NWO Goes Local to Circumvent Trump

Global warming fanatics are trying to reverse the president’s 2017 dismissal of the Paris climate agreement by engaging local governments to impact international issues—regardless of the U.S. Constitution.

By Mark Anderson

The Global Climate Action Summit taking place Sept. 12-14 is the most blatant example to date of the reorientation of governance in the 21st century. New constituencies are being formed to try and overturn President Donald Trump’s mid-2017 decision to back the U.S. out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But beyond rebuffing Trump, the summiteers are charting a new course that generally demotes, and appears bent on eventually replacing, national decision-making in the U.S. and abroad. “Climate action” is merely the battering ram with which to force things through.

Led by California Gov. Jerry Brown (D)—to whom national sovereignty under the Constitution is a doormat on which well-connected internationalist change agents wipe their feet—the summit, taking place in San Francisco, “will celebrate the extraordinary climate action of states, regions, cities, companies, investors, and citizens from around the world. It will be a moment for these climate leaders to come together to inspire deeper commitments from each other as well as national governments, in support of the Paris Agreement,” explains a summit press release.

The U.S. Constitution assigns the formation of and ascent to international treaties and pacts to the federal government, and there’s been no constitutional convention to change that. Yet summiteers boast that investors, states, Canadian provinces, and even “regions” are now among the “leaders” who’ve been knighted by the UN-connected transnational elitists organizing the summit to “inspire” policy, including U.S policy, on a worldwide scale.

We’ll be told that these groupings, which seem designed to re-federate the world, are merely advisory in nature. However, the San Francisco summit’s strategy is to rework world-governance by using an imprecise issue like “climate change” to move things along, since that issue can largely be addressed along emotional and ideological lines, with often questionable data sprinkled in to keep up appearances.

This is not to say that summit-supported ideas like transitioning to electric cars, more mass transit (e.g., more and better high-speed trains), and other supposedly cleaner “green” energy options are necessarily bad, depending on comparative costs, marketability, new environmental problems, real or perceived, versus old ones etc.

But given the coordination between this summit and the broader “global cities” movement, which is designed to further advance world government from the bottom up not just the top down, this overall movement is mainly about forging a revolution in policy-making through manufactured consent.

Of course, the shifty phrase “climate change” at some point in the last few years suddenly replaced the more precise “global warming” so that any example of erratic weather could be blamed on everything from human respiration and livestock flatulence to backyard grills, automotive and industrial emissions, and so on. Imprecision is key to duping the masses.

A main organization heading up the summit is the Under2 Coalition, named after the stated goal of limiting worldwide temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius or less—based on the premise that virtually all worldly warming is chiefly caused by humanity’s industrial emissions.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The Under2 Coalition is “driven by a group of ambitious state and regional governments” representing “more than 200 governments . . . spanning six continents and 43 countries . . . who represent over 1.3 billion people and nearly 40% of the global economy,” summit promoters boast, while specifying that these governments are mainly cities, states, and regions below the threshold of national authority. Thus, the adjective “sub-national” is frequently used to soft-sell this end-run around national authority.

“The Under2 Coalition provides a global forum for sub-national governments to work together to get on a trajectory consistent with 2050 carbon neutrality,” the group’s website explains, and “sets the tone for bold climate leadership and provides an effective global partnership model for parties to the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. We are sending a clear signal that net-zero by 2050 is achievable, desirable, and leads to faster results.”

Thus, the Rockefeller-founded UN is the authority for the sub-nationals to plug into, not the individual nations.

New World Order Exposed, Thorn
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

A closer look at this coalition shows that in the U.S., so far, Minnesota, California, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, along with at least 12 cities—San Francisco, Oakland, New York City, Austin, Atlanta, Orlando, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Boulder—are to some degree endorsing these policy-oriented climate schemes.

Without any act of Congress, those cities and states are networking with cities across Latin America and with various regions or European provinces: Lower Austria, Lower Saxony, and seven other German areas as well as Wallonia in Belgium. Also included are eight French regions, seven Italian regions, four Dutch regions, two Portuguese regions, four Spanish regions, and four UK regions, along with two in Switzerland, and one each in Sweden, Greece, and Hungary.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. 

Land Theft Stopped—For Now

The South African government has halted its sanctioned confiscation of white farmers’ land after a global outcry. 

By Ed DeVries

Responding to international pressure, the South African government on Aug. 28 withdrew a controversial land appropriation bill from parliament that would have officially sanctioned the theft of land from white farmers, which would likely then be turned over to black cronies of the government.

Critics of the measure contend that this is probably not a real win since the same politicians are already drafting a replacement measure, but, with the Trump administration and the rest of the world watching, the pressure is on South Africa to do the ethical thing and not steal land from farmers.

In the July-August issue of historical revisionism magazine THE BARNES REVIEW (TBR), this writer, in an article titled “The White Holocaust in South Africa,” called attention to the worsening plight of Afrikaners (white South Africans, also called “Boer”), whose pleas for help were simply being ignored by our government.

American Free Press followed suit, using its last two issues to highlight developments in the story that the corporate media had been ignoring.

Following that, President Donald Trump tweeted, “I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The night before, radio talk show host Michael Savage, host of “The Savage Nation,” had taken the stories TBR and AFP have been faithfully reporting to his national radio audience.

Two nights later, on Aug. 23, Dr. Savage launched an online petition asking Trump to give immigration priority to white South Africans fleeing “violent confiscation of their lands.”

“Some farmers are choosing to leave South Africa for Australia and even Russia in an exodus like the biblical one,” Savage said, before reading the petition, to wit:

We the People call upon President Donald J. Trump and his State Department to apply immigration priority to the South African farmers facing the violent confiscation of their lands by the African National Congress.

