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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



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. 

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



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 truthhound2@yahoo.com.




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

1-888-699-6397




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 erasingtheliberty.com 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 erasingtheliberty.com for more information.




A South African’s Warning

Activist wraps up six-month tour of America to bring attention to genocide

By Dave Gahary

Springton, Pa. – To hear from a 46-year-old South African that his country is on the verge of complete collapse and the organization he represents exists solely to prepare for a civil war between blacks and whites, you may think Simon Roche (pronounced “rosh”) is a bit over the top. Once he makes his case, however, it’s apparent where his sense of alarm arises from and why he fears that America is careening toward the same fate.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

In his last interview with this newspaper before heading back to his country after a six-month tour here, Roche discussed his background and what the organization he’s affiliated with, Suidlanders (pronounced “sightlahnders”), is attempting to do.

Suidlanders, as Roche told this reporter at the Aug. 26 conference of Don Wassall’s The Nationalist Times at the Springtown Rod & Gun Club, and in a Sept. 1 one-hour telephone interview, “is the world’s largest non-state civil defense organization . . . constituted under international law.”

Roche and his compatriots are, as previously noted, “preparing for a civil war in South Africa, which is something that has been promised to the white people by black leaders in South Africa on many occasions.”

He explained, “Our leader, the founder of our organization, had the foresight, some years ago, to begin to prepare in this manner, in a legal, nonmilitant, non-militaristic, non-seditious, non-insurrectionist manner, to protect civilian noncombatants . . . to provide a civil defense solution to non-combatants in the event of the civil war.”

That leader, Gustav Müller, was in the South African Defense Force in military intelligence, “so he has a background in risk analysis and scenario planning,” said Roche. “He was in the Defense Force at a time when we were fighting nine countries on the borders of South Africa and at a time when there was massive instability internally; the African National Congress’s armed wing was terrorizing people.”

“Gustav was in a situation where he was required—every day of his life—to think very hard,
to analyze, and assist . . . how things were going to play out, what was happening next, what intelligence could be produced from the information on the ground,” explained Roche. “And that gave him an insight into how things might transpire in South Africa. He believed that things would end very badly once the African National Congress [ANC] took power, as they did on the 27th of April 1994. Then he sort of bided his time for a while, observing how things were playing out, and it became clearer and clearer to him over time that the [ANC], as a communist entity, was leading South Africa down a path of destruction.”

Although a white man, Roche is not of Dutch ancestry, which were the original white settlers to South Africa. As the story goes, one of the Dutch East India Company’s ships had been stranded in 1648 and the castaways “were so impressed with the natural resources of the country” that they launched an expedition four years later for a permanent settlement.

“I come from Irish ancestry,” explained Roche, “so I’m not part of that portion of the white people of South Africa who have been there since April 6, 1652, when the first permanent [white] settlement was established in South Africa. I am fourth generation Irish, of Irish stock, and my forebears came to South Africa in the late 1800s.”

Around 80% of South Africa’s 55 million inhabitants are black, while whites comprise a mere 8.1% of the total. The majority of the working population, however, is out of work. “The official unemployment figures—which are generally regarded as understated—are 38.1%,” explained Roche. “In fact, an international firm has just released [a report] in the past couple of days that alludes to an unemployment rate of something like . . . 56.3%. We have recently been downgraded, that is to say, South Africa’s sovereign bond rating, has been downgraded by Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s, to junk status.”

The collapsing economy and the hate pouring from the lips of South Africa’s black “leaders” have
created some horrendous fallout. “We have amongst the highest rates of murder and rape in the world generally, across the board,” said Roche. “And the murder of white farmers by black people in South Africa is the highest rate of murder of any city, anywhere in the world, by a country mile. The murder of whites generally by black people is also a phenomenally high figure.

IRS Loses Cases

It’s something like 1,370% greater than the murder rate of all Americans, regardless of what race they
are and by which race they are murdered. And these indicators, coming as they do, in tandem,
with the promises that we’ve received from black leaders, particularly over the past year, of a race-based civil war to wipe out all whites, is fairly persuasive.”

