U.S. Christian Conservatives Should Be Supporting Iran

The morals, manners, and devotion of the Iranian people are a model for the U.S., says leading American Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones. “Islamic Iran is succeeding as a godly society, while the Christian West is failing.” 

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

I recently returned from Mashhad, the biggest city in eastern Iran. Mashhad is a holy city for Shia Muslims. It hosts the shrine of Imam Reza, the eighth Shia imam, visited by millions of pilgrims from all over Iran as well as Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, and other countries including the United States.

This year, for the first time ever, Mashhad hosted a conference on international politics, not religion. The sixth New Horizon Conference, entitled “Jerusalem al Quds: Eternal Capital of Palestine,” brought together 51 notable intellectuals and activists from North America, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East.

This year’s conference transpired at a moment of crisis for Palestine.

On May 8, President Donald Trump torpedoed the Iran nuclear deal. Six days later, Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, presided over the opening of the new U.S. embassy in Occupied Jerusalem—on the same day that Zionist snipers murdered 60 unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and injured 2,771.

It is worth noting that Ivanka, who was raised Presbyterian, is married to Jared Kushner, who is Orthodox Jewish. In 2009, Ivanka herself converted to Orthodox Judaism.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

This all happened on the eve of Nakba Day, the annual commemoration of the Palestinian Holocaust of 1948, when Zionists murdered thousands of Palestinians and terrorized the survivors into fleeing their country, with more than 700,000 ousted from their ancestral lands.

The death total for the Great March of Return was at least 110 Palestinians. More than 12,000 were injured, thousands by live gunfire, including those permanently crippled by exploding bullets banned by the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli snipers who carried out this month-long massacre were never in any danger from the unarmed demonstrators.

The Jerusalem conference in Mashhad featured a smattering of left-leaning “progressive” Palestine activists, which included: anti-Zionist Israeli Miko Peled, son of Gen. Matti Peled, the hero (from Israel’s perspective) of the 1967 war; Greta Berlin, organizer of the Flotilla to Gaza; and Sander Hicks, a candidate for Congress from New York City. But a larger number of conference attendees represented more traditionalist, conservative, often religious viewpoints. The world’s most influential traditionalist thinker, Alexander Dugin—an Eastern Orthodox Christian and advisor to Russia’s leadership—is perhaps the best known.

Among the many Christians present in Mashhad were E. Michael Jones, one of America’s leading Catholic intellectuals, and Scott Bennett, a Protestant and whistleblowing ex-U.S. Army psyops officer. Interestingly, these two fervently conservative American Christians absolutely love the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I introduced Jones to the organizers of the New Horizon conferences in 2013. After visiting Iran and participating in the February 2013 conference, which featured lively discussion of topics that are taboo in the West, Jones called the Islamic Republic “the capital of the free world.” Since then, Jones has been a regular visitor to Iran for New Horizon conferences. He finds the religiously based social order of the Islamic Republic extremely refreshing and suggests it could in some ways be a model for any Western countries that might someday return to Christianity.

Of course, Jones obviously is not suggesting that Shia Islam, the majority religion of Iran, ought to take over America. His point is that Islamic Iran is succeeding as a godly society, while the Christian West is failing. As he writes in Culture Jihad in Tehran, “Islam has an uncanny ability to arrive on the scene when Christianity is failing in its mission.”

Scott Bennett agrees with Jones that America has strayed from its Christian roots and that Iran’s Islamic Republic could be an exemplar for Christians. The Iranian people’s manners and morals, he observes, compare favorably to those of Americans and Europeans. And the Islamic Republic’s political behavior on the international stage, Bennett agrees, has generally been reasonable, consistent, and principled—while Western and especially Israeli behavior has been anything but.

So why do neoconservative “Christians” like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Mike Pence hate Iran so much? One possible answer: Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence are owned and operated by Zionists. Iran’s principled support for Palestine puts it in the crosshairs of the Zionist-hijacked U.S. war machine.

Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett
Now available ($12) from the AFP Online Store.

