‘QAnon’ for Real?

The front page story of American Free Press Issue 39&40 (subscribe here) asks whether the anonymous posts appearing on imageboard websites, attributed to “QAnon,” are actually from a patriotic individual or individuals within the Deep State working to expose corruption. Many believe that’s the case.

By John Friend

What if there were patriotic elements of the Deep State actively working behind the scenes to expose corruption and some of the worst crimes of the ruling elite in America? What if their end goal was to indict and arrest the top globalists that have ruled America for many decades? That is precisely what has been proposed in the “QAnon” conspiracy theory, which began in October 2017 on the anonymous imageboard “8chan,” and many Trump supporters believe it to be accurate.

QAnon consists of anonymous posts that have appeared on not only 8chan, but also other imageboard websites including “4chan” and “Reddit,” where users can post graphics, images, and other information anonymously. Many supporters of the QAnon movement have speculated that the anonymous posts are the work of a well-connected operative of the Deep State who is perhaps working for the National Security Agency (NSA), military intelligence, or some other federal agency. Some argue that multiple individuals have posted as QAnon. The mysterious movement has gained traction over the course of the past year and shows no signs of abating.

At the core of the QAnon movement is the belief that President Trump and his supporters in the Deep State—generally regarded as entirely hostile to the president and his agenda—are “secretly battling a corrupt Deep State and an evil cabal of pedophile Satan-worshiping elites,” according to a recent article published by The Washington Post. The mainstream mass media has consistently downplayed and ridiculed the QAnon movement, deriding its proponents as unhinged, irrational “conspiracy theorists,” but is there truth to the messages, narratives, and information posted by QAnon? More and more are starting to think so.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

“I am 70% sold on QAnon, which is pretty good,” Mike King, an independent researcher and author who maintains the informative and hard-hitting “TomatoBubble” website, explained to this reporter recently. “President Eisenhower’s ‘warning’ about the military-industrial complex was in the context that he was worried about an uprising of rich businessmen and patriots in the military using their power and influence to combat the corrupt ruling elite. QAnon, I believe—emphasis on ‘believe,’ not ‘know’—may be that complex rising up in the form of NSA patriots, certain generals, and Trump.”

The NSA appears to be the main federal entity QAnon supporters believe is involved in the covert battle against the corrupt elements of the Deep State, which Trump and his supporters have long argued is openly subverting and undermining the president and his agenda at every opportunity available to them.

Project Veritas, a non-profit organization headed by James O’Keefe, whose mission is to “investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society,” has released undercover video footage of a State Department employee who is active with the radical leftwing group Democratic Socialists of America openly advocating resistance to Trump’s agenda and the federal government more generally.

The Deep State’s war against Trump and his agenda is hard to dismiss or ignore, especially when the hostile mainstream media appears to be working in conjunction with the Deep State to destabilize and undermine Trump’s America-first agenda.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

King also believes the NSA is playing a key role in the QAnon movement and may be working to help expose the globalists behind the scenes.

“The NSA has dirt on everybody,” King stated. “I believe the Mueller investigation is a pretext for taking NSA evidence and ‘washing it’ so it can be used against the globalists. That’s the theory anyway, and it does seem very plausible. Mueller and so many others who have ‘flipped’ against Trump may actually be part of the greatest sting operation in history.”

Time will tell how true the QAnon postings and warnings actually are. Will the pro-Trump, patriotic elements of the Deep State, who have been using QAnon to release information and warnings to the American public, follow through and actually arrest the crooks and criminals working overtime to destabilize and undermine the Trump administration?

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

The Late Hit on Judge Kavanaugh

Whatever comes of this accusation against Kavanaugh, Buchanan’s take on this “late hit” is valid: “What is being done here stinks. It is a transparently late hit, a kill shot to assassinate a nominee … Palpable here is the desperation of the left to derail Kavanaugh, lest his elevation to the high court imperil their agenda. . . .”
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Upon the memory and truthfulness of Christine Blasey Ford hangs the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation and possibly his career on the nation’s second-highest court.

And much more. If Kavanaugh is voted down or forced to withdraw, the Republican Party and conservative movement could lose their last best hope for recapturing the high court for constitutionalism.

No new nominee could be vetted and approved in six weeks. And the November election could bring in a Democratic Senate, an insuperable obstacle to the elevation of a new strict constructionist like Kavanaugh.

The stakes are thus historic and huge.

And what is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

When she was 15 in the summer of ’82, she went to a beer party with four boys in Montgomery County, Maryland, in a home where the parents were away.

She says she was dragged into a bedroom by Brett Kavanaugh, a 17-year-old at Georgetown Prep, who jumped her, groped her, tried to tear off her clothes and cupped her mouth with his hand to stop her screams.

Only when Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, laughing “maniacally,” piled on and they all tumbled off the bed, did she escape and lock herself in a bathroom as the “stumbling drunks” went downstairs. She fled the house and told no one of the alleged rape attempt.

Not until 30 years later in 2012 did Ford, now a clinical psychologist in California, relate, in a couples therapy session with her husband, what happened. She says she named Kavanaugh as her assailant, but the therapist’s notes of the session make no mention of Kavanaugh.

During the assault, says Ford, she was traumatized. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

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

Here the story grows vague. She does not remember who drove her to the party. She does not say how much she drank. She does not remember whose house it was. She does not recall who, if anyone, drove her home. She does not recall what day it was.

She did not tell her parents, Ford says, as she did not want them to know she had been drinking. She did not tell any friend or family member of this traumatic event that has so adversely affected her life.

Said Kavanaugh in response, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Mark Judge says it never happened.

Given the seriousness of the charges, Ford must be heard out. But she also needs to be cross-examined and have her story and character probed as Kavanaugh’s has been by FBI investigators as an attorney for the Ken Starr impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton, a White House aide to George Bush, a U.S. appellate judge and a Supreme Court nominee.

During the many investigations of Kavanaugh’s background, nothing was unearthed to suggest something like this was in character.

Some 65 women who grew up in the Chevy Chase and Bethesda area and knew Kavanaugh in his high school days have come out and spoken highly of his treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, the way in which all of this arose, at five minutes to midnight in the long confirmation process, suggests that this is political hardball, if not dirt ball.

When Ford, a Democrat, sent a letter detailing her accusations against Kavanaugh to her California congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, Ford insisted that her name not be revealed as the accuser.

She seemingly sought to damage or destroy the judge’s career behind a cloak of anonymity. Eshoo sent the letter on to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who held it for two months.

Excising Ford’s name, Feinstein then sent it to the FBI, who sent it to the White House, who sent it on to the Senate to be included in the background material on the judge.

Thus, Ford’s explosive charge, along with her name, did not surface until this weekend.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

What is being done here stinks. It is a transparently late hit, a kill shot to assassinate a nominee who, before the weekend, was all but certain to be confirmed and whose elevation to the Supreme Court is a result of victories in free elections by President Trump and the Republican Party.

Palpable here is the desperation of the left to derail Kavanaugh, lest his elevation to the high court imperil their agenda and the social revolution that the Warren Court and its progeny have been able to impose upon the nation.

If Kavanaugh is elevated, the judicial dictatorship of decades past, going back to the salad days of Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black and “Wild Bill” Douglas, will have reached its end. A new era will have begun.