The white South African population currently faces ethnic cleansing and persecutions at the hands of the ANC government, the EFF, and various individual anti-white aggressors. White farmers have been brutally murdered, often including torture and rape and mutilation. Many white South Africans today live in poverty and squalor as a consequence of the ANC government’s Black Economic Empowerment policy which shuts whites out of the labor pool.

These common injustices have led to more violent rhetoric in recent years as leaders in South Africa, such as Julius Malema has stated that he is “not calling for the slaughter of white people—at least for now.”

This South African minority group faces extinction under this oppressive regime. It is the duty of the United States to properly vet and assist this population to safety.

Therefore, we hereby add our names to this petition calling on President Donald J. Trump and his State Department to grant priority to this persecuted group who pose virtually no threat to the American people and way of life.

Savage concluded, “While the mainstream media, even the conservative media, is transfixed with Mueller, Manafort, and collusion, they choose to ignore this shocking abuse of human rights because it doesn’t fit the media narrative.”

On Aug. 22, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson featured a long segment on South Africa, reporting:

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has just begun the process of seizing land from his own citizens, without compensation, purely due to their skin color. Literally the definition of racism. . . . That’s far more racist than anything Donald Trump has ever done, of course. Racism is what our elites say they dislike most, Donald Trump is a racist they say, but they paid no attention to this at all.

Tucker reported that Barack Obama recently spoke in South Africa where he “praised the racist government of South Africa,” telling his audience that Ramaphosa was one of his “favorite leaders” and calling the racist land grabs and murders aimed at white South Africans “inspiring.”

Curious if Obama’s rhetoric represented an official position, Tucker personally reached out to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He received the following reply from the State Department:

We are aware of these reports and have been following this issue very closely for some time. South Africa is a strong democracy with resilient institutions including a free press and an independent judiciary. South Africans are grappling with the difficult issue of land reform through an open process including public hearings, broad-based consultations, and active civil society engagement. President Ramaphosa has pledged that the land reform process will follow the rule of law and its implementation will not adversely affect economic growth, agricultural production, or food security.

Carlson rightly mocked the statement as “unbelievable,” saying, “The State Department did not mention that by following the rule of law, he has changed the country’s constitution to make it possible to steal land from people because they are the wrong skin color.”

He also called out Pompeo for ignoring “the seizures, which should be getting worldwide attention. . . . In other words, ‘Nothing to see here,’ says Mike Pompeo’s State Department.”

Tucker ended by suggesting the U.S. withhold the $350 million in foreign aid it gives South Africa annually until that country corrects its racist policies.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Trump was watching and in less than two hours had taken to Twitter ordering an adjustment to the State Department’s position.

Corporate media responded by denying everything and calling Savage, Carlson, and Trump “racists.” Associated Press even went so far as to solicit commentary from David Duke, enabling their outlets to twist their stories as Trump’s “white supremacy” agenda.

The State Department and White House were unavailable for comment but Christian Whiton, advisor to George W. Bush and current State Department analyst for Fox News, believes Trump’s tweet was not a “one-time thing.”

“The president will continue to follow through on this,” said Whiton, stating Trump has already developed a list of South Africa policy advisors and fast-tracked his search to fill the currently vacant ambassadorship to that country. He also ordered the State Department to retract its statement to Carlson and announced that the first lady will personally visit Africa later this fall.

Kallie Kriel, chief executive of AfriForum, the main advocacy group for Afrikaners, said the president’s tweet was a “huge step forward.” He had been largely ignored and refused appointments in his tour of the United States this year. Now, his phone is ringing.

A pastor and in-demand traveling speaker, Dr. Edward DeVries is the editor of the Dixie Heritage Newsletter and a contributing editor at THE BARNES REVIEW. He is the author of 30 books including the two-volume Glory in Grey. Some of his other titles include Sacred Honor, The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag, Prayer is Simple, Every Member a Minister and Coaching Youth Baseball the Right Way. He is also the host of TBR RADIO’S “Dixie Heritage Hour.” Please check it out at www.BarnesReview.org.

China Ready to Win War in Indo-Pacific

America needs to abandon the dream of dominating realms halfway across the globe.

By Richard Walker

China’s massive military and naval expansion in the South China Sea and beyond means it may soon possess the capability to win a war against the United States in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

China has become increasingly confident that its building of a third aircraft carrier and the militarization of island chains in the South China Sea, as well as its growing ability to use a massive arsenal of short-range, long-range, and intermediate missiles to strike at all American bases in the region as well as U.S. carriers, could give it a military edge. If rumors are true that it is developing hypersonic missiles and its stealth aircraft are on a par with America’s F-35 Lightning II, it will have a strike capability of enormous potential. A Congressional Research Service study says China’s hypersonic missile is “a big deal” because it could out-range any U.S. air-to-air missile.

Forgotten in much of the mass media coverage of China is that it has moved at an amazing pace to develop a naval force that, within a decade or less, will equal America’s. Not mentioned by news reports is that, even if the Chinese do not possess America’s naval might, it still has a massive navy. It built over 100 warships from cruisers to frigates and submarines in the last few years alone.

Kingdom Identity

Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom President Donald Trump has consistently praised as his friend, has driven China’s insatiable desire to build a navy and air force to rival and outstrip America’s. He has told Chinese generals that, with more emphasis on technology, China can become the dominant military power of the future.

