Trump Stands His Ground on Putin

The D.C. establishment is wailing hysterically over the prospect of President Donald Trump refusing to instigate Cold War II so desired by the elite. But does the potential loss of control by the War Party warrant the Beltway elite’s accusations of treason against our commander-in-chief and even apparent calls for a military coup? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which presidents can be impeached.

And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.

Trump’s refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin’s claim at Helsinki—that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton’s campaign—has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former director of the CIA.

Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia’s hacking of the DNC “an act of war” comparable to Pearl Harbor.

The New York Times ran a story on how many are now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.

Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: “Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”

Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.

Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a “conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream, today it is the establishment itself bawling “Treason!”

Kingdom Identity

What explains the hysteria?

The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is hard to credit. Like the boy who cried “Wolf!” the establishment has cried “Fascist!” too many times to be taken seriously.

A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR’s concentration camps for Japanese-Americans.

Some commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.

If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the levers of power ever again.

Using Occam’s razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America’s elites have been driven over the edge by Trump’s successes and their failure to block him.

Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.

Plot to Scapegoat Russia
Available from AFP Online Store.

Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along with Vladimir Putin.

“Over our dead bodies!” the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.

Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin’s poodle, fascist, demagogue, traitor, Nazi.

Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders if the haters are considering the impact of the words they are so casually using. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs far less toxic than this.

The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president’s enemies, but the depth of their determination to destroy him.

They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted, and prosecuted, and the agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.

Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance:

“The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war. They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin.”

All Out War on Trump
Available from AFP Online Store.

Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin’s pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.

Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.

Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country.

Yet, should he attempt to carry out his agenda—to get out of Syria, pull troops out of Germany, take a second look at NATO’s Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never heard of—he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.

This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.

By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most—irrelevance.

For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?

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.


President Pardons Jailed Ranchers

Good news for patriots across the United States! Front-page story of our most recent American Free Press. Not yet a subscriber? Click here for print subscription options or click here for digital options.

By Mark Anderson

President Donald Trump on July 10 signed presidential pardons for 76-year-old Dwight Hammond and his son Steven, 49—the embattled Oregon ranchers who suffered gross injustices after they were forced to serve consecutive prison terms despite being found innocent by a jury of the most serious charges. Their jailing eventually spurred the respected Bundy ranching family to protest the men’s plight at the Malheur nature preserve.

“The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges,” a White House statement said. “Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.”

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

The Hammonds, sentenced to five years in 2012 for that conviction, became the focal point of ranchers and others who oppose the federal government’s notoriously wasteful and costly mismanagement of massive tracts of Western lands to which it claims “ownership.” While mainstream media have simplistically claimed “they had set a series of fires on their ranch that spread to federal land,” in reality, the Hammonds started a “backburn” on their grazing land in Harney County, Ore. The controlled burn was lit, without malicious intent, to mitigate the impact of a totally separate fire on adjacent federal land that was headed their way.

In response to the Hammonds’ jailing, protesters, including the sons of famed Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County in early 2016. The mainstream media were quick to call it an “armed standoff.” However, the only use of firearms came when one of the occupiers, soft-spoken Robert LaVoy Finicum, died with his hands in the air in a hail of gunfire from state police and federal agents when he exited the driver’s seat of his vehicle at a police roadblock, while en route to a diplomatic meeting with area law enforcement.

Cliven Bundy, who became a focal point on the long, hard road he and scores of other ranchers have had to travel to expose and resist the overreach of the federal “landlord,” reacted to the news of the Hammonds’ clemency, telling AFP: “This is a great day for America, a great day for the ranchers in Oregon, and a great day for the Bundy family.”

Bundy explained: “The Bundy family didn’t have any vested interest in the Hammonds, except that they were ranching neighbors. My son Ammon called on local, county, state, and federal officials [about the Hammond’s plight]. Not one would respond

to his call. President Trump is the only man in these governments who responded to Ammon’s call and found the federal government’s criminal justice system was unjust.”

He continued: “The Hammonds sacrificed their ranch and money to attorneys and paid the federal government thousands and thousands of dollars, and LaVoy Finicum lost his life. The federal government cost my son Ammon $15 million. He had two thriving businesses; the federal government stepped in and told the people he was doing business with to stop doing business with Ammon. They weren’t just happy to put Ammon in jail and to murder LaVoy. They wanted to ruin people’s lives.”

Cliven summarized, “Shame on you, America, for allowing this to happen, and thank you, President Trump, for trying to make things straight.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Rand Paul: Former CIA Head Is ‘Bigoted,’ ‘Biased,’ ‘Unhinged’

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was a breath of fresh air and common sense when he made the rounds on television talk shows yesterday to defend President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

By AFP Staff

Republican senator from Kentucky Rand Paul appeared on a series of cable news talk shows yesterday to counter the ridiculous claims made by former CIA Director John Brennan that President Donald Trump should be charged with treason for not sticking up for U.S. intelligence.

On Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson’s show, Paul, who also happens to be the son of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), blasted Brennan, saying, “You have to realize John Brennan started his illustrious career by voting for the Communist Party—you know, that’s who he wanted to win the presidency back in the ’70s—so he voted for the Communist Party.”

He added that Brennan “is one of the most powerful people in the world, who has the ability to destroy anybody in the world and gain information on anything you do . . . yet with all that power he was coming to work each day with a bias and a hatred of the president. It should worry us all. What other things he could possibly have been doing with that power?”

You can watch the full interview below. Then, after you hear what Paul has to say, please take a moment to tell us what you think in the comments section.


RFK Jr. Strikes at Deep State

Kennedy scion Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has penned a book calling for a new investigation into father’s assassination, and into Sirhan Sirhan’s guilt—or innocence—in that crime.

By S.T. Patrick

Early in the morning on June 5, 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy lay flat on his back, bleeding onto the floor of the kitchen pantry at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He had just won the California Democratic primary and was exiting the hotel after a late-night victory speech when shots were fired, leaving six wounded, including Kennedy. He was pronounced dead 26 hours later. Sirhan Sirhan was blamed for the murder and is still serving time in a California prison today. For many historians and the LAPD, the crime of the RFK assassination has been solved. That may change, however, as Kennedy scion Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls for a reinvestigation of the murder.

In his new book, American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, the third of Robert and Ethel Kennedy’s 11 children openly calls for a reinvestigation of his father’s assassination, which occurred when RFK Jr. was 14 years old. His sister, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, concurs that the crime against their father deserves a reexamination.

Hidden History
By Donald Jeffries & Roger Stone, now at the AFP Store.

