Manchester Bomber Was Product of West’s Libya/Syria Intervention

By Daniel McAdams

Here’s what the media and politicians don’t want you to know about the Manchester, UK, suicide attack: Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old who killed nearly two dozen concert-goers in Manchester, UK, was the product of the U.S. and UK overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya and “regime change” policy in Syria. He was a radicalized Libyan whose family fled Gaddafi’s secular Libya, and later trained to be an armed “rebel” in Syria, fighting for the U.S. and UK “regime change” policy toward the secular Assad government.

The suicide attacker was the direct product of U.S. and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.


Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester, had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the U.S./UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop-concert attendees. Before the U.S.-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.

Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad.

Gideon Elite book cover

In Salman Abedi we have the convergence of both these disastrous U.S./UK and allied interventions, however: It turns out that not only did Abedi make trips to Libya to radicalize and train for terror, but he also travelled to Syria to become one of the “Syria rebels” fighting on the same side as the U.S. and UK to overthrow the Assad government. Was he perhaps even trained in a CIA program? We don’t know, but it certainly is possible.

While the mainstream media and opportunistic politicians will argue that the only solution is more Western intervention in the Middle East, the plain truth is that at least partial responsibility for this attack lies at the feet of those who pushed and pursued Western intervention in Libya and Syria.

There would have been no jihadist training camps in Libya had Gaddafi not been overthrown by the U.S./UK and allies. There would have been no explosion of ISIS or al-Qaeda in Syria had it not been for the U.S./UK and allied policy of “regime change” in that country.

When thinking about Abedi’s guilt for this heinous act of murder, do not forget those interventionists who lit the fuse that started this conflagration. The guilt rests squarely on their shoulders as well.

Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer. This column was originally published at the

Truth Has Become Un-American

Do the Russians and Chinese understand the true reason for Washington’s hostility toward them? Or to whom the U.S. military/security complex is truly answering? An overwhelming majority of Americans certainly don’t seem to have a clue what’s going on.

By Paul Craig Roberts

Those of us who have exited The Matrix are concerned that there are no checks on Washington’s use of nuclear weapons in the interest of U.S. hegemony over the world.

Washington and Israel are the threats to peace. Washington demands world hegemony, and Israel demands hegemony in the Middle East.

There are two countries that stand in the way of Washington’s world hegemony—Russia and China. Consequently, Washington has plans for preemptive nuclear strikes against both countries. It is difficult to imagine a more serious threat to mankind, and there is no awareness or acknowledgment of this threat among the Congress, the presstitute media, and the general public in the United States and Washington’s European vassal populations.

Two countries and a part of a third stand in the way of Greater Israel. Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, but cannot get them, despite twice sending in the Israeli Army, because of the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which is supplied by Syria and Iran. This is why Syria and Iran are on Washington’s hit list. Washington serves the military/security complex, Wall Street, and the over-sized U.S. banks, and Israel.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

It is unclear if the Russians and Chinese understand that Washington’s hostility toward them is not just some sort of misunderstanding that diplomacy can work out.

Clearly, Russia hasn’t interfered in the U.S. presidential election or invaded Ukraine, and does not intend to invade Poland or the Baltics. Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as the empire was expensive and of little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European empire comprised Stalin’s buffer against another Western invasion. The Warsaw Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in Washington, of Soviet world domination.

I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia faces in Russian media reports and articles posted on Russian English language websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov work out an accommodation with Washington, which intends to dominate or isolate Russia?

Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always show awareness that it is not Washington’s intention to accommodate other national interests.

It can not be otherwise for these three reasons:

  1. The budget for the U.S. military/security complex is the largest in the world. It is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It includes not only the Pentagon’s budget but also the budgets of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the location of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories. When all the elements are added together, the military/security complex has annually the power and profit from $1,000 billion. An empire of this sort just doesn’t give up and go away because some president or some part of the electorate want peace. The “Russian Threat” is essential to the power and profit of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 56 years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
  2. The neoconservatives, who control both U.S. foreign policy and the Western media’s explanation of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are dual Israeli-U.S. citizens. The neoconservatives believe that the collapse of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States as the socio-politico-economic system, and that the U.S. government has the responsibility to assert the hegemony of America over the Earth. Just read the neocon documents. They assert this over and over. This is what it means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you are the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. The claim that the neoconservatives make for the U.S. is similar to the claim that Hitler made for Germany.
  3. As Israel controls U.S. Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel’s expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government and chaos in Iraq, Washington’s war on Syria, and Washington’s demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.

For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is possible to reach an accommodation with Washington, other than a Russian surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov’s use of diplomacy to delay the U.S. attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who sticks to his last, despite the facts.

Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign language broadcasts and websites, thinks that the Western misrepresentation of Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are established, can rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don’t understand that Washington could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and Russia is the enemy of choice.

The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street and U.S. corporations are too dependent on the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, which keeps the U.S. system fueled with profits, to jeopardize these profits by going to war.Gideon Elite book cover

By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail to mobilize world opposition to Washington’s recklessness and, thereby, enable Washington’s move toward war.

The presstitutes serving the National Security State continue to drive toward conflict. Consider Newsweek’s May 28, 2017, cover story with Putin on the cover and the caption: “The Plot Against America: Inside Putin’s Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S.”

It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in America has been destroyed by special interest groups, by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave the reins of power to special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the U.S. Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying American democracy. Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the Western media. The Western presstitutes are either corrupt beyond belief or ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.

Consider Time magazine’s cover for May 29, 2017. It depicts Trump turning the White House into the foundation for the Kremlin, which rises above the White House, symbolizing America’s subservience to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be readily accepted by the bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die as a result of their insouciance. [And who do not know the difference between the Kremlin and St. Basil’s Cathedral. Ed.]

Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul Street’s recent article on “CounterPunch” and the English language Russian website, “Strategic Culture Foundation,” cannot bring themselves to state the truth that the U.S. military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected Russia for that role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of humanity on Earth.

Street writes about “How Russia Became ‘Our Adversary’ Again.” According to Street, Russia became the enemy of choice because Russia protected part of the world’s population and resources from being exploited by global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the U.S. also because Putin stopped the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way of Washington’s exploitation of the world.

Much of what Street says is correct, but he is hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner. He has to dilute his message by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally wanted normal relations with Russia, an “orange-haired brute . . . [who admires] Putin’s authoritarian manliness.”

Trump’s problems originated in his goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute who intended to worsen the relations.

Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street and CounterPunch know this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically incorrect truths about the U.S. and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin propaganda and denigrating President Trump.

The truth that peace with Russia and China would undermine the justification of the $1,000 billion military/security budget, and that the military/security complex is the American government, is too harsh for most writers to state.

