ADL Trying to Criminalize Free Speech & Thought

Freedom of speech is in a sad state these days. You can only exercise your First Amendment rights in certain restricted areas, and, if you hold conservative viewpoints, those areas are growing even smaller.

By Phillip Giraldi

Recent debates about “safe spaces” at universities and declarations of states of emergency to prevent alleged white supremacists from speaking are part of a much broader movement to manage the information that the American public should be allowed to access. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were guilty of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros-funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be “useful idiots” for Moscow, and Twitter announced that it is no longer taking ads paid for by two Russian media outlets, RT International and Sputnik.

Apparently, the exposure of dissident sites, the outing of dissident individuals, including myself, and the banning of a small number of ads will preserve American democracy and allow the truth tellers at The New York Times and MSNBC to inform us regarding what we need to know and not one iota more lest we draw some false conclusions.

If the road to hell really is paved with good intentions, it just might be that the wave of censorship that is currently engulfing the Internet really is intended to make people feel good about themselves so they will behave decently when they interact with other users. But if one is interested in the free flow of information and viewpoints that comes with the alternative media, it certainly does not look that way. U.S. investigative journalist Robert Parry describes it as a deliberate process of “demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.”

One of the organizations most interested in limiting conversations about what is going on in the world is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL claims that it is “the world’s leading organization combating anti-Semitism and hate of all kinds,” though it clearly excludes incitement or even physical harm directed against Palestinian Arabs resentful of the Israeli occupation of their country. Its definition of “hatred” is really quite selective and is focused on anyone criticizing Israel or Jewish-related issues. Its goal is to have any such speech or writing categorized as anti-Semitism and, eventually, to have “hate crime” legislation that criminalizes such expressions. As most criticism of Israel or of Jews is currently limited to the alternative media, and that media lives on the Internet, the ADL and those who are like-minded now are focusing on “cyberhate” as the problem and are working with major Internet providers to voluntarily censor their product.

The ADL is quite adept at telling other people how to think. Back in 1999, the complaints of one Jewish officer who did not like how he was treated at CIA led to mandatory “Jewish sensitivity” training courses produced and presented by the ADL. Then Agency Director George Tenet, who mandated the training, explained, “With the help of ADL trainers we educated an entire bureaucracy and taught people about how their words could be misinterpreted in a manner that was detrimental to the interests of the country.” I was fortunately already out the door at that time and was not subjected to such nonsense, which would have led me to resign.

On Oct. 10, the ADL issued a press release out of its New York City offices to explain just how far that process has gone. The organization boasts of the fact that it is now working with Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter “to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate.” Apple is not identified by name in the press release but one should presume that it is also involved, as well as YouTube, which is owned by Google. When you consider that the associates in this venture with the ADL are vast corporations that control huge slices of the communications industry, the consequences of some kind of corporate decision on what constitutes “hate” become clear. Combatting “cyberhate” will become across-the-board censorship for viewpoints that are considered to be unacceptable.

The ADL will be the “convener” for the group, providing “insight on how hate and extremist content manifests—and constantly evolves—online.”

This means it will define the problem, which it calls the “spew[ing] of hateful ideologies,” so the corporate world can take steps to block such material.

And “the initiative will be managed by the ADL’s Center for Technology and Society in Silicon Valley.”

The ADL boasts of a “long track record of fighting bigotry and defending free expression,” apparently failing to understand the contradiction, as free speech includes the right of individuals and groups to be bigoted. The ADL has, for example, opposed activities by Palestinian groups on campus because some Jewish students find them “offensive.”

And the ADL also chooses to avoid addressing the issue of Israel, which already has considerable internal censorship and is behind recent moves to manage the Internet globally. In January 2016, the Israeli government proposed across the board censorship of the most prominent social media platforms on a global scale by creating an “international coalition that would make limiting criticism of Israel its primary objective.”

A “loose coalition . . . would keep an eye on content and where it is being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content . . . in any of their countries at the request of members.” Collusion to operate collectively across borders would effectively limit the global nature of Internet platforms, but it also relies on the full cooperation of the corporate communications industry, which is what the ADL is attempting to obtain.