In December, RFK Jr. quietly visited Sirhan for three hours at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility outside of San Diego. He had also spoken to witnesses and read the autopsy reports. If he was going to decide to call for a reinvestigation, he was not going to do so without evidence.

“I got to a place where I had to see Sirhan,” Kennedy revealed to The Washington Post.

Kennedy left Donovan Correctional even more steadfast in the view that his father had been killed by a second gunman and not by Sirhan. It is a perspective on the case that researchers such as Lisa Pease, Shane O’Sullivan, and Bill Turner have shared for decades.

Pease was mentioned twice in American Values. She had shared an internal CIA report with Kennedy. The report stated that RFK and his brother, slain president John F. Kennedy, had not known about the CIA plots on the life of Fidel Castro. Journalist Seymour Hersh, by way of CIA officer Sam Halpern, had argued that the Kennedys authorized the plots. The CIA’s own inspector general report—the last copy of which had been kept in a safe by CIA Director Richard Helms—stated that the CIA had told RFK only about the anti-Castro plots that had ended and not about the plots that were ongoing. Pease believes that one of these plots was then turned around and used on JFK.

Many in the assassination research community have lauded RFK Jr.’s book as the first Kennedy strike against the deep state. Rev. Martin Luther King’s family has spoken about conspiracy in the assassination of MLK for years and have long questioned the guilt of James Earl Ray. John Kennedy Jr. and Caroline Kennedy never publicly advocated for a reinvestigation of JFK’s murder, and, until now, the children of RFK have kept similarly quiet.

In an interview with this writer, Pease discussed RFK Jr.’s entrance into the Kennedy research community.

“It was really important that those of us who are trying to tell the truth connect to each other,” Pease said. “So it was kind of inevitable that Bobby and the community would eventually connect.”

Pease, the author of the forthcoming A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, explained to this writer that the Sirhan family suffered just as much as the Kennedys. Because RFK would have viewed every person’s life as important, she argues that RFK Jr.’s new quest is as much about justice for Sirhan as it is about finding the truth about his father’s death.

An Act of State, by William F. Pepper
Attorney William F. Pepper’s An Act of State is available for purchase from the AFP Online Store.

Kennedy, now 64, is not the only person close to the case to call for a reinvestigation. Paul Schrade, who was shot in the head as he followed RFK into the pantry, is also advocating for a reopening of the case, as well as Sirhan’s innocence.

RFK was shot at point-blank range behind his ear. Sirhan was standing in front of him. At least 13 shots were fired. Sirhan’s gun held eight bullets.

While visiting Sirhan in prison would seem, to some, like a difficult, emotional act, Kennedy boiled the visit down to simple terms.

“My father was the chief law enforcement officer in this country,” Kennedy explained. “I think it would have disturbed him if somebody was put in jail for a crime they didn’t commit.”

Sirhan, now 74, has spent 50 years in prison for a crime he doesn’t remember. If RFK Jr. and his sister Kathleen can spur a deeper look into the case, Sirhan may finally be paroled after 30 years of failed attempts. For the son of the former attorney general, justice is what is sought.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is

Trump Calls Off Cold War II

With media and Congress screaming that President Trump is acting “treasonously,” it’s valuable to consider a brief history lesson-reminder of U.S actions that might have caused Putin to respond as he has. Who is acting immorally?

By Patrick Buchanan

Beginning his joint press conference with Vladimir Putin, President Trump declared that U.S. relations with Russia have “never been worse.”

He then added pointedly, that just changed “about four hours ago.”

It certainly did. With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation and the fate of his presidency.

He has rejected the fundamental premises of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and blamed our wretched relations with Russia, not on Vladimir Putin, but squarely on the U.S. establishment.

In a tweet prior to the meeting, Trump indicted the elites of both parties: “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

Trump thereby repudiated the records and agendas of the neocons and their liberal interventionist allies, as well as the archipelago of War Party think tanks beavering away inside the Beltway.
Looking back over the week, from Brussels to Britain to Helsinki, Trump’s message has been clear, consistent and startling.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

NATO is obsolete. European allies have freeloaded off U.S. defense while rolling up huge trade surpluses at our expense. Those days are over. Europeans are going to stop stealing our markets and start paying for their own defense.

And there will be no Cold War II.

We are not going to let Putin’s annexation of Crimea or aid to pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine prevent us from working on a rapprochement and a partnership with him, Trump is saying. We are going to negotiate arms treaties and talk out our differences as Ronald Reagan did with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Helsinki showed that Trump meant what he said when he declared repeatedly, “Peace with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

On Syria, Trump indicated that he and Putin are working with Bibi Netanyahu, who wants all Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias kept far from the Golan Heights. As for U.S. troops in Syria, says Trump, they will be coming out after ISIS is crushed, and we are 98% there.

That is another underlying message here: America is coming home from foreign wars and will be shedding foreign commitments.

Both before and after the Trump-Putin meeting, the cable news coverage was as hostile and hateful toward the president as any this writer has ever seen. The media may not be the “enemy of the people” Trump says they are, but many are implacable enemies of this president.

Some wanted Trump to emulate Nikita Khrushchev, who blew up the Paris summit in May 1960 over a failed U.S. intelligence operation–the U-2 spy plane shot down over the Urals just weeks earlier.

Khrushchev had demanded that Ike apologize. Ike refused, and Khrushchev exploded. Some media seemed to be hoping for just such a confrontation.

When Trump spoke of the “foolishness and stupidity” of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that contributed to this era of animosity in U.S.-Russia relations, what might he have had in mind?
Was it the U.S. provocatively moving NATO into Russia’s front yard after the collapse of the USSR?

Was it the U.S. invasion of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have that plunged us into endless wars of the Middle East?

Was it U.S. support of Syrian rebels determined to oust Bashar Assad, leading to ISIS intervention and a seven-year civil war with half a million dead, a war which Putin eventually entered to save his Syrian ally?

Was it George W. Bush’s abrogation of Richard Nixon’s ABM treaty and drive for a missile defense that caused Putin to break out of the Reagan INF treaty and start deploying cruise missiles to counter it?

Was it U.S. complicity in the Kiev coup that ousted the elected pro-Russian regime that caused Putin to seize Crimea to hold onto Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol?

Many Putin actions we condemn were reactions to what we did.

Russia annexed Crimea bloodlessly. But did not the U.S. bomb Serbia for 78 days to force Belgrade to surrender her cradle province of Kosovo?

How was that more moral than what Putin did in Crimea?

If Russian military intelligence hacked into the emails of the DNC, exposing how they stuck it to Bernie Sanders, Trump says he did not collude in it. Is there, after two years, any proof that he did?