Truth is the most rare element in the Western world, and we will not be permitted to have much of it much longer. Increasingly, truth is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities, and is the author of numerous books available at

New Movie Exposes Bilderberg

Daniel Estulin will premier his new film, “Bilderberg, the Movie,” this week in New Orleans. Mark Anderson sat down with him ahead of the screening to learn more about the new film and Estulin’s research on the shadowy group.

By Mark Anderson

NEW ORLEANS, La.—Noted Bilderberg author-researcher Daniel Estulin will soon be screening for the first time in North America his documentary, “Bilderberg, the Movie,” to bring the background and meaning of the Bilderberg group’s highly secretive annual meetings to the greater public.

The Bilderberg meetings consist of 140 (chiefly European and North American) central bankers, finance ministers, former and current legislators, former and current prime ministers, corporate titans, and media moguls and editors who attend but agree not to report on the proceedings. European royalty, NATO and other military brass, select think-tank fellows from the Brookings Institution and other noted institutes, and high-tech gurus like Google founder Eric Schmidt, who represent some of the “fresh blood” among Bilderberg’s aging old guard, are also usually present. They are held at only the most posh hotels and resorts, which are totally cut off from the public during the three days of meetings.

The last U.S.-based meeting was held back in 2012 in Chantilly, Va., meaning the group is overdue to return to North America.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Estulin spoke to AFP in advance of the May 24 showing of the 62-minute film at the Prytania Theater in New Orleans, La. He told this AFP writer about the considerable challenges and intrigue he encountered in making the movie.

Listen to the interview with Estulin by clicking below.

“I started working on this film in 2011-2012 when a . . . Spanish producer, who’s a great fan of my work, approached me about making a documentary,” Estulin explained. “We signed a deal. . . . [But] six months later he was ruined. If you believe in conspiracy or coincidence theories, three banks called in his loans at the same time. He basically went bankrupt.”

A year went by, and another group decided to make a Bilderberg film, with Estulin as co-producer. That film was essentially done by the late summer of 2015.

Liberty Stickers

“Then one day my co-producer comes to me and says that he sold his 50% stake in the film to Baker & Taylor—that’s a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group,” he added. “So I basically knew . . . that there would be no way to get the film out. It was sabotaged. . . . The Carlyles are the Bushes, the bin Ladens, the Bakers. . . .”

Estulin had to reshoot the film to make sure it was 100% his creation, going to 13 cities in 11 countries in the process and spending about $200,000 of his own money.

To give would-be viewers a taste of the movie’s content, Estulin said that two phases of world control—carried out via a Bilderberg-nurtured monopoly- capitalist approach, based on breakneck economic growth for its own sake—have failed. So, when Bilderberg meets this year, he understands the group will be struggling to redefine itself and in the process come up with a model for a third phase of economic-political control.

The main problem with the “Bilderberg outlook,” summarized Estulin, is that it’s based on economic speculation and seeks to overturn the nation-state itself. Instead, it seeks to rely on the formation of regional economic blocs created by merging individual countries into larger entities. It’s no accident that Bilderberg’s early meetings nurtured the creation of ever-larger economic-political blocs, leading to today’s shaky European Union of 28 formerly independent countries—shaky enough to prompt Brits into voting last June to exit the dictatorial superstate.

In contrast, noted Estulin, President Donald Trump’s approach is rooted in a  longstanding competing system that at least keeps countries more or less intact and focuses on tangible, commonsense goals like rebuilding infrastructure.

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

Bilderberg to Meet in Virginia This Year

The exclusive, elite Bilderberg Meeting location for 2017 has been announced, and Mark Anderson will be there, again this year, to ensure their gathering is slightly less secretive than these global powerbrokers would prefer.

By Mark Anderson

With a little help from the Virginia police in the Fairfax County Sully District, as well as the obscure Bilderberg media-relations outlet and its May 19 late-coming online announcement, it’s been confirmed that Bilderberg 2017 will take place in Virginia, June 1-4, at the Westfields Marriot in Chantilly.

The Bilderbergers are naturally attracted to that snooty, secluded hotel, since they’ve met there before—in 2002, 2008, and in 2012, the year that Jim Tucker, the late AFP Bilderberg hound, made his last appearance covering the shadowy group after chasing these sons of smokestack billionaires since the mid-1970s.

The annual Bilderberg gatherings are perhaps the most exclusive and obscure among all the meetings of economic ministers (G7, G20 etc.), the World Economic Forum, and other, more familiar global groupings.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Encircled by an armada of private armed guards and publicly financed police, the Bilderberg Meetings, as they’re formally called, are totally closed to the reporting press and public, with the entire five-star hotel or resort of choice sealed off. Even the Bilderberg “sibling” group, the younger but larger Trilateral Commission. co-founded by the late powerbroker David Rockefeller, doesn’t resort to sealing off an entire hotel for itself.

The Bilderberg Meetings are the perfect convergence of public and private interests for the basic purpose of secretly charting the world’s economic and political destiny, although many other groups, including the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) are represented in some manner at Bilderberg and do their part in “the network” as well.

Gideon Elite book cover

The Bilderberg gatherings consist of 140 chiefly European and North American central bankers, finance ministers, former and current legislators, former and current prime ministers, corporate titans, and media moguls and editors who attend but agree not to report on the proceedings, thereby putting the public trust last.

Other participants include European royalty, NATO and other military brass, select think-tank fellows from the Brookings Institution and other noted institutes, and high-tech gurus from Silicon Valley, among others.

Coming out of last year’s meeting in Dresden, Germany, the Bilderbergers are facing an altered world, what with the U.S. president being Donald Trump—whose early actions as president included pulling the U.S. out of the Bilderberg-favored Trans-Pacific Partnership. Britain also voted just after last year’s Bilderberg meeting to exit the European Union. Early Bilderbergers, beginning with their first meeting in Holland in 1954, helped build the EU through all its intermediate stages to the present.

This AFP writer, having covered six previous Bilderberg gatherings, will travel to Chantilly to further discern the status of Bilderberg, to see if general public awareness of the group is rising or needs improvement, and to see if public protests are as strong as ever against one of the world’s most infamous private conferences.

Bilderberg functions as a world-networking and planning forum for the purpose of off-the-grid private governance for the banking and general corporate classes, whose officers and other representatives are sealed in the same hotel as key government officials. Those officials are in a unique, carefully concealed position to cut special wide-ranging deals for select corporations, even while the Bilderbergers groom select attendees for future important positions in government and the private sector.

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

WikiLeaker Revealed?

