Is the GOP Staring at Another 1930?

Pat Buchanan warns, “The party of ‘tax and tax, spend and spend, and elect and elect’ appears to be reaching the end of its tether. Federal deficits are rising toward trillion-dollar levels,” even as the Republican base grows smaller. These are not the only factors that “point to a bad day for the GOP on Nov. 6.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After the victory of Donald Trump in 2016, the GOP held the Senate and House, two-thirds of the governorships, and 1,000 more state legislators than they had on the day Barack Obama took office.

“The Republican Party has not been this dominant in 90 years,” went the exultant claim.

A year later, Republicans lost the governorship of Virginia and almost lost the legislature.

Came then the loss of a U.S. Senate seat in ruby-red Alabama.

Tuesday, Democrats captured a House seat in a Pennsylvania district Trump carried by 20 points, and where Democrats had not even fielded a candidate in 2014 and 2016.

Republicans lately congratulating themselves on a dominance not seen since 1928 might revisit what happened to the Class of 1928.

In 1930, Republicans lost 52 House seats, portending the loss of both houses of Congress and the White House in 1932 to FDR who would go on to win four straight terms. For the GOP, the ’30s were the dreadful decade.

Is the GOP staring at another 1930?


Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Unlike 1930, though, the nation has not endured a Great Crash or gone through year one of a Great Depression where unemployment hit 10% in June, when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed.

Today, the economy is moving along smartly. The labor force is larger than it has ever been. Workers are re-entering and seeking jobs. Black and Hispanic unemployment are at record lows. Confidence is high. Our Great Recession is 10 years in the past.

The problem for Republicans may be found in a truism: When the economy is poor, the economy is the issue. When the economy is good, something else is the issue.

A good economy did not save the GOP in the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, where the party’s tax cut was derided by Democrat Conor Lamb as a wealth transfer to the rich. Nor did Lamb hurt himself by implying Republicans were planning to pay for their tax cut by robbing Social Security and Medicare.

Republican candidate Rick Saccone reportedly stopped using the tax cut as his major issue in his TV ads that ran closest to Election Day.

Other factors point to a bad day for the GOP on Nov. 6.

Republican retirees from Congress far outnumber Democratic retirees.

Democratic turnout has been reaching record highs, while GOP turnout has been normal. And even in the special elections Democrats have lost, they are outperforming the Democrats who lost in 2016.

Relying upon hostility to Trump to bring out the resistance, savvy Democrats are taking on the political coloration of their districts and states, rather than of the national party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

There is, however, troubling news from Pennsylvania for Nancy Pelosi.

Lamb promised voters of “Deerhunter” country he would not support San Francisco Nancy for speaker. Look for Democrats in districts Trump carried to begin talking of the “need for new leaders.”

Trump seems fated to be the primary target of attack this fall, and not only in districts Clinton carried. For an average of national polls shows that disapproval of his presidency is 14 points higher than his approval rating. And this is when the economy is turning up good numbers not seen in this century.

At the national level, Democrats will turn 2018 into a referendum on the Trump persona and Trump presidency. For while the Trump base is loyal and solid, the anti-Trump base is equally so, and appreciably larger.

Lest we forget, Hillary Clinton, not the most charismatic candidate the Democrats have put up in decades, beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes. And while Trump pierced the famous “blue wall”—the 18 states that voted Democratic in every presidential election between 1992 and 2012—the demographic trend that created the wall is still working.

White voters, who tend to vote Republican, continue to decline as a share of the population. Peoples of color, who vote 70 to 90% Democratic in presidential elections, are now nearly 40% of the nation.

Mass migration into America is re-enforcing that trend.

Moreover, millennials, who have many elections ahead of them, are more liberal than seniors, who have fewer elections ahead and are the GOP base.

But if Republicans face problems of demography, the party of “tax and tax, spend and spend, and elect and elect” appears to be reaching the end of its tether. Federal deficits are rising toward trillion-dollar levels.

The five largest items in the budget—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, interest on the debt—are rising inexorably. And there appears no disposition in either party to cut back on spending for education, college loans, food stamps, housing assistance or infrastructure.

If the Fed did not retain the power to control the money supply, then the fate of New Jersey and Illinois, and beyond, of Greece and Argentina, would become our national destiny.

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.


Is That Russia Troll Farm an Act of War?

President Trump says Russians are laughing at the “revelations” from Mueller’s investigation that a Russian “troll farm” used social media to influence the 2016 election–through never in support of Hillary Clinton. Yet Democrats are screaming these shenanigans are the “equivalent of Pearl Harbor.” Never mind that U.S. intelligence continues to do what it wants to influence other countries’ elections “in support of democracy.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

According to the indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Russian trolls, operating out of St. Petersburg, took American identities on social media and became players in our 2016 election.

On divisive racial and religious issues, the trolls took both sides. In the presidential election, the trolls favored Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Donald Trump, and almost never Hillary Clinton.

One imaginative Russian troll urged Trumpsters to dress up a female volunteer in an orange prison jump suit, put her in a cage on a flatbed truck, then append the slogan, “Lock Her Up!”

How grave a matter is this?

This Russian troll farm is “the equivalent (of) Pearl Harbor,” says Cong. Jerrold Nadler, who would head up the House Judiciary Committee, handling any impeachment, if Democrats retake the House.

When MSNBC’s Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians “are destroying our democratic process.” While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence, said Nadler, in its “seriousness, it is very much on a par” with Japan’s surprise attack.

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

Trump’s reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: “They are laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow.

According to Sunday’s Washington Post, the troll story is old news in Russia, where reporters uncovered it last year and it was no big deal.

While Mueller’s indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what explains the shock and the fear for “our democracy”?

Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own history?

Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government.

The Hollywood Ten, who went to prison for contempt of Congress, were secret members of a Communist Party that, directed from Moscow, controlled the Progressive Party in Philadelphia in 1948 that nominated former Vice President Henry Wallace to run against Harry Truman.

Soviet spies infiltrated the U.S. atom bomb project and shortened the time Stalin needed to explode a Soviet bomb in 1949.

As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike?

Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. When the democratically elected regime of Mohammed Morsi was overthrown, the U.S. readily accepted the coup as a victory for our side and continued aid to Egypt as tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members were imprisoned.

Are the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy under orders not to try to influence the outcome of elections in nations in whose ruling regimes we believe we have a stake?


“Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries’ elections?” Laura Ingraham asked former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend.

With a grin, Woolsey replied, “Oh, probably.”

“We don’t do that anymore though?” Ingraham interrupted. “We don’t mess around in other people’s elections, Jim?”

“Well,” Woolsey said with a smile. “Only for a very good cause.”

Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American side in foreign nations and their elections?

Did America have no active role in the “color-coded revolutions” that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?

When Republicans discuss Iran on Capitol Hill, the phrase “regime change” is frequently heard. When the “Green Revolution” took to the streets of Tehran to protest massively the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, Republicans denounced President Obama for not intervening more energetically to alter the outcome.

