Is Trump Going Neocon in Syria?

Should the U.S. “engage Russian and Syrian forces militarily and force them to back off” of Idlib province? And has “the Assad-Putin-Rouhani coalition decided to accept the risk of a clash with the Americans in order to bring an end to the rebellion”? President Trump’s recent comments seem to indicate he really is willing to follow through with his threats despite what he promised as Candidate Trump—and without congressional authorization.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is President Donald Trump about to intervene militarily in the Syrian civil war? For that is what he and his advisers seem to be signaling.

Last week, Trump said of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s campaign to recapture the last stronghold of the rebellion, Idlib province: “If it’s a slaughter, the world is going to get very, very angry. And the United States is going to get very angry, too.”

In a front-page story Monday, “Assad is Planning Chlorine Attack, U.S. Says,” The Wall Street Journal reports that, during a recent meeting, “President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib.”

Idlib contains three million civilians and refugees and 70,000 rebels, 10,000 of whom are al Qaeda.

Friday, The Washington Post reported that Trump is changing U.S. policy. America will not be leaving Syria any time soon.

The 2,200 U.S. troops in Syria will remain until we see “the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces and the establishment of a stable, non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians.”

“We are not in a hurry to go,” said James Jeffrey, the retired Foreign Service officer brought back to handle the Syria account. “The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year.”

President Obama had a red line against Syria’s use of poison gas, which Trump enforced with bombing runs. Now we have a new red line. Said Jeffrey, the U.S. “will not tolerate an attack. Period.”

In an editorial Friday, the Post goaded Trump, calling his response to Assad’s ruthless recapture of his country “pathetically weak.” To stand by and let the Syrian army annihilate the rebels in Idlib, said the Post, would be “another damaging abdication of U.S. leadership.”

What Trump seems to be signaling, the Post demanding, and Jeffrey suggesting is that, rather than allow a bloody battle for the recapture of Idlib province to play out, the United States should engage Russian and Syrian forces militarily and force them to back off.

On Friday, near the U.S. garrison at Tanf in southern Syria, close to Iraq, U.S. Marines conducted a live-fire exercise. Purpose: Warn Russian forces to stay away. The Americans have declared a 35-mile zone around Tanf off-limits. The Marine exercise followed a Russian notification, and U.S. rejection, of a plan to enter the zone in pursuit of “terrorists.”

Is Trump ready to order U.S. action against Russian and Syrian forces if Assad gives his army the green light to take Idlib? For the bombing of Idlib has already begun.

What makes this more than an academic exercise is that Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, at a meeting in Tehran last Friday, told President Erdogan of Turkey that the reconquest of Idlib is going forward.

Erdogan fears that the Syrian army’s recapture of Idlib would send hundreds of thousands more refugees streaming to his border.

Turkey already hosts millions of refugees from Syria’s civil war.

Yet the massing of the Syrian army near Idlib and the Russian and Syrian bombing now begun suggest that the Assad-Putin-Rouhani coalition has decided to accept the risk of a clash with the Americans in order to bring an end to the rebellion. If so, this puts the ball in America’s court.

Words and warnings aside, is Trump prepared to take us into the Syrian civil war against the forces who, absent our intervention, will have won the war? When did Congress authorize a new war?

What vital U.S. interest is imperiled in Idlib, or in ensuring that all Iranian forces and Shiite allies are removed, or that a “non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community” is established in Damascus?

With these conditions required before our departure, we could be there for eternity.

The Syrian civil war is arguably the worst humanitarian disaster of the decade. The sooner it is ended the better. But Assad, Russia, and Iran did not start this war. Nor have Syria, Russia or Iran sought a clash with U.S. forces whose mission, we were repeatedly assured, was to crush ISIS and go home.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Trump has struck Syria twice for its use of poison gas, and U.S. officials told the Journal that Assad has now approved the use of chlorine on the rebels in Idlib. Moscow, however, is charging that a false-flag operation to unleash chlorine on civilians in Idlib is being prepared to trigger and justify U.S. intervention.

Many in this Russophobic city would welcome a confrontation with Putin’s Russia, even more a U.S. war on Iran. But that is the opposite of what candidate Trump promised.

It would represent a triumph of the never-Trumpers and President Trump’s relinquishing of his foreign policy to the interventionists and neoconservatives.

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, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Is War Against Iran the President’s November Midterm Surprise?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced he’ll head up a new “interagency task force” that wants to “come down hard on Iran”—just in time for U.S. midterm elections. Former CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi says this is just “the latest journey into fantasy.” He notes “many observers believe that the United States is being manipulated and played as a patsy against Iran by Israel and Saudi Arabia” but wonders if that’s what this is really about.

By Philip Giraldi

Will a new war be a midterm elections surprise? It is a demonstrated fact that the United States government, be it Democratic or Republican, is not very good at certain things. Every time the White House starts a new “war” on abstractions like poverty, drugs, or terror it gets dragged down into a bottomless pit that seems to empower the very things that it is fighting, leading to the belief that when it says “war” what it really means to say is “quagmire.” And then there are places like Afghanistan where real wars continue ad nauseam with no real objective and no real plan to “win” and exit.

The latest journey into fantasy is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent announcement that the Trump administration is setting up an “interagency task force” consisting of an “elite team of foreign affairs specialists” that will coordinate efforts to come down hard on Iran. Pompeo described the venture as follows: “We are committed to a whole-of-government effort to change the Iranian regime’s behavior, and the Iran Action Group will ensure that the Department of State remains closely synchronized with our interagency partners.”

Kingdom Identity

According to the press release, the group will be responsible for directing, analyzing, and coordinating all phases of the State Department’s Iran-connected activity, though it is unclear whether State will be the principal agency seeking to destabilize the Iranians.

Pompeo elaborated: “For nearly 40 years, the regime in Tehran has been responsible for a torrent of violent and destabilizing behavior against the United States, our allies, our partners, and indeed the Iranian people themselves. . . . We must see major changes in the regime’s behavior both inside and outside of its borders. The Iranian people and the world are demanding that Iran finally act like a normal nation.”

The new action group’s director, senior foreign policy adviser Brian Hook, also spoke at the launch, saying that the administration was taking “a comprehensive approach to Iran because the scope of Iranian malign activity is so wide-ranging.” He specifically mentioned Iran’s “aspiration for nuclear weapons” as well as its support for terrorist activity and added that he would be talking to America’s strategic partners to make sure everyone is on board with the new sanctions.

The CIA in IranInteragency ventures in government rest on a basic premise that grew out of the so-called war on terror and 9/11, namely that if everyone sits around a table to share information and viewpoints the outcome will be superior to any single agency going it alone. The concept is, however, flawed, first of all because interagency reviewing slows down the entire process as it attempts to find consensus on issues that do not necessarily lend themselves to simple formulations. Second, attempting to find consensus ignores the fact that a number of the government entities sitting around the table are competitors rather than colleagues. Pompeo is delusional if he thinks that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) are going to allow the State Department to take the lead in bringing Iran to its knees.

