the JCPOA, but a stroke of President Donald Trump’s pen could signal its end or lead to a unilateral U.S. withdrawal from it.

Guilt By Association, Gates
Available at the AFP Online Store.

Such an outcome was first promised by Trump as an election pledge, even though he knew that such a move could lead to Iran resuming its earlier efforts to build a nuclear bomb, thereby destabilizing the Middle East and inviting a major war. Such a war would be applauded by Israeli hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his allies in the Saudi Royal Family, and Zionist elements on Capitol Hill.

On the other hand, Russia, China, Germany, Britain, and France, which also signed the JCPOA to end Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions, might well choose to stick with the deal and encourage Iran to do so, too. The EU has called on all sides to ensure the deal is protected. EU chief Federica Mogherini has pleaded with Washington to preserve it for the sake of security, arguing that it is working as planned. Her view is supported by most experts who believe the deal, which took two years to negotiate, represents a major diplomatic achievement. The White House disagrees, claiming it has been a disaster and that the Iranians have been cheating. IAEA inspectors who have conducted strict inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites have shown that claims of cheating have been bogus. The inspections have been the most thorough and strict ever undertaken by the IAEA.

Forgotten in the media coverage of ongoing threats by Trump to scrap the deal is the fact that it was supported in 2015 by a UN Security Council vote of 15-0. That confirms those determined to jettison it would have to overturn a majority UN Security Council vote. China and Russia will not let that happen.

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

On April 27, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced that it was encouraging all signatories to the JCPOA to “honor and safeguard it.” That followed a similar commitment from the Kremlin with a spokesman pointing out that the deal was a product of “meticulous and intense diplomacy,” and there is no alternative to it. One of the interesting elements of the Kremlin statement was its insistence that Iran’s “stance” on the JCPOA was critical in any consideration of it. In other words, those like Trump or France’s Macron who mused about negotiating a new arrangement could not do so without Iranian approval. Such an approval will not be forthcoming. Iran’s leaders have said they will not allow a word of the nuclear deal to be altered.

Lost in much of the media speculation about the future of the deal is that Iran has kept its commitments even though it has not benefited that much financially, given all the hype in the West about what the deal would do for its economy. That can be explained in part by Trump’s public threats to wreck the deal, a move that has dissuaded international banks and companies from doing business with Tehran.

From the day it was negotiated, the deal was threatened by Netanyahu and his backers on Capitol Hill. It was also vehemently opposed by the Saudis, who have Trump’s ear. Some Israeli intelligence chiefs, however, have disagreed with Netanyahu, pointing out that the Iranians have honored their side of the bargain, thereby making it impossible for them to build a nuclear weapon for at least 20 years.

In a move not mentioned in Congress or in the mainstream media, The Jerusalem Post recently lambasted Trump for his stance on the deal in language that was startling.

“This reality is clear, even to former critics of the deal. Trump’s bombastic rhetoric is not backed up with fact: There is no case in which unilateral withdrawal serves U.S. interests,” reported the Post.

Those familiar with Middle East politics know that White House opposition to the nuclear pact is ultimately aimed at weakening Iran’s influence in the region. It is a strategy applauded by Israel and the Saudis. Russia, Iran’s ally, is watching events carefully and has been negotiating secretly with Iran to boost its missile defenses.

North Korea will no doubt have been studying the Iran issue, wondering if it could ever trust Washington to be a reliable broker in a nuclear deal. However, if North Korea were to give up its nukes, it would continue to pose a major threat to its neighbors because of its massive arsenal of short-range missiles that could obliterate South Korea and strike Japan. The issue of that arsenal does not appear to have been on Washington’s agenda.

Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former New York mainstream news producer who grew tired of seeing his articles censored by his bosses.




Beware the Ides of May

May is shaping up to be a dangerous month for America and the world, as President Trump decides whether to kill the Iran and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians walks in the Great Return March back to their stolen homes.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

The Ides of March—March 15—was a bad day for Caesar. But this year, it is May 15 that portends trouble for the empire and the world. Consider the events lining up for that week.

On May 12, President Donald Trump is expected to kill the Iran nuclear deal, ratcheting up Middle East tensions to the breaking point. If Trump does kill the deal, as French President Macron says he will, the Iranians will undoubtedly pull out and start enriching uranium again, as is their right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is a signatory in good standing of the NPT, unlike the rogue state of Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons. When Iran follows Trump out of the nuclear deal, Israel will start screaming, “Bomb Iran!” And Trump, who listens to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, may or may not be able to resist being led by the nose into yet another huge, unwinnable Zionist war.