Facebook already employs thousands of censors and there is literally no limit to how far those who want to restrict material that they consider offensive will go. To be sure, most groups who want to limit the flow of information do not have the clout or resources of the ADL with its $64 million annual operating budget so its “cyberhate” campaign will no doubt serve as a model that others will then follow. For the ADL, reducing criticism of Israel is a much-sought-after goal. For the rest of us, it is a trip into darkness.

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.




Phil Giraldi Speaks Candidly With AFP

Former Army intelligence and CIA agent Philip Giraldi confirmed recently there is indeed a limit to free speech in America—even amongst “conservatives.” When it comes to criticizing neoconservatives’ Israel-first policy, repercussions are swift.

By Dave Gahary

George Orwell once said, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

That ominous warning was clearly on display last month when Philip Giraldi—one of the heavyweights who has been able to cross the line between the alternative media and the established media—was banned from writing for The American Conservative magazine, where he had been a contributor since its inception, because they didn’t like an article he wrote—not for them, but for another publication.

AFP Podcast

Giraldi, born in New Jersey and educated at the University of Chicago and the University of London, served in U.S. Army intelligence during the Vietnam War and was a CIA operations officer, i.e., agent, for 17 years. Since his time with “the Agency,” Giraldi has been writing for several websites and magazines about national security issues and most particularly about the war on terror.

He has also been the executive director for the past seven years of the 30-year-old Council for the National Interest (CNI), founded by former U.S. diplomats “outraged by the U.S. policy in the Middle East, which was favoring Israel very heavily and damaging our other interests in the region,” explained Giraldi in an exclusive interview with American Free Press.

CNI’s objective is to change “U.S. policy to make it more aligned with U.S. interests and less with Israeli interests,” he added.

The hullaballoo over some words started Sept. 19 when Giraldi penned a 1,483-word piece entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars: Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?” The story may have been relegated to appealing to the choir, if not for a chance event.

 

Giraldi explained what happened.

“Valerie Plame is a former CIA officer like myself,” he began. “She’s best known for involvement with her husband, Joe Wilson, who was in Niger to see if Iraq was buying uranium. This was before the war against Iraq. [Wilson] came back and said, ‘No way, this had never happened.’ And when he did that he was punished, but his wife was punished worse. She was a serving CIA officer, undercover, and Scooter Libby, who was an advisor to Vice President Cheney—and an ardent Zionist, I might add—was so angered by this that he leaked her name and identity to the media, The Washington Post, which picked up on it.”

He continued: “She has been punished again, because she made the mistake of seeing my article online and reading it and then making a comment that it was interesting material. She got jumped on by all and sundry of the Jewish oligarchy in the media and she apologized repeatedly, but they didn’t let up on her for a whole week. I suspect that the fact that she got into the story, and the story then made national news, was what made the story have the kind of currency that it got. I think if she had not been involved, my story would’ve been like other articles that I’ve written where people will say, ‘He’s just another crackpot; he’s an anti-Israeli crackpot.’ ”

Ms. Plame sent the article out to her followers on the social media platform Twitter, and “the Jewish oligarchy in the media” used the “anti-Semitic trick” to get her to grovel and genuflect.

The upside of Ms. Plame’s tweet was the exposure Giraldi’s article received, as well as a follow-up piece he wrote on Oct. 3, entitled “How I Got Fired: Exposing Jewish power in America has real consequences.”

“The original article’s been viewed about 150,000 times,” Giraldi said, “and the comments [responding to the online article] are up to about 1,500. The second article has had about 60,000 views and I think it just broke 1,000 in terms of comments. And some of my older articles also found a new readership as a result and are approaching 50,000 views. So it certainly had a dramatic impact in terms of getting the message out.”

Considering all the exposure his articles had received, AFP asked if the mainstream media reached out to him for comment, as they were relentlessly skewering him.

“The short answer is, ‘No,’ ” he said. “No established mainstream-type outlets have gotten in touch with me, even though the story has been all over the place. It was in The Washington Post, it was in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times; it was everywhere. It was on MSNBC, CNN. But nobody has gotten in touch with me to talk about this. However, from the alternative media, I’ve been run off my feet, in terms of doing interviews, in terms of talking about what this all means.”