Those who hate Iran and want to see everything possible done to damage it, are, of course, delighted to see a group dedicated to doing just that. Mark Dubowitz, head of the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has been taking the lead in Iran bashing, enthused:

“Secretary Pompeo’s establishment of the Iran Action Group led by Brian Hook, one of his most trusted advisers, is further evidence that the Trump administration sees Iran as one of its top foreign policy and national security priorities. The group will be empowered to leverage all instruments of national power to squeeze the regime in Iran.”

Pompeo has considerable experience in beating on Iran. When he took over at CIA in January 2017, one of his first acts was to set up an Iran Working Group to focus clandestine efforts to weaken and eventually subvert the Iranian government. In May, shortly after President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, he spoke about a broad program that most observers would define as regime change, pledging to “crush” Iran economically and militarily to bring about major concessions over its behavior in the Middle East. He specifically demanded that Iran end all nuclear-related programs, stop developing ballistic missiles, and cease support for “terrorists and militant partners around the world.”

The White House has advised that countries doing business with Iran will “not be doing business with the United States” and has also unilaterally declared that after Nov. 4 anyone buying Iranian oil will be subject to secondary sanctions, which has created problems with both friends and foes worldwide. China, Turkey, and Russia have declared that they will not submit to U.S. demands, while close allies in Europe are seeking exemptions or creating mechanisms that will move such transactions out of the dollar zone.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The new task force will not really be doing anything beyond what is already being done both openly and clandestinely to inflict pain on the Iranian people in hopes that they will rise up and bring down their government. The obsession with Iran on the part of the Trump administration is curious in any event, as Iran is surrounded by hostile regimes that are militarily far superior to it. Tehran does not threaten the United States or U.S. interests in any serious way, and its alleged nuclear program is a fiction. Iran is, in any event, fully compliant with the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) that it signed together with the U.S. and five other countries, an agreement that was subsequently endorsed by the United Nations.

Many observers believe that the United States is being manipulated and played as a patsy against Iran by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who do have an interest in bringing down the Iranian government. That is certainly true, but there might be another explanation for the strenuous activity by Pompeo and others. Midterm elections are coming up, and there is nothing that rallies the voting public quite as well as a good little war in which the bad guys are soundly whipped.

But, recalling Iraq, one should also consider that a war with a nationalistic and prepared Iran might not go as planned.

Every concerned American should be watching very carefully over the next 60 days to see what is developing around the Iran Task Force. Will Trump adhere to his pre-electoral promise to get out of ongoing wars in the Middle East, or will it be yet another politically motivated bait-and-switch with a bloody new war initiated by a false-flag operation or a deliberate provocation to turn an election?

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.


False-Flag Chemical Attack Is Coming in Syria, Warns Russia

Russia’s foreign minister has submitted documentation based on “concrete facts” to the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons warning of a potential false-flag chemical weapons operation coming in Syria’s Idlib province. Will the warning be enough to stop the warmongers and psychopaths?

By John Friend

The Russian government has openly warned the UN and wider international community of a potential false-flag operation that could be carried out in Syria designed to frame and discredit embattled Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s government, it has been reported.

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, there is “no doubt” that Islamic militants with ties to Western intelligence agencies that are hostile to Assad’s regime are planning a false-flag chemical weapons attack in Idlib province, the scene of fierce fighting between forces loyal to the Syrian regime and terrorist groups opposed to it.

The accusations are familiar to readers of this newspaper, as the Russian government has long accused the West and radical terrorist groups in the region of plotting false-flag-style attacks in Syria that are designed to frame Assad and the Syrian government for war crimes.

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

Lavrov noted that Moscow has submitted documentation for these allegations to both the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), recently reported.

“We have presented concrete facts obtained from various sources both to the UN and to The Hague, where the OPCW headquarters is located,” Lavrov stated. “There is no doubt that such provocations are being prepared,” he added, noting that terrorist groups operating in Syria are on the defensive and are getting desperate, as the Syrian government’s mission to combat and defeat the terrorist threat continues to make progress. Russia has openly backed the Syrian government’s efforts to combat the various terrorist groups operating in its territory, many of which are funded, financed, and supported by Western intelligence agencies in their not-so-covert war against Assad.

“We have no plans to conceal what we do to back the Syrian government, which is liberating its land from terrorists to [allow] the Syrian citizens to return to . . . normal life as soon as possible,” Lavrov explained in a recent news conference.

Previously, the Russian Ministry of Defense had accused the U.S. government of planning a new round of airstrikes on Syria, using the false-flag attack allegedly being coordinated by terrorist groups on the ground in Syria as a pretext and justification. British forces are working with some of the terrorist groups to set up the false-flag provocation, the Russian Ministry of Defense has alleged.

“The implementation of this provocation, which is being conducted with the assistance of the British intelligence services, is meant to serve as the latest pretext for the U.S., Britain and France to deliver a missile strike against state and economic facilities in Syria,” General Igor Konashenkov, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, recently stated.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The powerful allegations come at a time when President Donald Trump and officials in his administration continue to warn Assad of potential consequences for using chemical weapons or otherwise attacking forces openly at war with his regime. Earlier this week, Trump took to Twitter to lecture not only Assad but also the Russian and Iranian governments about their actions in the region.

“President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province,” Trump tweeted. “The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don’t let that happen!”

Will Russia’s open warning about a potential false flag be enough to stave off the warmongers and psychopaths from provoking yet another military conflict?

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Can’t We Just Leave Syria Alone?

Good question. With Assad back in control of Idlib, hundreds of thousands of people have voluntarily returned to the city and are apparently enjoying peace and relative liberty. Clearly, Assad is not trying to gas them all and the U.S. and its coalition does not need to “liberate” them. As Dr. Paul asks, can’t we just leave them alone?

By Dr. Ron Paul

Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was supposed to be gone already. President Barack Obama thought it would be just another “regime change” operation and perhaps Assad would end up like Saddam Hussein or Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych. Or maybe even Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. But he was supposed to be gone. The U.S. spent billions to get rid of him and even provided weapons and training to the kinds of radicals that attacked the United States on 9/11. But with the help of his allies, Assad has nearly defeated this foreign-sponsored insurgency.

Available from the AFP store.

The U.S. fought him every step of the way. Each time the Syrian military approached another occupied city or province, Washington and its obedient allies issued the usual warnings that Assad was not liberating territory but was actually seeking to kill more of his own people. Remember Aleppo, where the U.S. claimed Assad was planning mass slaughter once he regained control? As usual, the neocons and the media were completely wrong. Even the UN has admitted that with Aleppo back in the hands of the Syrian government hundreds of thousands of Syrians have actually moved back. We are supposed to believe they willingly returned so that Assad could kill them?

The truth is Aleppo is being rebuilt. Christians celebrated Easter there this spring for the first time in years. There has been no slaughter once al Qaeda and ISIS’s hold was broken. Believe me, if there was a slaughter we would have heard about it in the media.

