Several States Fight Online Censorship

President Trump has expressed concern over the recent mass bannings of conservative voices on social media and is “watching closely.”

By Donald Jeffries

The recent de-platforming of conservative commentators Alex Jones and Laura Loomer, minister Louis Farrakhan, and others illustrates how serious the authoritarian clampdown on free speech is becoming. The fact that so much of the public seems to support this blatant censorship is even more troubling.

President Donald Trump took to Twitter recently, to say, “I am continuing to monitor the censorship of American citizens on social media platforms. This is the United States of America—and we have what’s known as freedom of speech! We are monitoring and watching, closely!”

Trump specifically mentioned Paul Joseph Watson, who was kicked off of Facebook, and actor James Woods, who was banned from Twitter.

Evidently, Trump’s recent White House meeting with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, where they discussed censorship of conservatives and others on social media, had little impact.

The New York Times continued its proud tradition of opposing a free exchange of ideas with a May 6 article headlined, “Trump is Confused About Social Media. He’s Not Alone.” The article informed its dwindling readership that “The First Amendment doesn’t say you can tweet whatever you want.” Leaving aside the fact that neither Twitter nor even the concept of instantaneous global electronic communication existed at the time the Constitution was written, it should be noted that the phrase “hate speech” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. The article spewed out the typical slurs about “loudmouths and bullies” not having any right to spew their thoughts to potentially millions of people.

Not everyone is taking all this sitting down, nor satisfied with Trump’s “monitoring” things at Twitter. The Texas Senate recently passed a bill that would prevent social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter from censoring users based on their views.

Deep State apologists cite a federal law that permits social media platforms to control and regulate their own content. Republican Sen. Bryan Hughes, the sponsor of the bill that is now headed to the Texas House, declared, “Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content. . . . If the company represents, ‘We’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.”

All of the big social media platforms have been blatantly biased and inconsistent in how punishment and bans are meted out. While James Woods, for instance, has been banned by Twitter, fellow actor Peter Fonda, who tweeted last year that Trump’s 10-year-old son Barron should be put into a cage with pedophiles, something far more offensive than anything Woods has ever posted, remains a member in good standing. While most of the “liberal” establishment has applauded the de-platforming of Jones and other right-leaning sources, both NPR and the ACLU strongly opposed it. The ACLU called the latest bans “an authoritarian power move.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Facebook referred to Jones, conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, and others recently de-platformed as “dangerous individuals” who were promulgating “hate speech.” At the exact moment Mark Zuckerberg’s company was bringing the hammer down on “hate,” the Occupy Democrats Facebook page was allowed to post a “joke” about Sarah Huckabee Sanders telling Trump that she’d “had a dream that you finally got the parade you’ve wanted,” with “millions of people lining the streets waving and cheering as you passed by in a large, black limo.” When Trump asks, “Was I smiling?” Sanders replies, “I don’t know, sir, the lid on the casket was closed.” The post, which accrued 37,000 likes and 17,000 shares, remained up on Facebook, apparently not guilty of violating their policy against “hate” or “objectionable material.” The previous month, on the other hand, Facebook-owned Instagram had deleted a photo of Donald Trump Jr. with U.S. Army veteran Omar Avila for an unspecified “violation.” Avila was understandably baffled, stating, “Again, I don’t know why; it had nothing on it that was political or that said anything derogatory.”

Facebook has dug in its heels and is clearly committed to an establishment “left,” social justice warrior agenda. The social media giant has recently blocked objective information about abortion from the American Pregnancy Association’s website.

Coddling of the American Mind
New at AFP’s Online Store.

YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, has cracked down aggressively on “conspiracy theory” videos, which in reality means anything questioning the establishment and their unconvincing official narratives. Almost every leading alternative media figure has reported being demonetized, censored, or banned on YouTube since this campaign began in earnest. They also manipulate their algorithms, in order to suppress “conspiracy-friendly” videos from online search results and suggested items.

Facebook is now banning any mention of Alex Jones’s Infowars unless it is negative in connotation.

But there is some hope on the horizon. In addition to the bill in Texas, Republicans in Florida and Rhode Island have introduced the Stop Social Media Censorship Act.

Without a free exchange of ideas, we don’t have a free country.

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.

American People Need a ‘Bailout’

How come bankers get debt forgiveness but not students, farmers, and homeowners?

By Paul Craig Roberts

As schoolchildren, my friends and I were very interested in archaeology and ancient civilizations. We read all the available books. My best friend intended to become an archaeologist and to explore ancient ruins about which we imagined more than we actually knew.

As far as I can discern, these days no one in the general population has any thoughts of Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria or Ur. For the American young, the 1940s, not 2,500 B.C., is the ancient past.

A time so long ago that it predates the Old Testament by 2,000 years is probably imagined as a brutal and politically incorrect time of inhumanity and human sacrifice—in short, a script for a horror fantasy movie or a video game. In actual fact, these civilizations were more advanced and more humanitarian than our own. They were more advanced because the rulers were focused on ensuring the society’s longevity by maintaining a livable balance between debtors and creditors. It has all been downhill ever since.

National Coin Investments

The rulers maintained social balance and, thereby, the life of the society by periodically cancelling debts. The rulers understood that compound interest resulted in debt growing faster than the economy. The consequence would be foreclosures on agricultural land, which would shift riches and power into a small oligarchy of creditors. The ruler and the society would be deprived of a self-supporting population on the land, which provided tax revenues, soldiers for the military, and unpaid labor to maintain public infrastructure. Disaster would follow. A grasping oligarchy could overthrow the ruler or the dispossessed population could flee to a potential invader offering their military services in exchange for debt forgiveness.

To protect their societies from dissolution by unpayable debts, rulers periodically cancelled agrarian debts owed by the citizenry at large, but not mercantile debts among businessmen.

The reason for debt forgiveness was stability, not egalitarianism.

We know this fascinating story of the Bronze Age’s successful economic policy because economist Michael Hudson spent 30 years as a research fellow at Harvard University’s Peabody Museum working with scholars of the ancient word. The study resulted in the organization of five colloquia over a decade and in the recent publication of Hudson’s book, titled And Forgive Them Their Debts.

In America today, the population is drowning in unpayable debts—student loan debt, credit card debt, home mortgage debt, state and local government debt, and business debt—but policymakers have reserved forgiveness only for the debt associated with the bad and irresponsible investments of the big banks and financial institutions. The Federal Reserve printed $4 trillion to buy up the banks’ bad debt while permitting 10 million homeowners to be foreclosed. Student loan debt prevents university graduates from forming independent households. Mortgage and credit card debt prevents households from having discretionary income with which to drive retail sales, but modern-day economics has no prescription for preventing our society from failing from debt overload.

America long ago lost its independent farmers to debt overload. All it took was a drought, or a dustbowl, or the Fed driving up interest rates on loans, and farmers were foreclosed and the farm properties passed to corporate farming. Today, the same thing is happening to dairy producers. Canada’s response to President Donald Trump’s tariffs is to place tariffs on U.S. dairy products. The earnings drop leaves American dairy farmers overburdened with debt service. This business, too, seems destined to be concentrated in a few hands. Economic independence is being driven out of American society.

Web of Debt, Brown
Can we break free from the Fed? More in Ellen Brown’s classic, ON SALE at the AFP Online Store.

The problems of monopoly, monopsony, and oligopoly are real.

Monopsony refers to a system in which a single buyer controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services, while an oligopoly is a system where there is limited competition and the market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.

This is especially so when indebted Americans have their high productivity, high value-added jobs offshored and then face robotics displacing the lower-paid domestic service jobs that are their current employment. The profit-maximizing activities of corporations reduce Americans’ incomes but not their debts. Thus, debt service becomes more difficult.

In the U.S. today, we have a situation in which the New York banks control Federal Reserve policy and financial legislation—the deregulation of the banking system and its subsequent bailout, for example. We have a situation in which monopolies, monopsonies, and oligopolies are stronger than the central government, which is unable to rein them in or act against them in any way. Corporations dispossess citizens of their jobs by offshoring the jobs. Creditor demands prevent university graduates from forming households. Debt service preempts retail demand except by further debt expansion.

This is an economy headed down, not up. Clearly, Hammurabi did far better for the Babylonians than Washington can do for today’s Americans.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities and is the author of numerous books available at

Finally, a President With the Guts to Take on Unfair China Trade

Tariffs, while they’re not a cure-all, serve an important dual function—to bring about an increase in tax revenue at the water’s edge … and to protect the economy from excessive imports and thereby spur an increase in domestic production. Pat Buchanan reminds us tariffs are “the taxes that made America great.”

By Mark Anderson

What the big-box media calls a “trade war” between the U.S. and China is, in reality, hard-nosed but vitally necessary negotiations in which the Trump administration is showing some fortitude in pursuing long-overdue adjustments to begin reducing China’s notoriously lopsided, long-term trade surplus with the U.S. President Donald Trump’s key tool in this process is the application of tariffs against Chinese imports over the last few months—largely for the purpose of improving America’s industrial sector by spurring domestic production.

Tariffs, while they’re not a cure-all across the board, serve an important dual function—to bring about an increase in tax revenue at the water’s edge to help the U.S. balance its books and resist the urge to raise domestic taxes, and to protect the economy from excessive Chinese imports and thereby spur an increase in domestic production. This production boost would translate into more buying power to purchase the productive output amid a gradually reduced reliance on imports.

National Coin Investments

But this upside to tariffs gets lost in the reports issued by a mass media cartel that puts undermining Trump ahead of all else. Helping set the record straight, the non-partisan Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) announced May 9 that a Department of Commerce report showed “that the monthly U.S. goods deficit with China fell to just $20.7 billion in March. That’s the smallest monthly deficit with China since March 2014.”

