Are the Democrats Bent on Suicide?

Pat Buchanan says the New Green Deal proposed by far-left Democrats including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders reads like a “Democratic Party suicide pact.” The question he asks is “why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After reading an especially radical platform agreed upon by the British Labor Party, one Tory wag described it as “the longest suicide note in history.”

The phrase comes to mind on reading of the resolution calling for a Green New Deal, advanced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and endorsed by at least five of the major Democratic candidates for president.

The Green New Deal is designed to recall the halcyon days of the 1930s, when, so the story goes, FDR came to Washington to enact the historic reforms that rescued America from the Great Depression.

Only that story is more than a small myth.

The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25%. It never fell below 14% through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19%.

World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us “full employment.” And the war’s end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead.

Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious.

To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet “100% of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

This appears to require a phase-out by 2030 of all carbon-emitting power plants fueled by coal and oil and their replacement by power plants fueled by wind and solar.

Will natural gas be permitted? Will nuclear power? There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 states. Will they be shut down? Will the Greens agree to dam up more U.S. rivers to produce renewable hydroelectric power?

Air travel consumes huge quantities of carbon-producing jet fuel. What will replace it? Perhaps progressive Democratic candidates will set an example by not flying, and then by voting to end production of private aircraft and to ground all corporate jets. Let the elites sail to Davos.

The GND calls for an overhaul of the “transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector … through … clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

Take Back Your Power DVDs at AFP Store.

Gas-powered cars are out. How long will that train trip from DC to LA take? And if China continues its relentless rise in carbon emissions until 2030, as permitted by the Paris climate accord, while the U.S. spends itself into bankruptcy going green, where would that leave America and China at midcentury?

“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” tweeted the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”

The Green New Deal, say its authors, has as a goal “stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, peoples with disabilities, and youth.”

Fifty years after the Great Society, apparently half the country consists of victims of oppression.

Who are their oppressors? Guess.

Among the endorsers of this Green New Deal is Sen. Cory Booker, who compares the battle to stop climate change to fighting the Nazis in World War II. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed it. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls climate change “an existential threat,” was an original co-sponsor.

Nancy Pelosi has more sense. Interviewed last week, the speaker batted the Green New Deal aside: “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

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

With her own agenda and priorities, Pelosi does not want to be dragged into having to defend a document that reads like it was written by the college socialists club.

The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.

In a presidential election, the “out” party candidate usually has an advantage. No record to defend. He or she can choose the terrain on which to attack the incumbent, who has a four-year record.

Rarely does an out party present a fixed and stationary target as exposed as this, as out-of the-mainstream as this, as vulnerable as this.

The only explanation for the endorsement of the Green New Deal by candidates with a prospect of winning the Democratic nomination is that they are so fearful of Ocasio-Cortez and the left for whom she speaks that they must endorse her plan.

That British Tory got it right. This thing reads like a Democratic Party suicide pact.

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 2017 CREATORS.COM



Famed GOP Operative Targeted by Mueller’s Deep State Goons

In an outrageous pre-dawn SWAT-style raid, Roger Stone was arrested as if he was a violent fugitive determined to flee. The seven-count indictment Mueller has finally concocted features charges of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. 

By Donald Jeffries

Roger Stone was scheduled to be on this writer’s radio show on Friday, Jan. 25. As it turned out, the events of that morning made his appearance impossible.

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

In a pre-dawn SWAT-style raid on Stone’s Fort Lauderdale, Fla. home, America’s militarized police force dragged the 66-year-old and his 72-year-old wife outside in their nightclothes. Stone was not a dangerous serial killer. He was not wanted for any violent crime. He had instead been indicted the previous day by a grand jury on extremely spurious process charges as part of Robert Mueller’s Deep State-fueled witch hunt into Russian “collusion” in the 2016 presidential election.

“At the crack of dawn, 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles, with lights flashing, when they could have contacted my lawyer,” Stone declared after a court appearance later that Friday.

“A SWAT team, searching the house, scaring his wife, scaring his dogs—it was completely unnecessary,” Stone’s attorney Bruce Rogow said. “A telephone call would have done the job, and he would have appeared. Mr. Stone has nothing to hide.”

Rogow accurately called the arrest a “spectacle,” and the charade continued in the hearing later that day in a Fort Lauderdale courthouse, where the nonviolent political operative was shackled around the waist, wrist, and ankles.

The seven-count indictment, featuring charges of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice, continued to push the fantasy that shadowy, unnamed Russian figures hacked into emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then shared them with WikiLeaks. As always, what was revealed in those emails is glossed over by our toothless, state-controlled mainstream media. The very real collusion to deny Bernie Sanders the Democratic Party nomination, in order to benefit Deep State queen Hillary Clinton, has been twisted and distorted into “Russians” conspiring with Trump officials to deny Clinton the presidency. Julian Assange has all but named former DNC staffer Seth Rich as the individual who leaked the emails, before he was murdered for no logical motive in Washington, D.C.

The militarized assault on Stone’s residence evoked memories of the government attack on the Branch Davidians’ group home (repeatedly referred to as a “compound” in the fake news media) in 1993. The pre-dawn timing reminded the few Americans left who understand real history of the kind of tyranny that was routine under President Abraham Lincoln.

While there was little criticism of the armed attack in the kept press, President Donald Trump took to Twitter and proclaimed, “Greatest witch hunt in the history of our country! No collusion! Border coyotes, drug dealers, and human traffickers are treated better. Who alerted CNN to be there?” Trump referred to the extremely suspicious fact that the most overtly anti-Trump media outlet had seemingly been tipped off about the raid, and were on hand at such an uncustomary hour to capture exclusive, dramatic footage.

Many conservatives were justifiably outraged.

“You don’t have to be a Roger Stone fan to be horrified by the stunt the FBI pulled off in conspiring with CNN this morning,” Jordan Schachtel of Blaze TV tweeted. “The completely unnecessary raid is a routine that is straight out of a third-world police state. There is no defense of such an excessive show of force.”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

This was nothing new during Mueller’s swamp-supported “investigation.” A source had told Fox News, during the earlier raid on former Trump associate Paul Manafort, that the dozen agents involved were “designed to intimidate.” Former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova stated, “I am appalled that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have permitted a vindictive use of arrest in a non-violent case with a defendant who was willing to surrender.”

