Trump: War President or Anti-Interventionist?

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Visualizing 150 Iranian dead from a missile strike that he had ordered, President Donald Trump recoiled and canceled the strike, a brave decision and defining moment for his presidency.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence had signed off on the strike on Iran as the right response to Tehran’s shootdown of a U.S. Global Hawk spy plane over the Gulf of Oman.

The U.S. claims the drone was over international waters. Tehran says it was in Iranian territory. But while the loss of a $100 million drone is no small matter, no American pilot was lost, and retaliating by killing 150 Iranians would appear to be a disproportionate response.

JWLabs.com

Good for Trump. Yet, all weekend, he was berated for chickening out and imitating President Barack Obama. U.S. credibility, it was said, has taken a big hit and must be restored with military action.

By canceling the strike, the president also sent a message to Iran: We’re ready to negotiate. Yet, given the irreconcilable character of our clashing demands, it is hard to see how the U.S. and Iran get off this road we are on, at the end of which a military collision seems almost certain.

Consider the respective demands.

Monday, the president tweeted: “The U.S. request for Iran is very simple — No Nuclear Weapons and No Further Sponsoring of Terror!”

But Iran has no nuclear weapons, has never had nuclear weapons, and has never even produced bomb-grade uranium.

According to our own intelligence agencies in 2007 and 2011, Tehran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

Under the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, the only way Iran could have a nuclear weapons program would be in secret, outside its known nuclear facilities, all of which are under constant U.N. inspection.

Where is the evidence that any such secret program exists?

And if it does, why does America not tell the world where Iran’s secret nuclear facilities are located and demand immediate inspections?

“No further sponsoring of terror,” Trump says.

But what does that mean?

As the major Shiite power in a Middle East divided between Sunni and Shiite, Iran backs the Houthi rebels in Yemen’s civil war, Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, Alawite Bashar Assad in Syria, and the Shiite militias in Iraq who helped us stop ISIS’s drive to Baghdad.

In his 12 demands, Pompeo virtually insisted that Iran abandon these allies and capitulate to their Sunni adversaries and rivals.

Not going to happen. Yet, if these demands are nonnegotiable, to be backed up by sanctions severe enough to choke Iran’s economy to death, we will be headed for war.

No more than North Korea is Iran going to yield to U.S. demands that it abandon what Iran sees as vital national interests.

As for the U.S. charge that Iran is “destabilizing” the Middle East, it was not Iran that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrew the Gadhafi regime in Libya, armed rebels to overthrow Assad in Syria, or aided and abetted the Saudis’ intervention in Yemen’s civil war.

Kingdom Identity

Iran, pushed to the wall, its economy shrinking as inflation and unemployment are rising, is approaching the limits of its tolerance.

And as Iran suffers pain, it is saying, other nations in the Gulf will endure similar pain, as will the USA. At some point, collisions will produce casualties and we will be on the up escalator to war.

Yet, what vital interest of ours does Iran today threaten?

Trump, with his order to stand down on the missile strike on Iran, signaled that he wanted a pause in the confrontation.

Still, it needs to be said: The president himself authorized the steps that have brought us to this peril point.

Trump pulled out of and trashed Obama’s nuclear deal. He imposed the sanctions that are now inflicting something close to unacceptable if not intolerable pain on Iran. He had the Islamic Revolutionary Guard declared a terrorist organization. He sent the Abraham Lincoln carrier task force and B-52s to the Gulf region.

If war is to be avoided, either Iran is going to have to capitulate, or the U.S. is going to have to walk back its maximalist position.

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

And who would Trump name to negotiate with Tehran for the United States?

The longer the sanctions remain in place and the deeper they bite, the greater the likelihood Iran will respond to our economic warfare with its own asymmetric warfare. Has the president decided to take that risk?

We appear to be at a turning point in the Trump presidency.

Does he want to run in 2020 as the president who led us into war with Iran, or as the anti-interventionist president who began to bring U.S. troops home from that region that has produced so many wars?

Perhaps Congress, the branch of government designated by the Constitution to decide on war, should instruct President Trump as to the conditions under which he is authorized to take us to war with Iran.

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.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM



LA Faces Historic Crisis

The homelessness problem in major California cities is a full-blown crisis that is threatening public health and sanitation in a way perhaps never seen before. Homelessness, poverty, and staggering income disparities—common features of Third World countries—are on full display in major cities in California such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco.

By John Friend

Homelessness has long been a major problem in California, the most populous state in the union, which ironically boasts one of the nation’s largest and most robust economies yet has the highest poverty rate. In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that the homelessness problem in major California cities, particularly the Los Angeles metropolitan area, is a full-blown crisis that is threatening public health and sanitation in a way perhaps never seen before.

Homelessness, poverty, and staggering income disparities—common features of Third World countries—are on full display in major cities in California such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. According to a recent homelessness survey conducted annually in Los Angeles County, roughly 59,000 people are living without shelter across the most populous county in the country on a daily basis. That number is up from just under 53,000 in last year’s survey, despite an increase in taxpayer-supported funding for public assistance aimed at combating homelessness.

“At this point of unprecedented wealth in the county of Los Angeles, we are equally confronted with unprecedented poverty manifesting itself in the form of homelessness,” County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas recently told the Los Angeles Times. “Last year’s count, we felt we were trimming in a way that would suggest we were getting our arms around this. And yet this year we are pretty well stunned by this data.”

National Coin Investments

Homeless encampments can be found across Los Angeles County under freeways and overpasses, in public parks and wooded areas, and along the sidewalks of downtown Los Angeles and other major cities in the county. Trash, discarded furniture and other large household items, and piles of rubbish, debris, and human waste litter the city, as garbage and sanitation crews struggle to keep up with the waste. In certain areas of downtown Los Angeles, entire city streets have been consumed with trash, feces, and other debris, some of which is illegally dumped by local businesses and industrial facilities.