“In the face of continuing pressure from multinational interests and the import lobby, President Trump has stayed the course on China tariffs,” CPA Chairman Dan DiMicco remarked. “To the president’s credit, the tariffs are working. America’s manufacturers and workers are now seeing gains as manufacturing employment rises and China’s hold on the U.S. market shrinks.”

Michael Stumo, CEO of the CPA, added: “This is exactly what we were hoping to see when the president applied tariffs [to aid] important industries that have been facing heavily subsidized competition from China’s state-owned enterprises. We expect the next round of tariffs to have a positive effect to improve the U.S. economy and address Beijing’s continuing economic aggression.”

CPA Chief Economist Jeff Ferry, having examined the new Commerce Department data, found that the improvement in America’s goods deficit with China “has come largely through a reduction in imports.” He added: “While U.S. exports to China were $10.4 billion in March [2019]—a figure $1.9 billion lower than in March 2018—total imports reached only $31.2 billion, a full $7 billion less than the March total for 2018,” which was the lowest monthly China import level in five years. Furthermore, while 2018 imports from China averaged $44.9 billion a month, so far in 2019 they’re averaging just $35 billion—and are falling each month, according to the CPA.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

“The United States economy continued to thrive in April,” the White House announced, “with the unemployment rate dropping to 3.6%—the lowest unemployment rate since December 1969, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) household survey. April also marks the 14th consecutive month of the unemployment rate being at or below 4%. The U-6 unemployment rate, a broader measure of unemployment that includes those who are unemployed, marginally attached to the labor force, and working part-time . . . remained at 7.3% in April, matching the lowest U-6 rate since December 2000.”

While the White House concedes that recent job gains “were predominantly concentrated in professional and business services (76,000 new jobs), education and health services (62,000 new jobs), and leisure and hospitality (34,000 new jobs),” and while “the construction sector added 33,000 new jobs in April and has added 669,000 jobs since the 2016 election,” it’ll be interesting to see what happens when tariffs to limit Chinese imports and produce more goods domestically sink in and have time to adjust the economic dials.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. Email him at [email protected].

Tariffs: The Taxes That Made America Great

Before globalism became the law of the land, tariffs protected and enriched the American people.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

As his limo carried him to work at the White House Monday, Larry Kudlow could not have been pleased with the headline in The Washington Post: “Kudlow Contradicts Trump on Tariffs.” The story began: “National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying for the administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump’s repeated inaccurate claim that the Chinese foot the bill.”

A free-trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on “Fox News” that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.

A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional tax. If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff.

China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense, is howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the U.S., it would cripple China’s economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom.

Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen, before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party’s path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free trade. The Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted with the declared purpose, “the encouragement and protection of manufactures.” It was the second act passed by the first Congress led by Speaker James Madison. It was crafted by Alexander Hamilton and signed by President George Washington.

After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay, John Calhoun, and ex- Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, enacted the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition so that Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market. It worked.

Subscribe to AFP

Tariffs financed Abraham Lincoln’s war. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Rep. and future President William McKinley, who said that a foreign manufacturer “has no right or claim to equality with our own. . . . He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties.”

That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.

The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson’s income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades— the Roarin ’20s.

That the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the Depression of the 1930s is a New Deal myth in which America’s schoolchildren have been indoctrinated for decades.

The Depression began with the crash of the stock market in 1929, nine months before Smoot- Hawley became law. The real villain: the Federal Reserve, which failed to replenish that third of the money supply that had been wiped out by thousands of bank failures. Milton Friedman taught us that.

A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities. The principle involved in a tariff is the same as that used by U.S. colleges and universities that charge foreign students higher tuition than their American counterparts.

What patriot would consign the economic independence of his country to the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith in a system crafted by intellectuals whose allegiance is to an ideology, not a people? What great nation did free traders ever build?

Free trade is the policy of fading and failing powers, past their prime. In the half-century following passage of the Corn Laws, the British showed the folly of free trade.

They began the second half of the 19th century with an economy twice that of the U.S. and ended it with an economy half of ours, and equaled by a Germany, which had, under Bismarck, adopted what was known as the American system.

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

Of the nations that have risen to economic preeminence in recent centuries—the British before 1850, the United States between 1789 and 1914, post-war Japan, China in recent decades— how many did so through free trade? None. All practiced economic nationalism. The problem for President Donald Trump?

Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness, and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity.

Brexit was the strangled cry of a British people that had lost its independence and desperately wanted it back.

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.


Florida Lawmakers Vote to Arm Teachers

Each county school district in Florida may now choose to allow educational staff, including teachers, to be armed following specific training. Unfortunately, the state’s largest counties have already opted out of the program designed to protect kids.

By S.T. Patrick

In an expansion of a program that was launched in the wake of the Parkland, Fla. high school shooting in February 2018, both houses of the Florida state legislature have passed a law allowing full-time teachers to carry a firearm in Florida schools. A teacher will be allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds after they have successfully completed a 144-hour course on firearm operation and safety.

The “Guardian” program originated with an attempt by the legislature to ensure that all schools will have at least one armed staff member or law enforcement officer on campus during hours of operation. To pacify anti-gun activists, the legislature also installed a minimum three-day waiting period to purchase a firearm, as well as raising the legal age to purchase a rifle or shotgun from 18 to 21.

As expected, there are major disagreements about the practicalities of the new law. Supporters argue that on-site protection is needed, as law enforcement cannot properly respond to school shootings in time to stop the shooters and limit the number of victims. Detractors of the new law claim that accidental firings and stress-related incidents will be the unintended consequences, resulting in more injured students and employees than the firearms will save.

State Rep. Shevrin Jones (D) of Broward County at times screamed into the microphone during the heated debate on the Florida House floor. He imagined a real situation in a classroom where a teacher feels overwhelmed by an increasingly rowdy, crowded classroom. “What happens when that teacher feels threatened?” Jones asked. Jones also emphasized the ways in which he believes teachers of one race view students of another race. He then stated that teachers needed to be trained to address their own racial prejudices before arming themselves.

“There’s a reality that some of us have, that some of you in the front row couldn’t care less about,” Jones said, looking directly at the House Republican leadership. “I asked for implicit bias training because we’re talking about black boys and girls that are getting murdered by police officers! . . . There are bad police officers and there are bad teachers.”

Jones needs a reality check. Even The Wall Street Journal has reported that the supposed science behind claims of implicit bias where people are just unconsciously prejudiced is fake news. Dan Eagle, the House Republican leader, said of teachers who wish to take the course, “These are the individuals who want to protect you and others if they need to do so. When law enforcement can’t get there to save others, I hope there’s someone in that room who is able.”

National Coin Investments

Eagle pointed out the wide range of school safety provisions covered by the law, which also provides for increased mental health services, improved risk assessment, and a streamlined process for reporting incidents. Eagle called the Guardian program “a pathway” for teachers who want to be trained and armed, while pointing out that the bill is a wholistic one and not a way to arm every teacher in Florida.

Fedrick Ingram, president of the Florida Education Association, pointed out valid questions that school districts should answer in the process of adapting the law to their schools: “Will teachers wear guns, or how will firearms be stored? Will parents and students be told if the teacher in any given classroom is armed? Can parents opt their kids out of a class where the teacher is carrying?” These are questions that will have to be answered so that students feel safe in Florida classrooms.

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]

Regime Change in Iran: Been There, Done That

As the drums of war are banged for war against Iran, don’t forget the CIA’s disastrous overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953.

By Phil Giraldi

The failed coup attempt in Caracas in early May brings to mind the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British intelligence in Iran in 1953 to overthrow the Mohammad Mossadeq government. It is quite astonishing how that regime-change long-ago operation parallels what is currently taking place in Venezuela and also with regards to Iran yet again.

Mossadeq was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran beginning in 1951, serving in a government in which the Shah with limited authority was the head of state presiding over a parliamentary system. Iran was nominally independent at the time, but it was heavily influenced by the neighboring Soviet Union, which retained control over several Iranian provinces after the Second World War ended, and Great Britain, which exploited the country’s oil resources through the mechanism of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was owned by the British government. When Mossadeq, frustrated by lack of progress in negotiations with the British over sharing of oil revenues, eventually declared that he would nationalize the AIOC, London and Washington conspired to remove him.

The new National Iranian Oil Company was immediately attacked by the British, who used the Royal Navy to block export of oil from Iran’s Abadan refinery. Ships carrying Iranian oil were stopped and boarded with their shipments confiscated as “stolen property” in light of the British government’s former ownership claim on the AIOC.

By mid-1952, Britain’s blockade of Iranian oil exports had badly hurt the Iranian economy, which eventually led to government bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the American CIA, which was initially ambivalent about what the proper role in the Anglo-Iranian conflict might be, joined British agents in supporting groups inside Iran that were hostile to Mossadeq. In the Majlis parliamentary election in the spring of 1952, Mossadeq faced serious opposition funded by the Anglo-Americans, and the election eventually was suspended. By early 1953, pro-communist and pro-Shah mobs supported and coordinated by the U.S. and Britain roamed the streets, sometimes fighting each other. Fearing a communist takeover and also under pressure from London, which was threatening to withdraw from the Korean War as a quid pro quo, President Dwight D. Eisenhower agreed to carry out a joint coup d’état.

The CIA in Iran: 1953
The CIA in Iran, 1953, at the AFP Online Store.