Another monumental Mideast provocation will follow two days later: the opening of the U.S. embassy in occupied Jerusalem. This move would be Trump’s open declaration of war on the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims. Jerusalem has been administered by Muslims essentially ever since Islam existed. It is in many ways the true spiritual capital of the Islamic world. Every Muslim on Earth worthy of the name would willingly die to defend Jerusalem from the Zionists.

If the U.S. endorses the Zionist claim to Jerusalem by opening an embassy there, America will suddenly be considered a legitimate target by billions of people—including many Christians, who correctly recognize Zionism as Antichrist.

The CIA in Iran
From AFP: The history of U.S./Iran conflict

Then the following day, May 15, the Palestinians’ Great Return March will culminate with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian concentration-camp inmates trying to walk, unarmed except with bolt cutters to snip the barbed wire, back to their stolen homes. The genocidal Zionists will undoubtedly massacre hundreds or even thousands of unarmed people, as they are in the habit of doing. The Zionists have already shot many dozens of people dead and wounded more than 5,000 for the crime of congregating to protest too close to the border.

This series of three massive provocations leading up to May 15 will pit Israel and the nations it secretly controls against the Palestinians and their billions of supporters all over the world. The Palestinians’ major state supporter, Iran, has dozens of military installations in Syria, as well as a battle-hardened ally, Hezbollah, next door in Lebanon. Russia, a supporter of Iran and a major force in Syria, risks being drawn into this imminent conflict.

What makes this situation especially dangerous is that the War Party seems to actually want to draw the Russians in. After a recent fake gassing in Douma, Syria on April 7, the neoconservatives—including National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—as well as a great many liberal armchair warriors, were pushing Trump to bomb Syria in a major way—a way that would have killed Russian troops and forced the Russians to sink the U.S. ships that sent the missiles, as Russian leader Vladimir Putin has promised to do.

The psychopaths pushing for World War III would like nothing better than a “new New Pearl Harbor”—9/11 being the old New Pearl Harbor. They know that getting the Russian military to sink U.S. ships is a great way to rally the American people for war. The false flaggers blew up the USS Maine in 1898, orchestrated the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, orchestrated the treasonous Pearl Harbor eight-point-plan in 1941, plotted to sink ships in Operation Northwoods (1962), and staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964.

Will they do it again come mid-May?

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




Two Judges in Virginia Rebuke Special Counsel Mueller

Two separate judges have shut down Robert Mueller in the last week, “breathing life into the Constitution.” This is evidence that, as Printus LeBlanc writes, “the investigation has absolutely nothing to do with finding a link between Russia and President Trump, but everything to do with ending the Trump presidency.”

By Printus LeBlanc

As bad weeks go, last week was a pretty bad week for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Two different judges dealt blows to the special counsel while breathing life into the Constitution. From the beginning it was obvious the special counsel was not interested in Russian collusion but was more interested in getting President Trump. Thanks to a pair of federal judges the American people are finally seeing what the special counsel is really up to.

In a blistering exchange with Mueller cronies, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, overseeing Mueller’s case against one-time Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, questioned why the special counsel was handling a case that was years old and had nothing to do with President Donald Trump or the election. The judge stated, “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. . . . What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

The judge is correct. From the beginning, it has become increasingly clear, the investigation has absolutely nothing to do with finding a link between Russia and President Trump, but everything to do with ending the Trump presidency. The Special Counsel handed over the case involving Mr. Cohen to federal authorities in New York but did not do so in this case, even though Manafort is being charged with crimes that are alleged to have happened years before becoming part of the Trump campaign.

Kingdom Identity

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning agreed with the judge, stating, “Everyone outside the Department of Justice seems to be able to see that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s only objective is to create grounds for the Democrats to impeach the president. That isn’t his job; his job is to investigate Russian collusion if there was Russian collusion in the election. The Manafort case clearly demonstrates the special counsel is well beyond his legal mandate, and Judge Ellis should throw the charges out immediately on this basis.”

Perhaps the most critical issue to come out of the hearing was the judge ordering the Special counsel to turn over the scope memo to the court. The scope memo was written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and laid out the parameters of the Special Counsel’s investigative powers. The DOJ has been guarding this document closely, refusing congressional subpoenas to turn it over. If the Special Counsel and DOJ have nothing to hide and are doing everything legally, why are they refusing to hand over the document?