When China, Russia, and Egypt expel NGOs, are their suspicions that some have been seeded with U.S. agents merely marks of paranoia?

The U.S. role in the overthrow of Premier Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, and of President Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon in 1963 are established facts.

When the democratically elected Marxist Salvador Allende was overthrown in Chile in 1973, and committed suicide with an AK-47 given to him by Fidel Castro, the Nixon White House may have had no direct role. But the White House welcomed the ascendancy of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to produce evidence of collusion.

Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele, paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin agents to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the candidacy of Donald Trump. And the FBI used this disinformation to get FISA Court warrants to surveil and wiretap the Trump campaign.

Why is this conspiracy and collusion with Russians less worthy of Mueller’s attention than a troll farm in St. Petersburg?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, 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.


Trump – Middle American Radical

Many think of Donald Trump as a conservative Republican. Yet this is not the case, explains Pat Buchanan, who refers to an article arguing a more accurate description is “radical anti-progressive.” So who is this president and why are so many Americans having a hard time wrapping their brains around this “new breed” of politician? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

President Trump is the leader of America’s conservative party.

Yet not even his allies would describe him as a conservative in the tradition of Robert Taft, Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley.

In the primaries of 2016, all his rivals claimed the mantle of Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan. Yet Trump captured the party’s heart.

Who, then, and what is Donald Trump?

In a Federalist essay, “Trump Isn’t a Conservative—And That’s a Good Thing,” Frank Cannon comes close to the mark.

Trump, he writes, “would more accurately be described as a ‘radical anti-progressive’ ” who is “at war with the progressives who have co-opted American civil society.” Moreover, Trump “is willing to go further than any other previous conservative to defeat them.”

Many “elite conservatives,” writes Cannon, believe the “bedrock institutions” they treasure are “not subject to the same infectious politicization to which the rest of society has succumbed.”

This belief is naive, says Cannon, “ridiculous on its face.”

Drowning in IRS Debt? Click here for help.

“Radical anti-progressives” recognize that many institutions—the academy, media, entertainment, and the courts—have been co-opted and corrupted by the left. And as these institutions are not what they once were, they no longer deserve the respect they once had.
Yet most conservatives will only go so far in criticizing these institutions. We see this in how cradle Catholics find it difficult to criticize the Church in which they were birthed and raised, despite scandals and alterations in the liturgy and doctrine.

Trump sees many institutions as fortresses lately captured by radical progressives that must be attacked and besieged if they are to be recaptured and liberated. Cannon deals with three such politicized institutions: the media, the NFL, and the courts.

Trump does not attack freedom of the press but rather the moral authority and legitimacy of co-opted media institutions. It is what CNN has become, not what CNN was, that Trump disrespects.

These people are political enemies posturing as journalists who create “fake news” to destroy me, says Trump. Enraged media, responding, reveal themselves to be not far removed from what Trump says they are.

And, since Trump, media credibility has plummeted.

Before 2016, the NFL was an untouchable. When the league demanded that North Carolina accept the radical transgender agenda or face NFL sanctions, the Tar Heel State capitulated. When Arizona declined to make Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday in 1990, the NFL took away the Super Bowl. The Sun State caved.

This year, the league demanded respect for the beliefs and behavior of NFL players insulting Old Glory by “taking a knee” during the national anthem.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
Buchanan’s warning to the nation: On sale at the AFP Online Store!

Many conservative politicians and commentators, fearing the NFL’s almost mythic popularity in Middle America, remained mute.

But believing instinctively America would side with him, Trump delivered a full-throated defense of the flag and called for kicking the kneelers off the field, out of the game, and off the team.

“Fire them!” Trump bellowed.

And Trump triumphed. The NFL lost fans and viewers. The players ended the protests. No one took a knee at the Super Bowl.

Before Trump, the FBI was sacrosanct. But Trump savaged an insiders’ cabal at the top of the FBI he saw as having plotted to defeat him.

Trump has not attacked an independent judiciary, but courts like the Ninth Circuit, controlled by progressives and abusing their offices to advance progressive goals, and federal judges using lifetime tenure and political immunity to usurp powers that belong to the president—on immigration, for example.

Among the reasons Congress is disrespected is that it let the Supreme Court seize its power over social policy and convert itself into a judicial dictatorship—above Congress.

Trump is no Beltway conservative, writes Cannon.

“Trump doesn’t play by these ridiculous rules designed to keep conservatives stuck in a perpetual state of losing—a made-for-CNN version of the undefeated Harlem Globetrotters versus the winless Washington Generals. Trump instead seeks to fight and delegitimize any institution the Left has captured and rebuild it from the ground up.”

The Trump supporters who most relish the wars he is waging are the “Middle American Radicals,” of whom my columnist-colleague and late friend Sam Francis used to write.


There was a time such as today before in America.

After World War II, as it became clear our long-ruling liberal elites had blundered horribly in trusting Stalin, patriots arose to cleanse our institutions of treason and its fellow travelers.

The Hollywood Ten were exposed and went to jail. Nixon nailed Alger Hiss. Truman used the Smith Act to shut down Stalin’s subsidiary, the Communist Party USA. Spies in the atom bomb program were run down. The Rosenbergs went to the electric chair.

Liberals call it the “Red Scare.” And they are right to do so.

For when the patriots of the Greatest Generation like Jack Kennedy and Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy came home from the war and went after them, the nation’s Reds had never been so scared in their entire lives.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, 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


Read Newly Released House Memo Blasting FBI Here

Regular readers of AFP know that U.S. law enforcement regularly abuse their powers to investigate and arrest everyday Americans. It is no small comfort that law enforcement at the highest levels now stands accused of committing similar contentious acts against a presidential contender who was a threat to the establishment.

By AFP Staff

On Feb. 2, the House Intelligence Committee released a secret memo alleging the Justice Department abused its powers to surveil the Trump campaign.

As per the law, President Donald Trump was required to authorize the release. He could have chosen to redact key parts, but the billionaire president decided to release it in its entirety so the public could see for themselves the abusive process.

The memo was originally compiled by House Intelligence Committee staff, led by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), from classified documents provided by the Department of Justice.

The Justice Department and the FBI both objected to its release but the House and the president overruled them. Read the memo by clicking the link here.

Anybody But Romney

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts who lost both the 2008 Republican presidential primary to John McCain and the 2012 presidential election to Barack Obama, has since stayed mainly out of politics. But now, the wishy-washy candidate is eyeing the Utah U.S. Senate seat being vacated by 40-year Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch. While Romney and President Trump have gone verbally toe-to-toe over a few matters, Trump reportedly called Romney to encourage him to run in what will be a mid-term referendum on the president’s performance.

By S.T. Patrick

As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) prepares to retire after 40 years in the Senate, Mitt Romney has made recent headlines as the likely Republican replacement for Hatch on the 2018 senatorial ballot. Since losing the GOP’s presidential primary to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 and then the presidential election to President Barack Obama in 2012, Romney has for the most part steered clear of political battles.