To highlight how stark the South African murder rate is, Roche provided a comparison. “To give you an idea, the murders of whites between the first and the 14th of February this year, inclusive, was greater than the number of murders committed in the Republic of Ireland—which has a population of a similar size to the white population in South Africa—over the past 30 years,” he said. “Over 74,000 white people have been murdered by black people since the beginning of this new South African ‘rainbow nation’ multiracial democracy.”

Roche blames others—not just the blacks who have been incited to murder whites—for the damage done to his country.

“We had a certain dialectic rammed down our throats by the international news media, the globalist news media, the liberal elites, and the academic elites, for about 40 years, who’ve said that apartheid is bad; those who support apartheid, the white South Africans, are bad people; that the blacks are innocent victims who can do no wrong; that the [ANC] is without peer; that Nelson Mandela was a pure soul,” he said. “Many white people, many conservative white people—I count some in my own family in that group—began to believe that everything that they thought, every commonsense conclusion that they’d drawn by themselves in their lives, was false, and that it was time to be harmonious and integrated.”

Roche touched on some of the parallels between South Africa and the U.S.

“We . . . have seen what happens when you put the liberals in charge,” he said. “You guys—with all due respect—should know this yourselves, because you have certain litmus tests. You’re able to see what happens when the liberals run a city like Chicago or Detroit or Baltimore or Atlanta into the ground for 40, 50, or 60 years.”

“What happened in South Africa and what is happening in the U.S.A.,” he continued, “are, for all intents and purposes, identical. The media, the liberal elites, and the academic elites are persuading Americans to adopt their views, which are completely anti-American. They’ve taken the U.S.A. and sort of twisted it, by five degrees at a time, to adopt values which were never part of the core identity of America. And they persuaded you that this is how you always thought. It’s unbelievable.”




Trump Cannot Improve Relations With Russia When Trump’s Government and the US Media Oppose Improved Relations

When President Trump’s own appointees publicly disrespect and contradict him, does the president of the United States have any power whatsoever? And, why has he not yet simply said, “You’re fired!”? It would appear the deep state completely controls him, to the detriment of the entire world.

By Paul Craig Roberts

President Trump Has Been Contradicted by His Own Government, Which Has Lined Up Against Him in Favor of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and the Russophobic Presstitute Media that serves the military/security complex and the neoconservatives.

I am afraid that The Saker and Finian Cunningham are correct. Nothing can come of Trump’s meeting with Putin, because, as Cunningham puts it: “Trump doesn’t have freedom or real power. The real power brokers in the U.S. will ensure that the Russophobia campaign continues, with more spurious allegations of Moscow interfering to subvert Western democracies. Trump will continue to live under a cloud of media-driven suspicions. And thus the agenda of regime change against Syria and confrontation with Russia will also continue. Trump’s personal opinions on these matters and towards Vladimir Putin are negligible—indeed dispensable by the deep powers-that-be.”

Cunningham points out that instead of lauding the meeting as the beginning of the process to defuse the high tensions between the two major nuclear powers, the U.S. media denounced Trump for being civil to Putin in the meeting.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

What is missing from the media in the entirety of the Western world and perhaps also in Russia is the awareness that the dangerous tensions are orchestrated not only by Hillary and the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, the U.S. military/security complex, and the presstitutes, but also by President Trump’s own appointees.

Trump’s own ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, and Trump’s own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, sound exactly like Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, and the rest of the totally discredited presstitute media that is committed to raising tensions between the U.S. and Russia to the point of nuclear war.

On the same day that President Donald Trump said, “It is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia,” and the day after he said, “I had a tremendous meeting yesterday with President Putin,” the ignorant, stupid Nikki Haley, who Trump appointed as U.S. UN Ambassador, publicly contradicted her president, forcefully stating: “We can’t trust Russia and we won’t ever trust Russia.”

The ignorant, stupid Haley is still in office, a perfect demonstration of Trump’s powerlessness.

The ignorant, stupid Haley has gone far beyond Obama’s crazed UN Ambassador, neocon Samantha Power, in doing everything in her power to ruin the prospect of normal relations between the two major nuclear powers. Why does Nikki Haley work in favor of a confrontation between nuclear powers that would destroy all life on Earth? What is wrong with Nikki Haley? Is she demented? Has she lost her mind, assuming she ever had one?

How can President Trump normalize relations with Russia when every one of his appointees wants to worsen the relations to the point of nuclear war?