That is what is at stake.

The Republican Senate should continue with its calendar to confirm Kavanaugh before Oct. 1, while giving Ford some way to be heard, and then Kavanaugh the right to refute. Then let the senators decide.

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.


The Unvarnished History of McCain

The continuing public portrayal of longtime Arizona Sen. McCain is at odds with the hard facts. It’s important that people understand the reality of John McCain’s life actions vs. the laudatory public and media remarks as one way to begin to see through the false narrative being fed to us via mainstream media on so many other issues, as well.

By Donald Jeffries

Judging by the Deep State’s response to the recent death of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an outsider would think that McCain had improved upon the legacy of George Washington.

Barack Obama spoke of McCain’s “courage” and declared, “We are all in his debt.”

Bill Clinton, in a joint statement issued with his wife, Hillary, stated “I will always be especially grateful for his leadership in our successful efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam.”

George W. Bush gushed, “John McCain was a man of deep conviction and a patriot of the highest order. He was a public servant in the finest traditions of our country.”

Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were only two of the many voices that categorized the career politician as a “true patriot.”

His fellow Arizona senator, Jeff Flake, called McCain “a hero and a statesman.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel led the international praise, lauding McCain’s lifetime of service to “freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.”

The tributes coming from every corner and pillar of the establishment indicate just how fully committed McCain was not to the ideals this country was founded upon but to the corrupt swamp that firmly controls American politics.

McCain was not any more principled in his personal life. His first wife, Carol, had waited faithfully for him during his five years of captivity in North Vietnam, from which he returned home to great fanfare in 1973. Carol, a former swimwear model, had been disfigured in a car crash, and gained a great deal of weight during a long recovery process. She refused to have her husband notified, insisting he had enough on his plate already. Ross Perot, a genuine American hero, quietly paid for all of her medical expenses. In 1980, McCain left Carol for a much younger woman, who happened to be the heiress to a huge beer fortune.

McCain’s new wife, Cindy, would later become addicted to drugs and was caught stealing prescription medication. In typical 1% fashion, she avoided the kind of punishment an average citizen would have received.

Ted Sampley, who at one time got into a physical altercation in a stairway of the Senate building with one of McCain’s aides, was quoted on McCain’s character in the June 7, 2008 edition of the UK’s Daily Mail: “I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is—deceit.”

He added, “When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. . . . Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. . . . This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.”

In the same article, Perot stated, “McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.”

McCain had the right connections for future military glory. Both his father and his grandfather were admirals. At the Naval Academy, McCain, a lifelong womanizer, developed a rebellious reputation and partied hard with a group of fellow officers who dubbed themselves the “Bad Bunch.”

Many others besides Donald Trump have pointed out that McCain was not a war hero.

Perfidy: Abandoning Our Prisoners of War
What was Sen. John McCain’s role in knowingly abandoning U.S. prisoners of war? Learn more at the AFP Online Store.

McCain worked harder than anyone else in Washington, D.C. to ensure that countless POWs and MIAs left behind in Vietnam would remain forgotten. Considering that McCain’s entire political career was constructed by portraying himself as a self-sacrificing, suffering POW himself, this is beyond ironic.

McCain’s performance on the John Kerry-led Senate Committee on POWs and MIAs was shameful. In his most dramatic display, an angry McCain walked out in disgust during the testimony of family members. On another occasion, he himself physically assaulted a group of POW-MIA activists, including an old woman in a wheelchair, in the corridors of the Senate.

McCain’s role as one of the members of the infamous Keating Five—a group of five corrupt senators who intervened on behalf of a wealthy bank swindler—has been all but forgotten by the mainstream media. The thoroughly corrupt McCain was exposed as a politician of the lowest order, for this scandal alone, and yet his political career actually ascended afterwards.

According to research done by Jerome Corsi and others, McCain is also tied to organized crime through his second father-in-law, James Hensley, who was convicted by a federal jury in 1948 of filing false liquor records and conspiracy to conceal the names of those involved in a liquor-industry racket behind the two companies he managed. One of the figures tied to Hensley was Kemper Marley, who had been accused of mob connections by reporter Don Bolles, who was murdered in a car bombing in 1976, most likely because of his reportage on the Mafia.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

McCain stood out as a war hawk, even among all the warmongers that fill the Washington, D.C. swamp. He never met a war, a bombing, an occupation, or an embargo that he didn’t like.

From the mid-1990s on, McCain was the loudest voice in the Senate blathering on about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq that clearly never existed. McCain would later famously pose for a photo with “brave fighters” that actually were affiliated with ISIS.

The list of embarrassing incidents, personal and political corruption, and reprehensible moral behavior is lengthy. McCain was certainly the antithesis of the “maverick” the establishment consistently proclaimed him to be.

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 AFP BOOKSTORE.

Warning Shot Prevents Robbery of Pharmacy

A Maryland pharmacist recently thwarted criminal druggies intent on robbing his store by firing a warning shot with his own handgun.

By Mark Anderson

While mainstream media aren’t always keen on reporting it, armed citizens, including business owners, often exercise their right to self-defense simply by wielding their weapon and thereby avoiding bloodshed.

Pakistan-born Wasim Amir—who arrived in the U.S. in the early 1990s, became a citizen in 1999, and owns Karemore Pharmacy in Princess Anne, Md.—is living proof of this reality.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

On the afternoon of Aug. 13, Amir, a licensed pharmacist, for the first time ever used his .38-caliber revolver in self-defense when two would-be robbers, wearing ski masks, entered the store, as he described when contacted by AFP.

Amir—who was sitting in the back of the store in his office when the two young men entered the pharmacy—heard some commotion about 3 p.m., prompting him to act. Amir grabbed his licensed revolver from a drawer and confronted the men, firing one shot, which left a hole in the front window, to scare them. Meanwhile, other staffers called the police.

One of the men had an especially powerful AK-47 military rifle, as Amir recalled for AFP, while adding that his review of surveillance video footage later showed the other man fiddling under his clothing, possibly because he had stashed a weapon there.

“The man with the rifle ordered everyone down on the ground,” Amir told local media right after the incident, “including one customer, a woman, who happened to be in the store.

“But when they saw my gun, they were scared and ran away through the door they came in, and then around outside to the back of the store,” Amir told AFP, while noting that he believes a third person had driven to the store and dropped the young men off for the robbery attempt.

Understanding Crime & Gun Control Laws, at the AFP Store.

On Aug. 14, Princess Anne police charged Cody Allen King, 22, and Justin Michael Bull, also 22, both of whom are from Princess Anne, “with armed robbery, robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery,” local press accounts say. There were no injuries and no property was stolen.

Asked about their apparent motivation, Amir agreed with this AFP writer hat the opioid epidemic may have been a factor. Highly addictive opioid prescription painkillers will motivate people to take extreme measures for profits and to feed the widespread addiction to such drugs.

“If they steal these drugs from pharmacies, they’ll end up in the wrong hands, and there will be more addictions and more deaths,” Amir said.

“And more armed robberies?” AFP interjected.

“That’s a possibility,” Amir replied, while noting that stolen drugs either end up being sold on the street or the robbers are addicts themselves, or both.

Although Amir, who built his pharmacy business from scratch, is not outspoken about the Second Amendment, he expressed appreciation about having a constitutional right to self-defense.