First-term mid-term elections are usually referendums on the first two years of a new presidency. In a political environment as emotionally charged as Washington, D.C. is today, the elections of 2018 will center on President Donald Trump and a candidate’s support or opposition for the Trump agenda. Though a source close to the White House confirmed to The Salt Lake Tribune that Trump called Romney and encouraged him to run, the White House only confirmed the call and not the reason for the call.

Recently, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) said that Ken Gardner, a local businessman, phoned him to say that he had received a text from Romney.

“I’m running,” it said.

drowning in IRS debt?

In the political world of alliances, mending fences that appeared irreparably broken is not as far-fetched as it seems. In a March 2016 speech, Romney was harshly critical of Trump, declaring, “Here’s what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud.”

After Romney was critical of Trump for not releasing his tax records, Trump responded that Romney was “one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics.” After predicting that a Trump victory would mean that “the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished,” Trump called Romney “a choke artist.”

Romney publicly stated that he voted for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in the 2016 Utah caucus, but he never revealed his 2016 general election vote.

After Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, Romney congratulated him via Twitter and a phone call. Shortly thereafter, Romney met with president-elect Trump at the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey. The two reportedly discussed a possible appointment for Romney as secretary of state in the new administration. The position eventually went to Rex Tillerson.

After the August violence in Charlottesville, Romney again criticized Trump’s handling of what Romney said should have been a “defining moment” for the Trump presidency. “Whether he intended to or not, what (Trump) communicated caused racists to rejoice, minorities to weep, and the vast heart of America to mourn,” Romney wrote in a Facebook post. “The president must take remedial action in the extreme. He should address the American people, acknowledge that he was wrong, apologize. State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville.” Trump had said that there was “blame on both sides” for the violence.

After recent reports surfaced that Trump had used the expression “sh**hole countries” to describe nations like Haiti, Romney took to Twitter in response. “The poverty of an aspiring immigrant’s nation of origin is as irrelevant as their race,” Romney tweeted. “The sentiment attributed to POTUS is inconsistent (with) America’s history and antithetical to American values. May our memory of Dr. King buoy our hope for unity, greatness, and charity for all.”

Romney emerged again last November as he opposed the Alabama senate candidacy of Roy Moore. Political strategist Steve Bannon, giving a speech in support of Moore, addressed Romney directly.

“You hid behind your religion,” Bannon said. “You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice paddies in Vietnam.”

Bannon was referring to Romney’s devoted membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormons. While Romney’s religion may not present problems in Utah, the global center for Mormonism, many have expressed doubts about the religion’s legitimacy and its practices. Right or wrong, many American evangelical Christians consider Mormonism to be a non-Christian cult, while revisionists and conspiracy theorists are troubled by its structural and traditional proximity to freemasonry. The once-secret, “sacred” rituals performed by Mormons in exclusive temples are now viewable as hidden camera footage on YouTube.

If Romney arrives in Washington, D.C. as the next senator from Utah, his support will be coveted by both the White House as well as the #NeverTrumpers. The milieu of Senate Republicans who indirectly and directly have criticized the president is not small. But a newly elected Sen. Romney may not choose to blend in at all. He may, instead, choose to carve his own path—and maybe in preparation for another even-larger campaign.

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

Arpaio Will Run for Senate

Famed Arizona lawman “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio spoke with AFP about his upcoming campaign plans to run for the Arizona U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Jeff Flake. He talks about his sole reason for running, his previous election experiences, the recently concluded criminal misdemeanor contempt case brought against him by the feds and its one “loose end,” and more. 

By Mark Anderson

Former longtime Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio spoke to AFP Jan. 21 in an exclusive interview about his recently announced bid to fill the seat of departing U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). While reflecting on his 58 years in federal and state law enforcement and discussing his political views, the embattled but resilient lawman said he intends to serve for one term and feels he has a respectable chance to prevail.

“What’s good about my race is that I’m not going to make a career out of it,” he told AFP. “My sole intention is to serve the people of Arizona.”

Comparing his Senate bid with his past Maricopa County election efforts that earned him the sheriff’s post for 24 years, Arpaio is challenging mainstream-media naysayers. He points out that, since Maricopa County is larger in population and/or land area than 18 states, this statewide Senate race is not too much of a stretch, especially given his notoriety.

IRS Loses Cases

“I’ve never lost a Republican primary,” he said. “I won seven of them,” including even the 2016 sheriff’s office primary by a comfortable margin despite media efforts to scuttle his primary bid. He lost the general election to a former Phoenix police officer, amid sustained negative publicity about the government taking him to trial.

A three-way primary is already shaping up. Besides Arpaio, Republican Kelli Ward, a former state senator, is running, as is one-term GOP Congresswoman Martha McSally, a retired Air Force officer. Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is running, too, and she’ll likely have a primary challenge.

Since Sen. Flake is vacating his seat, partly over blowback from excessively ridiculing Trump’s policies, Arpaio has the advantage of not having to unseat an incumbent. He also has good statewide and national name-recognition in a border state whose two sitting senators both stump for amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“Arizonans largely continue to see illegal immigration as a major problem but believe undocumented immigrants should be treated humanely,” according to a March 2015 poll by Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

Arpaio said that his critics who see him as a rogue character “forgot all the drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs I had in the jail,” referring to humane policies he applied toward assisting prisoners, including illegal aliens.

Arpaio said that a major motivation for his Senate run is that Flake, along with the other Arizona senator, John McCain, are part of a small establishment-Republican vanguard who’ve unduly and unfairly obstructed the president’s agenda, including Trump’s pledge to stop runaway immigration, an issue on which Arpaio and Trump clearly agree.

Yet most media, Arpaio said, report as if this vanguard represents virtually the entire Senate.

“You can count the vocal ones on one hand,” Arpaio remarked. “But I don’t like what’s going on with the two senators from Arizona zeroing in on the president.”

Notably, Sens. Flake, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) are in a faction called the “gang of six,” joining forces with Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), scandal-ridden Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.). Their goal, according to a recent op-ed in The Hill, a Beltway newspaper, is to “give amnesty to millions of so-called Dreamers [those who entered the U.S. illegally as children] and their illegal-alien parents.”

Arpaio has a rather colorful background. After a U.S. Army stint from 1950-53, he became a Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police officer in 1957. He also briefly served as a Las Vegas patrolman. Pursuing higher aspirations, he was sworn in as a federal Drug Enforcement Administration officer in Chicago that year in November, while getting married the following month. He calls 1957 his banner year. He and his wife, Ava, recently celebrated 60 years of marriage.

Politically, Arpaio came out early in support of Trump in 2015. Previously, he was honorary state chairman for George W. Bush’s first campaign and supported the presidential runs of Rick Perry in 2012 and Mitt Romney in 2008. He feels he’s a loyal Republican but not a GOP “rubber stamp.”

“I do agree with the president’s policies on international trade—anything that will help the economy of our country. We should be using money spent overseas on our country, on our highways and byways,” he told AFP.