While Judge Ellis was slamming the Mueller investigation for targeting the president, another judge dealt a potential lethal legal blow to the case against 13 Russians and three companies indicted earlier this year. Federal District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich rejected Mueller’s motion to delay the first hearing after lawyers showed up to defend two of the companies last month when it was expected no one would show up. The lawyers made multiple requests for information, seemingly catching the special counsel off guard.

Available from the AFP Online Store

It is believed the requests were a plan “to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information,” according to Politico’s Josh Gerstein, citing legal experts. Mueller’s team must now show up on Wednesday. If the team does not turn over all exculpatory Brady material the defendants are entitled to, it risks a dismissal and an extremely embarrassing episode for Mueller and Deputy AG Rosenstein.

Something else we also learned late last week, is that Mueller may have lied to the court. For almost a year, there have been multiple reports on the contacts between Manafort and Russian agents or people connected to Russian agents. On March 28, it was further reported by Newsweek, Mueller told the court Gates knew he and Manafort were dealing with ex-Russian intelligence agents in sentencing documents for Alex van der Zwaan. Manafort’s lawyers challenged the allegation that their client knew anything and asked the special counsel to produce the evidence Manafort had contact with Russian intelligence officials.

The government is allowed to deny the request for the Brady material on national security grounds, but the government is not allowed to deny the evidence exists. This is exactly what the Mueller team did. Manafort’s legal team filed papers stating, “Despite multiple discovery and Brady requests in this regard, the special counsel has not produced any materials to the defense—no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials (or any other foreign officials). The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort’s requests.”

Two questions immediately come to mind: Did Mueller lie to the court, and how can there be collusion if there is no evidence of contact? If Robert Mueller can go after Trump officials on specious charges of lying to the FBI, then Mueller’s lies to the federal court should be treated harshly. Apparently, Mr. Mueller lives in a glass house and should have known better than to throw the first three stones.

We are finally seeing the true nature of the special counsel. His sole objective is to be the most expensive and extensive opposition research project in history. He was created to give Congress an excuse to impeach the president, and if he couldn’t find it, make it up. Thanks to the judicial branch, the people can finally see who is pulling the coup strings.

Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.




Memo to Trump: Defy Mueller

Patrick Buchanan tells President Trump, Don’t testify. Ignore a subpoena, defy the courts if they compel you, but don’t testify. He explains, “The only institution that is empowered to prosecute a president is Congress,” and after two years, Mueller has nothing conclusive. Put it to bed.  

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Donald Trump does not wish to collaborate in the destruction of his presidency, he will refuse to be questioned by the FBI, or by a grand jury, or by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his malevolent minions.

Should Mueller subpoena him, as he has threatened to do, Trump should ignore the subpoena, and frame it for viewing in Trump Tower.

If Mueller goes to the Supreme Court and wins an order for Trump to comply and testify to a grand jury, Trump should defy the court.

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

The only institution that is empowered to prosecute a president is Congress. If charges against Trump are to be brought, this is the arena, this is the forum, where the battle should be fought and the fate and future of the Trump presidency decided.

The goal of Mueller’s prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap. If they can get him behind closed doors and make him respond in detail to questions—to which they already know the answers — any misstep by Trump could be converted into a perjury charge.

Trump has to score 100 on a test to which Mueller’s team has all the answers in advance while Trump must rely upon memory.

Why take this risk?

By now, witnesses have testified in ways that contradict what Trump has said. This, plus Trump’s impulsiveness, propensity to exaggerate, and often rash responses to hostile questions, would make him easy prey for the perjury traps prosecutors set up when they cannot convict their targets on the evidence.

Mueller and his team are the ones who need this interrogation.

For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive proof of the foundational charge—that Trump’s team colluded with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Having failed, Mueller & Co. now seek to prove that, even if Trump did not collude with the Russians, he interfered with their investigation.

How did Trump obstruct justice?

Did he suggest that fired NSC Advisor Gen. Mike Flynn might get a pardon? What was his motive in firing FBI Director James Comey? Did Trump edit the Air Force One explanation of the meeting in June 2016 between his campaign officials and Russians? Did he pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire Mueller?

Mueller’s problem: These questions and more have all been aired and argued endlessly in the public square. Yet no national consensus has formed that Trump committed an offense to justify his removal. Even Democrats are backing away from talk of impeachment.

Trump’s lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying, no matter what subpoena he draws up, or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress threatens impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: Impeach me and be damned.