A private detective in Washington, D.C., investigating the unsolved murder last year of DNC staffer Seth Rich, claims to know who leaked Democrats’ emails—and it is not Russia …

By John Friend

New evidence and public testimony is being offered to further substantiate claims that Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer who was mysteriously murdered in Washington, D.C. late last year, provided damaging information to WikiLeaks—not Russia—in an effort to expose corruption in the Democratic Party during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The WikiLeaks dumps, released late last year during the heated 2016 election, revealed high-level corruption in the DNC designed to sabotage then-Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Following the information released by WikiLeaks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign as chairwoman of the DNC, and Mrs. Clinton’s reputation was sullied even further. Clinton supporters, many mainstream media outlets, and virtually all federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have baselessly alleged Russian agents working at the behest of Russian President Vladimir Putin were responsible for hacking the DNC and transferring the damaging information to WikiLeaks in an attempt to undermine American democracy and ensure Donald Trump’s presidential victory. Russia has denied these allegations, as has WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and no legitimate evidence has been presented by any federal agency or media outlet to demonstrate the theory Russia was the source of the WikiLeaks dumps.

Now, Rod Wheeler, a retired D.C.-based homicide detective and Fox News contributor, who has been contracted by the Rich family to investigate their son’s mysterious death, has alleged that Rich may be the source of the WikiLeaks dumps.

Gideon Elite book cover

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” Wheeler recently declared in an interview with Fox News. “I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sit on his computer on a shelf at the D.C. police or FBI headquarters.”

Thus far, D.C. police have virtually no leads into Rich’s death and have offered little information about his murder. D.C. police have offered a $25,000 reward for information about Rich’s death, and WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward.

An anonymous federal investigator who has been in contact with both Wheeler and Fox News has also backed up Wheeler’s allegations. The federal investigator has claimed that an FBI forensic report on Rich’s computer, which was conducted shortly after his death, reveal that Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, who is now also dead. MacFadyen was a director at WikiLeaks and is a long-time reporter and documentary filmmaker.

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal official told Fox News. He believes the emails are in the FBI’s possession, but have not been publicly released for political reasons.

According to the federal investigator, “44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen,” Fox News reported. The damaging WikiLeaks dumps were published on July 22 of last year, a mere 12 days after Rich was murdered.

Rich’s family has downplayed the recent allegations by both Wheeler and the anonymous federal investigator, describing Wheeler’s claims that Rich was WikiLeaks’ source as “unsubstantiated.”

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.

The Exponential Growth of Insecurity

When it comes to cyberspace, Dr. Roberts says, “There is no such thing as cybersecurity.” He asks a question the mainstream media has (yet again) failed to ask about the malware (malicious software) stolen from the National Security Agency by hackers and deployed to unsuspecting computer users worldwide recently. Who did the NSA intend to use this powerful cyberweapon against? 

By Paul Craig Roberts

There is no such thing as cybersecurity. The only choice is more security or less security, as the recent hack of National Security Agency (NSA) malicious software demonstrates.

Hackers stole from NSA a cyberweapon, which has been used in attacks at the time of this writing on 150 countries, shutting down elements of the British National Health Service, the Spanish telecommunications company Telefonica, automakers Renault and Nissan, Russia’s Interior Ministry, Federal Express, the energy company PetroChina, and many more.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The news spin is to not blame NSA for its carelessness, but to blame Microsoft users for not updating their systems with a patch issued two months ago. But the important questions have not been asked: What was the NSA doing with such malware, and why did NSA not inform Microsoft of the malware?

Clearly, NSA intended to use the cyberweapon against some country or countries. Why else have it and keep it a secret from Microsoft?

Was it to be used to shut down Russian and Chinese systems prior to launching a nuclear first strike against the countries? Congress should be asking this question, as it is certain that the Russian and Chinese governments are. As I previously reported, the Russian High Command has already concluded that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike against Russia, and so has China.

It is extremely dangerous that two nuclear powers have this expectation. This danger has received no attention from Washington and its NATO vassals.

Gideon Elite book cover

Microsoft president Brad Smith likened the theft of the NSA’s cyberweapon to “the U.S. military having some of its tomahawk missiles stolen.” In other words, with cyberweapons, as with nuclear weapons and short warning times, things can go wrong in a big way.

What if the hackers had successfully attacked the Russian Ministry of Defense or radar warning systems? Would the Russian high command have concluded that the cyberattack was Washington’s prelude to incoming ICBMs?

The fact that no one in Washington or any Western government has stepped forward to reassure the Russian government and demand the removal of the U.S. missile bases surrounding Russia indicates a level of hubris or denial that is beyond comprehension.

On May 12, I wrote in an article on my website: “The costs of the digital revolution exceed its benefits by many times. The digital revolution rivals nuclear weapons as the most catastrophic technology of our time.”

Paper files are far more secure. Malware cannot be introduced into them. To steal a person’s information required knowing the location of the information, breaking into the building, searching file cabinets for the information, and copying the information. To intercept a voice communication required a warrant to wiretap a specific telephone line.

People born into a world where the ease of communication comes at the price of the loss of autonomy never experience privacy. They are unaware that a foundation of liberty has been lost.

In our era of controlled print and TV media, the digital revolution serves for now as a check on the ruling elite’s ability to control explanations. However, the same technology that currently permits alternative explanations can be used to prevent them. Indeed, efforts to discredit and to limit non-approved explanations are already underway.

The enemies of truth have a powerful weapon in the digital revolution and can use it to herd humanity into a tyrannical dystopia. The digital revolution even has its own memory hole. Files stored electronically by older technology can no longer be accessed, as they exist in an outdated electronic format that cannot be opened by current systems in use.

Humans are proving to be the most stupid of the life forms. They create weapons that cannot be used without destroying themselves. They create robots and free-trade myths that take away their jobs. They create information technology that destroys their liberty.

Dystopias tend to be permanent. The generations born into them never know any different, and the control mechanisms are total.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities, and is the author of numerous books available at the AmericanFreePress Bookstore.

Was the French Election Stolen?

On May 7, after weeks of polls showing that conservative populist presidential candidate Marine Le Pen would win the presidential election in France, a young, liberal upstart, who just happens to have worked for the Rothschilds and supports globalization, won by a landslide. Since then there have been charges of rampant vote tampering. Is anyone surprised? 

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

The defeat of Marine Le Pen in the May 7 presidential election runoff is causing celebrations in Brussels. For some months, the future of the European Union was very much in doubt. To a small extent, this election solidified it in the wake of Brexit and the economic troubles in Greece. However, given troubles facing France due to unchecked immigration, the very fact that newly elected Emmanuel Macron was an investment banker with the Rothschild empire brings his sudden rise in French politics into question.

Paris as we know it is in decline. Mass immigration has turned parts of the city into squatter camps. In those areas, the streets are filthy, the sidewalks are blocked with trash, and tents have popped up.

The police have given up controlling some of these areas, and the army has been called in to patrol the more important areas of the city. Crime is rampant and riots are a weekly occurrence.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

This writer refuses to believe that the French, seeing what is happening to their country, voted overwhelmingly for someone who promotes open borders.

Paris is now, solely due to immigrants, among the most dangerous cities in Europe. In February, riot police lost control as rival Muslim gangs burned cars and homes. Because of this, a 2016 poll showed about half the French voting population sees Islam as a “threat to national identity.” Almost 70% are worried that Muslims have not integrated with French society.