STATE of EMERGENCY: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
Related, at the AFP Bookstore: STATE of EMERGENCY.

Thus, Arpaio supports Trump on the NAFTA renegotiation, because it could rev up the U.S. economy as well as Mexico’s—a rebalancing that Arpaio believes would reduce the incentive for illegal border crossings into the U.S.

Arpaio has faced his share of media brickbats since at least 2006, when he became nationally known as a so-called “hardliner” for wanting to get a handle on the huge influx of illegal immigrants flowing into his jurisdiction. He was clobbered again when the Department of Justice sued him for his “willful” decision to disregard a 2011 federal injunction issued to bar him from continuing to arrest and detain illegal aliens during his time as sheriff.

On July 31, 2017 Arpaio was found guilty of misdemeanor criminal contempt by Judge Susan Bolton—who, according to one of Arpaio’s attorneys, Mark Goldman, improperly issued her verdict from the bench after a brief non-jury trial that ran four days and concluded July 6. Arpaio did not get the jury trial he had sought.

A loose end in those proceedings remains, in that Judge Bolton has refused to strike the misdemeanor from his record—something Arpaio is appealing. “She won’t erase my conviction,” he explained. “I was never brought before [her] and sentenced.”

When Trump pardoned Arpaio last Aug. 25, the prospect of him running for Senate was mentioned, though it wasn’t discussed at-length in major media. According to Arpaio, there’s no connection between the pardon and his Senate run.

“President Trump hasn’t called me, nor have I called him, before or since my Senate announcement,” he said, adding that the last time he spoke with Trump was by phone in November 2016 after Trump had won the presidency.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at

Earmarks Are Not the Problem

The fact increasing numbers of legislators are “willing to vote against big government than in past years” is not because the practice of earmarks was ended but because “the liberty movement has led to more liberty-minded members being elected to the House and Senate,” says Ron Paul. 

By Dr. Ron Paul

Last week President Trump urged Congress to reassert its constitutional authority to direct how federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars. Ironically, many constitutional conservatives and libertarians disagree with the president. The reason is, President Trump wants Congress to reassert its authority by bringing back earmarks.

Earmarks are line items in spending bills directing federal agencies to spend federal funds on specific projects in a representative or senator’s district or state. Congress ended the practice of earmarks several years ago after a public outcry fueled by a widespread misunderstanding of the issue.

Earmarks are added to spending bills after the spending levels have been determined. Therefore, earmarks do not increase federal spending. What earmarks do is limit the federal bureaucrats’ ability to decide how to spend taxpayer money.

When I served in Congress, I was amazed when self-proclaimed constitutionalists complained about how earmarks prevented funding of federal bureaucrats’ priorities. These “constitutionalists” seem to have forgotten that the Constitution gives Congress sole authority over deciding how taxpayer dollars should be spent.

My support for earmarks in Congress did not add one penny to the spending in the bills. I believed that some of the tax money sent to Washington should actually make it back to congressional districts rather than remain in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. In the end, I always voted against final passage of the bloated spending bills.

Some call earmarks a gateway drug to big spending. They point to how congressional leadership denied earmarks to members unless the members voted for big spending and other anti-liberty legislation. It is true that congressional leadership used earmarks to reward and punish members. During my years in Congress, earmarks for my district were stripped from bills in an (unsuccessful) attempt to make me stop voting against unconstitutional legislation.

Congressional leaders do not need earmarks to reward or punish members. They can, for example, deny plum committee assignments to those who refuse to toe the party line, or discourage donors from supporting them.

Presidents can still use the promise of federal funds to influence congressional votes. “Presidential earmarks” were crucial to passing Obamacare, and President Trump has threatened to withhold aid from states whose senators oppose his agenda. The removal of earmarks has given the president even greater influence over the legislative branch!

The fact that there are more representatives and senators willing to vote against big government than in past years has nothing to do with the lack of earmarks. Instead, the liberty movement has led to more liberty-minded members being elected to the House and Senate.

While the ideas of liberty are growing in popularity, the majority of the people and certainly most politicians still believe the U.S. government should run the economy, run the world, and run our lives. This misplaced faith in big government, not the presence of earmarks, is why most politicians vote for big spending. No politician ever said, “Now that I can’t receive earmarks, I am abandoning my support for the welfare-warfare state.”

Earmarks are a way for elected representatives to ensure their constituents’ tax dollars are spent in a manner that matches constituent priorities. Earmarks do not by themselves expand government. Those who oppose earmarks should work to stop so many Americans from demanding government-provided economic and personal security. Earmarks are not the cause of runaway spending, and removing them has done little or nothing to shrink government and regain our liberties.

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

What Is America’s Mission Now?

America’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley continues to make the U.S. look ridiculous and make public statements that do not agree with established U.S. foreign policy. When will President Trump rein her in or, better yet, replace her in this position that should truly represent the United States to the world? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Informing Iran, “The U.S. is watching what you do,” Ambassador Nikki Haley called an emergency meeting Friday of the Security Council regarding the riots in Iran. The session left her and us looking ridiculous.

France’s ambassador tutored Haley that how nations deal with internal disorders is not the council’s concern. Russia’s ambassador suggested the United Nations should have looked into our Occupy Wall Street clashes and how the Missouri cops handled Ferguson.

Fifty years ago, 100 U.S. cities erupted in flames after Martin Luther King’s assassination. Federal troops were called in. In 1992, Los Angeles suffered the worst U.S. riot of the 20th century, after the LA cops who pummeled Rodney King were acquitted in Simi Valley.

Was our handling of these riots any business of the UN?

Conservatives have demanded that the UN keep its nose out of our sovereign affairs since its birth in 1946. Do we now accept that the UN has authority to oversee internal disturbances inside member countries?

Friday’s session fizzled out after Iran’s ambassador suggested the Security Council might take up the Israeli-Palestinian question or the humanitarian crisis produced by the U.S.-backed Saudi war on Yemen.

The episode exposes a malady of American foreign policy. It lacks consistency, coherence, and moral clarity, treats friends and adversaries by separate standards, and is reflexively interventionist.

Thus has America lost much of the near-universal admiration and respect she enjoyed at the close of the Cold War.

This hubristic generation has kicked it all away.

Consider. Is Iran’s handling of these disorders more damnable than the thousands of extrajudicial killings of drug dealers attributed to our Filipino ally Rodrigo Duterte, whom the president says is doing an “unbelievable job”?

And how does it compare with Gen. Abdel el-Sissi’s 2012 violent overthrow of the elected president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, and Sissi’s imprisonment of scores of thousands of followers of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Is Iran really the worst situation in the Middle East today?

Hassan Rouhani is president after winning an election with 57% of the vote. Who elected Mohammed bin Salman crown prince and future king of Saudi Arabia?

Vladimir Putin, too, is denounced for crimes against democracy for which our allies get a pass.

In Russia, Christianity is flourishing and candidates are declaring against Putin. Some in the Russian press regularly criticize him.