Another reason why Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence hate Iran is that the Islamic Republic does not have a Rothschild-owned central bank. Worse, it is leading the movement to end the reign of the Rothschild petrodollar as global reserve currency. On April 18, Bloomberg reported: “Iran Dumps Dollar in Favor of Euro Amid Deepening Standoff With U.S.” It is worth noting that other countries that challenged the reign of the petrodollar, including Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, were subsequently destroyed by the U.S. military.

If Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence were faithful Christians and loyal Americans, they would join Iran’s war on the Rothschild petrodollar. Rothschild funny-money is un-Christian because it is based on usury. And it is un-American because our Constitution demands that the U.S. Treasury Department, not a private cabal of bankers, issue our currency.

Maybe we need a new group: “American Christians for Islamic Iran.”

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.




Lebanon Threatened With Genocide

Hezbollah has become a major power broker in Lebanon, explains Richard Walker, after winning big in the recent election—prompting immediate threats of genocide by an Israeli politician called “more dangerous than Hezbollah.”

By Richard Walker

Despite a well-funded and devious Saudi campaign to put its favorites in power in Lebanon’s recent parliamentary elections, Hezbollah and several smaller parties won more than half the seats, making Hezbollah a major power broker.

Hezbollah’s victory led to threats of genocide against Lebanon by Israeli religious right-wing politician Naftali Bennett, who has been described by some Israelis as more dangerous than Hezbollah. As the “Middle East Monitor” put it, had Russia made such a threat against any of its neighbors the condemnation in the West would have been widespread. The Israeli threat was somewhat ironic, given President Donald Trump’s letter to Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun in November 2017, thanking him for Lebanon’s role in the war against terrorism and assuring him of American support. A month later, Aoun described as dangerous Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Kingdom Identity

The Saudis had placed their electoral hopes on the Sunni Arab Future Movement, which lost 13 seats to Hezbollah. The result upset the Israelis and neocons in Washington, all of whom had been hoping for a Hezbollah defeat. The outcome indicated that Hezbollah continues to attract the support of Lebanese Christians who have felt for some time that the Islamic organization protected them from ISIS and al Qaeda. Hezbollah had the backing of the country’s largest Christian party, the Free Patriotic Movement. Hezbollah has been a major supporter of that group.

In the wake of the election, a document came to light exposing how the Saudis plotted to undermine Hezbollah in the polls. Their plan was to funnel large sums of money to Hezbollah’s opposition, the Future Movement, and to encourage a bigger inflow of Syrian refugees into Lebanon, which could be blamed on Hezbollah’s support of the Assad government. The plan backfired badly for the House of Saud and its favored Lebanese politicians.

The New Jerusalem, Michael Collins Piper
Michael Collins Piper on Zionist Power in America. Available from the AFP Online Store.

Ever since Israel got a bloody nose in its last war with Hezbollah in 2006, there has been a drumbeat in Tel Aviv to find a pretext for a new war with Hezbollah, something that would please Saudi Arabia, its Sunni allies, and U.S. neocons like John Bolton, who now dominate the Trump administration’s national security and Middle East policies.

It was hardly a coincidence that within hours of Trump exiting the internationally approved Iran nuclear deal that Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu launched air strikes against targets, including Iranian ones, in Syria. It was a sure sign he was hoping to goad Iran and Hezbollah into a shooting war designed to drag the United States into war. His move was praised by the Trump White House.

Israeli meddling in Syria and Lebanon is nothing new. Netanyahu has been supporting extreme Sunni militias like the al-Nusra Front that have been funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. Wounded al-Nusra fighters have been treated at Israeli military hospitals in the Golan Heights, a part of the region that Israel claims to be its own, in contravention of international law.

The Golan belongs to Syria, but Israel wants to keep it because of the oil and gas it holds. It would suit Israel if the Syrian government were destroyed so that it could not continue to lay claim to the Golan Heights. Netanyahu has given Genie Energy Ltd., a New Jersey-based company with leading neocons like Dick Cheney on its board, gas and oil exploration rights to parts of the Golan Heights. In September 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke met with a former Israeli politician, who runs an Israeli subsidiary of Genie Energy.