Trump insists Russian meddling had no effect on the outcome in 2016 and he is not going to allow media obsession with Russiagate to interfere with establishing better relations.

Former CIA Director John Brennan rages that, “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki . . . was . . . treasonous. . . . He is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

Well, as Patrick Henry said long ago, “If this be treason, make the most of it!”

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.


Russia or the Deep State: Who’s Really Undermining ‘Democracy’?

In politics, timing is everything. So what does that say about the deep state timing its indictment to break only days before President Donald Trump was to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin?

By AFP Staff

On July 13, three days before President Donald Trump was scheduled to hold his historic face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, the Justice Department announced a grand jury had indicted a dozen Russian intelligence officers “for conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” Of course, the mainstream media worked itself into a lather over the indictment of Russian spies who, realistically, will never be brought to justice. Missed in all of the rumpus, however, was the staging of the indictment, which was cynically timed to undermine a sitting president who openly admitted that the goal of the top-level meeting was to seek peace with a major, nuclear-armed foreign power.

It’s worth noting that the charges were not brought by the special counsel investigating possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Instead, it was brought by the Justice Department’s National Security Division—the deep state—and announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

Rosenstein, who lords over special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign staff, was nothing more than a useful idiot in the announcement, seeking to take a swipe at Trump.

Of late, Rosenstein has come under increasing pressure for allowing Mueller to run wild and charge individuals with crimes unrelated to his purview. Earlier this month, congressional Democrats and never-Trump Republicans just barely fended off calls in Congress to impeach Rosenstein for failing at his job.

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

According to last Friday’s indictment, prosecutors acknowledged that the Russians were working on their own—as spies do—and that no Americans knew they were communicating with Russians.

“The conspirators corresponded with several Americans through the Internet. There is no allegation in the indictment that the Americans knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers,” noted the press release issued by Rosenstein’s office on the indictment.

The charges only relate to spying work done by the Russians. They include:

Count One charges 11 defendants for conspiring to access computers without authorization, and to cause damage to those computers, in connection with efforts to steal documents and release them in order to interfere with the election.

Counts Two through Nine charge eleven defendants with aggravated identity theft by employing the usernames and passwords of other persons to commit computer fraud.

Count Ten charges the eleven conspirators with money laundering by transferring cryptocurrencies through a web of transactions in order to purchase computer servers, register domains, and make other payments in furtherance of their hacking activities, while trying to conceal their identities and their links to the Russian government.

Count Eleven charges two defendants for a separate conspiracy to access computers without authorization, and to cause damage to those computers, in connection with efforts to infiltrate computers used to conduct elections.

Finally, a forfeiture allegation seeks the forfeiture of property involved in the criminal activity.

No one should be naïve enough to think that countries do not spy on each other and attempt to influence politics in foreign powers, especially among rival nations. In fact, the U.S. government is probably the most skilled in that, having openly and brazenly meddled in the elections of dozens of countries and even toppled several over the course of the last few decades.

Russia is by no means innocent in this. The Kremlin has most likely been trying to influence U.S. politics for many years, which begs the question, why indict Russian spies operating on Russian soil just before the leaders of the U.S. and Russia are set to meet if for no other reason than to send a stark warning to these two men that the deep state will not stand by while the heads work to bridge the divide and promote peace between the two nations.

In a related news item, Putin did drop a bomb on the deep state that few media outlets have picked up on.

During a press conference, Putin unloaded on the U.S., saying that Washington should investigate how U.S. intelligence helped a billionaire fleece the Russian government and get out of paying $1.5 billion in taxes and then turn over some of that money—$400 million—to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Putin then invited Mueller’s team to come to Russia to further its investigation so long as the U.S. allows Russia to look into the billionaire’s transactions.

In other words, while Russia is accused of mocking and trolling ignorant American voters, the U.S. deep state directly funded the campaign of a presidential candidate, which it preferred over the other.

So who really is undermining the United States democratic republic here?

Banking Syndicate Challenged

Monetary reformer Mickey Paoletta has cleared a key legal hurdle with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in his effort to use a “King’s Bench” petition to beat mortgage fraudsters.

By Mark Anderson

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on June 12 stamped the relevant documents and finally officially agreed to review a “King’s Bench” petition filed by a citizen under the auspices of noted monetary-reform activist Mickey Paoletta. This development represents a significant step forward in Paoletta’s 35 years of effort to expose the corrupt banking system and its allies in the legal field. But getting the high court to move this matter forward was grueling.

“They put us through pure hell for seven or eight days in a row, but they accepted it—reluctantly,” Paoletta told AFP, referring to what he and embattled York, Penn. homeowner-petitioner Christopher Inch experienced. “There’s corruption in the highest places, and more and more people know what’s up. They want it stopped.”

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

According to Paoletta, the means of stopping it is found in the “King’s Bench jurisdiction”—a British common-law legal concept carried over to several states during America’s formative years, including the commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The goal in Pennsylvania is to compel the high court to uphold the law and carry out broad oversight of the lower courts, and of those licensed to practice law, in order to stop, in blanket fashion, the torrent of fraudulent foreclosure proceedings against homeowners such as Inch.

This is explained in Inch’s petition being reviewed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Section six of the petition states: “This petitioner makes application to this court to invoke its inherent supervisory power over this case [a lending company’s ongoing lawsuit versus Inch] and the other similar state cases and take corrective action over its licensed attorneys and inferior tribunals.”

Section seven adds that Inch petitioned the court “to grant an injunction on this conspiratorial enterprise, to grant relief in connection with an issue of immediate public importance that has affected thousands of homeowners and potentially could affect thousands more.”

Beyond the crucial element expressed in sections six and seven—intended to get the high court to accelerate relief for Inch and all other similarly oppressed homeowners in one fell swoop rather than one case at a time—the information in sections eight and nine is of paramount importance. It outlines for the court the “extrinsic fraud used to obtain a summary or default judgment” against homeowners whose homes are under foreclosure on the basis of “forged and fraudulent foreclosure documents.”

Section nine specifies that Inch, “through affidavits, exhibits and expert testimony can and will prove conclusively” that debt-collection law firms and various lenders, including banks, “participated in a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only Inch but the Pennsylvania courts and the due process rights of this plaintiff [Inch] and thousands of others so similarly situated.”

Regarding the petition being reviewed by the state Supreme Court, Paoletta on June 21 told AFP, “They said we should have an answer in 45 to 60 days. But I have 30 to 35 people ready to file King’s Bench petitions if the high court declines to act further.”

Paoletta added that he’s broadening the scope of his efforts.