So now, with the Syrian military and its allies prepared to liberate the final Syrian province of Idlib, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo again warns the Syrian government against re-taking its own territory. He tweeted on Aug. 31: “The three million Syrians, who have already been forced out of their homes and are now in Idlib, will suffer from this aggression. Not good. The world is watching.”

Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has also warned the Syrian government that the U.S. will attack if it uses gas in Idlib. Of course, that warning serves as an open invitation to rebels currently holding Idlib to set off another false flag and enjoy U.S. air support. Bolton and Pompeo are painting Idlib as a peaceful province resisting the violence of an Assad who they claim just enjoys killing his own people. But who controls Idlib province?

Trump’s own special envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, Brett McGurk, said in Washington just last year that, “Idlib province is the largest al Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11, tied directly to Ayman al Zawahiri. This is a huge problem.”

Could someone please remind Pompeo and Bolton that al Qaeda are the bad guys? After six years of a foreign-backed regime-change operation in Syria, where hundreds of thousands have been killed and the country nearly fell into the hands of ISIS and al Qaeda, the Syrian government is on the verge of victory.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Assad is hardly a saint, but does anyone really think al Qaeda and ISIS are preferable? After all, how many Syrians fled the country when Assad was in charge versus when the US-backed “rebels” started taking over?

Americans should be outraged that Pompeo and Bolton are defending al Qaeda in Idlib. It’s time for the neocons to admit they lost. It is time to give Syria back to the Syrians. It is time to pull the U.S. troops from Syria. It is time to just leave Syria alone!

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, online at

© 2018 Ron Paul Institute

Not So Smart: Judge Sides With ‘Smart Meters’ Over Privacy Rights

AFP Issue 37 & 38 is now out, and the front page features this story on smart meters. Log in to read now if you’re a digital subscriber, or click here for subscription options. A court of appeals judge in Illinois has sided with “smart meters” over privacy rights in a suit brought by the Naperville Smart Meter Awareness who argued collection of electric use data constitutes “an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as an unreasonable search and invasion of privacy” under the Illinois Constitution.

By Dave Gahary

In yet another blow to the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which provides American citizens guarantees “against unreasonable search and seizures,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—overseeing courts in districts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin—has ruled in favor of the City of Naperville, Illinois’s electric utility’s “smart meter” program against a group of concerned local citizens organized as the group Naperville Smart Meter Awareness.

Take Back Your Power DVDs at AFP Store.

The group sued, alleging the “smart meter” program revealed “intimate personal details of the city’s electric customers such as when people are home and when the home is vacant, sleeping routines, eating routines, specific appliance types in the home and when used, and charging data for plug-in vehicles that can be used to identify travel routines and history.” They alleged that the collection of this data constituted “an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as an unreasonable search and invasion of privacy under . . . the Illinois Constitution.”

Although the court ruled that “smart meter” collection of data “constitutes a search under both the Fourth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution,” they also ruled it was a reasonable search.

The Fourth Amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 13-page ruling issued on Aug.16 states that while other cities across the country allow residents to opt out of smart meters, “Naperville’s residents have little choice”: “If they want electricity in their homes, they must buy it from the city’s public utility. And they cannot opt out of the smart-meter program.”

The court also addressed the certainty that “smart meters” are searching the home:

The ever-accelerating pace of technological development carries serious privacy implications. Smart meters are no exception. Their data, even when collected at 15-minute intervals, reveals details about the home that would be otherwise unavailable to government officials with a physical search. Naperville therefore “searches” its residents’ homes when it collects this data.

But then the court even lent their support to “smart meter” technology:

Smart meters allow utilities to reduce costs, provide cheaper power to consumers, encourage energy efficiency, and increase grid stability. We hold that these interests render the city’s search reasonable, where the search is unrelated to law enforcement, is minimally invasive, and presents little risk of corollary criminal consequences.

The court did caution, however, that if Naperville began collecting “smart meter” data at intervals less than every 15 minutes, “our conclusion could change.” They also warned it could change “if the data was more easily accessible to law enforcement or other city officials outside the utility.”

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

In the end, the court ruled that since the city “conducts the search with no prosecutorial intent,” and the utility’s employees, not law enforcement, “collect and review the data,” the search is reasonable.

This ruling is sure to impact other concerned communities across this once-great nation, who are concerned about increasing infringement upon the liberties enshrined in perhaps the greatest contract between a government and its citizens ever crafted.

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 full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

Christian Cakemaker Targeted

Colorado is continuing to persecute a businessman even after a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling told them to knock it off. He’s fighting back, again, against the obvious attempts by the State of Colorado and individuals at the top of its Civil Rights Commission to shutter his small business and send a loud message: “Christian, conservative values not allowed here.”

By Dr. Edward DeVries

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, on June 26, 2017 a lawyer identified as Autumn Scardina asked Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips to bake a “gender-transition” cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Coincidentally, that was on the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. With even the liberal justices agreeing that he was well within his rights not to custom design a cake on religious grounds, Phillips won that case in June by a 7-2 decision.

The reply to Scardina regarding the “gender transition” cake was the same as the reply given to the same-sex couple who had requested the cake at the heart of the matter in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

“We told them we’d sell them anything in the shop, but we could not create that cake because of the message it conveyed,” Phillips said.

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

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t like that reply before the Supreme Court ruling, and it seems they still won’t accept it afterward. Immediately after its Supreme Court loss, the commission informed Phillips that it “found probable cause to believe that Colorado law” requires his bakery in Lakewood “to create the requested gender-transition cake.”

Obviously not appreciating the significance of a 7-2 ruling, the commission is going after Phillips again. And again, Phillips will be represented by lawyers from the Alliance Defending= Freedom.

“The state is doubling down on its hostility against my beliefs, even though that’s what the Supreme Court said they couldn’t do,” Phillips said in a prepared statement released by his lawyers. “It seems I’m the only person in the State of Colorado who can’t live out my beliefs.”

On Phillips’s behalf, his lawyers filed a federal lawsuit late Tuesday to challenge the latest stat action against him. Scardina, the lawyer who requested the cake celebrating a “gender transition,” is not a defendant in Phillips’s lawsuit, nor is the baker suing Colorado or its Civil Rights Commission. This time, he is suing the state commission’s members in their official capacities, as well as suing its director personally.

In writing the June 4 ruling for the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in an opinion joined by four conservative justices and two liberal justices, said the Civil Rights Commission showed “hostility” toward Phillips and his faith. It is because of that continued “hostility” that Phillips’s lawyers advised him to sue the director personally.

“It’s clear that the state of Colorado did not get the message from the Supreme Court, since it is still singling out Jack for punishment and showing hostility toward his religious beliefs,” Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a formal statement. “In moving ahead on this new complaint, the government is yet again confirming that it applies its law in an arbitrary and unequal way, which the Supreme Court has already said that it cannot do,” said Waggoner, who argued Phillips’s case before the high court.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

As a policy, Phillips’s lawyers note, “Masterpiece Cakeshop also does not make custom cakes that celebrate Halloween; that center on alcohol or drug abuse or sexual themes; or that convey disparaging messages, including those targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals or others in the LGBT movement,” because the message of such cakes would “violate his religious beliefs.”