“The city of Los Angeles has become a giant trash receptacle,” Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez recently wrote, arguing that residents are witnessing the “collapse of a city that’s lost control.”

Heaps of trash, debris, discarded items, and other waste are common features in Los Angeles, particularly in the downtown area. Skid Row, a notorious section of downtown known for its large homeless population, and surrounding areas are in some cases literally covered in garbage and waste, with countless homeless individuals camping and sleeping on the street. The piles of trash and waste are magnets for fleas, flies, rats, and other rodents, leaving area residents fearful for their health and well-being and that of their family and neighbors.

“I can’t walk down the street without thinking that a flea could jump on me,” Estela Lopez, who works downtown, told NBC4 Los Angeles recently. Many fear a public health crisis is underway, with diseases such as tuberculosis, typhus, and other contagious diseases common to Third World countries showing up in California. “Our homeless crisis is increasingly becoming a public-health crisis,” California Governor Gavin Newsom declared in his State of the Union address earlier this year. “Typhus. A medieval disease. In California. In 2019.”

Crimes & Coverups, Jeffries
‘The History They Didn’t Teach You In School’ from Ron Jeffries, with Foreword by Ron Paul

Disease is spreading largely due to the homeless crisis, as the garbage attracts disease-spreading vermin. Not only do those struggling with homelessness lack basic shelter and sanitary living conditions, but they also lack reliable access to health services, restrooms and regular showers. Janice Hahn, who sits on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, stated that area residents are “seeing more encampments, more people sleeping on the sidewalks in dirty, unhealthy, and heartbreaking conditions.”

“They are frustrated by this problem,” she declared. “We need to give people answers.” Unfortunately, answers and solutions to the homeless crisis are difficult to come by, despite increasing levels of public and private money being directed at tackling the problem. Measure H, an initiative passed by Los Angeles voters in 2017 that added a quarter-cent to local sales taxes to fund programs designed to address the homelessness crisis, has raised close to $400 million annually, yet the situation only seems to be spreading.

Many argue the driving force is housing affordability. California has some of the highest real estate prices in the country, and modest apartments or townhouses are often exceedingly expensive even for working households. Additionally, substance abuse, mental illness, and other social problems exacerbate the crisis, with many living on the streets addicted to drugs or alcohol and seemingly uninterested in rehabilitation.

This reporter is a resident of Los Angeles County, and can personally testify that the situation is out of control and shows no signs of abating. Cleaning up the county will be a major task for any elected official, and will no doubt require a joint public-private partnership to ensure lasting results.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




YouTube Inquisitors Demolish History

“Though justified by liberal Silicon Valley oligarchs as a response to the “racism, sexism, and homophobia” of the alt-right, YouTube’s new censorship plan begins with garden-variety political correctness—and ends in the wholesale falsification of history.”

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

During the first week of June, YouTube announced a draconian new censorship policy—and immediately erased or demonetized the work of countless video-makers, destroying thousands of livelihoods in the process. Conservatives bore the brunt of the onslaught. The new policy was unveiled in the wake of a highly publicized spat between conservative YouTuber Steven Crowder and “Vice News” commentator Carlos Maza, in which Maza accused Crowder of “bullying” and “homophobia.”

Though justified by liberal Silicon Valley oligarchs as a response to the “racism, sexism, and homophobia” of the alt-right, YouTube’s new censorship plan begins with garden-variety political correctness—and ends in the wholesale falsification of history.

Free Expression Foundation

In a June 5 blog post announcing the new policy, YouTube wrote:

Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.

The first two sentences sound like a well-meaning but maddeningly muddled mishmash of liberal platitudes. Taken at face value, YouTube is telling us we cannot “allege” that adults are intellectually superior to children and that children should therefore be segregated or excluded from busy streets. Or that 20-year-olds are more physically vigorous than retirees and should be excluded from over-60 basketball leagues. Age discrimination! Or that men are physically stronger than women and should therefore be excluded from women’s athletics. Gender discrimination! Anti-LGBTQ discrimination! Or that poorer people and groups, being in general less capable in intellectual and practical matters than wealthier people and groups, should be given various advantages like free college tuition as part of a policy of reducing inequality. Race and caste discrimination! Or that veterans, having been willing to risk their lives for their country, deserve special benefits. Pro-veterans discrimination!

While the first two sentences of YouTube’s new policy are unintentionally humorous (Veterans? Really?) there is nothing remotely funny about the next: “Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.” This statement, framed in such a way as to make it sound acceptable to the misinformed multitudes, is truly Orwellian.

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

“History” is a human construction. It is inherently fallible. It is constantly being revised on the basis of new evidence and interpretations. And the statement includes mention of literally millions of “violent events,” a great many of which are “well documented,” in the sense that there are plenty of documents available relating to any given event. What YouTube apparently doesn’t understand is that virtually all violent and nonviolent events in history are “documented” in complex and contradictory ways and can be interpreted from a wide variety of perspectives.

So how does all that evidence, and all those interpretive perspectives, get narrowed down to a relatively simple narrative about what supposedly happened in a given event? We like to imagine that smart, objective historians sift through evidence and argue about the most plausible interpretations. That is the ideal. Reality is closer to the old adage, “history is written by the victors.” The most powerful people and groups wield various carrots and sticks, forcing the vast majority of historians to consciously or unconsciously toe the official line. The powerless, and their versions of events, are reviled, misconstrued, or consigned to the proverbial memory hole.

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

Left-wing historians once knew this and openly admitted it. In fact, while I was doing graduate work during the postmodernist-dominated 1990s, they actually exaggerated the degree to which truth is unknowable and “history” is just a myth inflicted by the powerful on the powerless.