“Based on my research, it’s the Supreme Court’s duty in each state, not just Pennsylvania, to see that their inferior courts follow all the laws. My goal is to work with the leaders of the 50 states to get them thinking down the same path. And I did some extensive research and found you can do this with the U.S. Supreme Court for [overseeing] the federal district courts.”

He went on to say: “I cannot find one case in these 50 states where the banks and debt collectors did not engage in the production of forged and fraudulent notes in order to foreclose. We should be able to stop all judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. In a judicial state, such as Pennsylvania, they [the debt-collectors] have to file a complaint in state courts, but in non-judicial states, the debt-collectors and the debt-purchasers—which are one and the same in most cases—have the advantage, because the homeowners’ rights to a trial by jury in foreclosure cases are denied by the courts. In non-judicial states, you’ve already ‘agreed’ you’re in default when you sign the deed of trust. You’ve already given them the rights to your house and commenced judgment against yourself.”

Paoletta, who founded Mortgage Defense Systems in Mechanicsburg to shine a light on this fraud and help distressed property owners, believes that with this new approach, the American people can file these kinds of complaints even for property lost years ago through foreclosures. In other words, this bold quest for relief and justice could be retroactive.

Inch told AFP: “I don’t think the laws actually need changing much. If the lawyers and banks could be compelled to follow the laws on the books, much of this could be resolved. Despite Federal Reserve supervision and other oversight, when it comes to the foreclosure process, they know they’re dealing with people who don’t have money, are uninformed, or have broken life situations. The courts would not be so easily swayed by the banks and their lawyers if the homeowners and citizens knew the laws, knew their responsibilities, knew the corruption the banks are doing, and had the means to fight it.”

He concluded, “We need the public educated so it’s not just lawyers and banks pushing around poor people, but the people pushing back against this racket.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Virulent ‘Anti-Hate’ Center to Pay $3.3 Million for Smears

National hate group SPLC will fork over a huge sum to falsely accused, defamed anti-extremism activist. Is this the beginning of the end for this hate-promoting behemoth?

By John Friend

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) announced recently it would settle a lawsuit with a high-profile British Muslim politician and anti-extremism activist, who had sued the radical leftist organization late last year for defamation, a development this newspaper reported on at the time.

Maajid Nawaz, founder of Quilliam, which describes itself as the world’s first counter-extremism organization dedicated to promoting pluralism and combating extremism around the world, sued the SPLC after it labeled the popular Muslim reformer as an “anti-Muslim extremist.” In 2016, the SPLC included Nawaz and Quilliam in its widely disseminated and highly influential report on anti-Muslim activists entitled A Journalist’ Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.

Nawaz sued for defamation, and the SPLC eventually agreed to settle the lawsuit for a cool $3.375 million. Nawaz said the money would be used to bolster his organization’s mission of combating both “anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism,” according to a Fox News report.

“With the help of everyone who contributed to our litigation fund, we were able to fight back against the regressive left and show them that moderate Muslims will not be silenced,” Nawaz stated shortly after the lawsuit was settled. “We will continue to combat extremists by defying Muslim stereotypes, calling out fundamentalism in our own communities, and speaking out against anti-Muslim hate.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Nawaz and his organization have been removed from the SPLC’s report and website, and the SPLC issued an apology to both Nawaz and Quilliam.

“Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” Richard Cohen, the president of the SPLC, stated in an official apology to Nawaz following announcement of the settlement. “Although we may have our differences with some of the positions that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have taken, we recognize that they have made important contributions to efforts to promote pluralism and that they are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists.”

According to the statement, the SPLC’s insurance carrier will cover the $3.375 million settlement, which was “the right thing to do in light of our mistake and the right thing to do in light of the growing prejudice against the Muslim community on both sides of the Atlantic,” Cohen explained.

The multi-million-dollar settlement marks the latest setback for the SPLC, easily one of the most subversive, dishonest, and tyrannical organizations operating in America today. Earlier this year, the SPLC was forced to issue an apology for publishing a blog post smearing a number of highly regarded progressive, anti-war journalists as white supremacists, fascists, and anti- Semites. The SPLC has a long history of defaming and slandering its political opponents, using its false credibility as a leading “civil rights watchdog” to discredit and marginalize its adversaries, as was the case with Nawaz.

“It’s appalling and offensive for the Southern Poverty Law Center to compare peaceful organizations which condemn violence and racism with violent and racist groups just because it disagrees with their views,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), stated in the wake of the settlement. “That’s what SPLC did in the case of Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz, and that’s what it has done with ADF and numerous other organizations and individuals. This situation confirms once again what commentators across the political spectrum have been saying for decades: SPLC has become a far-left organization that brands its political opponents as ‘haters’ and ‘extremists’ and has lost all credibility as a civil rights watchdog.”

The SPLC’s dishonest and highly partisan tactics “have ruinous, real-world consequences for which they should not be excused,” Tedesco concluded.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

U.S.-Israel Military Juggernaut Grows

From Alaska to the Negev Desert, cooperation between Israeli and American militaries is putting U.S. troops in harm’s way.

By Philip Giraldi

The increasing ties between the Israeli and American militaries have gone virtually unnoticed in the U.S. media apart from reports about the $3.1 billion in military assistance that Tel Aviv receives each year. The United States has just completed the largest ever joint military exercises with Israel, even though there is no bilateral defense agreement or treaty between the two countries.

Scenarios in the exercises had American soldiers defending Israel by fighting Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians in a mock-up Arab village.

Upon conclusion of the Juniper Cobra exercises, Air Force Lt. Gen. Richard Clark observed that American soldiers should be prepared to die for the Jewish state, adding that they would probably be under the command of an Israeli Air Force general, who subsequently advised that “I am sure . . . we will find U.S. troops on the ground . . . to defend the state of Israel.”

But Washington’s more serious commitment to Israel derives from the recent opening of a U.S. permanent installation at Mashabim Air Base in the Negev desert. The American facility is a base within a base, surrounded by the Israeli Air Force and operating “under Israeli military directives.” It is a shell facility with a few airmen who could be reinforced if Israel goes to war. Together with billions of dollars-worth of U.S. military equipment that is pre-positioned in Israel and can be used by the Israelis as needed, it is all about supporting Israeli war-making and has nothing to do with American security or defense interests.

MidEast Chess Board

Overseas military bases normally serve two functions. The first and foremost should be to defend the United States from attack originating with a foreign power, serving in effect as a forward defense. That is basically what the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar does, as it enables surveillance and both first and retaliatory strike capability in what has become a volatile region. Major American bases in Germany and elsewhere in Europe similarly have considerable defensive and offensive capabilities, making them a forward based deterrent against attack.