Gideon Elite book cover

How is President Trump going to improve relations with Russia when President Trump stands powerless in the face of his dressing down by his UN Ambassador? Clearly, Trump is powerless, a mere cipher.

Joining Nikki Haley was Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. Tillerson, allegedly a friend of Russia, is also working overtime to worsen relations between the two nuclear powers by publicly contradicting the president of the United States, thereby making it clear that Trump is barely even a cipher. Tillerson, a disgrace, said that Putin’s refusal to admit that Putin elected Trump by interfering in the U.S. election “stands as an obstacle to our ability to improve the relationship between the U.S. and Russia and it needs to be addressed in terms of how we assure the American people that interference into our elections will not occur by Russia or anyone else.”

Trump’s incompetence is illustrated by his appointments. There is no one in “his” government that supports him. Every one of them works to undermine him. And he sits there and Twitters.

So, what is President Putin’s belief that an understanding can now be worked out with Washington worth? Not a plugged nickel. Trump has zero authority over “his” government. He can be contradicted at will by his own appointees. The president of the United States is a joke. You can find him on Twitter, but nowhere else, not in the Oval Office making foreign or military policy. The president Twitters and thinks that is policy.

The Trump administration was destroyed when the weak Donald Trump allowed the neoconservatives to remove his National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Trump has never recovered. “His” administration is staffed with violent Russophobes. Wars can be the only outcome.

We know two things about the alleged Russian interference in the Trump/Hillary presidential election. One is that John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, and Comey, Obama’s FBI director, implied repeatedly that Trump was elected by Russian interference in the election. The other is that the charge is false. Neither the CIA nor the FBI have provided any evidence whatsoever that any such interference occurred. Indeed, months into the case, the special prosecutor, the former FBI director, can produce no evidence. The whole thing is a sham, but it is ongoing. There will be no end to it, as it is designed to undermine President Trump with the people who elected him. The message is: “Trump is not for America. Trump is for Russia.”

This is astounding! The NSA has intercepts of all transmitted data. If Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election the evidence would be obvious and immediately available.

Despite the obvious lies told by Brennan and Comey, The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the scum, no one has been arrested and put on trial for their efforts to overthrow the elected president of the United States. This proves beyond all doubt that the president of the United States is a non-entity, a figurehead incapable of action independently of the Deep State that controls him.

If Vladimir Putin really believes from his meeting with Trump that all of the orchestrated false charges against Russia can now be removed and normal relations restored, Putin is in la-la land. Nikki Haley says that the U.S. will NEVER trust Russia. If Putin trusts Washington, Russia will be destroyed—and the rest of the world with Russia.

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 American Free Press bookstore.




We Have the Freedom to Starve

“Anti-Semitic” and “racist” epithets are trotted out any time “establishment truth” is challenged or Israeli policies are criticized, in an effort to create in the reader a knee-jerk emotional aversion to a writer or publication. But it’s valuable to pause and ask, first, what does “anti-Semitic” even mean? Furthermore, does challenging the politics or culture of a particular group—such as a nation’s government—necessarily equate with “racism”? 

By Kevin Barrett

Wells Fargo is one of America’s sleaziest and most disreputable big banks. Their deceptive credit-card pitches contain small-print clauses allowing them to suddenly jack up their “introductory rates” and hit you with usurious 30%-plus interest. So it shouldn’t really surprise anyone that Wells Fargo canceled AFP’s credit-card processing account because some billionaire banker somewhere doesn’t like some of the books AFP sells. And it is shocking—but hardly surprising—to learn that the banking industry is trying to put AFP out of business by adding it to a credit-card-processing blacklist.

A spokesman for the blacklisters said the reason for this financial war is that AFP sells “racist and anti-Semitic books,” namely those by Michael Collins Piper. Naturally, he hasn’t even read any of Piper’s books. If he had, he would know that there was never a single racist bone in Piper’s body.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Let’s define our terms here. “Racist and anti-Semitic” is a redundant expression. “Anti-Semitism” is a form of racism holding that Jews are biologically inferior because they are a “Semitic” people related to Arabs. Actually, neither Jews nor Arabs are their own race. Judaism is a religion professed by people from many races and cultures, while “Arabs” are simply the many different kinds of people, ranging from Sudanese blacks to blond-haired, blue-eyed Syrians and Lebanese, who happen to speak Arabic.