The Lebanese know all about Israel’s political and military interference in the affairs of its neighbors. Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1979 and then later in 1982, withdrawing in 1985 while maintaining a 12-mile security border inside Lebanon. Israel has not forgotten that it was Hezbollah that mostly forced it to pull out of Lebanon in 1985. After it did so, Hezbollah instigated a policy of seizing Israeli soldiers and using them to bargain for the exchange of Lebanese men held in Israeli prisons. The seizure of two soldiers in 2004 was the precursor to Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon in 2006.

Ever since the Bush-Cheney era, there has been a growing nexus of Israel and Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia plotting a war with Shiite Iran that would also result in attacks on Hezbollah and the Assad government in Syria. Russia has made it clear its military will not sit idly by if there are any moves to remove Assad, but that leaves Israel with the option of drawing America into a war with Hezbollah and Iran. To that end, it is more than likely there will be a growing drumbeat from Tel Aviv, Washington, and Riyadh insisting that Iran has resumed its nuclear program and that Hezbollah is an increasing threat to Israel.

What is missing in many of the assessments of such a war is that even if America, Israel, and the Saudis won an air war, the war that would be fought on the ground across the region, including in Iraq, would be long and bloody. Israel and Saudi Arabia would not remain unscathed, and the U.S. military would not be able to protect all purported U.S. allies across the region.

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.




Israel at 70: Bibi’s Troubled Hour of Power

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

By Patrick J. Buchanan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Iranians Have Kept Up Their End of the Nuclear Bargain

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

By Richard Walker

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

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

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

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

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

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Beware the Ides of May

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

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will they do it again come mid-May?

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




YouTube and the War Against Iran

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

By Kevin Barrett

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

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

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

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

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Protests Greet Israel Lobby’s Annual Gathering

With Palestine remaining an open-air concentration camp under Israeli occupation, protests were held Washington D.C. outside the annual AIPAC convention. Among many others worldwide, increasing numbers of Jews, including in Israel, oppose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s heavy-handed, violent tactics. 

By Mark Anderson

Palestinian activists and supporters, including the Right to Return Coalition (Al-Awda) and the ANSWER Coalition, held several protests before and during the March 4-6 national convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC—one of Washington D.C.’s most powerful lobbies.

“For over a century, the Palestinian people have been struggling against colonial rulers for . . . self-determination,” noted a news release announcing these groups’ opposition to “the racist American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”

The large annual AIPAC gathering at the Mount Vernon Convention Center included remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also met with President Trump at the White House mainly to discuss the perceived Iranian threat to Israel and Trump’s stated intent to back out of the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

Netanyahu, hamstrung by scandals at home, has proven himself to be a particularly militant aggressor against Palestinians. Even some liberal Jews, in Israel and abroad, as well as anti-Zionist orthodox rabbis who take part in the Washington protests, disapprove of the Netanyahu regime’s documented and disproportionately deadly attacks against Palestinians and the imposition of a police state over them.

A young girl whose plight was recognized during a March 3 “Free Ahed” D.C. rally has come to symbolize that tyranny.

The “Free Ahed” movement refers to Ahed Tamimi, a 16-year-old Palestinian girl reportedly taken in the dead of night by Israeli soldiers. After her mother, Nariman, produced a video that went viral—showing an altercation involving soldiers trying to enter the family dwelling—the girl was arrested.

According to “FreeAhed.org,” “Ahed is accused of slapping a soldier and faces 12 charges in Israel’s military court, which has a conviction rate of 99%. Ahed’s mother is being charged with incitement for posting the video.”

Ironically, while the protestors also held a forum on the history of Palestine’s liberation struggle, from Israel’s 1948 founding to the present, University of Oslo history professor Ken Rossinow, writing March 6 in The Washington Post, of all places, put forth one of the most critical articles of Israel ever to appear in a major mainstream newspaper in recent memory.