More often, however, the existence of Washington’s military installations overseas is to serve as token presences, guarantors that the United States will become involved in the war if an ally is attacked. As no one seriously wants to confront U.S. power directly, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serve as a deterrent, making an offensive action by an antagonist pretty much unthinkable.

That issue of deterrence is why there are American soldiers in Poland and the Baltic States and the real reason why 30,000 troops remain in South Korea. It also assumes that Russia is a hostile and expansionistic power, which is debatable, though the potential truculence of North Korea is better established.

Israel, as is so often the case, does not neatly fit into either rationale for having an American overseas military base, but there has been virtually no pushback either from Congress or the media over what can be construed as a highly risky initiative. The Mashabim military base can be reinforced as needed, but reinforced for what? The United States has far more capable units throughout the region and the U.S. base could not play any significant role if serious fighting were to break out.

If the Israeli base were to be attacked by either Iran or Hezbollah rockets, however, that would mean that the United States would also be considered to be under attack and would respond in kind. So that means that the American presence is to guarantee that any attacker would understand that striking at Israel is the same as striking at the United States, which would be a deterrent. But there is something wrong with that formulation. In the cases of Europe and South Korea, the United States has formal agreements that define how Washington would respond to attacks on its allies within the framework of what is a defensive not an offensive alliance. And those countries are formal allies with established borders, which is not the case with Israel.

There is nothing to prevent Israel from attacking Iran or Hezbollah, producing a retaliatory response, and expecting that the U.S. would suddenly appear to do the real fighting. In fact, given Israel’s history of aggression against its neighbors that is precisely what very well might happen. America has de facto given up its sovereign right to declare war and handed it over to Israel.

And there’s more. The most recent largely unreported news about Israeli-American military engagement comes from the island of Kodiak off the coast of Alaska, where Israel will be testing its new Arrow 3 missile system, which was largely funded by the United States, so it can be deployed in Israel. A reported 62 shipping containers have been turned into sleeping quarters for Israeli soldiers, who will be operating out of the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, where the tests will take place.

The reason given for Israel’s need to begin testing its missiles in the United States is that the Arrow 3 is an exo-atmospheric missile, which flies into outer space coming back down to hit its target. The Mediterranean Sea is apparently too small an area to test such a missile, which has a range of 1,500 miles that includes all of Europe as well as much of Western Asia and North Africa.

Arrow 3 would also give Israel an anti-satellite weapon, allowing it to join only the U.S., Russia, and China with that military capability.

The question that the Pentagon should be asking is, “Who is Israel targeting with its new weapon system and why?” The missile clearly has offensive capabilities that go way beyond Israel’s neighborhood and far in excess of any legitimate defense needs.

The blank check given to Israel is not just in the form of money and an unlimited flow of U.S.-made military equipment. It also consists of an unwillingness to challenge anything that Israel wants, including creating the conditions whereby the United States will be willy-nilly involved in a war initiated by a feckless Benjamin Netanyahu.

And the U.S. has wound up funding and testing a missile that someday might be used against it and which, incidentally, competes with similar products made by American defense contractors, costing jobs here at home.

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.

Resisting Zionist Censorship

Courageous Jews are risking much to protest censorship by the Zionist Power Configuration, as sociologist James Petras calls the core of pro-Israel, Zionist power. A recent conference included a panel that featured several of these truth-tellers.

By Kevin Barrett

As sociologist James Petras has pointed out, the 52 major Jewish American organizations (MJAO) are monolithically pro-Israel. They form the core of what Petras calls the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC): “The ideological influence of the Israel Fifth Column is concentrated on a single issue: Defending Israel and its crimes against humanity.”

According to Petras, the ZPC’s commanding heights include hundreds of billionaires and millionaires, who finance its political and media operations. Below them, national and state-wide networks “influence the nomination and financing of all candidates, elected officials, and the composition of editorial boards of the major media outlets.”

MidEast Chess Board

Below these networks, at the local level, “every major and minor U.S. city has local Zionist-councils that use their influence to intimidate local professional, business, political, and media groups into ensuring that critics are censored and Israel’s war crimes are covered up.”

It takes guts to stand up to the ZPC. The ZPC, Petras explains, is in the habit of “blacklisting critics, contacting their places of employment and demanding they be fired,” tactics that can escalate into “threatening phone calls and unwelcome ‘visits’.” In rare instances, the Jewish Defense League, an FBI-designated terrorist group that functions as the armed wing of the ZPC, has been known to conduct fire-bombings and murders.

Against this Zionist goliath, a smattering of Jewish Davids are beginning to rise up. I recently hosted a panel discussion with three of them: Gilad Atzmon,* Alan Sabrosky, and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel. Along with former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, the five of us made up the panel for “Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm,” the final segment of a conference entitled Deep Truth: Visionaries Speak Out. Videos from the conference are online at

Wandering Who?
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

Atzmon jokes that he can’t decide whether to be an ex-Jew or a self-hating Jew. Born in Israel, Atzmon served in the IDF but was repelled by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. He emigrated to London and became one of Europe’s greatest jazz saxophonists—as well as an author and noted critic of Jewish power, which he defines as “the power to silence criticism of Jewish power.” Endlessly slandered and vilified by the global ZPC, Atzmon has been banned from speaking more times than he can count—and has even suffered physical attacks. Yet he soldiers on, driven by the same spirit of feisty stubbornness that helped him wake up at an ungodly hour every morning to practice his saxophone and eventually become a great musician.

Alan Sabrosky, the former director of studies of the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, says, “I express my Jewish ethnicity through cuisine, not foreign policy.” In other words, he is a patriotic American, who likes Jewish food and doesn’t give a hoot about Israel.

In 2010, Sabrosky made alternative media headlines by coming on my radio show and announcing that: “I have had long conversations over the last two weeks with contacts at the Army War College and Marine Corps headquarters, and I’ve made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period. The Zionists are playing this as an all-or-nothing exercise. If they lose this one, they’re done.”

Naturally the ZPC’s thought-police outfit, the Anti-Defamation League, has accused Sabrosky of promoting “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”

The sheer terror Sabrosky’s name elicits among the ZPC elite was displayed on May 9, 2016 in the Kansas City Public Library. Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, a patriotic American truth activist from a Jewish-Mexican background, was arrested, along with librarian Steve Woolfolk, by trained-in-Israel off-duty cops. His crime? Asking an uncomfortable question during the Q&A after a speech by Dennis Ross, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel. Rothe-Kushel’s question alluded to Israel’s role in 9/11. Shortly after Rothe-Kushel mentioned the name “Alan Sabrosky” the security guards grabbed Rothe-Kushel, then brutalized librarian Woolfolk for disputing the arrest.

Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

Recognizing that quickly dropping charges would amount to an implicit admission of guilt, a serious disadvantage in case of eventual litigation, the D.A. pressed charges against Woolfolk and Rothe-Kushel—and lost.

On April 26 of this year, Rothe-Kushel filed a lawsuit against the Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Kansas City, two of its employees, and one of its security guards. Also named in the lawsuit is an employee of the Truman Library Institute, along with Kansas City Police Chief Rick Smith, five members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, two Kansas City police detectives and a sergeant.

Rothe-Kushel identifies as a Jew and practices the religion of Judaism, identifying with its prophetic “speak truth to power” tradition. Sabrosky rarely thinks about being Jewish. Atzmon isn’t sure he’s still a Jew.

Whatever they call themselves, these guys are freedom fighters and heroes.

* Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who? is available from the AFP Online Store, here.

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.

American Legion Betrays Servicemen

Once again the victims and survivors of Israel’s heinous attack on this unarmed USS Liberty have been betrayed, as American Legion has denied display space to the Liberty Veterans Association for its upcoming national convention. 

By Dave Gahary

In 2017, the 99th national convention of the American Legion (AL)—the 2.4 million-member war veterans organization founded in 1919—which was held in 2017 in Reno, Nev., produced Resolution No. 40. It called “upon the 115th United States Congress to publicly, impartially, and thoroughly investigate the attack on the USS Liberty and its aftermath and to commence its investigation before the end of 2017, the 50th anniversary of the attack.”

Although it was a valiant gesture to bring justice to the terror attack that took place aboard the spy ship USS Liberty (AGTR-5)—where on June 8, 1967, 34 Americans were slaughtered and 174 more were wounded in broad daylight in international waters—the reality is that the entire Congress is in the hip pocket of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. No investigation was completed last year, nor was it ever seriously considered.

Kingdom Identity

The AL, however, has now reneged on its promise to the USS Liberty. The AL declined the USS Liberty Veterans Association’s (LVA) request to set up a booth at the 100th national convention this year in Minneapolis, Minn. In fact, the letter from the AL to an LVA member was so harsh, one wonders why they even bothered passing Resolution No. 40 the previous year.

The letter reads:

Please find enclosed the return of your: (1) 2018 Exhibitor Contract request; (2) 2018 Housing form request; (3) May 2, 2018 letter; and (4) check for $1,000.

The American Legion hereby declines your offer and request to rent exhibitor space at our National Convention. No space, nor housing, has been reserved for you under these terms.

Very truly yours,
Kevin J Bartlett, J. D.
National judge advocate

What makes this all the more puzzling is that the AL has hosted the LVA many times over the years, and its booth has been very popular with attendees.

Even more shocking is the fact that the AL has lied to its millions of members and supporters to exclude the LVA from their convention. The LVA’s blog revealed this bald-faced lie in a June 4 update:

The American Legion has lied to Legionnaires who called the national organization to find out why the LVA has been denied a booth at the 2018 American Legion National Convention. Legionnaires have been told that at the time the LVA requested a booth there [was] no space available. For this to be true the national organization would have [had] to run out of exhibit space on May 7, 2018—three months and 17 days prior to the convention.

LVA President Ernie Gallo signed the application paperwork on April 10 and LVA Vice President Larry Bowen signed it on April 16, 2018.

Before sending the application in, we called Andrea Watson to let her know we’d be sending in the application with all that was required except the certificate of insurance, which expires before the date of the event. We told her we’d send that as soon as the insurance company sends us the bill to renew. Our insurance certification expires on July 10, 2018. Ms. Watson then told us that we would not be allowed in the convention.

Despite this and knowing that there is an active American Legion Resolution supporting our call for a complete and comprehensive public congressional investigation of the attack on our ship, we sent in the check and application by certified mail on May 4, 2018. According to the signed certified mail receipt they received our paperwork on May 7, 2018.

Congress has failed miserably for over 51 years to honor the men—many of whom paid the ultimate price for their country—of the USS Liberty.

This is, as former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer called it, a “national disgrace.”

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 or call (850) 677-0344 for more information.

Neo-Bolshevik Thugs Get Free Pass

A California court has let violent thugs associated with antifa off the hook for violent attacks against Trump supporters, yet again.

By John Friend

A jury found five self-described antifascist activists not guilty of two separate misdemeanor assault charges stemming from a violent attack on a Trump supporter in March 2017 at the conclusion of a contentious trial at the Alameda County Superior Courthouse in Oakland, Calif. Oakland is a short distance from Berkeley, Calif., which was the scene of multiple violent clashes involving Trump supporters, free-speech activists, and other right-leaning patriots on one  side and bands of antifa, anti-Trump activists, and other radical leftwing groups on the other.

On March 4, 2017, supporters of President Donald Trump organized a “March on Berkeley,” one of a number of protests and rallies in recent years that pitted pro-Trump and anti-Trump activists against each other in the iconic college town. As is typical of pro-Trump rallies and events, violence quickly broke out between supporters and opponents of the president, despite the presence of police.

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

The five defendants—Taylor Fuller, Scott Hedrick, Nathan Perry, Jeff Armstrong, and Dustin Sawtelle—were accused of violently assaulting Daniel Quillinan, a local antique dealer and Trump supporter, as he sat on a concrete ledge near Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park in downtown Berkeley. The attack had followed other violent incidents in the park earlier that day.

Two Berkeley firefighters and one police officer testified that they witnessed the violent assault on Quillinan, who at the time was seeking medical attention for a massive cut on his head he’d sustained from a blow earlier in the day. The cut eventually required 10 staples to close.

Berkeley Police Sgt. Jesse Grant testified that he witnessed two of the defendants—Armstrong and Perry—walk up to Quillinan as he sat on the ledge and openly assault him with punches and kicks. Several other anti-Trump protesters then descended upon Quillinan in a hail of blows, with Grant and two Berkeley fire captains—David Sprague-Livingston and Jonathan Fischer—quickly confronting the mob before they ran down the street. The five defendants were arrested by other Berkeley police officers shortly after they fled from the violent, unprovoked attack on Quillinan. Fischer also testified that the group of antifa protesters walking down the street “threw the first punch,” confirming Grant’s testimony.