Giraldi continued: “Unfortunately, we are seeing the classic exploitation of the heavy Jewish presence over-representation in the media and entertainment industries, to make sure these kinds of stories don’t get out. How long they’re going to be able to do that, I don’t know. I’ve long felt that what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians and also to all of their neighbors is totally indefensible. So how long do you keep this fiction going? I don’t know. I don’t have an answer to that.”

IRS Loses Cases

 

Giraldi explained to this newspaper what he wrote about and why it caused a stir.

“The article was about what I was describing as Jewish power, the ability of Jewish groups and individuals to distort our foreign policy in the Middle East to benefit Israel and to the damage of the United States,” he said. “And I think what set these people off was the fact that I didn’t use a euphemism about who these people were: I said that they were Jewish. And very often you’ll see people writing about Middle East policies and they’ll use expressions like ‘the Israel lobby’ or ‘Zionist’ or ‘neoconservatives.’ But [they are] fudging the basic issue. The basic issue is that this is Jewish money, this is Jewish people with access to the political class and with lots of money, and creating these foundations and organizations that only exist to benefit the Jewish state.”

Giraldi was emphatic that he was not talking about all Jews. He said he was only referring to a select few.

“Not all Jews by any means,” he said, “but I was indicting these people by name. I mentioned who they were and what the organizations were. These organizations are, as far as I’m concerned, committing treason.”

The article made a few recommendations as well, in order to return this once-great nation to the people it was created to serve.

“Actually, I made two proposals,” he explained. “I said, ‘Look, if you’ve got a guy like Bill Kristol—a leading neoconservative and great lover of Israel—on television, and he’s talking about the Middle East and Middle East policy, it might be nice to have a label underneath to tell people who are listening that don’t know about him, that this is a guy who’s partisan.’ And it was kind of a lighthearted comment, because I knew this was never going to happen, but I immediately got jumped on by the usual crowd—like Alan Dershowitz—for this ‘outrageous, anti-Semitic slur.’

“And the other proposal I made was that for Jewish officials in the government who are involved with policymaking, I said, ‘Well, look, if you’re Jewish and you have strong feelings about Israel, when the issue of what the policy should be in Syria or in Iran or indeed in Israel, you should recuse yourself, just like a judge would do in a trial in which he had a personal interest.’ It seemed to make extremely good sense to me to suggest that, and, of course, I got bombed for that one, too.”

Shortly after the article appeared online, Giraldi got a call. “I received a call from the editor [at The American Conservative] about two days after it came out,” Giraldi explained, “telling me that it was completely unacceptable by their standards, and as a result they were terminating their relationship with me.”

AFP asked if his firing sets a dangerous precedent.

“Yeah, we’re in danger,” he said, “because I think the example of what happened to me will keep anyone else from crossing that line and using what I refer to as the ‘J’ word. And I think a lot of people have already figured that out.”

One of the founders of The American Conservative was Pat Buchanan, and his 2003 article, “Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest,” about Jewish political power, set the stage for the anti-war magazine.

“That’s the irony about this whole thing,” Giraldi said. “Pat Buchanan became famous—or infamous, depending on how you want to look at it—when he wrote [that] article denouncing the war in Iraq. And he basically said the same thing that I did. And so here we have the irony of the guy who founded the magazine 15 years ago, and here I’m continuing this tradition of asking the same questions he was asking, and I get fired for it.”

AFP asked what he felt has transpired between the time Buchanan wrote his article and now.

“I think what has happened is that everybody in the publishing industry, which has changed dramatically in the past 15, 20 years, is scrambling for the same dollars, looking for money to survive,” he said. “I suspect what’s happened with The American Conservative, like many other publications, is that they have to basically triangulate where their money is coming from and they move toward what they think is the center. And that means that views that are even quite legitimate—which I feel my viewpoint was—are considered to be too dangerous and too risky. In this case it was too dangerous and too risky even to have me around.”

One of the bright spots of this rather sad affair is the support Giraldi has received.