How is Christianity faring in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?

It is alleged that Putin’s regime is responsible for the death of several journalists. But there are more journalists behind bars in the jails of our NATO ally Turkey than in any other country in the world.

Suicide of a Superpower cover Patrick Buchanan
Have a look at Pat Buchanan’s books in the AFP Bookstore.

When does the Magnitsky Act get applied to Turkey?

What the world too often sees is an America that berates its adversaries for sins against our “values,” while giving allies a general absolution if they follow our lead.

A day has not gone by in 18 months that we have not read or heard of elite outrage over the Kremlin attack on “our democracy,” with the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails.

How many even recall the revelation in 2015 that China hacked the personnel files of millions of U.S. government employees, past, present and prospective?

While China persecutes Christians, Russia supports a restoration of Christianity after 70 years of Leninist rule.

In Putin’s Russia, the Communist Party is running a candidate against him. In China, the Communist Party exercises an absolute monopoly of political power and nobody runs against Xi Jinping.

China’s annexation of the Paracel and Spratly Islands and the entire South China Sea is meekly protested, while Russia is endlessly castigated for its bloodless retrieval of a Crimean peninsula that was recognized as Russian territory under the Romanovs.

China, with several times Russia’s economy and 10 times her population, is far the greater challenger to America’s standing as lone superpower. Why, then, this tilt toward China?

Among the reasons U.S. foreign policy lacks consistency and moral clarity is that we Americans no longer agree on what our vital interests are, who our real adversaries are, what our values are, or what a good and godly country looks like.

Was JFK’s America a better country than Obama’s America?

World War II and the Cold War gave us moral clarity. If you stood against Hitler, even if you were a moral monster like Joseph Stalin, we partnered with you.

From Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946 to the end of the Cold War, if you stood with us against the “Evil Empire” of Reagan’s depiction, even if you were a dictator like Gen. Pinochet or the Shah, you were welcome in the camp of the saints.

But now that a worldwide conversion to democracy is no longer America’s mission in the world, what exactly is our mission?

“Great Britain has lost an empire,” said Dean Acheson in 1962, “but not yet found a role.”

Something of the same may fairly be said of us today.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, 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 Bookstore


Hollywood Butchers Real History

“The Post,” a new movie from Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg about the famed Pentagon Papers that Daniel Ellsberg released to The New York Times in 1971, ignores the role of The Washington Post‘s CIA-controlled editors and long history of promoting U.S. intelligence agency propaganda. Instead, the movie promotes the “legend” of the paper as a stalwart American institution.

By S.T. Patrick

In the new film “The Post,” Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg have once again crumpled up real history in favor of boosting the legend of a mainstream American institution. Their previous attempt, “Parkland,” which was a failure at the box office, propped up the questionable work of both Vincent Bugliosi and the Warren Commission. This time the deific canonization by two of Hollywood’s most powerful players is reserved for executive editor Ben Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham of The Washington Post.

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst working for the RAND Corporation, released to The New York Times what would commonly be known as “the Pentagon Papers,” a top-secret study of American decision-making in Vietnam. The released report cast doubt on the U.S. government’s honesty regarding its Vietnam War policy. It was White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman who emphasized the substantial importance of the release to President Richard Nixon, who initially did not grasp the Ellsberg releases as a matter of grave importance.

“To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook,” Haldeman told Nixon on June 14, 1971. “But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing. . . . You can’t trust the government, you can’t believe what they say, and you can’t rely on their judgment. And the . . . implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it’s wrong, and the president can be wrong.”

Attorney General John Mitchell sent a telegram to the Times, demanding that they stop publication of “the Pentagon Papers,” but the Times refused and continued the publication. The government then sued to halt publication. Though the paper eventually won New York Times Co. v. United States at the Supreme Court, an earlier appellate court had ordered the publication to be halted.

Correctly anticipating federal legal action against The New York Times, Ellsberg had distributed “the Pentagon Papers” to over 30 newspapers and private contacts. It was a guerrilla strategy based upon information-by-attrition. Although The Washington Post, featured in the new movie, was one of the papers that received the distributed report, they were neither more nor less important to the story than any of the others.


Jim DiEugenio of wrote, “Once Ellsberg made his decision to go public with the [LBJ Secretary of Defense] Robert McNamara-commissioned top-secret history, it was just a matter of how many newspapers would pick up the story after The New York Times initially published it.”

DiEugenio pointed out that in Ellsberg’s 457-page Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (2002) Bradlee is mentioned only once and Graham is not mentioned at all. “The Post” obviously did not use Ellsberg’s Secrets as source material for the script.

The Washington Post is no stranger to playing the public relations and media saturation games in order to create the mythology that it owned a consequential story. Though similar reporting was being done by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and others—often before The Washington Post—the official story of Watergate is now synonymous with the Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose account became a best-selling book and a major motion picture.

Critics of The Washington Post have long asserted that the newspaper has been used as a cover-up asset for U.S. intelligence. Woodward, for example, was portrayed by All the President’s Men as a hungry, young reporter who had been an outsider writing about filthy restaurants. In reality, Woodward had worked at the Pentagon under Adm. Thomas Moorer. According to “,” Woodward ran the communications center and was responsible for the delivery of messages from the Pentagon to the White House and the National Security Council. While performing these duties, Woodward nurtured a connection with Gen. Alexander Haig, who some researchers claim later provided Woodward with some of the information attributed to “Deep Throat,” Woodward’s anonymous source.

In recent years, Accuracy in Media (AIM) has criticized the Post’s lack of transparency regarding the ties of Jeff Bezos to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency. Bezos, the founder, chairman, and CEO of, purchased the Post for $250 million in 2013. He has also brokered for Amazon a $600 million contract with the CIA.

Last December, the Post was the preferred outlet for anonymous CIA leaks regarding Trump and Russia. An unnamed source told the Post that a secret CIA report had concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election for Trump.

Glenn Greenwald of online news source “The Intercept” wrote about the “explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.”

In April, critics blasted the Post for allowing a lobbyist from Raytheon—which manufactures Tomahawk cruise missiles—to publish pro-war editorials without disclosing his background. After the missile strikes in Syria, Raytheon’s stock skyrocketed.

Whether influencing Hollywood productions in an attempt to disfigure credible history or allowing the infiltration of anonymous CIA influences, The Washington Post has a problem that is both historical and current.

In their perpetual drive to be the paper of record on every story that traversed the Graham dynasty, it is now apparent that the Post—the newspaper and its depiction on film—is an untrustworthy media source for those who actually prefer their truth to be truthful.

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

The Times Rides to Mueller’s Rescue

The New York Times has explained it was not the “dirty dossier” from former spy Christopher Steele, paid for by the Democrats, that led to the FBI’s endless investigation of President Trump for supposedly colluding with Russia to steal the election. Rather, a drunken disclosure of information to the Australian ambassador to the U.S. prompted the massive counterintelligence investigation during the campaign. But Pat Buchanan raises numerous questions about this new “disclosure.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the Trump presidency?

