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



Former Georgia Rep. Says D.C. ‘Occupied by Zionists’

Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) talked with AFP’s Dave Gahary about Israel’s influence on Washington, D.C. and the pledge AIPAC expects legislators to take—something she knows all about from her 12 years in office.

By Dave Gahary

In the shadow of the more than 500,000 Americans who are homeless on any one night, Congress is poised to give the Zionist state of Israel $38 billion over the next decade—more than half of all direct military aid the U.S. provides worldwide—forcing many Americans to ask who really controls the levers of power in this once-great nation.

One of those Americans, former Rep. Cynthia Ann McKinney (D-Ga.)—currently an educator, as well as an anti-war and human rights activist—knows more than most who’s in charge, and for those who still think it’s their president, senators, or representative, it’s time to smell the coffee.

Kingdom Identity

Ms. McKinney—who earned her Ph.D.—sat down with this reporter for an hour-long candid discussion of the power of Israel in the United States. She is one of several U.S. politicians targeted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for not being sufficiently servile to the Mideast state, and who lived to tell about it, specifically about the pledge of allegiance to Israel all U.S. politicians are forced to sign if they want any real chance at reelection.

AIPAC targeted Ms. McKinney for termination for her refusal to sign “the pledge,” but many other politicians weren’t as lucky, like former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

“He’s in prison not because he had a conversation,” explained Ms. McKinney. “It’s because of his appointment to the Senate. The Israel-first people had their candidate he was supposed to appoint to the Senate, and he didn’t do that . . . and they sought their revenge. That is the underlying reason for his prosecution.”

She continued: “You can cite as an example to Rep. Jim Traficant. They’ve got a whole trail of people who have been in prison. You can go to Bob Ney from Ohio. You can go to Curt Weldon; he didn’t go to prison, but he got kicked out, with an FBI raid, just because he talked about 9/11. So, you’ve got a trail of detritus, the carcasses of politically dead politicians—with my carcass there as well—for the vultures to feed on.”

AFP Podcast
Dave Gahary talks with former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) about Israeli influence in D.C. and “the pledge.”

Ms. McKinney first detailed “the pledge”—a result of President George H.W. Bush’s defiance of AIPAC—on a PressTV episode, which she elaborated upon to this reporter. “The pledge was a piece of paper that was faxed to my home,” she said, unabashedly sent from AIPAC. Its demands were clearly listed. “I only remember the first three,” she said.

“There were five or seven. I can’t remember.” Jerusalem is the capital, the military superiority of Israel, and economic assistance were the three that stood out, she said. “The third one that I remember was about keeping the levels of aid consistent with Israel’s request,” she explained, “so that I would not vote for aid levels to go down.”

“In other words, do everything that Israel wants?” asked this reporter.

“Yes,” she answered. American-Jewish politicians did AIPAC’s dirty work, with Congress resembling more the German Democratic Republic’s Volkskammer (unicameral legislature) than the bastion of representative democracy.

“You knew when there were these certain point people,” she explained, “and when those point people [Ben Cardin, Eliot Engle, Jerry Nadler, Jerry Ackerman] authored legislation, you knew that was AIPAC’s making, and they were also in the room taking notes on who said what during the deliberations of the bill.”

Rachel Corrie Parents interview
Interview with Rachel Corrie’s parents at AFP Online Store.

Ms. McKinney recalled a time when AIPAC’s authorship of a bill was exposed. “There was a letter or bill or something that AIPAC had sent over to one of the congressional offices,” she explained, “and the congressional office was not savvy enough to erase the original title, which was AIPAC’s. Then that became like a little mini-firestorm, but there is no such thing as a real firestorm with AIPAC, because they are able to suppress everything.”

Ms. McKinney lasted through six terms without ever signing the pledge. “I was offended by it,” she said. “My entire 12 years in Congress was bumping up against these people who controlled everything. They literally controlled the budget process; what got in the budget, what got a line item.” Ms. McKinney explained how AIPAC uses “the pledge” to control Congress. “I would get a call and the person on the other end of the phone would say, ‘I want to do a fundraiser for you,’” she explained. “And then we would get into the planning. I would get really excited because you have to have money in order to run a campaign. And then two weeks, three weeks into the planning they would say, ‘Did you sign the pledge?’ And then I would say, ‘No, I didn’t sign the pledge,’ and then my fundraiser would go kaput.”

She added: “The Zionist, Israel-first money is what underpins the Republican and the Democratic parties.”

She then described how it’s done. “The way it works is that the pro-Israel money is in your environmental PAC [political action committee], is in your labor union PACs, is in your corporate PACs,” she explained. “It’s across the board.”

