Fake News Water Boy for the Deep State

Watergate “hero” Bob Woodward has always relied on dubious investigative tactics…

Publisher Simon & Schuster reported that Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, sold over 750,000 copies on its first day in print. Woodward skeptics and Watergate revisionists still question Woodward’s monarchical hold on modern journalism and publishing. In this issue, S.T. Patrick begins a series that will spotlight the questionable tactics and little-known fallacies of Bob Woodward’s journalistic career.

Series by S.T. Patrick

Implicit in the “Note to Readers” that opens Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, is an act of faith. Woodward wants the reader to trust him. “Interviews for this book were conducted under the journalistic ground rule of ‘deep background,’ ” Woodward writes.

Woodward, now an associate editor with The Washington Post, then defines “deep background.” He can use all information gathered from “hundreds of hours of interviews” with “firsthand participants and witnesses” whose names you’ll never know. In case the reader questions his accuracy in repeating these quotations and stories, Woodward then informs the public that “nearly all” of the interview participants have allowed him to record the conversations “so the story could be told with more precision.”

It is not clear how many interviews were actually conducted, nor is the specific percentage of recordings referred to as “nearly all.” This is important, because there is no evidence accompanying those unrecorded interviews. The interviewee would surely deny them, and the accuracy of such reports hinges on the reporter’s own trustworthiness. This is but one of the many problems with “deep background,” a journalistic information magnet strategy Woodward popularized during the Watergate era. Today, every interviewee for Fear is a Deep Throat.

Nixon's Secrets, Roger Stone
Nixon’s Secrets, by Roger Stone, at the AFP Online Store.

Even when attributing exact quotations, Woodward admits that they may come from the person being quoted, but they may also stem from a colleague with direct knowledge or from someone’s meeting notes. But not all meeting notes are created equal, and because we do not know the source in many of these instances, we cannot question the motivations or backgrounds or prior relationships of the source attributing the quote, thought, or conclusion. Therefore, even the attributions are a cloudy haze of journalistic cloak-and-dagger games that Woodward mastered and legitimized to push his narratives to notable and profitable heights.

Fear is Woodward’s 19th book. His fame came from his Watergate reporting with co-author and fellow Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein. That’s the story we are supposed to believe: It was the stellar work of a muckraking journalist that made him famous. The little guys hustled to bring down the Big Bad Wolves of Pennsylvania Avenue—the Nixon White House. All the President’s Men was released in 1974 and all the American stereotypes applied two years before the nation’s bicentennial: that hard work eventually triumphs, that good wins over evil, that David really can slay Goliath, and that the new Mr. Smiths going to Washington to speak truth to power are the journalists who work tirelessly to assure that truth reigns.

The problem with that red, white, and blue  myth is that it was the stuff of Hollywood—literally. Woodward and Bernstein did not commit to writing All the President’s Men until actor Robert Redford had expressed interest in purchasing the film rights. In Telling the Truth About Lies: The Making of All the President’s Men, Woodward also noted that Redford urged “Woodstein” to change the narrative from a tale of Nixonian dirty deeds to one that was based on the journey of two journalists, Woodward and Bernstein. Redford would play the role of Woodward and Dustin Hoffman would play Bernstein. The film was nominated for Best Picture in 1976 but lost to “Rocky.” For Woodward and Bernstein, however, their careers were made. Redford and Hoffman perfectly portrayed everything Americans wanted their journalists to be, down to being sloppy dressers, coffee inhalers, and chain smokers. Most importantly, they were heroes.

The film adaptation of Woodward and Bernstein’s first book coincided with the release of their second Nixon-era exposé, The Final Days. This book was different only in that its heroes were former and current military men, frustratingly skirting protocol and even law solely in an effort to save the republic from a president who had become unhinged. More than in All the President’s Men, Woodward’s pattern of assessing presidencies would begin in The Final Days.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!The hero of The Final Days was Gen. Alexander Haig, retired from the Army and someone who had climbed the national security ranks to become chief of staff after the resignation of H.R. Haldeman. After Woodward and Bernstein, the hero of All the President’s Men had been Woodward’s “deep background” source, Deep Throat. Though Woodward revealed—or at least informed us—in 2005 that Deep Throat was FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, Watergate revisionists knew more about the real Bob Woodward than the mainstream media was portraying and had good reasons to question the trustworthiness of Felt as the lone, chief or majority source behind the revelations attributed to Deep Throat.

Woodward had his own secret origin, and it was one that would alter the way keen students of history and the Watergate era viewed his faux heroism, his journalistic methods, the role of Haig, and the character of Deep Throat.

Part I of this series was originally published in American Free Press Issue 39 & 40, Sept. 24 and Oct. 1, 2018.

Bob Woodward: The King Breaker?

As of mid-October 2018, Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, stands atop The New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover non-fiction. Woodward skeptics and Watergate revisionists still question Woodward’s monarchical hold on modern journalism and publishing. In this issue, corresponding editor S.T. Patrick continues with Part 2 in a series that will spotlight the questionable tactics and little-known fallacies of Bob Woodward’s journalistic career.

On March 6, 1989, would-be authors Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin sat with The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward in preparation for what would be their upcoming book Silent Coup: The Removal of a President (1991). Woodward and co-author Carl Bernstein had written what establishment historians and educators considered the two books of record on the end of Richard Nixon’s presidency: All the President’s Men (1974) and The Final Days (1976). Both would be made into films. On this day, however, Colodny and Gettlin had confirmed information that would turn the Watergate story—and Woodward’s role in it—on its head.

Woodward verified that he had worked at the Pentagon as a communications officer. This was already in contrast with the book and film notion of Woodward as a bottom-rung hoofer who was fighting his way up the journalistic ladder at the Post. The film created the legend that all Woodward had done was to write about the lack of cleanliness in local restaurants. When the editors debated the oncoming storm of Watergate reporting, it was in an effort to decide if Woodward was even qualified to write such a consequential story. In reality, he was, and the editors knew it.

Woodward denied to Gettlin that he had any other function at the Pentagon beyond having once been a communications watch officer. Gettlin then asked if Woodward had ever done “any briefings of people.”

“Never! . . . And I defy you to produce somebody who says I did a briefing. It’s just . . . It’s not true,” Woodward responded.

Conspireality, Victor Thorn
Thorn takes on Woodward & Bernstein – and a lot more in Conspireality.

The conversation turned to Gen. Alexander Haig, who had become Nixon’s chief of staff upon the urged resignation of H.R. Haldeman. Tim Weiner, upon Haig’s death in 2010, wrote in The New York Times that Haig had been the “acting president” while Nixon was pre-occupied with Watergate. Haig biographer Roger Morris wrote that President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon was a de facto pardon of Haig, as well.

Haig had played an important role in the transition from Nixon to Ford and had even been one of the most instrumental voices privately encouraging Nixon’s resignation. If Haig had a previous working relationship with Woodward, and if Woodward’s stories were contradictory to the Nixon administration’s best interests, then the relationship and roles of both Woodward and Haig in relation to Nixon’s fall demanded examination.

“I never met or talked to Haig until some time in the spring of 1973,” Woodward responded. That Woodward had never done briefings, had never been a briefing officer, and had never met Haig until 1973 were ideas that sources “in a position to know,” as Gettlin called them in the interview, contradicted.

Lest someone assume that Colodny and Gettlin’s sources on Woodward were journalistic rivals or disenfranchised victims made unemployable by Watergate’s political aftermath, they were not. And unlike Woodward’s most notable sources, they were not kept hidden under “deep background.” Colodny and Gettlin’s confirmation came from Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, Melvin Laird, and Jerry Friedheim, all of whom can be read and heard on “Watergate.com.”

Moorer, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1970-1974), told Gettlin that he was aware that Haig was being briefed by Woodward. Moorer was in close contact, sometimes “on the telephone with Haig eight or nine times a day.”

Laird, Nixon’s secretary of defense, said, “I was aware that Haig was being briefed by Woodward. . . . He was there on a temporary assignment.” This was while Woodward was working in communications at the Pentagon.

Friedheim, a Pentagon spokesperson, elaborated on Woodward’s Pentagon associations in the pre-Watergate era. “He was definitely there, and he was moving in circles with—you know—as a junior officer, as a briefer, but obviously it’s somebody that they thought was sharp enough to do those things,” Friedheim said. “He was moving with those guys, Moorer, Haig, the NSC [National Security Council] staff, and other military types.”

Get Out of CashColodny and Gettlin were not the first, nor were they the last, to tie Haig to the role of Woodward’s most famous Watergate source, “Deep Throat.” In his 1984 book Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA, Jim Hougan wrote that Haig was the “ ‘prominent official’ within the Nixon administration who most closely fits Woodward’s description of his source.” There are Watergate historians who still believe that Deep Throat was a composite of sources, with Haig being chief among them, or someone other than the FBI’s second in command, Mark Felt.