Losing popular support due to a sinking economy, as early as August 1952 a struggling Mossadeq began ruling by emergency powers and started to jail opponents, which only aggravated the crisis. A rigged referendum to dissolve parliament and grant Mossadeq authority to govern by decree passed with 99.9% approval but led to accusations that the prime minister was seeking “total and dictatorial power.” The New York Times reported, “A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadeq in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.” The move by Mossadeq also led to the first coup attempt, which was organized by the CIA.

On Aug. 15, 1953, Col. Nemathollah Nassiri, the commander of the Shah’s Imperial Guard, delivered to Mossadeq a decree from the Shah dismissing him. Mossadeq, who had been warned of the plot, had Nassiri arrested, and the Shah and his family fled into exile in Italy. The first coup thus ended with a whimper, but it was lessons learned for the second, better organized successful attempt which followed a few days later, Operation Ajax, coordinated by Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA.

Exploiting pro-Shah sentiment in the military, the CIA and the British turned to their stables of recruited army officers while also exploiting agents infiltrated into the communist party Tudeh, which rose to the occasion by launching mass demonstrations, to include looting and arson, which quickly alienated the public and also provided a pretext for Western support of the coup as it could be promoted as “anti-communist.” Efforts were also made to turn influential clerics against Mossadeq. The Iranian people blamed the government for all their woes and rioting soon led to the calling out of the army to restore order. The army did so and then had Mossadeq arrested. He was condemned to death, but his sentence was later commuted to three years in solitary confinement followed by house arrest. He died in 1967.

End of story, but not quite. All the elements currently being used against Venezuela and Iran were there back in 1953 to bring down Mossadeq and also appear in a detailed 2018 Pentagon plan describing how to bring about a coup in Caracas. Wrecking the countries’ economies through sanctions and exclusion from the global banking network creates a crisis where one need not have existed. Meanwhile, a sustained campaign of vilification by Western political leaders and the media establishes the narrative that the benevolent intention is to block extremism and restore democracy while also eliminating a threat to the United States. And, as a last resort, the threat or actual use of force to stop the export of commodities to further wreck the economy becomes a clearly stated policy option, currently also employing secondary sanctions for anyone who dares to trade with the designated victim. Recently, America’s unilaterally imposed global ban on the export and sale of Iranian oil began. Venezuela’s oil sales are also being blocked and even its electricity grid is being attacked in an attempt to starve the Venezuelan people into rebelling against their government.

Hidden History, Jeffries
Exposing modern crimes, conspiracies and political coverups at the AFP Online Store!

But you also have to have spies, secret agents, to get the ball rolling, just as was true in 1953. One assumes that the CIA has been active in recruiting the agents of influence inside Venezuelan political opposition as well as military circles who will bring out increasingly larger mobs as the situation continues to deteriorate. How successful they have been is difficult to determine, but Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido failed the first time around, reportedly because the Venezuelan government was aware of what was happening and the contacts that CIA was relying on to bring out the army were in fact double agents.

The suffering Iranian and Venezuelan people have yet to rise up in revolt. No matter. It took more than one try to bring down Mossadeq, and National Security Advisor John Bolton has recently warned Iran that its government won’t have any more anniversaries to celebrate if it continues with its “threats.” The Trump administration is also reported to be preparing military options for dealing with Venezuela.

Bolton has even warned the Russians, who are assisting Venezuela’s government: “This is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians ought to be interfering. This is a mistake on their part.”  He is seemingly unaware of the irony, that the Russians might make the same claim about Eurasia and the Iranians regarding the Persian Gulf, where Bolton and his neocon friends in Washington have been the source of nearly continuous conflict.

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. His other articles appear on the website of “The Unz Review.”

Trump Fooled by Advisors on Iran?

Zionist neocons Bolton and Pompeo are using faulty Israeli intelligence to con the president.

By Richard Walker

Not for the first time, two of the most hawkish members of the Trump administration have been using slanted Israeli intelligence to argue for military action against Iran, a move that would surely lead to a full-blown war across the Middle East.

National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been ratcheting up their calls for striking Iran by announcing the dispatch of the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Group and a bomber task group to the region. Both men claimed they had intelligence confirming that Iran was planning attacks on U.S. troops and assets. No one else seemed to know where that intel had originated, and security officials in Europe dismissed it as a deliberate effort to stoke tensions and justify actions that would lead to war with Iran.

On May 12, two Saudi Arabian oil tankers were damaged at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The Saudis were quick to blame Iran for the attacks on the two ships, which were delivering oil to the U.S. forces in the Middle East, but Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on May 14 that the Iranians were not responsible and blamed the “false-flag attack” on the United States.

“We discussed the regional issues and dangers that the policies of extremist individuals in the U.S. administration are trying to impose on the region, as well as worries about the actions and suspicious sabotage in the region,” Zarif said to reporters.

“We had earlier predicted that they will adopt such measures to provoke tensions,” he added.

Diplomatic and security sources this writer spoke to in London and in Moscow all agreed that the intelligence Bolton and Pompeo touted was likely provided by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been a champion for demanding a war to force regime change in Iran.

Pompeo has not been shy about using bogus intelligence to make a case against Iran. In May 2018, he accused the Iranian Quds force of assassinations within Europe when there was no evidence to support his claim.

Security experts suspect that once again he has been spoon-fed fake information by the Israelis. In Washington and in European capitals, his warning was met with skepticism and silence.

Somewhat ironically, Bolton and Pompeo are not averse to feeding questionable information back to Netanyahu. Security correspondent Joe Cirincione pointed out in online security source “Defense One” that Bolton had “zero evidence” for telling Netanyahu, “We have no doubt that Iran’s leadership is committed to achieving deliverable nuclear weapons.” One can reasonably conclude that, by hyping a potential nuclear threat from Iran, Bolton’s intent was to encourage Israel to consider bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

As Cirincione put it: “I have found zero evidence to support Bolton’s claim. It is unclear who ‘we’ means, but it certainly does not include the American intelligence community. They have found exactly the opposite.”

All of this raises the question of how Trump views the risk of a new Middle East conflict. It appears from his latest statements that he is not on the Pompeo-Bolton track and is not an Iran hawk. He now says that he would like to talk directly with Iran’s leaders. That leads one to wonder if until now he had been so consumed with defending his presidency that he has allowed hawkish figures like Bolton and Pompeo to exploit the space created by his preoccupation with Washington issues.

Similarly, reports have surfaced lately that he was angry that Bolton misled him that Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, was about to concede defeat. Whatever the truth, there is undoubtedly room for Trump to negotiate a deal with Iran, but it would be opposed by the Israelis, the Saudis, neocons, and pro-Netanyahu elements in Congress.

Subscribe to AFP

The neocon view that Iran poses an existential threat to the U.S. and its interests is dismissed by most experts. In The New Republic, Jefferson Morley makes the interesting observation that Sunni Arabs have posed a more serious threat to America than Iranian Shiites. Most Americans know that is true because many attacks carried out by groups like al Qaeda and ISIS originated within the Arab world, financed in the main by Saudi Arabia and the Mossad. While it would be wrong to say Iran has not been involved in terror, it would be incorrect to exaggerate the threat it poses to America.

Most foreign policy observers tend to believe that there is no guaranteed outcome of regime change resulting from war with Iran. On the contrary, if one looks closely at the chaos in other Middle Eastern nations, especially Libya, such a war would engulf Iraq, Lebanon, and other countries, possibly drawing in Russia, Iran’s ally. The Russian and Chinese foreign ministers have already warned Washington against increasing tensions. Both those nations still favor the international Iran nuclear agreement, which is fraying at the edges as the Trump administration strangles Iran’s economy and threatens to do likewise to any country that does business with Iranian energy companies.

One of the sources this writer spoke to pointed to the fact that Pompeo and Bolton, as well as members of the Trump inner circle like Rudy Giuliani, are closely aligned with MEK, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a shady Iranian exiles group that was on the U.S. terrorist list from 1997 to 2011. It has been used by the Israelis and the Saudis to carry out terror operations inside Iran. The Trump family is also linked to the former Shah of Iran’s son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who wants to return to Iran as its monarch and has the support of the Saudi royals and some prominent figures in Israel.

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

Washington State Resurrects Racial Quotas

Notwithstanding the fact that 73% of Americans oppose “blatantly racist” college admissions laws, Washington legislators want to repeal a ban on consideration of race in state colleges’ admissions process.

By Donald Jeffries

Showing the usual disdain for those they supposedly represent, Washington state legislators have passed a measure that could take effect in one year. The new law proposes to repeal a ban on colleges considering race and ethnicity in the admissions process. The fierce opposition includes a new petition that states, “I-1000 [the measure passed by the legislature] can be summed up in one sentence: It would abolish the standard of equality for all, regardless of race, as required by I-200, and replace it with a system that uses different rules for people of different races.”

Ana Mari Cauce, president of the University of Washington, epitomizes the ironclad social justice warrior mindset evident in virtually all of our institutions of higher learning.

“I-200 puts the University of Washington at a competitive disadvantage when seeking to hire the best faculty and staff to lead our university,” she said. “It also hampers our ability to attract and enroll the strongest students from underrepresented backgrounds, who are so highly sought after by other universities because having a diverse student body creates a richer learning environment for all students.”

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

Cauce recently complained: “As one of our nation’s top research universities, we compete with institutions like Stanford, Texas, Wisconsin, and UNC Chapel Hill when trying to attract the most talented faculty to teach and lead cutting-edge research with our students. To those top faculty and staff that we wish to recruit, I-200 sends the message that the UW, and Washington state as a whole, does not welcome or value diversity, and when we lose out on attracting these desirable teachers, researchers, innovators, and administrators, it is our students and our state that pay the price.”