He remarked: “My pistol is for store use. I used to have a concealed-carry [permit], but not anymore.”

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

As this story shows, whenever the principle of the defense of oneself, loved ones, employees, and property is rationally exercised, there are lessons to be learned in this age of reported deadly shootings at schools, churches, and other venues where armed defense is strongly discouraged or illegal.

While venal politicians scramble to get headlines, campaign donations, and votes by calling for more firearms regulations, examples such as this one stand out as a clear indication that school and church officials who truly want to protect those under their wing cannot look the other way if they’re serious about safety. Call it “principle before politics.” Let’s hope it catches on.

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

Warhawks Leaderless?

Could the death of warhawk-in-chief and lead coverup artist Senator John McCain usher in a new era of peace?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“McCain’s Death Leaves Void” ran The Wall Street Journal headline over a front-page story that began: “The death of John McCain will leave Congress without perhaps its loudest voice in support of the robust internationalism that has defined the country’s security relations since World War II.”

Certainly, the passing of the senator whose life story will dominate the news until he is buried at his alma mater, the Naval Academy, on Sunday [Sept. 2], leaves America’s interventionists without their greatest champion.

No one around has the prestige or media following of McCain.

And the cause he championed—compulsive intervention in foreign quarrels to face down dictators and bring democrats to power—appears to be a cause whose time has passed.

Neoconservative Threat, Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony – at the AFP Store.

When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. McCain then backed President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, he slipped into northern Syria to cheer rebels who had arisen to overthrow President Bashar Assad, an insurgency that led to a seven-year civil war and one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time.

McCain supported the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, right up to Russia’s border. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, and was expelled by the Russian army, McCain roared, “We are all Georgians now!”

He urged intervention. But Bush, his approval rating scraping bottom, had had enough of the neocon crusades for democracy.

McCain’s contempt for Russian President Vladimir Putin was unconstrained. When crowds gathered in Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow an elected pro-Russian president, McCain was there, cheering them on.

He supported sending arms to the Ukrainian army to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. He backed U.S. support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. And this war, too, proved to be a humanitarian disaster.

McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it. But by 2006, the wars he had championed had cost the Republican Party both houses of Congress.

In 2008, when he was on the ballot, those wars helped cost him the presidency.

By 2016, the Republican majority would turn its back on McCain and his protege, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and nominate Donald Trump, who said he would seek to get along with Russia and extricate America from the wars into which McCain had helped plunge the country.

Yet, while interventionism now has no great champion and has proven unable to rally an American majority, it retains a residual momentum. This compulsion is pushing us to continue backing the Saudi war in Yemen and to seek regime change in Iran.

Yet if either of these enterprises holds any prospect of bringing about a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East, no one has made the case.

While the foreign policy that won the Cold War, containment, was articulated by George Kennan and pursued by presidents from Truman to Bush I, no grand strategy for the post-Cold War era has ever been embraced by a majority of Americans.

Bush I’s “New World Order” was rejected by Ross Perot’s economic patriots and Bill Clinton’s baby boomers who wanted to spend America’s peace dividend from our Cold War victory on America’s homefront.

As for the Bush II crusades for democracy “to end tyranny in our world,” the fruits of that Wilsonian idealism turned into ashes in our mouths.

But if the foreign policy agendas of Bush I and Bush II, along with McCain’s interventionism, have been tried and found wanting, what is America’s grand strategy?

What are the great goals of U.S. foreign policy? What are the vital interests for which almost all Americans believe we should fight?

“Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” said Churchill. “Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a role,” was the crushing comment of Dean Acheson in 1962.

Both statements appear to apply to U.S. foreign policy in 2018.

We are bombing and fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, partly McCain’s legacy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has sent a virtual ultimatum to Iran. We have told North Korea, a nuclear power with the world’s fourth-largest army, either to denuclearize or the U.S. may use its military might to get the job done.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

We are challenging Beijing in its claimed territorial waters of the South China Sea. From South Korea to Estonia, we are committed by solemn treaty to go to war if any one of dozens of nations is attacked.

Now one hears talk of an “Arab NATO” to confront the ayatollah’s Iran and its Shiite allies. Lest we forget, ISIS and al Qaeda are Sunni.

With all these war guarantees, the odds are excellent that one day we are going to be dragged into yet another war that the American people will sour upon soon after it begins.

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.


Censorship Always Targets Truth

The campaign to rid the nation of so-called “fake news” is fake news in itself, as censors target both left and right in their unending attempt to cover up the truth. 

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

A rising tide of censorship is drowning what is left of liberty on these shores. The censors target people on both the left and right. They claim they are just trying to stop “fake news,” but they lie. The real impetus of censorship is always the same: to cover up the truth.

The witch hunt against Alex Jones is a case in point. The mainstream media campaign against Jones would have you believe that they want to silence Jones due to his allegedly false and defamatory statements.

Has Jones ever made false and defamatory statements? Perhaps. He has certainly spread misinformation about Islam and Muslims. His fact-checking is not always what it should be, nor is the portrait of national and global events he paints entirely accurate.

But there is a simple legal remedy for false and defamatory statements: the libel courts. Jones is currently being sued for libel by individuals who say he defamed them by misrepresenting their connection to the December 2012 events at Sandy Hook Elementary. If they can prove that Jones’s statements were false and damaging, and that he should have known that they were false, they will prevail in court. But the mainstream media (MSM) campaign against Jones, which has gotten him banned from Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, does not abide by the rules of American jurisprudence or the First Amendment. Nor is it motivated by any genuine concern about Jones’s faults. This horrendous, illegal, unconstitutional censorship campaign is going after Jones for one reason and one reason only: because Jones tells too much truth about certain sensitive issues that the mainstream is charged with covering up.

Every MSM attack on Jones charges him with spreading “9/11 conspiracy theories.” What they leave out is the fact that these theories—which blame neocons not Muslims for 9/11—are true. As Jones has repeatedly stated, 9/11 was an “inside job,” in the same way that a bank heist assisted by insiders is an inside job. In the case of 9/11, the neocon insiders helped the “bank robbers”—Israel—pull off the attack.

The MSM is dominated by Zionists. It includes plenty of Operation Mockingbird CIA assets. These people are charged with covering up the truth of 9/11. As the audience for alternative media like Jones and AFP grows, while the MSM audience shrinks, the truth about 9/11 and other explosive issues has been steadily leaking out. The censorship campaign against Jones is part of the larger campaign to plug those leaks by taking down the alternative media.

It isn’t just conservatives like Jones who are being censored and silenced. In Berkeley, Calif., home of the 1960s Free Speech Movement, left-leaning radio host Bonnie Faulkner has been banned by KPFA radio, flagship of the Pacifica Radio Network.

Kevin Cartwright of KPFA management recently announced: “After an avalanche of negative calls and emails from listeners about the airing of views of a holocaust denier, climate change denial and casting the Parkland mass shooting survivors as crisis actors. [sic] KPFA cannot defend this content. Please direct all comments to KPFA’s comment line at comments@KPFA.org or 510-848-6767 ext. 622.”