Will a new Congress impeach and convict an elected president?

An impeachment battle would become a titanic struggle between a capital that detests Trump and a vast slice of Middle America that voted to repudiate that capital’s elite, trusts Trump, and will stand by him to the end.

And in any impeachment debate before Congress and the cameras of the world, not one but two narratives will be heard.

The first is that Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton and then sought to obstruct an investigation of his collusion.

The second is the story of how an FBI cabal went into the tank on an investigation of Clinton to save her campaign. Then it used the product of a Clinton-DNC dirt-diving operation, created by a British spy with Russian contacts, to attempt to destroy the Trump candidacy. Now, failing that, it’s looking to overthrow the elected president of the United States.

In short, the second narrative is that the “deep state” and its media auxiliaries are colluding to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

Unlike Watergate, with Russiagate, the investigators will be on trial as well.

Trump needs to shift the struggle out of the legal arena, where Mueller and his men have superior weapons, and into the political arena, where he can bring his populous forces to bear in the decision as to his fate.

This is the terrain on which Trump can win—an us-vs-them fight, before Congress and country, where not only the alleged crimes of Trump are aired but also the actual crimes committed to destroy him and to overturn his victory.

Trump is a nationalist who puts America first both in trade and securing her frontiers against an historic invasion from the South. If he is overthrown, and the agenda for which America voted is trashed as well, it may be Middle America in the streets this time.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Immigrant Caravan a Publicity Stunt

The band of illegal immigrants entering the United States at the Southwestern border is being called a “propaganda ploy” designed to test U.S. resolve. How many of the “caravaners” are actually asylum-seekers from Central America? 

By Mark Anderson

The much-ballyhooed “caravan” of Central Americans, which recently arrived at the Mexico-California border in several buses seeking asylum, looks to be nothing more than a publicity stunt that has been artificially inflated in size and scope for purposes of political agitation.

“This is a provocation to get publicity and excite other migrants . . . so they can do the same thing,” Roger Ogden told AFP by phone May 1, after sharing his video footage and photographs with AFP. “It’s also done to make our government look weak and helpless.”

The retired naval engineer and videographer has been watching the caravan for over a month now from the U.S. border in southern California.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Ogden cited the well-publicized San Diego beach area where aging metal border fencing ends at the water’s edge. He said that “several hundred” people did gather there on the Mexican side around the time that the mainstream media announced the arrival of the so-called caravan. Mainstream and amateur video footage showed that the fence was breached—evidently by a combination of “caravaners” and migrants from nearby parts of Mexico. Some of the more agile among them were able to climb the fence to the other side.

For months now, the mainstream media has been claiming that a massive caravan of migrants from Central America have walked across Mexico to get to the U.S., claiming that many in the group were fleeing political persecution. Ogden, however, questioned the origins of the migrants.

“I don’t think that many of them were Central American refugees at all,” Ogden said. He emphasized that the “caravan” is political theater—a combination of nearby migrants and some from Central America co-mingling to advance a propaganda war.

He pointed out that protest signs and banners had been already prepared, as it would be cumbersome for scores of people traveling on foot, in buses, and even atop trains to drag along unwieldy signs all the way from Central America.

Ogden also pointed out that many of the arrivals were surprisingly well-groomed and cleanly dressed for supposedly having just endured the 2,000-mile journey from Central America to Tijuana to turn themselves in to customs in the U.S. and seek asylum.

Lost Colonies of Ancient America
A Comprehensive Guide to the Pre-Columbian Visitors Who Really Discovered America: The Original Visitors to the New World Revealed.  ON SALE now at AFP Online Store!

Referring to a local Fox News report, Ogden noted: “It shows file footage of migrants [on top of] ‘the Beast’ train, but then shows fresh-looking women and children arriving in Tijuana on a comfortable chartered bus.”

A California spokesman for the group Fight Sanctuary State—whose Laotian wife got a green card and strictly followed U.S. citizenship-qualifying rules— told that same Fox News affiliate: “We support legal immigration, but if you want to come over and undermine our system and break our laws, you’re not welcome. They should have to prove their [need for] asylum, prior to getting to the border, and we shouldn’t let them in unless they’ve done that.”

The Department of Homeland Security announced: “DHS continues to monitor the remnants of the ‘caravan’ of individuals headed to our Southern border with the apparent intention of entering the U.S. illegally. A sovereign nation that cannot—or worse, chooses not—to defend its borders will soon cease to be a sovereign nation. The Trump administration is committed to enforcing our immigration laws—whether persons are part of this ‘caravan’ or not.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful emails at [email protected].