But then came 9/11, which was designed by people like Philip Zelikow—a self-proclaimed specialist in “the creation and maintenance of public myths.” 9/11 was a scripted and staged human sacrifice event of the kind studied by ethnologist René Guénon. Part of its purpose was to re-mythologize history, so the common people could once again be force-fed “noble lies.”

In Medieval Europe, if you “denied” the official version of certain mythic “violent events”— the Crucifixion, the Cathar genocide, or even the Inquisition itself—you could be tortured and burned at the stake. With the Enlightenment came the modern discipline of history, which, fallible as it is, offers a better path to truth—the path of absolutely free and fearless debate. In the wake of the mythic big lie of 9/11, the Enlightenment has been revoked. YouTube is killing heretics by destroying their livelihoods; Internet censorship is today’s Inquisition.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions.




Unpunished War Crimes

Suicidal neocon foreign policy is the real war crime.

By Dr. Ron Paul

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) found himself in hot water recently over comments he made in defense of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, who faces war crimes charges over his alleged conduct while serving in combat overseas. Gallagher is charged with stabbing a 15-year-old ISIS member while in custody, of taking photos posing with the corpse of the teen, and with killing several civilians.

Defending Gallagher recently, Hunter put his own record up next to the SEAL to suggest that he’s an elected congressman who has done worse things in battle than Gallagher.

That’s where Hunter’s defense earned him some perhaps unwanted attention. While participating in the first “Battle of Fallujah” in early 2004, by Hunter’s own account he and his fellow soldiers killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children. They fired mortars into the city and killed at random.

Kingdom Identity

In the sanitized world of U.S. mainstream media reporting on U.S. wars overseas, we do not hear about non-combatants being killed by Americans. How many times has there been any reporting on the birth defects that Iraqis continue to suffer in the aftermath of U.S. attacks with horrific weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorus?

Hunter described his philosophy when fighting in Iraq: “You go in fast and hard, you kill people, you hit them in the face, and then you get out. We’re going to hurt you and then we’re going to leave. And if you want to be nice to America, we’ll be nice to you. If you don’t want to be nice to us, we’re going to slap you again.”

This shows how much Hunter does not understand about war. When he speaks of hitting people in the face until they are nice to America, he doesn’t seem to realize that the people of Fallujah—and all of Iraq—never did a thing to the United States to deserve that hit in the face. The war was launched on the basis of lies and cooked-up intelligence by many of the people who are serving in the current administration.

Brainwashed for War
On sale now at the AFP Online Store, either separately, or as part of a discounted 3-volume Mathias Chang set!

And that brings us to the real war criminals. Hunter and his fellow soldiers may have killed hundreds of innocent civilians and even felt justified. Their superior officers, after all, established the rules of engagement. Above those superior officers, going up and beyond to the policymakers, the lie was sold to the American people to justify a war of choice against a country that could not have threatened us if it wanted to.

Vice President Dick Cheney knew what he was doing when he kept returning to the CIA headquarters, strong-arming analysts to make the intelligence fit the chosen policy. John Bolton and the other neocons knew what they were doing when they made claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction they knew were false. The Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans played its role in selling the lie. So did the media.

Gallagher will face trial and possibly jail for his actions. Hunter may even face punishment—though perhaps only at the ballot box—for his admitted crimes. But until those at the top who continue to lie and manipulate us into war for their own gain face justice, the real criminals will continue to go free and we will continue pursuing a suicidal neocon foreign policy.

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




Ghosts of Fallujah Haunting America

A U.S. legislator has arrogantly admitted publicly that his Marine Corps unit may have killed hundreds of civilians in Fallujah. Will these war crimes continue to go unpunished?

By Richard Walker

The admission by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) that his Marine Corps unit may have killed hundreds of civilians, including women and children, in the city of Fallujah in Iraq in April 2004 once again raises the question of whether U.S. forces committed war crimes and used chemical and other unnamed weapons during major battles in Iraq that year.

Hunter was an artillery officer in what became known as the First Battle of Fallujah in April 2004, a city known for its beautiful, ancient mosques 30 miles from Baghdad. It was transformed into a war zone when protesters killed four Blackwater contractors and hung their bodies from a bridge. An operation was launched to find those responsible, but it developed into a full scale engagement. What is remarkable about this First Battle of Fallujah is that it did not last long, so the revelation by Hunter encourages additional scrutiny since it was not the battle that garnered the most controversy. Nevertheless, we have now learned that one artillery unit, by Hunter’s reckoning, may have killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

It is worth noting that there is no credible official figure for civilian casualties because the U.S. commanders and the Pentagon played down the killing of civilians in the Iraq conflict, though some estimates place deaths in the Mideast country at between a half-million and 1 million.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

While the first battle was bloody, the Second Battle of Fallujah, in November 2004, was the one that we at American Free Press focused on most, believing correctly that the mainstream media was relying too much on official accounts of what transpired and was being denied the truth. AFP followed the story conscientiously, and we continued to do so in succeeding years. We were confident our reporting would be proved accurate and that new facts would emerge to confirm the claims we made that Marines used chemical weapons and depleted uranium munitions.

The U.S. military suffered 71 dead and over 250 injured in the Fallujah battles, leading to comparisons being made with some of the major exchanges of the Vietnam War.

In November 2004, Fallujah was sealed off from the outside world and quickly became a free-fire zone. This would be the Second Battle of Fallujah. There were many Iraqi fighters in the city, but there were civilians, too, who did not want to leave or had been unable to escape.

The battle was akin to what one might associate with the Second World War battle for Leningrad, with many snipers on both sides. In Fallujah, however, Marine Corp commanders had more firepower than the Iraqi fighters and used it to devastating effect. Some might argue that they used it with abandon.