Cartwright’s illiterate statement (please learn to write complete sentences!) toes the MSM propaganda line: He pretends that the “avalanche of calls and emails” was driven by concern that Ms. Faulkner’s show sometimes includes guests who make false statements about current or historical events. The reality is precisely the opposite: The “avalanche” was orchestrated by Israeli government pressure groups who hate Ms. Faulkner not because of any untruths uttered on her show but because so many of her guests tell the truth about Israel and its crimes, including the 9/11 false-flag operation.

If a guest on Ms. Faulkner’s “Guns and Butter,” or any other radio show, makes false statements, the remedy is simple and obvious: Bring on another guest to expose the lies and explain what the truth is and how we know it is the truth. Free and unfettered debate is the only context in which truth can emerge.

The current MSM moral panic over “fake news” is really a panic over “true news.” It is the scandalous truths—that 9/11 was a neocon-Zionist inside job, that Robert Mueller is a serial coverup criminal and deep state operative, that Jeffrey Epstein’s Israeli pedophile/blackmail ring has compromised America’s top leadership, that Bill Clinton is a Jeffrey Epstein client and credibly accused serial rapist, that the CIA is the world’s biggest drug dealer, that our elections are fake spectacles controlled by rigged voting machines, that America’s best leaders are assassinated by the deep state, and so on—that are the problem.

Censors never fear lies. They only fear truth.

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.

Bundy Hit Again

The Department of Justice has appealed the ruling of a Nevada judge who dismissed the department’s case against Cliven Bundy et al. on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, evidently intent on seeing the land-rights protesters jailed. This development made AFP’s front page in the issue just released and now available online. Click here to subscribe to AFP Online.

By Mark Anderson

Former federal prosecutor Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, issued a press release earlier in August on behalf of his client, Cliven Bundy, vowing to fight a Department of Justice appeal of a judge’s dismissal of the case against Bundy for his role in the spring 2014 protest against federal land tyranny in Nevada.

In January, U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro dismissed conspiracy charges against Bundy, his two sons, and fellow protestor Ryan Payne after finding prosecutors violated federal law and unjustly failed to share with the court evidence favorable to the defendants. Later, on July 31, Judge Navarro rejected the prosecutors’ request to reconsider her dismissal of the case.

“The court’s finding of outrageous government conduct was not in error,” Judge Navarro wrote in her 11-page ruling in late July, reports The Oregonian. “On the contrary, a universal sense of justice was violated by the government’s failure to provide evidence that is potentially exculpatory.”

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

Despite this, federal prosecutors are trying again to go after the Bundys, hoping that in a third trial they will be able to take down the famed Nevada rancher.

“My client and friend Cliven Bundy is confident that the Ninth Circuit will affirm Judge Navarro’s dismissal,” Klayman said.

The government’s case was “based on prosecutorial misconduct,” Klayman added. “That the prosecutors who committed and furthered this gross prosecutorial misconduct would now seek to file a notice of appeal underscores that my once proud alma mater, the U.S. Department of Justice, has become the Department of Injustice.”

A longtime observer of the Bundy saga, KSDZ-FM radio host Jim Lambley of Gordon, Neb., told AFP on Aug. 20 that he believes a serious effort on the part of the federal government to pry open this case again could lead to even more, and worse, revelations of federal misconduct— including the possibility that an alleged letter could surface—rumored to have included a chilling “kill list” that armed federal agents had compiled and that the list included the names of women and children.

“The federal judge dismissed the case in part to save the feds further embarrassment,” added Roger Roots, who attended nearly every day of the lengthy trial.

“It’s at least conceivable the Ninth Circuit could override Judge Navarro and force a new trial, but think of how ridiculous it would be. You get your case dismissed, it’s thrown out but two years later, you get a call from your lawyer saying you’re looking at life in prison—again.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Majority of Business Owners Support Increased Tariffs

An August financial poll found strong support among American business owners for Trump’s financial policies, including levying additional tariffs on Chinese goods. They reported having a positive outlook on the economy and “feel the administration has had a positive impact on their business overall.” 

By Mark Anderson

While the mainstream media continue to wail about how President Donald Trump’s application of tariffs on imports will only incite “trade wars” and could not possibly generate even a single shipping crate’s worth of benefits, an early-August UBS Investor Watch poll says otherwise.

According to the poll, 71% of business owners, from both small and large companies, support levying additional tariffs on Chinese goods. In addition, more than 70% of business owners have a positive one-year outlook on the state of the economy.

As for the poll’s rating of the president, 55% of business owners feel the administration has had a positive impact on their business overall, with 20% reporting a negative impact.

And though you’d never know it by perusing the pulp of The New York Times or The Washington Post:

  • 64% of those polled want more tariffs on European goods.
  • 66% support more tariffs on imports from Mexico.
  • 60% would like to see additional tariffs on Canadian goods.
  • Among high net-worth investors, 59% support more tariffs on Chinese goods.

“China is the top concern when it comes to U.S. trading partners, with 88% of business owners [polled] claiming they believe China engages in unfair trade practices with the U.S.,” the “Daily Caller” website, a conservative news outfit, noted on Aug. 2. “Trump has taken a great deal of criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who believe his trade policies are protectionist and will hurt long-run economic growth.”

The Oil Card, James R. Norman
On sale now at the AFP Online Store.

That’s accurate enough, though “unfair trade practices” falls far short of describing the huge trade surplus China enjoys at America’s expense—a deficit on the U.S. side of the ledger that was $375.2 billion in 2017 alone, up from $347 billion in 2016. It could be argued that the tariffs on Chinese goods simply represent “payback time,” given the decades of growing trade deficits, widespread industrial-production losses and plummeting consumer purchasing power the U.S. has been forced to endure under “free trade” agreements written well outside of public view.

When it comes to lawmakers and free trade, partisanship suddenly becomes muted and legislators who can barely agree that water is wet suddenly march in lockstep, screaming about how protectionism should be forbidden, just as tariffs should be forbidden. Why? Because both concepts adversely impact the ruling internationalist establishment—collusive central banks, investment banks, certain law firms and insurance interests, influential tax-exempt think tanks and arm-twisting lobbying firms, the Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission groupings etc.—to which many members of Congress are beholden.

The institutional bias runs deep. This writer recalls in 2011 covering a meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington. There, a Wall Street Journal reporter hanging around in a food court warned me that using the words “tariff” and “protectionism” too often, or discussing them conceptually and objectively, much less advocating them, was largely taboo within the gilded walls of those institutions.

Since the media is a tool of the trans-nationalist elite who run the above-noted interlocking interests, Americans are hard pressed to get a clear and complete explanation not just about the degree of support for Trump’s tariffs, but also about tariffs themselves.

Tariffs, it is said, raise prices, but so do domestic income and property taxes as tax-related costs are passed off to the end consumer. Better to raise taxes at the water’s edge and make corporations who sought cheap labor overseas pay for the privilege of selling their goods in the U.S. market.

This arrangement, by limiting the sale of imports via import taxes [tariffs], has the added benefit of protecting domestic investments and production within the U.S. That, in turn, fosters a more nationalistic economic outlook, meaning that protectionism deflates the plutocratic, internationalist system. Hence the reason that “protectionism” and “tariffs” are rated as dirty words whenever they’re advocated.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Russian Witch Hunt Never Ends

What the mainstream is saying about “Russian spy” Maria Butina is fake news.