Ms. McKinney, who never took a “free” trip to Israel, remains unapologetic. “The U.S. national interest is not equivalent to the Israeli national interest,” she stated.

“Is the U.S. a Zionist occupied government?” asked this reporter.

“Yeah, yeah, for sure,” she chuckled.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.




Trump’s Tweets End the Myth of Fed Independence

By the end of his first term, President Trump could appoint six of the Federal Reserve’s seven board members, writes Ron Paul, and fear of a Trumpian Fed could lead some to support the Audit the Fed legislation. Passing that bill would be the first step in protecting Americans from the Fed.

By Ron Paul

President Trump’s recent Tweets expressing displeasure with the Federal Reserve’s (minor) interest rate increases led to accusations that President Trump is undermining the Federal Reserve’s independence. But, the critics ignore the fact that Federal Reserve “independence” is one of the great myths of American politics.

When it comes to intimidating the Federal Reserve, President Trump pales in comparison to President Lyndon Johnson. After the Federal Reserve increased interest rates in 1965, President Johnson summoned then-Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin to Johnson’s Texas ranch where Johnson shoved him against the wall. Physically assaulting the Fed chairman is probably a greater threat to Federal Reserve independence than questioning the Fed’s policies on Twitter.

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

While Johnson is an extreme example, history is full of cases where presidents pressured the Federal Reserve to adopt policies compatible with the presidents’ agendas—and helpful to their reelection campaigns. Presidents have been pressuring the Fed since its creation. President Warren Harding called on the Fed to lower rates. Richard Nixon was caught on tape joking with then-Fed chair Arthur Burns about Fed independence. And Lloyd Bentsen, President Bill Clinton’s first Treasury secretary, bragged about a “gentleman’s agreement” with then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.

President Trump’s call for low interest rates contradicts Trump’s earlier correct criticism of the Fed’s low interest rate policy as harming middle-class Americans. Low rates can harm the middle class, but they also benefit spend-and-borrow politicians and their favorite special interests by lowering the federal government’s borrowing costs. Significant rate increases could make it impossible for the government to service its existing debt, thus making it difficult for President Trump and Congress to continue increasing welfare and warfare spending.

President Trump will have a long-lasting impact on monetary policy. Two of the three sitting members of the Fed’s board were appointed by President Trump. Two more of Trump’s nominees are pending in the Senate. The nomination of economist Marvin Goodfriend may be in jeopardy because Goodfriend advocates “negative interest rates,” which is a Federal Reserve-imposed tax on savings. If Goodfriend is defeated, President Trump can just nominate another candidate. President Trump will also be able to nominate two other board members. Therefore, by the end of his first term, President Trump could appoint six of the Federal Reserve’s seven board members.

Shadow Moneylenders, Chiang
On sale at 30% off now at the AFP Store.

The specter of a Federal Reserve Board dominated by Trump appointees should cause some to rethink the wisdom of allowing a secretive central bank to exercise near-monopoly control over monetary policy. Fear of the havoc a Trumpian Fed could cause may even lead some to support the Audit the Fed legislation and the growing movement to allow Americans to “exit” the Federal Reserve System by using alternatives to fiat money, such as cryptocurrencies and gold.

Given the Federal Reserve’s power to help or hinder a president’s economic agenda and reelection prospects, it is no surprise that presidents try to influence Fed policy. But, instead of worrying about protecting the Fed from President Trump, we should all worry about protecting the American people from the Fed. The first step is passing the Audit the Fed bill, which Congress should do before adjourning to hit the campaign trail. This will let the people know the full truth about America’s monetary policy. Auditing, then ending, the Fed is key to permanently draining the welfare-warfare swamp.

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




Did Tariffs Make America Great?

Pat Buchanan offers an American history lesson to remind us what made America the world’s greatest economic power in the first place. He explains it was economic patriotism that put America first, that made America first.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Make America Great Again!” will, given the astonishing victory it produced for Donald Trump, be recorded among the most successful slogans in political history.

Yet it raises a question: How did America first become the world’s greatest economic power?

In 1998, in The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy, this writer sought to explain.

However, as the blazing issue of that day was Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, it was no easy task to steer interviewers around to the McKinley Tariff.

MidEast Chess Board

Free trade propaganda aside, what is the historical truth?

As our Revolution was about political independence, the first words and acts of our constitutional republic were about ensuring America’s economic independence.

“A free people should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent on others for essentials, especially military supplies,” said President Washington in his first message to Congress.

The first major bill passed by Congress was the Tariff Act of 1789.

Weeks later, Washington imposed tonnage taxes on all foreign shipping. The U.S. Merchant Marine was born.