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the state admitted that “cake artists are free to decline to create custom cakes with a ‘specific design,’ including wedding cakes with ‘a symbol of gay pride,’ cakes that contain ‘pro-gay designs or inscriptions,’ or cakes with images opposing same-sex marriage. The state has not found probable cause when other bakers refused to create custom cakes, including those opposing same-sex weddings.”

Attorney Waggoner remarked on this issue.

“The arbitrary basis on which the commission is applying the law makes it clear that they are simply targeting Jack because they don’t like his religious beliefs,” Waggoner said. “Jack shouldn’t have to fear government hostility when he opens his shop for business each day. We’re asking the court to put a stop to that.”

A pastor and in-demand traveling speaker, Dr. Edward DeVries is the editor of the Dixie Heritage Newsletter and a contributing editor at THE BARNES REVIEW. He is the author of 30 books including the two-volume Glory in Grey. Some of his other titles include Sacred Honor, The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag, Prayer is Simple, Every Member a Minister and Coaching Youth Baseball the Right Way. He is also the host of TBR RADIO’S “Dixie Heritage Hour.” Please check it out at

Warhawks Leaderless?

Could the death of warhawk-in-chief and lead coverup artist Senator John McCain usher in a new era of peace?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“McCain’s Death Leaves Void” ran The Wall Street Journal headline over a front-page story that began: “The death of John McCain will leave Congress without perhaps its loudest voice in support of the robust internationalism that has defined the country’s security relations since World War II.”

Certainly, the passing of the senator whose life story will dominate the news until he is buried at his alma mater, the Naval Academy, on Sunday [Sept. 2], leaves America’s interventionists without their greatest champion.

No one around has the prestige or media following of McCain.

And the cause he championed—compulsive intervention in foreign quarrels to face down dictators and bring democrats to power—appears to be a cause whose time has passed.

Neoconservative Threat, Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony – at the AFP Store.

When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. McCain then backed President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, he slipped into northern Syria to cheer rebels who had arisen to overthrow President Bashar Assad, an insurgency that led to a seven-year civil war and one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time.

McCain supported the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, right up to Russia’s border. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, and was expelled by the Russian army, McCain roared, “We are all Georgians now!”

He urged intervention. But Bush, his approval rating scraping bottom, had had enough of the neocon crusades for democracy.

McCain’s contempt for Russian President Vladimir Putin was unconstrained. When crowds gathered in Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow an elected pro-Russian president, McCain was there, cheering them on.

He supported sending arms to the Ukrainian army to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. He backed U.S. support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. And this war, too, proved to be a humanitarian disaster.

McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it. But by 2006, the wars he had championed had cost the Republican Party both houses of Congress.

In 2008, when he was on the ballot, those wars helped cost him the presidency.

By 2016, the Republican majority would turn its back on McCain and his protege, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and nominate Donald Trump, who said he would seek to get along with Russia and extricate America from the wars into which McCain had helped plunge the country.

Yet, while interventionism now has no great champion and has proven unable to rally an American majority, it retains a residual momentum. This compulsion is pushing us to continue backing the Saudi war in Yemen and to seek regime change in Iran.

Yet if either of these enterprises holds any prospect of bringing about a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East, no one has made the case.

While the foreign policy that won the Cold War, containment, was articulated by George Kennan and pursued by presidents from Truman to Bush I, no grand strategy for the post-Cold War era has ever been embraced by a majority of Americans.

Bush I’s “New World Order” was rejected by Ross Perot’s economic patriots and Bill Clinton’s baby boomers who wanted to spend America’s peace dividend from our Cold War victory on America’s homefront.

As for the Bush II crusades for democracy “to end tyranny in our world,” the fruits of that Wilsonian idealism turned into ashes in our mouths.

But if the foreign policy agendas of Bush I and Bush II, along with McCain’s interventionism, have been tried and found wanting, what is America’s grand strategy?

What are the great goals of U.S. foreign policy? What are the vital interests for which almost all Americans believe we should fight?

“Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” said Churchill. “Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a role,” was the crushing comment of Dean Acheson in 1962.

Both statements appear to apply to U.S. foreign policy in 2018.

We are bombing and fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, partly McCain’s legacy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has sent a virtual ultimatum to Iran. We have told North Korea, a nuclear power with the world’s fourth-largest army, either to denuclearize or the U.S. may use its military might to get the job done.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

We are challenging Beijing in its claimed territorial waters of the South China Sea. From South Korea to Estonia, we are committed by solemn treaty to go to war if any one of dozens of nations is attacked.

Now one hears talk of an “Arab NATO” to confront the ayatollah’s Iran and its Shiite allies. Lest we forget, ISIS and al Qaeda are Sunni.

With all these war guarantees, the odds are excellent that one day we are going to be dragged into yet another war that the American people will sour upon soon after it begins.

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, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Even Liberals Are Not Safe From Putsch Waged by Politically Correct Radical Left

Evergreen State College in Washington state is arguably the most liberal college in America. Yet there is nothing liberal about the radical left’s “rules” regarding what used to be called free speech. Just look what happened to this progressive professor who dared to ask, essentially, whether “reverse” discrimination is still discrimination.

By John Friend

Readers of this newspaper are no doubt aware of the stifling effects of political correctness and radical leftist ideologies on college campuses and major universities in America today. In an era of “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and an increasing unwillingness of students, professors, and administrators to honor the cherished principals of free speech and thought—foundational principles of the university education system—those bold enough to think for themselves and question the prevailing political and intellectual consensus often find themselves at the mercy of unhinged mobs of radical leftists and cowardly university administrators.

Just ask Bret Weinstein, a former professor at Evergreen State College in Washington state, who is better suited than most to attest to the state of free speech, free intellectual and political inquiry, and political correctness that prevails on college campuses across the United States today. Weinstein, who resigned from Evergreen State along with his wife, Heather Heying, in September 2017 following controversy surrounding his criticism of a popular demonstration on campus and his wife’s support for his criticism, has served as a witness to the free speech crisis prevalent on so many college campuses today. To this day, the accomplished evolutionary biologist, who also happens to be a liberal, has been unable to find a job at a major university simply because he stood up to the PC police at his college.

In the early spring months of 2017, Weinstein, a popular biology professor and a staunch “antiracist,” sparked controversy when a private email he had sent to other college faculty critical of the “Day of Absence” demonstration was published online.

The “Day of Absence” demonstration is an annual event at Evergreen in which non-white students and faculty are encouraged to meet off campus for workshops focusing on diversity, inclusion, and other leftist ideals. In 2017, the demonstration was tweaked slightly, and white students, faculty, and staff at the college were asked to leave campus for the day to protest their supposed “white privilege.” Weinstein took issue with the proposed demonstration and explained his reasoning to fellow faculty and staff.