College Republicans at the University of Washington held a bake sale to protest the new measure, as they have done in the past over Affirmative Action in general. The group cleverly based the prices for their baked goods exclusively upon race, explaining, “Our bake sale prices are based on affirmative action, which as of last week is a legal policy in the state of Washington. I-1000 allows for race to be a factor in college admissions. This is a policy that has historically discriminated against Asian-American students and blatantly allows the government to discriminate based on race. We are against this blatantly racist law, and we hope to see it repealed.”

Cauce, predictably enough, was not amused. While acknowledging that it was appropriate to have “difficult conversations about affirmative action,” she stated that the bake sale did not encourage such conversations. Again sounding more like a parody than a professional educator, Cauce went on to denigrate the bake sale, which “appears to mock not so much just a policy, but individuals who belong to racial, ethnic, and gender groups that have historically been marginalized and that have often experienced very real prejudice, discrimination, and oppression. Indeed, the way that the poster advertising this event juxtaposes race and price is reminiscent of a time when persons in some of these groups were literally bought and sold. Regardless of its intent, this sale humiliates and dehumanizes others. It is no surprise that so many on our campus and in our community are deeply offended by it.”

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

This controversial new law comes at the same time that a lawsuit against Harvard University over Affirmative Action may be appealed to the Supreme Court. If that happens, it could have a huge impact on colleges nationwide. Eight states, including Washington state, have banned the consideration of race in university admissions, and the Supreme Court outlawed strict racial quotas in 1978. However, a large number of colleges circumvent this with what they’ve dubbed “racial preferences.” In a March 2019 Pew poll, some 73% of Americans said that race or ethnicity should not be a factor in college admissions. This included solid majorities among all racial groups, including blacks and Hispanics. Even a majority of Democrats opposed such race-based factors.

Edward Blum, the primary organizer behind the lawsuit against Harvard, wasn’t surprised by the Pew poll results. He declared that his view remained unchanged from what he said in response to the last poll, which showed a slightly smaller but still solid majority opposed to race-based admissions: “Racial classifications and preferences are deeply unpopular with a significant majority of all Americans. It is to be hoped that the courts will soon end these divisive and unfair practices.”

Such race-based policies, whether they are called Affirmative Action, quotas, or racial preferences, fly in the face of the kind of meritocracy Thomas Jefferson once dreamed of. Carried to its logical extreme, identity politics will not be satisfied until transgenders of all kinds and those “identifying” as animals or perhaps inanimate objects are granted “equal access” to everything our society has to offer.

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.

Meddling Violates Monroe Doctrine

American imperialism is on vivid and hypocritical display in South America, where the recent coup attempt was simply the latest in a long history of foreign coups supported by the U.S. military-industrial complex.

By S.T. Patrick

As a global presence gathers in and around Venezuela in the wake of the U.S.-supported coup, National Security Adviser John Bolton has clenched tightly to Teddy Roosevelt’s metaphoric “big stick” and is warning foreign nations to remember that the U.S. government is entitled to defend the backyard it has extended southward since the Monroe Doctrine first became informal policy in 1823.

In January, the U.S. government outwardly supported opposition leader Juan Guaidó over Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. It was another in a long history of foreign coups supported by the U.S. military-industrial complex. All this occurred while American politicos debated whether or not Russian Facebookers bought ads that could have influenced American voters in 2016.

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

What prompted the recent hardline comments of Bolton was the introduction of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian planes into Venezuela.

“President Trump is determined not to see Venezuela fall under the sway of foreign powers,” Bolton told radio host Hugh Hewitt. Apparently, to neoconservatives like Bolton, the only foreign power allowed to sway the Venezuelan government is the United States.

In making his argument, Bolton emphasized the importance of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as President Ronald Reagan’s anti-communist crusades in Central and South America throughout the 1980s.

The Monroe Doctrine was first outlined by President James Monroe in 1823 during his seventh State of the Union address. Monroe stated that any effort made by a European power to take control of an independent state in South America would be “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” In turn and in fairness, Monroe also stated that the United States would then not meddle in the affairs of European countries. It was still a globalist, anti-democratic policy that split up the world into “spheres of influence” controlled, undisturbed, by the major global powers.

The newly-created CIA used the Monroe Doctrine to foment coups after World War II. President John F. Kennedy used it to protect Americans from a growing Soviet missile presence in Cuba. President Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983 and illegally supported the Contras over the Sandinistas in Nicaragua throughout the 1980s. When America has acted aggressively in the Western Hemisphere throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, it has pointed to the Monroe Doctrine as justification.

Bolton continued, “If the Monroe Doctrine fails, if China and Russia, along with Cuba, establish domination over Venezuela, I think American strategic interests will be harmed.”

Further bolstering his belief in the Monroe Doctrine, Bolton said: “We strongly caution actors external to the Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela, or elsewhere in the Hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations. We will consider such provocative actions as a direct threat to international peace and security in the region.”

The problem international observers have recognized is that of hypocrisy regarding the doctrine’s application. In February, the U.S. Navy deployed two guided-missile destroyers to challenge Chinese ships within 12 nautical miles of Chinese outposts in the South China Sea. The U.S. government called it a “freedom of navigation operation.”

China’s foreign ministry spokesman said the U.S. “entered Chinese waters without permission and engaged in provocations that threaten China’s sovereignty.”

President Donald Trump has throughout his presidency also made inroads with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, progress made largely without consulting the Chinese leadership, though China borders North Korea. Certainly, North Korea is within China’s direct “sphere of influence.”

Ship of Fools, Carlson
Brand new and available now from AFP, Tucker Carlson’s “Ship of Fools”

The U.S. has also stationed tanks, airplanes, and heavy weaponry within NATO-aligned states that border Russia, certainly within Russia’s “sphere of influence.” When challenged by Russian officials, the Pentagon claimed it was innocently deciding where to store a battalion’s worth of military equipment in Europe. The positioning in proximity to Russia was mere coincidence.

More directly, Syria and Iraq are in the Middle East. Afghanistan is in Asia. Libya is in North Africa. Bosnia is in southeastern Europe. All are well beyond the U.S. “sphere of influence” as argued by the directives of the Monroe Doctrine, yet all have seen the heavy presence of U.S. troops in recent decades.

If the entire world is now a local stage for every nation’s national interests, then it is problematic to assert the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, in a country 2,800 miles away from U.S. borders. If the Pentagon is going to continue to justify placing weapons and troops outside the borders of China, Russia, and Iran, then it is understandable that Russia, China, and Iran would see their own interests at stake in the oil-rich country of Venezuela.

The difficulty in accepting U.S. foreign policy as an argument is that Americans are taught and then told that the only goals of foreign policy are U.S. interest, human rights, and furthering democracy. Yet, when arguments for intervention are made, they must also apply to the foreign policy and economic goals of other nations, as well.

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]

Hillary’s Collusion Delusion

Although “Russiagate” is now synonymous with “hoax,” Hillary Clinton continues to push the “Russia Did It” meme. Did Hillary and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow just invite China to interfere in the 2020 presidential election? “[H]ey, let’s have a great power contest, and let’s get the Chinese in on the side of somebody else,” she suggested to Maddow. While playing it off as an absurdity, the absurd fact that she still wants to believe Russian interference caused her to lose the election makes her suggestion all the more worth noting. 

By S.T. Patrick

Two-and-a-half years have passed and the Russiagate narrative now has the word “hoax” permanently affixed to it. The publishing world has to be wondering how many drink coasters can be made of the many Russiagate books that still line the shelves of bookstores. Still yet, despite an exorbitant array of facts stating otherwise, some things have not and will not change. Hillary Clinton still believes “Russia did it.”

Clinton recently appeared on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” to discuss all things political. One of the major themes of the conversation was that Clinton has warned the 2020 Democratic field of presidential candidates that they, too, will most likely be derailed by Russian interference.

National Coin Investments

“I always tell them, you know, you can run the best campaign,” Clinton said, “you can be the person who gets the nomination, but unless we know how to protect our election from what happened before and what could happen again—because there is greater sophistication about it—you could lose. And I don’t mean it to scare anybody, but I do want every candidate to understand that this remains a threat.”

Maddow specified, “That they could lose at the hands of a foreign power, not that they could lose fair and square.”

Clinton continued, “That’s right, that it wasn’t on the level. It wasn’t on the level in 2016. It could be once again not on the level, because we have never really understood as much as we need to, and I think the Mueller report didn’t go there and since there is no, you know, like 9/11 Commission to figure out what it is that happened. So how we prevent it should be the priority of everyone.”

Hillary (and Bill) Trilogy Sale
Sale on Victor Thorn’s trilogy on Hillary and Bill’s long, sordid history.

The 9/11 Commission can historically stand beside the Warren Commission and the Senate Watergate Committee in the long line of failed government inquiries. If such a committee or commission would have investigated the Russiagate narrative, it would have simply obfuscated the important witnesses, links, and information in favor of maintaining a safe, simple, government-endorsed conclusion (e.g., Oswald acted alone, it was all Nixon, and those evil Arabs). At least independent investigators such as Robert Mueller, Lawrence Walsh (Iran-Contra), and Kenneth Starr (Whitewater) unearth some useful facts amidst their intentionally murky final reports.

Clinton is grasping for straws at this point, hoping to find one morsel of a misdeed upon which she can hang her embarrassing loss. In a segment of the interview that seemed somewhat unhinged, Clinton and Maddow both half-jokingly suggested that the Chinese should enter the election of 2020 on the side of the Democratic Party.