By Phil Giraldi

I am somewhat perplexed about the furor over alleged “Russian spy” Maria Butina, a 29-year-old Russian woman currently living in Washington, who was arrested three weeks ago and charged with conspiracy in acting as an agent of the Russian government tasked with developing ties with American citizens and infiltrating certain political groups. She is reportedly being held in solitary confinement and not allowed bail as she is considered a “flight risk.”

Miss Butina, a student at American University and a co-founder of the pro-gun rights Russian advocacy organization Right to Bear Arms, is charged with operating under the direction of Alexander Torshin, a high-level official reportedly close to President Vladimir Putin who currently works for the Russian Central Bank. According to the Justice Department, Torshin was recently sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control over information provided by the Spanish government indicating that he has been involved in the past in money laundering, a charge which he denies.

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

It is important to note that Torshin is not an intelligence officer. Nor has he ever been accused of spying. He is a banker and so-called oligarch, admittedly with powerful political friends in Russia. And Miss Butina was not acting as a spy nor as an intelligence officer seeking to obtain classified information or develop potential agents in the United States. She operated completely openly to cultivate relationships in her areas of interest and was not engaged in espionage in any traditional sense. She did not communicate secretly with Moscow, which is why the FBI was able to obtain her emails that it considers to be suspicious.

Miss Butina was not actually charged with trying to recruit American citizens to act covertly on behalf of Russia or to promote Moscow’s international agenda, whatever that might be, though there was considerable innuendo in the court documents suggesting just that. She was caught sending emails, attending classes at college, and arguing to defend her homeland. And, most of all, she was networking, which is completely legal even here in the post-9/11 United States, where basic rights have been vanishing on an almost daily basis. One might even describe her as a bit of a “hustler,” that old fashioned expression for an opportunist working the circuit of the rich and powerful. When the 2016 election results came in, she exuberantly posted a message about the Trump victory on a Russian social media site saying,

“A supporter of the rights to arms and the restoration of relations with Russia. Congratulate [sic] everyone!”

Miss Butina, suspected of serving as a directed agent of the Russian government acting through Torshin, allegedly was attempting to create relationships with right-wing elements in the U.S. She has actually only been charged with conspiracy relating to her claimed relationship with Torshin and failure to register as a foreign agent. Registration for individuals or groups acting on behalf of a foreign government is required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). The FBI apparently has obtained her emails suggesting that she was taking direction from Torshin to do certain things that would enhance her profile with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other conservative groups that were allegedly being targeted.

It is highly unusual to arrest anyone for violation of FARA, suggesting that the authorities are seeking to pressure Miss Butina into revealing additional information that will ultimately demonstrate a grand Russian plot to infiltrate American institutions. The normal penalty being required under FARA is for that group or individual to register, sometimes after payment of a fine. Russian government media outlets “RT America” and “Sputnik News” were recently required to register, and did so, to comply with Treasury Department demands. Meanwhile, ex-congressmen who go on to serve as agents of foreign governments as lobbyists have been known to violate FARA and not one of them has ever been arrested and jailed.

In any event, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would consider the NRA to be a legitimate intelligence target. It only flexes its admittedly powerful legislative muscles over issues relating to gun ownership, not regarding policy on Russia. And as for the Russian equivalent, the Right to Bear Arms, I can personally testify that the group appears to be completely legitimate. I was in Moscow in December 2015 speaking at a conference and noted the organization’s gathering at a hotel for its own annual meeting. I might have even met Miss Butina and Torshin at that time after I wandered in and spoke with a number of members, all of whom appeared to be personally engaged and completely legitimate, well able to explain the virtues of gun ownership in Russia.

Guns, including Kalashnikov assault rifles, were on sale at the event. Russia does, in fact, have nearly 7 million registered gun owners. The process of obtaining a license is onerous, but it can be done and Right to Bear Arms is dedicated to making the registration easier and guns more accessible.

In short, Miss Butina and by extension Torshin have done nothing wrong. Both are energetic advocates for their country and gun rights, which they appear to believe in, and Miss Butina has broken no law except not registering, which in itself assumes that she is a Russian government agent, something that has not been demonstrated. To put the shoe on the other foot, will every American who now travels to Russia and engages in political conversations with local people be suspected of acting as an agent of the U.S. government? Once you open the door, it swings both ways.

As always, the hypocrisy in the U.S. case, which might reasonably be viewed as part of the current hysteria about Russia, is manifest. The nation of Israel has literally hundreds of paid lobbyists swarming all over Capitol Hill pushing hard on issues being promoted by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Many of the objectives of the lobbying are damaging to the United States, to include advocating a war with Iran, but not a single one of those lobbyists or the Jewish groups they represent has ever been required to register with FARA. But if you are a Russian and you are caught talking to anyone in any way influential, there is apparently hell to pay. You are automatically assumed to be part of a conspiracy.

The irony is, of course, that the Israelis and their American enablers really are part of a conspiracy to subvert America’s government and institutions and they get away with it while the Russian agenda, if there is one, remains to be proven.

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.


Presidential Rape Allegations

The mainstream media cares only about the abuse of women if there’s a buck in it for them. That may explain why many don’t know about these alleged crimes by several American presidents.

By Donald Jeffries

In the wake of sexual harassment claims that rocked major U.S. industries including Hollywood and the mainstream media—colloquially known today as the #MeToo movement—it is interesting to consider how many U.S. presidents have been accused of literal rape over the years.

Hidden History, Jeffries
Available from AFP’s Online Store, here.

In 1873, for example, Maria Halpin accused President Grover Cleveland of sexually assaulting her on the evening of Dec. 15 that year. In her affidavit, Halpin alleged that Cleveland sexually assaulted her “by use of force and violence and without my consent.” Halpin added that Cleveland “told me he was determined to ruin me if it cost him $10,000, if he was hanged by the neck for it. I then and there told him that I never wanted to see him again [and] commanded him to leave my room, which he did.”

Ms. Halpin became pregnant as a result of the assault, and the boy she gave birth to became the basis of the campaign slogan, “Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa?” Cleveland and his powerful associates smeared Ms. Halpin as promiscuous and a drunk.

She was later thrown into the Providence Lunatic Asylum, and the child was taken from her and sent to an orphanage in Buffalo. Ms. Halpin died at age 66 in 1902, with $200 to her name, irreparably scandalized and wronged.

In Kitty Kelly’s 1991 book Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, she reported the allegations of actress Selene Walters. Ms. Walters, a 19-year-old actress at the time, claimed that the then-41-year-old Reagan forced himself sexually on her during a date in 1952. This quintessential “date rape” stayed surprisingly under the radar, even after Walters reiterated her story in the April 29, 1991 issue of People magazine. Reagan was confronted by the press about the accusation just as Kelly’s book was being released. He was about to enter church at the time, and issued one of his trademark responses, “I don’t think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that.”

Hillary And Bill, Sex Volume
More on Clinton at the AFP Online Store.

Bill Clinton was accused of varying degrees of sexual harassment by many women. One of them, Juanita Broaddrick, claimed that, when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, he had brutally raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in 1978. Four witnesses backed her story, including a nurse who treated her injuries. NBC News, to its eternal discredit, sat on the story for a year as the impeachment process unfolded, in an obvious attempt to save Clinton further negative publicity.

George W. Bush was accused of raping a black woman, Margie Schoedinger. Virtually the entire press, including abroad, ignored this story completely.

