Globalists & Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?

Since their beginnings in 18th-century Britain, free-trade proponents have been tirelessly working to globalize our world, much to the consternation of patriotic countrymen everywhere. Nationalism is rising, however. As Buchanan writes, “The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx of foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

This free-trade, open-borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

“I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe—drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the “American System,” had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people . . . should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing, and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience.

At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence.

They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life and establish new bonds of mutual dependency—among Americans.

Britain’s folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies, and arms she needed to survive but could not produce.

America’s own first major steps toward free trade, open borders, and globalism came with JFK’s Trade Expansion Act and LBJ’s Immigration Act of 1965.

By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country.

Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation’s manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this Earth there is no greater loss.

The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.

We see it in Trump’s hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.

We see it in England’s declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian, and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.

Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med, desperate to come and occupy their homelands.

Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?

The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer—a world of free trade, open borders, and global government—are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart.

Men will fight for family, faith, and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?

Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?

On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.

Patriotism trumps ideology.

In Present at the Creation, Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The UN, IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.

We are present now at the end of all that.

And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.

To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence, and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

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.


The Eternal Lure of Nationalism

While the global elites continue to argue we must become “one happy global family” for the good of the planet, people everywhere are choosing nationalism instead. Examples from the winter Olympic games, Putin’s popularity, the Brexit vote, and our own “America-first” focus suggest the NWO is not winning this argument.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In a surprise overtime victory in the finals of the Olympic men’s hockey tournament, the Russians defeated Germany, 4-3.

But the Russians were not permitted to have their national anthem played or flag raised, due to a past doping scandal. So, the team ignored the prohibition and sang out the Russian national anthem over the sounds of the Olympic anthem.

One recalls the scene in “Casablanca,” where French patrons of Rick’s saloon stood and loudly sang the “La Marseillaise” to drown out the “Die Wacht am Rhein” being sung by a table of German officers.

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

When the combined North-South Korean Olympic team entered the stadium, Vice President Mike Pence remained seated and silent. But tens of thousands of Koreans stood and cheered the unified team.

America may provide a defensive shield for the South, but Koreans on both sides of the DMZ see themselves as one people. And, no fool, Kim Jong Un is exploiting the deep tribal ties he knows are there.

Watching the Russians defiantly belt out their anthem, one recalls also the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City where sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium, black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial identity.

Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about.

Some attendees at the CPAC conclave this past week were appalled that Britain’s Nigel Farage and France’s Marion Le Pen were present.

But Farage was the man most responsible for Brexit, the historic British decision to leave the EU. Le Pen is perhaps the most popular figure in a National Front (NF) Party that won 35% of the vote in the runoff election won by President Emmanuel Macron.

And the most unifying stand of the NF appears to be “Let France Be France!” The French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and the Islamic world.

New World Order In Action, Vol. 1, by Takis Fotopolous
“Globalization, the Brexit Revolution and the ‘Left’ ” – Order now from AFP Online Store while this book is on sale!

They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?

Is preservation of a country, the national family one grew up in, not conservative?

In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant.

Globalists may see the UN, EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a “universal nation” of all races, tribes, cultures, and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grandparents had, a nation-state that is all their own.

Nationalists like Farage, who seek to pull their countries out of socialist superstates like the EU, and peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.

Why are European peoples who wish to halt mass migration from across the Med, to preserve who and what they are, decried as racists?

Did not the peoples of African and Middle Eastern countries, half a century ago, expel the European settlers who helped to build those countries?

The Rhodesia of Spitfire pilot Ian Smith was a jewel of a nation of 250,000 whites and several million blacks that produced trade surpluses even when boycotted and sanctioned by a hating world.

When Smith was forced to yield power, “Comrade Bob” Mugabe took over and began the looting of white Rhodesians and led his Shona tribesmen in a slaughter of the Matabele of rival Joshua Nkomo.

Eighty-five percent of the white folks who lived in Rhodesia, prior to “majority rule,” are gone from Zimbabwe. More than half of the white folks who made South Africa the most advanced and prosperous country on the continent are gone.

Are these countries better places than they were? For whom?

Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade, and global custody of mankind’s destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution.

Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future?

Consider the largest countries on Earth. In China, ethnonationalism, not the ruling Communist Party, unites and inspires 1.4 billion people to displace the Americans as the first power on Earth.

Nationalism sustains Vladimir Putin. Nationalism and its unique identity as a Hindu nation unites and powers India.

Here, today, it is “America-first” nationalism.

Indeed, now that George W. Bush’s crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit’s Children’s Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

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


Bilderberg Group Reveals 2018 Meeting Date, Location

With more advance notice than ever before, the Bilderberg Group has revealed its 2018 meeting location and dates in an invitation to Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic issued following the recent World Economic Forum in Davos where Ms. Brnabic spoke.

By Mark Anderson

More advance notice than ever before has been given this year regarding where and when the infamous, highly secretive Bilderberg Group will next meet. Apparently, the “Bilderbergers,” as they’re often called, will return to Italy for the first time in 14 years, having last met there in 2004 in the city of Stresa.

According to a Jan. 29 news item at the Independent Balkan News Agency (IBNA) website, Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic “received an official invitation to the Bilderberg meeting of this year, which will be held in Turin, Italy, June 7-10.” AFP will continue to monitor this matter, in case Bilderberg changes its meeting plans.

Besides the Stresa meeting, the Bilderberg Group has met in Italy two other times, in April 1987 and April 1965, both in Villa d’Este.

Bilderbergers Puppet Masters Cover
How much influence do the Bilderbergers really have? Learn more at AFP’s Bookstore.

The 2018 meeting will represent the 66th time the Bilderbergers have gathered. The group first met in 1954 at the Hotel De Bilderberg in the Netherlands—hence its name—with the help of CIA funds that were floated to nurture the early European Movement. The movement planted the seeds for the European Union superstate, according to Richard Aldrich, professor of international security at the University of Warwick in England.

The Bilderberg Group meets annually at the world’s most ritzy hotels and resorts, surrounded by an armada of armed private security and local police, for a closed-door, three-day forum involving about 140 top corporate titans, technology gurus, select royalty, central bankers, former and current intelligence officials, think-tank fellows, and select reporters and editors who leave their ethics and notebooks at the gate. The sitting head of NATO attends every year. Most attendees come from Europe and North America.

The group is managed by a 31-member steering committee that currently includes nine Americans, including Alphabet Inc. executive chairman Eric Schmidt, NEOM CEO Klaus Kleinfeld, Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp, and Marie-Josée Kravis, a Hudson Institute fellow and president of the American Friends of Bilderberg—which raises funds for the group’s meetings but claims to be a type of charity in its Form 990 tax filings—even though its “charitable” activities are reported as addressing issues surrounding the transatlantic alliance.

True Story of Bilderberg Group
What’s the truth about this shadowy group? Find out from AFP’s Bookstore.

IBNA specified that Ms. Brnabic’s presentation to the New Leaders for Europe meeting at the recently held World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland—an annual, comparatively open confab of high flyers from government, business, entertainment, technology, and academia—was reportedly impressive enough “to grant her access to one of the most prestigious annual meetings worldwide, the Bilderberg Group.”