Within a month, in what was dubbed Operation Phantom Fury, 36,000 homes were leveled, as well as 60 schools and 65 mosques. The city resembled a wasteland. At the time, and later, AFP reported that the Marines used white phosphorus bombs similar to ones the Israelis used later in Gaza, but it was the widespread deployment of depleted uranium (DU) munitions that was to have lasting human damage.

In 2004, and for several years afterwards, the Pentagon admitted having used white phosphorus, a chemical weapon that should not be used against civilians but denied that DU munitions were on the battlefield.

The truth emerged in 2010, however, when a British scientist and his team revealed that levels of radiation illnesses in Fallujah were comparable to, if not higher, than those found in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the atoms bombs were detonated there in 1945.

It is still believed that other chemical weapons were used in Fallujah by the Marine Corps, but never identified. For example, aside from evidence of radiation, traces of mercury and other poisonous substances were found that could not be linked to known weapons.

Iraq & Politics of Oil, Vogler
Iraq and the Politics of Oil at AFP Online Store.

The British scientific report entitled “Cancer, Infant Mortality, and Birth-Sex Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009” confirmed that DU was in shells and also in bullets that were fired in large, unreported quantities, causing radiation contamination. DU’s effects can last for a long period and resulted over time in physical deformities among children. The DU bullets were reported to have cut through walls like a hot knife through butter. The Pentagon has been reluctant to confirm whether experimental weapons were used on that battlefield.

Daniel DePetris, a conservative columnist, believes America has learned little from the Iraq War even though most Americans believe it was a disaster that caused thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of casualties.

He offers opinions on what our leaders should do before going to war, but perhaps his best piece of advice to them is “. . . deliver a case to the American people about why military action is appropriate and make them fully aware of what can go wrong.”

He knows, like the rest of us, that in Iraq everything that could go wrong did go wrong, especially in Fallujah.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.




People Revolt Against NWO

Mass immigration and the failure of globalism are behind Europe’s recent nationalist resurgence.

By John Friend

Nationalists and populists across Europe made tremendous gains in the recent European Union (EU) elections, demonstrating the appeal of these highly demonized political ideologies in an era of economic and political globalization, massive Third World immigration to the continent, and an increasingly out-of-touch elite political class ruling in Brussels determined to push European integration at all costs.

Even traditionally leftwing parties, such as the Social Democrats in Denmark, have taken a more populist approach on issues like immigration. Mette Frederiksen, the 41-year-old leader of Denmark’s Social Democrats whose party recently won 25.9% of the vote in Danish elections, has increasingly pushed her party to the right on the key issue of massive Third World migration into Europe, a top issue for many Danish voters. Frederiksen has addressed the issue in more traditionally leftwing terms, arguing that globalization and massive immigration have harmed the middle and working classes of Denmark and other European nations.

Faraday Twins ad

“For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalization, mass immigration, and the free movement of labor is paid for by the lower classes,” Frederiksen stated in a recent biography.

Frederiksen’s Social Democrats have long played a key role in Danish politics, working with more right-leaning parties, including the Danish People’s Party—which is seen by many as the most far-right party in the country—on key issues such as immigration. The Social Democrats in Denmark have supported policies that crack down on refugee resettlement and unchecked migration, positions the traditionally left-leaning party formerly opposed. Frederiksen has argued that SD parties in other European countries must adopt a more hardline stance on immigration, which poses a major threat to their traditional voter base: middle- and working-class Europeans.

“For years, we have underestimated the challenges of mass immigration,” Frederiksen argued at a meeting of Social Democrat parties around Europe late last year. “Economic policy and foreign policy in Europe have been too liberal. We have failed when it comes to maintaining the social contract, which is the very foundation of the social-democratic social model.”

The positions on immigration taken by Frederiksen and other populists across Europe stand in stark contrast to the elites in Brussels, who view massive immigration and spreading “diversity” as moral imperatives that must be championed and implemented across the continent.

Outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, epitomizing the mindset of the nation-wrecking globalist elites that have largely dominated the European Union and broader project of European integration, harshly criticized the various populist and nationalist movements and leaders that have come to the fore of European politics, particularly in recent years as Euroskepticism has risen across the continent.

“These populists, nationalists—stupid nationalists—they are in love with their own country, and they don’t like the others,” Juncker arrogantly and dismissively stated in an interview with CNN shortly before the recent European elections. “In some countries of the European Union, the government, parliament, major parts of society, don’t like those coming from far away. I do like those coming from far away, because the main guiding principle of the European Union should be solidarity. We have to act in solidarity with those who are in worse situations than we are.”

Many Europeans are beginning to view the suicidal mindset of Juncker and other EU elites as entirely contrary to the interests of their respective nation-states, which have seen massive Third World immigration, rising crime and instability, and a total failure on the part of European Union institutions and governments in actually integrating the various newcomers into the EU. Many European nations, such as France, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have seen a tremendous influx of so-called refugees, asylum seekers, and other Third World immigrants, resulting in protracted cultural, social, and economic problems across the continent.

Crimes & Coverups, Jeffries
‘The History They Didn’t Teach You In School’ from Ron Jeffries, with Foreword by Ron Paul

The so-called “new Europeans” have largely failed to successfully integrate into European society, preferring instead to cling to their national and ethnic identities, which has contributed to the polarization of society, a fact political leaders like Frederiksen have long recognized.

“In my eyes, it is neither heroic nor humane to bring so many people here that the problems become huge in our own country,” the leader of Denmark’s Social Democrats declared before the 2015 election, “because we’re not very good at integrating in Denmark, and there’s nothing to indicate that we’re going to get better.”