Chinese strategy for a war in the Indo-Pacific has been in place for over a decade and, despite promises by Xi to President Barack Obama in 2015 that China would not militarize the South China Sea, the Chinese military has done just that. The Chinese have converted uninhabited islands into forward bases with missiles, runways, and surveillance facilities to fight a war off its shores. The surveillance would be used to provide targeting information to on-land missile sites that would be tasked to take out U.S. carriers. To do that, China has developed some scary anti-carrier missiles called DF-21s and DF-26s that have a long-range capability. To take them out, the U.S. would have to hit bases on mainland China, transforming any naval conflict to a full-blown war on all fronts.

So how did China move this fast militarily? Aside from stealing America’s military secrets over three decades of cyber intrusions, it has used its considerable resources to develop weapons. While it may not spend as much as the U.S. on defense, it has eliminated corruption in its defense sectors whereas the U.S. wastes over tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars annually in its defense budgets. Also, it does not admit how much it really spends on its military, and, unlike America, it is not cash-strapped by fighting conflicts across the globe.

It could be said that China has used stealth and cunning to develop a powerful military with many frightening weapons, but how it has succeeded in doing so is shocking.

While it has been busy preparing for a naval war with the United States fleet, Congress has been all but blind to its progress. While the Trump White House talks one day about tariffs against China, and another day about how wonderful relations are between XI and Trump, China’s military machine grinds on.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

America’s generals know what is going on, but their voices have not been loud enough to shift congressional focus on the issue. One is also left to wonder if Trump even read the National Security Strategy document from last November 2017 before or after he signed it. It has a stark warning of the threat China poses:

“Its efforts to build and militarize outposts in the South China Sea endanger the free flow of trade, threaten the sovereignty of other nations, and undermine regional stability. China has mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there.”

The former commander of America’s Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris, told Congress this year that he is convinced China is preparing for war with the United States and the country ignores the threat at our peril. He also stressed that China could soon match the U.S. militarily in every sector. Such a stark warning has not served to drive the White House and Congress to address the threat.

A sign of China’s buildup is that its fleet has only 34 fewer vessels than the U.S. fleet. It now has 60 submarines compared with five that it had 20 years ago. In the air and on the sea it has made massive strides, and experts cannot decide if America would win a limited war with China on the high seas.

The costs for the American military and personnel, with long supply lines so far from home, could be enormous, and there might not be a political will in Washington to fight such a war.

That is something China is counting on. Meanwhile it prepares for war, sending out aircraft in March 2018 to probe American defenses in what it has called rehearsals for war.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Why Are We Siding With al Qaeda?

We’re siding with al Qaeda, who attacked us, to “regime-change” Iran, who didn’t attack us. Ron Paul points out this entire strategy makes no sense.

By Dr. Ron Paul

In my last column, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to stop protecting al Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the Syrian government leave Idlib under al Qaeda control. While it may seem hard to believe that the U.S. government is helping al Qaeda in Syria, it’s not as strange as it may seem: Our interventionist foreign policy increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.

Does the Trump Administration actually support al Qaeda and ISIS? Of course not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.

Available from the AFP online store.

Let’s have a look at the areas where the U.S. is turning a blind eye to al Qaeda and ISIS.

First, Idlib. As I mentioned in my last column, President Trump’s own Special Envoy to fight ISIS said just last year that “Idlib Province is the largest al Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11.” So why do so many U.S. officials—including President Trump himself—keep warning the Syrian government not to re-take its own territory from al Qaeda control? Wouldn’t they be doing us a favor by ridding the area of al Qaeda? Well, if Idlib is re-taken by Assad, it all but ends the neocon (and Saudi and Israeli) dream of “regime change” for Syria and a black eye to Syria’s ally, Iran.

Second, one of the last groups of ISIS fighters in Syria are around the Al-Tanf U.S. military base which has operated illegally in northeastern Syria for the past two years. Last week, according to press reports, the Russians warned the U.S. military in the region that it was about to launch an assault on ISIS fighters around the U.S. base. The U.S. responded by sending in 100 more U.S. Marines and conducting a live-fire exercise as a warning. President Trump recently reversed himself (again) and announced that the U.S. would remain at Al-Tanf “indefinitely.” Why? It is considered a strategic point from which to attack Iran. The U.S. means to stay there even if it means turning a blind eye to ISIS in the neighborhood.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Finally, in Yemen, the U.S./Saudi coalition fighting the Houthis has been found by AP and other mainstream media outlets to be directly benefiting al Qaeda. Why help al Qaeda in Yemen? Because the real U.S. goal is regime change in Iran, and Yemen is considered one of the fronts in the battle against Iranian influence in the Middle East. So we are aiding al Qaeda, which did attack us, because we want to “regime change” Iran, which hasn’t attacked us. How does that make sense?

We all remember the old saying, attributed to Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack, that “if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” The “experts” would like us to think they are pursuing a brilliant foreign policy that will provide a great victory for America at the end of the day. But as usual, the “experts” have got it wrong. It’s really not that complicated: When “winning” means you’re allied with al Qaeda and ISIS, you’re doing something wrong. Let’s start doing foreign policy right: Let’s leave the rest of the world alone!

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, online at www.ronpaulinstitute.org.
© 2018 Ron Paul Institute

Is Trump Going Neocon in Syria?

Should the U.S. “engage Russian and Syrian forces militarily and force them to back off” of Idlib province? And has “the Assad-Putin-Rouhani coalition decided to accept the risk of a clash with the Americans in order to bring an end to the rebellion”? President Trump’s recent comments seem to indicate he really is willing to follow through with his threats despite what he promised as Candidate Trump—and without congressional authorization.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is President Donald Trump about to intervene militarily in the Syrian civil war? For that is what he and his advisers seem to be signaling.