In 1791, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote in his famous “Report on Manufactures”:

“The wealth . . . independence, and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation . . . ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These compromise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defence.”

During the War of 1812, British merchants lost their American markets. When peace came, flotillas of British ships arrived at U.S. ports to dump underpriced goods and to recapture the markets the Brits had lost.

Henry Clay and John Calhoun backed James Madison’s Tariff of 1816, as did ex-free traders Jefferson and John Adams. It worked.

In 1816, the U.S. produced 840,000 yards of cloth. By 1820, it was 13,874,000 yards. America had become self-sufficient.

Financing “internal improvements” with tariffs on foreign goods would become known abroad as “The American System.”

Said Daniel Webster, “Protection of our own labor against the cheaper, ill-paid, half-fed, and pauper labor of Europe, is . . . a duty which the country owes to its own citizens.”

This is economic patriotism, a conservatism of the heart. Globalists, cosmopolites, and one-worlders recoil at phrases like “America First.”

Campaigning for Henry Clay, “The Father of the American System,” in 1844, Abe Lincoln issued an impassioned plea, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on Earth.”

Battling free trade in the Polk presidency, Congressman Lincoln said, “Abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government must result in the increase of both useless labor and idleness and . . . must produce want and ruin among our people.”

In our time, the abandonment of economic patriotism produced in Middle America what Lincoln predicted, and what got Trump elected.

From the Civil War to the 20th century, U.S. economic policy was grounded in the Morrill Tariffs, named for Vermont Congressman and Senator Justin Morrill who, as early as 1857, had declared, “I am for ruling America for the benefit, first, of Americans, and, for the ‘rest of mankind’ afterwards.”

To Morrill, free trade was treason:

“Free trade abjures patriotism and boasts of cosmopolitanism. It regards the labor of our own people with no more favor than that of the barbarian on the Danube or the coolie on the Ganges.”

William McKinley, the veteran of Antietam who gave his name to the McKinley Tariff, declared, four years before being elected president:

“Free trade results in our giving our money . . . our manufactures and our markets to other nations. . . . It will bring widespread discontent. It will revolutionize our values.”

Campaigning in 1892, McKinley said, “Open competition between high-paid American labor and poorly paid European labor will either drive out of existence American industry or lower American wages.”

Substitute “Asian labor” for “European labor” and is this not a fair description of what free trade did to U.S. manufacturing these last 25 years? Some $12 trillion in trade deficits, arrested wages for our workers, six million manufacturing jobs lost, 55,000 factories and plants shut down.

McKinley’s future Vice President Teddy Roosevelt agreed with him, “Thank God I am not a free trader.”

Let Trump Be Trump
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

What did the Protectionists produce?

From 1869 to 1900, GDP quadrupled. Budget surpluses were run for 27 straight years. The U.S. debt was cut two-thirds to 7% of GDP. Commodity prices fell 58%. U.S. population doubled, but real wages rose 53%. Economic growth averaged 4% a year.

And the United States, which began this era with half of Britain’s production, ended it with twice Britain’s production.

Under Warren Harding, Cal Coolidge, and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, GDP growth from 1922 to 1927 hit 7%, an all-time record.

Economic patriotism put America first, and made America first.

Of GOP free traders, the steel magnate Joseph Wharton, whose name graces the college Trump attended, said it well:

“Republicans who are shaky on protection are shaky all over.”

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

 




Rand Paul: Former CIA Head Is ‘Bigoted,’ ‘Biased,’ ‘Unhinged’

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was a breath of fresh air and common sense when he made the rounds on television talk shows yesterday to defend President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

By AFP Staff

Republican senator from Kentucky Rand Paul appeared on a series of cable news talk shows yesterday to counter the ridiculous claims made by former CIA Director John Brennan that President Donald Trump should be charged with treason for not sticking up for U.S. intelligence.

On Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson’s show, Paul, who also happens to be the son of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), blasted Brennan, saying, “You have to realize John Brennan started his illustrious career by voting for the Communist Party—you know, that’s who he wanted to win the presidency back in the ’70s—so he voted for the Communist Party.”

He added that Brennan “is one of the most powerful people in the world, who has the ability to destroy anybody in the world and gain information on anything you do . . . yet with all that power he was coming to work each day with a bias and a hatred of the president. It should worry us all. What other things he could possibly have been doing with that power?”

You can watch the full interview below. Then, after you hear what Paul has to say, please take a moment to tell us what you think in the comments section.

 




Behind Trump’s Exasperation

President Trump is understandably frustrated with G-7 leaders’ expectations that the U.S. will continuously fund their nations’ security while they “rip us off on trade.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as “the piggy bank that everybody is robbing.”