As James Comey’s FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove Donald Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting this investigation?

What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump’s team?

Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as Mueller’s men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.

Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap warrants of Trump’s team are said to have been issued on the basis of a “dirty dossier” that was floating around town in 2016—but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could not validate its lurid allegations.

Who produced the dossier?

Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Writes the Washington Times, Steele “paid Kremlin sources with Democratic cash.”


Yet, if Steele’s dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier’s contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem.

Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his investigation discredited.

Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year’s Eve by a major revelation in The New York Times. Top headline on page one:

“Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry”

The story that followed correctly framed the crucial question:

“What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?”

The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for:

“It was not, as Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.”

The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an “upscale London Bar” in the West End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton’s emails.

Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June, Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government, which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.

The Times’s story pounds home this version of events:

“The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Trump’s associates conspired.”

This, the Times assures us, “answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year.”

Well, perhaps.

But if Papadopoulos’s drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017?

According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he had learned from the Russians.

And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.

If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him—as compared to Steele?

Yet another major question remains unanswered.

If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking “into Russian attempts to disrupt the elections,” why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?

If Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation?

Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign’s ties to Russian agents than to Trumpian “collusion” that is yet unproven?

Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished:

They have kept alive a special counsel’s investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI’s reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government.

Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, 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 Bookstore


Was the Democrat-funded Steele dossier a basis of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation?


By Robert Romano

It was not the Democratic National Committee- and Hillary Clinton campaign-funded Fusion GPS-Christopher Steele junk dossier in 2016 that caused the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, but George Papadopoulos’s meetings with supposed Russian agents to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

That is the narrative now being fed by the mainstream media. According to The New York Times’s “bombshell” report published on Dec. 30, 2017, “when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.”

So, let’s take a look at the timeline.

The Democratic National Committee emails began appearing on WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016.

Part of the Steele dossier named former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page as one of the top Russian colluders on July 19, 2016.

Page had appeared on YouTube published July 7, 2016, speaking at the New Economic School’s commencement ceremony in Moscow, which appeared to form part of the basis for Steele’s assertion.

So, by the time Australia tipped off the U.S. about Papadopoulos, Steele had already fingered Page in his own investigation on Trump-Russia collusion.

IRS Loses Cases

Later, after WikiLeaks published on July 22, 2016, Steele alleged then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was at the heart of the conspiracy to work with Russia to put the emails onto WikiLeaks, with Page as the intermediary. According to the dossier, it was “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.”

Steele defined the conspiracy explicitly: “The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the WikiLeaks platform. The reason for using WikiLeaks was ‘plausible deniability,’ and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team. In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue. . . .”

Eventually, at some point, a FISA court warrant was taken out on Page, perhaps based on the dossier.

What is controversial is not whether Australia tipped off the U.S. about Papadopoulos before or after the Page warrant was ordered. It is whether Page’s civil rights were violated and a national security investigation via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court was ordered into the Trump campaign using a Democrat-funded political hit piece. Why?

Because according to the law, to get a warrant on Page, there needed to be probable cause that he specifically was acting as a foreign agent. Besides the Steele dossier, what evidence has been presented that he was acting as an agent? Was that the basis for the FISA court warrant?

What if it was inaccurate, and Manafort and Page were never coordinating with Russia on helping the DNC emails appearing on Wikileaks at all?

Plot to Scapegoat Russia book cover
For more on this topic, consider this related book, from the AFP Bookstore.

Then what you have are not only Steele’s sources being in question, if they even existed, but, Papadopoulos or no, you have the Democrats paying a British former spy to produce an intelligence dossier to pin their own troubles, that is, embarrassing emails being published in the news, on Trump in an outlandish foreign conspiracy theory.

Next, the Obama administration used that allegation to justify a full-scale counterintelligence investigation into the opposition party in an election year, which is now leading to prosecutions for anyone unfortunate enough to have been questioned by the FBI without having an attorney present.

It should not be overlooked that once campaign officials like Page or Manafort had FISA warrants into them, all their contacts with the campaign would have been subjected to surveillance as well.

Nothing in the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s guilty plea deal with Papadopoulos for lying to investigators will make any of that any better. Again, FISA court warrants are only supposed to be issued on individuals for probable cause that that individual specifically is acting as a foreign agent.

So even if Papadopoulos had communicated with Russian or other foreign contacts, that generally could not have been used to secure a warrant against Page for the same, unless those contacts had actually implicated Page like the dossier did.

Therefore, The New York Times’s “bombshell” appears to be more designed to deflect attention away from the egregious violation of rights and abuse of the nation’s intelligence powers that using the Democrat-funded dossier on Page and others would entail than it suggests that Papadopoulos’s foreign contacts somehow justified how the rest of the investigation was carried out.

There are other troubling questions. For starters, Papadopoulos was not questioned by the FBI until 2017, after the election had occurred. Was there a warrant to investigate his emails, which formed the basis for the guilty plea that he lied to investigators? If so, when was it obtained? When was Page’s warrant obtained?

Finally, was the Democrat-funded dossier, or information from the dossier, used to obtain FISA court warrants against Trump campaign and then transition officials?

Papadopoulos’s limited involvement in this whole affair does not begin to justify the breadth of the investigation that was undertaken by the Obama administration into the Trump campaign. They needed more. And the Steele dossier might have been just the thing that did the trick.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

Unlike Nixon, Trump Will Not Go Quietly

Patrick Buchanan compares Watergate to Russiagate, and President Trump to President Nixon, and concludes if the situation should become even more similar, Donald Trump is not likely to “go quietly.”

By Patrick Buchanan

On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard Nixon bowed to the inevitability of impeachment and conviction by a Democratic Senate and resigned.

The prospect of such an end for Donald Trump has this city drooling. Yet, comparing Russiagate and Watergate, history is not likely to repeat itself.

First, the underlying crime in Watergate, a break-in to wiretap offices of the DNC, had been traced, within 48 hours, to the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

In Russiagate, the underlying crime—the “collusion” of Trump’s campaign with the Kremlin to hack into the emails of the DNC—has, after 18 months of investigating, still not been established.

Campaign manager Paul Manafort has been indicted, but for financial crimes committed long before he enlisted with Trump.

Liberty Stickers

Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty to lying about phone calls he made to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but only after Trump had been elected and Flynn had been named national security adviser.

Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.

This is what security advisers do.

Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.

Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn.

But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority.

And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been “extremely careless” in transmitting security secrets over her private email server.

We now know that the first draft of Comey’s statement described Clinton as “grossly negligent,” the precise statute language for an indictment.

We also now know that helping to edit Comey’s first draft to soften its impact was Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia, received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel—to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey’s predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller.

IRS Loses Cases

Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump’s travel ban.

FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend.

Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton’s email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.

In Mueller’s tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a connection between Hillary’s campaign and Russian spies—to find dirt to smear and destroy Trump and his campaign—has been fairly well established.

By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on Trump.

Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels.