The pseudo-scientific racist theory known as “anti-Semitism” was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but today, it is Arabs, not Jews, who are the main victims of this kind of racism. Ironically, the country with the worst anti-Semitic (anti-Arab) racism is the state of Israel.

As for Piper’s books, they contain no racial hatred or bigotry of any kind. They are critical of certain aspects of Jewish culture, specifically the ruthless tribalism that prevails among some Jewish-Zionist elites, especially those that work with the criminal underworld. That is cultural critique, not racism.

I am highly critical of the segment of the Arab-Muslim political elite that runs “Saudi” Arabia. That does not make me an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigot.

Freedom means nothing if we are not free to critique the culture and politics of the various power elites that rule our world. Piper saw the rising power of Jewish-Zionist elites in the U.S. and discussed the issue reasonably and rationally—if sometimes passionately—in an evidence-based fashion without any reference to or interest in “race.” His investigations into such issues as the JFK assassination and 9/11 were ahead of their time.

It is a national scandal, and a symptom of our national decline, that the whole banking establishment can wage an economic war aimed at the suppression of Piper’s books—without a peep of protest from the ACLU and the supposedly free speech-supporting mainstream media.

Liberty Stickers

The economic assault on AFP is just the latest salvo in what is becoming an all-out Zionist war on free speech. Professor William Robinson’s book We Will Not Be Silenced: The Academic Repression of Israel’s Critics covers several Zionist attempts to quash academic freedom. Now they are targeting booksellers, not just academics.

When I was driven from the academy for questioning 9/11, I assumed I would be free to sell books and articles and solicit donations to support my independent scholarship and radio broadcasts. How could such activities ever be quashed? After all, we still have the First Amendment, right?

Unfortunately, the Constitution only limits the power of government, not the corporate sector. As private monopolies gobble up entire industries, grabbing as much power as governments but without any of the transparency or responsibilities, they have begun to insist that we toe their ideological line on pain of expulsion from the economy. A few months ago, Amazon banned hundreds of history books. At about the same time, my main fundraising platform and database (GoFundMe) closed my account and stole more than $1,000. Various Facebook accounts, including the Nation of Islam’s, have been frozen or shut down for political reasons. Now AFP is being blacklisted.

To buy and sell information, we will soon be microchipped with a “Mark of the Beast” guaranteeing that our views are inoffensive to the powers-that-be. Violators will be banned from economic transactions. They will still be free—free to starve.

Such evil acts of political censorship are exactly what we should expect from the too-big-to-fail financial pharaohs who seized the reins of power in America in the Federal Reserve coup d’état of 1913.

The lesson is clear: If we want to preserve what’s left of freedom in America, we need to overthrow the banksters in a Second American Revolution. 􀀀

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.




Deception Inside Deception: The Alleged Sarin Gas Attack

American Free Press has repeatedly questioned the allegations that the Syrian government and military used chemical weapon on their own people. Now, respected journalist Seymour Hersh confirms this with a new report detailing his extensive interviews with U.S. officials. The problem for Hersh, though is that his account seems odd when one considers the military-industrial complex’s efforts to oust Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Could Hersh have fallen victim to a planned disinformation campaign?

By Paul Craig Roberts

Seymour Hersh, America’s most famous investigative reporter, has become persona non grata in the American Propaganda Ministry that poses as a news media but only serves to protect the U.S. government’s war lies. Among his many triumphs, Hersh exposed the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib torture prison run by the Americans in Iraq. Today his investigative reports have to be published in the London Review of Books or in the German media.

From Hersh’s latest investigative report, we learn that President Trump makes war decisions by watching staged propaganda on TV. The White Helmets, a propaganda organization for jihadists and the “Syrian opposition,” found a gullible reception from the Western media for photographs and videos of alleged victims of a Syrian Army sarin gas attack on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump saw the photos on TV and, despite being assured by U.S. intelligence that there was no Syrian sarin gas attack, ordered the U.S. military to strike a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles. Under international law this strike was a war crime, and it was the first direct aggression against Syria by the U.S., which previously committed aggression via proxies called “the Syrian opposition.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Reporting on his sources, Hersh writes: “In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria’s attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4.”