The invitation came from Bilderberg Steering Committee Chairman Henri de Castries, former chairman and CEO of multinational insurance company AXA Group. In the fall of 2015, this AFP writer, for an exclusive report, caught up with de Castries when he gave a speech at the Brookings Institution, a key Bilderberg network partner.

There, de Castries outlined a plan for Europe first conceived decades ago that carries well into the future, the scheme to create a “United States of Europe,” in the which the EU’s formerly independent nations would further surrender their sovereignty, evidently to the point of no return, for the sake of making the EU a seamless building block of world government.

An official Government of Serbia press release dated Jan. 28 announced the prime minister was invited to Bilderberg following her Davos appearance. It noted Ms. Brnabic has been a member of the New Leaders for Europe, which “is made up of young politicians and decision makers from several European countries,” since 2016. The release did not specify whether she has accepted Bilderberg’s invitation.

That press release noted, “As the only prime minister from the region, Brnabic also participated in the preparation of the ‘Renew Europe’ report of the World Economic Forum, in which she prepared a section on migration and border issues.”

Last year, AFP covered Bilderberg’s return to Chantilly, Va., attended by five current U.S. officials, including two senators and three Trump administration officials. Official topics included: “The Trump Administration: A Progress Report,” “Trans-Atlantic Relations: Options and Scenarios,” “The Trans-Atlantic Defence Alliance: Bullets, Bytes and Bucks,” and “The Direction of the EU,” along with: “Why is Populism Growing?” “Russia in the International Order,” and “The War on Information.”

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

Too Many Wars. Too Many Enemies.

NATO is staring down “the worst crisis in its history,” says Pat Buchanan, and the U.S. decision on whether to stand with the Kurds against Turkish aggression or abandon the Kurds will determine if NATO survives. With this and many other hotspots at a boiling point, what is the mainstream American media focusing on? Whether Mueller’s Russiagate witch hunt will be discredited.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Turkey is not bluffing, U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria, could be under fire by week’s end, and NATO engulfed in the worst crisis in its history.

Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his troops will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.

Erdogan’s foreign minister demanded concrete steps by the U.S. to end its support of the Kurds, who control the Syrian border with Turkey east of the Euphrates, all the way to Iraq.

If the Turks attack Manbij, the U.S. will face a choice: Stand by our Kurdish allies and resist the Turks, or abandon the Kurds.

Should the U.S. let the Turks drive the Kurds out of Manbij and the entire Syrian border area with Turkey, as Erdogan threatens, U.S. credibility would suffer a blow from which it would not soon recover.

But to stand with the Kurds and oppose Erdogan’s forces could mean a crackup of NATO and loss of U.S. bases inside Turkey, including the air base at Incirlik.

IRS Loses Cases

Turkey also sits astride the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea. NATO’s loss of Turkey would thus be a triumph for Vladimir Putin, who gave Ankara the green light to cleanse the Kurds from Afrin.

Yet Syria is but one of many challenges to U.S. foreign policy.

The Winter Olympics in South Korea may have taken the threat of a North Korean ICBM that could hit the U.S. out of the news, but no one believes that threat is behind us.

Last week, China charged that the USS Hopper, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal, a reef in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, though it is far closer to Luzon in the Philippines. The destroyer, says China, was chased off by one of her frigates. If we continue to contest China’s territorial claims with U.S. warships, a clash is inevitable.

In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.

U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with being a duplicitous and false friend.

Neocon Threat-Roberts-cover
Dangers of the neocons laid out by Paul Craig Roberts, at the bookstore.

“The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

As for America’s longest war, in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, the end is nowhere on the horizon.

A week ago, the International Hotel in Kabul was attacked and held for 13 hours by Taliban gunmen who killed 40. Midweek, a Save the Children facility in Jalalabad was attacked by ISIS, creating panic among aid workers across the country.

Saturday, an ambulance exploded in Kabul, killing 103 people and wounding 235. Monday, Islamic State militants attacked Afghan soldiers guarding a military academy in Kabul. With the fighting season two months off, U.S. troops will not soon be departing.

If Pakistan is indeed providing sanctuary for the terrorists of the Haqqani network, how does this war end successfully for the United States?

Last week, in a friendly fire incident, the U.S.-led coalition killed 10 Iraqi soldiers. The Iraq war began 15 years ago.

Yet another war, where the humanitarian crisis rivals Syria, continues on the Arabian Peninsula. There, a Saudi air, sea and land blockade that threatens the Yemeni people with starvation has failed to dislodge Houthi rebels who seized the capital Sanaa three years ago.

This weekend brought news that secessionist rebels, backed by the United Arab Emirates, have seized power in Yemen’s southern port of Aden, from the Saudi-backed Hadi regime fighting the Houthis.

These rebels seek to split the country, as it was before 1990.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE appear to be backing different horses in this tribal-civil-sectarian war into which America has been drawn.

There are other wars—Somalia, Libya, Ukraine—where the U.S. is taking sides, sending arms, training troops, flying missions.

Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fight for scores of nations, with troops on every continent, and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware.

“I didn’t know there were 1,000 troops in Niger,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. “We don’t know exactly where we’re at in the world, militarily, and what we’re doing.”

No, we don’t, Senator.

As in all empires, power is passing to the generals.

And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial city?

Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russiagate. 

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


USS Liberty Memorial Planned for Visible Site Near Jerusalem

One brave Palestinian-American thinks it’s high time Israel honored the U.S. servicemen it massacred aboard a U.S. spy ship and for all the sacrifices this country has made to the security and well-being of the Zionist state.

By Dave Gahary

Ibrahim “Abe” Ayad, a Dearborn, Mich. born and raised American patriot, has decided to convert a parcel of land in Israel, which his family has owned for decades, into a living memorial to the 34 Americans needlessly slaughtered and 174 wounded, while serving aboard the USS Liberty (AGTR-5), by Israeli air and naval forces on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.

Abe sat down with American Free Press, to break the news of this significant announcement, explaining the genesis of it and what he hopes to accomplish.

After his grandfather was killed fighting against the British in World War I, his grandmother was in possession of a lot of property. This rankled the extended family, which took out their jealous frustrations on Ayad’s father, who was just five when his father was killed in battle.

“[She] smuggled him off with his cousin overseas to the United States, running away from his own people,” explained Ayad. As fate would have it, Ayad’s father, like his father before him, would fight in another world war.

“My father wound up in America. World War II had broken out, and he was caught being illegal and they gave him the choice,” said Ayad. “He loved this country so much . . . he volunteered. He was a first-wave lander on Anzio, survived the landing, [and] got wounded during the occupation. He got the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and several others.”

Ayad explained the fascinating story behind how he ended up with this parcel of land in Israel, which dates back to Operation Shingle, or the Battle of Anzio—Jan. 22 to June 5, 1944—in which nearly 15,000 young men paid the ultimate price.