Clinton started the hypothesizing, “Imagine, Rachel, that you had one of the Democratic nominees for 2020 on your show, and that person said, you know, the only other adversary of ours who is anywhere near as good as the Russians is China. So why should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is clearly backing Republicans, why don’t we ask China to back us?” Maddow added, “I hereby tonight ask China . . . .”

Clinton continued, “So, hey, let’s have a great power contest, and let’s get the Chinese in on the side of somebody else. Just saying that shows how absurd the situation we find ourselves in.”

While both Clinton and Maddow played the Chinese suggestion as a parody of what they still see as absolute metaphysical certitude that the Russians are in bed with the GOP, ideas are sometimes birthed as whispers or chuckles. In truth, it would not be the first time international financiers backed leading Democrats in presidential contests.

Subscribe to AFP

In 2001, James Riady, an Indonesian “Friend of Bill (Clinton),” plead to conspiracy charges which resulted from illegal campaign contributions in 1996. Technically, Riady admitted that he “knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions and duties of the FEC [Federal Election Commission] through deceitful and dishonest means.”

Does this not sound like the mainstream media’s current definition of collusion?

Chinese businessman Johnny Chung was also part of “Chinagate,” an illegal funding scheme by which Chinese officials funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election bid. Chung, acting on behalf of the head of China’s military intelligence agency, moved over $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee. The Chinese worked their donations illegally through American straw donors who were supporting the Clinton campaign.

Maybe Hillary Clinton is still a believer in Russiagate, not because she is paranoid, but because she was on the inside when such international collusion schemes were perfected in 1996.

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.” He is also the managing editor of the Deep Truth Journal, a new conspiracy oriented journal available at AFP. His email is [email protected]

Israel Provoking Nuclear War Between Pakistan and India?

Is Israel provoking nuclear war between Pakistan and India because of the fact that India is its main weapons-buyer? The little nation proves the effective killing power of its weaponry by using it to slaughter innocent civilians in Palestine. 

By Dave Gahary

Israel may not have much to worry about in regard to retaliation when they lob U.S.-made weaponry on innocent civilians in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza, but the dangerous game they are perilously playing in South Asia has the potential of sparking an atomic war between that region’s nuclear-armed adversaries, India and Pakistan.

As reported Feb. 28 in the UK’s Independent under the title “Israel is playing a big role in India’s escalating conflict with Pakistan,” Robert Fisk explains why it is that the little, nettlesome, bellicose state’s actions are pushing us all toward Armageddon.

At the heart of the matter is money. India, Israel’s “largest weapons market” in 2017, paid $700 million for “Israeli air defense, radar systems, and ammunition, including air-to-ground missiles—most of them tested during Israel’s military offensives against Palestinians and targets in Syria.” This information makes clearer the reason Israel slaughters humans like penned lambs: It is to test their weapons and improve their chances for a sale.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Israel, a country of 9 million (75% Jewish, 21% Arab, 4% other), is ranked No. 10 in the world’s top 10 largest arms exporters—behind the U.S., Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy, and Ukraine—no doubt helped along by the billions U.S. taxpayers are forced to fork over to the non-ally every year. This fact no doubt confounds the world’s thinking class, who are aware that the Jewish state comes in at 25 out of 174 countries ranked by median and mean wealth per adult.

With that as a backdrop, this latest imbroglio was kicked off by what’s being referred to as the 2019 India-Pakistan standoff. A Pakistan-based “terror” group conducted a suicide bombing of an Indian military convoy, slaughtering more than 40 soldiers. Two weeks later, on Feb. 26, a dozen Indian fighter jets bombed the “terrorist” camp in the Pakistan-controlled area of Kashmir, eventually leading to the downing of an Indian jet and the capture of its pilot, who has since been returned.

Tensions remain high, however, with India threatening to fire at least six missiles into Pakistan and Pakistan promising its own missile strikes “three times over.” Only via concerted efforts by D.C., Beijing, and London have the threats been ratcheted down.

Significantly, this is the first such clash in Kashmir since the last war there in 1971. Kashmir—the main cause of all major conflicts between the two countries—was hotly contested even before India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain in 1947. Kashmir was free to choose between India or Pakistan, and the local ruler’s choice of India led to a two-year war. The fact that some Indian-administered states in Kashmir are more than 60% Muslim ensures Kashmir will remain a disputed area. It has already led to the two countries going to war three times as well as experiencing several conflicts and military standoffs.

Ten Myths About Israel, Ilan Pappe
Examining the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of Israel, at the AFP Store.

Although violence in Kashmir has vacillated for 30 years, the death of a 22-year-old militant leader in 2016 sparked massive protests across the region. Following the funeral, attended by thousands, clashes with troops kicked off a week-long cycle of violence that resulted in the deaths of more than 30 civilians and many more injuries. The result has been a steady rise in violence in Kashmir, which saw over 500 civilians, security forces, and militants killed in 2018, “the highest such toll in a decade.”

To promote its war machines, Israel has been supporting India’s government in its battle against so-called Islamists, selling them the Israeli government-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd.’s SPICE (Smart, Precise Impact, Cost-Effective) 2000—used to blow the limbs off of countless unarmed Palestinian men, women, and children to enhance its marketability—which turns 2,000-pound warheads into “smart bombs” by using the Global Positioning System, most recently utilized in the tit-for-tat Indian “terrorist” bombing.

Israel also conducts joint exercises with India in the Negev Desert, imparting to their guests all the skills they acquired in Gaza and other civilian-thronged battlefronts. So cozy have they become that “a 45-strong Indian military delegation” was stationed at several Israeli air bases.

Given its long history of displaying utter disregard for human lives—from the Lavon Affair to the USS Liberty to 9/11—Israel stoking tensions in South Asia should keep us all awake at night.

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 for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

Picking Candidates via ‘Victim Points’

What is “intersectionality,” and why is so important to the brainwashed left-leaning voter?

By S.T. Patrick

Trying to decipher what makes a Democratic nominee for president viable enough has become as difficult as correctly keeping the official scorebook for a slugfest in baseball. The intraparty debate over Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has not centered on Buttigieg’s lack of political experience, being bereft of legislative accomplishments, or the near-impossibility of making a jump from the mayor’s office to the Oval Office. After all, that leap was something even “America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani couldn’t do after 9/11 catapulted him to political superstardom. Buttigieg’s challenge within his own party is a little-known yet perplexing labeling philosophy called “intersectionality.”

Intersectionality is the idea that the sum of a candidate’s “diversity factors” adds a maximum value to an ideal candidate, one a “New Democrat” can support. Therefore, a Hispanic male (one diversity factor, being Hispanic) isn’t as valuable or viable a candidate as a black female (two diversity factors, being black and female). A black, gay, disabled female would have a theoretical score of four. The Daily Caller’s Celine Ryan calls them “victim points.”

If this seems as politically manic as it does logically ridiculous, that’s because it is. Intersectionality is full of holes, even when argued vociferously by those who adhere to it most. High political positions have often been battles of the monied class, but Americans, in their collective hearts, still believe that voting should be a meritocracy. The positions should be earned by demonstrating a history of successful experiences. Intersectionality devalues a candidate’s literal experiences and instead judges a candidate by demographic factors.

National Coin Investments

Though being a mayor of a midwestern American college town such as South Bend (home to the University of Notre Dame) hardly seems the typical path to the presidency for a Democrat, Buttigieg is attractive to the Democratic Party as an openly homosexual candidate. The problem for some left-wing pundits is that he also has a high WASP-y factor. He is a white male who also openly professes a devotion to his Christian faith.

In a discussion at this year’s South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, Buttigieg admitted that he has also felt the “white male privilege.” He recalled a time when he was caught with marijuana and not arrested. The lack of arrest is something he attributes directly to his gender and his race working in harmony to produce a lack of prosecution.

Questions arise the moment the informal scoring process begins. How will the Democratic Party weigh each factor? Does a candidate’s gender weigh more or less than their race? Does a candidate’s race weigh more or less than their sexuality? Are all demographic factors equal?

In an op-ed for The Atlantic, Lucas Grindley dismissed many of Buttigieg’s personal accomplishments, such as speaking eight languages, some of which could be politically valuable. Grindley cares about one factor: “But as a gay man, I do care that Buttigieg is gay,” Grindley wrote. Grindley believes that it is demographic factors that will determine a politician’s ability to solve problems, not having some ability to work with a friendly, divided, or hostile legislature.

“These facets of their identities mean that they can understand the powerless, as victims of power, and that they can understand the alienated, having been marginalized,” Grindley wrote.

Coddling of the American Mind
New at AFP’s Online Store.

Therefore, for Grindley, Buttigieg’s sexuality is as important or more important than Sen. Cory Booker’s race, the gender of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the confused heritage of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, or the religion of Rep. Ilhan Omar, if she were to ever seek higher office. Why? Because that’s what he personally values and because it’s the factor with which he most identifies. It’s a mindset not uncommon among millennials. “Right,” “good,” and “valuable” are determined by whatever they choose to be or believe, not by what may benefit a majority of the Americans most. The most rabid defenders of intersectionality within the Democratic Party do poll younger.

If it seems like Buttigieg’s views on public policy have not had a proper airing, they haven’t, and they may not get one. Even when debate season begins, expect the Democratic candidates to focus largely on their own niche (their intersectional “wins”). If this is the case, the door is wide open for Republican candidates to win a battle of ideas. That battle will be the high road, whereas the low road, being dragged into a fight over cultural norms, will only allow Democrats to reinforce tired stereotypes about “out-of-touch” Republicans.