“I’ve had a lot of calls from friends and people whom actually I didn’t even know,” Giraldi explained, “telling me that, ‘Look, it’s about time that we change the way we think and talk about this issue because there clearly is a superbly well-organized and funded cabal out there which is doing a lot of damage to the United States, and we have to talk clearly about what this means.’ ”

Giraldi next addressed another glaring example of Jewish control over America’s political institutions most painfully illustrated through Senate Bill 720, Sen. Benjamin Cardin’s (D-Md.) Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which “would make it a felony for U.S. citizens to support boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements, punishable by at least a $250,000 fine, with a maximum penalty of a fine of $1 million and 20 years in prison.”

AFP covered this topic in the Oct. 9 & 16 issue on page 15. In the Senate, there are 49 cosponsors—36 Republican and 13 Democrat—and 261 in the House, where it was introduced by Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), from both sides of the aisle. Naturally, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has made the anti-First Amendment measure’s passage one of the group’s top lobbying priorities for the year.

“I had lunch yesterday with a university professor and he told me his tale,” Giraldi said. “He teaches a course in international relations, and as part of the syllabus he had an article that was talking about the Middle East and the author of the article—this was not him, it was the author of the article—had a comment about Israel and its neighbors. The comment was essentially that Israel has very strict immigration laws, but Jewish Americans who support Israel want open immigration in the United States. The article was basically [pointing out that] there’s a contradiction in the way Jewish supporters of Israel see the world.  And this professor was admonished for being an anti-Semite and was almost fired as a result.”

Giraldi concluded the interview by alluding to the obvious.

“When all is said and done the punishment that has been meted out to me and Valerie Plame proves my point: The friends of Israel rule by coercion, intimidation, and through fear,” he said. “If we suffer through a catastrophic war with Iran, fought to placate Benjamin Netanyahu, many people might begin to ask ‘Why?’ But identifying the real cause would involve criticism of what some American Jews have been doing, which is not only fraught with consequences but something that also will possibly become illegal thanks to congressional attempts to criminalize such activity. We Americans will stand by mutely as we begin to wonder what has happened to our country, and some who are perceptive will even begin to ask why a tiny client state has been allowed to manipulate and bring ruin on the world’s only superpower. Unfortunately, at that point it will be too late to do anything about.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

 

Who Really Drives America’s Wars?

• Columnist for American Conservative canned for voicing taboo opinions

By Philip Giraldi Ispoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the 600-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.

Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?” It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: Any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep-pocketed individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.

They are particularly sensitive on the issue of socalled “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel. Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran.

To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself.

But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in The New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation of “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq.

The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and Bret Stephens. Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of The New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above-cited hawks by name before describing them as “. . . a who’s who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking.

If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last 20 years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”

And I would add a few more names: Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen, and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka, and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neoconservatives.

I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military— David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying. So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews.

Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress regarding Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility, as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task.

The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish. One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan administration, and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby.

Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East—except for Israel, of course. [9/11 Commission executive director] Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel. Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish, and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.

There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust.

This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by Congress.

Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy-making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise First Amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation.

But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage. For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g., Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind of like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison—translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.




One in Nine Congressmen Is ‘Re-Educated’ in Israel

Israel’s “powerful stranglehold on the American government” hasn’t lessened since Jim Traficant spoke those words in 2009. In the last month alone, AIPAC’s “charitable” sister organization, the American Israel Education Foundation, has funded more than 50 U.S. congress members’ trips to Israel for “educational seminars” where they’re wined, dined . . . and indoctrinated.

By John Friend

The late Jim Traficant, the populist and courageous former congressman from Ohio and a regular contributor to this newspaper, was a powerful critic of the death grip the pro-Israel lobby and other high-profile and well-funded pro-Israel organizations have over the American government, particularly America’s congressional representatives.

“I believe that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government,” Traficant boldly declared in a 2009 interview with Greta Van Susteren following his release from prison on trumped-up corruption charges. “They control both members of the House . . . and Senate.”

Traficant’s frank assessment of the pro-Israel lobby’s control and influence over the United States Congress has been proven accurate once again, as it was recently reported that more than 50 congressional representatives of both major political parties visited Israel last month.