“When [my dad] got wounded, he was lost for three days at a MASH unit during the air war,” said Ayad. “So the Army, in its infinite wisdom, had sent my grandmother a letter telling her he was dead. My grandmother couldn’t read English, so she took it to the village elder [who] told her, ‘Your son is dead.’ And she said, ‘He’s not dead. If he was dead I’d believe it.’ ”

Refusing to believe her only child was dead, she prepared for his return from the war.

“She was working as a nurse at a local hospital and they were trying to trick an old lady whose son they thought had died. They’d come and they’d pawn their land to her,” said Ayad, “and she’d buy it and put it in his name.”

When Ayad’s father eventually returned home, “everybody thought he was a ghost.” As his grandmother had accumulated a significant amount of land, the illegal occupation government of Israel began to make moves on it.

“All of a sudden Israel starts confiscating this land, doing all kinds of stuff to it,” said Ayad. It “was illegally confiscated even according to Israeli law, because it’s occupied territory. It can’t be taxed, and they confiscated it for tax purposes.”

Ayad tried to fight them, but Israel sicced its U.S.-based public relations firm on him.

“I’ve been fighting the Anti-Defamation League for 20 years,” he said, “and they wielded their influence over the [U.S.] Department of Justice. Even James Comey came down personally to oversee their raid against me. They robbed me of over $3 million—and this is my own government, who I pay taxes for, doing all this to me.”

Remember the Liberty cover
New at the AFP Bookstore: Remember the Liberty! by Phillip F. Nelson. Ray McGovern calls it “a must-read for anyone wishing to understand what actually happened to the Liberty and to contemplate the implications.”

Ayad then discussed his plans for the Liberty memorial, which he first started thinking about five or six years ago.

“I don’t see any memorials in Israel: not for World War I, not for World War II,” he explained. “[Israel owes] the United States so much from two world wars, not counting all the financial and military hardware [it’s] getting from America. I would love to see a USS Liberty Memorial Hospital for all the victims of the Liberty, her crew, and all the victims that suffered after and all the victims that have suffered in two world wars and since. And it’s about time they honor America.”

The land Ayad chose for the memorial “is right off the freeway that links Jerusalem to the rest of Israel, so anybody coming into Jerusalem will have to see [it].” It’s in a suburb of Jerusalem called Beit Hanina.

Beit Hanina, a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem, is on the road to Ramallah, about five miles north of central Jerusalem. Israel split the village in two with its Israeli West Bank barrier, or wall.

The Zionist state claims the separation barrier—built during a September 2000 uprising against the brutal occupation—protects against terrorism. Palestinians know better, and refer to it as an apartheid wall, as it severely restricts travel and interferes with the ability to earn a living. The United Nations has condemned it and the International Court of Justice found the barrier to be a violation of international law.

Winding its way through villages that have existed for thousands of years, the nearly 500-mile obscenity cuts deep into West Bank territory, leaving around 25,000 Palestinians isolated from their history. Initially introduced as a temporary security measure, the Zionists are using it in a conniving way to draw future political borders between Palestine and the illegal occupation government to ensure peace negotiations never succeed, as well as using another blatantly illegal tactic to swallow more and more of the land that is not theirs.

“This village has about five illegal settlements in it,” Ayad explained.


Ayad explained another reason why he wants the memorial erected.

“I just wanted to do something for all the people who have died and suffered for needless wars, wars to build up the Federal Reserve so it could keep printing money and we could keep paying interest on it,” he added.

But his main reason for the memorial is the unarmed ship that was attacked by a foreign power in international waters and abandoned by its own government for over 50 years.

“It’s an honor for me to be a part of this,” Ayad told this newspaper, “just an absolute honor for me to be involved with anything that has to do with the Liberty. I will do anything I have to do in order to see it succeed, even if I’m out of the picture totally. I’ll use whatever I have against them—and they know what I’ve got—in order to see this project go through. I’m willing to die for it.”

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 film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See the website or call (850) 677-0344 for more information.

Ending Pakistan Aid a Two-Edged Sword

Stopping the annual $1.3 billion “bribe” the U.S. has been giving Pakistan for years could spell trouble for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Without any allies on bordering the country, movements of equipment and supplies will be much more difficult. Giraldi explains why, for the time being, Pakistan is worth it.

By Philip Giraldi

The Trump administration has announced that it will be stopping the subsidies given to the Pakistani government since the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The payments increased dramatically after 9/11 as Pakistan became the launching pad for U.S. efforts to overthrow the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda. They have continued since that time and currently amount to a considerable $1.3 billion a year, a sum which more or less buys the compliance of the country’s military, which serves as something like a Praetorian Guard for the nation’s civilian leaders. The money is forthcoming with the understanding that the Pakistan government, army, and security services will cooperate with the United States in efforts to stabilize the situation in neighboring Afghanistan while also combatting the possible resurgence of radical Islamic groups in the region.

President Donald Trump has tweeted his decision in characteristic fashion, stating, “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

Trump’s judgment, tersely expressed, is not exactly wrong, nor is it exactly right. American policymakers who had a basic understanding of the politics of central and south Asia understand that Washington’s bilateral relationships with countries in the region are based on mutual interests, which means that they can diverge when conflicting interests get in the way. Pakistan has long been nervous about the instability in neighboring Afghanistan, which means it is supportive of some efforts at reconstruction and political reconciliation by its neighbor, but it also believes the political turmoil to be endemic, partly due to the tribal and ethnic rivalries that cannot be erased through top-down, foreign-instigated regime change.

As a result, Islamabad has had from the start its own secret arrangements with Afghan groups that are protected and even sheltered inside Pakistan, which are loyal to Islamabad and not to whomever is in charge in Kabul. This includes the Haqqani Network, which functions virtually as a semi-independent arm of the feared Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI). The Haqqanis have been involved in large-scale drug trafficking and have waged their own war inside Afghanistan against the country’s police and military. They have also been accused of bombings in Kabul as well as attacks on U.S. and other NATO soldiers.

The Pakistanis clearly see having a viable major player inside Afghanistan as a national interest that weighs more heavily than whatever it is doing with the United States. To be sure, Pakistan’s major effort to eliminate its own Taliban in 2014 was only a partial success and resulted in numerous casualties while its semi-autonomous tribal region continues to be both radicalized and restive. Pakistan’s leaders reason, and have occasionally suggested, that they and their Afghan proxies will still have to deal with what is going on in the region long after the United States becomes tired of the effort and goes home. It is not an unreasonable point of view, nor is it reasonable to expect that Washington will continue to subsidize a country that is working contrary to U.S. interests, even if those interests have been unattainable.

And even if the Pakistanis are currently playing a two-faced game it is important to recall what benefit has derived from the relationship. Without Pakistan’s cooperation the Soviets would never have been driven out of Afghanistan in the first place. In the years after 9/11, when the U.S. mission was to destroy al Qaeda, nearly every major arrest or killing of senior cadre of the group took place in Pakistan and was carried out by the Pakistani police and intelligence services. Subsequently, Islamabad allowed the U.S. to set up secret drone bases inside Pakistan, something that was revealed accidentally by former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), to track and kill suspected terrorists.