The establishment, as always, rallied around the Deep State flag. “It is no conspiracy,” longtime television talking head and legal analyst Greta Van Susteren assured the masses on Twitter. An unnamed federal law enforcement source told Fox News that the operation was “standard” and “nothing out of the ordinary.” The New Republic headlined a story “The False Martyrdom of Roger Stone.” Other outlets mocked the “selective outrage” on the right. The cretinous John Podesta gloated in a Washington Post article that, “I admit I smiled when Roger Stone’s arrest was announced. . . .” Many reports used the disparaging term “dirty trickster” in describing Stone.

Stone remained defiant.

“I’m 66 years old,” he said following his arrest. “I do not own a gun, I do not have a valid passport, I have no prior criminal record, I’m charged with nonviolent process crimes. I believe this is a politically motivated investigation. There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies.”

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.




Radical New Democrats Big Spenders

Newly elected socialist/communist politicians in the U.S. want you to open your purses wide. Do they not know that there will be no free program, as every program will have a cost paid by individual taxpayers and small business owners.

By S.T. Patrick

The mainstream media have spent months lauding the influx of radical new Democrats that walk the halls of Capitol Hill since winning the 2018 midterm elections. While their ideas can seem dangerously far-left, they are not new. They are also not a result of an isolated movement contained within the Democratic Party itself.

The most prominent media darling of the new crop has been 29-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has announced that she will favor enacting a “Green New Deal.” The goal of the plan would be to end nearly all fossil fuel use by 2030. The plan is largely economic, but it also details environmental regulations and changes that would require expensive upgrades to every home and business.

In hindsight, leading Democrat analysts have decried Obamacare, explaining the failure was that it didn’t reach far enough. The Green New Deal calls openly for a single-payer healthcare system. As an attempt to solve the economic inequity that exists between the top and the bottom, Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a “basic income” program, as well as a federal jobs guarantee, which seeks to bring the unemployment rate to zero by using the government as the employer of last resort (ELR).

The Green New Deal is not the brainchild of one of the first millennials elected to Congress. It has its origin, at least in part, in the Canadian “Leap Manifesto” that socialist candidates have been endorsing there for over a decade. The Leap Manifesto called for a 100% dependency on green energy by 2050, a massive government program to retrofit housing, and a universal basic annual income. To finance the sea change in infrastructure needed, a stiff tax hike would be combined with the institution of a carbon usage tax.

Colleagues of Ocasio-Cortez—those labeled as the “radical new Democrats” by Fox News—are Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). In addition to supporting the Green New Deal, they all support free college for all, free healthcare for all, and the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While this insurgency of new, young Democrats is the favorite story for stations such as MSNBC and CNN, many of the same ideas within the party were popularized by 77-year-old Sen. Bernie Sanders, who those same stations helped to defeat in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

America's "War on Terrorism," Chossudovsky
America’s “War on Terrorism” in the Wake of 9/11, from Michel Chossudovsky, at AFP’s Online store.

The “radical new Democrats” also identify as a group with “Justice Democrats,” who favor free maternity care, free child care, expanding anti-discrimination laws, and funding Planned Parenthood. To their credit, Justice Democrats also support ending the war on drugs, pardoning Edward Snowden, reforming the police to ensure accountability, renegotiating trade deals, opposing the World Trade Organization, ending the death penalty, and ending the practice of unilaterally waging war. But defenders of the limitless tax-and-spend ideologies have never had a realistic grasp of real-world costs to individuals.

It is much more difficult and much more expensive to repair an electric car, for example. College instructors have to be paid. Is there a point when regulations or a tax burden on a small business becomes too onerous to keep the doors open and the lights on? How does a small business owner afford a much larger minimum wage? There will be no free program, as every program will have a cost paid by individual taxpayers and small business owners. Every dollar given to someone must be taken from someone else, either voluntarily or by the force of law.

Survival of the Richest, Jeffries
How the corruption of the marketplace and the disparity of wealth created the greatest conspiracy of all… at the AFP Online Store.

The Republicans can be indignant and self-righteously angry at the fire in the belly of the new Democratic representatives, but there should also be a modicum of self-evaluation happening within the GOP. The party has long supported a corrupt war state, a crippling war on drugs, harmful trade policies, and an economic inequity that hurt American workers. These “new” Democrats are a reaction to a GOP that laughed at Occupy Wall Street rather than taking it seriously, rather than hearing it. The anger didn’t end up in front of a video screen after all; it found its way to the nation’s capital at a swearing-in ceremony for the new Congress. The GOP is a party deficient of genuine concern for average Americans trying to live a life by classically conservative principles.

The American system of capitalism is far from ideal. Donald Jeffries brilliantly wrote about the “survival of the richest,” a game by which the system has been intentionally rigged to benefit those who were born into it and then stay at the top of the economic ladder.* But for even the most admirable staples of the American system to work, there must be a much larger group of givers than there are takers.

Though Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged topped out at over 1,100 pages, its message is rather simple. Every giver has a moment when they assess their place in line at the counter of American capitalism. At the point when it becomes more profitable to be in the taker line, that person simply shrugs and steps right over, never to return.

If the Green New Deal and economic platform of the Justice Democrats ever become law, the givers that are expected to fund such initiatives may leave the line en masse, and America as we know it may never return.

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 STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.




Sen. Rand Paul Put a Hold on Israeli Handout

While S. 2497 died with the end of the 2018 legislative session, 2019 is off to a sad start as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has already introduced a similar bill, S.1.

By Mark Anderson

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) placed a hold on the U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018 and persevered to the end of the legislative session in his effort to stall or block this bill. The legislation, S. 2497, would have provided Israel with $38 billion in official military aid over the next decade. The package was conceived during the latter days of the Obama administration.

News and research outfit “If Americans Knew,” which documents Israeli atrocities against Palestinians and charts the amount and impact of U.S. aid to Israel, called Paul’s action “a historic move” while noting that Paul had considered filibustering the aid package.

The Senate initially adopted the Israeli funding legislation on Aug. 1, and the House followed suit Sept. 12. But because the bill underwent some changes on the House side, the Senate needed to give it final approval before sending it to President Donald Trump.

Recalling Obama’s handiwork, the modified version of S. 2497 itself stated, in part:

The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

Since some aid has been sent to Israel already, $33 billion evidently is the remainder. Furthermore, all the congressional floor votes on this bill so far have been voice votes—where no record is made of individual votes—thus enabling all House and Senate members to avoid individual accountability.

Kingdom Identity

Among the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (commonly known as AIPAC), in an Aug. 2 news release, revealingly noted: “This bipartisan legislation authorizes increases in U.S. security assistance to Israel and it encourages expanded weapons stockpiles and new U.S.-Israel cooperation in anti-drone technologies, cybersecurity, and space.”