The only paper to cover it, in fact, was England’s New Nation, which represented London’s black community. Schoedinger told American journalist Jackson Thoreau that Bush himself had threatened to have her killed, and was quoted as saying, “People have to be held accountable for what they do and that is why I am pursuing this lawsuit.” Sadly, Ms. Schoedinger supposedly shot herself shortly thereafter.

Donald Trump, like Bill Clinton, has had myriad allegations of sexual harassment leveled against him. The most serious of these was from a woman known only as Jane Doe, who accused Trump and fellow billionaire Jeffrey Epstein (convicted of soliciting underage girls for prostitution) of raping her when she was a 13-year-old aspiring model. She dropped her lawsuit against Trump in November 2016 on the eve of the presidential election.

Survival of the Richest, Jeffries
Available from AFP.

Jane Doe failed to show up for a Los Angeles press conference, allegedly out of tremendous fear. Her attorney Lisa Bloom cited “numerous threats” against her client. Jane Doe herself had quoted Trump as threatening to have her and her family “physically harmed, if not killed,” if she didn’t keep quiet. She also claimed that Trump responded to her screams of protest by striking her in the face and screaming that he would do what he wanted.

It appears that the mainstream media really isn’t worried about rape allegations against presidents unless exposing them can increase their ratings—and thus their profits—or help them to ruin a president they don’t like.

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 AFP, Hidden History: An Exposé of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics and  Survival of the Richest: How the Corruption of the Marketplace and the Disparity of Wealth Created the Greatest Conspiracy of All.

In Spies Battle, Trump Holds the High Ground

Former intelligence officers have a First Amendment right to criticize the president and call him whatever names they choose. But holding a security clearance is not a right; it is “a privilege, an honor and a necessity for those serving in the security agencies of the U.S. government—while they serve.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In backing John Brennan’s right to keep his top-secret security clearance, despite his having charged the president with treason, the U.S. intel community has chosen to fight on indefensible terrain.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seemed to recognize that Sunday when he conceded that ex-CIA Director Brennan had the subtlety of “a freight train” and his rhetoric had become “an issue in and of itself.”

After Donald Trump’s Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin, Brennan had called the president’s actions “nothing short of treasonous.”

The battle is now engaged. Trump cannot back down. He must defy and defeat the old bulls of the intel community. And he can.

For a security clearance is not a right. It is not an entitlement.

It is a privilege, an honor and a necessity for those serving in the security agencies of the U.S. government—while they serve.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Brennan is not being deprived of his First Amendment rights. He can still make any accusation and call the president any name he wishes.

But to argue that a charge of treason against a president is not a justification for pulling a clearance is a claim both arrogant and absurd.

Again, a security clearance is not a constitutional right.

Said Defense Secretary James Mattis: “I have taken security clearances away from people in my previous time in uniform . . . a security clearance is something that is granted on an as-needed basis.”

Brennan is now threatening to sue the president. Bring it on, says national security adviser John Bolton.

With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances, and this city awash in leaks to the media from present and past intel and security officials, it is time to strip the swamp creatures of their special privileges.

All Out War on Trump
Available from AFP’s Online Store, here.

The White House should press upon Congress a policy of automatic cancellation of security clearances, for intelligence and military officers, upon resignation, retirement or severance.

Clearances should be retained only for departing officers who can demonstrate that their “need to know” national secrets remains crucial to our security, not merely advantageous to their pursuit of lucrative jobs in the military-industrial complex.

Officials in the security realm who take clearances with them on leaving office are like House members who retain all the access, perks and privileges of Congress after they step down to earn seven-figure salaries lobbying their former congressional colleagues.

The White House statement of Sarah Huckabee Sanders on John Brennan’s loss of his clearances was spot on:

“Any access granted to our nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.

“Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations—wild outbursts on the Internet and television—about this administration. Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets, and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”

Trump is said to be evaluating pulling the security clearances of Clapper, ex-FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

This is a good start. Some of these individuals have been fired. Some are under investigation. Some were involved in the FBI’s “get-Trump” cabal to prevent his election and then to abort his presidency.

Some have become talking heads on cable TV, exploiting the credibility of their former titles and offices to undermine an elected president.

Again, they have a First Amendment right to do this. But they should be stripped of their clearances to show the nation that the president is dealing with insiders who have joined the Resistance.

At bottom, the issue is: Who speaks for America?

Is it the mainstream media, the deep state, the permanent government, the city that gave Trump 4% of its votes? Or is it that vast slice of Middle America that sent Trump to drain the swamp?

Trump’s enemies, and they are legion, want to see Robert Mueller charge him with collusion with Russia and obstructing the investigation of that collusion. They want to see the Democratic Party take over the House in November, and the Senate, and move on to impeach and remove Trump from office. Then they want to put him where Paul Manafort sits today.

For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen. But this issue of security clearances is a battlefield where the president cannot lose, if he fights wisely.

Americans sense that these are privileges that should be extended to those who protect us, not perks for former officials to exploit and monetize while they attempt to bring down the commander in chief.

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.


Rather Covers for Fake News Media

Not surprising to readers who watched the “dishonest rise and notorious fall” of Dan Rather, the fraudulent journalist is now blasting Trump and supporting the establishment’s lying press.

By S.T. Patrick

When the mainstream media is attacked, it can always count on its own aging lions to protect the den. The barrels of former CBS news anchor Dan Rather’s ideological bully pulpit recently turned to President Donald Trump. In an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, Rather said Trump’s attacks on the media were “straight out of Orwell.” Rather also referred to Trump as an “authoritarian” and someone who believes that “the one and only truth comes from him.”

Ironically, but not surprisingly, Rather has built a career on portraying himself as an authority on major events and someone who should be trusted to relay truth to the American public. The problem with Rather’s career is that those dubious goals were diametrically opposed to the plot points of his dishonest rise and notorious fall.

Rather’s rise at CBS can be attributed to having been in Dallas on the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. However, his bungling of details also coincides with the same event. Rather was among a handful of reporters to have seen the Zapruder film the day after the assassination.

The American public at large would not view the film until March 6, 1975, when Robert Groden showed the “Z-Film” on an episode of “Good Night America” with Geraldo Rivera.

Upon Rather’s viewing, he rushed to air with the shocking description of what he had seen—a presidential head that “went forward with considerable violence.” As it turns out, both Oliver Stone and the writers of “Seinfeld” were more accurate than Rather when they described Kennedy’s head obviously jolting “back and to the left.”

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

Rather also later reported that President Nixon was about to fire the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover and a top Vietnam official. These last two reports were later proven to be false. Rather was notorious for being one of the first storm-chasing reporters who would tie himself to a tree as a hurricane approached. Clutching the tree as if his life was in jeopardy, the moment of truth would inevitably come when a random elderly person would walk through the background, unaffected by the winds.

In 1980, Rather earned the critical nickname “Gunga Dan” from Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales for his over-dramatized walk across the Afghanistan border. Rather told America he was “risking his own safety.” The accompanying interpreter seemed wholly unaffected.

The fall of Rather occurred when he, once again, jumped the gun on news—and truth—by reporting false information about George W. Bush’s Air National Guard Service in Texas. This was the end for an overdramatic news anchor who always fancied himself as “hard news.” Today,

Rather still brandishes a reporter’s notebook that can be used at any moment if his AXS-TV interviewees—such as Kid Rock or Crystal Gayle—need to share any information on deep background.