Currently, Pakistan serves as the conduit whereby U.S. and other allied forces are supplied with fuel, heavy equipment, and other war-making commodities. Most supplies arrive at the port of Karachi and are trucked through the mountains on Pakistani-provided vehicles to Afghanistan. If Pakistan chooses to play hardball with Trump, it can cut off that supply line immediately and the U.S. effort to stabilize and democratize Afghanistan—if it might be called that—would be over.

In another part of the world, the Trump administration is considering cutting off its aid to the Palestinian Authority and is delaying payment of $125 million currently due. Trump has tweeted  “[W]e pay the Palestinians hundreds of millions of dollars a year and get no appreciation or respect. They don’t even want to negotiate a long overdue peace treaty with Israel. We have taken Jerusalem, the toughest part of the negotiation, off the table, but Israel, for that, would have had to pay more. But with the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?”

The threat over money appears to derive from Amb. Nikki Haley’s threatened “revenge” over recent UN votes. The president’s bizarre beliefs that Israel wants peace and that stealing Arab Jerusalem and granting it to Benjamin Netanyahu is some kind of gift is breathtaking, but one of his aides might well advise him that much of the money given to the Palestinian Authority is used to man and train a police force, which largely exists to keep Palestinians from attacking Israelis. Trump’s Zionist supporters are already cheering the decision but will find that it yields bitter fruit if the West Bank erupts in violence. The reality is that Washington should spend money when there are good reasons to do so.

Is Pakistan worth it? Yes, until the day comes when Washington departs the region. Afghanistan costs something like $100 billion per year, and the Pakistani bribe is a minimal expense.

The similar bribe to provide some separation between Palestinians and Israelis is a different game altogether. Its utility as yet another costly measure to protect an intransigent Israel is certainly debatable.

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. Giraldi also submits articles that can be found on the website of the Unz Review.

Little Rocket Man Wins the Round

It would appear Kim Jong Un’s strategy has worked, and nuclear war has yet again been averted. Now, says Pat Buchanan, is the time to reconsider our longstanding obligation to defend South Korea.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After a year in which he tested a hydrogen bomb and an ICBM, threatened to destroy the United States, and called President Trump “a dotard,” Kim Jong Un, at the gracious invitation of the president of South Korea, will be sending a skating team to the “Peace Olympics.”

An impressive year for Little Rocket Man.

Thus the most serious nuclear crisis since Nikita Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba appears to have abated. Welcome news, even if the confrontation with Pyongyang has probably only been postponed.

Still, we have been given an opportunity to reassess the 65-year-old Cold War treaty that obligates us to go to war if the North attacks Seoul, and drove us to the brink of war today.

2017 demonstrated that we need a reassessment. For the potential cost of carrying out our commitment is rising exponentially.

Two decades ago, a war on the Korean Peninsula, given the massed Northern artillery on the DMZ, meant thousands of U.S. dead.

Today, with Pyongyang’s growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, American cities could face Hiroshima-sized strikes, if war breaks out.

What vital U.S. interest is there on the Korean Peninsula that justifies accepting in perpetuity such a risk to our homeland?

We are told that Kim’s diplomacy is designed to split South Korea off from the Americans. And this is undeniably true.

For South Korean President Moon Jae-in is first and foremost responsible for his own people, half of whom are in artillery range of the DMZ. In any new Korean war, his country would suffer most.

And while he surely welcomes the U.S. commitment to fight the North on his country’s behalf as an insurance policy, Moon does not want a second Korean war, and he does not want President Trump making the decision as to whether there shall be one.

Understandably so. He is looking out for South Korea first.

Yet Moon rightly credits Trump with bringing the North Koreans to the table: “I give President Trump huge credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, and I’d like to thank him for that.”

But again, what are the U.S. interests there that we should be willing to put at risk of nuclear attack tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea and our bases in Asia, and even our great cities, in a war that would otherwise be confined to the Korean Peninsula?

China shares a border with the North, but is not treaty-bound to fight on the North’s behalf. Russia, too, has a border with North Korea, and, with China, was indispensable to saving the North in the 1950-53 war. But Russia is not committed by any treaty to fight for the North.

Why, then, are Americans obligated to be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Why is the defense of the South, with 40 times the economy and twice the population of the North, our eternal duty?

Kim’s drive for a nuclear deterrent is propelled by both fear and calculation. The fear is that the Americans who detest him will do to him and his regime and country what they did to Saddam Hussein.

The calculation is that what Americans fear most, and the one thing that deters them, is nuclear weapons. Once Soviet Russia and Communist China acquired nukes, the Americans never attacked them.

If he can put nuclear weapons on U.S. troops in Korea, U.S. bases in Japan, and U.S. cities, Kim reasons, the Americans will not launch a war on him. Have not recent events proven him right?

Iran has no nuclear weapons and some Americans clamor daily for “regime change” in Tehran. But because Kim has nukes, the Americans appear more anxious to talk. His policy is succeeding.

What he is saying with his nuclear arsenal is: As you Americans have put my regime and country at risk of annihilation, I am going to put your cities at risk. If we go down in your nuclear “fire and fury,” so, too, will millions of Americans.

The whole world is watching how this plays out.

For the American Imperium, our system of alliances, is held together by a credible commitment: If you attack any of our scores of allies, you are at war with the United States.

From the Baltic to the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf, from the South China Sea to Korea and Japan today, the costs and the risks of maintaining the imperium are growing.

With all these promissory notes out there—guarantees to go to war for other nations—one is inevitably going to be called.

And this generation of Americans, unaware of what their grandfathers obligated them to do, will demand to know, as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan: What are we over doing there, on the other side of the world?

America First is more than a slogan.

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


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


Who Wants War With Iran?

The consequences of a U.S. war with Iran would be devastating, so why is Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley indicting Iran in a recent missile fired at a Saudi airport? It would appear the war propaganda campaign is ramping up.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Shortly before Christmas, President Donald Trump was the beneficiary of some surprisingly good news and glad tidings. On Dec. 17, Vladimir Putin called to thank him and the CIA for providing Russia critical information that helped abort an ISIS plot to massacre visitors to Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

Dec. 18 found polls showing Trump at his highest in months. Stocks soared 200 points at the opening bell in anticipation of pre-Christmas passage of the Republican tax bill. The Dow has added a record 5,000 points in Trump’s first year.

And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are being made that Robert Mueller’s sleuths gained access to emails from the Trump campaign illicitly. This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller’s team, already under a cloud for proven malice toward the president. Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered “the Pentagon Papers” to The New York Times, walked free when it was learned that the White House “Plumbers” had burgled his psychiatrist’s office.

With things going Trump’s way, one must ask: What was UN Ambassador Nikki Haley doing in early December at what looked like a prewar briefing at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in D.C.?

Looming behind Ms. Haley was part of what was said to be an Iranian missile fired at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.

Though the rocket had Iranian markings, it was not launched from Iran, or by Iranians. Houthi rebels, for two years victims of a savage war waged by the Saudis—using U.S.-made planes, missiles, bombs, and drones—say they fired it at the Riyadh airport in retaliation for what the Saudis have done to their people and country. If so, it was a legitimate act of war.