While the truth of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey’s FBI rose like a hungry trout on learning of its contents.

There are credible allegations Comey’s FBI sought to hire Steele and used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump—and that its contents were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.

This week, we learned that the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing is starting to stink.

Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree?

Is Mueller’s Dump Trump team investigating the wrong campaign?

There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the Deep State-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment.

Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him, and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him.

Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner’s sword fall with dignity.

If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly.

In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there’s gonna be a “whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on.”

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, 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 Bookstore


Why Roy Moore Matters

Why would anyone vote for Roy Moore, given the recent accusations against him of sexually inappropriate behavior with young girls? Patrick Buchanan argues the stakes are simply too high not to do so. 

By Patrick Buchanan

Why would Christian conservatives in good conscience go to the polls Dec. 12 and vote for Judge Roy Moore, despite the charges of sexual misconduct with teenagers leveled against him? Answer: That Alabama Senate race could determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes.

Republicans now hold 52 Senate seats. If Democrats pick up the Alabama seat, they need only two more to recapture the Senate, and with it the power to kill any conservative court nominee, as they killed Robert Bork.

Today, the GOP, holding Congress and the White House, has a narrow path to capture the Third Branch, the Supreme Court, and to dominate the federal courts for a decade. For this historic opportunity, the party can thank two senators, one retired, the other still sitting.

The first is former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

In 2013, Harry exercised the “nuclear option,” abolishing the filibuster for President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees. The Senate no longer needed 60 votes to confirm judges. Fifty-one Senate votes could cut off debate and confirm.

Iowa’s Chuck Grassley warned Harry against stripping the minority of its filibuster power. Such a move may come back to bite you, he told Harry. Grassley is now judiciary committee chairman.

And this year a GOP Senate voted to use the nuclear option to shut down a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, who was then confirmed with 55 votes.

Yet the Democratic minority still had one card to play to block President Trump’s nominees—the “blue slip courtesy.”

If a senator from the state where a federal judicial nominee resides asks for a hold on proceedings, by not returning a blue slip, the judiciary committee has traditionally honored that request and not held hearings.

Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota used the blue slip to block the Trump nomination of David Stras of Minnesota to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Franken calls Stras too ideological, too conservative.

But Grassley has now decided to reject the blue slip courtesy for appellate court judges, since their jurisdiction is not just over a single state like Minnesota, but over an entire region.

Thus have the skids been greased for a conservative recapture of the federal judiciary unseen since the early days of FDR.

Eighteen of the 179 seats on the U.S. appellate courts and 119 of the 677 seats on federal district courts are already open. More will be opening up. No president in decades has seen the opportunity Trump has to remake the federal judiciary.

Not only are the federal court vacancies almost unprecedented, a GOP Senate and Trump are working in harness to fill them before January 2019, when a new Congress is sworn in.

If Republicans blow this opportunity, it is unlikely to come again. For the Supreme Court has seemed within Republican grasp before, only to have it slip away because of presidential errors.

Nixon had four nominees to the Supreme Court confirmed and Gerald Ford saw his nominee, John Paul Stevens, unanimously confirmed. But of those five justices confirmed from 1969 to 1976, Stevens and Harry Blackmun joined the liberal bloc, and Chief Justice Warren Burger and Lewis Powell voted for Roe v. Wade.

Of Reagan’s three Supreme Court nominees confirmed, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy cast crucial votes in 5-4 decisions to defeat the strict constructionists led by Antonin Scalia.

George H.W. Bush named Clarence Thomas to the court, but only after he had elevated David Souter, who also joined the liberal bloc.

Hence, both Trump, by whom he nominates, and a Republican Senate, with its power to confirm with 51 votes, are indispensable if we are to end judicial dictatorship in America.

And 2018 is the crucial year.

While Democrats, with 25 Senate seats at risk, would seem to be facing more certain losses than the GOP, with one-third as many seats at stake, history teaches that the first off-year election of Trump could prove a disaster.

Consider. Though Ike ended the Korean War in his first year, he lost both Houses of Congress in his second. Reagan enacted one of the great tax cuts in history in his first year, and then lost 26 seats in the House in his second.

Bill Clinton lost control of both the House and Senate in his first off-year election. Barack Obama in 2010 lost six Senate seats and 54 seats and control of the House. And both presidents were more popular than Trump is today.

If the election in Virginia this year is a harbinger of what is to come, GOP control of Congress could be washed away in a tidal wave in 2018.

Hence, this coming year may be a do-or-die year to recapture the third branch of government for conservatism.

Which is why that Dec. 12 election in Alabama counts.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, 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 Bookstore. 


Left Wingers in a Tizzy Over New Jimmy Carter Interview

Former President Jimmy Carter pulled no punches in a recent interview with The New York Times, and his somewhat surprising critique of certain left-leaning politicians has his usually laudatory supporters unnerved.

By S.T. Patrick

Once hailed as a great president and an even greater ex-president by the political and historical left, Jimmy Carter has now unnerved his loyal followers by declaring in an Oct. 21 New York Times interview that the Russians didn’t steal the 2016 election for President Donald Trump, that Barack Obama woefully underperformed in his two-term presidency, that he and wife Rosalynn didn’t vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the primaries, that the media has been harder on Trump than any other president, and that NFL players should stand for the national anthem.

The headline assigned by the Times was that Carter “lusts” to go to North Korea as a special envoy for the Trump administration. Following this narrative would be par for the modern journalistic course that largely favors a view of Carter as the “Great Peacemaker” as much as President Ronald Reagan was the “Great Communicator.”

When asked if the Russians purloined the 2016 election from Clinton, Carter answered that he “[doesn’t] think there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes, or any votes.” The Carter Center, which the former president founded in 1982, has a positive working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The discussion of the Clinton loss prompted the Carters to reveal that they did not vote for Mrs. Clinton in the party primaries.

“We voted for Bernie (Sanders),” the former president noted. When the Times asked Carter to compare the Clinton Foundation with the Carter Center, he firmly replied, “Rosie and I put money in the Carter Center. We never take money out.”

Asked to assess the “hope and change” that was to characterize the Obama legacy, Carter seemed unimpressed, especially on issues in the Middle East.

“He made some very wonderful statements, in my opinion, when he first got in office,” Carter said, “and then he reneged on that.” He noted specifically that Obama refused to dialogue with North Korea and took part in the bombing of Yemen, which Carter referred to as the most interesting place he has ever been.

A recent Harvard University study showed that 93% of the media coverage regarding Trump has been negative. Carter didn’t disagree.

“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter said. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The Carters still reside in Plains, Ga., 150 miles from Atlanta, home of the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons. While a vast majority of the left are backing the decision of many NFL players not to stand during the national anthem, Carter believes differently.

“I think they ought to find a different way to object, to demonstrate,” he said. “I would rather see all the players stand during the American anthem.”

As evidenced by his appearance at a recent hurricane relief fundraiser, Carter still chooses to place his hand over his heart during the anthem. It is not overly surprising that Carter would accept a Trump posting as special envoy to North Korea. The Carter Center believes in talking to dictators as a means by which peace can be waged.