Last week, Trump said of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s campaign to recapture the last stronghold of the rebellion, Idlib province: “If it’s a slaughter, the world is going to get very, very angry. And the United States is going to get very angry, too.”

In a front-page story Monday, “Assad is Planning Chlorine Attack, U.S. Says,” The Wall Street Journal reports that, during a recent meeting, “President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib.”

Idlib contains three million civilians and refugees and 70,000 rebels, 10,000 of whom are al Qaeda.

Friday, The Washington Post reported that Trump is changing U.S. policy. America will not be leaving Syria any time soon.

The 2,200 U.S. troops in Syria will remain until we see “the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces and the establishment of a stable, non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians.”

“We are not in a hurry to go,” said James Jeffrey, the retired Foreign Service officer brought back to handle the Syria account. “The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year.”

President Obama had a red line against Syria’s use of poison gas, which Trump enforced with bombing runs. Now we have a new red line. Said Jeffrey, the U.S. “will not tolerate an attack. Period.”

In an editorial Friday, the Post goaded Trump, calling his response to Assad’s ruthless recapture of his country “pathetically weak.” To stand by and let the Syrian army annihilate the rebels in Idlib, said the Post, would be “another damaging abdication of U.S. leadership.”

What Trump seems to be signaling, the Post demanding, and Jeffrey suggesting is that, rather than allow a bloody battle for the recapture of Idlib province to play out, the United States should engage Russian and Syrian forces militarily and force them to back off.

On Friday, near the U.S. garrison at Tanf in southern Syria, close to Iraq, U.S. Marines conducted a live-fire exercise. Purpose: Warn Russian forces to stay away. The Americans have declared a 35-mile zone around Tanf off-limits. The Marine exercise followed a Russian notification, and U.S. rejection, of a plan to enter the zone in pursuit of “terrorists.”

Is Trump ready to order U.S. action against Russian and Syrian forces if Assad gives his army the green light to take Idlib? For the bombing of Idlib has already begun.

What makes this more than an academic exercise is that Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, at a meeting in Tehran last Friday, told President Erdogan of Turkey that the reconquest of Idlib is going forward.

Erdogan fears that the Syrian army’s recapture of Idlib would send hundreds of thousands more refugees streaming to his border.

Turkey already hosts millions of refugees from Syria’s civil war.

Yet the massing of the Syrian army near Idlib and the Russian and Syrian bombing now begun suggest that the Assad-Putin-Rouhani coalition has decided to accept the risk of a clash with the Americans in order to bring an end to the rebellion. If so, this puts the ball in America’s court.

Words and warnings aside, is Trump prepared to take us into the Syrian civil war against the forces who, absent our intervention, will have won the war? When did Congress authorize a new war?

What vital U.S. interest is imperiled in Idlib, or in ensuring that all Iranian forces and Shiite allies are removed, or that a “non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community” is established in Damascus?

With these conditions required before our departure, we could be there for eternity.

The Syrian civil war is arguably the worst humanitarian disaster of the decade. The sooner it is ended the better. But Assad, Russia, and Iran did not start this war. Nor have Syria, Russia or Iran sought a clash with U.S. forces whose mission, we were repeatedly assured, was to crush ISIS and go home.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Trump has struck Syria twice for its use of poison gas, and U.S. officials told the Journal that Assad has now approved the use of chlorine on the rebels in Idlib. Moscow, however, is charging that a false-flag operation to unleash chlorine on civilians in Idlib is being prepared to trigger and justify U.S. intervention.

Many in this Russophobic city would welcome a confrontation with Putin’s Russia, even more a U.S. war on Iran. But that is the opposite of what candidate Trump promised.

It would represent a triumph of the never-Trumpers and President Trump’s relinquishing of his foreign policy to the interventionists and neoconservatives.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Is War Against Iran the President’s November Midterm Surprise?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced he’ll head up a new “interagency task force” that wants to “come down hard on Iran”—just in time for U.S. midterm elections. Former CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi says this is just “the latest journey into fantasy.” He notes “many observers believe that the United States is being manipulated and played as a patsy against Iran by Israel and Saudi Arabia” but wonders if that’s what this is really about.

By Philip Giraldi

Will a new war be a midterm elections surprise? It is a demonstrated fact that the United States government, be it Democratic or Republican, is not very good at certain things. Every time the White House starts a new “war” on abstractions like poverty, drugs, or terror it gets dragged down into a bottomless pit that seems to empower the very things that it is fighting, leading to the belief that when it says “war” what it really means to say is “quagmire.” And then there are places like Afghanistan where real wars continue ad nauseam with no real objective and no real plan to “win” and exit.

The latest journey into fantasy is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent announcement that the Trump administration is setting up an “interagency task force” consisting of an “elite team of foreign affairs specialists” that will coordinate efforts to come down hard on Iran. Pompeo described the venture as follows: “We are committed to a whole-of-government effort to change the Iranian regime’s behavior, and the Iran Action Group will ensure that the Department of State remains closely synchronized with our interagency partners.”

Kingdom Identity

According to the press release, the group will be responsible for directing, analyzing, and coordinating all phases of the State Department’s Iran-connected activity, though it is unclear whether State will be the principal agency seeking to destabilize the Iranians.

Pompeo elaborated: “For nearly 40 years, the regime in Tehran has been responsible for a torrent of violent and destabilizing behavior against the United States, our allies, our partners, and indeed the Iranian people themselves. . . . We must see major changes in the regime’s behavior both inside and outside of its borders. The Iranian people and the world are demanding that Iran finally act like a normal nation.”