Under the jolting headline, “The Dark Roots of AIPAC, ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’ “—underscored by the subheading, “The group was formed to spin positive PR after Israeli atrocities”—Rossinow outlined the lengths to which the Israeli state has gone to stay on good terms with its ultimate benefactors: U.S. taxpayers.

AIPAC’s beginnings as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, renamed AIPAC in 1959, “reveal the long journey the group has traveled. . . . It once operated in obscurity; now its influence lies partly in its genius for publicity. . . . It has always responded to Israeli actions, working to mitigate their impact on the American scene,” Rossinow wrote.

That mitigation keeps the $3.8 billion a year in official U.S. foreign aid flowing mainly to Israel’s military, enabling it to continue oppressing Palestinians.

According to Rossinow, in latter 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower “briefly suspended the delivery of U.S. aid to Israel after it violated the terms of a UN-brokered armistice agreement with Syria . . .”

And while Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles tried to get Israel to back down, on Oct. 15, 1953 a special Israeli army unit “had struck into the Jordanian-occupied West Bank and committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Qibya, killing more than 60 civilians indiscriminately” in retaliation for the reported Oct. 12 murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.

Rossinow stressed that after the Oct. 12 killings, then-Israeli PM Ben-Gurion and top colleagues chose nearby Qibya “to suffer retribution” in an intentionally disproportionate and brutal manner, launching what has become standard Israeli policy.

In response, yesteryear’s American media wasn’t so reticent on revealing Israeli terror. Even Time magazine, wrote Rossinow, “carried a shocking account of . . . casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya —‘slouching . . . smoking and joking.’ ” Moreover, The New York Times—you read that correctly—published what Rossinow described as “extensive excerpts from a UN commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident.”

Since AIPAC is an unregistered agent of a foreign power, the proper mitigation is to require that AIPAC register as a foreign agent under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. AIPAC would then have to publicly acknowledge it’s working on behalf of a foreign government and submit its income sources for review.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful emails at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




American Traitors Incite Treason in Iran

Despite the Founding Fathers’ admonition to enter “entangling alliances” with no foreign nations, “the U.S. has strangled itself in a cat’s cradle of entangling alliances,” says Kevin Barrett. As a result, the nation is mired in a series of wars for the benefit of one of those allied nations—Israel, which continues to pressure the U.S. to expand our wars into Iran. Given how quickly and how often those who took an oath to defend the Constitution instead defend an entangling alliance, the question is: “When will the traitors at home stop inciting treason abroad?”

By Kevin Barrett

Thomas Jefferson’s foreign policy doctrine—restating the key line from George Washington’s farewell speech—was simple and sensible: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.” The Founding Fathers’ credo held sway until World War II. Since then, the U.S. has strangled itself in a cat’s cradle of entangling alliances. Worse, it has allowed one of those alliances, the unofficial one with Israel, to drag it into a series of disastrous Middle Eastern wars.Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The American agents of Israel who helped orchestrate 9/11 are guilty of treason, which is defined in the Constitution as “levying war against the United States.” They blew up the World Trade Center and bombed the Pentagon in order to trick the U.S. into attacking Israel’s regional enemies: the “seven countries in five years” mentioned by Gen. Wesley Clark, who has cited a neocon memo suggesting that the purpose of 9/11 was “to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

In order to “take out” those countries the neocon-run post-9/11 United States has had to work closely with the relatively small number of Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans, Somalis, Sudanese, and Iranians who are willing to commit treason against their own nations. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan have been effectively destroyed by American agents of Israel and their bought-and-paid-for local traitors. Lebanon and Iran are next in their gunsights.

But Tehran is putting up a stiff fight. Since 1979 Iran has managed to persist as the Middle East’s only fully independent country, only genuine democracy, and most formidable opponent of Israel.

Brainwashed for War, Prorammed to Kill – Matthias Chang
Brainwashed for War, Programmed to Kill – On Sale Now at AFP Online Store

Israel, which has ethnically cleansed the majority of its rightful voters, is neither a democracy nor a legitimate nation. Though its creation was recommended by the UN General Assembly, it was never implemented by the Security Council. Israel has violated dozens of UN resolutions thereby eliminating any possible claim to legitimacy.