After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

“There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. . . . And that’s . . . what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One.”

In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank.

“Why should I, as president of the United States, allow countries to continue to make massive trade surpluses, as they have for decades . . . (while) the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on trade?”

To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are a good place to begin.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

Our elites see America as an “indispensable nation,” the premier world power whose ordained duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal world order.

They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the future of the planet.

Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free ride on our defense effort, as they engage in trade practices that prosper their own peoples at America’s expense.

Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind America’s back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national ends.

The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
Will America Survive to 2025? On sale now at American Free Press.

Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in goods than we sold to the world.

A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world’s goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.

We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.

Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people are still with him on putting America first.

Yet he faces some serious obstacles.

What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the mid-1970s?

Americans are indeed carrying the lion’s share of the load of the defense of the West, and of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South Korea and Japan.

But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?

Ike’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an “agonizing reappraisal” of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies, if they did not contribute more money and troops.

Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed, when the Cold War ended, out NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on new allies since the Soviet Empire fell.

If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense Trump demands, or accept the tariffs America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland, and Germany, and let the Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?

This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected seems at hand.

He promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay out of Mideast wars, and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.

And that’s what America voted for.

Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign, even within his own party.

Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has imposed and threatening retaliation. Free trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the cost of the items U.S. companies makes abroad and then ships back to the United States.

The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump’s critical tests have yet to come.

And our exasperated president senses 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. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Justice Department Agrees to Share Secret Info on Spy in Trump Campaign

By AFP Staff

Whatever one may think of the current president, inserting a spy directly into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was next-level Big Brother tactics when it comes to federal law enforcement. Now, Congress is ramping up its oversight, as it is constitutionally obliged to do, and is demanding more details about this intelligence operation dubbed by some as “Spygate,” which actively spied on the leading contender for the highest office in the land.

Washington daily newspaper Politico reports today that the Justice Department has caved to demands from the so-called “Gang of Eight”—eight top senators and congressmen—to probe the spying operation and make sure it was legal.

The Gang of Eight includes Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“The Department and FBI are prepared to brief members on certain questions specifically raised by the Speaker and other members,” an unnamed Justice Department official told Politico. “The Department will also provide the documents that were available for review but not inspected by the members at the previous briefing along with some additional material.”

Surprising to no one, the mainstream media has done its best to downplay the implications of law enforcement spying on presidential campaigns, but, when it comes to Trump, all logic goes out the window unless, of course, it’s prefaced with an “I hate Trump, but.”

Even top Republicans in Trump’s own party have been hard-pressed to defend him.

House Speaker Paul Ryan went so far on June 6 as to defend the FBI for using a paid informant to spy on Trump officials.

All Out War on Trump
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Thankfully, a few sounder minds have come forward to blast the operation.

“There is no defense today for Paul Ryan siding with the FBI and Department of Justice against those of us in the Congress fighting for transparency and accountability,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) was cited by Politico as saying on Fox News on the evening June 6. “We need the speaker to be an institutionalist for the Congress, not to be a defender of the deep state.”

The informant in question was outed recently as being Stefan Halper, a professor from Cambridge University. Halper is deeply tied in with the deep state, having taught American foreign policy for decades. He is also director of the university’s Department of Politics and International Studies. Since 2012, Halper has received over $1 million for overt and covert work he has done for the U.S. government.




They Disagree on Everything But Israel

The U.S. legislators voting to gut the U.S. Constitution to promote “free speech” for Israel may be trying to help Israel, but some believe they’re committing treason. 

By Philip Giraldi

There is currently considerable agitation in Congress over what is loosely being referred to as “free speech.” The crux of the matter appears to be that many self-identified conservatives appear to believe that rules put in place by many college and university administrations unfairly discriminate against them, establishing restrictions on speakers whose opinions might be viewed as offensive to liberals and minority constituencies. This has lately led to the blocking of attempts by notable conservative lecturers to speak on campus and in other public fora lest they cause a breakdown in public order. It is interesting to note that the campaign against conservatives is never packaged quite as an actual free speech issue. It is generally expressed as a desire to sustain community values and to avoid violent confrontations.

Many of the groups engaging in agitprop seeking to redefine the First Amendment at the college level are inevitably Jewish, many of them politically liberal, seeking to eliminate hurtful commentary or actions that involve criticism of Israel. A common complaint is that demonstrations or speakers on campus make Jews feel uncomfortable and therefore should be banned. Ironically, the political conservatives, who believe themselves to be victims of a suppression of free speech, often hypocritically support the Jewish students’ drive to curtail the same commodity because they are strong supporters of Israel. That reality demonstrates that the complaints from both parties are more ideologically driven than based on any perception of the need to maintain basic constitutional rights.