Paul also placed a hold on another bill designed to punish the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which encourages citizens and organizations to withdraw support for investments in Israel. That legislation federally supports state and local measures that prohibit contracts with individuals and companies that boycott Israel. Around 27 states have already passed these types of laws in violation of Americans’ First Amendment right to free speech.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




Deep State Ignores Culpability of Obama, Hillary in “Russiagate”

Trump campaign collusion with Russia to prevent Hillary Clinton’s election is a fantasy, says Donald Jeffries. Yet the corporate media continues to push the discredited theory as fact.

By Donald Jeffries

The mainstream media and high-profile Democratic Party politicians continue to push the fantasy that Russia colluded with the Trump presidential campaign in order to deny Deep State favorite Hillary Clinton the Oval Office. As Princeton professor Stephen F. Cohen noted in a recent article in The Nation, this has served to “all but shackle Donald Trump as a crisis-negotiator with Russian President Vladimir Putin.” This past July, Trump was widely blasted by the establishment for committing “treason” simply by meeting with Putin in Helsinki.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials since May 2017. However, recently even a source as unfriendly to Trump as National Public Radio had to admit that Mueller’s case “looks weaker than ever.” And journalist Michael Isikoff, author of the fanciful book Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, admitted that many of the allegations in the so-called “Steele dossier,” which claimed that Russia possessed incriminating material about Trump, “will never be proven and are likely false.”

Trump quickly took to Twitter in the wake of Isikoff’s comments, and declared, “Michael Isikoff was the first to report dossier allegations and now seriously doubts the dossier claims. The whole Russian collusion thing was a hoax.”

While the mainstream media and its late-night sycophantic talk show hosts continue to harp on “Russiagate” fantasies, much more credible evidence linking the previous Obama administration to efforts at disseminating material designed to link Trump to Russian officials has been routinely ignored by them.

In late December, Judicial Watch released two different batches of State Department documents, which were heavily redacted in customary U.S. government manner. The documents revealed that classified information was sent to several members of the Senate, just prior to Trump’s inauguration. These documents demonstrate how the Obama State Department was frantically handing out this information to Democratic senators like Ben Cardin of Maryland and Mark Warner of Virginia, as well as friendly Republicans like Tennessee’s Robert Corker.

Hidden History, Jeffries
Donald Jeffries, at AFP’s Online Store now.

A chain of emails in early January 2017 revealed that Obama Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland was attempting to send documents supposedly linking Trump and the Russians to Warner. In one email later that month, the herculean effort was acknowledged with comments, literally only hours before Trump was inaugurated, like, “We made the deadline!” and, “Thank you everyone for what was truly a department-wide effort!”

“These documents show remarkable evidence of the non-stop, unethical effort in the Obama State Department to gather and send its own dossier of classified information on Russia in an effort to discredit the incoming Trump administration,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated.

As far back as Feb. 13, even The Washington Post could declare, in an op-ed headline, “The Media is Ignoring Ties Between the Clinton Campaign and Russians.” The article pointed out the fact that Christopher Steele, author of the notorious dossier, was paid with money from the Clinton campaign. Steele was known to be closely allied with Bill Clinton aide Sidney “Sid Vicious” Blumenthal and Jonathan Winer, a former staffer to John Kerry. These alliances received scant attention in the mainstream media, when compared to the press given to Donald Trump Jr. meeting once with a Russian lawyer, or the highly dubious allegations of “collusion” against Trump supporters like Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Jerome Corsi. To quote from the story, “. . . when the Democrats and their allies in the media insist that we need to know what the Russians did to influence the election and interfere in the democratic process, it is fair to ask which Russians are they talking about? Are they talking about the Russians who were solicited by Steele and his Democrat paymasters? What were the Russians’ interests and were any of them paying Steele?”

Survival of the Richest, Jeffries
Order from the AFP Online Store.

In 2015, the establishment’s newspaper of record, The New York Times, reported that Uranium One, a Canadian company that had been acquired by the Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom in a merger approved by a consortium of government agencies, including Hillary Clinton’s State Department, had donated over $2 million to the Clinton Foundation, which was not publicly disclosed by the Clintons. In another instance, a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin, which was promoting Uranium One stock, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. As Trump himself noted, “Hillary Clinton gave them 20% of our uranium, gave Russia, for a big payment.”

It shouldn’t be a crime to talk with private citizens, or even public officials, from another country. That used to be called diplomacy. And mainstream inferences of impropriety or illegality in this regard have been inconsistent, to say the least.

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 at the AFP Online Store.




Midterm Election Results: Losing White Votes, Gaining ‘Victim’ Votes

By Paul Craig Roberts

Readers are asking for my thoughts about the midterm elections. Looking at political maps, it seems that except for thin areas of the Northeast and West Coasts and Hispanic and black enclaves in the Southwest and South, the country overwhelmingly voted Republican.

In my opinion, flyover America voted Republican because the “deplorables” want to defend President Donald Trump. They want to defend him for two reasons. One is that he spoke to their economic plight caused by the U.S. corporations exporting their jobs, leaving the American workforce and middle class hard-strapped.

The other is that the adoption of identity politics by the Democratic Party has made the Democrats the party that hates white people—especially white heterosexual males who are defined as the victimizer of minorities, homosexuals, and women. It takes a really stupid white person to vote for Democrats who see white people as the problem.

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

Until the Clintons, the Democratic Party represented the working class. The Democrats were an offset to the Republicans who represented business. This kept things in balance. But the Democrats under the Clintons gave the OK for the Republicans to send the Democrats’ voting constituency’s jobs offshore. In exchange for selling out their constituency, the Clintons obtained Republican financing for the Democratic Party. Both parties are now run by the same Big Money.

The working class, abandoned by the Democrats, now votes Republican. The Democratic Party’s voting constituency no longer contains the dispossessed working class. The Democrats have turned to hate. They are now the party of hate. The Democrats teach hate to the “victim groups” of identity politics.

This hate makes whites the Democratic Party’s victims. Thus, the Democrats lose the white vote but gain the “victim” vote. Immigration ensures that eventually the “victim” vote will be greater than the white vote, in which case under the rule of the Democrats’ identity politics, white people in America will become the victimized group. Indeed, if you pay attention to what many Democrats are saying, that is their intention. According to reports I have read recently, 75% of Democrats want to impeach Trump. The reports do not say why. I think the only reason is hate. Trump is the epitome of the billionaire white male oppressor who “grabs women by the [expletive deleted].”