The new action group’s director, senior foreign policy adviser Brian Hook, also spoke at the launch, saying that the administration was taking “a comprehensive approach to Iran because the scope of Iranian malign activity is so wide-ranging.” He specifically mentioned Iran’s “aspiration for nuclear weapons” as well as its support for terrorist activity and added that he would be talking to America’s strategic partners to make sure everyone is on board with the new sanctions.

The CIA in IranInteragency ventures in government rest on a basic premise that grew out of the so-called war on terror and 9/11, namely that if everyone sits around a table to share information and viewpoints the outcome will be superior to any single agency going it alone. The concept is, however, flawed, first of all because interagency reviewing slows down the entire process as it attempts to find consensus on issues that do not necessarily lend themselves to simple formulations. Second, attempting to find consensus ignores the fact that a number of the government entities sitting around the table are competitors rather than colleagues. Pompeo is delusional if he thinks that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) are going to allow the State Department to take the lead in bringing Iran to its knees.

Those who hate Iran and want to see everything possible done to damage it, are, of course, delighted to see a group dedicated to doing just that. Mark Dubowitz, head of the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has been taking the lead in Iran bashing, enthused:

“Secretary Pompeo’s establishment of the Iran Action Group led by Brian Hook, one of his most trusted advisers, is further evidence that the Trump administration sees Iran as one of its top foreign policy and national security priorities. The group will be empowered to leverage all instruments of national power to squeeze the regime in Iran.”

Pompeo has considerable experience in beating on Iran. When he took over at CIA in January 2017, one of his first acts was to set up an Iran Working Group to focus clandestine efforts to weaken and eventually subvert the Iranian government. In May, shortly after President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, he spoke about a broad program that most observers would define as regime change, pledging to “crush” Iran economically and militarily to bring about major concessions over its behavior in the Middle East. He specifically demanded that Iran end all nuclear-related programs, stop developing ballistic missiles, and cease support for “terrorists and militant partners around the world.”

The White House has advised that countries doing business with Iran will “not be doing business with the United States” and has also unilaterally declared that after Nov. 4 anyone buying Iranian oil will be subject to secondary sanctions, which has created problems with both friends and foes worldwide. China, Turkey, and Russia have declared that they will not submit to U.S. demands, while close allies in Europe are seeking exemptions or creating mechanisms that will move such transactions out of the dollar zone.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The new task force will not really be doing anything beyond what is already being done both openly and clandestinely to inflict pain on the Iranian people in hopes that they will rise up and bring down their government. The obsession with Iran on the part of the Trump administration is curious in any event, as Iran is surrounded by hostile regimes that are militarily far superior to it. Tehran does not threaten the United States or U.S. interests in any serious way, and its alleged nuclear program is a fiction. Iran is, in any event, fully compliant with the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) that it signed together with the U.S. and five other countries, an agreement that was subsequently endorsed by the United Nations.

Many observers believe that the United States is being manipulated and played as a patsy against Iran by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who do have an interest in bringing down the Iranian government. That is certainly true, but there might be another explanation for the strenuous activity by Pompeo and others. Midterm elections are coming up, and there is nothing that rallies the voting public quite as well as a good little war in which the bad guys are soundly whipped.

But, recalling Iraq, one should also consider that a war with a nationalistic and prepared Iran might not go as planned.

Every concerned American should be watching very carefully over the next 60 days to see what is developing around the Iran Task Force. Will Trump adhere to his pre-electoral promise to get out of ongoing wars in the Middle East, or will it be yet another politically motivated bait-and-switch with a bloody new war initiated by a false-flag operation or a deliberate provocation to turn an election?

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.


False-Flag Chemical Attack Is Coming in Syria, Warns Russia

Russia’s foreign minister has submitted documentation based on “concrete facts” to the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons warning of a potential false-flag chemical weapons operation coming in Syria’s Idlib province. Will the warning be enough to stop the warmongers and psychopaths?

By John Friend

The Russian government has openly warned the UN and wider international community of a potential false-flag operation that could be carried out in Syria designed to frame and discredit embattled Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s government, it has been reported.

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, there is “no doubt” that Islamic militants with ties to Western intelligence agencies that are hostile to Assad’s regime are planning a false-flag chemical weapons attack in Idlib province, the scene of fierce fighting between forces loyal to the Syrian regime and terrorist groups opposed to it.

The accusations are familiar to readers of this newspaper, as the Russian government has long accused the West and radical terrorist groups in the region of plotting false-flag-style attacks in Syria that are designed to frame Assad and the Syrian government for war crimes.

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

Lavrov noted that Moscow has submitted documentation for these allegations to both the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), RT.com recently reported.

“We have presented concrete facts obtained from various sources both to the UN and to The Hague, where the OPCW headquarters is located,” Lavrov stated. “There is no doubt that such provocations are being prepared,” he added, noting that terrorist groups operating in Syria are on the defensive and are getting desperate, as the Syrian government’s mission to combat and defeat the terrorist threat continues to make progress. Russia has openly backed the Syrian government’s efforts to combat the various terrorist groups operating in its territory, many of which are funded, financed, and supported by Western intelligence agencies in their not-so-covert war against Assad.

“We have no plans to conceal what we do to back the Syrian government, which is liberating its land from terrorists to [allow] the Syrian citizens to return to . . . normal life as soon as possible,” Lavrov explained in a recent news conference.

Previously, the Russian Ministry of Defense had accused the U.S. government of planning a new round of airstrikes on Syria, using the false-flag attack allegedly being coordinated by terrorist groups on the ground in Syria as a pretext and justification. British forces are working with some of the terrorist groups to set up the false-flag provocation, the Russian Ministry of Defense has alleged.