The release of Secret Agenda was a new starting point for Watergate skeptics in 1984; Silent Coup reorganized them once again in 1991. Author Ray Locker will continue to question Woodward’s links to the Nixon White House in 2019’s Haig’s Coup.

Woodward, exasperated by the questioning of Colodny and Gettlin further in the 1989 interview, referenced the briefing revelation and the Haig tie as a “totally erroneous story . . . that I briefed somebody in the Pentagon . . . and that there’s this coup going on.” He had yet to learn that no less than Moorer, Laird, and Friedman had all openly established a Woodward link to Haig.

He would also repeatedly ask about the nature of the interviewer’s sources, about whom Colodny and Gettlin then vaguely referred. It seems that Woodward was perturbed to be the target of yet-unnamed sources who verified information and scenes in which he was involved. He had popularized the practice and allowed its subjects to deal with the consequences. But Hougan, Colodny, Gettlin, and Locker have since put that translucent lens back on Woodward.

Part II of this series was originally published in American Free Press Issue 41 & 42, Oct. 8 and 15, 2018.

Bob Woodward’s Tarnished Legacy – Part III

S.T. Patrick continues his series on Woodward and his monarchical hold on modern journalism by profiling The Washington Post associate editor’s work throughout the 1980s. This is the third installment in the series.

Though the Republican Party seemed all but dead after Watergate, the pardon of Richard Nixon, and the 1976 electoral loss of unelected President Gerald Ford to Gov. Jimmy Carter, the Eighties were a new decade, one that would attach the word “era” to the politician that dominated its most crucial moments, Ronald Reagan.

For journalist Bob Woodward, the fall of the GOP had made him a legend. The rise of the Reagan era, however, would prove that legends are highly fallible, even in the world of journalism, where kings are rarely dethroned.

In September 1980, reporter Janet Cooke wrote an incredibly moving and emotional piece for the Post entitled “Jimmy’s World.” Cooke detailed the heartbreaking story of an eight-year-old heroin addict. So captivating was the story that Woodward, then the Post’s assistant managing editor, nominated it for a Pulitzer Prize. In April 1981, it won. Cooke would later have to return the Pulitzer when it was revealed that the story had been a fabrication. Rather than making an apology, Woodward defended the merits of the story and removed himself from any responsibility for the nomination.

Hollywood’s fascination with conspiracy realities at the AFP Online Store.

In 1984, taking a brief respite from political tomes, Woodward released Wired: The Short Life & Fast Times of John Belushi. Both Woodward and Belushi had been raised in Wheaton, Ill. Riding the wave of notoriety he had amassed after Robert Redford’s portrayal of him in “All the President’s Men,” Woodward convinced Belushi’s friend Dan Aykroyd, brother James Belushi, widow Judith Belushi Pisano, actress Blair Brown, and others to sit for interviews in preparation. For those who had known and worked alongside him, the memories of Belushi, who had died of a drug overdose in 1982, were fresh.

When Wired was released, Belushi’s friends, family, and co-stars felt betrayed. Because Belushi had disliked Nixon and had liked Woodward’s work, his widow had turned to the Post editor and bestselling author when she had questions about the LAPD’s handling of the death. What Woodward did was to take the story and create a very critical, drug-fueled, exaggerated narrative of Belushi’s stardom.

Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987 marked Woodward’s return to home base, the world of D.C. politics. Having roundly suffered what he believed was unfair criticism for Wired, Woodward may have thought his political wheelhouse would harbor a safe return to the accolades and fame of a decade before.

Veil includes one of the most hotly debated scenes ever written by Woodward. In it, former CIA director William Casey lies near-death in a hospital bed at Georgetown University Hospital.

Woodward makes his way into the room and asks Casey if he had known about the illegal diversion of profits from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras. Casey’s head “jerked up hard. He stared and finally nodded yes,” Woodward wrote.

“Why?” Woodward puzzlingly asked. Casey paused and whispered, “I believed.”

Kevin Shipp, a former member of Casey’s own security detail, wrote that none of the agents standing guard would have allowed Woodward into the room. He also noted that the former CIA director was not able to speak at the time of Woodward’s Q&A. Casey’s daughter, Bernadette Casey Smith, told the Houston Chronicle that Woodward “never got the deathbed confession.”

While the Casey story seems clearly like fantasy, The New Yorker’s John Cassidy, in describing both Veil and other Woodward work, discussed his faults in a more muted, yet specific way. “The real rap on Woodward isn’t that he makes things up,” Cassidy wrote. “It’s that he takes what powerful people tell him at face value; that his accounts are shaped by who cooperates with him and who doesn’t; and that they lack context, critical awareness, and, ultimately, historic meaning.”

The Nineties would bring a return to Watergate and, for Woodward, a kinder, gentler Democratic administration. But in the new millennium, 9/11, multiple wars, and the George W. Bush administration would be just the combatant-like foes that Woodward would need to rebuild a legacy he had self-tarnished in the 1980s and failed to recover in the 1990s.

Part III was published in American Free Press Issue 43 & 44, October 22 and 29, 2018.

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

Inside the World of ‘Paid Protesters’

The idea of “paid protesters” is no longer some crazy conspiracy theory. A company that supplies “protesters for hire” has been sued for $23 million by a Czech businessman being harassed and defamed via an extortion campaign.

By John Friend

Once marginalized as a fringe conspiracy theory, the idea of paid protesters and “astroturfing”—artificially manufacturing ostensible grassroots support for a political agenda by concealing the sponsors and financiers of a political message or organization—are increasingly becoming a permanent fixture of the American political experience.

There are numerous private companies in operation in America today that will literally recruit and hire protesters to participate in a political protest, for example, or attend a political rally. One such company, Crowds on Demand, has brought this issue to the forefront after recently being sued by a wealthy Czech investor and businessman, Zdenek Bakala, for allegedly engaging in an extortion campaign at the behest of another rival Czech businessman.

Crowds on Demand, a public relations company based in Beverly Hills, California founded in October 2012 to “revolutionize the ‘people’ business,” specializes in recruiting and hiring paid protesters and other advocates to promote and advance political agendas.

Kingdom Identity

“Are you looking to create a buzz anywhere in the United States?” the company’s website reads. “At Crowds on Demand, we provide our clients with protests, rallies, flash-mobs, paparazzi events, and other inventive PR stunts. These services are available across the country in every major U.S. city, every major U.S. metro area, and even most smaller cities as well.”

Crowds on Demand boasts that it can “provide everything including the people, the materials and even the ideas” for any given protest or publicity stunt and will help create a “strategic plan of action” for clients. In addition to manufacturing political stunts and rallies, Crowds on Demand also organizes celebrity and corporate events, according to its website.

Bakala’s recent lawsuit against Crowds on Demand, highlighted by an excellent and highly detailed investigative report published by The Sacramento Bee, alleges that the company was hired by Pavel Krupa, a rival Czech businessman and financier, to organize protests outside Bakala’s home in South Carolina. Bakala also alleges that Krupa and Crowds on Demand have worked together to organize a public relations campaign to have Bakala ousted from advisory boards of two prestigious organizations he has served with for years: the Aspen Institute and Dartmouth College. Bakala has further alleged that Krupa, working with Crowds on Demand, has demanded Bakala pay $23 million to end the smear campaign, which essentially amounts to extortion.

“Defendants are pursuing a campaign of harassment, defamation, and interference in the business affairs of Zdenek Bakala, which they have expressly vowed to expand unless he pays them millions of dollars,” Bakala’s lawyers state in their suit.

Get Out of CashCrowds on Demand and its founder, Adam Swart, have declined to answer specific questions about their partnership with Krupa or their campaign being waged against Bakala. Swart, however, did call the claims made in Bakala’s lawsuit meritless.

“Not only will I vigorously defend myself against the allegations in the complaint, but I am also evaluating whether to bring my own claims against Mr. Bakala,” Swart told the Bee in a statement provided via email.

Edward Walker, a sociology professor at UCLA and author of the book Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Consultants in American Democracy, has studied extensively public relations firms like Crowds on Demand and the increasingly prominent role they are playing in American society.

“There are hundreds of lobbying firms and public affairs firms that do this work, though not all in the same way,” Walker told the Bee. “Some only do a little bit of this grass-roots-for-hire, but things adjacent to this are not uncommon.”

Not only are Americans having to deal with the reality of fake news and systematic disinformation campaigns, they are increasingly having to deal with paid protesters and organized astroturfing campaigns to artificially advance political agendas.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Ruling Against Monsanto Upheld

An appeals court has rejected Bayer AG’s argument that the original trial jury lacked a basis to conclude that subsidiary Monsanto’s RoundUp weed killer caused Dewayne Johnson’s cancer. While, the judge also ruled to dramatically reduce the punitive damages against Bayer, the decision could open up the agri-giant to more suits.