More than three times the size of Iraq, Iran boasts a population of 80 million. When under attack, Iranians will unite and put their lives on the line for their country, as they proved during the 1980s war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Currently Iran boasts many strategic advantages including thousands of the latest and most lethal anti-ship missiles, which are dug deeply into the mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. Using those missiles, Iran can sink all U.S. ships in the Gulf and shut down 20% of the world’s oil supply, inducing a catastrophic global depression.

A December 2004 Atlantic article reported on a series of war games simulating a U.S.-Iran conflict. The result was simple: “You have no military solution for the issues of Iran,” according to lead participant Sam Gardiner.

Yet pro-Israel traitors in the U.S. government continue plotting to destroy Iran. According to neoliberal Zionist Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, the U.S. has given Israel the green light to launch another huge war on Lebanon, with the aim of expanding the war to Iran.

This “U.S. green light,” of course, was actually given not by actual patriotic Americans but by Israel’s neocon agents.

Meanwhile the mainstream American media, also dominated by Zionists, relentlessly tries to stir up sedition in Iran. The minuscule minority of Iranians who are actively opposed to their nation’s Islamic republican constitution are given grotesquely disproportionate, fawningly favorable coverage, while ordinary Iranians, who protest over economic issues and corruption but would die to defend their nation and its constitution, are ignored.

Iraqi traitors like the swindler Ahmed Chalabi helped the neocons murder more than a million of his countrymen and destroy his country as a modern, technologically advanced society. Somali traitors cooperated with the U.S.-Israeli-orchestrated Ethiopian invasion, occupation, and destruction of that nation. Sudanese traitors helped the neocons orchestrate the vivisection of their country, including the amputation of the resource-rich south, which is now occupied by Israel and its friends. Libyan traitors helped Hillary Clinton and her Zionist controllers destroy that country, which formerly featured the highest living standards in Africa. Syrian traitors assisted in the destruction of that nation by an Israel-orchestrated, U.S.-assisted ISIS rampage.

Are there enough traitors in Iran to force “regime change”? No chance. They all fled with the Shah in 1979 and are now living side-by-side with their Zionist friends in the rich neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Some of them dream of returning to help overthrow the Islamic Republic. But the Iranian people will have none of it. The 2009 “Green Revolution” fizzled, as did recent CIA-Mossad attempts to hijack legitimate demonstrations and turn them into riots.

When will the traitors at home stop inciting treason abroad? When we arrest, try, and sentence them for their crimes, starting with 9/11.

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.




Is U.S. Being Sucked Into Syria’s War?

Israel conducted a massive attack on Syria after one of its fighter jets was shot down, an act not surprisingly blamed on Iran. But, asks Pat Buchanan, “Why would Iran, which, with Assad, Russia, and Hezbollah is among the victors in Syria’s six-year civil war, wish to reignite the bloodletting and bring Israeli and U.S. firepower in on the other side? Naturally, Israel expects the U.S. to jump to assist. Will President Trump respond as expected by our Middle Eastern “ally”? Buchanan suggests what’s needed now is “active diplomacy, not military action.” 
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Candidate Donald Trump may have promised to extricate us from Middle East wars, once ISIS and al Qaeda were routed, yet events and people seem to be conspiring to keep us endlessly enmeshed.

Friday night [Feb. 9], a drone, apparently modeled on a U.S. drone that fell into Iran’s hands, intruded briefly into Israeli airspace over the Golan Heights, and was shot down by an Apache helicopter.

Israel seized upon this to send F-16s to strike the airfield whence the drone originated. Returning home, an F-16 was hit and crashed, unleashing the most devastating Israeli attack in decades on Syria. Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu says a dozen Syrian and Iranian bases and antiaircraft positions were struck.

Monday’s headline on The Wall Street Journal op-ed page blared:

“The Iran-Israel War Flares Up: The fight is over a Qods Force presence on the Syria-Israeli border. How will the U.S. respond?”