In light of these poll numbers, the massive, landslide victory by Macron—the open borders candidate—makes no sense.

It should be noted that France’s Ministry of the Interior controls all elections.

The previous government threatened the media that leaked emails mostly showing the mundane inner workings of Macron’s political movement, En Marche!, would not be a part of the election debate. The leak could not be discussed by any side in the debate under threat of prison.

Vote rigging was reportedly rife. For instance, many thousands of election packets mailed to voters’ homes only showed Macron’s name.

Gideon Elite book cover

Strasbourg town hall confirmed that 15,000 people were removed from voter lists. This is a city of 270,000 people. According to Le Monde, many voters were stunned to learn that they were no longer registered to vote. Ms. Le Pen’s own campaign website has gone down more than once due to substantial coordinated attacks against it.

Perhaps one of the worst examples of vote tampering was shown in a video posted online. There, a man videotaped himself stealing all of the ballots with Ms. Le Pen’s name on them so no one could vote for her.


Le Monde reported that the state is distorting the election turnout numbers. Given the French presidential election has received saturation media coverage, all anti-Le Pen, that turnout would be low makes no sense. The BBC also reported low voter turnout despite the frenzied calls to support Macron.

French media bias was so bad that they essentially declared Macron the winner several days before polling. Even the more rightist Le Figaro said it was over days before the voting.

Only 55% of French citizens trust the media. About 80% of French voters believe the campaign has been “deceiving.” If turnout was, in fact, low, this might help explain it.

In France, voters are mailed voting information and a set of ballots they use to vote. Any ballot that is torn in any way is invalid. Yet, there are widespread reports throughout the country of torn ballots affecting only Ms. Le Pen. This was not an issue for the other candidates.

As the campaign came to a close, Ms. Le Pen was widely seen to be narrowing the gap against Macron. With 122,000 respondents, almost 50% of French voters saw Ms. Le Pen as the likely victor in the days before the election. Yet this surge was hidden by the French press. Such a move would have galvanized voters to go to the polls.

Most foreign polls had Ms. Le Pen losing, but still with a 45% or 50% popularity rating.

While the major parties were handed a stinging defeat in the first round, as the international press reported, even with turnout drastically reduced, voters chose a Rothschild-connected investment banker?

It makes little sense.

French opinions on the EU are very negative, yet Macron ran on a platform that had a strong EU as its primary plank. The French polling agency Elabe discovered that “only 26% of the French . . . consider that there are ‘more advantages than drawbacks’ when it comes to being part of the EU.” But we are to believe France voted for the pro-immigrant, pro-EU candidate in a landslide.

What happened to Ms. Le Pen is a farce. All French parties unified to stop her, which suggests big-money incentives, since this doesn’t happen without them.

More riots were threatened if she was elected, which is, in itself, a criminal act. French corporate elites fought her while the media was uniformly hostile. The threats from the EU were constant. The French are anti-immigrant and vehemently anti-EU.

Ms. Le Pen did not lose the election “in a landslide.” It was stolen.

Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D. is originally from Union County, N.J. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska, writing his dissertation on Michael Oakeshott’s critique of modernity. His first job out of college was working with The Barnes Review. He is a former professor of history at Mt. St. Mary’s University in Emmetsville, Md. Matt resides in Franklin County, Pa., where he teaches and writes on Russian history and politics. Matt’s latest books, Russian Populist: The Political Thought of Vladimir Putin and The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy are available from TBR Book Club. Send payment with request to TBR, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774. Order online at or call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge.

President Trump: Cancel Your Saudi Trip, Play More Golf

Ron Paul joins the chorus of those wondering what happened to candidate Donald Trump, who called for an end to U.S. interventionist policy and questioned the value of NATO? Many people are noticing President Trump’s actions when it comes to foreign policy don’t have much in common with that candidate in some regards.

By Ron Paul

President Donald Trump is about to embark on his first foreign trip, where he will stop in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican, before attending a NATO meeting in Brussels and the G-7 summit in Sicily. The media and pundits have loudly wondered why he hasn’t gone on a foreign trip sooner. I wonder, why go at all?

What does the president hope to achieve with these meetings? This is a president who came into office with promises that we would finally start to mind our own business overseas. In December, he said that the policy of U.S. “intervention and chaos” overseas must come to an end. Instead, he is jumping into a region—the Middle East—that has consumed the presidencies of numerous of his predecessors.

On Saudi Arabia, Trump has shifted his position from criticism of the Saudi regime to a seemingly warm friendship with Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. He has approved weapons sales to Saudi Arabia that President Obama had halted due to Saudi human rights abuses, particularly in its horrific war on Yemen.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

While visiting Saudi Arabia, one of the most extreme theocracies on Earth—where conversion to Christianity can bring the death penalty—Trump will attend a meeting of Muslim leaders to discuss the threats of terrorism and religious extremism. No, not religious extremism in Saudi Arabia but in Iran, where Christianity is legal and thriving!

Perhaps Trump’s flip-flop on Saudi Arabia was inspired by the ten separate Washington, D.C. public relations firms the kingdom keeps on the payroll, at a cost of $1.3 million per month. That kind of money can really grease the policy wheels in Washington.

From there, the U.S. president will travel to Israel. Does he believe he will finally be able to solve the 70-year-old Israel-Palestine conflict by negotiating a good deal? If so, he’s in for a surprise.

The problem persists partly because we have been meddling in the region for so long. Doing more of the same is pretty unlikely to bring about a different result. How many billions have we spent propping up “allies” and bribing others? Yet we’re no closer to peace now than when we started. Maybe it’s time for a new approach. Maybe it’s time for the countries in the Middle East to solve their own problems. They have much more incentive to reach some kind of deal in their own neighborhood.

Likewise, his attendance at the NATO meeting is not very encouraging to those of us who were pleased to hear candidate Trump speak the truth about the outdated military alliance. We don’t need to strong-arm NATO members to spend more money on their own defense. We need to worry about our own defense. Our military empire—of which NATO is an arm—makes us weaker and more vulnerable. Minding our own business and rejecting militarism would make us safer.

Many pundits complain that President Trump spends too much time golfing. I would rather he spend a lot more time golfing and less time trying to solve the rest of the world’s problems. We cannot afford to be the policeman or nursemaid to the rest of the world, particularly when we have such a lousy record of success.

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

Copyright © 2017 by Ron Paul Institute.

The Rise of the Generals

What happened to the Donald Trump who campaigned for president, the one who embraced an anti-interventionist foreign policy for the U.S. under a Trump administration? Whose path is he now following, and how have the warmongers gotten into his brain in just his first 100 days in office?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Has President Donald Trump outsourced foreign policy to the generals? So it would seem. Candidate Trump held out his hand to Vladimir Putin. He rejected further U.S. intervention in Syria other than to smash ISIS.