“The implementation of this provocation, which is being conducted with the assistance of the British intelligence services, is meant to serve as the latest pretext for the U.S., Britain and France to deliver a missile strike against state and economic facilities in Syria,” General Igor Konashenkov, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, recently stated.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The powerful allegations come at a time when President Donald Trump and officials in his administration continue to warn Assad of potential consequences for using chemical weapons or otherwise attacking forces openly at war with his regime. Earlier this week, Trump took to Twitter to lecture not only Assad but also the Russian and Iranian governments about their actions in the region.

“President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province,” Trump tweeted. “The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don’t let that happen!”

Will Russia’s open warning about a potential false flag be enough to stave off the warmongers and psychopaths from provoking yet another military conflict?

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Can’t We Just Leave Syria Alone?

Good question. With Assad back in control of Idlib, hundreds of thousands of people have voluntarily returned to the city and are apparently enjoying peace and relative liberty. Clearly, Assad is not trying to gas them all and the U.S. and its coalition does not need to “liberate” them. As Dr. Paul asks, can’t we just leave them alone?

By Dr. Ron Paul

Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was supposed to be gone already. President Barack Obama thought it would be just another “regime change” operation and perhaps Assad would end up like Saddam Hussein or Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych. Or maybe even Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. But he was supposed to be gone. The U.S. spent billions to get rid of him and even provided weapons and training to the kinds of radicals that attacked the United States on 9/11. But with the help of his allies, Assad has nearly defeated this foreign-sponsored insurgency.

Available from the AFP store.

The U.S. fought him every step of the way. Each time the Syrian military approached another occupied city or province, Washington and its obedient allies issued the usual warnings that Assad was not liberating territory but was actually seeking to kill more of his own people. Remember Aleppo, where the U.S. claimed Assad was planning mass slaughter once he regained control? As usual, the neocons and the media were completely wrong. Even the UN has admitted that with Aleppo back in the hands of the Syrian government hundreds of thousands of Syrians have actually moved back. We are supposed to believe they willingly returned so that Assad could kill them?

The truth is Aleppo is being rebuilt. Christians celebrated Easter there this spring for the first time in years. There has been no slaughter once al Qaeda and ISIS’s hold was broken. Believe me, if there was a slaughter we would have heard about it in the media.

So now, with the Syrian military and its allies prepared to liberate the final Syrian province of Idlib, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo again warns the Syrian government against re-taking its own territory. He tweeted on Aug. 31: “The three million Syrians, who have already been forced out of their homes and are now in Idlib, will suffer from this aggression. Not good. The world is watching.”

Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has also warned the Syrian government that the U.S. will attack if it uses gas in Idlib. Of course, that warning serves as an open invitation to rebels currently holding Idlib to set off another false flag and enjoy U.S. air support. Bolton and Pompeo are painting Idlib as a peaceful province resisting the violence of an Assad who they claim just enjoys killing his own people. But who controls Idlib province?

Trump’s own special envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, Brett McGurk, said in Washington just last year that, “Idlib province is the largest al Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11, tied directly to Ayman al Zawahiri. This is a huge problem.”

Could someone please remind Pompeo and Bolton that al Qaeda are the bad guys? After six years of a foreign-backed regime-change operation in Syria, where hundreds of thousands have been killed and the country nearly fell into the hands of ISIS and al Qaeda, the Syrian government is on the verge of victory.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Assad is hardly a saint, but does anyone really think al Qaeda and ISIS are preferable? After all, how many Syrians fled the country when Assad was in charge versus when the US-backed “rebels” started taking over?

Americans should be outraged that Pompeo and Bolton are defending al Qaeda in Idlib. It’s time for the neocons to admit they lost. It is time to give Syria back to the Syrians. It is time to pull the U.S. troops from Syria. It is time to just leave Syria alone!

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

© 2018 Ron Paul Institute

Monsanto Forced to Pay Man $289 Million in Cancer Case

The profit-hungry agri-giant often called “the evil empire” has been slapped for poisoning a school groundskeeper who used their glyphosate-based weed killers, and now, the behemoth is looking at more than 5,000 similar lawsuits. Glyphosate has recently been confirmed in oat breakfast cereals and bars, yet the FDA continues to remain silent about its dangers even while other countries ban Monsanto products.

By S.T. Patrick

Sometimes David really does defeat Goliath. A California jury this month found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weed killers like Roundup caused the cancer of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. As a result of the decision, Monsanto has been ordered to pay Johnson $289 million in damages. Johnson may be only the first victorious David, as Monsanto now faces over 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.

Despite a Monsanto spokesman arguing that “more than 800 scientific studies and reviews . . . support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” the jury awarded damages to Johnson, whose attorney explained that, for the first time, jurors were privy to internal company documents “proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer.”

The cancer arm of the World Health Organization in 2015 had determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Safe Foods Shopping Guide
Shop safely with this handy guide from AFP’s Online Store.

Study results published just days after the Johnson news broke revealed that some oat breakfast cereals and snack bars marketed toward children are laced with glyphosate. Of the 45 products containing oats tested by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), 43 contained traces of glyphosate and 31 exceeded the EWG’s child-protective daily exposure benchmark of 160 ppb.

EWG reports the FDA is aware of the dangers from glyphosates but remaining silent: “In April, internal emails obtained by the nonprofit US Right to Know revealed that the Food and Drug Administration has been testing food for glyphosate for two years and has found ‘a fair amount,’ but the FDA has not released its findings.”

Glyphosate has been used by Monsanto in weed killers since 1974, and organics activists are claiming Monsanto has known about the effects of the chemical since the early 1980s. Monsanto has since aggressively marketed glyphosate as “safer than table salt” and “practically nontoxic.”