That amounts to just under one-eighth of the 435 congressmen and women currently in Congress. The trips to Israel were funded in part by the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), a charitable organization associated with AIPAC, America’s most prominent and influential pro-Israel political lobby. According to its official website, AIEF “funds educational seminars to Israel for members of Congress and other political influentials” in order to “help educate political leaders and influentials about the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship through firsthand experiences in Israel, briefings by experts on Middle East affairs, and meetings with Israeli political elite.”

IRS Loses Cases

U.S. congressmen and women—Democrats and Republicans alike—regularly visit Israel to consult and network with their Israeli counterparts, a long-running tradition in American politics that is largely overlooked by the average American voter. A report published by the Jewish News Service highlighting the August trips to Israel noted the bipartisan nature of the trips, as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) led the groups during their time in the Zionist entity.

The American lawmakers met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were briefed on strategic threats in the region, and met with other Israeli political, security, military, and media officials and representatives during their August visit. LegiStorm, a top congressional watchdog group that provides analysis and intelligence to D.C. insiders and policymakers, reported that AIEF “spent nearly $490,000 for a week of travel for 12 freshman, five other Democratic members, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and three of Hoyer’s aides.”

Roughly one week later, “AIEF spent $668,000 to send 31 Republican members to an education seminar in Tel Aviv,” according to the report. The AIEF-funded trips to Israel are clearly paying off for the pro-Israel lobby, as support for Israel remains a bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill. The Trump administration and virtually every other prominent political official also constantly voice their unwavering support for Israel. President Donald Trump recently met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and reaffirmed “the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel” and “the unwavering commitment of the United States to Israel’s security,” according to the official White House announcement highlighting the meeting.

The news comes as the United States opened its first permanent military base in Israel earlier this week. The base, located in southern Israel near the city of Beersheba, will “house dozens of U.S. troops and a missile defense system,” according to a report published by The Hill. The American taxpayer dishes out billions of dollars annually to Israel, most of which is related to maintaining Israel’s military advantage in the region.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Is the West Facing a Forever War?

Random killings of people on the streets, completely unknown to the murderer, has become the latest brand of Islamist terrorism now haunting the West with increasing frequency. When will imams worldwide join together to condemn this radical Islamist adulteration of their faith?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On May 22, Salman Abedi, 22, waiting at the entrance of the Arianna Grande pop concert in Manchester, blew himself up, killing almost two dozen people, among them parents waiting to pick up their children.

Saturday, three Islamic terrorists committed “suicide-by-cop,” using a van to run down pedestrians on London Bridge, and then slashing and stabbing patrons of pubs and diners in the nearby Borough Market.

By all accounts, the killers bore no special grudge against those they murdered. They appear not even to have known their victims.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Why, then, did they kill these strangers, and themselves?

A BBC eyewitness suggests a motive: “They shouted, ‘This is for Allah’ as they stabbed indiscriminately.”

The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims.

Gideon Elite book cover

Ideas have consequences. And where might these crazed killers have gotten an idea like that?

Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?

On Palm Sunday, an explosion in Tanta, 56 miles north of Cairo, killed 29 and injured 71 Copts as they prayed at the Mar Girgis church. A second blast at a church in Alexandria killed 18 and wounded 35.

On May 26, masked gunmen stopped two buses carrying Coptic Christians to Saint Samuel the Confessor Monastery in Egypt and opened fire, killing 26 and wounding 25.

“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” said Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning.

Yet, years of such atrocities have effected a near-complete cleansing of Christianity from its cradle provinces in the Holy Land.

If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?

IRS Loses Cases

Clearly, from the suicide bombings and shootings of civilians in the Middle East, now across the West, there is a belief among some Muslims that what the killers are doing is moral and meritorious—taking the martyr’s path to salvation.

When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and the West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?

In condemning the London Bridge attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said that recent atrocities across England were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.”

Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West, even as this school of fanatics is seeking to purge Christianity from the East.

We are at war. And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”

Are honor killings of girls and women caught in adultery justified? Are lashings and executions of Christian converts justified?

Do people who hold such beliefs really belong in the United States or in the West during this long war with Islamist extremism?

Other questions need answering as well.

Is our commitment to diversity broad enough to embrace people with Islamist beliefs? Is our First Amendment freedom of speech and of religion extensive enough to cover the sermons of imams who use mosques to preach in favor of expelling Christians from the Middle East and an eventual takeover of the West for an Islam where Sharia replaces constitutional law?