Republicans should let Democrats argue over which candidate is a better recycler, or which candidate is nicer to geese, or whether a candidate empathizes enough with a self-professed victim of human nature. Intersectionality will survive because its fringe supporters care about or know little else. But with an aging American tax base watching those same debates, expect intersectional “winners” to also be exposed as corporate, pro-war Democratic emperors in new clothes.

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]

Yes, There Is a Crisis at the Southern Border

American Free Press Issue 19 & 20 extensively covered the situation at America’s southern border with three articles. Together, they make clear that there is, indeed, a crisis at the border. 

Retired Texas Cop Gives AFP Firsthand Tour of the Border

By Mark Anderson

BROWNSVILLE, Texas—A retired Texas policeman recently took AMERICAN FREE PRESS on a guided tour of a key border crossing where, every day, he sees firsthand America’s border dilemma—something he has witnessed unfolding for decades.

“The border is actually a two-way street,” Rusty Monsees told AFP during an April 24 visit to his 21-acre homestead. “The criminal elements enter the U.S. to do their stuff but return to Mexico when the heat gets too hot and go back and forth several times as needed. And when the law gets too close down there, they come back to the United States. A Border Patrol agent once caught a guy with six different IDs. This is not a football game where everybody shakes hands at the end; this is dangerous stuff.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The former San Benito, Texas cop pointed out that some of his acreage is actually south of the approximately 20-year-old border fence that runs past his house, which, oddly enough, is a good 100 yards north of the actual U.S.-Mexico boundary—the winding, murky Rio Grande River. He then started his Ford F-150 truck and led this writer through a gap in the border fence down to the river in order to show up-close what he and the Border Patrol he assists deal with on a regular basis. He keeps a rifle handy for self-defense at all times.

Asked about border differences since Donald Trump became president, Monsees said there are Mexican citizens who want a safer country and improved border security. Their attitude in the age of Trump has changed. They seem to have more resolve, especially in not wanting their own criminal elements crossing the border and “vacationing in the States,” as Monsees put it, so those elements can reorganize and head back to Mexico to continue their illicit activities.

What needs to happen, said Monsees, is a two-fence solution.

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

“So, let me get this straight. If I’m a cartel member or MS-13 gang member, I should first be encountering a fence before I even get to the Rio Grande River, a fence on the Mexican side?” this writer asked Monsees.

“Yes, that’s right,” he said, pointing to the river that is lined with a dense thicket of trees, especially on the Mexican side. This, he added, provides endless places for border-jumpers to hide.

Monsees contends that both the U.S. and Mexico should have an interest in border security. As a result, a truly effective fencing scheme would include non-rustable, sturdy, tall metal fencing laced with concertina wire and built on both sides of the river in key areas—with less reliance on the existing gap-ridden “tactical infrastructure” fencing, as the U.S. government calls it, which is rusting and too often can be climbed or otherwise circumvented by the more determined among the illegal aliens.

Monsees pointed out another thing often overlooked, which is a border breach of a different sort. Mercury, lead, diazinon, and trace uranium get into the Rio Grande River via the discharges from the maquiladoras, the large factories with reportedly bad working conditions and poor wages built under the soon-to-be-replaced North American Free Trade Agreement.


This writer then visited Matamoros, just across the border in Mexico from Brownsville, where there was a small “tent community” that included three Cubans who hope to enter the United States.

A young man named Pablo, accompanied by a pregnant woman about 20 years old and another young man, said they were hoping she can give birth in the U.S., evidently for welfare assistance.

He claimed they were flown in a plane from Cuba to Brazil. Between October and now, they said they reached the Texas border mainly by bus.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. Email him at [email protected].

Border Patrol Chief Recounts the Immigration Turmoil, Real Crisis

By Mark Anderson

McALLEN, Texas—Acting Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector Border Patrol Chief Hector Escamilla, speaking at the McAllen Citizens League’s luncheon April 25, outlined the daunting task carried out by the Border Patrol to reduce the overall flow of illegal immigrants and focus on the criminal element that steadily enters the U.S. While his assessment of the border crisis and some recommended solutions corroborated important matters American Free Press has reported on, Escamilla added some clarifying points to illustrate the complexity and severity of the crisis.

A 30-year Border Patrol veteran, Escamilla explained that the Border Patrol, which has 3,100 agents in the four-county RGV sector, needs to press for specific policy changes that will increase deportations and result in a “package deal” where the “wall,” helpful though it may be, is one of several coordinated measures needing to be implemented.

Kingdom Identity

Having 3,100 agents may sound impressive and adequate, but by the time sick leave, vacations, and administrative-desk duties are covered, only half of those 3,100 officers end up being “boots on the ground” at any given time—for a border sector covering “316 river miles, from the mouth of the Rio Grande all the way to the Falcon Dam; that’s a pretty daunting task,” Escamilla said.

He clarified: “A lot of the area we cover is dense brush . . . the lateral mobility is very difficult because a lot of the land that we patrol is owned by personal landowners . . . we can’t just traverse continuously along the river.” In addition, government and private wildlife refuges along the border, heavily regulated in a manner that prevents border agents from “mowing the place down” to find hidden illegal immigrants, further complicate the issue.

What’s more, Border Patrol must help guard the coastal counties. “We’re actually responsible for the entire [Gulf] shoreline, all the way to the Louisiana border,” said Escamilla. “So we do have agents in different places along the coastline.”

He added that, in the RGV sector alone, 165,000 illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the border since the start of the fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2018). During the same period there has been a 150% increase of “OTMs” (other than Mexicans) illegally entering the U.S.

He explained, “The majority of the OTMs are from the Central American countries of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras.”

Pressing Escamilla to confirm that people from more than 40 nations, including overseas, are illegally entering the U.S, this writer interjected, “We hear about Asia, the Middle East and even Europe.”

Subscribe to AFPHis response: “Yes, we’ve got Middle Eastern folks here. We’ve got Iraqis, Iranians, a lot of Chinese— Chinese are more common than people might think . . . Pakistanis and Cubans, we’re catching Cubans. These people bring in lots of money for the cartels—$15,000 to $20,000 per person. We estimate that the cartels are making as much or more money from human trafficking than they do from the actual smuggling of narcotics.”

Asked by another audience member to explain the asylum situation, Escamilla said: “The majority of those who come here, they come from economic-hardship countries. That’s usually what they tell us as the reason they’re fleeing. . . . There is in most of those Central American countries a lot of poverty, a lot of gangs, violence, including MS-13 and so on. But . . . the reasons for asylum should be specific to the individual. Did the cartels, did the gangs in their country of origin specifically target them for political reasons, and not so much because there’s an economic crisis in the country?”

Stressing a recommended procedural change, Escamilla remarked: “We’d like to see asylum officers actually accessible at the Border Patrol stations. In fact, there’s talk of Border Patrol agents themselves having the authority to listen to asylum claims, so we can expedite the process. But, of course, that’s being met with a lot of resistance. It’s going to be met with a lot of lawsuits.”

Asked by this writer whether the Border Patrol needs another 4,000 agents in addition to the 3,100 in the RGV sector, Escamilla replied that hiring significantly more agents and obtaining the authority to assign more personnel to screen asylum requests are two steps toward developing a solution—along with hiring more immigration judges.

“We really do need a lot of different factors and one of them is policy,” he said. “Until we start returning some of these migrant families and children back to their country of origin quickly . . . to make it more difficult for them to make a second or third trip . . . then, I don’t care how many agents you give us, it’s not going to do us any good. There’s got to be a change in policy. We’ve got to communicate with the heads of these countries and ask, why can’t you take your people back quicker?”

Both Sides of the Border Need to Be Safeguarded

By John Friend

The crisis along the southern border between the United States and Mexico continues to spiral out of control as thousands of migrants attempt to illegally enter the United States on a daily basis, many with entirely fraudulent claims and documentation.

According to a recent report published by The Epoch Times, U.S. Border Patrol officials have identified over 3,000 cases in the past six months alone that involve fraudulent family unit claims made by migrants seeking asylum or permanent resettlement in America, demonstrating the increasingly difficult situation immigration officials find themselves in when screening migrants and asylum seekers.

“It’s very clear that the cartel and smugglers know the weaknesses in our laws,” acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, said in an April 18 press conference while he was visiting the border near McAllen, Texas. “They know that family units and unaccompanied children will be released with no consequences for their illegal entries.”

McAleenan took over the department following the April 7 resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen, who was often criticized by President Trump.

Migrants seeking entry to the U.S. are often screened, processed, and then released into the country, especially if they have children traveling with them. By law, family units must be released upon entry rather than being turned away or detained, allowing illegal aliens, human traffickers, and cartels to exploit U.S. immigration laws.

Free Expression Foundation

“The same child is brought across the border with an adult multiple times to try and gain that release that family units are required under court order,” McAleenan stated.

According to McAleenan, 4,800 migrants attempted to illegally cross the U.S. border on April 16 alone, underscoring the seriousness of the situation. The 4,800 marked “a new record for the modern era,” he added. “Almost 1,000 of them crossed in just three large groups, 375 people in the largest of those groups.”

Last month, Border Patrol agents encountered 103,000 individuals along the southwest border, with 92,000 of those individuals being apprehended by agents, marking a 35% increase of apprehensions from the previous month. In the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas, Border Patrol agents have already surpassed the total number of apprehensions during the 2018 fiscal year.

“Last fiscal year, Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector apprehended 162,000 individuals,” Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Marcelino Medina told reporters in late April. “For the first seven months of this fiscal year, we’ve already surpassed that number.” In the RGV region alone, agents are averaging 1,100 apprehensions every single day.