There you have it.

Get Out of CashWhat I find extraordinary is that Trump, although on the Republican ticket, ran as a Democrat. He was for peace with Russia. He was for jobs for the working class. Peace and jobs are Democratic slogans. But Democrats hated him, because he is the epitome of the oppressive white male, and this irrational hate led them into an alliance with the military-security complex, which strongly opposes peace with Russia, as such a peace threatens their budget and power. The Democrats, working hand-in-hand with the Deep State, have blocked peace with Russia and have championed mass third-world immigration into the U.S., which will further wreck the economic existence of the working class, in order to gain Democratic votes from third-world immigrants to offset the lost American working-class votes.

The Democrats apparently do not understand that the jobs for the illegal aliens depended on the middle-class incomes of the American work force. With these incomes vanishing, illegal aliens no longer come for non-existent jobs; they come to collect welfare paid for by Americans who have lost their livelihoods.

I would say that, unless white Americans succumb to guilt and collapse, the Democratic Party is finished. The midterm election was the Democratic Party’s last hurrah.

This would not mean that the future is rosy. The Democrats have forced Trump into an aggressive stance toward the rest of the world. It is aggression that the U.S. cannot back up. Can  Trump with his bully personality back down?

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.




Mueller Subpoenas Trump Associates

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller is questioning Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and associates in a last-ditch effort to get President Trump.

By S.T. Patrick

Dr. Jerome Corsi has jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. The former Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Alex Jones’s Infowars website testified once before a grand jury tied to the Robert Mueller investigation on Sept. 7. He is currently submitting to a series of interviews and will appear before the grand jury again. Mueller’s investigative team is overtly circling famed Republican operative Roger Stone’s closest Trump-era associates, waiting to pounce at any hint of Russian collusion.

The special prosecutor now wants to know if Corsi had any knowledge that Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email had been hacked by Russian agents prior to the 2016 presidential election. Mueller also wants to know if Corsi had any private knowledge that WikiLeaks had obtained some of the emails.

It is likely that Mueller already knows the answer to the questions being posed to Corsi. The formality, then, is the offering up of rope so that Corsi, Stone, or another associate can legally hang themselves if they do not answer honestly.  New York comedian-activist Randy Credico and the former Manhattan Madam and gubernatorial candidate Kristin M. Davis, both former associates of Stone, have already been interviewed. ABC News is reporting that at least 11 associates of Stone have been contacted by the special prosecutor.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Corsi has built a career as a conspiracy theorist who leads charges. He has produced works on JFK, 9/11, the politics of oil, and the theory that Hitler escaped Germany at the end of World War II. However, his most notable achievements concern the mini-movements he helped fashion. He was the most public voice for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry in 2004, he held a press conference in 2007 to call for George W. Bush’s impeachment over 9/11 truth, and he was at the genesis of “birtherism,” the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii. In this, he had an ally in Trump. Recently, he has been one of the most vocal proponents of QAnon.

When Jones announced the addition of Corsi to the Infowars staff, he bragged that Corsi and Trump had been acquainted for “40-plus years.” Corsi has appeared with Stone on a variety of Infowars programs.

Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, has said that Corsi “fully intends to comply with the subpoena.” Gray suspects that a majority of the questions presented to Corsi will be designed to delve into the conversations his client had with Stone: Was Stone the pivot between Trump and WikiLeaks? When did Stone know that WikiLeaks had emails from the Democratic National Convention? And had Stone ever contacted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?

Stone has been a provocateur in Republican politics since the Watergate era. Driven by a hard edge, a luxurious wardrobe, and killer instinct for the deeper machinations of partisan politics, he has been sought out by presidents and pundits, PR firms and pontificators. After Lee Atwater passed away in 1991, Stone ascended to first chair of the political strategists that politicians need and commentators hate. He is someone who controls the message ahead of the mainstream media, which also makes him the bane of opposition journalists in the field.

Get Out of CashIt is likely that Mueller will not end this investigation without justifying his appointment via American indictments. As Corsi wrote in his most recent book, Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump, “If Special Counsel Mueller fails to produce an indictment specifically charging someone in the Trump campaign with ‘Russian collusion,’ he will begin to justify Trump’s charge that his investigation is a ‘witch hunt.’ ”

If Trump, the whale in this political sea, cannot be indicted, then Mueller seems to be satisfied with the trophies of a few sharks. If Corsi has information useful to Mueller, the special prosecutor’s office will soon have it. If so, that may, in turn, help build a case against Stone, Corsi’s recent colleague.

At age 72, Corsi may not risk prison time in exchange for party loyalty. In 2007, Corsi had said that he was not even a Republican, blaming the moment of self-realization on the fact that the more moderate “Rockefeller wing” still controlled the party. In 2008, he considered accepting the nomination of the Constitution Party for president but withdrew before the convention.

Stone is also one of D.C.’s coolest characters. If he is worried, it won’t show. He will continue to push the narrative he wants believed.

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




2018 Could Be 2016 All Over Again

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

By Philip Giraldi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Nikki Haley for President?

Israel-firsters are eyeing former UN ambassador and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley for president in 2020, but, as Philip Giraldi points out, “Haley did nothing to enhance American security and only succeeded in pandering to certain powerful constituencies within the United States, to include the neoconservatives in the media and the Israel lobby.”

By Philip Giraldi

The New York Times has produced an astonishing editorial, “Nikki Haley will be missed,” on the resignation of America’s United Nations ambassador.

It is comparable in some ways to the whitewash afforded to the hideous warmonger and self-promoting liar Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on his death in August. The oleaginous Haley eulogy has to be read to appreciate how low America’s self-described newspaper of record has sunk. According to the Times, Haley, a “moderate Republican,” . . . “could talk bluntly” while also proving to be a “practitioner of multilateral diplomacy” who played “constructive roles” and also served as “a pragmatic envoy who could explain the president to a world confused by the chaos in Washington.”

Given that kind of effusive language it would have been interesting to see what the Times came up with to support all the praise. Actually, the bits of her bio cited do little to support the narrative. It is claimed that she “protected some of the American investment in the United Nations against the most drastic budget cuts sought by the White House, while also working to reform the United Nations bureaucracy” for which there is no clear evidence.