Op-ed writers Tony Badran and Jonathan Schanzer, both from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, closed thus:

“The Pentagon and State Department have already condemned Iran and thrown their support behind Israel. The question now is whether the Trump administration will go further. . . . Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (has) affirmed that the U.S. seeks not only to ensure its allies’ security but to deny Iran its ‘dreams of a northern arch’ from Tehran to Beirut. A good way to achieve both objectives would be back Israel’s response to Iran’s aggression—now and in the future.”

The FDD is an annex of the Israeli lobby and a charter member of the War Party.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Chagai Tzuriel, who heads the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence, echoed the FDD: “If you (Americans) are committed to countering Iran in the region, then you must do so in Syria—first.”

Our orders have been cut.

Iran has dismissed as “lies” and “ridiculous” the charge that it sent the drone into Israeli airspace.

If Tehran did, it would be an act of monumental stupidity. Not only did the drone bring devastating Israeli reprisals against Syria and embarrass Iran’s ally Russia, it brought attacks on Russian-provided and possibly Russian-manned air defenses.

Moreover, in recent months Iranian policy—suspending patrol boat harassment of U.S. warships—appears crafted to ease tensions and provide no new causes for Trump to abandon the nuclear deal Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani regards as his legacy.

Indeed, why would Iran, which, with Assad, Russia, and Hezbollah is among the victors in Syria’s six-year civil war, wish to reignite the bloodletting and bring Israeli and U.S. firepower in on the other side?

In Syria’s southeast, another incident a week ago may portend an indefinite U.S. stay in that broken and bleeding country.

To recapture oil fields lost in the war, forces backed by Assad crossed the Euphrates into territory taken from ISIS by the U.S. and our Kurd allies. The U.S. response was a barrage of air and artillery strikes that killed 100 soldiers.

What this signals is that, though ISIS has been all but evicted from Syria, the U.S. intends to retain that fourth of Syria as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

In the northwest, Turkey has sent its Syrian allies to attack Afrin and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened Manbij, 80 miles to the east, where U.S. troops commingle with the Kurd defenders and U.S. generals were visible last week.

Midweek, Erdogan exploded: “(The Americans) tell us, ‘Don’t come to Manbij.’ We will come to Manbij to hand over these territories to their rightful owners.”

The U.S. and Turkey, allies for six decades, with the largest armies in NATO, may soon be staring down each other’s gun barrels.

Has President Trump thought through where we are going with this deepening commitment in Syria, where we have only 2,000 troops and no allies but the Kurds, while on the other side is the Syrian army, Hezbollah, Russia, and Iran, and Shiite militias from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?

Clearly, we have an obligation not to abandon the Kurds, who took most of the casualties in liberating eastern Syria from ISIS. And we have a strategic interest in not losing Turkey as an ally.

But this calls for active diplomacy, not military action.

And now that the rebels have been defeated and the civil war is almost over, what would be the cost, and what would be the prospects of fighting a new and wider war? What would victory look like?

Bibi and the FDD want to see U.S. power deployed alongside that of Israel, against Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah. But while Israel’s interests are clear, what would be the U.S. vital interest?

What outcome would justify another U.S. war in a region where all the previous wars in this century have left us bleeding, bankrupt, divided, and disillusioned?

When he was running, Donald Trump seemed to understand this.

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 Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Trump Decision to Move Embassy to Jerusalem Will Harm U.S.

Has “America-First” President Donald Trump put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the United States in recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announcing the U.S. embassy will be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? The president’s announcement is in stark contrast to the U.S. government’s 50-year position supporting the removal of Israeli military forces from territories captured in 1967.

By Philip Giraldi

President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and his stated intention to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem does not benefit the United States in any way and will almost certainly do great harm to the American people. It is ironic that a man who ran for president based on a simple slogan “America first” has instead put Americans at risk by deferring to Israeli interests without any regard for the consequences of such action.