Monsanto has not only tied its weed killers to glyphosate; the agrochemical giant tied its billion-dollar seed business to the same toxic chemical. Monsanto has inserted genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into plants since 1983. It introduced GMOs to crops in 1987. A line of “Roundup Ready” seed was introduced to coincide with the glyphosate weed killers. Products like Roundup would then kill the weeds without killing the seeds. Monsanto is the world’s largest distributor of seeds today, controlling nearly one-quarter of the world market. DuPont is second and shares with Monsanto a commitment to GMO seed production.

This is not the first time Monsanto’s chemicals have come under fire. Monsanto abandoned DDT production “for economic reasons . . . long before any environmental concerns were brought to the table.” Despite later reports that proved its toxicity, Monsanto’s website still touts DDT as an effective preventative measure against malaria. Apparently, deadly chemicals do kill mosquitoes. The pesticide was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 because it was said to cause cancer and kill wildlife.

From 1965 to 1969, Monsanto was one of the nine companies contracted by the U.S. government to manufacture Agent Orange for use in the Vietnam theater of war. It was designed, according to Monsanto, as a “defoliant to protect the lives of U.S. soldiers.” It was also used to destroy enemy food crops—and lives. The Vietnamese government reported that as many as 3 million people have died or have suffered illnesses that stem from Agent Orange. Many American veterans have settled out of court  with Monsanto, but some denied the settlement, as it would have exempted them from certain government benefits and care.

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

In 2004, Monsanto spokesperson Jill Montgomery asserted that the company should not be held liable for any illnesses or deaths resulting from Agent Orange.

“We are sympathetic with people who believe they have been injured and understand their concern to find the cause,” Montgomery said. “But reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects.”

After Johnson’s Roundup lawsuit verdict was announced, Bayer AG, which had purchased Monsanto for $66 billion in June, saw its stock plunge more than it had in seven years. The $289 million judgment erased more than $11 billion from the German drug conglomerate’s market value. Bayer had already intended to drop the Monsanto name from its operations. Monsanto has for years earned nicknames such as “the evil empire” and “the world’s most evil corporation.” Bayer acquired the profits yet wanted to discard the reputation and public opinion.

Globally, governments and courts have taken a harsher stand against Monsanto’s products. A judge in Brazil recently suspended the sale of all products containing glyphosate. A Monsanto tribunal took place in 2016-17 in The Hague. The five judges presiding over the tribunal ruled that the activities of Monsanto have a negative impact on basic human rights.

Dewayne Johnson is one of millions sickened, injured, or killed by Monsanto products. Yet, the company still maintains a stranglehold on the bureaucrats within the government.

Until politicians are exposed for their loyalty to and, in many cases, their work for Monsanto, the company’s power within the government will continue to grow—like a fungus ironically immune from Monsanto’s most dangerous products.

S. T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.

Regime Change a Recipe for War in Iran

Has the Trump administration, a la Jared Kushner, learned nothing from the history of America’s last regime-change efforts in Iran? Perhaps even worse today, “the decision by President Donald Trump to use America’s power once again to interfere with Iran’s internal politics does not have the backing of America’s NATO allies, including Turkey, and is also opposed by Russia and China.”

By Richard Walker

Sixty-five years after a CIA-inspired coup overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government to install a pro-Western puppet regime, the Trump administration has announced its intention to once again force regime change in Iran.

The 1953 coup led by the U.S. was a disgraceful episode in the history of U.S. foreign policy and involved the British, who were determined to control Iran’s oil riches.

The CIA in Iran
History at the AFP Online Store.

Today, the decision by President Donald Trump to use America’s power once again to interfere with Iran’s internal politics does not have the backing of America’s NATO allies, including Turkey, and is also opposed by Russia and China.

Given that Washington’s regime change policy in Syria has turned out to be such a disaster, the announcement by former CIA chief Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, that Iran is now in the Trump White House crosshairs was not well received by European nations that will not back America in another Middle East war driven by neocon fervor and Washington’s ties to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Anyone with a brain knows that the Middle East has been a junkyard for U.S. foreign policy. There has been a long line of disasters including the Iraq War, the Syria War, the removal of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya that led to the disintegration of that country into armed camps, and support for Saudi Arabia that is committing war crimes in Yemen and paying al Qaeda to assist it. The recent Saudi slaughter of a busload of Yemeni school children with a missile supplied by the U.S. did not raise an eyebrow in Congress. One can only imagine what the reaction would have been had Israeli children been massacred by Palestinians.

The risk of running a covert campaign to force regime change in Iran is that it could lead to a bloody war across the region. That would suit Israel and Saudi Arabia, two of the Trump administration’s closest allies. It would also cost many lives, including those of U.S. service personnel. Russia, an ally of Iran, could be drawn into such a conflict.

None of this appears to trouble Trump, who franchised out Middle East policy to his son-inlaw, Jared Kushner, a family friend of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and a close associate of the reckless Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman.

Because of an anti-Iran alliance between the Saudis and Israelis, the Saudis are behaving like they can do what they please in the region. Last year, they threatened to invade Qatar, but Turkey placed troops in Qatar as a warning that a Saudi invasion would have consequences beyond Qatar.

The recent revelation that the Saudis and their ally, the United Arab Emirates, were providing al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) with arms, training, and large sums of money was initially denied by the Saudis, but more recent reports have confirmed that it was true.

For America to be involved with the Saudi war in Yemen in which al Qaeda is an ally is to trash the memory of all those who died on the USS Cole and on 9/11. One of the most bizarre elements of the Saudi-al Qaeda alliance is that AQAP has been identified as the al Qaeda franchise that poses the greatest threat to America.