Get Out of CashThe editorial also claims that she maintained some independence from the president on relations with Russia, Venezuela, and other matters, though her degree of separation can certainly be questioned, as she was often the one leading the charge using threats directed against foreign governments and their policies. She has also been the seemingly dedicated advocate of nearly continuous pro-Israel positions, ranging from using the UN to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, to also including blocking any investigation of the Israeli army’s slaughter of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza. In addition, she led the effort to cut funds going to the agency providing critical food and medical assistance to millions of Palestinian refugees.

Haley has consistently taken a hard line against Iran, aggressively supporting Trump’s abrogation of the agreement to control its nuclear weapons, and she has ominously warned that Washington will be “taking names” of countries that don’t support its agenda in the Middle East, to include moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and American military engagement in Syria.

Admittedly, going after the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is a bit of low-hanging fruit, as the position seems to attract individuals who like to vent their dissatisfaction with the world while also providing one remedy, namely that everyone should follow the American lead on all things. Former ambassadors include Madeline Albright, John Bolton, and Samantha Power, making it measurably more difficult to rank Haley as the worst ambassador of all time. But there are some firsts associated with Haley. She was the first ambassador to witness an American president being laughed at during the annual speech to the United Nations General Assembly, a response that the Times attributes solely to a decline in America’s international standing under Trump, ignoring completely the impact of Haley’s threatening language and demeanor.

On balance, Haley did nothing to enhance American security and only succeeded in pandering to certain powerful constituencies within the United States, to include the neoconservatives in the media and the Israel lobby. Praise of her on her impending departure from the UN is suggestive of whom exactly she managed to please while she was in office. The ubiquitous neocon-in-chief Bill Kristol, who now hangs his hat at the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Emergency Committee for Israel, has long been promoting Haley for president. One leading member of Kristol’s neocon chorus, Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tweeted “Thank you [Nikki Haley] for your remarkable service. We look forward to welcoming you back to public service as president of the United States.” Dubowitz is a Canadian and it would be nice if he could be deported to a remote Internet-free spot on Baffin Island where he can cease interfering in American politics.

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

Haley was also praised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the Twitter social media platform, “I would like to thank Ambassador [Nikki Haley], who led the uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice of our country. Best of luck!” The Israeli army itself had nice things to say, tweeting “Thank you [Nikki Haley] for your service in the UN and unwavering support for Israel and the truth. The soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces salute you!”

Angry responses to the IDF tweet observed “‘Unwavering support’ aka, blind allegiance. You love her for the reasons the rest of us despise her. She left the Human Rights Council, pulled the U.S. out of the Iran deal, slashed funds to UNRWA, moved embassy to Jerusalem, and was exaggerated in her support for the IDF when they abuse Palestinian human rights.”

Like many others in the foreign policy establishment, Haley is all about Israel because she understands that leaning that way provides instant access to money and plenty of positive press coverage, including in The New York Times. She has declared that Washington was “locked and loaded,” prepared to exercise lethal military options against Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies, seen as enemies by Israel. Immediately upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that “nowhere has the UN’s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel” and vowed that the “days of Israel bashing are over.” Not surprisingly, she was greeted by rounds of applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying, “When I come to AIPAC I am with friends.”

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Haley’s embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: “Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the UN are mutually exclusive?” Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking every Palestinian.

Haley is surrounded by neocons. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. A profoundly ignorant Haley apparently also has bits and pieces of her own foreign policy apart from Israel, which makes her particularly dangerous. She has declared that Russia “is not, will not be our friend” and has described the Russians as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children.

So it’s Israel all the way for Haley, and we are likely to see her again in 2020 in spite of her pledge to Trump that she would both support and not run against him. The Jewish publication Forward recently published a speculative article suggesting that if she were to run for president a majority of American Jews might well vote for her, turning the Jewish community from solidly Democratic Party Blue to Republican Red. It would be the first time that a majority of Jews voted for a national GOP candidate. Though a great victory for Israel, it would also be a disaster for the United States if she were elected, like a proudly ignorant Sarah Palin on steroids. That outcome does not seem to bother the editors at Forward one bit, unfortunately.

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.




Is War Against Iran the President’s November Midterm Surprise?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced he’ll head up a new “interagency task force” that wants to “come down hard on Iran”—just in time for U.S. midterm elections. Former CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi says this is just “the latest journey into fantasy.” He notes “many observers believe that the United States is being manipulated and played as a patsy against Iran by Israel and Saudi Arabia” but wonders if that’s what this is really about.

By Philip Giraldi

Will a new war be a midterm elections surprise? It is a demonstrated fact that the United States government, be it Democratic or Republican, is not very good at certain things. Every time the White House starts a new “war” on abstractions like poverty, drugs, or terror it gets dragged down into a bottomless pit that seems to empower the very things that it is fighting, leading to the belief that when it says “war” what it really means to say is “quagmire.” And then there are places like Afghanistan where real wars continue ad nauseam with no real objective and no real plan to “win” and exit.

The latest journey into fantasy is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent announcement that the Trump administration is setting up an “interagency task force” consisting of an “elite team of foreign affairs specialists” that will coordinate efforts to come down hard on Iran. Pompeo described the venture as follows: “We are committed to a whole-of-government effort to change the Iranian regime’s behavior, and the Iran Action Group will ensure that the Department of State remains closely synchronized with our interagency partners.”

Kingdom Identity

According to the press release, the group will be responsible for directing, analyzing, and coordinating all phases of the State Department’s Iran-connected activity, though it is unclear whether State will be the principal agency seeking to destabilize the Iranians.

Pompeo elaborated: “For nearly 40 years, the regime in Tehran has been responsible for a torrent of violent and destabilizing behavior against the United States, our allies, our partners, and indeed the Iranian people themselves. . . . We must see major changes in the regime’s behavior both inside and outside of its borders. The Iranian people and the world are demanding that Iran finally act like a normal nation.”

The new action group’s director, senior foreign policy adviser Brian Hook, also spoke at the launch, saying that the administration was taking “a comprehensive approach to Iran because the scope of Iranian malign activity is so wide-ranging.” He specifically mentioned Iran’s “aspiration for nuclear weapons” as well as its support for terrorist activity and added that he would be talking to America’s strategic partners to make sure everyone is on board with the new sanctions.

The CIA in IranInteragency ventures in government rest on a basic premise that grew out of the so-called war on terror and 9/11, namely that if everyone sits around a table to share information and viewpoints the outcome will be superior to any single agency going it alone. The concept is, however, flawed, first of all because interagency reviewing slows down the entire process as it attempts to find consensus on issues that do not necessarily lend themselves to simple formulations. Second, attempting to find consensus ignores the fact that a number of the government entities sitting around the table are competitors rather than colleagues. Pompeo is delusional if he thinks that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) are going to allow the State Department to take the lead in bringing Iran to its knees.