In Italy, the small town of Riace in the southern province of Calabria recently elected a rightwing government after having been dominated by radical leftists for years. The town, long known as a “global village” whose former political leadership openly welcomed migrants, took in hundreds of refugees and other Third World migrants in recent years, sparking a backlash following reported allegations of corruption, fraud, and unrest among the migrant population.

“The problem is that we had too many migrants and we lost the spirit of openness there was initially,” Antonio Trifoli, the newly elected mayor and former town policeman, stated in a recent interview. Trifoli is affiliated with Italian populist Matteo Salvini and his Lega Nord Party, which has seen a dramatic increase in popularity and political clout in recent elections.

“A whole economic system developed with the migrants, but without making the village dynamic again,” Trifoli said. “The model destroyed itself.”

The clash between globalism and populism continues on the European continent, and at this point, it’s safe to say populism is on the rise, largely because of the disastrous effects of globalism.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Book Says Haig Took Down Nixon

Author Ray Locker’s newest work on Richard Nixon’s fall details how Chief of Staff Alexander Haig orchestrated the president’s downfall.

By S.T. Patrick

In Haig’s Coup: How Richard Nixon’s Closest Aide Forced Him from Office, Ray Locker’s newest work on the fall of Richard Nixon, we see exactly how Chief of Staff Gen. Alexander Haig orchestrated Nixon’s demise and resignation.

“It’s easy to criticize Nixon for his handling of the Watergate affair,” said Roger Stone, an aide to Nixon. “But until one fully understands the roles of White House Counsel John Dean and subsequent White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig, one cannot fully understand why the Woodward and Bernstein narrative about Watergate is false.”

Locker, a former editor at USA Today, released Nixon’s Gamble in 2016. In it, he set the stage for the eventual fall. President Richard Nixon took a risk in establishing a tight-knit foreign policy team that bypassed the departments of State and Defense as well as the CIA. As per National Security Decision Memorandum 2, signed by Nixon shortly after being sworn in as president, Nixon would be at the center of foreign policy, and he would be surrounded by a small team of loyal aides. Under Nixon’s command, Vietnam and Cold War policy would be conducted through the National Security Council (NSC) and its national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. The new power structure was secret, unprecedented, and extra-constitutional. For Nixon, it was also a dangerous gamble that, on his first day as president, set into motion his precipitous fall.

Nixon’s restructuring jumpstarted a series of spying operations between the Defense Department and the White House. The Joint Chiefs were suspicious of Nixon’s policies in Vietnam, détente with the Soviets, and opening up trade with China. In what is now called the Moorer-Radford Affair, the Joint Chiefs, led by chairman Adm. Thomas Moorer, set about spying on the Kissinger team. U.S. Navy Yeoman Charles Radford was tasked with much of the spying and theft of documents that led to the outing of the spy ring in a Jack Anderson column in December 1971.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Haig had been the link between the military and the White House, even before becoming chief of staff in May 1973. Haig was Kissinger’s deputy at the NSC and received the secret communications from the military leadership at the Pentagon as well as from world leaders. In 1969 and 1970, the Navy lieutenant who manned the Pentagon’s secret communications room was Bob Woodward. In that role, he was charged with briefing Haig at the White House. This was the impetus for Woodward’s professional relationship with the general, a relationship that would pad the journalist’s second best-seller.

Woodward insisted to authors Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin (Silent Coup) that he had never met Haig until 1973. Testimony from Moorer, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, and Pentagon spokesman Jerry Friedheim proves otherwise. Woodward would go on to journalistic fame at The Washington Post and Haig would remain the most consequential leaker in the Nixon White House.

Haig consolidated power within the office of the chief of staff, a position he ascended to when H.R. Haldeman was forced to resign. He closed off access to the Oval Office and even chose Nixon’s personal attorney. Nixon was somewhat justified in his paranoia. After Haldeman and John Ehrlichman left, there was no one remaining in the White House who had the president’s best interests in mind. Rather, Haig was acting completely out of his own best interest and was hastening the president’s downfall.

It is Locker’s contention, backed by his study of recently declassified documents, that Haig orchestrated Nixon’s actions in the “Saturday Night Massacre” of October 1973 that saw the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Haig lied to Nixon and Attorney General Elliot Richardson, informing the president that Richardson had agreed to fire Cox, when he had not. The “massacre” rid Haig of Cox, whom he saw as an enemy, but the backlash further damaged Nixon. Each of Haig’s maneuvers was a calculated one in a further effort to conceal his own role as a leaker and primary participant in the spy ring. In doing so, other scapegoats were built to fall.

Deep State Prophecy, Klein
Brand new at the AFP Online Store!

Regarding Mark Felt-as-Deep Throat, Locker writes that much of the information that has since been attributed to Felt “bore the unmistakable fingerprints of Alexander Haig.” Watergate revisionists have long pointed to Haig as either the sole Deep Throat or as part of a composite Deep Throat character built by Woodward solely for narrative purposes. But Woodward protected Haig and, in fact, used him as the major source (and hero) of the second Woodward and Bernstein Watergate book, The Final Days.

Locker’s research also damns Haig regarding the White House taping system that was first publicly revealed by the testimony of deputy assistant Alexander Butterfield. Haig stated in his memoirs that he hadn’t heard of the taping system until Butterfield revealed the information to America. The truth is that Nixon had told Haig of the system two months earlier, and Haig used that knowledge to orchestrate Butterfield’s release to the Senate Watergate Committee. Locker also discusses Haig’s involvement in selected erasures, and he once again proves that Haig lied about encouraging Nixon to destroy the tapes.

At one point, upon overhearing a conversation between Nixon and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, Haig stated, “I run this White House, and don’t you ever forget it!”