Rather had mastered fake news before “Fake News” was a hip criticism. And while he was a maestro, he was not a solo act. In 1993, NBC had to settle a defamation suit with General Motors when its cornerstone “Dateline NBC” program rigged a fiery crash. After the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, NBC massacred alleged bomber Richard Jewell in a trial-by-media outbreak that was nothing short of omnipresent—and false. Rather’s CBS News broadcasts followed NBC’s lead. Despite doubts, all three networks (and all of the cable outlets) aired false reports on the death of Pat Tillman and the faux-heroic story of Army private Jessica Lynch in Iraq.

New journalists at old media encampments are told by the Rathers of the world that the mainstream media is reliable, and social media giants like Facebook are told that these same media organizations should be the arbiters of fact.

A December Washington Post headline may tell the sad truth of media believability. The headline read “Polls Show Americans Distrust the Media. But Talk to Them, and It’s a Very Different Story.” When you ask an individual American about their trust in the mainstream media, they will most likely describe their negative view of the MSM. But like similar polls about trusting politicians, they will blast the national media while exhibiting faith in their local media or their favorite mainstream national media outlet. And while distrusting media is a commonplace opinion, media sources are still regularly cited when one person wants to prove the veracity of an event to another person.

Intimidation Game
How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech – On sale right now at AFP’s Online Store!

“I just saw it on the news!” still holds considerable weight in a personal debate. One of the largest hurdles still faced by the consuming public is the idea of partisanship in news. Much of the public distrust in national news outlets has to do with a perceived partisan bias held by the media outlet. A Fox News diehard has serious reservations about CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post. A nightly CBS News viewer distrusts Fox News, National Review, and The Weekly Standard. In holding either view, the consumer fails to understand that on large, overarching issues, all major media in America functions on one accord. They are pro-war; they favor the financial and media elite; they unflinchingly trust government spokesmen, retired military officers, and establishment historians; and they always favor Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, Big Education, Big Finance, and the biggest lies in the history profession. On these issues, Fox News and MSNBC agree. Therefore, how can one be trusted and the other be reviled?

To find a news outlet that challenges the state-sponsored media dictates that are shared by all mainstream outlets, a consumer has to look toward the alternative media. The mainstream media is in a death spiral, accelerated by their own refusal to report critically on the most difficult stories, trends, and ideas of our time. A viewer’s or a reader’s time and money are the only vote they have regarding their media.

Real change requires an absolute change in lifestyle. To affect the reliability and the availability in trustworthy media, it is imperative that consumers support those alternative media outlets they find valuable. Like any failed idea, collapsing company, or crumbling empire, the mainstream’s frustrated loyalists (e.g., Rather) will sound their horns until the last noise is made. And if there is to be a true change in the American media, the final blow of the trumpet will permeate an empty forest and, thus, will not make a sound.

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. 

President Gets 9/11 Memo, But Will He Respond to It?

A group of 27 scholars have united in writing “Memoranda to the President” to demand Trump expose the truth of 9/11 this year. Will he respond? This compilation of writings is now available from the AFP Online Store (details below).

By Kevin Barrett

“God Bless America and God Bless Donald Trump.” So begins a collection of memos to President Donald Trump by 27 experts on the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The presidential briefing on 9/11 was organized by Robert David Steele, a former CIA Clandestine Services Officer and founder of the Open Source Intelligence movement. Contributors include David Ray Griffin, widely considered the unofficial dean of 9/11 studies, Peter Dale Scott, the University of California-Berkeley professor emeritus who popularized the term “deep state,” Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and two dozen others including yours truly.

Steele knows people close to Trump and believes the president will “get the memo.” In a recent radio interview, Steele said:

I’ve written a letter of transmittal to the president that focuses on what’s in the book and what he can do next. It’s about six pages long. I would say the chances of [President Trump] reading that memo are 80% or better. The chances of his getting a one-page summary are 95%. The chances of his actually getting the binder are probably down around 60%. The chances of his reading all the memos are in the 40% range. The bottom line is that Donald Trump knows this book has been published. He knows this book exists. He knows this book is calling him out on fulfilling his promise to get to the bottom of 9/11. And so I’ve presented him with something he cannot ignore as he goes toward his planned speech on the 11th of September this year.

Though the mainstream fake news media constantly attacks Trump’s “conspiracy theories,” it never mentions the president’s most explosive campaign promise: Elect Trump and “you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.” Donald Trump made that promise on Feb. 15, 2006 to a cheering crowd in Bluffton, S.C. Why isn’t the media holding Trump’s feet to the fire on this astounding promise—if only to further demonize him? Perhaps because the people who control the media are terrified that Trump might actually act on it? Or perhaps because they know how obvious it is that the World Trade Center was blown to kingdom come with high explosives, so they don’t want to draw attention to the issue?

The media’s treasonous participation in the 9/11 cover-up underlines the truth of Trump’s charge that mainstream newspapers and TV channels are purveyors of fake news. The MSM’s false and libelous claim that radical Muslims were responsible for 9/11, when, in fact, the deed was done by Israeli agents and their treasonous American accomplices, is the biggest fake news story ever concocted.

The fake news 9/11 official story is a racist lie. It directly triggered the murder of 32 million Muslims worldwide, according to avoidable mortality expert Gideon Polya. The racist assault on the Muslim world, whose major beneficiary is Israel, has created a flood of tens of millions of refugees that has overwhelmed Turkey, Pakistan, and various European nations. Yet the murderous, racist, genocidal 9/11-lie-purveying MSM says its truthseeking critics are the racists. It should cast out the beam in its own eye before worrying about the mote in the other side’s.

Trump could use 9/11 truth as a “nuclear option” to blow up the entire deep state and its lapdog media. But he would need the support of a dedicated core of patriots in the military and law enforcement communities. Whether that patriotic core has reached critical mass yet is an open question.

9/11 Truth: Memoranda for the President
Only $9.11! Order now from AFP’s Online Store.

The contributors to Steele’s Memorandums for the President on 9/11 certainly hope that it has. Among them are ex-insider whistleblowers Tom-Scott Gordon, Susan Lindauer, and Scott Bennett.

Gordon was part of a team that documented the need to demolish the World Trade Center by 2007 at the latest, due to structural flaws, corrosion, and asbestos. Conventional, legal demolition would have been prohibitively expensive. 9/11 provided “urban renewal by other means.”

Ms. Lindauer was a CIA asset reporting to Case Officer Richard Fuisz. Both knew about 9/11 in advance but weren’t given full details. On Sept. 11, 2001, Ms. Lindauer was on the phone with Fuisz. According to Lindauer, as they both watched the explosive demolitions of the towers on television, Fuisz flew into a rage, screaming “the goddamn Israelis!”

Bennett, a U.S. Army counter-terrorism officer working out of the Joint Interagency Operations Center at U.S. Central Command, was ordered to investigate Booz Allen Hamilton’s Terrorist Financing Operations Director, Rabbi Dov Zakheim—the comptroller of the Pentagon on 9/11, when $2.3 trillion went missing. What Bennett found implicates Zakheim and others in high treason.