By Mark Anderson

The ruling by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos to reject the arguments of drug giant Bayer AG and let stand a ruling in favor of ex-groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson—who developed severe cancer from exposure to Roundup, the infamous weed-killing product—has the potential to open the floodgates against certain corporate interests that for way too long have been predominant, especially in the U.S.

“This ruling opens Bayer to considerably higher damages as thousands of plaintiffs across the country have made similar legal claims, alleging that glyphosate [the herbicide in Roundup] exposure caused their cancer or resulted in the deaths of their loved ones,” the alternative news website “Zero Hedge” noted.

In a statement at the time of the initial ruling in Johnson’s favor, his attorney, Brent Wisner, remarked that the verdict sent a “message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup [are] over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits.”

Kingdom Identity

Germany-based Bayer AG purchased Monsanto for $63 million in June. In turning down Bayer AG’s appeal of the verdict, Bolanos rejected the company’s argument that the jury lacked a basis to conclude that the herbicide caused Johnson’s cancer. The twist, however, is that Judge Bolanos also ruled to dramatically reduce the punitive damages against Bayer—from the initial ruling of $289 million down to $39 million, while noting that if Johnson did not accept the lower punitive damages, she may order a new trial.

“The punitive damages award must be constitutionally reduced to the maximum allowed by due process in this case—$39,253,209.35—equal to the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury based on its findings of harm to the plaintiff,” she explained.

Because of the advanced state of Johnson’s Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a lymphatic cancer shown to have been caused by his exposure to both Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate-based herbicide, his physicians didn’t think he’d live long enough to see the verdict. But he held on to see a San Francisco jury award him a total of $289 million in overall damages.

That initial award consisted of nearly $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. But with punitive and compensatory damages each reduced to just over $39 million, Johnson and his lawyers will end up getting about $80 million instead of $289 million. Still, this represents a major victory against a corporate colossus that is one of the most despised companies in the world.

“[The] decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews—and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world—support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge claimed in a statement.

Johnson believes his case will have long-term outcomes, including new restrictions and labeling for the herbicide. “I hope [Monsanto] gets the message that people in America and across the world are not ignorant. They have already done their own research. I’m hoping that it snow-balls and people really get the picture and they start to make decisions about what they eat [and] what they spray in their farms.”

Get Out of CashBased on that statement, it’s worth adding that glyphosate worms its way into many common cereals—just one example, among many, of how the herbicide can be ingested besides being exposed to it through grounds-keeping work.

According to the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), glyphosate “is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. It is the most commonly used pesticide in parks and is even found in foods that adults and kids love. . . . Is glyphosate hazardous for kids? Absolutely.”

A CEH online summary noted: “Corn and soybeans are commonly grown using Roundup, but it’s also used on hundreds of other crops. Glyphosate is sometimes used to dry out oats just prior to harvest.”

So, beyond celebrating the major corporate pushback that Johnson’s victory represents, it would be wise for the public to ask questions and create or seek out local farms and other trustworthy food sources to minimize or avoid exposure.

Agriculture, by its very nature, should be locally sourced for purposes of proper nutrition, security in the event of civil unrest, and to avoid spoilage and contamination. That commonsense approach can proactively close the avenues through which agri-chemical exposure happens in the first place.

Mark Anderson is a AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at truthhound2@yahoo.com.

FBI Admits Infiltrating Trump Campaign

The Bureau’s admission that it had operative(s) inside campaign absolves the president and potentially two of his high-profile allies, as well, Roger Stone and Michael Caputo.

By S.T. Patrick

According to a recent court filing, the 2016 Trump campaign was infiltrated by the FBI through more than one “confidential human source,” a general classification that includes informants and spies. The FBI infiltration chiefly targeted former foreign policy advisor Carter Page as the point of entry to the campaign staff.

When the Department of Justice (DOJ) released heavily redacted copies of the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page, David Heath of USA Today sued using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI’s Records/Information Dissemination Service (RIDS) responded to the lawsuit.

Hardy acknowledged that the redactions were used to protect the identities of their own confidential sources as well as the sources obtained by former MI6 operative Christopher Steele. It was the UK’s Steele who assembled what is known as the “Steele Dossier,” an intelligence report comprised of memos Steele had written between June and December 2016. The still unproven dossier alleged that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Kremlin to disrupt the campaign of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C. political research firm, hired Steele, the former head of the Russia desk for MI6 in London between 2006 and 2009. Fusion GPS had a shared attorney, Marc Elliot, with the Clinton campaign, which had paid Fusion GPS to investigate links between Trump and Russia. CNN has since reported that the Clinton campaign and the DNC directly financed and then produced what was then known as the Trump dossier. Steele had remained the unnamed source of the dossier until The Wall Street Journal published his identity in January 2017.

Steele was not alone in his gathering of intelligence within the Trump campaign. He had met with several Department of Justice FBI officials, including Bruce and Nellie Ohr.

Bruce Ohr is a high-ranking official at the Department of Justice who has spent his career battling organized crime and has investigated Russian organized crime activities within the U.S.

Ohr’s wife, Nellie, was hired by Fusion GPS as a Russia specialist and cybersecurity expert to conduct “research and analysis” of Trump. Fluent in Russian, she once worked for Open Source Works, which analyzes intelligence for the CIA. In recent testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, Mrs. Ohr invoked “spousal privilege” when asked about conversations with her husband, Fusion GPS, and the dossier.

ABC News has concluded that the Ohrs remain insignificant to the story of the dossier. Democratic lawmakers continue to downplay any possible collusion between the FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA to negatively affect Trump’s administration by aiding Robert Mueller’s special investigation.

“This is just a big nothing-burger to me,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.). “It’s been a big waste of time. I haven’t heard anything or seen anything that leads me to believe there’s some conspiracy at DOJ or FBI or anything untoward happened.”

Get Out of CashThere has, however, been evidence that the Pentagon and the FBI used intelligence assets to approach foreign policy advisors within Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The Pentagon enlisted University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a U.S. citizen and experienced political analyst and intelligence asset, to approach and befriend three members of the 2016 Trump campaign. Halper was paid over $1 million in Department of Defense contracts throughout the Obama years, over 60% of which came after Trump announced his candidacy. Halper had approached both Page and George Papadopoulos, a former member of the foreign advisory panel to the Trump campaign.

The FBI revelations may, in part, absolve Roger Stone and Michael Caputo, two high-profile Trump allies. In late May 2016, Caputo arranged for Stone to meet with a Russian national identifying himself as “Henry Greenberg.” Greenberg asked for $2 million in exchange for information about Clinton. Stone looked at the man in the “Make America Great Again” hat and said, “You don’t understand Donald Trump. . . . He doesn’t pay for anything.” Stone then texted “waste of time” to Caputo. Following the reports of Halper’s infiltration of the campaign, Stone stated that he believed the meeting was an “FBI sting operation.”

Halper also targeted campaign national co-chair Sam Clovis. In August 2016, Halper reached out to Clovis, asking him to meet somewhere near Washington, D.C. According to Clovis’s attorney, “[Halper] said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign” and lend to Clovis his foreign policy expertise. Halper asked Clovis about China but reports from Clovis are that the subject of Russia was never discussed.

The FOIA lawsuit and FBI response seem to validate Trump’s May 18 tweet: “Reports are that there was at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia hoax became a ‘hot’ fake news story.”

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

2018 Could Be 2016 All Over Again

With media predicting an “easy win” for Democrats and loss of control by Republicans, Phil Giraldi points out that “On issues that really matter the Democrats are still clueless.” If they lose again this time, who will they blame? Certainly, they aren’t apt to accept any responsibility for being completely out of touch with most Americans. With Election Day tomorrow, we’ll find out soon enough.

By Philip Giraldi

Am I the only one who thinks the 2018 midterm election smells an awful lot like the 2016 presidential election? In both cases the punditry and media have been promising an easy win for the Democrats, in many cases predicting that the GOP will lose control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. One might argue that those who are praising the Democrats are themselves committed establishment progressives who hate Trump and would hardly do otherwise, but winning will require selling something to voters that is more than that hatred combined with negative vibes for some women coming out of the Kavanaugh hearings.

On issues that really matter the Democrats are still clueless and continue to be a party that reactively plays both a “blame the Russians” and a “diversity” card to confuse, divide, and conquer rather than presenting any programs that would actually resonate positively with voters.

Opinion polling suggests that there are two issues that really are of concern to voters. Top of the list is healthcare. The Democrats rightly excoriate clowns like Paul Ryan—currently on his way to reap his lobbying rewards from a grateful K Street—who has often cited entitlements as the big federal spending problem. He conveniently ignores runaway defense spending and massive tax cuts for the rich, which he promoted while in office, meaning that the budget will always be unbalanced.

But, Paul Ryan aside, anyone who actually pays for health insurance out of his or her own pocket will no doubt observe how healthcare costs have skyrocketed under Obamacare to the point where insurance is available but unaffordable, with premiums that in many cases have trebled per month over the past four years. Those on Medicare and Medicaid might rightfully fear more GOP mischief, but the real damage has already been done by the Democrats, and those who are personally paying for insurance know that.