He spoke of getting out and staying out of the misbegotten Middle East wars into which Presidents Bush II and Obama had plunged the country.

President Trump’s seeming renunciation of an anti-interventionist foreign policy is the great surprise of the first 100 days, and the most ominous. For any new war could vitiate the Trump mandate and consume his presidency.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Trump no longer calls NATO “obsolete,” but moves U.S. troops toward Russia in the Baltic and eastern Balkans. Rex Tillerson, holder of Russia’s Order of Friendship, now warns that the U.S. will not lift sanctions on Russia until she gets out of Ukraine.

If Tillerson is not bluffing, that would rule out any rapprochement in the Trump presidency. For neither Putin, nor any successor, could surrender Crimea and survive.

What happened to the Trump of 2016?

When did Kiev’s claim to Crimea become more crucial to us than a cooperative relationship with a nuclear-armed Russia? In 1991, Bush I and Secretary of State James Baker thought the very idea of Ukraine’s independence was the product of a “suicidal nationalism.”

Where do we think this demonization of Putin and ostracism of Russia is going to lead?

To get Xi Jinping to help with our Pyongyang problem, Trump has dropped all talk of befriending Taiwan, backed off Tillerson’s warning to Beijing to vacate its fortified reefs in the South China Sea, and held out promises of major concessions to Beijing in future trade deals.

“I like (Xi Jinping) and I believe he likes me a lot,” Trump said this week. One recalls FDR admonishing Churchill, “I think I can personally handle Stalin better than . . . your Foreign Office. . . . Stalin hates the guts of all your people. He thinks he likes me better.”

FDR did not live to see what a fool Stalin had made of him.

Among the achievements celebrated in Trump’s first 100 days are the 59 cruise missiles launched at the Syrian airfield from which the gas attack on civilians allegedly came, and the dropping of the 22,000-pound “Mother of All Bombs” bomb in Afghanistan.

Gideon Elite book cover

But what did these bombings accomplish?

The War Party seems again ascendant. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are happy campers. In Afghanistan, the U.S. commander is calling for thousands more U.S. troops to assist the 8,500 still there, to stabilize an Afghan regime and army that is steadily losing ground to the Taliban.

Iran is back on the front burner. While Tillerson concedes that Tehran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, Trump says it is violating “the spirit of the agreement.”

How so? Says Tillerson, Iran is “destabilizing” the region, and threatening U.S. interests in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon.

But Iran is an ally of Syria and was invited in to help the UN-recognized government put down an insurrection that contains elements of al Qaeda and ISIS. It is we, the Turks, Saudis, and Gulf Arabs who have been backing the rebels seeking to overthrow the regime.

In Yemen, Houthi rebels overthrew and expelled a Saudi satrap. The bombing, blockading, and intervention with troops is being done by Saudi and Sunni Arabs, assisted by the U.S. Navy and Air Force.

It is we and the Saudis who are talking of closing the Yemeni port of Hodeida, which could bring on widespread starvation.

It was not Iran but the U.S. that invaded Iraq, overthrew the Baghdad regime, and occupied the country. It was not Iran that overthrew Col. Qadaffi and created the current disaster in Libya.

Monday, the USS Mahan fired a flare to warn off an Iranian patrol boat, 1,000 meters away. Supposedly, this was a provocation. But Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif had a point when he tweeted: “Breaking: Our Navy operates in—yes, correct—the Persian Gulf, not the Gulf of Mexico. Question is what U.S. Navy doing 7,500 miles from home.”

Who is behind the seeming conversion of Trump to hawk?

The generals, Bibi Netanyahu, and the neocons, congressional hawks with Cold War mindsets, the Saudi royal family, and the Gulf Arabs—they are winning the battle for the president’s mind.

And their agenda for America?

We are to recognize that our true enemy in the Mideast is not al Qaeda or ISIS, but Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria, and his patron, Putin. And until Hezbollah is eviscerated, Assad is gone, and Iran is smashed the way we did Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, the flowering of Middle East democracy that we all seek cannot truly begin.

But before President Trump proceeds along the path laid out for him by his generals, brave and patriotic men that they are, he should discover if any of them opposed any of the idiotic wars of the last 15 years, beginning with that greatest of strategic blunders—George Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Why Did Trump Betray Campaign Pledges on Syria, Assad, Russia?

World leaders are questioning the veracity of claims Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own citizens—and the legality of the U.S.’s retaliatory cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base. In the U.S., citizens who supported Donald Trump during his presidential campaign are now questioning the veracity of his pledge to follow a non-interventionist policy when it comes to America’s military.

By John Friend

Betraying his campaign pledges to pursue an America-first foreign policy and entirely contradicting his previous criticisms of America’s disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East—epitomized by the endless wars based on lies and false “intelligence” being waged against various Muslim countries in the region—President Donald Trump launched an airstrike targeting a Syrian airbase that was allegedly home to the Syrian warplanes that carried out a purported chemical attack against civilians earlier this month.

American officials have insisted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered an attack on civilians using sarin gas, a deadly chemical weapon that is banned by the UN. When announcing his decision to launch the airstrike, which consisted of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles being fired at Al Shayrat Airfield where the alleged chemical weapons attack originated, President Trump declared that the strike was in the “vital national security of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council,” President Trump went on to insist. “Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Syrian President Assad has denied he ordered the attack, and has insisted that his regime gave up all of its chemical weapons in 2013. In a controversial interview shortly after the alleged attack with Agence France-Presse (AFP), which has since been deleted from the world renowned news outlet’s website, Assad vehemently denied responsibility for the attack that purportedly took place in the Syrian town of Khan Shaykhun, describing the event as a “100% fabrication.”

“Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists,” he told AFP in the interview. “They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack.”

Assad went on to question the validity of the dramatic videos depicting the alleged attack, which were shown on major media outlets across the globe and used to justify an American military response to the purported attack. Assad stated it was “not clear” to him and his government whether an attack took place at all, but if an attack did take place, his government was not responsible.

“You have a lot of fake videos now,” Assad stated. “We don’t know whether those dead children were killed in Khan Shaykhun. Were they dead at all?”

NWO in action cover

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally skeptical of the alleged attack and America’s response. During a press conference shortly after the alleged chemical attack, Putin suggested that the situation reminded him of the lead-up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was based on entirely fabricated intelligence and outright lies.

“The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat, and the appearance of Islamic State on the world stage,” Putin noted.

Putin also suggested the alleged attack may have been a Western-created provocation or false-flag attack designed to justify a military strike against Syria. “We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one—and I cannot call it otherwise—are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus,” RT quoted Putin as stating at the press conference. “They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack.”

The Russian government has urged the UN to launch an objective investigation into the alleged attack, and bring their results and conclusions to the international community.