YouTube and the War Against Iran

Was the YouTube shooter, Nassim Aghdam, a victim of the anti-Iran culture war? 

By Kevin Barrett

We are told that Nassim Aghdam, the woman who purportedly shot three people at the headquarters of the video hosting service YouTube before taking her own life, fled her native Iran decades ago in search of freedom, glamor, and creative opportunities.

As a rising YouTube star, she branded herself “Green Nassim” and put out slick, stylish videos advocating animal rights, healthy living, and veganism.

But then something went wrong. As The New York Times video “Who Was the YouTube Shooter?” tells us: “She explains that even though she was a member of the Bahai faith, which is a persecuted faith in Iran, she doesn’t really like life in the United States. And she says, ‘In Iran they kill you with an axe; in the United States they kill you with cotton’—an Iranian expression saying she’s dying a slow death in the United States.”

“Welcome to freedom of speech,” Nassim says sarcastically in the video. “Do you think Iran is better than the USA or the USA is better than Iran?”

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

The issue that finally drove her over the edge was YouTube censorship: “I’m being discriminated against, I’m filtered on YouTube. I’m not the only one,” she said in her final message before attacking YouTube’s headquarters in San Bruno, Calif., and then killing herself.

YouTube has indeed been censoring alternative media outlets. Many leading independent channels, including British broadcaster Richie Allen’s, have been shut down on ludicrously flimsy pretexts—a clear violation of the First Amendment, since YouTube, owned by CIA asset Google, has a de facto monopoly and therefore must be considered a public utility, not a private company.

But why would YouTube try to bury Miss Aghdam’s “stylishly sexy Iranian girl promotes healthy living” videos? To understand the likely answer, we need to know more about the Zionist-driven culture war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

At the behest of Israel and its American assets, the U.S. government has been spending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to beam pornography and decadence into the minds of the Iranian people. A massive U.S./Zionist Farsi-language media operation, based in the Los Angeles area, produces programming ranging from hardcore pornography to sexually titillating fluff, all of it designed to undermine traditional values and promote the idea that the U.S. is a rich, liberated, sex-saturated paradise. Why? To brainwash hormone-addled Iranian young people into rebelling against their “repressive” Islamic culture and government.

When Miss Aghdam began making YouTube videos, they fit this paradigm reasonably well—so the CIA-Google powers-that-be gave her a free pass, or perhaps even tweaked the algorithms to promote her. The commissars overseeing the anti-Iran culture war must have loved the videos showing “sexy Nassim” dancing happily in front of American and Israeli flags.

But then Miss Aghdam grew disillusioned with American life. She started telling her viewers (most of them in Iran) that the U.S. is definitely not paradise, that in fact it isn’t any better than Iran. Suddenly, for no discernible reason, the number of views drawn by her videos began to drop. Miss Aghdam, no idiot, realized what was happening. She protested, growing ever more critical of the U.S. and the phony “freedom” it pretends to offer. And the more she protested, the more CIA-Google tweaked their algorithms to bury her videos and destroy her career. In a final, desperate gesture of misguided protest, she shot up YouTube’s headquarters.

In the same April 8 issue of The New York Times featuring the video about Miss Aghdam, another article appeared headlined “Many People Taking Antidepressants Discover They Cannot Quit.” The article quoted Edward Shorter, a historian of psychiatry at the University of Toronto: “We’ve come to a place, at least in the West, where it seems every other person is depressed and on medication. You do have to wonder what that says about our culture.”

Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett
Kevin Barrett’s classic book
on 9/11 is now available
at the AFP Online Store!

No need to wonder. What it says is obvious: Western culture has gone completely insane. The New World Order’s orchestrated destruction of tradition and religion has created a world that may look like paradise on the outside—as Miss Aghdam’s early videos suggested—but is rotting and dying on the inside.

The CIA-Google mind-controllers want Iranians to rise up against their country, destroy their religious traditions, turn Tehran into a third-rate replica of Los Angeles, and start taking anti-depressants to cope with the anomie. Maybe it’s a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical companies looking for new markets.

If Americans were aware of what is being done to them, they would rise up in revolution against the New World Order oligarchs who are dumbing them down, annihilating their religion and spirituality, and robbing their lives of value, purpose, and meaning. In so doing, Americans would be following in the footsteps of the people of Iran, who successfully revolted against the NWO’s hellish materialism and decadence back in 1979.

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