“On a college campus, one’s right to speak—or to be—should never be based on skin color,” Weinstein stated in the email, which was later leaked and published online, causing outrage in radical leftist circles on campus.

Kingdom Identity

In late May 2017, groups of students upset with Weinstein’s letter and his criticism of the revised “Day of Absence” demonstration showed up at his classroom to admonish the professor. The students essentially shut down Weinstein’s class, disrupting the professor and his students, and demanded that he either apologize for his alleged “racist” email or resign from the college. Video of the students confronting and protesting Weinstein surfaced online, generating national headlines. Throughout the confrontation, Weinstein attempts to calmly and respectfully engage in a dialogue with the student protesters, who rudely ignore his pleas for a discussion by shouting the professor down, cursing at him, and demanding he resign.

“We don’t care what terms you want to speak on. This is not about you,” one student shouts at Weinstein during the confrontation. “We are not speaking on terms—on terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion. You have lost that one.”

The student protesters eventually left and barricaded themselves in the college library, finding refuge in the Trans & Queer Center/Unity Lounge on campus before outlining a list of demands that were later presented to college administrators. Incredibly, rather than defend and support one of their most popular and well-respected professors, Evergreen State College administrators and leaders caved in to the radical student protesters’ demands.

Weinstein and Heying later resigned from the college after filing a $3.85 million tort claim in July 2017. The claim contended the college failed to “protect its employees from repeated provocative and corrosive verbal and written hostility based on race, as well as threats of physical violence,” according to reports at the time. The couple settled with the college, which agreed to pay the couple $450,000 directly and $50,000 to the couple’s attorney.

“In making this agreement, the college admits no liability, and rejects the allegations made in the tort claim,” Evergreen State administrators wrote in an email to students and faculty shortly after the agreement was reached with Weinstein and Heying. “The educational activities of Day of Absence/Day of Presence were not discriminatory. The college took reasonable and appropriate steps to engage with protesters during spring quarter, de-escalate conflict, and keep the campus safe.”

Many supporters of Weinstein and Heying were outraged at the college’s handling of the situation. Weinstein testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, highlighting his experience at Evergreen State and exposing the tyrannical left running rampant on college campuses today who demand everyone abide by their leftist ideals or face suppression.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

“Is there a free speech crisis on college campuses?” Weinstein rhetorically asked during his testimony before the House. “One can certainly make that argument, but that portrayal is at least as misleading as it is informative. What is occurring on college campuses is about power and control—speech is impeded as a last resort, used when people fail to self-censor in response to a threat of crippling stigma and the destruction of their capacity to earn.”

Since his resignation, Weinstein has joined the “Intellectual Dark Web,” a phenomenon this paper has reported on in previous editions. Weinstein has continued to stand up for intellectual freedom and freedom of speech, despite the hysterical left and their calls for censorship.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

WikiLeaks Whistleblower Awaits Fate

The fate of gutsy WikiLeaks founder and whistleblower Julian Assange rests in the hands of the government of Ecuador, first reported here in AFP’s Issue 33&34. Assange has lived at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012 and will be instantly arrested by the UK if he leaves the building. Just-released news that his health is deteriorating rapidly makes even more urgent Ecuadorian action’s even more urgent. 

By S.T. Patrick

As  the future of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange twists in the political winds, the United States, Great Britain, and Ecuador continue to negotiate over the life of the Australian computer programmer and hacker.

Assange has been housed at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012. According to one of his lawyers, Assange’s health is suffering and, for the past four months, he has been held in a situation that can be more accurately described as “solitary confinement.” The end of WikiLeaks, as well as Assange’s own version of freedom, may soon be near.

The white-haired Australian, Assange, 47, founded WikiLeaks in 2006, but his presence in the global spotlight dates back to 2010 when he published a series of leaks given to him by U.S. Army soldier Bradley (Chelsea) Manning. The leaks, factual yet damaging to the U.S. military’s public image, prompted a federal criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and its founder. Allied nations were encouraged to do the same.

In November 2010, the Swedish government charged Assange with sexual assault and rape. Assange continued to deny the allegations as a political attack. Concerned about being extradited if he surrendered to Swedish authorities, he surrendered to UK officials in December 2010. He was released 10 days later after posting bail. Sweden dropped the charges in May 2017, yet the real possibility of extradition to the United States remained.

When it became apparent that his extradition challenge would prove unsuccessful, Assange absconded and was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government in August 2012. He was granted Ecuadorian citizenship in December 2017.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Technically, Assange is not a prisoner of any government. That is the inevitability that he is trying to avoid. He may leave the embassy, but doing so would trigger the execution of an active warrant that still exists in the UK for jumping bail. If arrested, extradition to the United States seems likely.

Time may be at hand for Assange. On July 27, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno admitted that he has been in talks with the British government to revoke the asylum. Moreno had been a detractor of Assange since taking office in May 2017.

“Mr. Assange is a hacker,” Moreno told reporters. “That’s something we reject, and I personally reject.”

An avid tweeter, Assange has been without Internet, phone, and visitation privileges for months after he criticized the British government for claiming that the Kremlin was behind a nerve gas attack on Sergei Skripal, a Russian intelligence officer, in England earlier this year. He had also been punished by Ecuadorian officials for tweeting about the Catalonian independence movement in Spain.

President Donald Trump praised WikiLeaks amidst the 2016 election campaign, and private tweets from Assange show that the phrase “sadistic sociopath” was used in his description of Hillary Clinton. Special counsel Robert Mueller in July indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers of conspiring to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by hacking into the personal and professional email accounts of top Democrats and turning them over to WikiLeaks. Assange has repeatedly denied that the Russian state was the source of the leaks regarding Clinton.

Because there is a clause in the UK-Ecuadorian extradition treaty that bars one country turning citizens over to the other, Assange’s Ecuadorian citizenship may have to be rescinded for extradition to occur.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

A Trump administration that many had assumed would be friendly to Assange has been more critical in recent months.

In April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions hinted to the media that he would consider bringing criminal charges against Assange.

“We are going to step up our efforts and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks,” Sessions said. “We will seek to put some people in jail.”

Lords of Secrecy, Scott Horton
Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Warfare, by Scott Horton. Available from AFP.

Former U.S. litigator Glenn Greenwald, founder of “The Intercept” website, believes that extradition to the United States would not be as automatic as is being reported by many news outlets. He calls the British government “subservient” to the United States, yet he points out that the British judges lean more independent. He also points out that the specifics of the U.S.-UK treaty may not allow extradition.

“Political crimes, like publishing documents and engaging in journalism—that really isn’t what extradition is for,” Greenwald said. “And in fact . . . is excluded from most extradition treaties, including the one between the U.S. and the UK.”

Freedom proponents, whistleblowers, libertarians, and government transparency activists all hope that extradition to the United States would eventually lead to a pardon from Trump. If Trump’s first-term maneuvers are any indication, however, that seems unlikely. Trump continues to appoint neoconservatives to key decision-making positions within the administration.