For a man who would, in 1981 as secretary of state, infamously declare, “I’m in charge here,” in the wake of the assassination attempt on President Reagan, Haig was following a pattern of rushing in when a power vacuum existed. He had brought down one president; he was going to be present and accounted for if another president fell as fatally as Nixon did politically.

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 [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication available at the AFP Online Store.




Trump Flip-Flops on Immigration

Despite vowing to solve America’s immigration crisis, President Trump has done nothing about it. 

By Donald Jeffries

On no other issue is Donald Trump’s rhetoric so markedly different from his record than on immigration. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly blasted America’s laughable immigration policy and vowed to strike boldly and quickly to solve the problem. On Aug. 15, 2015 Trump declared, “The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working-class Americans.” He then promised, when elected, he would solve America’s immigration woes. Three years later, however, little has been done as the crisis on the U.S. southern border worsens.

While Trump loyalists maintain he can’t get anything done due to the refusal of Democrats to curtail immigration in the slightest, there are actions he could have taken. Trump promised, on March 3, 2016: “I will end forever the use of the H-1B [visa] as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers for every visa and immigration program. No exceptions.” Trump could have ended this program, which has devastated wages in industries like information technology, with the stroke of a pen. Now, he advocates finding “a pathway for citizenship” for these H-1B workers, tweeting in January: “H1-B (sic) holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.” Reports broke in the same month that Trump’s companies had increased foreign visa usage to a 10-year high.

National Coin Investments

In March, while sitting next to Apple CEO Tim Cook, Trump announced that “we need” more legal immigration. This followed his State of the Union remarks, “I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” This represented the fourth time that month that Trump had suggested increasing the levels of legal immigration.

Trump’s continuing flip-flops on what was a centerpiece issue of his presidential campaign has brought loud criticism from one-time supporters. In a speech shortly thereafter, before the Conservative Political Action Committee, Trump declared, “We need an immigration policy that’s going to be great for our corporations and our great companies . . . .”

“This is clearly a betrayal of what immigration hawks hoped the Trump administration would be for,” declared Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates cutting legal immigration by more than half. Krikorian called Trump “not even that different from a conventional Republican.”

“We need to remember all of the promises that candidate Trump made on immigration, which included, most importantly, putting Americans first,” NumbersUSA Vice President of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks told “Breitbart News.” “I would certainly hope, that in order to keep his campaign promises that before even talking about expanding legal immigration, he would work with employers to recruit the 50 million working-age Americans who are outside the labor market.”Faraday Twins ad

 

Lou Dobbs of Fox Business News angrily remarked, “That Mr. Trump would advance the interests of the global elite ahead of our citizens would be a tragic reversal on any day. . . . [T]he White House has simply lost its way.” Dobbs was particularly irate that Trump would fawningly say, in the presence of Cook and other corporate seekers of cheap labor, “We want to have the companies grow, and the only way they’re going to grow is if we give them the workers.” All this completely contradicts Trump’s campaign rhetoric, when he vowed to dramatically reduce the levels of legal immigration.

In February of this year, Trump inexplicably folded and signed a spending bill that included a diabolical provision that effectively prevents the deportation of any illegal immigrant who can claim to be associated with a minor. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have begun criticizing Trump’s policy of dumping those arrested at the border right back onto American streets, while bragging about the number of arrests. They probably won’t find a sympathetic ear at the top of their own organization; Trump recently named Mark Morgan, Barack Obama’s border patrol chief, to head ICE.

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

“I know without a doubt that President Trump is a liar, he is deceptive, and intentionally manipulating his supporters to lead them to their own doom through amnesty for millions of illegal aliens,” said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. “In truth, Trump shares Obama’s tactics and immigration positions.”

More recently, Trump proudly introduced a new immigration plan, which was written by his liberal, globalist son-in-law Jared Kushner. The point man for his plan was lifelong open-borders advocate and former Never-Trumper Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.). The proposal, not surprisingly, doesn’t address the core issue of illegal immigration at all. Trump even has developed a nonsensical plan to have ICE fly migrants and illegal aliens across the country, delivering them to shelters instead of deporting them back to their countries of origin.

Trump has been all bark and no bite on immigration.

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


Border Wall Plan in Jeopardy

In late May, a judge ruled that federal funds earmarked for drug enforcement efforts may not be used to build the border barrier. President Trump responded, via Twitter, that the ruling is “against Border Security and in favor of crime, drugs, and human trafficking.”

By John Friend

The mainstream media and some conservatives have blasted President Donald Trump for failing to live up to his campaign promise to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. The problem is, Trump has tried on multiple occasions to move ahead with plans for the wall but has faced unprecedented opposition from Democrats, activists, and the judiciary.

On May 24, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. issued a ruling halting the Trump administration’s plan to transfer roughly $1 billion from drug enforcement efforts handled by the Department of Defense to border barrier construction projects in both Arizona and Texas.

JWLabs.com

Congress has refused to approve federal funding at the level requested by Trump for border security, including physical barriers, fences, and walls along the border designed to prevent illegal immigration.

Some of the funds the Trump administration has diverted to border security will still be allowed to be transferred at the president’s request, including about $600 million diverted from an asset forfeiture fund administered by the U.S. Treasury Department, to border security in the Rio Grande Valley, according to the Associated Press.

The $1 billion was initially secured by the Trump administration following the president’s declaration of a national emergency along the border, and was meant to be diverted to funding two high-priority construction projects in New Mexico and Yuma, Arizona.

Trump took to Twitter to denounce the federal judge and demand an appeal.

Deep State Prophecy, Klein
Brand new at the AFP Online Store!

“Another activist Obama-appointed judge has just ruled against us on a section of the Southern Wall that is already under construction,” the president tweeted. “His is a ruling against Border Security and in favor of crime, drugs, and human trafficking.”