Trump and the Republicans want to replace Obamacare with something better, though there has been no clarity on what that might mean. But it is an admission that Obamacare is seriously flawed, a viewpoint that many voters would appear to share. So the choice is between something that is very bad for users versus something as yet defined that might just turn out to be better. The Republicans win on that one.

The second biggest issue for voters is immigration, both legal exploiting existing loopholes in the system and illegal. The legal immigration problem consists of those who are allowed to get green cards legally and then proceed to bring their entire families over including cousins. That was not the intent of the 1965 legislation. In fact, chain immigration was dismissed as a possible consequence of the law, with President Lyndon Johnson and Democratic congressmen including Senator Ted Kennedy assuring the public that it would not occur. Of course, they were wrong. Or they were lying.

Illegal immigration is the more visible issue and the Democratic solution to the problem is, apparently, to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) giving the United States open borders. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who argue that the horrible mess in Central America is the result of U.S. meddling in their countries for the past 100 years, but that does not necessarily mean the solution is an open-doors policy that will drastically change America. Bringing in thousands or even millions of uneducated and unskilled migrants who do not speak English and then requiring local governments to educate, house, and feed them is a recipe for disaster. Indeed, it has already proven to be a disaster for many communities, with standards declining and neighborhoods in decay.

Most Americans have sympathy for the poor would-be immigrants, even if their mass migration is currently being funded by George Soros to coincide with an election, but they also long for a return to the time when communities were safe places where everyone knew their neighbors and worked hard to get along. Today the social justice warriors have made a sense of community a crime, because it does not invite enough diversity.

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

So, comparing how the two parties stand on immigration, the Republicans win hands down, as they are pledged to stop the illegals and have also spoken out against chain immigration. It is a major issue, and the Democrats are predictably on the wrong side of it, just as they are with healthcare.

My big issue is, of course, foreign and national security policy, but it ranks low in voter concerns, even though it is a cluster of related policies that are corrupt and ripe for exploitation if there were anyone out there bold enough to challenge the status quo. Donald Trump appears to be, with the exception of Iran, disinclined to continue America’s warfare state policies, but the punditry appears to think that he is being consistently outmaneuvered by his hawkish cabinet to come down hard on Russia and China while also remaining in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.

Recent elections suggest that there is something like a “peace consensus” in the United States, citizens who are tired of warfare and of the constant discovery of new enemies to fight. I think it is true that Barack Obama’s margin of difference consisted of voters who thought that he would not exercise the military option as frequently as his predecessor George W. Bush. In any event, Obama was worse than Bush, going hard after whistleblowers, assassinating American citizens, and destroying the Libyan government to leave behind chaos, a hotbed for terrorists and even for slave traders.

I also believe that Trump, like Obama, won because of the support of “peace” voters, being far less bellicose sounding than Hillary Clinton, and committed to détente with Russia and retrenchment in the Middle East. I know many voters like myself selected him because of those views, and he received considerable support because of them in the traditional conservative and libertarian media. Unfortunately, he has failed to deliver, but it is possible that the good instincts are still there. They are absent in the Democratic Party, which, because of its crusade against Russia, is far more hawkish and dangerous than the Republicans.

And then there are the intangibles: Having the Clintons and Obama out campaigning for Democratic candidates is like waving a red flag in front of conservatives, who will all make sure they get out and vote. And the economy is growing faster than under Obama. So, on balance, I think the GOP will do well this week with issues-focused voters and will retain its advantage in both houses of Congress. If that is so, the recriminations from the Democrats will start immediately. Will their failure be blamed on the Russians again this time or possibly on the Chinese?

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.

Go Home

Who’s funding the massive caravan of migrants trying to invade the U.S.? Allegations George Soros is involved are no conspiracy theory.

By John Friend

The so-called “caravan” of Third World migrants marching their way through Mexico in an attempt to enter the United States and seek asylum or claim refugee status has the nation in an uproar, with President Donald Trump openly describing the situation as a potential invasion of the country and vowing to provide military support to border patrol and immigration authorities.

The caravan, which originated earlier this month in Central America before crossing into Mexico to make the northward journey toward the southern border of the U.S., has sparked outrage, controversy, and division across the country.

In late October, the Department of Homeland Security announced that gang members and other criminals are among members of the migrant caravan, and that many of those walking are from countries outside Central America, including the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. A young migrant man recently interviewed by Fox News openly admitted that “criminals are everywhere” within the caravan before insisting that there were also “good people here trying to get through Mexico and then to the United States.”

Additionally, Fox News also reported that about 80% of the caravan is comprised of young men under the age of 35, raising alarms and calling into question the notion that those traveling in the caravan are potential refugees and persecuted asylum seekers, as left-leaning supporters of the caravan insist.

Kingdom Identity

Trump took a strong and forceful stand against the migrant caravan when it first generated headlines earlier this month. He publicly urged the participants to go back to their home countries.

“Many gang members and some very bad people are mixed into the caravan heading to our Southern border,” the president tweeted recently. “Please go back. You will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our country and our military is waiting for you!”

Defense Secretary James Mattis also announced recently that roughly 5,200 U.S. soldiers would be deployed at positions along the U.S. border with Mexico in an effort to reinforce and support National Guard units and federal immigration and customs officials protecting and guarding the border. The military is in the process of moving heavy equipment such as concrete barriers to the border and will help construct additional fences and barriers as well as provide logistical support to Border Patrol agents.

Previously, the Trump administration vowed to cut off foreign aid and investment in the countries deemed to be facilitating the several-thousand-strong migrant caravan, including Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico.

American Free Press has looked into who exactly is funding the massive migrant caravan that has been wending its way north. It should come as no surprise that George Soros’s foundations along with at least five other well-funded immigrant advocacy groups are behind the army of migrants that is attempting to cross into the United States in violation of the law. See article below for details.

Caravan Needs Funding

Money and orchestration are needed to coordinate the movements of a veritable army of Central Americans to get to the U.S. Border. Where is it coming from?

The current migrant caravan, like previous high-profile attempts to organize massive armies of immigrants, has many wondering who is funding and facilitating these groups, which have at times included up to 7,000 people, mainly Central Americans.

Several published reports have alleged that Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders), a radical left-wing activist organization that, according to its website, provides “humanitarian aid and legal advice to migrants and refugees,” has played a key role in helping organize and publicize the current migrant caravan. The group openly organizes rallies and fundraisers for migrants and “displaced persons.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

CBN News recently reported that Denis Omar Contreras, a member of Pueblo Sin Fronteras, is one of the organization’s members currently representing the migrant caravan.

In an article published on Oct. 29, Arizona Republic reporter Daniel Gonzalez, who was embedded with the caravan, wrote that the group had stopped to rest in San Pedro Tapanatepec, Mexico, where “local residents, church groups, and municipal officials in the towns where the caravan stops are feeding the migrants.”

Gonzalez added: “Coordinators with Pueblo Sin Fronteras say the caravan operates with no hierarchy but rather by consensus. Each evening, after the sun goes down and the oppressive heat dissipates, migrants are invited to the center of town to listen to plans put forth by volunteer coordinators.”

“[The migrants] are given a chance to agree or disagree,” explained Pueblo Sin Fronteras volunteer Nelly Espinoza. “No decision is made without the input of our collaborators.” The term “collaborators” refers to the thousands of migrants, who are making the long trek through Central America into Mexico.

Others, including Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, have argued that George Soros, the notorious left-wing billionaire known to support and finance the open-borders agenda, refugee resettlement, and massive Third World migration to the West, is responsible for the caravan.

On a recent appearance on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox News, Farrell declared that the caravan was a very well-organized and well-funded movement that had support from a variety of radical left-wing activist groups, including the “Soros-occupied State Department.”

For years it has been alleged that the State Department has colluded with various international organizations, including Soros’s Open Societies Foundations, to sow division in foreign countries, aid and facilitate massive migration and resettlement, and even destabilize sovereign governments to advance the globalist New World Order agenda.

Farrell was quickly denounced by Fox News, with senior executives of the network condemning his statements and pulling the program from the archives. Due to his remarks, Farrell“will no longer be appearing as a guest on Fox Business Network or Fox News Channel,” the company said in a statement to USA Today.

In the aftermath of the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, allegedly carried out by an insane man named Robert Bowers, many in the mainstream mass media and political establishment are attempting to shut down debate over the migrant caravan by insisting that criticizing Soros or pointing out his long history of supporting radical left-wing political causes is inherently anti-Semitic. Farrell and countless others have been dismissed as crazed anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists for stating facts about Soros and the open-borders agendas he has supported and financed over the years, despite the entirely reasonable, legitimate, and well-founded perspectives proffered by critics of Soros.