Those who hate Iran and want to see everything possible done to damage it, are, of course, delighted to see a group dedicated to doing just that. Mark Dubowitz, head of the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has been taking the lead in Iran bashing, enthused:

“Secretary Pompeo’s establishment of the Iran Action Group led by Brian Hook, one of his most trusted advisers, is further evidence that the Trump administration sees Iran as one of its top foreign policy and national security priorities. The group will be empowered to leverage all instruments of national power to squeeze the regime in Iran.”

Pompeo has considerable experience in beating on Iran. When he took over at CIA in January 2017, one of his first acts was to set up an Iran Working Group to focus clandestine efforts to weaken and eventually subvert the Iranian government. In May, shortly after President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, he spoke about a broad program that most observers would define as regime change, pledging to “crush” Iran economically and militarily to bring about major concessions over its behavior in the Middle East. He specifically demanded that Iran end all nuclear-related programs, stop developing ballistic missiles, and cease support for “terrorists and militant partners around the world.”

The White House has advised that countries doing business with Iran will “not be doing business with the United States” and has also unilaterally declared that after Nov. 4 anyone buying Iranian oil will be subject to secondary sanctions, which has created problems with both friends and foes worldwide. China, Turkey, and Russia have declared that they will not submit to U.S. demands, while close allies in Europe are seeking exemptions or creating mechanisms that will move such transactions out of the dollar zone.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The new task force will not really be doing anything beyond what is already being done both openly and clandestinely to inflict pain on the Iranian people in hopes that they will rise up and bring down their government. The obsession with Iran on the part of the Trump administration is curious in any event, as Iran is surrounded by hostile regimes that are militarily far superior to it. Tehran does not threaten the United States or U.S. interests in any serious way, and its alleged nuclear program is a fiction. Iran is, in any event, fully compliant with the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) that it signed together with the U.S. and five other countries, an agreement that was subsequently endorsed by the United Nations.

Many observers believe that the United States is being manipulated and played as a patsy against Iran by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who do have an interest in bringing down the Iranian government. That is certainly true, but there might be another explanation for the strenuous activity by Pompeo and others. Midterm elections are coming up, and there is nothing that rallies the voting public quite as well as a good little war in which the bad guys are soundly whipped.

But, recalling Iraq, one should also consider that a war with a nationalistic and prepared Iran might not go as planned.

Every concerned American should be watching very carefully over the next 60 days to see what is developing around the Iran Task Force. Will Trump adhere to his pre-electoral promise to get out of ongoing wars in the Middle East, or will it be yet another politically motivated bait-and-switch with a bloody new war initiated by a false-flag operation or a deliberate provocation to turn an election?

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.

 




Regime Change—American Style

Will 2019 be the year of the war of all against all? It’s looking like it. Buchanan asks whether the next generation will rise up and say, “Enough!”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high gear this week.

Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.

Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals and admirals to list.

Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy:

“So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. . . . It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear.”

Speakers praised McCain’s willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new determination: From here on out, confrontation!

Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.

Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, “What we’ve heard is the noise of democracy.”

But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a semblance of order.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward’s new book, attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president’s intelligence, character, and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a “crazytown” led by a fifth- or sixth-grader.

Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.

Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior official” claiming to be a member of the “resistance . . . working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his (Trump’s) agenda.”

A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her president.

The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.

While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and “Anonymous,” once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this portends is not good.

For what is afoot here is something America specializes in—regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America’s democratically elected head of state.

The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor’s office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.

Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.

No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.

So, where are we headed?

If November’s elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be able to manage.

There is the Mueller investigation into “Russiagate” that began before Trump was inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump Foundation by New York State.

There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of these investigations.

Then, if media coverage can drive Trump’s polls low enough, will come the impeachment investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.

If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats’ septuagenarian caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, and Nancy Pelosi.

2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d’etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?

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 2017 CREATORS.COM



Way Too Easy to Alter

An 11-year-old at a hacker convention changed the vote tally on a replica secretary of state election data website in under 10 minutes, and 30 other kids hacked similar sites in under 30 minutes. Are our votes being correctly recorded on election day, or have the vote-fraud activists been right all along? 

By Mark Anderson

In less than 10 minutes an 11-year-old boy was able to hack into a replica of a state election website and change voting results. An 11-year-old girl named Audrey made changes to the same website in under 15 minutes. In sum, more than 30 kids hacked similar replica state sites in under 30 minutes. This is certainly alarming news considering a majority of U.S. votes are now cast via electronic voting machines.

The youth cyber-security competition was part of the Vote Hacking Village at this year’s DEF CON, held Aug. 9-12 at Caesar’s Palace. DEF CON, held annually since 1993 in Las Vegas, is among the world’s largest hacking conventions.

Young Emmett Brewer of Austin, Texas, “accessed a replica of the Florida secretary of state’s website” and altered the record of votes, which had already been counted and were simply posted online for media and public access.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

DEF CON spokeswoman Molly Hall assured AFP Aug. 20 that while the young hackers were able to hack into and dramatically alter the results of already-counted votes, the minors were not involved in trying to hack into actual voting machines used at polling places. Ms. Hall said the effort by adult hackers to access and change the data in voting machines was a separate component of the Hacking Village. A third component saw adult hackers successfully access Ohio’s voter-registration data, though they were not able to alter it.

“Emmett was able to change names, vote numbers, and the parties,” Ms. Hall said, adding that the young hacker even inserted his own name as a “winning” candidate.

A DEF CON tweet paints a much broader picture of the Hacking Village’s findings than what the mainstream media has presented, noting: “The Village had participants find or replicate vulnerabilities ranging from passwords stored on the [voting] machines with no encryption, to buffer overflows in critical input routines.”

Specific hacks also included:

  • “Discovering 1,784 files, including mp3 audio files of Chinese pop songs, hidden among the operating system files of a voting machine;
  • “Hacking a mock election so that an unlisted candidate received the most votes; and
  • “Hacking an email ballot [often used by soldiers overseas] so that the recorded vote was different from what was selected.”

Nico Sell, the co-founder of the non-profit r00tz Asylum, which teaches children how to become hackers and helped organize the event, told “PBS NewsHour”: “These are very accurate replicas of all of the [S.O.S.] sites. These things should not be easy enough for an 8-year-old kid to hack within 30 minutes; it’s negligent for us as a society.”