More curious still are the actions of some Jewish legislators in Congress. The debate over free speech on campus to allow conservative voices is much in the media, but the desire of many of America’s normally liberal Jews to curtail any and all criticism of Israel is hardly mentioned at all, even though it is in many respects far more serious an attack against the First Amendment, as support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement would be enshrined in federal legislation with draconian penalties attached.

Jewish Identity Politics … at the AFP Store now.

Two leading Jewish senators, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Chuck Schumer of New York, are the driving forces behind the so-called Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which is continuing to make its way through Congress. It was introduced by Cardin and quickly attracted a number of co-sponsors and supporters, many of whom were predictably Republicans. The irony inherent in the bill comes from the fact that both Cardin and Schumer are solidly liberal in their voting records, to include support of issues generally regarded as protective of constitutional rights and liberties.

Theirs might reasonably be considered reliable votes whenever the Bill of Rights is challenged, but when it comes to Israel they are quite willing to flip 180 degrees.

Schumer might be considered Israel’s senator in Congress now that Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has finally disappeared from the scene. Schumer has referred to himself as Israel’s “shomer” or protector, a derivation of his own name. If he is challenged at all in that status it would be by Cardin, who votes a straight pro-Israel line when called upon to do so and who is the product of Maryland’s largely Jewish dominated Democratic Party machine. Both are, not coincidentally, major recipients of campaign contributions coming from the Israel lobby. Two years ago both Schumer and Cardin opposed President Barack Obama’s agreement to the plan adopted to monitor Iran’s nuclear program, placing them in line with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in opposition to their own party’s president.

So here is the problem. Many American Jews in politics support Israel right or wrong without any regard for the impact on the rest of their constituents. This is obviously wrong, but they do it shamelessly because they believe that they will never be held to account. Unfortunately for them, attitudes toward Israel and its criminal regime are shifting, particularly in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Cardin has indeed faced some problems with his promotion of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The generally Israel-friendly American Civil Liberties Union objected strongly both to the obvious unconstitutionality of the bill as well as the punitive measures that it mandated, which included in the original version civil fines up to $250,000, criminal fines of up to $1 million, as well as a possible 20 years in prison. Two elements of the bill are particularly appalling. One criminalizes anyone even making inquiries about BDS and the other specifies that Israel includes by definition “settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories.” That means that the settlements, which all the world including the United States considers illegal, cannot be criticized under penalty of law.

These draconian features, which essentially criminalize a broad range of any criticism of Israel if implemented, were recently watered down but have not been completely eliminated from the current version of the bill. To be sure, a number of liberal Jewish organizations have come out against the bill but have been unable to make much progress, as the well-funded and much more numerous organizations that constitute the lobby have better access to both politicians and the mainstream media.

Against those who find the bill a bridge too far, even in defense of the Jewish state, one indeed finds an array of Jewish oligarchs who support Israel reflexively as well as the formidable power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its hundreds of employees and $100 million annual budget. AIPAC is America’s most powerful foreign policy lobby. In terms of getting out the votes in Congress it is comparable to the gun lobby for the GOP. It is committed to the Cardin bill and considers it its top priority because it, echoing the repeated warnings issued by Netanyahu, believes that BDS is the greatest internal threat to Israel. Netanyahu is, of course, not rational on threats to Israel. He has long promoted attacking a militarily inferior Iran because it is an alleged threat and his judgment on BDS is similarly 90% scaremongering.

So here we have it again. Two prominent Jewish senators are working to destroy the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and they are doing it to “help” Israel. Some might call it treason.

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.




Boehner’s Right – It’s Trump’s Party Now

Given the history of the Republican Party in the last two decades and a look at what President Trump is doing now, Pat Buchanan asks whether the GOP is just napping or comatose.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump party,” John Boehner told a Mackinac, Mich. gathering of the GOP faithful last week. “The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere.”

Ex-Speaker Boehner should probably re-check the old party’s pulse, for the Bush-Boehner GOP may not just be napping. It could be comatose.

Consider. That GOP was dedicated to free trade, open borders, amnesty, and using U.S. power to punish aggressors and “end tyranny in our world.” That GOP set out to create a new world order where dictatorships were threatened with “regime change,” and democratic capitalism was the new order of the ages.

Yet, Donald Trump captured the Republican nomination and won the presidency—by saying goodbye to all that.

How probable is it that a future GOP presidential candidate will revive the Bush-Boehner agenda the party rejected in 2016, run on it, win, and impose it on the party and nation?