Are such Islamist beliefs not intolerable and perilous for our republic?

Clearly, the West is in a civilizational struggle, with the outcome in some doubt.

Four years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese empire had ceased to exist. Japan was smoldering ruins, its navy at the bottom of the Pacific. An American proconsul, Douglas MacArthur, was dictating to the Japanese from the Dai-Ichi building.

Today, we are in the 16th year of a war begun on 9/11. We are mired down in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Our victory in Afghanistan is being reversed by the Taliban.

While the ISIS caliphate is being eradicated in Raqqa and Mosul, its elements are in two dozen countries of the Mideast. Muslim migrants and refugees, ISIS and al Qaeda among them, are moving into Europe.

Terrorist attacks in the West grow in number and lethality every year. The new normal. Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.

To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.

Wars, it is said, are the death of republics. And we now seem to be caught up in an endless war.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

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




Manchester Bomber Was Product of West’s Libya/Syria Intervention

By Daniel McAdams

Here’s what the media and politicians don’t want you to know about the Manchester, UK, suicide attack: Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old who killed nearly two dozen concert-goers in Manchester, UK, was the product of the U.S. and UK overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya and “regime change” policy in Syria. He was a radicalized Libyan whose family fled Gaddafi’s secular Libya, and later trained to be an armed “rebel” in Syria, fighting for the U.S. and UK “regime change” policy toward the secular Assad government.

The suicide attacker was the direct product of U.S. and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.

 

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester, had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the U.S./UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop-concert attendees. Before the U.S.-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.

Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad.

Gideon Elite book cover

In Salman Abedi we have the convergence of both these disastrous U.S./UK and allied interventions, however: It turns out that not only did Abedi make trips to Libya to radicalize and train for terror, but he also travelled to Syria to become one of the “Syria rebels” fighting on the same side as the U.S. and UK to overthrow the Assad government. Was he perhaps even trained in a CIA program? We don’t know, but it certainly is possible.

While the mainstream media and opportunistic politicians will argue that the only solution is more Western intervention in the Middle East, the plain truth is that at least partial responsibility for this attack lies at the feet of those who pushed and pursued Western intervention in Libya and Syria.

There would have been no jihadist training camps in Libya had Gaddafi not been overthrown by the U.S./UK and allies. There would have been no explosion of ISIS or al-Qaeda in Syria had it not been for the U.S./UK and allied policy of “regime change” in that country.

When thinking about Abedi’s guilt for this heinous act of murder, do not forget those interventionists who lit the fuse that started this conflagration. The guilt rests squarely on their shoulders as well.

Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer. This column was originally published at the RonPaulInstitute.org.



9/11 Destroyed America

In America, telling the truth has become more dangerous than ever … even deadly to one’s career. “It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford.” Why have we allowed a tiny handful of neoconservatives to destroy multiple Middle Eastern countries, along with whatever civil liberties we once had in America? 

By Paul Craig Roberts

The events on September 11, 2001 changed the world. It was the excuse for the U.S. government to launch military attacks on seven Middle Eastern countries, causing civilian casualties in the millions and sending waves of Muslim refugees into the Western world. The U.S. government wasted trillions of dollars destroying countries and murdering women and children, while public infrastructure in the U.S. deteriorated, Americans’ homes were foreclosed, and American health needs went unattended. 9/11 was also the excuse for the destruction of the protection that the U.S. Constitution provided to ensure the liberty of the American citizen. Today, no American has the protection of the civil liberty that the Constitution guarantees.

On September 11, 2001, when a neighbor called and told me to turn on the TV, I stopped what I was doing and turned on the TV. What I saw was the two World Trade Center towers blowing up. I had often enjoyed lunch in the rooftop restaurant in one of the towers across the street from my Wall Street Journal office.

A miniscule by comparison frail aluminum airliner hit one massive steel tower and then another aluminum airliner hit the other. There were some plumes of orange outside the buildings. Then approximately after one hour, less in one case, more in the other, the two towers exploded floor by floor as they fell into their own footprint.