Get Out of CashAnd it’s not just private organizations and individuals that are helping to mobilize the migrant caravan.

News and commentary website “Investor’s Business Daily” notes in an editorial, “Migrant Caravan: A Foreign-Financed, Leftist-Led Violation of U.S. Sovereignty,” that even the United Nations (UN) has been offering cash and resources to the group. “[T]he UN is committing resources to the caravan. In essence, it uses U.S. taxpayers’ money to fund a violation of their own border. That way, the U.S. can join all the other countries with a mass immigration problem.”

“Investor’s” cites a UN News Service report that stated: “A priority for the UNHCR [UN High Commissioner for Refugees], which has mobilized extra staff and resources to help those making the journey in Mexico’s southern borderlands, is ensuring migrants are informed on their rights to asylum. In an agency video, a UNHCR protection associate said many migrants were simply unaware asylum was an option.”

Finally, Vice President Mike Pence told The Washington Post, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández said to him that a migrant caravan approaching the U.S. southern border is being financed by Venezuela.

“The president of Honduras told me this was organized by leftist groups in Honduras and financed by Venezuela,” said Pence.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Is This Worse Than ’68?

A palpable sense of divisive anger and even hate seems to be growing throughout the U.S., but despite this, the overall crime rate for the country, including all acts of violence, remains at historic lows. It may seem like we are living through a time that’s worse than 1968, but the truth is, we are very far from those turbulent days when cities exploded with riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Saturday, in Pittsburgh, a Sabbath celebration at the Tree of Life synagogue became the site of the largest mass murder of Jews in U.S. history. Eleven worshippers were killed by a racist gunman.

Friday, we learned the identity of the crazed criminal who mailed pipe bombs to a dozen leaders of the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

From restaurants to Capitol corridors, this campaign season we have seen ugly face-offs between leftist radicals and Republican senators.

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

Are we more divided than we have ever been? Are our politics more poisoned? Are we living in what Charles Dickens called “the worst of times” in America? Is today worse than 1968?

Certainly, the hatred and hostility, the bile and bitterness of our discourse, seem greater now than 50 years ago. But are the times really worse?

1968 began with one of the greatest humiliations in the history of the American Navy. The U.S. spy ship Pueblo was hijacked in international waters and its crew interned by North Korea.

A week later came the Tet Offensive, where every provincial capital in South Vietnam was attacked. A thousand U.S. troops died in February, 10,000 more through 1968.

On March 14, anti-war Senator Gene McCarthy captured 42 percent of the vote in New Hampshire against President Johnson.

With LBJ wounded, Robert Kennedy leapt into the race, accusing the president who had enacted civil rights of “dividing the country” and removing himself from “the enduring and generous impulses that are the soul of this nation.” Lyndon Johnson, said Kennedy, is “calling upon the darker impulses of the American spirit.” Today, RFK is remembered as a “uniter.”

With Gov. George Wallace tearing at Johnson from the right and Kennedy and McCarthy attacking from the left — and Nixon having cleared the Republican field with a landslide in New Hampshire — LBJ announced on March 31 he would not run again.

Four days later, Martin Luther King, leading a strike of garbage workers, was assassinated in Memphis. One hundred U.S. cities exploded in looting, arson and riots. The National Guard was called up everywhere and federal troops rushed to protect Washington, D.C., long corridors of which were gutted, not to be rebuilt for a generation.

Before April’s end, Columbia University had exploded in the worst student uprising of the decade. It was put down only after the NYPD was unleashed on the campus.

Nixon called the Columbia takeover by black and white radicals “the first major skirmish in a revolutionary struggle to seize the universities of this country and transform them into sanctuaries for radicals and vehicles for revolutionary political and social goals.” Which many have since become.

In June, Kennedy, after defeating McCarthy in the crucial primary of California, was mortally wounded in the kitchen of the hotel where he had declared victory. He was buried in Arlington beside JFK.

Nixon, who had swept every primary, was nominated on the first ballot in Miami Beach, and the Democratic Convention was set for late August.

Between the conventions, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sent his Warsaw Pact armies and hundreds of tanks into Czechoslovakia to crush the peaceful uprising known as “Prague Spring.”

With this bloodiest of military crackdowns since the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Moscow sent a message to the West: There will be no going back in Europe. Once a Communist state, always a Communist state!

At the Democratic convention in Chicago, the thousands of radicals who had come to raise hell congregated nightly in Grant Park, across from the Hilton where the candidates and this writer were staying.

Baited day and night, the Chicago cops defending the hotel, by late in the week, had had enough. Early one evening, platoons of fresh police arrived and charged into the park clubbing and arresting scores of radicals as the TV cameras rolled. It would be called a “police riot.”

When Sen. Abe Ribicoff took the podium that night, he directed his glare at Mayor Richard J. Daley, accusing him of using “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.” Daley’s reply from the floor was unprintable.

Get Out of CashThrough September, Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey could not speak at a rally without being cursed and shouted down.

Describing the radicals disrupting his every event, Humphrey said, these people “aren’t just hecklers,” but “highly disciplined, well-organized agitators. … Some are anarchists and some of these groups are dedicated to destroying the Democratic Party and destroying the country.”

After his slim victory, Nixon declared that his government would take as its theme the words on a girl’s placard that he had seen in the Ohio town of Deshler: “Bring us together.”

Nixon tried in his first months, but it was not to be.

According to Bryan Burrough, author of “Days of Rage, America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence,” “During an 18-month period in 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported more than 2,500 bombings on U.S. soil, nearly five a day.”

No, 2018 is not 1968, at least not yet.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Drug Traffickers Using Tunnels to Smuggle Wares Into U.S.

At the same time a new high-tech tunnel has been discovered nearly ready for transport of people and contraband from Mexico into California, a caravan of some 7,000 migrants  from Central America is making its way across Mexico toward the Texas border, believing that President Trump “has to let us in.” Who convinced these people American “has to” let them in? News today reports the president has ordered some 5,000 active duty military personnel to the border to work with Customs and Border Patrol officials if necessary.

By John Friend

A massive and highly sophisticated cross-border underground tunnel was recently discovered near Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif., situated along the porous U.S.-Mexico border, sparking alarm among America’s border control and immigration agencies responsible for policing the southern border.

The tunnel began in a home in Jacume, Mexico, which is less than 100 yards from the U.S. border, and was likely designed to transport drugs and other illegal contraband into the United States, Border Patrol officials stated.

“Sophisticated tunnels take a lot of time and money to make,” Border Patrol Agent Tekae Michael told The Los Angeles Times, noting that such tunnels are common in the area. “When we find them, they’re a pretty big deal.”

The discovery once again underscores the harsh reality of America’s immigration crisis, as illegal aliens and illegal contraband continue to flood across the southern border.

A team of officials with the U.S. Border Patrol, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration worked with Mexican police and military officials, who initially discovered the tunnel during an operation in mid-September. Although the tunnel did not yet have an exit into the United States, it did stretch beneath the U.S.-Mexico border, reaching approximately 336 feet into U.S. territory near the small town of Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif.

The tunnel was equipped with a rail system that stretched the entire length of the passageway, and a solar panel system was installed to power lighting and ventilation. A water pumping system was also built in the tunnel.

According to U.S. officials, the tunnel is roughly 3 feet tall and 2.5 feet wide, and stretches for 627 feet. No arrests have been made in connection with the discovery of the tunnel, although the investigation is still underway, according to Border Patrol officials. Border Patrol Agent Vincent Pirro told The Los Angeles Times that once the investigation is complete, the tunnel will be filled in so smugglers cannot use it.

This tunnel is the first cross-border smuggling tunnel discovered in fiscal year 2019, according to officials. Last fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, two cross-border tunnels were discovered in the San Diego sector near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

The discovery comes as yet another caravan of Central American economic migrants make their way north from Honduras and into Guatemala, with plans of eventually crossing the border into Mexico before heading further northwards into the United States in an attempt to claim asylum or refugee status.

According to Reuters, roughly 3,000 migrants [Since this story was written, estimates have risen to 7,000 migrants in the caravan, now in Mexico-Ed.], most from impoverished Central American countries, crossed from Honduras into Guatemala earlier this week following a standoff with police in what organizers have called the “March of the Migrant.” They are attempting to gain asylum in Mexico or the United States, organizers have claimed.

“We’re going to drop in on Donald Trump,” Andrea Fernandez, a 24-year-old Honduran mother who is participating in the march with her newborn baby and two other young children, aged five and seven, told Reuters. “He has to take us in.”

The Trump administration has called on political leaders in Mexico and Central America to deal with the issue head on and have pledged economic development and investment in return. However, President Trump also warned Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that any financial assistance given to these Central American countries would end “if they allow their citizens, or others, to journey through their borders and up to the United States” with the intention of illegally entering America, the president tweeted.

The president also sent out a warning via Twitter to those seeking to enter the country illegally: “Anybody entering the United States illegally will be arrested and detained, prior to being sent back to their country!”