The belief that sarin gas was involved in the attack comes from what appears to be a gas cloud. Hersh was informed by U.S. military experts that sarin is odorless and invisible and makes no cloud. What appears to have happened is that the explosion from the air attack on ISIS caused a series of secondary explosions that produced a toxic cloud formed by fertilizers and chlorine disinfectants that were stored in the building that was hit.

U.S. officials spoke with Hersh, because they are disturbed that Trump based a war decision on TV propaganda and refused to listen to the detailed counter-assessments of his intelligence and military services. A national security source told Hersh: “Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts. He doesn’t read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He’s a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says, ‘Do it.’ ”

Concerns about Trump’s purely emotional reaction to TV propaganda persist. Hersh reports that a senior national security adviser told him: “The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy” (the flare-up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America). The issue is, what if there’s another false-flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He’s incapable of saying he made a mistake.”

Liberty Stickers

As we know, the White House has already released a statement predicting that Assad is preparing another chemical attack, for which, the White House promises, he will “pay a heavy price.” Clearly, a false-flag attack is on the way.

By all means, read Hersh’s report. It reveals a president who makes precipitious decisions likely to cause a war with Russia.

I do not doubt Sy Hersh’s integrity. I accept that he has accurately reported what he was told by U.S. officials. My suspicions about this story do not have to do with Hersh. They have to do with what Hersh was told.

IRS Loses Cases

Hersh’s report puts Trump in a very bad light, and it puts the military/security complex, which we know has been trying to destroy Trump, in a very good light. Moreover, the story strikes me as inconsistent with the subsequent attack on the Syrian fighter-bomber by the U.S. military. If the Tomahawk attack on the Syrian base was unjustified, what justified downing a Syrian war plane? Did Trump order this attack as well? If not, who did? Why?

If national security advisers gave Trump such excellent information about the alleged sarin gas attack, completely disproving any such attack, why was he given such bad advice about shooting down a Syrian war plane, or was it done outside of channels? The effect of the shootdown is to raise the chance of a confrontation with Russia, because Russia’s response apparently has been to declare a no-fly zone over the area of Russian and Syrian operations.

How do we know that what Hersh was told was true? What if Trump was encouraged to order the Tomahawk strike as a way of interjecting the U.S. directly into the conflict? Both the U.S. and Israel have powerful reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad. However, ISIS, sent to do the job, has been defeated by Russia and Syria. Unless Washington can somehow get directly involved, the war is over. 

The story Hersh was given also serves to damn Trump while absolving the intelligence services. Trump takes the hit for injecting the U.S. directly into the conflict.

Hersh’s story reads well, but it easily could be a false story planted on him. I am not saying that the story is false, but unless we learn more, it could be.

What we do know is that the story given to Hersh by national security officials is inconsistent with the June 26 White House announcement that the U.S. has “identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime.” The White House does not have the capability to conduct its own foreign intelligence gathering. The White House is informed by the national security and intelligence agencies.

In the story given to Hersh, these officials are emphatic that not only were chemical weapons removed from Syria, but also that Assad would not use them or be permitted by the Russians to use them even if he had them. Moreover, Hersh reports that he was told that Russia fully informed the U.S. of the Syrian attack on ISIS in advance. The weapon was a guided bomb that Russia had supplied to Syria. Therefore, it could not have been a chemical weapon.

As U.S. national security officials made it clear to Hersh that they do not believe Syria did or would use any chemical weapons, what is the source for the White House’s announcement that preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime have been identified?

Who lined up UN ambassador Nikki Haley and the UK Defense Minister Michael Fallon to be ready with statements in support of the White House announcement? Haley says: “Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people.” Fallon says: “We will support” future U.S. action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

How clear does an orchestration have to be before people are capable of recognizing the orchestration?

The intelligence agencies put out the story via Hersh that there were no chemical attacks, so what attacks is Nikki Haley speaking about?

A reasonable conclusion is that Washington’s plan to use ISIS to overthrow Syria and then start on Iran was derailed by Russian and Syrian military success against ISIS. The U.S. then tried to partition Syria by occupying part of it, but were out-manuevered by the Russians and Syrians. This left direct U.S. involvement as the only alternative to defeat. This direct U.S. military involvement began with the U.S. attack on the Syrian military base and was followed by shooting down a Syrian war plane. The next stage will be a U.S.-staged false-flag chemical attack or alleged chemical attack, and this false flag, as has already been announced, will be the excuse for larger scale U.S. military action against Syria, which, unless the Russians abandon Syria, means conflict with Russia, Iran, and perhaps China.