In related news, border officials on the front lines dealing with the immigration crisis are discovering that increasing numbers of migrants attempting to enter the United States are doing so fraudulently, with fake paperwork, fake stories, and fake family connections.

According to a recent report published by The Epoch Times, 48% of all family units interviewed by federal immigration investigators from mid-April to May 10 had either fraudulent documents or family claims. Immigration and customs officials have implemented rapid DNA testing in border sectors near El Paso, Texas and the Rio Grande Valley, and have discovered at least 30% of cases involve fraudulent family claims. Immigration officials have even discovered cases of adults traveling with babies and other children who are not even their biological offspring. Stay tuned.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.




Drone Technology a Threat to All

Pilotless, remote-controlled drones are being flown by terrorists and drug cartels, a threat that should have been addressed years ago.

By Richard Walker

When remote-controlled flying drones closed London’s Gatwick Airport in 2018, it was a clear warning that a new threat era had emerged, requiring urgent action. It was, in fact, a threat that had been developing for more than a decade with signs as far back as 2010 that over-the-counter drones would become available and that their fast-changing capabilities would outstrip efforts to counter them unless there was a major plan by governments to invest heavily in anti-drone technologies. Today, the threat is not only confined to kids or terrorists flying drones into airspace over airports.

Drug cartels no longer need to build tunnels under the southern border to flood the U.S. with cocaine and methamphetamines. Using drone technology, they can now deposit drugs outside population centers many miles from the border, just as Amazon plans to deliver packages via drones.

In the near future, as Amazon and other companies begin using drones to deliver their goods, who is going to police the drone flying over your house to make sure it is from Amazon and not a Mexican cartel?

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

Terrorists or foreign spies can now be virtually placed close to critical infrastructure that they may wish to evaluate for a future attack by deploying drones equipped with night vision sensors over, for instance, power plants. Foreign agents can use drones to mount a hack of a critical government facility.

If you are not scared by the prospect of any of this happening, consider for a moment what terrorists will soon be able to achieve with this new technology. They will be able to bring down commercial planes or deliver bombs or small radiological devices. When you consider how patient and inventive terrorists have been in the past, especially members of al Qaeda, you can be certain they are studying closely the singular advantages of drones. ISIS is known to have experimented with drones to deliver bombs in the wars in Iraq and Syria.

If the attack on Gatwick Airport taught us anything, it was just how vulnerable we are to the use of drones for malicious purposes. The British police and the best technical minds in MI5 learned that tracking drones and tracing them to a source is almost impossible in real time. They discovered that those flying the drones did not have to be stationery; they could be constantly on the move, operating from cars or vans. Authorities never found the perpetrators of the Gatwick Airport attack, and theories abound that it was intended to test the vulnerability of a major British airport or a dry run by people with a longer-term agenda to create damage or havoc at a major transit hub.

An MI5 security expert, who wished to remain anonymous, agreed to talk to AFP off the record about the nature of the threat.

“People think of drones in terms of America’s secret drone war, forgetting that drone technology is now readily available. The truth is we are limited in the countermeasures we need to combat just basic malicious threats at airports and in heavily populated towns and cities. By the time you identify a malicious drone attack by tracing the electronic signature, the way you would a phone signal bouncing off a cell tower, it is often too late because the drone operator has shifted to another location. At Gatwick we had to bring in a lot of technical gear and that made the whole exercise cumbersome, losing us time. Unless you have the best tracking gear in place at airports there is going to be a disaster and that is not even taking into account what terrorists may do by sending a small drone swarm at a target. We have not been taking this threat seriously enough, and it means we do not have the edge we should have.”

Ship of Fools, Carlson
Available from AFP, Tucker Carlson’s “Ship of Fools”

On July 4, 2017, little notice was paid when a drone dropped tools into a correctional facility in Texas, enabling a prisoner to escape. The good news is, unlike the Obama administration, the Trump White House has now provided major financial resources to deal with this threat to the homeland. Time is not necessarily on our side, however. By 2010, over 50 nations were developing drone technology. The Chinese in particular, seeing how lucrative it could be, were anxious to flood the international market with personal drones.

In a 2011 study for the Brookings Institute, John Villasenor, a professor of electrical engineering, law, public policy, and management at UCLA, sounded the alarm for Congress to act:

“Today we have the luxury of assuming that the sky above us is free of nearly invisible pilotless aircraft under the control of a hostile group and possibly carrying a payload that might do us harm. Continued advances in drone technology make it all but certain that in future years we will no longer have that luxury.”

If the tragedy of 9/11 proved anything it was that our adversaries can be inventive as well as ruthless, and drones provide them with a new and potentially lethal tool.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.




Congress Fiddles While Iran War Looms

The Democrat-controlled House needs to step in and stop neocon warmongering.

By Dr. Ron Paul

Congress—and particularly the Democrat- controlled House of Representatives—seems determined to see the end of the Trump administration before the 2020 vote. Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) claims she is not seeking impeachment, she’s accusing the president of “covering up” something; however, she won’t say what until she can do more investigating.

But Trump’s opponents on both sides of the congressional aisle don’t seem so enthusiastic about challenging the president when he actually does abuse his constitutional authority to pursue a more aggressive policy overseas.

Late last week, for example, President Donald Trump declared a national security “emergency” brought about by unspecified “Iranian malign activity”—a “loophole” allowing him to bypass congressional review of some $8 billion in U.S. weapons to be sold to Saudi Arabia. Congress had been reluctant to approve yet more arms sales to Saudi Arabia after the president vetoed a bipartisan House and Senate-approved bill requiring the U.S. to end its military support for the Saudi war of aggression against Yemen.