The subordination of U.S. interests to those of Israel will no doubt be pondered by historians 20 years from now, if the United States of America continues to survive that long. Israel would not appear to be a good candidate for Washington’s best friend in the whole world, which is where the political class and media have placed it. It’s the only country in the world largely composed of settler-colonists and descendants that has been allowed to displace and perpetually punish the former inhabitants. It’s also a country with a terrible human rights record that nevertheless is able to tap U.S. taxpayers for billions of dollars in aid and other freebies annually combined with American-provided political protection from bodies like the United Nations. And it does all that through the operation of a fifth column of co-ethnic-religionists hugely over-represented amongst U.S. elites and organized to put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

The declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital is the latest disgrace, most particularly because Israel, which has no borders, has no legal title to much of the land that it is claiming. But the move is not a matter of law, but rather the product of decades of pressure by both Israel and its powerful domestic U.S. lobby. Now that Jerusalem is part of Israel, the next step will be to “legalize” the occupation of the West Bank, which will be accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Palestinians.

Liberty Stickers

The original 1947 United Nations partition plan that created Israel called for Jerusalem to be “internationalized,” but that arrangement was subverted when Israeli terrorists expanded the area it controlled and began the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. U.S. presidents have put off moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem because of UN Security Council Resolution 478, passed in 1980, which contradicted Israel’s declaration that Jerusalem was its “complete and united capital.” East Jerusalem was territory captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, which historians recognize as a war that Israel started. Resolution 478 led to the placing of foreign diplomatic missions anywhere in Israel but Jerusalem, putting the lie to the Israeli pretensions. Since 1967, the U.S. has also supported UN resolution 242, calling for the removal of Israeli military forces from territories captured in 1967.

All those responsible positions taken by Washington in the past have now been upended by the Trump White House action. Heavy lobbying by pro-Israel organizations, which began in earnest in the 1980s, demanded a “move the embassy” law that would seek to legitimize Israel’s claims on the entire city. The pressure was particularly intense on Congress, resulting in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 under President Bill Clinton. The act was actually drafted by the Zionist Organization of America and AIPAC.

It is important to recognize that when it comes to Israel, no legitimate U.S.-driven interests are ever in play. Rather, it is a case of effective, multi-billion-dollar lobbying mounted by those mostly Jewish organizations and individuals that are heavily focused on promoting Israeli interests. Politicians at all levels in the United States are now routinely screened by the Israel lobby and are made to state their views on the Middle East conflict before they enter primaries or otherwise run for office.

Israel uniquely employs thousands of Internet trolls who work to counter any perception that their country is behaving badly. They have been hard at work since Trump made his announcement. Anyone asserting in the media that the Palestinians have again been robbed is attacked from all sides by commenters using American-sounding names but writing often non-native English. The comments are, ironically enough, full of suggestions that Arabs are somehow subhuman and incapable of negotiating their own futures.

Jewish talking heads embedded in the media have also fulsomely praised Trump’s apparently brilliant decision to follow the “one road to peace.” As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once observed that the 9/11 attack on the United States had been “good for Israel,” it would almost certainly be wise to consider the source and the objective when articles appear praising Trump. One recent piece on the embassy move as the road to peace was actually written by the Israeli ambassador.

Particularly discouraging is the lining up of leading Democratic Party politicians to praise the Trump move. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish and who fancies himself Israel’s “shomer” or defender in the Congress, has been prominent. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), also Jewish and one of the leaders in the Senate’s promoting and passing pro-Israel legislation, was also very supportive. Some critical media has observed that both men have been conspicuously more active in responding to the “needs” of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) rather than those of their own constituents.

Back in 1962, the Kennedy administration tried to have the predecessor organization of AIPAC, the American Zionist Council, register as a foreign agent precisely because it was feared that Israel would exploit American Jews to interfere in U.S. politics to support Israeli governments even when contrary to U.S. interests. That is precisely what has happened. Unfortunately, Kennedy died and the Department of Justice never enforced the registration order.

It is still early days but the Jerusalem decision by Trump has already pitted the United States against the entire world with the sole exception of Israel. Nothing good can come out of it. The only question is: When will Americans see the light and force their leaders to take back our government, and will that happen before it is too late?