Interestingly, one of the “big three” voting machine manufacturers—Election Systems and Software, or ES&S—raised “questions about the value of the Voting Village,” noted DEF CON. “It is unfortunate that ES&S is making vague and unsupportable threats that distract from the real issue: the integrity and security of our electoral process.”

ES&S’s comments seem “designed to create questions and cast doubt in the minds of researchers and election officials, discouraging them from pursuing these vital lines of inquiry,” DEF CON added.

Shadows of the American Century
“The Rise & Decline of US Global Power,” available at the AFP Store.

ES&S sent a “proactive” message to its “valued customers” the day before DEF CON began, in part complaining about DEF CON hackers’ access to the all-important secretive, proprietary software with which the voting machines operate: “Often jurisdictions that purchase new [vote-counting] equipment will sell or trade their used hardware, which is a legal transaction. We understand that DEF CON organizers and other researchers have obtained equipment in this manner. What is not legal, however, is the transfer of the use of the software . . . unless [it has] been properly licensed to the new owner. ES&S has not licensed software to any non governmental agencies for their use.”

Election-fraud researcher Jim Condit Jr. understands election fraud from its earlier days before computer hacking was possible and points out that the core problem is internal, not external—because the big three vendors’ electronic voting machines used almost universally in the U.S. can be internally programmed to “flip” votes and steal an election without a necessity for external hacking.

“It’s the big-three voting machine vendors, ES&S, Hart InterCivic, and Dominion that need to be investigated for keeping the true vote-count from the public,” Condit told AFP.

Furthermore, given what happened at DEF CON, Condit expects an intensified effort to centralize elections.

“Are they only admitting this vulnerability [at DEF CON], so they can centralize things?” he wondered, adding, “Yes, an 11-year-old can do this, but now let’s hand it over to DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] to keep things ‘safe.’ ”

Of note, on Aug. 15, DHS completed a three-day “National Exercise on Election Security,” described as the “first of its kind.” While the exercise simulated “voter system interference” scenarios, the gathering drew officials from the District of Columbia and 44 states, along with the Election Assistance Commission, the Departments of Defense and Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Security Agency, and U.S. Cyber Command.

While the “suits and spooks” at the DHS event poured over external-interference scenarios, all initial vote counts should be done manually, at the precinct level, with paper ballots without externally hackable or internally alterable machines to begin with, said Condit.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




Trump Right About John Brennan

The former CIA director’s security clearance should have been pulled long ago, maintains former CIA analyst Philip Giraldi. President Trump should go a step further, he argues, and pull the security clearance of everyone who no longer has a reason to have it. 

By Philip Giraldi

It is quite amazing to watch how the mainstream media and alleged “former senior intelligence officials” are rallying around to defend ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who has had his security clearance taken away by President Donald Trump. It is the usual bit of pretentiously high-minded blather that makes one cringe, considering the questionable track records of the loudest voices being raised to defend a man who actually has no need for a clearance and who, quite possibly, abused his office by working with the Hillary Clinton team and foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on Trump during the election campaign. Brennan appears to have also been party to an attempt to delegitimize the president-elect even before he took office, in the latter days of the Barack Obama administration.

Consider for a moment how, back in 2013, John Brennan, then Obama’s counterterrorism advisor had a difficult time with the Senate Intelligence Committee explaining some things that he did when he was still working at CIA. He was predictably attacked by some senators concerned over the expanding drone program, which he supervised, over CIA torture, for the kill lists that he helped manage, and regarding the pervasive government secrecy, which he surely condoned to cover up the questionable nature of the assassination lists and the drones.

But the area that is still murky regarding Brennan relates to what exactly he was up to in 2016 when he was CIA director and also, quite possibly, simultaneously working hard to help Hillary become president. In May 2017, his appearance before Congress was headlined in a Washington Post front-page featured article as Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump. The article stated that Brennan, during the 2016 campaign, “reviewed intelligence that showed ‘contacts and interaction’ between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign.” Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled “Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides.”

Brennan, an ambitious man with a checkered history who was strongly disliked by his peers at CIA, appears to lack either a moral compass or any sense of restraint. He was still going after Trump well after the election, playing a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan proved to be unrelenting.

The May 2017 testimony by Brennan included this statement: “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The testimony inevitably raises some questions about just what Brennan was actually up to. First of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens, and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have set off warning bells, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it was “classified,” was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from Politico and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch, and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

More recently, Brennan has attacked Trump for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. president is “wholly in the pocket of Putin,” definitely “afraid of the president of Russia,” and that the Kremlin “may have something on him personally. The fact that he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin . . . continues to say to me that he does have something to fear and something very serious to fear.” And he then administered what might be considered the coup de main, saying that the president should be impeached for “treasonous” behavior after Trump stood next to Putin of Russia at a news conference in Finland and cast doubt on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump’s decision to pull Brennan’s clearance attracted an immediate tweeted response from the ex-CIA director: “This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out.” He also added, in a New York Times op-ed, that “Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion [with Russia] are, in a word, hogwash.”

But hogwash aside, these claims that Trump is a recruited Russian agent or is being blackmailed by the Kremlin are serious, and Brennan characteristically provided no evidence. As many have noted, he is playing fast and loose with his “security clearance” and CIA background to provide credibility for his remarks, which have to be viewed as politically motivated.

Prior to the Brennan incident, most Americans were certainly unaware that any ex-officials continued to hold clearances after they retired, and the controversy has inevitably raised the question why that should be so.

The media should be asking why Brennan has a security clearance at all. A clearance is granted to a person, but it is also linked to “need to know” in terms of what kind of information should or could be accessed, which means that when you are no longer working as director of the Central Intelligence Agency you don’t necessarily need to know or have access to classified information.

All Out War on Trump
Who’s trying to destroy Trump? At the AFP’s Online Store.

If you are allowed to keep your clearance it is a courtesy, unless you directly transition into a directorship or staff position of a major intelligence or security contractor, which many retirees do. If that is the case, you might need to retain the qualification for your job, which makes the clearance an essential component in the notorious revolving door whereby government officials transit to the private sector, double dip with a large salary on top of their substantial pensions, and then directly lobby their former colleagues to keep the flow of cash coming.

The real problem arises when former officials, like Brennan, use their clearances as bona fides to enhance their marketability for non-clearance jobs in the media or corporate world, particularly when those individuals are criticizing current government policies and behaving in a partisan fashion.