Bush-Boehner Republicanism appears to be as dead today as was Harding-Coolidge Republicanism after 1933. And if Trumpism is not the future of the GOP, it is hard to see what a promising GOP agenda might look like.

Kingdom Identity

A brief history: In seven elections starting in 1992, Republicans won the presidency three times, but the popular vote only once, in 2004, when George W. was still basking in his “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.

What fractured and overwhelmed the Bush-Boehner Republican Party?

First, demography. The mass immigration of Third World peoples that began with the 1965 immigration act, and the decline in the birth rate of native-born Americans, began to swamp the Nixon-Reagan New Majority.

Second, the collapse of the Soviet Empire and USSR removed the party’s great unifying cause from Eisenhower to Bush I—the Cold War.

After the Red Army went home, “America First” had a new appeal!

Third, faithful to the free trade cult in which they were raised, Republicans championed NAFTA, the WTO, and MFN for China.

Historians will look back in amazement at how America’s free trade zealots gave away the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen, as they quoted approvingly 18th- and 19th-century scribblers whose ideas had done so much to bring down their own country, Great Britain.

Between 1997 and 2017, the EU ran up, at America’s expense, trade surpluses in goods in excess of $2 trillion, while we also picked up the bill for Europe’s defense.

Between 1992 and 2016, China was allowed to run $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense, converting herself into the world’s first manufacturing power and denuding America of tens of thousands of factories and millions of manufacturing jobs.

In Trump’s first year, China’s trade surplus with the United States hit $375 billion. From January to March of this year, our trade deficit with China was running at close to the same astronomical rate.

“Trade deficits do not matter,” we hear from the economists.

They might explain that to Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

And perhaps someone can explain the wisdom of handing 4% of our GDP each year to an adversary nation, as U.S. admirals talk tough about confronting that adversary nation over islets and reefs in the South China Sea.

Why are we enriching and empowering so exorbitantly those whom we are told we may have to fight?

Fourth, under Bush II and Obama, the U.S. intervened massively in the Near and Middle East—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. And the forces that pushed up into those conflicts, and so disillusioned the nation that it elected Barack Obama, are back, pushing for a new war, on Iran. They may get this war, too.

Yet, given the anti-interventionist and anti-war stance of Trump’s winning campaign, and of the Bernie Sanders campaign, U.S. involvement in Middle East wars seems less America’s future than it does her past.

After his 16 months in office, it appears as though the Trump presidency, no matter how brief, is going to be a watershed moment in U.S. and world history, and in the future of the GOP.

Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan
On Sale Now at AFP Online Store.

The world is changing. NATO and the EU are showing their age. Nationalism, populism, and tribalism are pervasive on the Old Continent. And America’s willingness to bear the burden of Europe’s defense, as they ride virtually free, is visibly waning.

It is hard to see why or how Republicans are ever again going to be the Bush-Boehner party that preceded the rise of Trump.

What would be the argument for returning to a repudiated platform?

Trump not only defeated 16 Bush Republicans, he presented an agenda on immigration, border security, amnesty, intervention abroad, the Middle East, NAFTA, free trade, Putin, and Russia that was a rejection of what the Bush-Boehner Party had stood for and what its presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney, had run on.

If the Republican Party is “napping,” let it slumber on, undisturbed, for its time has come and gone. We are in a new world now.

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Watergate Mysteries Remain 45 Years Later

Some researchers believe John Dean and his wife hold the key to the real reasons for the 1972 Watergate break-in. 

By S.T. Patrick

Forty-five years after the two Watergate break-ins of June 1972, researchers are still tangling over who ordered the break-ins and why. Since 1984, revisionists have researched and formulated a theory that has changed how skeptical students of Watergate view the scandal that forced the resignation of Richard Nixon.

At a Hofstra University speech in 1987, former Nixon Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman summarized the conventional wisdom among reflective Nixon-era conservatives. “To this day I still don’t know why that was done,” Haldeman said, “and I don’t know anybody who does. Why they would hit the (Democratic) National Headquarters is beyond me, because nobody in that place knows anything anyway.”

At the same symposium, Jeb Magruder, former deputy director of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP), pushed the Hughes-Rebozo theory for the break-ins. Multimillionaire Howard Hughes, the theory states, gave $100,000 to Nixon’s close friend Bebe Rebozo. The money was then used by the Nixon family, in part for furniture and jewelry. The break-ins were executed to find out what information DNC chairman Lawrence O’Brien may have had about the Hughes-Rebozo transaction, as well as to gather damaging information that may persuade O’Brien to withhold the information throughout the 1972 campaign.