This was precisely the way the news anchors described what I was seeing. “It looks exactly like a controlled demolition,” the news anchors reported. And indeed, it did. As a Georgia Tech student I had witnessed a controlled demolition, and that is what I saw on television, just as that was what the news anchors saw.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Later that day Larry Silverstein, who owned, or held the lease on, the World Trade Center, explained on TV that the free-fall collapse in the late afternoon of the third WTC skyscraper, Building 7, into its own footprint was a conscious decision to “pull” the building. Pull is the term used by controlled demolition to describe a building wired with explosives to be destroyed. Building 7 had not been hit by an airliner, and suffered only minor and very limited office fires. Silverstein’s statement was afterwards corrected by authorities to mean that the firemen were pulled from the building. However, many videos show the firemen already out of the building with the fireman stating that the building was going to be brought down.

As there is no doubt whatsoever that Building 7 was wired for demolition, the question is why?

Because Americans are an insouciant and trusting people and confident of the inherent goodness of their country, years passed before even experts noticed that the official story stood in total contraction to known laws of physics, was in total contradiction to how buildings collapse from asymmetrical damage and could not have collapsed due to being hit by airliners, as the buildings met all code requirements for withstanding airliner collisions. Many did not even know that the third skyscraper, Building 7, had collapsed.

Professor Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, was among the first to see that the official story was pure fantasy. His reward for speaking out was to have his tenure contract bought out by BYU, many believe under orders from the federal government backed up with the threat that all federal support of science at BYU would be terminated unless Stephen Jones was.

Liberty Stickers

Cynthia McKinney, a black woman who represented a Georgia congressional district in the US House of Representatives, was either much brighter or much braver than her white colleagues. She raised obvious questions about 9/11, questions begging to be asked, and lost her seat.

Approximately five years after 9/11, San Francisco architect Richard Gage noticed that the three WTC buildings did not fall down in any way consistent with the official explanation. He formed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which currently has about 3,000 members. This group includes high-rise architects and structural engineers who actually are experienced in the construction of skyscrapers. In other words, they are people who know what they are talking about.

These 3,000 experts have said that the official explanation of the collapse of three skyscrapers stands in contradiction to known laws of physics, architecture, and structural engineering

In other words, the official explanation is totally impossible. Only an uneducated and ignorant public can believe the official 9/11 story. The U.S. population fits this description.

A&E for 9/11 Truth is gradually gaining assent from architects and engineers. It is very difficult for an architect or engineer to support the truth, because the American population, which includes patriotic construction companies, whose employees fly American flags on their trucks, don’t want to hire architects and engineers who are “enemies of America aligned with Arab terrorists.” In America, if you tell the truth, you are in great danger of losing your customers and even your life.

Think now about physicists. How many physics faculties do you know that are not dependent on federal grants, usually for military-related work? The same for chemistry. Any physics professor who challenged the official story of 9/11 with the obvious fact that the story contravenes known laws of physics would endanger not only his own career but the careers of his entire department.

Truth in America is extremely costly to express. It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford.

Our masters know this, and thus they can dispense with truth at will. Moreover, any expert courageous enough to speak the truth is easily branded a “conspiracy theorist.”

Who comes to his defense? Not his colleagues. They want rid of him as quickly as possible. Truth is a threat to their careers. They can’t afford to be associated with truth. In America, truth is a career-killing word.

In America, truth is becoming a synonym for “Russian agent.” Only Russian agents tell the truth, which must mean that truth is an enemy of America. Lists are being prepared of websites that speak truth to power and thus are seditious. In the United States today people can lie at will without consequence, but it is deadly to tell the truth.

NeoconThreat-Roberts-cover

Support A&E for 9/11 Truth. These are heroic people. 9/11 was the manufactured excuse for the neoconservatives’ 16 years of war crimes against millions of Muslims peoples, remnants of which now seek refuge in Europe.

Neoconservatives are a tiny number of people. No more than a dozen are of any consequence. Yet they have used America to murder millions. And now they are fomenting war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The world would never survive such a war.

Are Americans so insouciant that they will stand aside while a dozen neoconservatives destroy the world?

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 American Free Press.