If Assange is extradited to the U.S., it will be a test for Trump. Americans will find out if the independent torch that he so boldly displayed throughout the 2016 campaign is still a reflection of his steadfast beliefs or if it was a façade. For Assange, his life is now in the balance, wavering like the First Amendment freedoms that Americans once thought were constitutionally guaranteed.

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.” He would love to hear from readers at [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to THE BARNES REVIEW (TBR) history magazine. For a sample copy of TBR, please send $2 to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 with your request. Editor’s choice. To subscribe to TBR magazine, send $56 per year inside the U.S. to above address.

Regime Change—American Style

Will 2019 be the year of the war of all against all? It’s looking like it. Buchanan asks whether the next generation will rise up and say, “Enough!”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high gear this week.

Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.

Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals and admirals to list.

Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy:

“So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. . . . It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear.”

Speakers praised McCain’s willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new determination: From here on out, confrontation!

Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.

Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, “What we’ve heard is the noise of democracy.”

But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a semblance of order.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward’s new book, attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president’s intelligence, character, and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a “crazytown” led by a fifth- or sixth-grader.

Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.

Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior official” claiming to be a member of the “resistance . . . working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his (Trump’s) agenda.”

A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her president.

The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.

While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and “Anonymous,” once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this portends is not good.

For what is afoot here is something America specializes in—regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America’s democratically elected head of state.

The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor’s office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.

Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.

No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.

So, where are we headed?

If November’s elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be able to manage.

There is the Mueller investigation into “Russiagate” that began before Trump was inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump Foundation by New York State.

There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of these investigations.

Then, if media coverage can drive Trump’s polls low enough, will come the impeachment investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.

If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats’ septuagenarian caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, and Nancy Pelosi.

2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d’etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?

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, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Lewis Fountain Legal Notice

Commercial NOTICE! Commercial—
With All Inherent Rights

NOTICE! To all Municipalities, Corporations; Local, National and International Governments; Congress’; STATES; U.S.; Agents; Agencies; Attorney’s; BAR associations; Exchequers; Judges; Persons; Vessels; Counties; Townships; Militaries; Courts; Courts Martials; Schools; Universities; the United States/Democracy; United States of America/Republic; federal UNITED STATES; UNITED NATIONS; United Nations Security Counsel; Territories in Possession of UNITED STATES; United States Armed Forces, JAG, United States Defense Dept. US Postal Union, United States Department of Agriculture; United States Department of Commerce; United States d/b/a Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of Treasury; Vatican; Indian Tribes; B.I.A.; Associated Bands and Clans, “I”, Fountain, Lewis Adrian aka Lewis-Adrian: Fountain aka Lewis Adrian tribe Fountain, a National of America, habitant of the land standing 38° 57′ 7.2878″ latitude, -77° 1′ 2.4128″ longitude on west North Alkebulan/Al Moruc/Amexem aka North America [u.S.A.] / United States of America, Ameriqque, Amorites, one hereby acknowledges my election and occupancy of the office of General Executor, General Guardian, Protectorate, Beneficial Owner and Beneficiary of the divine Estate “LEWIS ADRIAN FOUNTAIN”, a united States of America person, elected, gifted and granted me by the Divine Creator at Washington, DC on March 23, 1948. My election to Executor office was held in the City of Washington, DC at 10:10am/pm. Therefore, I must affirm and declare that as occupant of the executor office, I will not be responsible for the debts of the United States/ STATES and any of its Persons, and neither will I pay for the debts of any U.S. Person, See Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session. Should any one chose to rebut this matter please email the Executor, office at [email protected] within 21 days of this Notice. See Rule 12(a)1 (B) and (C): ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Notice From the Office of the Executor aka Estate Protectorate

Way Too Easy to Alter

An 11-year-old at a hacker convention changed the vote tally on a replica secretary of state election data website in under 10 minutes, and 30 other kids hacked similar sites in under 30 minutes. Are our votes being correctly recorded on election day, or have the vote-fraud activists been right all along? 

By Mark Anderson

In less than 10 minutes an 11-year-old boy was able to hack into a replica of a state election website and change voting results. An 11-year-old girl named Audrey made changes to the same website in under 15 minutes. In sum, more than 30 kids hacked similar replica state sites in under 30 minutes. This is certainly alarming news considering a majority of U.S. votes are now cast via electronic voting machines.

The youth cyber-security competition was part of the Vote Hacking Village at this year’s DEF CON, held Aug. 9-12 at Caesar’s Palace. DEF CON, held annually since 1993 in Las Vegas, is among the world’s largest hacking conventions.

Young Emmett Brewer of Austin, Texas, “accessed a replica of the Florida secretary of state’s website” and altered the record of votes, which had already been counted and were simply posted online for media and public access.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

DEF CON spokeswoman Molly Hall assured AFP Aug. 20 that while the young hackers were able to hack into and dramatically alter the results of already-counted votes, the minors were not involved in trying to hack into actual voting machines used at polling places. Ms. Hall said the effort by adult hackers to access and change the data in voting machines was a separate component of the Hacking Village. A third component saw adult hackers successfully access Ohio’s voter-registration data, though they were not able to alter it.

“Emmett was able to change names, vote numbers, and the parties,” Ms. Hall said, adding that the young hacker even inserted his own name as a “winning” candidate.

A DEF CON tweet paints a much broader picture of the Hacking Village’s findings than what the mainstream media has presented, noting: “The Village had participants find or replicate vulnerabilities ranging from passwords stored on the [voting] machines with no encryption, to buffer overflows in critical input routines.”

Specific hacks also included:

  • “Discovering 1,784 files, including mp3 audio files of Chinese pop songs, hidden among the operating system files of a voting machine;
  • “Hacking a mock election so that an unlisted candidate received the most votes; and
  • “Hacking an email ballot [often used by soldiers overseas] so that the recorded vote was different from what was selected.”

Nico Sell, the co-founder of the non-profit r00tz Asylum, which teaches children how to become hackers and helped organize the event, told “PBS NewsHour”: “These are very accurate replicas of all of the [S.O.S.] sites. These things should not be easy enough for an 8-year-old kid to hack within 30 minutes; it’s negligent for us as a society.”

Interestingly, one of the “big three” voting machine manufacturers—Election Systems and Software, or ES&S—raised “questions about the value of the Voting Village,” noted DEF CON. “It is unfortunate that ES&S is making vague and unsupportable threats that distract from the real issue: the integrity and security of our electoral process.”

ES&S’s comments seem “designed to create questions and cast doubt in the minds of researchers and election officials, discouraging them from pursuing these vital lines of inquiry,” DEF CON added.

Shadows of the American Century
“The Rise & Decline of US Global Power,” available at the AFP Store.