Despite the credible statements from first responders and local law enforcement officials, the jury still somehow managed to find the five defendants not guilty. According to local reports, dozens of supporters of the defendants were present throughout the three-day trial and made their political views and support for the defendants known to the courtroom and jury. They hissed, cheered, laughed at, and derided participants in the trial at various moments throughout, with Judge Alison Tucher reprimanding the crowd multiple times, insisting that they were present at a “courtroom, not a political rally.” Incredibly, at one point, a supporter for the defendants held up a political flier in front of the jury, demanding that they “drop the charges” against her fellow antifa activists.

Shanta Driver, the defense attorney representing all five defendants, is a national organizer for the radical leftist activist group By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN, which is known for unprovoked violence against its political opponents and has a strong presence in the San Francisco Bay area, including in Berkeley and Oakland. During the trial, Driver called all five of her defendants to testify, as well as other local Berkeley activists, including other BAMN leaders.

Jim Logan, who prosecuted the case on behalf of the Alameda County District Attorney’s office, implored the jury to focus specifically on the chain of events surrounding the violent assault on Quillinan, which clearly implicated all five defendants.

“Just because the victim is dislikable doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply,” Logan told jurors in his closing argument. “The defendants don’t get to decide . . . punishment on the street. That’s what the courtroom is for.”

Notwithstanding Logan’s plea for objectivity and a fair application of the law to prevail, jurors still dismissed the charges to a frenzy of cheers and celebration in the courtroom, which was dominated by antifa sympathizers and supporters of the defendants.

The recent decision marks yet another victory for the radical left, which has a long and well-documented history of violently confronting and assaulting their political opponents, particularly since the entrance of President Donald Trump onto the political scene.

Throughout the 2016 presidential election, radical leftist groups, antifa activists, and other opponents of Trump’s America-first agenda engaged in violence, sabotage, and disruption of a variety of political events and rallies, violating the First Amendment rights of countless American citizens.

The political mayhem and criminality carried out by the radical left has been successful largely because they have carried on with their criminal campaign of political terrorism and violence with virtually no major repercussions, as demonstrated once again in the dismissal of the self-described “Berkeley Anti-Fascist 5.”

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Was Venezuelan President Assassinated?

Venezuela’s current president, Nicolas Maduro, and others allege the United States poisoned his country’s late firebrand socialist leader Hugo Chavez. Though this may seem questionable, scientists have admitted nano-weapons are now capable of delivering illnesses “ranging from stroke to respiratory failure to AIDS.”

By S. T. Patrick

“I don’t want to die. . . . Please don’t let me die,” were the final words of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2013. Shortly after his death, the Venezuelan presidential guard confirmed the cause of death as a heart attack after a lengthy battle with colon cancer. The state funeral had barely come to a close, however, when rumors of assassination began spreading among Venezuelan diplomats. How close were those rumors to reality? There is real evidence that Chavez was murdered.

Nicolas Maduro, who served as vice president under Chavez, publicly commented on the allegations of assassination as Chavez suffered through his waning days.

“We have no doubt that Commandant Chávez was attacked with this illness; we have not a single doubt,” Maduro said. “The established enemies of our land specifically tried to harm the health of our leader.”

Maduro compared the illness of Chavez to that of former Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat. In 2004, Arafat died one month after coming down with “flu-like” symptoms. Supporters and Palestinian leaders floated the idea that Arafat was medically poisoned by operatives of the Israeli Mossad.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

It is not a fanciful assertion that Chavez could have been targeted for assassination by the international community that controls the world’s most powerful institutions. As president of an oil-rich nation with the largest reserves outside of the Middle East, he enacted a plethora of initiatives aimed at enriching Venezuelans at the expense of globalists.

After having paid its debts five years early, Chavez in 2007 declared that he was severing ties with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He no longer wanted associations with institutions “dominated by U.S. imperialism.”

When the Spanish owner of the Banco de Venezuela attempted to sell the privatized bank to a group of investors in 2008, Chavez nationalized it “to put (the bank) at the service of Venezuela.”

Within three years of Chavez’s death, the internationalists had already encroached into Venezuela in ways that would never have been allowed by Chavez. By 2016, Venezuela’s state bank had entered into negotiations with Deutsche Bank AG. The deal with Germany’s banking power house enabled gold swaps and changes to Venezuela’s foreign reserves.

The international community might as well face that they are addicted to oil, a factor that makes literal and covert control of Venezuela very attractive to the world’s militaristic billionaire class. Petroleum accounts for over 50% of revenue and 70% of exports in Venezuela.

William Blum, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, described the vehemence with which the U.S. military-industrial complex disdained Chavez.

“There was no one in the entire universe that those who own and run ‘United States, Inc.’ wanted to see dead more than Hugo Chávez,” Blum wrote. “He was worse than (Chilean President Salvador) Allende. Worse than Fidel Castro. Worse than any world leader not in the American camp because he spoke out in the most forceful terms about U.S. imperialism and its cruelty. Repeatedly. Constantly. Saying things that heads of state are not supposed to say. At the United Nations, on a shockingly personal level about George W. Bush. All over Latin America, as he organized the region into anti-U.S.-Empire blocs.”

Chavez had seen three other leftist leaders contract cancer in Latin America. But when Argentina’s leftist president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, announced she had cancer in 2011, Chavez wondered aloud whether or not the cancer was random.

“Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer, and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” Chavez asked.

Maduro, who was elected president following Chavez’s death, remained steadfast in his pro-assassination beliefs as he adjusted to the robust necessities of Venezuelan leadership.

“We will seek the truth,” Maduro said. “We have the intuition that our Commander Chavez was poisoned by dark forces that wanted him out of the way.”

By 2016, scientists were admitting that nano-weapons were capable of transporting disease-provoking nanoparticles that can carry illnesses ranging from stroke to respiratory failure to AIDS.

S. T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is

The Liberal Stampede to ‘Abolish ICE’

Pat Buchanan says the question of 2018 is whether or not we should abolish ICE and open our borders. Seriously, is this really the point we’ve reached led by the screachings of an unhinged left?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“No Borders! No Nations! No Deportations!” “Abolish ICE!”

Before last week, these were the mindless slogans of an infantile left, seen on signs at rallies to abolish ICE, the agency that arrests and deports criminal aliens who have no right to be in our country.

By last week, however, “Abolish ICE!” was no longer the exclusive slogan of the unhinged left. National Democrats were signing on.

Before his defeat in New York’s 14th Congressional District, Joe Crowley, fourth-ranked Democrat in the House, called ICE a “fascist” organization.

After Crowley’s rout by a 28-year-old socialist who called for killing the agency, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), declared ICE to be “a cruel deportation force (that) we need to abolish.”

MidEast Chess Board

Cynthia Nixon, a candidate for governor of New York, described ICE as a “terrorist organization . . . terrorizing people who are coming to this country. . . . We need to abolish ICE.”