Indeed, so great is the Yemeni civilian suffering from a lack of food and medicine, and from malnutrition and disease, Trump himself has told the Saudis to ease up on their air, sea, and land blockades.

As there is no evidence as to when the Houthis acquired the missile, or where, the question arises: What was Ms. Haley’s motive in indicting Iran? Was this part of a new propaganda campaign to drum up support for America’s next big Mideast war? There are reasons to think so.

Ms. Haley went on: “It’s hard to find a conflict or a terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran’s fingerprints all over it.” But Iran is Shiite, while al Qaeda, which allegedly brought down the twin towers with the help of 15 Saudi nationals, is Sunni. So, too, are ISIS, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and Islamic Jihad. Most Mideast terrorist groups are Sunni, not Shiite.

As for these Mideast “conflicts,” which did Iran start? We started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO started the war in Libya. The U.S. helped trigger the horrific Syrian civil war by arming “rebels.” Only when President Bashar Assad looked like he was about to fall did Russia and Iran intervene on his side.

As for the “Shiite crescent,” from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut, who created it? Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was Sunni dominated. It was the Americans who overthrew him and brought Shiite power to Baghdad.

In Syria, it was U.S.- and Sunni-backed “rebels,” allied at times with al Qaeda, who drew Iran and the Shiite militias in to save Assad.

And the Israelis called the Shiite Hezbollah movement into being by invading and occupying South Lebanon in 1982. As Yitzhak Rabin ruefully said, “We let the Shia genie out of the bottle.”

Are we now to fight a new Mideast war against a larger enemy than any of the others we have fought, to clean up the bloody mess we made of the region by our previous military interventions? Before we march, with Ms. Haley as head cheerleader, Trump should consider the likely consequences for his country, the Middle East, and his presidency.

A war in the Persian Gulf would send oil prices soaring and stock markets plummeting, even as it would split us off from our major allies in Europe and Asia. The Airbus-Boeing deal to sell Iran 300 commercial aircraft would be dead.

While the U.S. would prevail in an air, naval, and missile war, where would the troops come from to march to Tehran to “democratize” that nation? Do we think a bloodied revanchist Iran would be easier to deal with than the one with which John Kerry negotiated a nuclear deal?

Would Hezbollah go after U.S. soft targets in Beirut? Would Iraqi Shiite militias go after Americans in the Green Zone? Would the Shiite majority in Bahrain and the oil-rich northeast of Saudi Arabia rise up and rebel?

And who would our great fighting Arab ally be? Jared Kushner’s new friend: a 32-year-old Saudi prince who has become famous for putting down $500 million each for a chateau near Versailles, a yacht on the Riviera, and a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.

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. 


Elite Cheats

The newly released “Paradise Papers” investigation reveals how the wealthy, including over 120 top political and world leaders, hide their massive riches offshore. The previously released “Panama Papers” similarly exposed how the world’s biggest corporations avoid paying their own billions in taxes, as well. 

By John Friend

After a year of research, a group of independent journalists has released a treasure trove of information on where and how the elites hide their money around the world to avoid paying the taxes with which millions of middle-class Americans are saddled.

Known as the “Paradise Papers,” this latest document dump follows closely on the heels of the release of a similar batch of banking details in the so-called “Panama Papers,” documenting the secrets and corrupt practices of the global power elite and some of the world’s most powerful and influential corporations.

IRS Loses Cases

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) launched an international examination into “the offshore activities of some of the world’s most powerful people and companies,” according to the organization’s website. The ICIJ is an independent, U.S.-based nonprofit organization with a global network of over 200 professional journalists that collaborate across borders on in-depth investigations.

In 2016, the ICIJ, working in collaboration with the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, released the so-called Panama Papers, which comprised roughly 11.5 million anonymously leaked documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm and corporate service provider, exposing the personal financial information of a number of top corporate and political elites, along with the various tax havens and offshore practices utilized by some of the world’s most powerful figures and corporations to avoid taxes and hide assets. Many of the leaked documents were published online by the ICIJ, and major global investigations were launched as a result of the leaked documents, sparking an international scandal.

Now, the ICIJ, once again working in collaboration with Süddeutsche Zeitung, has launched another global investigation into the shady and corrupt business practices of the global political elite as well as some of the most powerful international corporations. The investigation, based on 13.4 million secret electronic documents anonymously leaked earlier this year known as the Paradise Papers, dovetails with the release of an investigation into the Panama Papers.

The current investigation is largely based on documents that emanate primarily from the offshore service firms Appleby and Asiaciti Trust, which were leaked to a journalist with Süddeutsche Zeitung, who then shared the information with the ICIJ.

The investigation reveals the secrets and underhanded dealings of the global power elite and exposes a number of the world’s top multi-national corporations as operating offshore companies in order to avoid major tax liabilities and to conceal their wealth. Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Uber, Disney, Nike, Walmart, Allianz, Sie mens, McDonald’s, and Yahoo! are among the corporations implicated in utilizing offshore accounts, which has allowed these politically powerful and influential corporations to avoid billions of dollars in taxes.

The ICIJ’s investigation and disclosure of the Paradise Papers has also exposed the offshore interests and activities of over 120 top political and world leaders, including Queen Elizabeth II and a number of major donors and members of President Donald Trump’s administration, including current U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. The Paradise Papers also implicate a number of top Democratic donors, including Penny Pritzker, an extremely wealthy Democratic donor and former U.S. secretary of commerce.

“We’re seeing some of the biggest corporations in the world, and the lengths that some companies go to avoid taxes,” said Gerard Ryle, ICIJ director in Washington, D.C.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.

Globalists Seek to Scuttle Brexit

The New World Order elite just won’t let the British put Britain first. 

By Mark Anderson

The British “Brexit” vote, cast June 23, 2016, provided a clear indication of the populist revolt that’s been simmering for several years. But as the European Union (EU) tightens its despotic grip even more on the economic and political destinies of Europe’s peoples, the British exit from the EU could get delayed or even scuttled.

Brexit refers to the national referendum that passed in the United Kingdom (UK) that calls on the country to leave the EU.

A key factor is that the Bilderberg-nurtured EU superstate, which had 28 members at the time of the Brexit vote, is completing long-planned fiscal and banking unions to centralize its powers. Bilderberg is the shadowy group of global elites who gather every year behind locked and guarded doors in five-star resorts to discuss, debate, and ultimately influence the most pressing issues of the day.

European Council President Donald Tusk—whose cooperation is indispensable if British voters ever want a real chance at getting out of the EU—recently addressed European Parliament members about a recent EU summit, telling the MEPs: “It is in fact up to London how this will end, with a good deal, no deal, or no Brexit.”

As quoted by the UK’s Guardian newspaper, Tusk rather cryptically added: “We have managed to build and maintain unity . . . but ahead of us is still the toughest stress test. If we fail it, the [Brexit] negotiations will end in our defeat,” speaking in a manner that suggested a sense of rivalry with Britain’s wishes as expressed by Brexit. “We must keep our unity regardless of the direction of the talks.”