Many economic migrants falsely claim they are violently persecuted in their home countries in an effort to gain political asylum or refugee status. Others are lured with false promises of finding jobs and economic security by leaving their impoverished home countries. Countless organizations exist in the United States that seek to facilitate the refugee resettlement process, often exploiting loopholes and taking advantage of America’s generous immigration policies. Some left-wing groups have even offered legal training to migrants in order to help them gain refugee status.

Get Out of CashMany Americans are calling on the Trump administration to pressure the Mexican government to block the migrant caravan and others seeking to illegally enter the U.S.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, recently told “Breitbart News Tonight” that, ideally, the Trump administration should simply not allow the migrants to enter the country.

She also called on Trump to “put pressure on Mexico to not issue them transit visas,” referring to the economic migrants. “They have no basis to enter Mexico unless Mexico is going to give them asylum.”

“The best possible solution is to not let [them] enter,” Vaughan stated. “The goal should be to have people not get across, at all, because then it’s a whole different story once they set foot in the United States, whether they’ve been admitted or paroled or whatever. As soon as we let them across, that’s when it becomes extremely difficult to remove them and return them to their home countries.”

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Finish the Fed

The new Issue 43 & 44 of American Free Press is in the mail, and digital subscribers can read their newspaper online here. Not yet a subscriber? Click here for subscription options and don’t miss another issue of AFP. In our front-page article, Fed critic Ron Paul says the Federal Reserve is creating conditions that make a devastating economic crisis “inevitable.”

By Paul Angel

We here at American Free Press resist financial fearmongering for one simple reason. Most of the doom-and-gloom hype over an “impending financial collapse” is usually pushed by Wall Street brokers and banksters who profit mightily from getting you to move your stocks around or avail yourself of their high-priced investment newsletters. But the latest comments by former Rep. Ron Paul about the economy caught our eyes.

As Paul points out in a recent column, early October’s “frantic stock market sell-off indicates the failure to learn the lessons of 2008 and makes another meltdown inevitable.”

It’s been a decade since the financial meltdown of 2008 rocked America, mostly due to the bursting of the Fed’s artificially created housing bubble. Unfortunately, as Paul points out, “The government should have let the downturn run its course in order to correct the malinvestments made during the phony, Fed-created boom. This may have caused some short-term pain, but it would have ensured the recovery would be based on a solid foundation rather than a bubble of fiat currency.”

Survival of the Richest, JeffriesAll of that was caused by yet another gargantuan mistake by the Fed, Paul says, seven years earlier. “In 2001-2002 the Federal Reserve responded to the economic downturn caused by the bursting of the technology bubble by pumping money into the economy. This new money ended up in the housing market.

This was because the so-called ‘conservative’ Bush administration, like the ‘liberal’ Clinton administration before it, was using the Community Reinvestment Act and government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make mortgages available to anyone who wanted one—regardless of income or credit history.”

Banks were more than happy to “lend first, ask questions later, when foreclosing,” says Paul.

So instead of letting the problem correct itself—with a good dose of attendant but necessary pain, Congress instead bailed out Wall Street and the big banks. How? Paul says, “The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to historic lows and embarked on a desperate attempt to inflate the economy via quantitative easing 1, 2, and 3.”

And this has left us where we are today, with Republicans alleging the economy is in the best condition it ever has been in U.S. history and Democrats clamoring to place the credit with the Barack Obama administration. The truth is, government and personal debt are out of control. As Paul says, “Credit card debt is over a trillion dollars, student loan debt is at $1.5 trillion, there is a bubble in auto loans, and there is even a new housing bubble. But the biggest part of the ‘everything’ bubble is the government bubble. Federal debt is over $21 trillion and expanding by [an astronomical] tens of thousands of dollars per second.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Obviously, this cannot sustain itself, leaving the Fed in a bit of a dilemma. Today, the entire economy is a bubble just waiting to burst. And inflation is rearing its ugly head at the same time. To control that, the Fed will have to gradually increase interest rates.

“The Fed will be unsuccessful in keeping the ‘everything bubble’ from exploding. When the bubble bursts, America will experience an economic crisis much greater than the 2008 meltdown or the Great Depression,” says Paul. Paul’s solution, however, is simple.

“A secretive central bank should not be allowed to manipulate interest rates and distort economic signals regarding market conditions. Such action leads to malinvestment and an explosion of individual, business, and government debt. This may cause a temporary boom, but the boom soon will be followed by a bust. The only way this cycle can be broken without a major crisis is for Congress to restore people’s right to use the currency of their choice and to audit and then end the Fed.”

We agree.

Caravan Puts Trump Legacy on the Line

With President Trump having been elected largely on an anti-immigration/border security platform, an opportunity for him to defend his line in the sand—and impact the mid-term election outcome—is currently at hand. Writes Buchanan: “As of Thursday, a caravan of 4,000 refugees without visas had crossed from Honduras into Guatemala and was heading toward Mexico. By Election Day, it will either have been stopped, or it will be here. And this caravan is a portent of things to come.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Our mainstream media remain consumed with the grisly killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and how President Donald Trump will deal with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Understandably so, for this is the most riveting murder story since O.J. Simpson and has strategic implications across the Middle East.

Yet far more critical to the future of our civilization is the ongoing invasion of the West from the Third World.

Consider the impact of the decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015 to throw open Germany’s doors to 1 million refugees from Syria’s civil war.

Last weekend, in a crushing blow to Merkel, the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of her CDU, won its smallest share of the vote in half a century, 37%. Her coalition party, the SPD, saw its share of the Bavarian vote fall to a historic low of less than 10%.

The right-wing Alternative for Deutchland saw its support rise to 10% and has become a force in German politics. Some conservatives are urging the CDU to adopt the AfD hardline on illegal immigration.

The message sent by the Bavarian electorate is the message voters across Europe have been sending to their own capitals for years: You are failing in your first duty—defense of the homeland from foreign invasion. Mass migration of unassimilable peoples and cultures from a global South represents an existential threat to our Europe.

As Merkel’s chancellorship approaches its end, French President Emmanuel Macron, her progressive EU partner, has seen his approval fall to below 30%.

The U.S.-led NATO alliance may guard the Baltic and Black Sea regions against a Russian invasion from the east. But in Central, Southern, and Western Europe, the more feared invaders are the peoples of Africa and the Muslim world, whose numbers are expected to triple or quadruple by this century’s end.

And as their numbers grow, so, too, does their desperation to escape, even at risk of their lives, the poverty, wars, and repression of their homelands to cross the Med and fill the empty spaces left by a depopulating Europe.

It also now appears that the U.S. elections, not three weeks away, may be affected by another immigration crisis on the U.S. border.

Get Out of CashAs of Thursday, a caravan of 4,000 refugees without visas had crossed from Honduras into Guatemala and was heading toward Mexico. By Election Day, it will either have been stopped, or it will be here. And this caravan is a portent of things to come.

According to The Washington Post, during FY 2018, which ended last month, 107,212 members of “family units” crossed over into the U.S., “obliterating the previous record of 77,857 set in 2016.”

Citing DHS figures, the Post adds, “Border patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September alone, the highest one-month total on record and an 80% increase from July.”

When Trump, under intense political fire, ended his “zero tolerance” policy of separating refugees from their children, this message went out to Mexico and Central America:

Bring your kids with you when you cross the border. They will have to stay with you, and they cannot be held for more than 20 days. Thus, when they are released, you will be released to await a hearing on your claim of asylum. The odds are excellent that you can vanish into the U.S. population and never be sent back.

Enraged, Trump has threatened to cut off aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala if they do not stop the caravans and has warned Mexico he will use the U.S. military to secure our border.

Unwanted mass migration is the issue of our time, as there is no foreseeable end to it before it alters America irremediably.

As these migrants are almost all poor, not highly skilled, and do not speak English, most will join that segment of our population that pays no income taxes but qualifies for social welfare benefits like food stamps, medical care, and free education in our public schools.

They are thus a net drain upon the resources of a nation that is already, at full employment, running a deficit of $779 billion a year.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

These migrants, however, are a present and future benefit to the Democratic Party that built and maintains our mammoth welfare state, and which, in presidential elections, routinely wins 70 to 90% of the votes of people whose trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Not without reason, Democrats believe that if they can change the composition of the American electorate, they can control America forever.

If Donald Trump was elected on any one issue, it was immigration and his promises to secure the border, build the wall, and halt the invasion.

How he deals with the impending crisis of the migrant caravan may affect both the fate of his party in November and his presidency in 2020.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Discovery of Border Tunnels Has U.S. Rethinking ‘the Wall’

The discovery of more and more extensive tunnels under America’s southern border—including a 600-foot-long tunnel recently found connecting Mexican territory with an abandoned Arizona restaurant—are causing concern that adding fence and wall sections may incentivize transnational gangs and cartels to dig even more tunnels. 