ES&S sent a “proactive” message to its “valued customers” the day before DEF CON began, in part complaining about DEF CON hackers’ access to the all-important secretive, proprietary software with which the voting machines operate: “Often jurisdictions that purchase new [vote-counting] equipment will sell or trade their used hardware, which is a legal transaction. We understand that DEF CON organizers and other researchers have obtained equipment in this manner. What is not legal, however, is the transfer of the use of the software . . . unless [it has] been properly licensed to the new owner. ES&S has not licensed software to any non governmental agencies for their use.”

Election-fraud researcher Jim Condit Jr. understands election fraud from its earlier days before computer hacking was possible and points out that the core problem is internal, not external—because the big three vendors’ electronic voting machines used almost universally in the U.S. can be internally programmed to “flip” votes and steal an election without a necessity for external hacking.

“It’s the big-three voting machine vendors, ES&S, Hart InterCivic, and Dominion that need to be investigated for keeping the true vote-count from the public,” Condit told AFP.

Furthermore, given what happened at DEF CON, Condit expects an intensified effort to centralize elections.

“Are they only admitting this vulnerability [at DEF CON], so they can centralize things?” he wondered, adding, “Yes, an 11-year-old can do this, but now let’s hand it over to DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] to keep things ‘safe.’ ”

Of note, on Aug. 15, DHS completed a three-day “National Exercise on Election Security,” described as the “first of its kind.” While the exercise simulated “voter system interference” scenarios, the gathering drew officials from the District of Columbia and 44 states, along with the Election Assistance Commission, the Departments of Defense and Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Security Agency, and U.S. Cyber Command.

While the “suits and spooks” at the DHS event poured over external-interference scenarios, all initial vote counts should be done manually, at the precinct level, with paper ballots without externally hackable or internally alterable machines to begin with, said Condit.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Donald Trump Not the First Conspiracy Theory President

While President Trump has been criticized over the years for asking politically incorrect questions about unanswered mysteries, other inquisitive men have occupied the White House as well. JFK, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, for instance, were reportedly very interested in certain unanswered questions.

By Donald Jeffries

President Donald Trump has excited independent-thinking Americans with his seeming fondness for what the mainstream media reflexively calls “conspiracy theories.” Trump used terms familiar to conspiracy researchers everywhere during his 2016 presidential campaign. His repeated jabs at “globalists” and “globalism” were especially noticeable. His “America first” slogan hadn’t been heard on a political stage since a movement by that name lobbied against the U.S. entering World War II. Because of this, the establishment cringed at the term, and compared Trump and his followers to Nazis.

Even before his presidential campaign, Trump questioned the murky facts about Barack Obama’s past, for which he was smeared as a “birther.” He boldly declared, in a national television interview, that “[Obama] may not have been born in this country.” In another speech, he stated, “The people that went to school with him, they don’t even know who he is.” After Loretta Fuddy, who had verified what many considered to be a fraudulent birth certificate for Obama, died in a December 2013 plane crash, citizen Trump tweeted out, “How amazing, the state health director who verified copies of Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ died in plane crash today. All others lived.”

Trump has long spoken about the obvious links between vaccines and autism, even mentioning the subject in the Republican presidential campaign debates. He also jokingly associated Ted Cruz’s father with Lee Harvey Oswald. He noted that many people doubt the official version of Vince Foster’s death, although, in typical Trump fashion, he would go on to name the man who led the cover-up in the Foster case as his nominee to the Supreme Court. He questioned the phony nature of the official unemployment figures, although, again, he brags about those same figures now. In 2012, citizen Trump called global warming a “hoax.” Trump went on Michael Savage’s radio show and openly questioned the official story of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s strange death. He was clearly aware of the dubious details, noting that Scalia’s face “is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.”

9/11 Truth: Memoranda for the President
Will President Trump respond? 9/11 Truth Memoranda, now at the AFP Store.

Regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, Trump has said the government “did know it was coming . . . they did have advance notice.” Trump early on remarked about how there must have been powerful explosives in the World Trade Center buildings.

He even alluded to the 2001 death of then Congressman Joe Scarborough’s young, attractive aide Lori Klausutis, whose body was found in his Florida office. After a typically petty November 2017 feud with the Morning Joe host, Trump tweeted out, “And will they terminate low ratings Joe Scarborough based on the ‘unsolved mystery’ that took place in Florida years ago? Investigate!”

While no other president has ever been as conspiratorial-minded as Trump—at least in public, anyway—there have been other “conspiracy theorists” in the White House. John F. Kennedy, before becoming the victim of the highest-profile conspiracy of the 20th century, gave a wonderful speech in 1961 in which he declared, “We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy.” He was speaking of the communists, but his words can be interpreted, and have been interpreted in a much broader sense. Kennedy, of course, famously vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” In 2017, WikiLeaks would use this well-known quote as the password to decrypt its latest release of CIA documents.

Noted JFK assassination researcher David Lifton, author of the book Best Evidence, claimed that Ronald Reagan was keenly interested in the JFK assassination, and, in fact, regularly kept a stack of books on the subject on his nightstand.

During his presidential campaign, Reagan blasted Jimmy Carter and the fact that “19 key members of the administration are or have been members of the Trilateral Commission.” Reagan would predictably install Trilateralists like CIA Director William Casey and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in his cabinet, not to mention selecting Trilateralist and Council of Foreign Relations stalwart George H.W. Bush as vice president.

Survival of the Richest, Jeffries
The “greatest conspiracy of all,” at the AFP Online Store.

According to Bill Clinton’s Associate Attorney General Webb Hubbell, upon entering the White House, he was instructed by Clinton: “I want you to find the answers to two questions for me. One, who killed JFK? And two, are there UFOs?” Clinton would famously declare at a press conference, in the midst of all the furor created by Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK, that he was satisfied that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. Clinton doesn’t seem to have done anything to ferret out the truth about UFOs, either.

Although he almost certainly knows better, Trump would publicly state that he believed Oswald shot Kennedy. And despite bragging repeatedly about doing so, he would delay the release of still-classified JFK assassination documents until 2021.

Kennedy, of course, was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. Reagan was the victim of an unsuccessful assassination attempt shortly after entering office. Trump has received more threats than all other presidents combined. Will history repeat itself?

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.

Monsanto Forced to Pay Man $289 Million in Cancer Case

The profit-hungry agri-giant often called “the evil empire” has been slapped for poisoning a school groundskeeper who used their glyphosate-based weed killers, and now, the behemoth is looking at more than 5,000 similar lawsuits. Glyphosate has recently been confirmed in oat breakfast cereals and bars, yet the FDA continues to remain silent about its dangers even while other countries ban Monsanto products.

By S.T. Patrick

Sometimes David really does defeat Goliath. A California jury this month found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weed killers like Roundup caused the cancer of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. As a result of the decision, Monsanto has been ordered to pay Johnson $289 million in damages. Johnson may be only the first victorious David, as Monsanto now faces over 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.

Despite a Monsanto spokesman arguing that “more than 800 scientific studies and reviews . . . support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” the jury awarded damages to Johnson, whose attorney explained that, for the first time, jurors were privy to internal company documents “proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer.”