On a somewhat more upbeat note, European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker did say: “Those who don’t want a deal, the no-dealers, they do not have friends in the commission. We want a . . . fair deal with Britain. The no-deal is not our working assumption.”

However, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier told a European newspaper group that the EU wants a deal “but could not exclude the no-deal option.” And other voices see a darker tinge to these developments, suggesting that Brexit could very well be imperiled.

David Ellis, an analyst with Strategic Defence Initiatives, said on the Oct. 24 edition of UK “Column News” online that, due to the EU’s intent to issue a European Monetary Fund plan by June 2018, it appears the EU’s pending banking and fiscal unifications will result in “a single-point control of all money.” That includes doing away with allowing EU member nations to control their internal budgets.

This, he said, will bring with it the EU’s military unification—into which the British armed forces are heavily involved as they’re downsized to where they’re not sufficient for effective national defense, but the right size to be a contributing force to an EU military union. This could effectively keep the UK in the EU.

“Brexit,” Ellis said, “has just been an umbrella” to bring about “a tyranny like we’ve never seen on the continent.” And when the Guardian quotes Tusk as simply saying that he may slow or halt Brexit, that establishment paper “is missing the point,” Ellis continued.

In a separate online column, Ellis, mirroring conversations he has had with this AFP writer, wrote: “The issue of the European Union desperately requiring control of the military and budgets of EU member states is moving very fast now . . . . We feel strongly that it is not being voiced with the correct level of importance as the UK (apparently) prepares for Brexit.”

IRS Loses Cases

He added, “There will be no Brexit unless Britain extricates itself as a matter of urgency from the amalgamation of EU militaries, which will inevitably prompt an EU treasury taking over the member states’ budgets.”

Ellis continued, “In [the UK] Parliament, no party is even mentioning EU military union, popularly but inaccurately referred to as ‘an EU army.’ ”

This military arrangement, he added, “does not replace but rather subsumes the nation states’ militaries and military budgets. In other words, the nominal armies, navies, and air forces of the EU member states . . . will remain in place, but sapped of their ability to operate or purchase independently of EU command.”

In the U.S., speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Oct. 2, Sir Alan Duncan, Britain’s minister of state for Europe and the Americas, sounded the alarm for fellow elites about the populist revolt as expressed through Brexit. However, he shrugged off Brexit’s significance while expounding on his “global Britain” speech topic—suggesting that the British state’s status and operations will largely remain the same as they have been under the EU: free trade, open borders, and so on.

“Brexit was only about Brits expressing how they want their country to work, not to step back from its role in the world,” Duncan opined, while also claiming, “The importance of the UK’s global role was one place where the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ [voters wanting to leave or remain in EU] converged.”

So, besides speaking as if he can somehow assess the attitudes of all voters in greater Britain about the UK’s global role, he’s saying that the Brexit vote, no matter what the ultimate outcome, may not be allowed to change UK policies enough to matter.

“No one in the UK believes that it makes sense to turn inwards.” Duncan presumptuously added. He stressed the melodramatic mantra that even the slightest retreat from worldwide Western hegemony is an intolerable slap in the face to the post-World War II “rules-based international order,” formed in 1944 at Bretton Woods, N.H., at a conference that spawned the World Bank, IMF, and today’s world-trade infrastructure.

The Bretton Woods agreement is the world elite’s modern-era touchstone, largely serving the super-rich while having formed the bedrock of modern transnationalist empires like the EU, the U.S. etc.

Duncan made it clear that while “leaving the EU” may be the wish of a majority of UK voters, at the end of the day, the “global values” undergirding that “rulesbased order” help cement a marriage whose vows are not easily dissolved.

“We’re leaving the EU,” he claimed, “but we [the UK and EU] . . . believe deeply in the same values—peace, democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.”

Further suggesting Brexit is being deflated, he announced that the EU and UK have rolled out “our Future Partnership Paper on foreign policy, defense, security, and development”—an ambitious “new framework for future security, law enforcement, and criminal justice cooperation between the EU and the UK.”

Duncan labeled Russia as “more aggressive, more authoritarian, and more nationalist” than the world community cares to tolerate—as if internationalism cannot possibly be authoritarian or aggressive.

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

Two Lost Thorn Books Back in Print!

Great news: After some negotiation, AFP has made a deal to bring back TWO Victor Thorn books that were in desperate need of a publisher. American Free Press is now the only authorized publisher and distributor—in print and electronic versions—of these two Thorn 9/11 blockbusters . . .

These two dangerous books are back In Print! 9/11 Evil and 911: Made in Israel are, together, “the most dangerous 9/11 books out there,” according to late author Victor Thorn (1962-2016), acknowledged as one of the world’s preeminent 9/11 scholars.

Special discount offer: Regularly priced at $15 each, you can get these books as a set for just $25. You save $5—that’s a 16% savings. Add just $5 S&H in the U.S. Add $25 S&H outside the U.S. Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free Mon.-Thu. 9-5 ET to charge or purchase online from the American Free Press bookstore, here.

9/11 EVIL: Israel’s Central Role in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack

This is the book that many influential 9/11 organizations and individuals don’t want you to read or talk about. This is the book the ADL doesn’t want you to read or talk about—they describe it as “preposterous,” simply because the evidence compiled points a finger at Israel as a major player in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America.

But facts are facts; we do not control where they lead. We already know why 9/11 was done, and we already know how the WTC towers were destroyed (via controlled demolitions). But for some reason, most everyone wants to shy away from WHO ultimately did 9/11. In the author’s opinion, the nation of Israel played a central role in the 9/11 terrorist attack on our country, and Thorn presents overwhelming evidence in the pages of 9/11 Evil.

This is the book the government, mainstream media gatekeepers, 9/11 Commission members, obfuscators, deceivers, and those who want to keep a lid on 9/11 don’t want you to read. This may be the most dangerous 9/11 book ever written. This is the book that has forever changed the way many people look at 9/11—and at the world around us today.

Softcover, 123 pages, $15 plus $5 S&H inside the U.S. (Add $25 S&H outside the U.S.)

Get this book here.  Get both books here.

9/11: MADE IN ISRAEL The Plot Against America

What this book makes clear is that a massive coverup exists not only in the mainstream media, but in the so-called 9/11 truth movement as well. It is true that 9/11 was an “inside” job, and criminal elements within the U.S. government were undoubtedly involved, as is so often stated by many authors and activists.

But 9/11 was much more. It was an “outside” job also, ultimately made in Israel, as a mountain of evidence compiled in this landmark book clearly shows. This book sets the record straight by focusing on the actual puppet masters. Jewish control of World Trade Center security and Jewish ownership of the WTC complex is only one piece of the 9/11 puzzle that Thorn meticulously pieces together. Only one nation and group of people benefited most from the attacks on 9/11: Israel and its Zionist allies.

As Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu boasted before an audience at Bar-Ilan University, “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon.” Considering the fact that the rogue state of Israel has a prior criminal record of perpetrating just such a crime—the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty—the verdict in this case is clear: 9/11 was made in Israel.

Softcover, 138 pages, $15 plus $5 S&H inside the U.S. (Add $25 S&H outside the U.S.)