“We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe,” Putin stated.

Liberty Stickers

American Rhetoric Against Russia and Syria Increasingly Hostile

American officials, including President Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have used increasingly bellicose and hostile rhetoric towards Russia and Syria, even going so far as to accuse Russia of knowing in advance the Syrians were planning a chemical weapons attack. A declassified U.S. intelligence report published last week not only concludes Syria’s government ordered the sarin gas attack, but also argues Russia is helping Syria cover up its alleged crimes.

“The United States is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the nerve agent sarin, against its own people in the town of Khan Shaykhun in southern Idlib Province on April 4, 2017,” the document states. “The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier attacks.”

The report goes on to argue that Russia “spins out multiple, conflicting accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community.”

Interestingly, immediately following reports of the purported chemical weapons attack, Israeli defense and intelligence officials pinned the blame on Syrian President Assad, insisting he personally ordered the attacks. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, a far-right Zionist, declared that Israel was “100% certain” the attacks were “directly ordered and planned by Syrian President Bashar Assad,” according to Ha’aretz, an Israeli news outlet.

Putin, for his part, told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that it was “unacceptable” to make “groundless accusations” of such a magnitude before an impartial investigation was conducted. Israel and Jewish neoconservatives with close ties to the Zionist state have played a leading role in promoting an aggressive American foreign and military policy in the Middle East, and were largely responsible for the disastrous wars in Iraq, Libya, and other Muslim-majority nations in the region.

Fake News Media and Political Establishment Support War

Virtually the entire American political and media establishment has supported President Trump’s strike against Syria, and have actively participated in the hysterical demonization of both Assad and Putin. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) are two notable exceptions, as both congressional leaders have criticized President Trump’s moves in Syria. Gabbard has even expressed skepticism and doubt about whether Assad was truly behind the alleged chemical weapons attack, drawing the ire of more establishment Democrats. Her justifiable skepticism has led liberal leaders to demand Hawaiians vote her out of office in the next election.

“Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war?” Gabbard asked, while defending her skepticism during a recent interview with CNN.

As is generally the case, those criticizing America’s warmongering are attacked and slandered as “unpatriotic” and “un-American,” while leading cheerleaders for more war and mayhem receive praise and adoration.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.


Can We Get the Truth About a Possible North Korea Showdown?

There is so much fake news circulating about North Korea, it’s hard to know what’s really the truth. Is North Korea’s Kim Jung-Un really interested in nuking the U.S.? Will China and Russia rally behind the U.S. military if the U.S. attacks? You may be surprised when you read Dr. Johnson’s commentary below.

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

The U.S. Navy is making its way to Korean waters. Stealth bombers are now on alert in South Korea and Japan. If you believe the mainstream media, this is all because North Korea is threatening the world with nuclear annihilation. But what is the truth, and who is really to blame for ratcheting up tensions in Asia?

Regardless of one’s views on Pyongyang, the North Koreans have not sought to conquer anyone and seek nothing but to be left alone. The North Korean military has been dug in and waiting for a Southern or American attack for decades. Its population is used to drills and civil defense procedures to fight such an attack.

North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. However, it seeks to be a nuclear power to deter attacks from the much larger American, Japanese, and Southern forces.

In October 2016, North Korea made this principle clear. To speak of Kim Jong-Un’s “threats” against the U.S. while the U.S. engages in almost monthly military exercises against North Korea is absurd and masks a larger agenda.

Contrary to media myths, North Korea has never stated it would use nuclear weapons first. They have said they would use nuclear weapons only in the case of foreign attack. The only chance of a nuclear war in Korea is because of American provocations. The Chinese have echoed this as well.

The U.S. has said it will attack the North if a weapons test were carried out, but many such tests have taken place in the North in the past. Regardless, this is not legal grounds for a preemptive military strike, let alone a nuclear one.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The incessant American press mantra that China and North Korea are on the verge of becoming enemies is also false. The opposite—as usual—is the case.

Decades of nuclear tests have not harmed Pyongyang-Peking relations. China has never, in any form, said it will bomb Korea’s nuclear facilities. In fact, China’s ambassador to the UN, Liu Jieyi, blamed the U.S. for the escalation in the region.

Importantly, China has no incentive to see an American victory in Asia against a friendly power. It was only a few months ago that Washington was trying to start another war, this time against China, in the South China Sea. To suggest that China will break with a long-time ally in favor of U.S. imperialism is not just arrogant; it is grossly naive.

So what is the truth about North Korea?

There is no doubt the West is peddling fabrications about North Korea. That is because much of the information reaching the public comes from defectors, who have every reason to exaggerate. In 2014, The Guardian in the UK exposed many defector stories as false.

For example, Shin Dong-hyuk travels around the world, lecturing about the “death camps” in North Korea, yet he speaks with a pronounced Southern accent. His book and various videos have been exposed as frauds. Others, who supposedly were experimented on in North Korea before fleeing for their lives, have also been revealed to be telling tall tales.

It is this false information that is used to justify keeping American troops in South Korea as well as running exercises meant to train assassins to murder the North Korean head of state.

It is worth noting that Russian reports do not show North Korea as a starving, totalitarian country. According to Russian news outlets, the poverty that does exist there is largely due to North Korea’s need to divert over 50% of its budget to the military. Long-time sanctions on the country also depress its economy.

A revitalized Russia under Vladimir Putin has modernized portions of the North, while China supplies much of its energy needs. In 2014, Russia announced $25 billion in investment projects in the North.

There is now even a burgeoning middle class, and the automotive market has taken off.

North Korea is not to be underestimated. Russian and NATO analysis reported as late as December of last year that Pyongyang’s military technology is better than previously thought.

The South far exceeds the North in military technology, but South Korea remains a deeply divided society. In the event of war, South Korean forces would come under American, not Korean, command. South Koreans, as their history of anti-American rioting have shown, might not be willing to kill fellow Koreans for American interests.

The very large North Korean forces have a great superiority in tanks, artillery pieces, and infantry. The North has almost 100 submarines, while the South has just over 20.

As for aircraft, the North and South are equal in terms of numbers, but the quality certainly favors the South.

Outside of nuclear weapons, the North has pioneered the development of “midget submarines,” very hard to detect, that can be produced in large numbers and can swarm enemy ships. Further, two very dangerous artillery pieces in the North Korean arsenal are the 170mm Koksan howitzers and MRL-240 rocket launchers. The KN-2 Toksa is a fairly advanced ballistic missile system taken from the Russian SS-21 class.

Compare that to the U.S. military, which is overstretched and involved in several continents. The U.S. has been building up forces in the Baltics and Romania, and now is seeking to move into Syria.

In 2008, North Korea sought to end provocative military drills. Despite this, in March 2017, the U.S. and South Korea performed military exercises using simulated nuclear weapons against the North. The U.S. and South Korea also engaged in their largest military exercise yet, and the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier team has now been diverted to the Sea of Japan.