By Mark Anderson

WASHINGTON D.C.—When the House of Representatives on Sept. 25 took up pivotal legislation about homeland security, it became clear that Americans might need to rethink the border wall concept. Why? According to Texas Republican Reps. Michael McCaul and Pete Sessions, among others, law enforcement authorities are finding tunnels—lots of tunnels—of varying length, depth, and sophistication crossing from Mexico into the U.S.

According to McCaul, earlier in September, a 600-foot-long tunnel was found connecting Mexican territory with an abandoned Arizona restaurant. He also recalled that in 2010, a tunnel that reportedly went under the Rio Grande River was found near El Paso, Texas.

About 200 cross-border tunnels have been discovered since 1990, and that’s just counting the ones the government knows about, said McCaul, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

In the House chamber, where this writer was the only reporter in attendance for the nearly hour-long border session, Sessions remarked: “Drugs, crime, and gangs have been streaming in” through these invisible passageways, referring to the lengths that MS-13 Salvadoran gang members and drug cartelists will go to enter the U.S. Sessions added: “No part of the U.S. is safe if the southern border is not effectively taken care of.”

Of the numerous bipartisan bills focused on border security, the Border Tunnel Task Force Act, H.R. 6740, is key.

Across the aisle, strong support for this and related legislation came from Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.). He spoke eloquently on the House floor in support of Sessions and McCaul, exhibiting an unusually cooperative attitude given the sharp partisan differences that have been further aggravated by the controversy over conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Richmond, echoing his Republican colleagues, stressed that not only marijuana but also cocaine, heroin, people, and contraband are being found in these tunnels—some of which have functional water and sewer systems.

Richmond noted that adding fence and wall sections may incentivize transnational gangs and cartels to dig even more tunnels.

The Louisiana legislator has sponsored H.R.6620, a bill called the Protecting Critical Infrastructure Against Drones and Emerging Threats Act. Yes, you read that correctly. Congress is now confronting the specter of the drug cartels using unmanned aerial systems, or drones, to fly drugs and other contraband over the U.S. border—given the increasing availability, affordability, and sophistication of drone technology.

Get Out of Cash

Under these legislative measures, federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies will be authorized to seriously address the tunnel problem, while the Department of Homeland Security will be tasked with conducting threat assessments regarding drones.

This is not to say that a wall has no purpose. CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson, for her popular “Full Measure” show, this past spring traveled to Laredo, Texas and—despite the mass media cartel’s typical criticism of pro-border wall stances—saw firsthand that Border Patrol agents need a physical barrier that provides a containment function to keep the flood of illegal aliens at bay. This enables the agents to focus on highly risky locations and apprehend enough border-crossers to not lose the battle altogether.

Another bill, H.R. 6742, the Secure Border Communications Act, like the above-named bills, was approved by the House and sent on to the Senate where it now sits in committee. It calls for ensuring that Customs and Border Enforcement agents have inter-operable, secure radios so they can better communicate without information being intercepted by cartels or gangs.

What do you think? To weigh in, call your Congress and Senate members at 202-224-3121 or 225-3121. To write to any House member, put their name, House of Representatives, Washington D.C. 20515; or for the Senate, Senator’s name, U.S. Senate, Washington D.C. 20510. Also contact their district and state offices.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Somebody Tell the President: Israel, U.S. the Rogue Nations

American and Israeli hubris have made enemies across the globe. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September, President Trump thumbed his nose at international organizations and bashed Iran as if that nation, rather than Israel and the U.S., has fueled the humanitarian crisis in Syria. 

By Philip Giraldi

President Donald Trump’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25 made it very clear that the United States would no longer recognize the authority of international organizations when they conflict with American interests. If there had been a clear understanding that he meant that Washington would respond unilaterally if necessary to threats to vital interests, there would have been considerable support from a number of nations that have begun to believe that globalism has made many countries less secure while also having a centrifugal tendency to weaken and eventually destroy national cultures and values. But Trump did not necessarily go down that road, clearly suggesting that he would leave it up to the White House to become the “decider” regarding what the United States would or would not regard as an interest.

Trump’s 35-minute speech featured a long section on Iran. He said: “Every solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria must also include a strategy to address the brutal regime that has fueled and financed it: the corrupt dictatorship in Iran. . . . Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death, and destruction.

They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond. . . . We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America,’ and that threatens Israel with annihilation, to possess the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to any city on Earth. Just can’t do it.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

There are a number of things wrong with Trump’s description of Iran and the conclusions he draws. The Middle East is in the state it is in because the United States destroyed Iraq in 2003, allowing the rise of ISIS and giving local al Qaeda affiliates a new lease on life, before turning on Syria with the Syria Accountability Act later in the same year. These were, not coincidentally, policies promoted by Israel and that received, as a result, bipartisan support in Congress.

The description of disrespecting “neighbors, borders, and sovereign rights” fits the U.S. and Israel perfectly rather than Iran. The U.S. has soldiers stationed illegally in Syria while Israel bombs the country on an almost daily basis, so who is doing the disrespecting?

As for the “most dangerous weapons,” Iran doesn’t have any, and is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which Israel has not signed. Nor would Iran have any such weapons in the future but for the fact that Trump has backed out of the agreement to monitor and inspect Iranian nuclear research and development, which will, if anything, motivate Tehran to develop weapons to protect itself.

On sale now at AFP’s Online Store.

Trump also elaborated the following day in the context of Iran’s alleged but demonstrably nonexistent nuclear program when he indicated to the UN Security Council that Washington would go after countries that violate the rules on nuclear proliferation. The comment was ironic in the extreme, as Israel is the world’s leading nuclear rogue nation, having stolen the uranium and key elements of the technology from the United States in the 1960s. It now has a secret arsenal of at least 200 nuclear weapons.

The reality is, of course, that Trump’s protecting Israel is a bit like nurturing a viper in one’s bosom, as the old saying goes. Leading leftist Noam Chomsky has finally seen the light on Israel’s “brazenly” interfering in U.S. elections far outweighing any efforts that may have been carried out by Russia.

Chomsky explained: “First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies—what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.”

Like the United States under Trump, the Israeli government acting through a private attorney named Harel Arnon has recently declared it is not subject to international law, claiming that “the Knesset has no limitation which prevents it from legislating extra-territorially anywhere in the world.” It is also “entitled to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries” and “is allowed to ignore the directives of international law in any field it desires.” This language appeared in an official Netanyahu government response letter to Israel’s Supreme Court last month.

The claims made by Netanyahu’s attorney are intended to validate a new Israeli law from last year, which legalized the outright theft of Palestinian land. The Settlement Regularization Law retroactively legalized the thousands of settler homes and buildings constructed on what once was Palestinian private land on the West Bank. Before the law was passed, Israeli law still technically regarded the new settlement construction to be illegal.

Under international law including the Geneva Conventions, however, all the settlements continue to be illegal and still are considered to be such, even by the United States. Israel consequently fears the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which its leadership and Donald Trump are doing their best to delegitimize.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

One might well argue that Israel and the United States share a point of conceit about their place in the world, which might actually be unique. Other regimes that flout international law and claim extra-territoriality for their own laws do not openly advertise that is what they are doing. Only Washington and Tel Aviv have the hubris to act shamefully while thumbing their noses and defying the rest of the international community to do something about it.

The most shameful aspect of the truly incestuous bilateral relationship is not that both countries arrived at the same destination at more or less the same time based on their own interests. What we have witnessed is something quite different.

It is the United States that has become more like Israel, not the other way around, as Israel’s norms of behavior have been both accepted and frequently adopted by the American political class, the media, and by many institutions of government, to include the police and armed forces, which now undergo training provided by Israel. The United States of America has in many ways become Israel.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. His other articles appear on the website of “The Unz Review.”

Casualty Lists From the Kavanaugh Battle

The confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court “was a huge victory for conservatism and for the Republican Party,” says Pat Buchanan. In doing so, President Trump has ensured the restoration and survival of at least one constitutionalist voice in the nation’s highest court. The GOP is more united than ever in recent history, and the left is raging and wailing over the end of liberalism’s reign.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After a 50-year siege, the great strategic fortress of liberalism has fallen. With the elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court seems secure for constitutionalism—perhaps for decades.
The shrieks from the gallery of the Senate chamber as the vote came in on Saturday, and the sight of that bawling mob clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court as the new justice took his oath, confirm it.

The Democratic Party has sustained a historic defeat.

And the triumph is President Trump’s.

To unite the party whose nomination he had won, Donald Trump pledged to select his high court nominees from lists prepared by such judicial conservatives as the Federalist Society. He kept his word and, in the battle for Kavanaugh, he led from the front, even mocking the credibility of the primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

Trump has achieved what every GOP president has hoped to do since the summer of ’68, when a small group of GOP senators, led by Bob Griffin of Michigan, frustrated and then foiled a LBJ-Earl Warren plot to elevate LBJ crony Abe Fortas to chief justice in order to keep a future President Nixon from naming Warren’s successor.