JWLabs.com

What might this new Iran “emergency” be? As with the lead-up to the Iraq war, the administration claims important secret intelligence—but, of course, we have to just trust them. From what we have heard from the administration, it looks pretty flimsy. Rear Adm. Michael Gilday, the director of the Joint Staff, has outright claimed that the so-called “sabotage” of four container ships at port in the UAE is the doing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, but even Abu Dhabi didn’t claim Iranian involvement in the mysterious incident. Could it have been a false flag?

Gilday also claims, without providing proof, that the recent firing of a small rocket in the general vicinity of the U.S. embassy in Iraq is the work of the Iranians.

“We believe with a high degree of confidence that this [recent attacks] stems back to the leadership in Iran at the highest levels,” he said. What would Iran gain by shooting off an insignificant rocket, exposing itself to U.S. massive retaliation with no gain whatsoever? They don’t say.

Deep State Prophecy, Klein
Brand new at the AFP Online Store!

The Trump administration has been lacking any coherent foreign policy strategy for some time. It often seems the president is fighting more with his own appointees than with his opponents on Capitol Hill. As soon as he announces that ISIS is defeated and U.S. troops must come home, his employees, like National Security Advisor John Bolton, “clarify” Trump’s statements to mean that troops are staying. Trump goes to Hanoi to cut a deal with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Bolton shows up with a poison pill that blows up the whole deal.

Bolton announced plans for 120,000 U.S. troops to be sent to the Middle East to help push the war on Iran he’s been hocking for 20 or so years. Then we heard it was 10,000, then 1,500, of which 600 are already there.

Whether or not Trump is on board, his administration is clearly dragging the U.S. into conflict with Iran. While some members remind the president that he does not have constitutional authority to attack Iran without approval, that argument has not been very effective in deterring presidents thus far.

If Congress really wanted to rein in an out-of-control president, they have plenty of opportunity in his bogus “national emergency” declaration and his saber rattling toward Iran. But if asserting constitutional authority means Congress acts to pull back U.S. militarism overseas, suddenly there is a great bipartisan silence. They’d rather impeach Trump over his rude tweets than over his stomping on the Constitution.

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




Crisis on Southern Border Getting Worse, Say Experts

In a followup to last week’s stories on the Southern Border Crisis, American Free Press writer Mark Anderson reports on a CPB report of the high numbers of apprehensions in April alone. With nowhere left to hold unauthorized border crossers, the Border Patrol can’t handle any more illegal immigrants.

By Mark Anderson

DONNA, Texas—The U.S. Border Patrol now says that the newly built Donna, Texas “tent” facility, which is actually a semi-permanent structure south of that Hidalgo County town near the international bridge, has already exceeded its estimated 500-person capacity even though it was erected only one month ago.

If you read various newspapers from around the state and consult the Border Patrol, you find that, in this “non-crisis,” unauthorized border crossings have volcanically surged since 2019 began. The Border Patrol made 98,977 apprehensions for illegal border crossings in April, including 58,474 adults and children traveling together—nearly 100,000 people overall.

In the Rio Grande Valley sector, the four-county border area about which American Free Press reported in-depth in our previous edition, the Border Patrol apprehends about 1,600 people daily. A year ago, arrests totaled one-third of that number on most days, and even that would be a rather high influx.

Kingdom Identity

The Border Patrol, as of this writing, had gotten to the point where it has more than 8,000 illegal immigrants in detention in this busiest of border sectors. That is more than double the Border Patrol’s current overall detention capacity in the 316-mile-wide sector, including the current Donna facility and at the Border Patrol’s own stations.

Rodolfo Karisch, a Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol spokesman, stated that the agency’s resources “are beyond a breaking point and has put border security at risk.”

As Border Patrol official Hector Escamilla stated at a McAllen speech covered in our previous edition, people from well over 40 nations, including from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, are storming the border, adding considerable guesswork, time, and expense in determining who is coming to the U.S. and why—right when the Rio Grande Valley sector’s 3,100 Border Patrol agents constitute roughly half of the manpower needed to police the border in the current “non-crisis.”

Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan
Can America Survive to 2025?On SALE at AFP!

Yet all the media does is quote people like John-Michael Torres, a spokesman for the group La Unión Del Pueblo Entero, who told the Texarkana Gazette that when the first “tents” were erected in Donna, and 796 miles to the west in El Paso, Trump was merely “using children and other vulnerable people to manufacture a crisis at the southern border.”

“The president cannot detain away the real humanitarian need of parents seeking safe ground and a future for their children,” moaned Torres. The activist is evidently just as clueless or manipulative as the media, neglecting to consider the root causes of this real crisis, in order to face the reality that open borders augmented with catch-and-release policies incentivize drug and human traffickers to continue uprooting the people of Central American countries, leading to a breakdown of those nations and the depletion of the core of their labor forces over time. Simply put, driving everyone to the U.S. is not humanitarianism.

AFP readers would do well to call their state and federal representatives and tell them of the Border Patrol’s announced goal of having some of its agents trained to process asylum claims right at the border to process people faster, reduce catch-and-release numbers, and speed up and increase deportations. From there, more immigration judges, much better border wall progress, and a far stricter policy in dealing with Mexico’s apparent complicity in this crisis, all are sorely needed right away.

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




American People Need a ‘Bailout’

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

By Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

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

National Coin Investments

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

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

The reason for debt forgiveness was stability, not egalitarianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

By Mark Anderson

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

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

National Coin Investments

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

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

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

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

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

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

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

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


Tariffs: The Taxes That Made America Great

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

By Patrick J. Buchanan

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

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

JWLabs.com

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to AFP

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

That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, 2019



Florida Lawmakers Vote to Arm Teachers

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

By S.T. Patrick

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

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

JWLabs.com

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

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

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

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

National Coin Investments

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

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

S. T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected]




Washington State Resurrects Racial Quotas

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

By Donald Jeffries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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