Since the 1980s, a team of revisionist historians and researchers have developed a theory that puts former White House Counsel John Dean in the crosshairs of the Watergate debacle. And though Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) famously asked Dean what Nixon knew about Watergate and when he knew it, researchers now believe that the key to understanding the break-ins themselves lies with Dean, his wife Maureen, and Magruder.

Author Phil Stanford wrote White House Call Girl: The Real Watergate Story to detail the life of Heidi Rikan, who ran a call-girl operation at the luxurious Columbia Plaza Apartments, blocks from the Watergate complex. Stanford’s work built on and expanded the research of Jim Hougan’s Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA and Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin’s Silent Coup: The Removal of a President.

Ms. Rikan had gathered a crop of women new to the Beltway to entertain Democrat politicians in town on business. Typical for Washington, D.C. prostitution rings of the era, the Columbia Plaza setup was an intelligence-gathering operation that would be used for potential blackmail and political advantage. Private eye Lou Russell served as security for Rikan at the apartments and has admitted tape-recording telephone conversations between Ms. Rikan’s girls and their clients at the DNC.

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

One of the Watergate burglars was found with a key belonging to the desk of secretary Ida “Maxie” Wells, the DNC contact who historians believe allegedly instigated the liaisons and whose desk may have contained the real names of the johns that had used Ms. Rikan’s service.

Stanford found witnesses who tied Maureen (Kane) Biner to Ms. Rikan. “Mo” Biner would later date and then marry Dean. Arguably the most interesting pieces of evidence in the case are Ms. Rikan’s little black books. Unearthed by Ms. Rikan’s sister, the little black books contain the names of politicians, dignitaries, and athletes. Interestingly, one book contains home addresses and phone numbers for Maureen Kane and her mother, Irene. A later version of Ms. Rikan’s black book contains both home and office numbers for the Deans, as well as John Dean’s number at the White House.

Speculation has existed as to the nature of Maureen’s involvement with Ms. Rikan’s operation. Stanford confirmed to this writer that Ms. Rikan and Maureen were friends who partied and traveled together. In White House Call Girl he alludes to testimony from various sources that Maureen had been a high-level prostitute, but he denies having documented evidence.

According to Ms. Rikan’s attorney, Phil Bailley, Magruder was seeing “Candy Cane,” one of Ms. Rikan’s prostitutes. As Bailley was walking toward Cane’s apartment one day, he saw a dark-haired man get into a chauffeured black sedan. When Bailley asked who the man was, Cane responded, “You weren’t supposed to see that. That’s the boss of bosses.”

Bailley later identified the man with Cane as Magruder, whose home phone number was also found in Rikan’s books.

Revisionist historians were not alone in doubting Magruder’s Hughes-Rebozo theory for the Watergate motive. Charles Colson, the former presidential counsel, told The New York Times that he was almost knocked off his chair when Magruder made the accusation at Hofstra.

Colson once embraced Magruder in a hallway as they served time together in federal prison. Colson wanted real answers to the “what” and “why” questions of the break-ins.

“What were we doing at the Watergate, Jeb?” Colson asked Magruder. “(Magruder) turned white as a sheet and wouldn’t tell me. Later, on the outside, I asked him again. Still he wouldn’t say.”

Magruder did eventually tell author Len Colodny that Dean ordered the break-ins. G. Gordon Liddy had also affirmed Dean’s involvement in testimony given when Ida Wells unsuccessfully sued him for statements he had made about her involvement.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized Liddy’s testimony: “Liddy stated that the burglars’ objective during the Watergate break-in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.”

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

Magruder, like Colson, would turn to the ministry after leaving prison. He was a Presbyterian minister from 1981 through his death in 2014.

John and Maureen Dean have spent decades defending their side of the Watergate story. Most notably, they sued Colodny. The case was settled out of court and terms were not released. Both parties claim victory to this day. The Deans have denied a close relationship with Ms. Rikan, they have denied that Ms. Rikan ran a call-girl ring, and they deny that the motive for the Watergate break-ins had anything to do with their relationship.

Dean frequently writes about political scandal, predictably comparing each scandal to Watergate and each president to Nixon. Dean’s cooperation with prosecutors on Watergate aided the indictments of administration officials who had once trusted him. To revisionist historians who continue to challenge the accepted view of Watergate, both Dean and Magruder had links to Ms. Rikan’s operation that had to be extracted from the DNC offices.

The near-unanimous opinion of former Nixon appointees is that Dean is a self-serving traitor. To media outlets such as MSNBC that hire him for political commentary to this day, he is the hero who brought down Nixon.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as a respected educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” You may email him at STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.

This article was originally published in American Free Press Issue 1 & 2, January 1 & 8, 2018.