Sharing the honors with Trump is Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Throughout 2016, McConnell took heat for refusing to hold a hearing on Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill the chair of Justice Antonin Scalia, who had died earlier that year.

In 2017, McConnell used Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” to end filibusters for Supreme Court nominations, and then got Judge Neil Gorsuch confirmed 54-45.

Last week, in one of the closest and most brutal court battles in Senate history, McConnell kept his troops united, losing only Sen. Lisa Murkowski, to put Kavanaugh on the court by 50-48. McConnell will enter the history books as the Senate architect of the recapture of the Supreme Court for constitutionalism.

This was a huge victory for conservatism and for the Republican Party. And the presence on the court of octogenarian liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both appointed by Bill Clinton, suggests that McConnell may have an opportunity to ensure the endurance of his great achievement.

The ferocity and ugliness of the attacks on Kavanaugh united Republicans to stand as one against what a savage Senate minority was trying to do to kill the nomination. And at battle’s end, the GOP is more energized than it has been all year for this fall’s election.

How united is the GOP? Conservatives are hailing the contributions of Sens. Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins, who delivered a masterful summation of the Kavanaugh case Saturday afternoon.

For the Democratic Party, the Kavanaugh battle was the Little Bighorn, as seen from General Custer’s point of view.

Unable to derail the judge during the regular confirmation process, they lay in the weeds until it was over, and then sandbagged the judge by leaking to The Washington Post a confidential letter Dr. Ford did not want released.

They thus forced a public hearing of charges of attempted rape against a nominee, demanded the FBI investigate all charges of sexual misconduct when Kavanaugh was a teenager, and ended up losing anyway.

Then the Dems watched protesters dishonor the Senate in which they serve by screaming from the gallery. It was among the lowest moments in the modern history of the Senate, and it was the Democratic minority that took it down to that depth.

Understandably, they are a bitter lot today.

And the #MeToo movement has been set back. For many of its champions were, in Kavanaugh’s case, demanding a suspension of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” and calling for the judge’s rejection in disgrace, based solely on their belief in a wholly uncorroborated 36-year-old story.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

So where are we going now?

While Republicans are united and celebrating a great victory, the left and its media auxiliary are seething with rage and doubly determined to deliver payback in the elections four weeks away, where Democrats could pick up the two dozen seats needed to recapture the House.

Should they do so, however, they will face two years of frustration and failure. For the enactment of any major element of their liberal agenda—a $15 minimum wage, “Medicare-for-all”—would die in a Republican Senate, or in the Oval Office where it would face an inevitable veto by Trump.

So, what does 2019 look like, if Democrats capture the House?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A House Judiciary Committee headed by New York’s Jerrold Nadler who is already howling for impeachment hearings on both Kavanaugh and Trump.

And, by spring, a host of presidential candidates, none of whom looks terribly formidable, led by Cory (“I am Spartacus”) Booker, trooping through Iowa and New Hampshire, trashing President Trump (and each other), and offering themselves as the answer to America’s problems.

Bring it on!

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator, and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Leaked Video Reveals Shocking Agenda of Internet Giant Google

Revelations of  Google tweaking its search algorithm to promote its leaders’ political and ideological leanings have led to strong statements of protest from company spokespersons, yet new information continues to emerge on just how skewed search results may be. Are more Internet users coming to understand not everything on the ‘net is as it seems, as they’ve discovered about mainstream media? 

By Dave Gahary

For readers who still believe that Google is simply an Internet search engine, a recently leaked video recorded at the company’s “first all-hands meeting” on the Friday after the 2016 U.S. presidential election should put that silly thought to rest.

The 63-minute video—which “reveals an atmosphere of panic and dismay amongst the tech giant’s leadership, coupled with a determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the broader populist movement emerging around the globe”—was sent anonymously to Breitbart News, and features co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, as well as Google’s chief executive and financial officers and a few vice presidents, who appear to be in a state of subdued shock at the election results.

Soviet-born to Jewish parents, Brin co-founded Google with Page, whose mother was Jewish and whose father made aliyah to Israel. Aliyah, literally “ascent,” means moving to Israel, one of Zionism’s most basic tenets. Israel’s “law of return” grants Jews and their descendants automatic residency rights and Israeli citizenship.

Page and Brin are the 9th and 10th richest people in the world, with net worths of $53.6 billion and $52.1 billion respectively.

In early September it was also revealed—via a leaked email written by Google’s “multicultural marketing” chief—that the tech giant tried to assist Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations by boosting Latino turnout.

In the leaked video—marked “Confidential-Internal Only”—the Google heads disparage Trump voters and scheme to use their billions to thwart the president’s agenda.

Kingdom Identity

Brin, who opens up the meeting, assumes that “most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad because of the election.” He calls Trump supporters “fascists and extremists,” saying that, similar to other extremists, people who voted for Trump did so out of “boredom rather than legitimate concerns,” which he claims has led to fascism and communism in the past. He continues by saying, “As an immigrant and a refugee, I certainly find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do, too.” Claiming that “it’s a very stressful time and it [Trump’s victory] conflicts with many of our values,” Brin, who vows to get even with the misguided American electorate, is backed up by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who announces the company’s plans to develop artificial intelligence machines to counter the “misinformation” of “low-information voters,” i.e., anyone who voted for Trump.

There is hope on the horizon for all of the “deplorables,” however, as former Department of Justice prosecutor Larry Klayman—who helped break up AT&T’s monopoly in the 1980s—filed a class action lawsuit on Aug. 29 alleging “Google/YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Instagram conspired by entering into an explicit or tacit agreement, in parallel to each other, to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which regulates commercial competition, is divided into three sections. Section 1 states:

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several declared to be illegal.

Freedom Watch v. Google/YouTube et. al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, “alleges that the intent and effect of this agreement in restraint of trade is to quash and/or limit advocacy by conservative and pro-Trump public interest groups, advocates, and others to further the leftist anti-conservative agendas of these social media giants and to help bring down the Trump presidency and nullify the vote of the millions of citizens who voted for the president.”

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Judging from the latest revelations coming out of Silicon Valley, as well the nearly $3 billion fine levied by the European Union in 2017 against Google for “promoting its own shopping comparison service at the top of search results,” Klayman’s allegations have the potential to gain some traction.

But the fact that Google is an awesome competitor cannot, and should not, be discounted. Earlier this year, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, reported over $100 billion in annual sales—a first in Google’s 20-year history—with total annual revenue topping $110 billion, up from around $90 billion in 2016.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See the website erasingtheliberty.com for more information.

Trump Kills NAFTA

The new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which replaces the  North American Free Trade Agreement created under Poppy Bush’s administration, will boost U.S. steel, agriculture, and manufacturing, and further President Trump’s America-first agenda, according to the U.S. Trade Representative. 

By Mark Anderson

On Sept. 30, in a pivotal moment for the Trump administration, the United States, Mexico, and Canada concluded negotiations “for a modernized and rebalanced” North American trade pact that largely supersedes the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Thus, the industry-depleting, wage-slashing NAFTA pact, an unpopular creature of anti-sovereignty globalism birthed under the George H.W. Bush administration and signed by President Bill Clinton, evidently is fading into history.

Will this detailed new pact be better? In many ways, it will benefit working-class Americans and farmers, but other previous trade rules will remain the same.

Some key things to glean from it, according to U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer, are that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) “will advance United States agricultural interests in the most important markets for America’s farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses,” opening new venues “to expand U.S. food and agricultural exports and support food manufacturing and rural jobs.”

And even though “all food and agricultural products that have zero tariffs under [NAFTA] will remain at zero tariffs,” according to the USTR office, “the USMCA will create new market-access opportunities for United States exports to Canada of dairy, poultry and eggs, and in exchange the United States will provide new access to Canada for dairy, peanuts, processed peanut products, and a limited amount of sugar and sugar containing products.”

The USMCA for the time being maintains U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum entering the U.S.

However, Canadian media, such as the CBC, report: “Talks to lift the tariffs are ongoing, but on a ‘completely separate track,’ according to a U.S. official.” The USMCA encourages U.S.-based manufacturing by requiring that 75% of auto content be “made in North America.”

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Other USMCA rules, the USTR office noted, are designed to preserve and “re-shore” U.S. vehicle and parts production; “transform supply chains to use more U.S. content, especially content that is key to future automobile production and high-paying jobs”; and drive “higher wages by requiring that 40-45% of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour” while incentivizing “new vehicle and parts investments in the United States.”

Furthermore, the pact contains “stronger rules of origin that exceed those of both NAFTA 1.0 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership [from which the U.S. withdrew] including for autos and automobile parts and other industrial products such as chemicals, steel-intensive products, glass, and optical fiber.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.