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. This article appeared on the website of “The Unz Review.”




24 States Pass Laws Protecting Israel

Wisconsin is the latest of two dozen states that have passed laws intended to punish companies and individuals that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, or BDS, movement that intends to stop Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. But is this action by states unconstitutional, in light of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution? 

By Mark Anderson

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) issued an executive order Oct. 27 directing state agencies to refrain from engaging with businesses that have “ties to the anti-Israel BDS movement,” the state became the 24th to forbid state contracts and other official activities with companies that they believe boycott Israel.

“We stand firmly against discrimination in any form and we wholly support our friends in Israel,” Walker was quoted as saying by Breitbart News, without explaining how the state defines a company with “ties” to BDS. “I look forward to leading a trade delegation to Israel to foster new trade partnerships between Wisconsin and Israeli businesses.”

That 15-member delegation to which Walker referred was in Israel until Nov. 2.

The executive order states: “Consistent with existing Wisconsin nondiscrimination provisions and regulations governing purchases . . . [state] agencies may not execute a contract with a business entity if that entity is engaging in a boycott of Israel. Further, agencies shall reserve the right to terminate any contract with a business entity that engages in a boycott of Israel during the term of the contract.”

Liberty Stickers

BDS stands for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, a civil-protest tactic adopted by Israel’s critics to work to end its occupation, expansive construction of settlements, and military assaults within Palestine, especially in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. BDS calls for consumers and companies in the U.S. and abroad to not buy Israeli made products and to curtail investments in and cease overall business with Israeli companies.

According to investigators such as Alison Weir, a former journalist who operates the “IfAmericansKnew. org” website about Israel-Palestine issues, lopsided press portrayals of the situation there have gravely aggravated the situation, clouding public perception about why Israel’s critics support BDS.

Among other things, Ms. Weir told AFP at a Dearborn, Mich. rally in July 2016 that during her on-the-scene visits to Palestine, whenever attacks are carried out by those on the Palestinian side against Israel—typically involving sporadic rocket forays that inflict comparatively little damage— those attacks are given prominent press coverage.

However, disproportionately destructive attacks by Israeli pilots—using U.S.-made warplanes and laser-guided bombs derived from the nearly $4 billion in official U.S. foreign-aid dollars provided in one lump sum annually to Israel’s government— often level entire buildings and blocks of buildings with brutal force, sometimes burying defenseless men, women, and children in the rubble. According to her organization’s research, 1,242 Israelis and at least 9,510 Palestinians have been killed between Sept. 29, 2000 and the present.

While many Palestinians are Christians, pro-Zionist Christian preachers such as John Hagee of San Antonio, Texas turn a blind eye to the extreme suffering endured by Palestinians in the land that Jesus Christ once walked, which includes Bethlehem.

THE ANTI-BDS TALLY

During the same week Walker made his anti-BDS announcement, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan signed an executive order blocking his state from awarding contracts to companies thought to be supportive of BDS.

This anti-BDS movement goes back at least as far as 2015, with some states having fully passed the legislation and others on the brink of doing so. Besides Maryland and Wisconsin, the other states with anti-BDS measures in place are Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In addition, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order banning state agencies from investing in companies that support boycotts of Israel.

The Jewish press can be quite informative in anti-BDS mechanics. For example, a March 2016 Jerusalem Post article reported: “An Illinois state agency named 11 companies barred from doing business with the state for boycotting Israel or its settlements, the first such designation by an official U.S. body.”

But even the Post conceded that the situation can be tricky: “A number of the entities on the list approved . . . by the Illinois Investment Policy Board have pulled money from Israeli businesses that operate in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, but have not boycotted Israel within its 1967 [border] lines. At least two of the entities have said their disinvestment from Israel in recent years was based on commercial, not political, calculations.”

A key unanswered question is whether the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution—which delegates to Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”—blocks or limits the states from being so deeply involved with commerce in the first place, regardless of the entities involved. AFP readers may want to contact their state legislators with that and related questions.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




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.