Congress Leaves for Memorial Break Without Deal on Immigration

By AFP Staff

Congress left to go on an 11-day vacation Thursday, May 24, before completing a deal on much-needed immigration reform—something that legislators have been promising their constituents for years now.

Despite having solid majorities in the House and the Senate in the 115th Congress—237 seats out of the 430 in the House, and 52 out of 100 in the Senate—and a Republican president, so far, legislators have been unable to produce immigration reform that funds the president’s requests for a border wall and more Border Patrol on the border.

Kingdom Identity

According to The Hill, a Capitol Hill daily, the GOP is “nearing the end game” on immigration. The problem is, the end game involves protecting hundreds of thousands of so-called “Dreamers,” the children of illegal aliens born in the United States. The Republican leadership has been able to keep most Republicans in line, but increasingly in states where Republican legislators are finding themselves in tough campaigns, a few have folded and support a Democrat-backed deal that aids Dreamers.

While the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, illegal immigration is a slap in the face of every immigrant who went through the long and often difficult process of gaining U.S. citizenship legally. Even the United States’s neighbor to the south, Mexico, takes an aggressive stance on illegal immigration. In 2015, Mexico went so far as to deport several thousand U.S. citizens who had been living in the country illegally. On average, every year, Mexican authorities deport over 100,000 illegal immigrants who come to Mexico from all over Central and South America.

There are currently several bills addressing illegal immigration that are pending in Congress. One bill that has the backing of conservatives is immigration legislation sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas).

According to a press release issued by Goodlatte’s office, the Securing America’s Future Act:

  • Ends the Diversity Program—Eliminates the visa lottery green card program;
  • Ends Chain Migration—Eliminates green card programs for relatives (other than spouses and minor children); creates a renewable temporary visa for parents of citizens to unite families at no cost to taxpayers;
  • Reduces Overall Immigration Levels—Reduces immigration levels (now averaging over 1,060,000 a year) by about 260,000 a year—a decrease of about 25%;
  • Increases Immigration Levels for Skilled Workers—Increases the number of green cards available in the three skilled worker green card categories from about 120,000 a year to about 175,000—an increase of 45%;
  • Agricultural Workers—Creates a workable agricultural guest worker program to grow our economy;
  • Visa Security—Sends additional ICE agents to more high-risk embassies overseas to vet visitors and immigrants;
  • Build the Border Wall—Authorizes border wall construction;
  • Advanced Technology—Additional technology, roads and other tactical infrastructure to secure the border;
  • Secures Ports of Entry—Improves, modernizes, and expands ports of entry along the southern border;
  • More Boots on the Ground—Adds 5,000 Border Patrol Agents and 5,000 CBP Officers;
  • Use of the National Guard—Authorizes the Guard to provide aviation and intelligence support for border security operations;
  • Biometric Entry-Exit System—Requires full implementation at all air, land, and sea ports of entry;
  • Makes E-Verify Mandatory—Employers must check to see that they are only hiring legal workers;
  • Cracks Down on Sanctuary Cities—Authorizes the Department of Justice to withhold law enforcement grants from sanctuary cities/allows victims to sue the sanctuary cities that released their attackers;
  • Facilitates Cooperation with Local Law Enforcement—Establishes probable cause standards for ICE detainers/indemnifies localities that comply/requires ICE enter into 287(g) agreements requested by localities;
  • Detaining Dangerous Individuals—Allows DHS to detain dangerous illegal immigrants who cannot be removed;
  • Kate’s Law—Enhances criminal penalties for deported criminals who illegally return;
  • Combats Asylum Fraud—Tightens the “credible fear” standard to root out frivolous claims and increases penalties for fraud/terminates asylum for individuals who voluntarily return home;
  • Keeps Out and Removes Dangerous Criminals—Makes illegal immigrants removable for being gang members/makes those with convictions for aggravated felonies, not registering as sex offenders, and multiple DUIs removable;
  • Visa Overstays—Makes illegal presence a federal misdemeanor (illegally crossing the border already is a crime);
  • Safely Returns Unaccompanied Minors—Ensures the safe and quick return of unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border; allows for the detention of minors apprehended at the border with their parents;
  • Legislatively Provides Legal Status—Individuals who received deferred action on the basis of being brought to the U.S. as minors get a 3-year renewable legal status allowing them to work and travel overseas (without advance parole). There is no special path to a green card. Recipients may only make use of existing paths to green cards;
  • No Criminals—No gang members or those with criminal convictions/convictions in juvenile court for serious crimes are eligible;
  • Combats Fraud—Strong anti-fraud measures/allows for prosecutions for fraud.