The cancer arm of the World Health Organization in 2015 had determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Safe Foods Shopping Guide
Shop safely with this handy guide from AFP’s Online Store.

Study results published just days after the Johnson news broke revealed that some oat breakfast cereals and snack bars marketed toward children are laced with glyphosate. Of the 45 products containing oats tested by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), 43 contained traces of glyphosate and 31 exceeded the EWG’s child-protective daily exposure benchmark of 160 ppb.

EWG reports the FDA is aware of the dangers from glyphosates but remaining silent: “In April, internal emails obtained by the nonprofit US Right to Know revealed that the Food and Drug Administration has been testing food for glyphosate for two years and has found ‘a fair amount,’ but the FDA has not released its findings.”

Glyphosate has been used by Monsanto in weed killers since 1974, and organics activists are claiming Monsanto has known about the effects of the chemical since the early 1980s. Monsanto has since aggressively marketed glyphosate as “safer than table salt” and “practically nontoxic.”

Monsanto has not only tied its weed killers to glyphosate; the agrochemical giant tied its billion-dollar seed business to the same toxic chemical. Monsanto has inserted genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into plants since 1983. It introduced GMOs to crops in 1987. A line of “Roundup Ready” seed was introduced to coincide with the glyphosate weed killers. Products like Roundup would then kill the weeds without killing the seeds. Monsanto is the world’s largest distributor of seeds today, controlling nearly one-quarter of the world market. DuPont is second and shares with Monsanto a commitment to GMO seed production.

This is not the first time Monsanto’s chemicals have come under fire. Monsanto abandoned DDT production “for economic reasons . . . long before any environmental concerns were brought to the table.” Despite later reports that proved its toxicity, Monsanto’s website still touts DDT as an effective preventative measure against malaria. Apparently, deadly chemicals do kill mosquitoes. The pesticide was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 because it was said to cause cancer and kill wildlife.

From 1965 to 1969, Monsanto was one of the nine companies contracted by the U.S. government to manufacture Agent Orange for use in the Vietnam theater of war. It was designed, according to Monsanto, as a “defoliant to protect the lives of U.S. soldiers.” It was also used to destroy enemy food crops—and lives. The Vietnamese government reported that as many as 3 million people have died or have suffered illnesses that stem from Agent Orange. Many American veterans have settled out of court  with Monsanto, but some denied the settlement, as it would have exempted them from certain government benefits and care.

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

In 2004, Monsanto spokesperson Jill Montgomery asserted that the company should not be held liable for any illnesses or deaths resulting from Agent Orange.

“We are sympathetic with people who believe they have been injured and understand their concern to find the cause,” Montgomery said. “But reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects.”

After Johnson’s Roundup lawsuit verdict was announced, Bayer AG, which had purchased Monsanto for $66 billion in June, saw its stock plunge more than it had in seven years. The $289 million judgment erased more than $11 billion from the German drug conglomerate’s market value. Bayer had already intended to drop the Monsanto name from its operations. Monsanto has for years earned nicknames such as “the evil empire” and “the world’s most evil corporation.” Bayer acquired the profits yet wanted to discard the reputation and public opinion.

Globally, governments and courts have taken a harsher stand against Monsanto’s products. A judge in Brazil recently suspended the sale of all products containing glyphosate. A Monsanto tribunal took place in 2016-17 in The Hague. The five judges presiding over the tribunal ruled that the activities of Monsanto have a negative impact on basic human rights.

Dewayne Johnson is one of millions sickened, injured, or killed by Monsanto products. Yet, the company still maintains a stranglehold on the bureaucrats within the government.

Until politicians are exposed for their loyalty to and, in many cases, their work for Monsanto, the company’s power within the government will continue to grow—like a fungus ironically immune from Monsanto’s most dangerous products.

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]

Antifa Calls for Violence While Media Stays Silent

Mainstream media seems determined to ignore the often violent actions and outrageous threats of the radical left, focused instead on turning nationalist messages into supposed evidence of the explosive growth of “white supremacy.” 

By John Friend

Antifa and other radical leftist activist groups continue to show their true colors as yet another publicly displayed monument commemorating Confederate soldiers who honorably fought and died in the Civil War has been illegally toppled, this time on the campus of University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

In August of last year, protesters illegally toppled a Confederate monument in Durham, N.C., just days after the Unite the Right rally was held in Charlottesville, Va. Although several suspects involved in the vandalism and destruction of the statue were arrested in Durham, local prosecutors dropped all charges against all of the suspects involved, once again demonstrating that the radical left all too often operates with impunity, violating the law, committing acts of violence, vandalism, and terrorism without legal consequences.

This year in August the radical left struck again, ripping down the Silent Sam Confederate statue on the campus of UNC-Chapel Hill. According to The News & Observer, a regional daily newspaper, the statue was toppled shortly after 9 p.m. on Aug. 20. Prior to the statue being ripped down, protesters vandalized the monument in an attempt to erect an alternative that stood “for a world without white supremacy,” according to reports.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

University officials released a statement calling the action by protesters “dangerous” and vowed to investigate the vandalism and assess “the full extent of the damage.” Chancellor Carol Folt went a step further in a statement released the day after the statue was illegally removed. Folt described the illegal toppling as “unlawful and dangerous” before acknowledging that the monument “has been divisive for years.” Time will tell if local authorities decide to pursue criminal charges against those responsible for the vandalism and destruction of the Confederate monument.

In related news, radical leftist activists violently confronted and clashed with police and members of the media in both Washington, D.C. and Charlottesville, Va. during the Unite the Right 2 rally, which took place in Lafayette Park in the nation’s capital on Sunday, Aug. 12. Leftist activists took to the streets to protest the one-year anniversary of the first Unite the Right rally, and to counter-protest the second event, organized by activist Jason Kessler.

In Charlottesville, antifa protesters not only clashed with police but also heckled and harassed members of the media. At one point, a protester violently struck the camera of an NBC reporter. Amazingly, NBC actually downplayed the assault in later reporting.

Other radical leftist protesters in Washington, D.C., who were interviewed by independent journalists during their counter-protest of the Unite the Right 2 rally, openly admitted to supporting violence against their political opponents, including President Donald Trump. When asked what they would do to Trump if he were in their presence, many of the leftist protesters stated they would use violence against the president.

“We’d have to do him like Qaddafi,” one protester stated, referring to the violent death of the hysterically demonized former Libyan leader. Others were more specific. “I would murder him, for the people,” one young man declared.

The radical left, which is often portrayed as a righteous, non-violent, tolerant movement opposed to oppression and fighting for equality and peace, has become increasingly more explicit in their justification for violence. In case after case, radical leftist activists justify pre-emptive violence against their political opponents or destruction of private property as morally sanctioned in the broader struggle against “white supremacy” and “racism.” For the most part, the mainstream media not only downplays the calls for violence but actually enables them by not pressing charges when their own reporters are attacked.

Will Trump and other political leaders finally have the courage and conviction to confront the radical left and their open use of political violence, terrorism, and criminal acts of vandalism?

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.