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 from the AmericanFreePress bookstore.




It Is the Presstitutes, Not Russia, Who Interfered in the US Presidential Election

Even Paul Craig Roberts can only shake his head in frustration, wondering why the U.S. increases, rather than decreases, tension with Russia—especially given continuing insistence by U.S. “leadership” and mainstream press that Russia interfered in the election, despite an utter lack of evidence.

By Paul Craig Roberts

Unlike Oliver Stone, who knew how to interview Vladimir Putin, Megyn Kelly did not. Thus, she made a fool of herself, which is par for her course.

Now the entire Western media has joined Megyn in foolishness, or so it appears from a RT report. James O’Keefe has senior CNN producer John Bonifield on video telling O’Keefe that CNN’s anti-Russia reporting is purely for ratings: “It’s mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don’t have any big giant proof.” CNN’s Bonifield is reported to go on to say that “our CIA is doing shit all the time, we’re out there trying to manipulate governments.”

And, of course, the American people, the European peoples, and the US and European governments are being conditioned by the “Russia did it” storyline to distrust Russia and to accept whatever dangerous and irresponsible policy toward Russia that Washington comes up with next.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Is the anti-Russian propaganda driven by ratings, as Bonifield is reported to claim, or are ratings the neoconservatives and military/security complex’s cover for media disinformation that increases tensions between the superpowers and prepares the ground for nuclear war?

RT acknowledges that the entire story could be just another piece of false news, which is all that the Western media is known for.

Nevertheless, what we do know is that the fake news reporting pertains to Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. presidential election. Allegedly, Trump was elected by Putin’s interference in the election. This claim is absurd, but if you are Megyn Kelly you lack the IQ to see that. Instead, presstitutes turn a nonsense story into a real story despite the absence of any evidence.

Who actually interfered in the U.S. presidential election, Putin or the presstitutes themselves? The answer is clear and obvious. It was the presstitutes, who were out to get Trump from day one of the presidential campaign. It is CIA director John Brennan, who did everything in his power to brand Trump some sort of Russian agent. It is FBI director Comey who did likewise by continuing to “investigate” what he knew was a non-event. We now have a former FBI director playing the role of special prosecutor investigating Trump for “obstruction of justice” when there is no evidence of a crime to be obstructed! What we are witnessing is the ongoing interference in the presidential election, an interference that not only makes a mockery of democracy but also of the rule of law.

Liberty Stickers

The presstitutes not only interfered in the presidential election; they are now interfering with democracy itself. They are seeking to overturn the people’s choice by discrediting the president of the United States and those who elected him. The Democratic Party is a part of this attack on American democracy. It is the DNC that insists that a Putin/Trump conspiracy stole the presidency from Hillary. The Democrats’ position is that it is too risky to permit the American people—the “deplorables”— to vote. The Democratic Party’s line is that if you let Americans vote, they will elect a Putin stooge and America will be ruled by Russia.

Many wonder why Trump doesn’t use the power of the office of the presidency to indict the hit squad that is out to get him. There is no doubt that a jury of deplorables would indict Brennan, Comey, Megyn Kelly, and the rest. On the other hand, perhaps Trump’s view is that the Republican Party cannot afford to go down with him, and, therefore, as he is politically protected by the Republican majority, the best strategy is to let the Democrats and the presstitutes destroy themselves in the eyes of flyover America.

What our survival as Americans depends on is the Russians’ view of this conflict between a U.S. president who intended to reduce the tensions between the nuclear powers and those determined to increase the tensions. The Russian high command has already announced its conclusion that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. It is not possible to imagine a more dangerous conclusion. So far, no one in Washington or any Western government has made an effort to reassure Russia that no such attack is being prepared. Instead, the calls are for more punishment of Russia and more tension.

This most extraordinary of failures demonstrates the complete separation of the West from reality.

It is difficult to imagine a more extreme danger than for the insouciant West to convince Russia that the West is incapable of rational behavior. But that is precisely what the West is doing.

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