So was Trump justified in taking away Brennan’s clearance? Absolutely. And going one step farther, he should take away all the clearances for all former government employees who are no longer working on classified issues. They don’t need them, and it is a courtesy that has outlived any usefulness it might once have had in the days before America’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies became politically compromised.

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.




McCain Behind Targeting of Tea Party

It was Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, not President Obama, who urged weaponizing the IRS. Judicial Watch has documents showing “that it was McCain’s staff urging the Obama administration to use the IRS to target tea-party and other political opposition groups that were threatening both the Democrat and Republican Party establishments.”

By Dr. Ed DeVries

Remember when Obama weaponized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target tea-party and other conservative and nationalist groups following the 2010 midterm and 2012 general elections? Many of us at the time postulated that the real criminal mastermind was not Obama but Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Come to find out, we were right.

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, is now in possession of documents, obtained from the IRS through a Freedom of Information Act request, proving that it was McCain’s staff urging the Obama administration to use the IRS to target tea-party and other political opposition groups that were threatening both the Democrat and Republican Party establishments.

In the full notes of an April 30, 2013, meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Henry Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to function. Kerner tells IRS Director Lois Lerner, Steve Miller (then chief of staff to the IRS Commissioner), Nikole Flax (IRS Office of Appeals), and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.”

In response, Ms. Lerner responded that it is her job to oversee it all.

The Judicial Watch report goes on to add:

“Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry

“Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. [Veteran IRS executive] Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work.

“Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole [Flax] noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.”

New Babylon, Mike Piper
Why did Mike Piper write that John McCain was an “American Disciple of the Rothschild Empire”? Learn in The New Babylon, at the AFP Online Store.

When Judicial Watch reported on this meeting in 2013, McCain issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.”

The IRS had blacked out the notes of the meeting in documents obtained by Judicial Watch back in 2013, but the redacted portions were discovered in the notes attached to subsequent documents recently released by the agency.

So why did the supposedly “conservative” McCain ask the Obama administration to target “conservative groups” and why did the Obama White House play along?

Obviously both the GOP “establishment” and Donkey “establishment” were being challenged by tea party candidates. Primaries were no longer a shoe-in for establishment-selected candidates of either party. Power was being confronted. The party elites were willing to do whatever it took to eliminate the challenges to their political power.

We were not surprised when the Obama Department of Justice announced in October 2015 that it was dropping its investigation into the IRS, Ms. Lerner, and the unlawful weaponizing of the IRS against conservative groups. We were, on the other hand, shocked when the Republican-led congressional inquiry into the matter was also dropped. But now we know why. The GOP leadership was just as guilty in the matter as the Democrats. Continued investigation would have only made the existence of their “Uniparty” all too obvious.

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.

So now we know that the Republicans and Democrats worked together and mutually benefitted from the weaponizing of the IRS and the targeting of the tea party and oppositional politics as far back as 2010. Add to that our previous understanding that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), Sen. Mitch

McConnell (R-Ky.), and a cancer-ridden McCain—drug into the congressional chamber from what was then thought to be his death bed—were leading the Uniparty in opposition to President Donald Trump’s effort to kill ObamaCare.

Overlay this Machiavellian power play against the latest understandings of how McCain dispatched another member of his staff, David Kramer, to act as go-between and facilitator for the Christopher Steele dossier used against then-candidate Trump. The dossier was the foundation of the entire Mueller, Russia-collusion phony investigation. With Mueller, a Republican, and two Democrats, FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, working together, the Uniparty is on display again.

A pastor and in-demand traveling speaker, Dr. Edward DeVries is the editor of the Dixie Heritage Newsletter and a contributing editor at THE BARNES REVIEW. He is the author of 30 books including the two-volume Glory in Grey. Some of his other titles include Sacred Honor, The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag, Prayer is Simple, Every Member a Minister and Coaching Youth Baseball the Right Way. He is also the host of TBR RADIO’S “Dixie Heritage Hour.” Please check it out at www.BarnesReview.org.




Do Democrats Want an Impeachment Fight?

Democrats are assuring Americans they don’t intend to impeach the president, but a new Congress will be seated in 2019—which may be majority Democrats, who’s “rabid followers” are crying IMPEACH—and, Buchanan says, “We are in for a hellish year.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“If anyone is looking for a good lawyer,” said President Donald Trump ruefully, “I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen.” Michael Cohen is no Roy Cohn.

Tuesday, Trump’s ex-lawyer, staring at five years in prison, pled guilty to a campaign violation that may not even be a crime.

Cohen had fronted the cash, $130,000, to pay porn star Stormy Daniels for keeping quiet about a decade-old tryst with Trump. He had also brokered a deal whereby the National Enquirer bought the rights to a story about a Trump affair with a Playboy model, to kill it.

Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president.

Would a Democratic House, assuming we get one, really impeach a president for paying hush money to old girlfriends?

Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature.

Kingdom Identity

But if Cohen’s guilty plea and Tuesday’s conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump’s dealings for more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation.

Nothing that comes of this collaboration will be helpful to Trump.

Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of motives to “flip” and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump.

Then there is the Mueller probe itself.

Buchanan, Nixon's White House Wars
Available from the AFP Online Store..

Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin’s Russia, though this was his mandate.

However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down.

Mueller may not have the power to haul the president before a grand jury or indict him. After all, it is Parliament that deposes and beheads the king, not the sheriff of Nottingham. But Mueller will file a report with the Department of Justice that will be sent to the House.

And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller’s report.

Still, as of now, it is hard to see how two-thirds of a new Senate would convict this president of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Thus we are in for a hellish year.

Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas, federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his enemies.

No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted.

Democrats who have grown giddy about taking the House should consider what a campaign to bring down a president, who is supported by a huge swath of the nation and has fighting allies in the press, would be like.

Why do it? Especially if they knew in advance the Senate would not convict.

That America has no desire for a political struggle to the death over impeachment is evident. Recognition of this reality is why the Democratic Party is assuring America that impeachment is not what they have in mind.

Today, it is Republicans leaders who are under pressure to break with Trump, denounce him, and call for new investigations into alleged collusion with the Russians. But if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment.

Taking the House would put newly elected Democrats under fire from the right for forming a lynch mob, and from the mainstream media for not doing their duty and moving immediately to impeach Trump.

Democrats have been laboring for two years to win back the House. But if they discover that the first duty demanded of them, by their own rabid followers, is to impeach President Trump, they may wonder why they were so eager to win it.

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 2017 CREATORS.COM