Sydney Hernandez, a local news reporter for KGBT in the RGV region, interviewed a number of migrants seeking entry to the U.S. recently. Many stated that they are being told in their home countries that they will receive help and assistance from the U.S. government if they enter illegally.

New DVD at AFP Online Store: “An Artificial Reality”

“Immigrants tell me they’re coming to the U.S. because they’re seeing advertisements on their local newspapers and TV stations, about better opportunities and free help from Americans if they enter illegally,” Hernandez reported.

Illegal aliens are not supposed to receive government benefits, but many do. According to a 2017 study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigrants consume over $100 billion in taxpayer money every year. With countless migrants now entering the U.S. daily, that amount will only increase.

“We’re talking about billions of dollars in taxpayer benefits over the next few years,” FAIR Director Dan Stein explained to Fox News recently. “The payout for the taxpayer is enormous, and income to the Treasury is miniscule.”

Overall, illegal immigrants receive more government benefits than they contribute via taxes. Many receive free public schooling, medical care, housing assistance, food stamps, and other social services.


In related news, two U.S. soldiers who were conducting surveillance along the border, south of the border fence but north of the Rio Grande River, were confronted by Mexican soldiers armed with assault rifles.

“On April 13, 2019, at approximately 2 p.m. CDT, five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S. Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations in an unmarked (Customs and Border Protection) vehicle near the southwest border in the vicinity of Clint, Texas,” U.S. Northern Command (USNorthCom) explained in a statement to CNN. “The U.S. soldiers were appropriately in U.S. territory.”

During the incident, the Mexican troops pointed their weapons at the soldiers and disarmed one of them, returning the sidearm to the vehicle. According to USNorthCom, an inquiry determined the Mexican troops believed the U.S. soldiers were on the Mexican side of the border. Thus far, President Donald Trump has not commented on this potentially explosive situation.


Meanwhile, the FBI has arrested a leader of a militia group in New Mexico whose organization was attempting to stop illegal immigrants from entering the U.S., it was recently reported.

One World Agenda DVD
“A One World Agenda: The Illuminati – The Men Who Control the World” from AFP Online Store

Larry Hopkins, 69, was arrested on April 26 on a federal complaint charging him with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Hopkins’s group, the United Constitutional Patriots (UCP), has reportedly detained close to 5,600 illegal aliens in recent months in an effort to help Border Patrol agents and immigration officials deal with the increasingly lawless southern border. Hopkins and his group have been denounced and criticized by the governor of New Mexico and other left-wing, open-borders activist groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Members of the UCP are convinced Hopkins will be cleared and are proud of their righteous cause.

“We’re not worried about it,” stated Jim Benvie, a spokesperson for the group. “He’s going to be cleared.”

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Trump’s Yemen Blunder

President Trump’s recent veto of a congressional measure intended to pull the U.S. out of Yemen confirms the president’s seemingly unchecked power to wage war without congressional approval. Yet Congress cannot amass the the two-thirds majority votes required to overturn the presidential veto thanks to Israeli and Saudi influence via campaign contributions. In addition, French, American, and British arms companies have benefited tremendously from supplying the Saudis and their partners with an unlimited supply of weapons.

By Richard Walker

President Donald Trump’s decision to veto a congressional measure designed to pull America out of the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has killed tens of thousands of women and children, is a striking example of the unchecked war powers Congress has given presidents since the early 1970s.

In a rare bi-partisan effort to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war, Congress sent the president the resolution, expecting he would reject it, which he did. He justified his decision by claiming it threatened to weaken his constitutional authority. He thereby ended the matter because Congress lacked the two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to override his veto.

The reason there is not a bigger congressional majority to confront the Yemen issue—and with it the president’s seemingly unchecked power to wage war without congressional approval—is that there are many members of Congress on both sides who are influenced by Israel’s support for the Saudis, and just as many who are beholden to Saudi political donations. No country spends more money on lobbying in Washington and on Capitol Hill than Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner in the war, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Kingdom Identity

Also in play is the Trump family business connection to the Saudis, who have spent heavily in buying Trump properties over decades, and the close personal relationship between the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner and the young, impetuous Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS. Kushner, MBS, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu share a similar view of Middle East politics. They see the war in Yemen as a way of dragging Iran into a wider conflict since it supports the Houthis of Yemen.

It is worth noting that when the war began in 2015, there were 10 Arab nations involved, including Egypt and Jordan, but as of today that figure has been reduced to four—the Saudis, UAE, Sudan, and Bahrain. The reason for nations peeling off was international outrage and the unchecked slaughter of Yemeni civilians. In just a few years, there have been 24,000 airstrikes and, aside from the massive death toll from those, tens of thousands have died from disease and starvation, the majority of them children and the elderly.

The war has been made possible by the Saudi and UAE use of weapons provided by the U.S., France, and Britain. Democrats critical of Trump’s support for the war ignore the fact that his predecessor, Barack Obama, supplied the Saudis and the UAE with more weapons than his predecessor, George W. Bush.

In Kings and Presidents, a book on the history of U.S.-Saudi relations, former CIA officer Bruce Riedel writes that “no president since Franklin Roosevelt courted Saudi Arabia as zealously as did Obama.” Not only did Obama authorize more arms sales than any other U.S. president, he visited Saudi Arabia more frequently than any of his predecessors.”

QAnon: Great Awakening
Great Awakening or Great Fraud? You decide.

Trump’s veto override of Congress’s resolution coincided with the public leaking of French intelligence documents that exposed how the Saudis could not manage the war without French, U.S., and British weapons, as well as the constant supply of spare parts.

The leaked papers highlighted the lies French leaders had been telling their own people about the war. President Emmanuel Macron had insisted that French weapons were being used by the Saudis and their allies for purely defensive purposes. It was an outright lie. French weapons were used in the slaughter of civilians. For example, the powerful French CAESAR howitzer capable of launching shells deep into Yemen had been within range of 430,000 civilians. It was revealed that the Saudis had placed an order for another 126 CAESARs to be delivered before 2023.

The leaked intel also confirmed that French arms companies had provided the Saudis and the UAE with their most powerful tanks, helicopters, and missiles.

The French government was so embarrassed by the report that it immediately ordered an investigation to find the person who leaked it to a French journalism site.

Amnesty International was one of many organizations that responded to the leak by calling on France and other Western nations to be more transparent and to halt sales of arms that were being used in war crimes.

The French have not been alone in supplying some of the most advanced deadly weapons that have caused untold civilian casualties in Yemen. The leaked papers also pointed out that most of the planes flying over Yemen were NATO types such as F-15s, EU Tornado fighters, and British Typhoons. The majority of helicopters were Apache and Black Hawks, and many Saudi battle tanks were American Abrams.

As AFP has pointed out in previous articles about this war, the deadliest munitions used by the Saudis were acquired from U.S. companies and the Pentagon.

An incontrovertible fact is that French, American, and British arms companies have benefited tremendously from supplying the Saudis and their partners with an unlimited supply of weapons that have been used to slaughter innocent women and children.

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

Who Wants This War With Iran?

While the neocons are loudly banging the drums of war on Iran, Pat Buchanan points out: “The ayatollah’s analysis—a war is in neither nation’s interest—is correct. Consider the consequences of a war with the United States for his own country.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Speaking on state TV of the prospect of a war in the Gulf, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to dismiss the idea.

“There won’t be any war. … We don’t seek a war, and (the Americans) don’t either. They know it’s not in their interests.”

The ayatollah’s analysis—a war is in neither nation’s interest—is correct. Consider the consequences of a war with the United States for his own country.

Iran’s hundreds of swift boats and handful of submarines would be sunk. Its ports would be mined or blockaded. Oil exports and oil revenue would halt. Air fields and missile bases would be bombed. The Iranian economy would crash. Iran would need years to recover.

And though Iran’s nuclear sites are under constant observation and regular inspection, they would be destroyed.

Tehran knows this, which is why, despite 40 years of hostility, Iran has never sought war with the “Great Satan” and does not want this war to which we seem to be edging closer every day.

Kingdom Identity

What would such a war mean for the United States?

It would not bring about “regime change” or bring down Iran’s government that survived eight years of ground war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

If we wish to impose a regime more to our liking in Tehran, we will have to do it the way we did it with Germany and Japan after 1945, or with Iraq in 2003. We would have to invade and occupy Iran.

But in World War II, we had 12 million men under arms. And unlike Iraq in 2003, which is one-third the size and population of Iran, we do not have the hundreds of thousands of troops to call up and send to the Gulf.

Nor would Americans support such an invasion, as President Donald Trump knows from his 2016 campaign. Outside a few precincts, America has no enthusiasm for a new Mideast war, no stomach for any occupation of Iran.

Moreover, war with Iran would involve firefights in the Gulf that would cause at least a temporary shutdown in oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — and a worldwide recession.

How would that help the world? Or Trump in 2020?

How many allies would we have in such a war?

Spain has pulled its lone frigate out of John Bolton’s flotilla headed for the Gulf. Britain, France and Germany are staying with the nuclear pact, continuing to trade with Iran, throwing ice water on our intelligence reports that Iran is preparing to attack us.

Turkey regards Iran as a cultural and economic partner. Russia was a de facto ally in Syria’s civil war. China continues to buy Iranian oil. India just hosted Iran’s foreign minister.

The CIA in IranSo, again, Cicero’s question: “Cui bono?”

Who really wants this war? How did we reach this precipice?

A year ago, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a MacArthurian ultimatum, making 12 demands on the Tehran regime.

Iran must abandon all its allies in the Middle East — Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza — pull all forces under Iranian command out of Syria, and then disarm all its Shiite militia in Iraq.