Get this book here. Get both books here.

From the Author . . . “9/11 was an intricately planned act of state-sponsored terrorism concocted by a foreign government (Israel) in unison with an ardently loyal faction of neocon ‘crazies’ who had burrowed their way into the Pentagon, State Department, and White House. Assisting them were a host of defense contractors, computer gurus, and explosives experts who made the whole thing happen on the morning of September 11, 2001.”—VICTOR THORN

Victor Thorn was also the author of 9/11 on Trial: The World Trade Center Collapse, Phantom Flight 93 and Other Astounding 9/11 Mysteries Explored9/11 Exposed and countless more articles and booklets on the subject of 9/11 and the New World Order.

American Free Press
16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774


North Korea Nuke Threat Is Multifold

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the world’s leading expert on EMPs, says an electromagnetic pulse attack by North Korea could kill power grids, devastating the U.S. and its allies. 

By Dave Gahary

Nearly 25 years of minimizing and ignoring the nuclear threat from North Korea has left the United States with few options to deal with the escalating danger emanating from the East Asian dictatorship, most visibly illustrated by President Donald J. Trump’s prepared remarks delivered to the United Nations General Assembly—his first address as president to that body—on Sept. 19.

“The United States has great strength and patience,” Trump stated, “but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

Such bellicose language delivered to a global institution, whose stated goal is world peace, might seem entirely out-of-place, but when viewed against the failure of a string of U.S. presidents and their administrations to adequately confront North Korean threats, Trump’s choice of words may be exactly what’s needed to deal with the situation.

On the heels of recent successful satellite launches, North Korea has shocked the world by launching ICBMs and claiming to have detonated a hydrogen bomb on Sept. 2, a thermonuclear weapon with a yield (the amount of energy released) of over 50 kilotons of TNT, over three times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. North Korea claimed its bomb had a yield of 100 kilotons.

Perhaps more alarming than a confrontation with the 2-million-strong Korean People’s Army—the world’s largest military—is the possibility that the North Korean regime may launch a nuclear-armed satellite for use in an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the United States. When detonated at a high enough altitude, the nuclear blast creates an electric shock wave—similar to lightning—that can potentially knock out the entire electric grid of North America, and all electronics. The July 9, 1962 high-altitude nuclear test conducted in outer space by the U.S. called Starfish Prime verified the existence and effects of man-made EMPs.

Significantly, North Korea’s state news agency boldly stated that this weapon “is a multifunctional thermonuclear nuke with great destructive power which can be detonated even at high altitudes for super-powerful EMP attack.”

In order to gain a fuller understanding of this matter, American Free Press conducted an exclusive interview with Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the world’s leading expert on EMPs, the executive director of the Congressional Advisory Board’s Task Force on National and Homeland Security, and the chief of staff of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, or the Congressional EMP Commission. Pry is also a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and the author of numerous books on national security issues.*

Incredibly, even in the face of North Korea’s September threat to launch an EMP attack against the U.S., D.C. has plans to let the EMP Commission’s charter expire.

“Only in Washington,” said Pry, “would it be possible to have something like this happen, where the EMP threat is looming larger than ever, and Pyongyang is actually threatening EMP attacks against us now, and Washington’s response to this is to let the EMP Commission go out of business.”

Pry explained why an EMP attack is so dangerous.

“If you took a Hiroshima-type bomb and detonated it in a city,” he said, “it might kill 200,000 people, but that same weapon, let’s say you used it to black out the Eastern grid, [which] supports most of our population and generates 75% of our electricity. The EMP Commission estimated that we would lose 90% of the population within a year from starvation, disease, and societal collapse. We can’t survive as a civilization without the Eastern grid. There’d be no coming back from that. And North Korea only needs one weapon like this in order to destroy our whole society.”

IRS Loses Cases

Pry explained how we arrived at this point.

“We knew in 1994 when [CIA Director] Jim Woolsey went and testified and told the Senate Armed Services Committee that North Korea had the bomb,” Peter explained. “And that created this crisis, so Bill Clinton had to think about abandoning his whole agenda. And so for about six months it was actually contemplated by the Clinton administration about going to war to stop North Korea from getting the bomb.”

Pry was on the professional staff at the time, and instead of war, the Clinton administration negotiated an agreed framework with North Korea.

“I was on the North Korea Advisory Group all through the eight years of the Clinton administration,” he said, “and they were cheating on that agreed framework, and we knew it.”

Pry tried to tell the press, but they weren’t interested.

“It’s almost like there’s a whole cottage industry out there of non-expert people from academia,” he said, “who seem to make their living lowballing the North Korean threat. . . . Clinton wanted to kick the North Korean threat down the road so he wouldn’t get blamed for it, and that’s what he did.”

Pry explained that the North Korean nuclear threat has been kicked from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations right to Trump, whose administration is doing the same.

“The reason they’re doing it under the Trump administration,” Pry explained, “[is that] Trump has not cleaned house. This is still the Obama administration. Most of these people—both in the Department of Defense and in the intelligence community—are Obama analysts and Obamanites who are now deeply embedded in the federal bureaucracy. These people need to be fired or they need to be moved out. He’s gotta get his own team in there, and this kind of thing is gonna continue until he replaces these people.”

*Disaster Preparedness for EMP Attacks and Solar Storms, by Arthur T. Bradley, Ph.D. (softcover, 117 pages, $15 plus $4 S&H in the U.S.), is available from the American Free Press bookstore.

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 for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

Killing Iran Nuke Deal Dangerous

Russia, China, and Europe warn they will not punish Iran for abiding by treaty, and despite the fact President Trump has said he “personally believes” Iran has not kept to its part of the bargain, diplomats worldwide have  warned the White House that wrecking the deal would “set the Middle East on fire.”   

By Richard Walker

The White House may be planning to wreck the Iran nuclear deal in a move that many experts believe would have the potential to lead to a major war. Moscow, one of the signatories to the 2015 deal with Iran, has privately warned the White House that moves to undermine the deal or to wreck it could lead to a conflict that would set the Middle East on fire and have ramifications well beyond the region. China and the European Union (EU) have expressed similar sentiments in coded messages to Washington diplomats.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The 2015 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was negotiated by Russia, China, France, Germany, and Britain. It permitted regular inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to ensure Iran was not producing materials to make nuclear weapons. All parties to the deal, except the new Trump administration, agree that Iran has abided by the terms of the deal.

President Donald Trump said he “personally believes” Iran has not kept to its part of the bargain. However, he has offered no evidence to support his personal conjecture, a position hardly worthy of a U.S. president in respect to such a serious issue.

A British diplomat, who spoke to AFP on condition of anonymity this summer in Europe, expressed concern that a cabal within the Trump White House was aligning itself with pro-Israel and pro-Saudi elements on Capitol Hill and in Washington to scupper the Iran deal.

Liberty Stickers

“The shocking part of this,” he remarked, “is that if we could negotiate a similar deal with North Korea there would be celebrations in every major capital, and the world would be a safer place. The idea that a group that hates Iran wants to take us down this road is ridiculous.”