In March, China offered a deal by which the North would end all nuclear tests in exchange for the complete cessation of drills by the Americans and the South. It was angrily rejected by Washington.

President Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, Gen. James Mattis, a fervent neocon, stated, “We are working diplomatically, including with those that we might be able to enlist in this effort to get North Korea under control.”

Immediately after this statement, he attacked Russia, saying, “[Russia’s] violations of international law are now a matter of record.” This was in reference to Crimea. He then trailed off, saying they shouldn’t be “mucking around inside other people’s elections and that sort of thing.”

North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Han Song Ryol said the Trump administration has been the most provocative of any in recent memory.

Han calls the nuclear weapons program a “self defense” system against a militarily superior West and South.  He reiterated that there is no desire for a preemptive strike against the U.S., but the American media is saying otherwise.

Matthew Raphael Johnson is an author and historian whose area of special expertise is Slavic studies. He is also an acknowledged authority on the history of nationalism and nationalist movements. He is the author of Russian Populist, a book detailing the political thought of Vladimir Putin.

Will Christianity Perish in Its Birthplace?

“Liberated for democracy” by the U.S., Afghanistan is now among the world’s most deadly when it comes to persecution of Christians. In Iraq and Syria, which once tolerated and even embraced Christians, hundreds of thousands are now fleeing for their lives. The 44 Coptic Christians killed in Egypt on Palm Sunday are only a few of the estimated 90,000 Christians around the world killed for their faith in 2016. Is the ultimate goal to drive all Christians from the Holy Lands?

By Pat Buchanan

“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)” Those are among Jesus’s last words on the cross that first Good Friday. It was a cry of agony, but not despair. The dying Christ, to rise again in three days, was repeating the first words of the 22nd Psalm.

And today, in lands where Christ lived and taught and beyond where the Christian faith was born and nourished, the words echo. For it is in the birthplace of Christianity that Christians face the greatest of persecutions and martyrdoms since the time of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin.

President Donald Trump, outraged by pictures of infants and children who had perished in the nerve gas attack in Syria, ordered missile strikes on the air base from which the war crime came.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Two days later, Palm Sunday, 44 Coptic Christians celebrating Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem were martyred in terrorist attacks in Egypt. The first bombing was at St. George’s Church in Tanta, the second at St. Mark’s in Alexandria, where the Coptic Pope Tawadros II was at Mass.

The pope was unhurt, but 100 Christians were injured in the attacks. At St. George’s, one witness described the scene after the bomb exploded near the altar: “I saw pieces of body parts. . . . There was so much blood everywhere. Some people had half of their bodies missing.”

The Islamic State group claims credit for the murders, and the pictures of dead children from those churches were surely as horrific as the pictures the president saw after the gas attack.

Gideon Elite book cover

Copts are among the earliest Christians, dating to the first century A.D., when St. Mark, one of the Twelve Apostles, established the first church outside the Holy Land and became bishop of Alexandria.

The Copts make up 10% of Egypt’s population. They have been especially targeted for terrorist attacks since the 2013 overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, who had been elected president after the ouster of longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak.

In the subsequent struggle between Egypt’s Islamists, whose base is in Sinai, and the Cairo regime of Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who was welcomed to the White House in March, the Copts are seen as soft-target allies of el-Sissi’s and hated for their faith.

Whatever they did for democracy, the U.S. interventions in the Middle East and the vaunted Arab Spring have proved to be pure hell for Arab Christians.

In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Christians were left alone if they did not interfere in politics. Indeed, they prospered as doctors, lawyers, journalists, academics, engineers, businessmen. A Christian, Tariq Aziz, was Saddam’s foreign minister, who negotiated with Secretary of State James Baker to try to prevent what became the Gulf War.

Before 2003, there were still 800,000 Christians in Iraq. But after a decade of church bombings and murders of priests, their numbers have plummeted. When the Islamic State seized a third of Iraq, Christians under the group’s rule had to convert to Islam and pay a tax or face beheading.

On Dec. 26, St. Stephen’s Day, which honors the first martyr, Pope Francis hailed the Iraqi Christians lately liberated from Islamic State rule, noting, “They are our martyrs of today, and there are so many we can say that they are more numerous than in the first centuries.”

In 2016, an estimated 90,000 more Christians worldwide died for their faith.

Under Syria’s dictator Hafez al-Assad and son Bashar, Christians have been 10% of the population and protected by the regime. They thus have sided with Assad against the terrorists of the Islamic State and al Qaeda, whose victory would mean their expulsion or death.

Of the 10 nations deemed by Christianity Today to be the most hateful and hostile toward Christianity, eight are majority-Muslim nations, with the Middle East being the site of the worst of today’s persecutions.

Afghanistan, which we “liberated” in 2001, is listed as the third-most hostile nation toward Christians. The punishment for baptism there is death. A decade ago, a Christian convert had to flee his country to avoid beheading.

ISIS Is Us Book cover

Consider. Christianity, whose greatest feast day we celebrated on Sunday, April 16, is the cradle faith of the culture and the civilization of the West. And in our secularized world, Christianity remains the predominant faith.

A millennium ago, Christendom mounted crusades to ensure that its pilgrims would not lose the right to visit the Holy Land in peace.

Now, a decade and a half after we launched invasions and occupations of the Muslim world in Afghanistan and then Iraq to bring the blessings of democracy, the people there who profess that Christian faith are being persecuted as horribly as they were under the Romans in Nero’s time.

Where are the gains for religious freedom and human rights to justify all the bombings, invasions, and wars we have conducted in the lands from Libya to Pakistan—to justify the losses we have endured and the death and suffering we have inflicted?

Truth be told, it is in part because of us that Christianity is on its way to being exterminated in its cradle.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Washington’s Deception Is Aimed at Russia, Vladimir Putin

Sane Americans are wondering what’s going on in Washington. Did President Donald Trump really cave to pressure from the deep state? Why would he order missile strikes against the Syrian military when he promised on the campaign trail that he would not get the U.S. involved in the civil war in Syria? Above, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson walks with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov ahead of their bilateral meeting at the Osobnyak Guest House in Moscow, Russia on April 12, 2017.

By Paul Craig Roberts

According to a report on RT, Secretary of State Tillerson has on CBS backed away from his previously reported aggressive rhetoric reported by the presstitutes against Russia and Syria.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to the RT report, Tillerson said that Washington’s plan is to defeat ISIS, not to bring regime change to Syria. It is up to the Syrian people, Tillerson reportedly said, to choose their own president. “We’ve seen what violent regime change looks like in Libya and the kind of chaos that can be unleashed and indeed the kind of misery that it enacts on its own people,” he said on CBS. “I think we have to learn the lessons of the past,” he emphasized on ABC, adding, “Any time you go on and have a violent change at the top, it is very difficult to create the conditions for stability longer term.”