A star of “Sex and the City” castigated the men and women of ICE as terrorists at St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in Manhattan. One wonders what the pastor thought of this Christian message.

Friday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio joined the clamor: “We should abolish ICE.” Over the weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., signed on:

“President Trump seems to think that the only way to have immigration rule is to rip parents from their family (and) treat rape victims and refugees like terrorists and to put children in cages.”

What ICE does is “ugly” and “wrong,” said Warren.

“We need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality.”

Wisconsin Democratic Congressman Mark Pocan plans to introduce legislation to do exactly that — abolish ICE.

President Donald Trump describes this latest liberal campaign as social and political insanity: “You get rid of ICE you’re going to have a country that you’re going to be afraid to walk out of your house.”

What is going on here?

Democrats, having just gone through the worst week in memory for progressives, are in imminent danger of losing it altogether.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that not only is the Trump travel ban constitutional, government unions have no right to extract “agency fees” from workers who do not wish to support the union.

Such fees violate the First Amendment rights of government workers not to promote policies or ideas in which they disbelieve.

Then came word that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” on the Supreme Court who was crucial to the decisions that established abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage as constitutional rights, will be stepping down

And Trump informed the press that he would announce Kennedy’s successor on July 9, to be drawn from a list of 20 jurists and legal scholars, all of whom have been vetted by the Federalist Society.

Panic ensued.

“I’m scared. You’re scared. We’re all scared,” says Warren in a video her campaign has released.

On Bill Maher’s show, leftist film director Michael Moore called for a million citizens to surround the Capitol to prevent a vote on Kennedy’s successor. How Moore’s million-man march proposes to get into Mitch McConnell’s Senate chamber was left unexplained.

At a fundraiser in Berkeley, California, Barack Obama tried to calm his terrified minions: “All these people that are out here kvetching and wringing their hands and stressed and anxious and constantly watching cable tv and howling at the moon, ‘What are we going to do?’ Their hair is falling out.”

But liberal elites making fools of themselves is a less serious matter than the savage slanders Democrats are hurling at the 20,000 men and women of ICE who are daily protecting us and our country.

ICE, after all, was established to prevent another 9/11, when [allegedly] real terrorists, some of whom had overstayed their visas, massacred 3,000 innocent people, most of them Americans.

This vilification of ICE, writes Deputy Director Thomas D. Homan, represents both an injustice and an act of ingratitude:

“Since September 2016, ICE has arrested nearly 5,000 criminal aliens in New York—individuals with a criminal conviction in addition to their violation of immigrant laws. Many of these arrests were conducted at large in the community, which ICE is increasingly forced to do due to sanctuary policies in the state that prevent us from taking custody of criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail.

“Governor (Andrew Cuomo) supports these policies at the expense of the safety of the very same communities he took an oath to protect.”

Whatever one may think of Trump’s policy of “zero tolerance” of immigrants who break into our country, for elites to smear the 20,000 men and women who risk their lives to keep us safe, as “terrorists” and “fascists,” is an especially egregious form of liberal ingratitude.

What is it in the DNA of the left that it is always ready to enlist in any new war on cops?

The issue of 2018: Should we, or should we not, abolish ICE and embrace the progressive alternative of open borders?

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.


Tariffs Are Actually Good for U.S. Economy

Despite doom & gloom scenarios offered by elite, bad trade practices needed to be killed.

By John Friend

President Donald Trump has long railed against what he describes as unfair trade deals and high tariffs imposed on U.S. businesses and manufacturers, denouncing many of the key pillars of the post-WWII global economic order and vowing to end these deals, which have harmed American workers and companies for decades now.

During the 2016 presidential campaign and following his election as president, Trump has repeatedly promised, much to the chagrin of leading globalists both in the U.S. and abroad, to impose tariffs on goods from other countries that impose high tariffs on U.S. goods and services as well as to enact other protectionist trade policies in an effort to boost American business and manufacturing.

Since the beginning of this year, Trump has imposed a number of tariffs on goods coming from long-time U.S. trade partners and allies, including Mexico, the European Union (EU), and Canada, particularly on steel and aluminum imports originating in these countries.

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

At the recently concluded G7 Summit, held in Quebec June 8-9, Trump described the high tariffs that target American manufacturers as “ridiculous and unacceptable,” and described the U.S. as “a piggy bank that everybody is robbing.”

On June 10, Trump let loose on Twitter, denouncing the free trade deals brokered by previous administrations.

“Why should I, as president of the United States, allow countries to continue to make massive trade surpluses, as they have for decades, while our farmers, workers & taxpayers have such a big and unfair price to pay? Not fair to the people of America!” Trump tweeted. “Sorry, we cannot let our friends or enemies take advantage of us on trade anymore. We must put the American worker first!” read yet another tweet, hinting at moves the president plans on making in order to rectify the unfair trade deals the U.S. has suffered under for so long.

Trump and his top advisers have argued recently that now is the time to take drastic action on these unfair trade deals, and they are expecting cooperation from traditional allies and longtime trading partners such as Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

“The global trading system needs major surgery and every country must be part of the solution, even our friends,” Daniel DiMicco, a former trade adviser to Trump’s campaign and current chairman of the Coalition for a Prosperous America trade group, explained to The New York Times recently.

Once again taking to Twitter to express his sentiments on the controversy, Trump explained simply: “The United States will not allow other countries to impose massive tariffs and trade barriers on its farmers, workers and companies while sending their products into our country tax-free. We have put up with trade abuse for many decades—and that is long enough.”

How much cooperation he will receive from other countries, including long-time allies and trading partners, remains to be seen. The president, however, appears more defiant than ever on this issue and has made it a central premise of his agenda.

Virtually the entire mainstream corporate media and political establishment have lambasted Trump and his criticisms of the various free trade deals that comprise the post-WWII global economic order, viewing free trade as sacrosanct and necessary for a prosperous economic powerhouse such as the United States. Sen. John Mc-Cain (R-Ariz.), a leading globalist and neoconservative warmonger, recently argued that “bipartisan majorities of Americans remain pro-free trade, pro-globalization, and supportive of alliances based on 70 years of shared values,” a false and unchallenged narrative that has been endlessly promoted and parroted by the political and media establishment for decades. And what have the results of this been? Millions of good jobs have left the United States, and the wealthiest 1% of the world have increased their net worth while hardworking middle-class Americans continue to struggle.

Trump and his top advisers disagree and have pledged to finally put American workers and manufacturers first by renegotiating trade deals to protect American businesses and industry.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.