A source with intimate knowledge of the Kremlin was more blunt when this writer asked about rumors that the Trump administration was bent on punishing Iran with more sanctions to kill the deal.

“The only outcome of such a policy is that Iran will no longer be constrained from pursuing a nuclear device. The only way to stop that will be to bomb its whole nuclear infrastructure. That’s what some elements in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh are hoping for, but they might not like the outcome in the long term. In the short term, there is an effort to get access to Iranian military sites for so-called inspections with the plan to put them on a future Israeli targeting list.”

The rumors about a White House plan to take down the Iran deal have not been merely speculative. Recently, Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the UN, paid a private visit to IAEA headquarters in Geneva seeking information to confirm Trump’s personal feeling that Iran was breaking the deal. By all accounts she came away from the visit with no incriminating data. Nevertheless, she confirmed what Moscow was seeing through its own sources.

IRS Loses Cases

Leading neoconservative John Bolton, who has campaigned against any rapprochement with Iran over the years, has made it clear publicly that he advised the president to abandon the nuclear deal and take a tougher line with Iran.

Bolton’s views are shared by many on Capitol Hill. They talk about Iran being a clear and present danger, a view not shared by Russia, China or the EU, but very definitely by Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Kaveh Afrasiabi, who advised Iran during the nuclear negotiations, believes Washington is already in breach of the 2015 agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran when all the other parties accept that Iran is compliant. He has pointed out something that is not mentioned by the mainstream media: Since the deal was struck, EU corporations have benefited tremendously by negotiating billion-dollar contracts with Iran whereas the Trump administration has “self-sanctioned” U.S. corporations that have been willing to sell everything from planes to cars to Iran.

That, he says, is why the EU will not toe the Washington line on Iran and neither will China or Russia, leaving the U.S. potentially isolated if it goes it alone to destroy the agreement.

According to Afrasiaba, Washington had turned over its Iran policy to D.C. hardliners. His view is one shared in many Western capitals and especially in Moscow, where there is a growing fear that Trump will adopt an Israeli view of Iran that could drag Russia into a conflict on the side of Iran.

The growing antagonism toward Iran comes at a time when Iran has played a major role with Russia in defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria. That has convinced some Israeli hardliners and the Saudis, along with neocons in Washington, that Iran has too much influence. But Russia’s growing role in the region could well ensure that the hardliners in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh may not get their wish to see Iran bombed.

Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former New York mainstream news producer who grew tired of seeing his articles censored by his bosses.

Company Wants Employees ‘Chipped’

Joining a high-technology office complex in Sweden, a Wisconsin company now says bio-chips can replace swipe cards, log in to computers, and order food. Distressingly, employees are lining up for the “convenient” implanted chip. 

By Dave Gahary

Five years ago this week, when American Free Press was the first national newspaper to break the story on a San Antonio, Texas school attempting to force all 4,200 students “to wear radio frequency identification (RFID) microchips embedded in the student IDs worn around their necks,” it may have seemed to most readers the stuff of science fiction. Not only is the technology more advanced today, however, it’s gaining acceptance as well.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Although the teenage heroine in AFP roving editor Mark Anderson’s 2012 report—Andrea Hernandez—eventually won her battle based on religious beliefs that opposed being “chipped,” having microchips voluntarily injected subcutaneously is now a growing fad.

Around two years after AFP’s report, the BBC reported on a company that’s perfecting the art of chipping. In Sweden, a high-technology office complex—Epicenter—is offering chipping to any employee who wants it, and many are jumping at the chance. Even BBC reporter Rory Cellan-Jones—who wrote the Jan. 29, 2015 article entitled “Office puts chips under staff’s skin”—volunteered to have the device, about the size of a grain of rice, implanted in his hand, between his thumb and index finger. He explained the process in the article.

First, he massaged the skin between my thumb and index finger and rubbed in some disinfectant. The[n] he told me to take a deep breath while he inserted the chip. There was a moment of pain—not much worse than any injection—and then he stuck a plaster [an adhesive bandage] over my hand.

Liberty Stickers

Eventually, all 700 employees working in the complex were to be offered the “opportunity” to be chipped.

The man implanting the chips—Hannes Sjoblad, who works for the Swedish “biohacking” company BioNyfiken—told the reporter:

We already interact with technology all the time. Today it’s a bit messy—we need pin codes and passwords. Wouldn’t it be easy to just touch with your hand? That’s really intuitive. We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped—the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip.

An Associated Press (AP) article updating Epicenter’s “progress,” reported that of the “more than 100 companies and some 2,000 workers . . . about 150 workers have them.” The report notes a company in Belgium “also offers its employees such implants, and there are isolated cases around the world where tech enthusiasts have tried this out in recent years.”

“The implants have become so popular,” reports AP, “that Epicenter workers stage monthly events where attendees have the option of being ‘chipped’ for free.”

Now the chipping craze has crossed the pond. As reported in the pages of USA Today on July 24, a “Wisconsin technology firm has begun offering employees microchip implants so they can [enter the company building without a swipe card] and purchase food at work.” The company, Three Square Market (32M)—which is partnering with BioNyfiken—“has over 50 employees who plan to have the devices implanted.”

According to a company press release, 32M “is offering implanted chip technology to all of their employees. Employees will be chipped at the 32M inaugural ‘chip party’ hosted at their headquarters in River Falls, Wisc. on Aug. 1, 2017. Employees will be implanted with a RFID chip allowing them to make purchases in their break room micro market, open doors, log in to computers, use the copy machine etc.”

CEO Todd Westby states: “We foresee the use of RFID technology to drive everything from making purchases in our office break room market, opening doors, use of copy machines, logging into our office computers, unlocking phones, sharing business cards, storing medical/health information, and used as payment at other RFID terminals. Eventually, this technology will become standardized allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities etc.”

Vice President of International Sales Tony Danna added, “We see chip technology as the next evolution in payment systems.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Fortunately for those neo-luddites among us, not everyone is as eager to step into this brave, new world. State lawmakers in Nevada heard testimony earlier this year regarding chipping.

Legislation introduced by state Sen. Becky Harris “would bar forcefully implanted tracking microchips,” reported the Reno Gazette-Journal on Feb. 13. Sen. Harris believes “the chips pose serious ethical concerns, such as who owns the information stored on the chip and who owns the chip itself.”

She’s also concerned that the chips could be “hacked,” allowing someone unauthorized access to the chip for an illegal purpose.

“There’s no cryptology or protection measures that we’re aware of that are placed on these chips, so it’s possible to hack the information contained within the chips,” she said. “It is possible that you could harass or stalk chipped individuals with the right type of reader.”

Sen. Harris also claims “the chips also pose a potential health problem, citing studies that found fibrosarcoma and sarcoma, a malignant cancerous tumor, at injection sites in animal testing.”

Humans morphing into cancerous cyborgs may have come to pass, but it’s not fazing certain portions of the younger generation. A 25-year-old employee who works for a company in the Epicenter complex, Sandra Haglof, is ready for the transformation.

Laughing, she told AP, “I want to be part of the future.”

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 for more information.