The Battle for Jerusalem

President Donald Trump’s America-first policies are a breath of fresh air after decades of policies that were devastating to middle-class Americans. But his unquestioning support of Israel has many people concerned that his views are emboldening the Israelis to step up crimes against the Palestinians and Arabs who live inside Israel.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Several Middle Eastern cities have seen fierce battles during recent years. Syria’s recapture of Aleppo last month was only the latest example. Many other Syrian, Iraqi, and Yemeni cities have also been devastated or destroyed in endemic urban warfare. But all of these battles are really just skirmishes. There is only one major contested city in the Middle East, and that is Jerusalem, known in Arabic as al-Quds, “the Holy City.” It is around this battle that all other warfare in the region revolves.

The hardline Zionists running Israel are determined to finish ethnically cleansing Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. They view Jerusalem as the “eternal undivided capital” of Greater Israel, their supposedly God-given real estate tract stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. And they will stop at nothing in pursuit of its conquest.

The rest of the region, and the world, is resisting. The international community agrees with the Palestinian leadership that Israel is illegally occupying East Jerusalem and must withdraw. That is why no U.S. president has ever agreed to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If President Donald Trump follows through on his stated intention to move the embassy, he could set off an explosion of bloodshed that will make the past few decades look like a peaceful golden age by comparison.

To understand how the battles for Aleppo, Mosul, Damascus, Fallujah, Daraa, Hama, Homs, Tripoli, Sana’a, and so many other Middle Eastern cities are actually skirmishes in the larger battle for Jerusalem, we need to consider the historical background.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Jerusalem is the heart of the Holy Land for all Abrahamic monotheists, including nearly 2.5 billion Christians, more than 1.5 billion Muslims, and slightly fewer than 15 million Jews. That means that, out of every 267 people for whom Jerusalem is a holy city, 266 are either Christian or Muslim, while only one is Jewish. Yet within that tiny Jewish minority of monotheists, an even tinier minority known as Zionists has managed to orchestrate the invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of the Holy Land, expelling most of the Christians and Muslims who lived there, subjugating or killing the rest, and setting up an ever-expanding Jewish-superiority state in which non-Jews are second-class citizens.

The 1948 Nakba (Palestinian holocaust) and the 1967 Zionist war of aggression were the two key historical moments when the Zionists grabbed Jerusalem. In 1948 they took West Jerusalem, storming the rest in 1967. Though Israeli leaders assert they are only holding 1967-stolen land as a bargaining chip for peace (i.e., Palestinians permanently surrendering any claim to the land stolen in 1948) the reality is that they have never intended to relinquish Jerusalem, which is why they keep expelling Palestinians and building settlements.

Stealing the Holy City, after all, was the main reason they launched the 1967 war in the first place.

So what does this have to do with the devastation in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya? The Middle East has been destabilized by the Zionist colonial incursion. Throughout the region, ordinary people are unanimously opposed to Zionism.

But ruling elites have been bribed and bullied to surrender to the Zionists against the wishes of their people. The resulting turmoil has bred instability and radicalization.

The neocon Zionists tried to redraw the map of the Middle East with their 9/11 coup d’état, which was designed, as Gen. Wesley Clark revealed, to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran.” All seven of these countries had leaders who refused to surrender to Zionism. So they were slated by the Zionists for destruction, using a U.S. military hijacked by the 9/11 false-flag operation.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was designed to destroy that nation as a technologically and economically advanced state. “ISIS,” informally known as Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, continues to pursue the same mission in Syria as well.



 

The Saudi royals and other gulf leaders have joined the Zionist onslaught on the remaining independent (anti-Zionist) forces in the region, including in Syria, Yemen, and—the big prize—Iran.

Why? Because like the Zionists, the Saudi royals and other Persian Gulf despots depend on U.S. and Israeli backing. An independent Middle East would spell doom for the rulers in Riyadh as well as the leaders in Tel Aviv.

Shortly before Christmas, the Obama administration helped pass a UN resolution re-stating the U.S. and international position: Israeli settlements on land stolen in the 1967 war are illegal, and Israel must withdraw from that land, including Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went ballistic—and expanded settlement projects.

Now, with Trump backing Netanyahu, we are between a Dome of the Rock and a hard place. Let us all pray that Zionist belligerence does not explode into World War III.

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