Iran must halt all enrichment of uranium, swear never to produce plutonium, shut down its heavy water reactor, open up its military bases to inspection to prove it never had a secret nuclear program and stop testing missiles. And unless she submits, Iran will be strangled with sanctions.

Pompeo’s speech at the Heritage Foundation read like the terms of some conquering Caesar dictating to some defeated tribe in Gaul, though we had yet to fight and win the war, usually a precondition for dictating terms.

Iran’s response was to disregard Pompeo’s demands.

And crushing U.S. sanctions were imposed, to brutal effect.

Yet, as one looks again at the places where Pompeo ordered Iran out—Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, Syria, Iraq—no vital interest of ours was imperiled by any Iranian presence.

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

The people who have a problem with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon are the Israelis whose occupations spawned those movements.

As for Yemen, the Houthis overthrew a Saudi puppet.

Syria’s Bashar Assad never threatened us, though we armed rebels to overthrow him. In Iraq, Iranian-backed Shiite militia helped us to defend Baghdad from the southerly advance of ISIS, which had taken Mosul.

Who wants us to plunge back into the Middle East, to fight a new and wider war than the ones we fought already this century in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen?

Answer: Pompeo and Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and the Sunni kings, princes, emirs, sultans, and the other assorted Jeffersonian democrats on the south shore of the Persian Gulf.

And lest we forget, the never-Trumpers and neocons in exile nursing their bruised egos, whose idea of sweet revenge is a U.S. return to the Mideast in a war with Iran, which then brings an end to the Trump presidency.

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.


FOIA Request Results in Release of ‘Dancing Israeli’ Photographs

Photos are still the best evidence available that the Israeli Mossad was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.

By Dave Gahary

Although the fake news media has all but erased Israel’s involvement in the 9/11 false-flag terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, a recent successful Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and eventual release of photographs of the so-called “Dancing Israelis”—who were caught celebrating while the Twin Towers burned—has reignited the discussion of the Zionist state’s central role in that event, which dramatically altered all Americans’ lives.

AFP Podcast

Not that the mainstream media will pick up this story and run with it. Many readers of this newspaper will remember Fox News’s four-part series that aired a few months after 9/11, in which Carl Cameron reported that “some 60 Israeli nationals had been detained in the antiterrorism/ immigrant sweeps in the weeks after Sept. 11, and at least 140 Israelis identified as ‘art students’ had been detained or arrested in the prior months.” Cameron “reported that federal agents were investigating the ‘art student’ phenomenon as a possible arm of Israeli espionage operations tracking al-Qaeda operatives in the United States,” where the Israelis “may have known about the preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks but failed to share this knowledge with U.S. intelligence.” Rather than expanding its investigation of Israeli involvement in 9/11, Fox executives took the unprecedented step of scrubbing the entire video report from its website.

Following Fox’s report, the only major U.S. media outlet to address the “art student” revelations was The Washington Times, whose reporting quoted a senior Department of Justice official as stating, “We think there is something quite sinister here but are unable at this time to put our finger on it,” essentially giving the Israelis a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, and ending the Times’s journalistic coverage of this topic.

The only media outlet in the world to investigate Israeli involvement in 9/11—at the expense of being labeled “anti-Semitic”—was, and still is, American Free Press. From our initial reporting a few weeks after our founding on “the connection between Israeli intelligence and the terrorist attacks,” to Victor Thorn’s groundbreaking books 911 Made in Israel and 9/11 Evil: Israel’s Central Role in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, to this reporter’s exclusive interview with Sgt. Scott DeCarlo, the policeman who arrested the “Dancing Israelis,” AFP has and will continue to report on all aspects of 9/11, wherever they lead.

Japan-based Ryan Dawson, a dedicated 9/11 investigator, spoke with AFP on the significance of the FOIA release. Dawson, with an encyclopedic knowledge of Israel’s connection to 9/11 as well as the “Dancing Israelis,” has been imploring those interested in 9/11 truth to continue their long history of submitting FOIA requests, which he is unable to do because of his Asian residence.

Victor Thorn 9-11
Two-volume Offer from AFP: Victor Thorn on 9/11 and Israel.

Although it’s been thoroughly documented that the “Dancing Israelis” were “hugging and high-fiving and flicking lighters and posing for photos,” explained Dawson, this vital piece of the 9/11 puzzle remains shrouded. “Even though we have the FBI admitting it,” Dawson explained, “even though [the ‘Dancing Israelis’] were in jail for 72 days, until someone sees the picture, a lot of people don’t have the ability to understand something to be true until they see it.”

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 for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

9/11 Truth Group Meets in San Diego

This longstanding gathering of dedicated patriots continues demanding an honest investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks.

By John Friend

Few 9/11 Truth groups in the country are as active, passionate, and dedicated as the group of citizen activists comprising the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth group based in America’s finest city.

Founded in 2005, the group is dedicated to “uncovering the truth behind the wrongful deaths that took place on Sept. 11, 2001,” according to the group’s official website. “Concerned about evidence that contradicts the official account published in The 9/11 Commission Report, the group is calling for a reopening of the case and an unbiased investigation into the events of 9/11.”

This reporter has been involved with the group since the fall of 2009 after attending one of their monthly meetings, which always takes place on the second Sunday of each month. The group rents the Joyce Beers Community Center, a modest city-owned facility in Hillcrest, a neighborhood in the heart of San Diego, the second largest city in California.

National Coin Investments

A dedicated core group of activists regularly attend the monthly meetings, as well as other interested persons from across Southern California. The monthly meetings oftentimes feature a special guest speaker or presenter, who is first introduced by a member of the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth group. In recent years, the SD 9/11 Truth group has featured a number of top 9/11 researchers and activists, including Barbara Honegger, Dylan Avery, and Christopher Bollyn, among many others.

9/11 Truth documentaries are also often screened at monthly meetings, and an open discussion or question and answer session follows, which is always lively. Members of the SD 9/11 Truth group are extremely knowledgeable about the events of 9/11, as well as other political and historical topics, making the open discussion period a fast-moving and informative experience.

Franklin Stiles, a key organizer and activist for the SD 9/11 Truth group and a subscriber to this newspaper, spoke with this reporter about the importance of 9/11 Truth and the work the local group does.

“There are many reasons 9/11 is still important and relevant, even now after almost 20 years,” Stiles explained. “This manufactured, uninvestigated, unsolved, heinous crime serves as the pretext and the catalyst for the global war on terror and the control of humanity. We’ve lost civil rights, our privacy, and many other rights, plus we have these unending wars overseas, all based on lies.”

Brainwashed for War, Chang
FROM AFP Publishing: Mathias Chang on the Zionist Global War Agenda

Stiles, like other SD 9/11 Truth activists, has dedicated significant time to researching 9/11 and related topics, as well as engaging in activism and outreach in the community in an attempt to bring the truth to more people.

“The most tragic aspect, as I see it, is a great many people don’t realize that 9/11 represents a genuine existential threat to their and our lives, our society, our country,” Stiles continued. “And now with a greater understanding of the event it becomes apparent that this engineered attack is part of a Jewish, Zionist agenda intended to lead to total global control, loss of national sovereignty, and ultimately the enslavement of humanity. It doesn’t take a lot of research to reach these disturbing and dramatic conclusions.”

Rob Baldwin, another long-time member and activist with the SD 9/11 Truth group who also subscribes to this paper, described the purpose of the 9/11 attack, which he views as instrumental in the advancement of the New World Order agenda.

“The 9/11 event was a major kickoff in regard to moving the New World Order agenda to another level of completion,” Baldwin told this reporter. “As such, we need to watch all that follows. We got to see how important the role of the media was in controlling the fallout from the 9/11 event and stuffing the false-flag exposure before the truth was able to gain traction. We have been fighting an uphill battle ever since.”

In addition to organizing monthly public meetings, the group also engages in activism and public outreach on a regular basis. The SD 9/11 Truth group has had a presence at the annual Earth Day Festival in Balboa Park for years, after having successfully booked a spot at the festival, allowing them to set up a booth with information about 9/11. The group also attends other public events, such as the Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade, and regularly conducts outreach efforts near the USS Midway, a major tourist attraction in the heart of downtown San Diego.

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

“We in the SD 9/11 Truth group feel that since this event was a major push to install the next level of the New World Order, we are a critical component in the defense of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,” Baldwin noted. “We are committed to continue our efforts in exposing the crimes of our government and associated NWO players. If not us, who else is going to raise awareness of these issues?”

Engaging in public outreach about 9/11 can be a difficult task, given the controversial and emotional nature of the information. Mike Chickey and his wife, Ann, both regular 9/11 Truth activists, try to be as non-confrontational and respectful as possible when interacting with the public.

“My style of public outreach is to try and remain non-confrontational, plant some seeds, so to speak, and let them do their own research,” Mike explained to this reporter. “I never want to pressure them or insult them for not knowing this material.”

Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett
9/11 Truth on sale now at the AFP Online Store.

Ann is equally as cautious when inter acting with the public and recognizes the importance and gravity of 9/11 Truth.

“It is imperative that people understand what really happened in order to lift this veil of deception that so many of us live under,” she noted. “So many of the folks we interact with have some inherent understanding that something about the official story is not right, but they haven’t looked into it. These are the folks who stop by to check out the boards but end up walking away, shaking their heads in disbelief saying it is too much to absorb. Deception causes inner conflict, it rots the soul, and that is what has happened to the soul of our nation. It is frightening to confront the truth, but once you do, it is the most liberating thing on the planet.”

Despite the challenges, the SD 9/11 Truth group presses on, with yet another monthly meeting scheduled for June and other plans for activism and public outreach in the near future.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.