If the report is correct, it could either be good news or another Washington deception in advance of Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, the purpose of which will be to bring the Russian government into Washington’s orbit and an agreement to replace Assad with an American vassal.

Gideon Elite book cover

Perhaps the Russian government will keep in mind Tillerson’s revealing statement that the message the US sent with its illegal, war crime, unprovoked attack on Syria “is that the violation of international norms . . . will no longer be tolerated.”

Of course, who is the violator of “international norms”? No one but Washington (and Israel). Washington is the greatest violator of “international norms” in modern history. Washington has invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, organized the destruction of Libya and Somalia, conducted attacks on Pakistan and Yemen, and organized a coup against the democratically elected government in Ukraine.

Only Washington has a list of crimes this long. And we can add to it Honduras, Brazil, Argentina, and in the works, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

If Russia falls into Washington’s trap of deception, Russia will be destroyed.

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of The Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for BusinessWeek, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has held many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’s latest books are How AMERICA Was LOST: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State and The NEOCONSERVATIVE THREAT to WORLD ORDER: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony.

Is Trump Enlisting in the War Party?

President Donald Trump, supported in large part because of his campaign promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars, seems to be marching to the beat of the warmongers rather than his electorate. Has he been fooled by what Patrick Buchanan writes “has the marks of a false-flag operation”? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

By firing off five-dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our “America-first” president may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.

Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.

Trump “will not stop here,” warned UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. “If he needs to do more, he will.”

If Trump fails to back up Haley’s threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him as “Donald Obama.”

But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio and orders Syria’s air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al Qaeda, but with Syria, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

A Syrian war would consume Trump’s presidency.

Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it back into the Middle East?

Another problem: Trump’s missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.

Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.

Gideon Elite book cover

What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational:

“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies—babies, little babies—with a chemical gas . . . that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. . . . And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me . . . my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”

Two days later, Trump was still emoting: “Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.

Have they been killed by Assad’s forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli, and Turkish planes and drones—and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels, and Shiite militia.

Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?

Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America’s rage, for no military gain?

ISIS Is Us Book cover

Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America into Syria’s civil war.

And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him—to keep us out of unnecessary wars—may not be standing by him.

We have no vital national interest in Syria’s civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for.

For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al Qaeda, it is about driving the Crusaders out of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.

For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving a land bridge to its Shiite ally, Hezbollah. For Hezbollah, it is about not being cut off from the Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.

Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans without a fight.

And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?

A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim heretics? LGBT rights?

In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria.

We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue: Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?

If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Donald Trump’s Tomahawk Attack on Syria Is An Absurdity

Launching 60 cruise missiles against the Syrian government before an independent investigation can prove who exactly was behind the gas attack in Syria was foolish and played into the hands of the global warmongers.

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

President Donald Trump threw away a great deal of support by ordering a cruise missile attack on Syria April 7. Obviously, Assad would have had no interest in using internationally banned chemical weapons in a war that he has already won, well aware of the inevitable American response.

The attack on Sharat air base in Homs province was launched from U.S. ships in the Mediterranean. Three Syrian soldiers were killed, and the base was destroyed.

Worst of all, ISIS and other radical groups now have a new lease on life thanks to Trump buying into the international warmongers’ desire to topple the stable government in Syria.

ISIS Is Us Book cover

One need not be a military strategist to realize that either the Syrian government is unhinged or the original chemical attack story was a lie.

The U.S. government warned the Russian military personnel at the air base prior to launching cruise missiles, in order to avoid a more serious incident, but Russia has still taken this as an act of war. Russian leader Vladimir Putin made the obvious statement that the attack was a form of unwarranted aggression.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that no evidence was ever offered that the Syrians would have made such an impulsive move in a war they had already won. The Foreign Ministry in Moscow stated:

The very presence of U.S. troops and other countries in Syria without the consent of the government or the UN Security Council is a blatant, explicit, and unwarranted violation of international law. If before it was due to the task of combating terrorism, now it is an attack on Syria proper. U.S. actions taken today will further destroy the Russian-American relationship.

In 2013, both Russia and the U.S. came to the conclusion, after substantial inspections were conducted, that Syria did not possess chemical weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, attached to the UN, was in charge of the inspections.

The pro-U.S. Iraqi puppet government has confirmed that the terrorists alone possessed these weapons.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

To the extent any gas was released, it was because the Syrian Air Force bombed a weapons depot that contained chemical weapons. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated:

In recent years, the organization [for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] has inspected almost all the objects that were or could be related to the military-chemical program in Syria. As for Idlib, terrorists were engaged in the production of toxic substances that they stuffed into roadside bombs for use in Syria and Iraq. . . They turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in Iraq, as officially reported by [the pro-American government in] Baghdad. They dismiss the application documents of logged chemical weapons by terrorists in Aleppo. . . . There is no doubt that the U.S. military action is an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul, where as a result of actions, including the U.S.-led coalition, killing hundreds of civilians and the growing humanitarian catastrophe (April 7, translation mine).

Questions about the alleged attacks abound. Feras Karam, an anti-Assad journalist, wrote on April 3 of his upcoming campaign to cover Syrian airstrikes on rebel-held villages and the use of chemical weapons, and said chlorine gas would be used. Further, Dr. Shajul Islam, a physician working in Khan Sheikhoun where the alleged gas attacks occurred, reportedly received shipments of gas masks several days earlier. Pictures have emerged showing volunteer rescue workers, the Syrian “White Helmets,” handling corpses allegedly from the attack without the protective gear required by normal protocol, because sarin easily penetrates the skin. It kills by breaking the contact between the brain and the lungs, rendering the victim unable to breathe.

This author claims no expertise in military aviation, but the consensus seems to be that Russian SU-22 jets’ custom bombs cannot be filled with any chemical weapons, as they are fully stuffed with their own explosives. The mechanism required to make the dormant gas functional is large and can only fit into a few types of warheads. However, the jets that allegedly gassed this area were SU-22s, flown by Syrian pilots.

ISIS is known to have used gas in the past, though far from the only ones to do so. The Daily Mail has obtained video showing experiments with gas being conducted on rebel bases throughout Syria. Even worse for the Americans, the CIA-controlled “Voice of America” has admitted that Jaysh al-Islam, the coalition of Islamist and Salafist units involved in the Syrian civil war, previously used chemical agents against Kurds in Aleppo. Therefore, as the Syrians handed over any old stores of chemical weapons to the UN in 2013, the rebels increased their stockpiles.

The most damning piece of evidence against the System’s view is that, just a week ago, the American government officially stated that “regime change” was no longer an option. Then, the gas attack occurs on a town that could have been cleared out easily by ground forces.

Assad has won this war, and is now focused on rebuilding internally and externally. To use gas at this juncture goes against all logic.

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a writer and lives in Pennsylvania.