These and other 9/11 whistleblowers could help Trump finish off the deep state. Mr. President, are you listening?

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

America’s Lengthening Enemies List

Buchanan asks, “How many quarrels, conflicts and wars, and with how many adversaries, can even the mighty United States sustain?” Good question, given the list of conflicts in which we’re now embroiled.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Friday, deep into the 17th year of America’s longest war, Taliban forces overran Ghazni, a provincial capital that sits on the highway from Kabul to Kandahar.

The ferocity of the Taliban offensive brought U.S. advisers along with U.S. air power, including a B-1 bomber, into the battle.

“As the casualty toll in Ghazni appeared to soar on Sunday,” The Wall Street Journal reported, “hospitals were spilling over with dead bodies, corpses lay in Ghazni’s streets, and gunfire and shelling were preventing relatives from reaching cemeteries to bury their dead.”

In Yemen Monday, a funeral was held in the town square of Saada for 40 children massacred in an air strike on a school bus by Saudis or the UAE, using U.S.-provided planes and bombs.

“A crime by America and its allies against the children of Yemen,” said a Houthi rebel leader.

Yemen is among the worst humanitarian situations in the world, and in creating that human-rights tragedy, America has played an indispensable role.

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

The U.S. also has 2,000 troops in Syria. Our control, with our Kurd allies, of that quadrant of Syria east of the Euphrates is almost certain to bring us into eventual conflict with a regime and army insisting that we get out of their country.

As for our relations with Turkey, they have never been worse.

President Erdogan regards our Kurd allies in Syria as collaborators of his own Kurdish-terrorist PKK. He sees us as providing sanctuary for exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen, whom Erdogan says was behind the attempted coup in 2016 in which he and his family were targeted for assassination.

Last week, when the Turkish currency, the lira, went into a tailspin, President Trump piled on, ratcheting up U.S. tariffs on Turkish aluminum and steel. If the lira collapses and Turkey cannot meet its debt obligations, Erdogan will lay the blame at the feet of the Americans and Trump.

Which raises a question: How many quarrels, conflicts and wars, and with how many adversaries, can even the mighty United States sustain?

In November, the most severe of U.S. sanctions will be imposed on Iran. Among the purposes of this policy: Force as many nations as possible to boycott Iranian oil and gas, sink its economy, bring down the regime.

Iran has signaled a possible response to its oil and gas being denied access to world markets. This August, Iranian gunboats exercised in the Strait of Hormuz, backing up a regime warning that if Iranian oil cannot get out of the Gulf, the oil of Arab OPEC nations may be bottled up inside as well. Last week, Iran test-fired an anti-ship ballistic missile.

Iran has rejected Trump’s offer of unconditional face-to-face talks, unless the U.S. first lifts the sanctions imposed after withdrawing from the nuclear deal.

With no talks, a U.S. propaganda offensive underway, the Iranian rial sinking and the economy sputtering, regular demonstrations against the regime, and new sanctions scheduled for November, it is hard to see how a U.S. collision with Tehran can be avoided.

This holds true as well for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Last week, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged role in the nerve-agent poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury.

Though the U.S. had already expelled 60 Russian diplomats for the poisoning, and Russia vehemently denies responsibility—and conclusive evidence has not been made public and the victims have not been heard from—far more severe sanctions are to be added in November.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
“Will America Survive to 2025?” On sale now at the AFP Online Store

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is warning that such a U.S. move would cross a red line: “If . . . a ban on bank operations or currency use follows, it will amount to a declaration of economic war. . . . And it will warrant a response with economic means, political means and, if necessary, other means.”

That the sanctions are biting is undeniable. Like the Turkish lira and Iranian rial, the Russian ruble has been falling and the Russian people are feeling the pain.

Last week also, a U.S. Poseidon reconnaissance plane, observing China’s construction of militarized islets in the South China Sea, was told to “leave immediately and keep out.”

China claims the sea as its national territory.

And North Korea’s Kim Jong Un apparently intends to hold onto his arsenal of nuclear weapons.

“We’re waiting for the North Koreans to begin the process of denuclearization, which they committed to in Singapore and which they’ve not yet done,” John Bolton told CNN last week.

A list of America’s adversaries here would contain the Taliban, the Houthis of Yemen, Bashar Assad of Syria, Erdogan’s Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China—a pretty full plate.

Are we prepared to see these confrontations through, to assure the capitulation of our adversaries? What do we do if they continue to defy us?

And if it comes to a fight, how many allies will we have in the battles and wars that follow?

Was this the foreign policy America voted for?

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.


Soros Wants to Pick Supreme Court Judges

In his attempt to keep Congress from confirming Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice, thus shifting the court away from its current progressive stance, the billionaire Bolshevik is dumping big bucks into smear campaigns to get Democrats elected. 

By Mark Anderson

A group called Demand Justice (DJ) has popped up on the scene—armed with oodles of funding derived mostly from internationalist multi-billionaire seditionist George Soros. DJ’s goal is to taint public discourse and stop Congress from confirming President Donald Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh, a well-qualified former D.C. circuit judge, pledged not to legislate from the bench and said he will rule according to an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, in keeping with the objective textual meaning established by the nation’s framers.

This gives hardened leftists like those in DJ a rather severe case of the ideological jitters, since “progress” from a leftist-progressive viewpoint requires a judiciary that will subjectively read things into the Constitution that simply aren’t there. Absent an activist court, some of the left’s most sacred cows, such as unfettered access to abortion—especially since confirming Kavanaugh evidently would create the most conservative-leaning Supreme Court in history—would be at risk of being gored.

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

DJ, organized and financed by a 501(c)(4) named the Sixteen Thirty Fund, was formed this past spring. The Open Society Policy Center (OSPC), one of Soros’s primary donation vehicles, contributed about $2.2 million to the Sixteen Thirty Fund between 2012 and 2016 according to documents posted by “DailyCaller.com.” The fund has financial statements on file that show just three contributors accounted for 70%—or about $11.5 million—of the fund’s total donations and grant revenue. Disclosure forms filed in 2016 present similar facts.

According to the OSPC’s tax forms, the Soros group “gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the [Sixteen Thirty Fund] each year between 2012 and 2016, the last year in which records are publicly accessible. The [OSPC] gave the fund $350,000 in 2012; $772,000 in 2013; $125,000 in 2014; $550,000 in 2015; and $481,483 in 2016,” the news website “DailyCaller.com” noted.

As if Soros’s money isn’t enough of a problem, DJ’s staffers include alumni from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and from the Obama administration—strongly indicating that the deranged former secretary of state and her former White House boss simply won’t accept her 2016 loss and are working through DJ to upset Trump’s agenda in the judicial arena. Accordingly, DJ reportedly plans to put $5 million behind a multi-platform effort to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Television ads will promote embattled Democratic Senate incumbents in Indiana, North Dakota, and West Virginia who face competitive Republican challengers this November.

DJ also will run ads in Alaska and Maine, urging GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to oppose Kavanaugh, because Collins and Murkowski have parted ways with their party on the Obamacare federal health-insurance repeal as well as federal funding for abortion provider and accused baby-parts peddler Planned Parenthood.

The TV spots will “urge the senators to protect abortion access by withholding support for nominees [like Kavanaugh] who oppose the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision,” “DailyCaller.com” added.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.