Carter believes he was successful when he flew to Pyongyang in 1994 and struck a deal with Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of current leader Kim Jong-un. Despite President Bill Clinton’s public objections to Carter’s unilateral diplomacy, some historians believe that Clinton privately accepted, encouraged, and guided Carter’s negotiations with Kim Il-sung.

Carter questions the level of Chinese influence over the current North Korean regime.

“(W)e greatly overestimate China’s influence on North Korea, particularly to Kim Jong-un,” Carter said. “He’s never, so far as I know, been to China. And they have no relationship. Kim Jong-il did go to China and was very close to them.”

Carter relayed his availability through National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who asked to sit next to the former president at the funeral of globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski.

“I told him I was available if they ever need me,” Carter said.

Surprising to some, Carter also seemed optimistic that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner could make progress in Saudi Arabia. Trump pointed to the family ties as a potential benefit to progress.

“I’ve seen in the Arab world, including the Palestinian world,” he said, “the high esteem that they pay to a member of one’s own family.”

Carter and Trump do have a history, as outlined in Trump’s 1987 book The Art of the Deal. Carter visited Trump to ask for $5 million to help build his presidential library. Trump turned him down.

It is not unusual for former presidents to take a giant leap for political independence as they age. Harry Truman questioned his own decision to form the Central Intelligence Agency. Richard Nixon wrote a series of foreign policy books not tied to the strategies of either mainstream party. The Bushes have often worked with the Clintons, even forming a joint foundation.

Carter’s newfound support for the Trump administration, as well as his anti-Clinton rhetoric, is sure to send a measurable level of shock-and-awe through Democratic National Committee offices busily strategizing every county for 2020. Yet it has made Carter interesting in such a way that there is now widespread speculation over what his next move will be.

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

Hypocrites in D.C. Cover for Deviants?

If Roy Moore were an insider, Congress would probably ignore the recent allegations of sexual impropriety against him. As a populist he poses a far greater threat to the GOP business-as-usual. 

By Sophia Meyer

Accusations of sexual impropriety with teenage girls—and now a claim of attempted rape—continue to mount against former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Best known for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments statue from his courthouse and for ordering state probate judges to deny same-sex marriage licenses, Moore is currently the GOP candidate for the Alabama Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.

Republican politicians and pundits are quickly distancing themselves from Moore, but it seems clear that they are more motivated by the threat Moore poses to their leadership than a desire to stop sexual perversion given the GOP leadership’s past support for deviants.

In a Nov. 9 Washington Post article, three women claimed Moore inappropriately flirted with them when they were between 14 and 18 years old. Another woman, the article disclosed, also claims Moore sexually touched her when she was 14. At the time, Moore was an assistant district attorney in his early 30s.

Three of Moore’s four accusers told the Post they found his flirtation “flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older.” With Moore having just won the primary, they’ve apparently become troubled enough to publicly accuse him.

Moore immediately denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated, and threatened to sue the Post and other newspapers reporting what he is calling “libelous” news.

Liberty Stickers

At a Nov. 13 press conference, another woman accused Moore of attempted rape when she was 15, reports “The Daily Beast.” Beverly Young Nelson said Moore choked her as he attempted to remove her clothes, then warned her when she escaped from his car not to tell anyone because she would not be believed. “You are a child. I am the District Attorney of Etowah County,” he said. And on Nov. 15, two more women accused Moore of inappropriately pursuing them as teens.

The Washington Times reports “Republicans in Washington have gone to war” with Moore. With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leading the charge, politicians from Mitt Romney to Ohio Gov. John Kasich to Sen. John McCain, (Ariz.), Sen. Pat Toomey (Penn.), and Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) are calling for Moore to “step aside.”

The White House, via statements from Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, maintains the position that if the allegations are proven true, Moore should step down.

Even President Donald Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon of “Breitbart News” is beginning to indicate he may abandon the Moore campaign ship. Publicly, Bannon said on Monday, “This is just another desperate attempt by Mitch McConnell to keep power, and it’s not going to work.” But “The Daily Beast” reports Bannon’s private conversations are not nearly as supportive.

When it comes to the Senate seat, the GOP establishment initially supported Moore’s strongest opponent, Sen. Luther Strange. A longtime “good old boy,” Strange was a safe choice for those who want to maintain GOP politics-as-usual. The populist Moore, on the other hand, had the backing of Bannon and his fellow anti-establishment Republicans at Breitbart. Growing support for populist-leaning, America-first candidates poses a significant threat to the GOP establishment.

IRS Loses Cases

Thus, it seems likely mainstream Republicans’ immediate demands for Moore’s withdrawal may have much more to do with the potential threat to their control than any concern over his perceived ethical shortcomings or even criminal behavior. After all, the GOP has a history of avoiding, denying, and even covering up the sexual crimes and deviancy within their own party.

  • Speaker of the House and pedophile Denny Hastert (Ill.) paid $3.5 million in hush-money to buy a former student’s silence and eventually admitted in court to sexually abusing boys while he was a high school wrestling coach. Yet before his sentencing, 41 people including former congressmen, a former CIA chief and Tom Delay, former House Majority Leader, wrote to the judge requesting leniency for Hastert.
  • Florida Rep. Mark Foley, an outspoken crusader against child pornography, resigned after his penchant for exchanging sexually explicit messages and photos with young male congressional aides came to light. Ironically, Foley’s resignation was tendered in response to a threat from Hastert to “resign or be expelled” when it became clear leadership could no longer maintain silence on his perversions.

Hastert and Foley are only two obvious examples, but there are many more who demonstrate that the Republican leadership is more interested in power and money than doing what is right for the country.

Yet another example of corruption and sexual perversion in the GOP is former Utah Sen. Larry Craig. In 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis airport after he propositioned a male undercover police officer for illicit acts in a men’s bathroom. At first, Craig pled guilty to the crime and said he would resign from his position. Shortly thereafter, he changed his mind and said he planned to stay. He was allowed to serve out the rest of his term in the Senate but did not seek re-election. While certain members of the Senate did condemn Craig for his actions, Sen. Mitch Mc-Connell, who was Senate minority leader, only questioned whether Craig should hold leadership positions in committees.

Other notable Republican deviants include:

  • Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who was outed by the infamous D.C. Madam for hiring prostitutes;
  • Indiana state Rep. Phillip Hinkle, who was busted after he paid an 18-year-old man for illicit acts;
  • Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who had multiple affairs with women while married; and
  • Chris Meyers, the ex-mayor of Redford, N.J., who was outed in the national press for paying men for illicit acts.

None of these men faced the level of condemnation that Moore has so far, leading objective observers to deduce that Moore’s populist, America-first leanings are more concerning to Republican leaders than any sexual improprieties he may have committed.

Sophia Meyer is a freelance journalist, proofreader and web editor based in Florida. She welcomes your comments. Please send her a letter c/o AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.