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

It should not have come as a shock to anyone that Pompeo recently announced the creation of a shadowy organization, the Iran Action Group (IAG), whose members’ names are classified. The aim of the IAG is supposedly to change the Iran regime’s policies, which is a euphemism for taking military and economic actions to overthrow the regime. This is the same Pompeo who is on record claiming that it would take only 2,000 bombing sorties by the U.S. and its allies to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and presumably its industrial base. The claim was made in 2014, but now there would be no NATO allies prepared tojoin such a venture, leaving Washington tied to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

On May 22, Pompeo ominously warned that the U.S. would use all its economic and military might to destroy Iran’s economy and crush its operatives and proxies around the world. It was clearly a threat of U.S. inter-agency activity of the type Israel is fond of, including assassinations. Such a policy would result in blowback beyond the Middle East.

Commentator Daniel Patrick Welch told PressTV he believed Russia and China would oppose any reckless move to attack Iran. Turkey, meanwhile, has made it clear that it will side with Russia and China in helping Iran combat Washington sanctions.

A Russian diplomatic source with knowledge of the region spoke to AFP off the record, pointing out that Moscow was concerned the Trump administration was being moved toward a major conflict with Iran. The source said the Kremlin saw no appetite among European nations for more chaos in the Middle East.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

‘Toronto First,’ Says Goldy

Another nationalist candidate is making headlines, this time in Toronto, Canada where Faith Goldy is running for mayor. She wants to make her city safer and “put Toronto first” and is critical of Canada’s open borders. In response, she “has been hysterically denounced by the fake news media and political establishment in Canada, who have portrayed the populist and outspoken young Canadian as a far-right extremist.” Sound familiar?

By John Friend

A young and increasingly popular independent political commentator and alternative media personality is running for mayor of Toronto, the largest city in Canada and home to an increasingly diverse population. She is vowing to “Make Toronto Safe Again” while pledging to “Put Toronto First,” borrowing popular catch phrases from President Donald Trump’s populist talking points and political campaign.

Faith Goldy, who boasts close to 100,000 followers on Twitter and well over 65,000 subscribers on YouTube, is a former reporter for “TheRebel.Media,” one of Canada’s largest and most influential independent media outlets. She has also contributed to a number of other mostly Canadian-based media outlets, sparking controversy for her populist views and straightforward reporting on a variety of contentious issues, including mass Third World immigration to the West, political correctness, and related issues. Ms. Goldy attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. last year, covering the event for “The Rebel.Media.” She has since ventured out on her own as an independent journalist and reporter, covering Canada’s immigration crisis and the radical antifa movement, among other topics.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

In a recent interview with this newspaper, Goldy explained her decision to run for mayor in her hometown of Toronto.

“I don’t recognize our city anymore. Every day, there’s a new headline about a stabbing, shooting, or mass shooting on our streets,” Ms. Goldy told this reporter. “To boot, millennials my age are working two or three jobs and are still barely able to make rent. Meantime, our commutes to get between jobs have become worse than ever. Toronto needs a strong voice that’s tough on crime and easy on taxpayers—I am that voice.”

Ms. Goldy’s mayoral platform outlined on her website focuses on four key issues: making Toronto safe again, putting Toronto and its legal residents first, ensuring affordable housing for Toronto residents, and fixing and improving Toronto’s roads and infrastructure.

“I will reinstate Toronto’s Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy and bring back the invaluable policy of carding so our officers have the tools they need to make sure our city is welcoming to everyone except criminals,” Goldy told this reporter. “I will bring back the School Resource Program committing twice the number of officers in twice as many schools. I will turn TCHC [Toronto Community Housing Corp.] complexes into gated communities with officers monitoring ID and license plates of people going in and out, so to protect the most vulnerable in our city. And, I will bring job fairs and training to the most violent neighborhoods in our city to help keep our kids away from guns and gangs.”

Ms. Goldy has also been highly critical of Canada’s open borders policies, which have welcomed illegal immigrants and purported refugees at the expense of Canadian citizens. She has vowed to put Toronto first and prioritize the interests of all Toronto residents.

“I want every homeless person in our city to have a warm bed this winter,” Goldy proclaimed, “but right now, they’re being crowded out of our strained shelter system by an invasion of illegal migrants monopolizing our resources. As mayor, I will evacuate every illegal migrant from our public housing and bus them to the front steps of the prime minister’s official residence. Not a single Toronto taxpayer was asked if they wanted to erase our southern border, and we won’t be burdened with the exponential costs of the federal government’s decision to do so.”

On Sale at the AFP Store!

Unsurprisingly, Ms. Goldy has been hysterically denounced by the fake news media and political establishment in Canada, who have portrayed the populist and outspoken young Canadian as a far-right extremist.

“Since announcing my bid to become mayor, our city’s press has taken to the airwaves, defaming me,” she explained. “These fake news claims are nothing more than a diversion tactic, plain and simple. Toronto’s establishment media wants to distract taxpayers in this town from hearing my message because they know it will resonate.”

Various political lobbies and subversive activist organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, for example, have lamented the rise of populist and nationalist political candidates such as Ms. Goldy in both the United States and Canada.

Thankfully, more and more citizens are ignoring the smears from dishonest organizations working overtime to prevent populists and patriots such as Ms. Goldy from becoming elected representatives.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Israel’s Military Strategy a Failure

The Zionist state refuses to abandon its dream of gobbling up the territory of neighbors in its never-ending pursuit of Greater Israel.  

By Richard Walker

The failure of the coordinated efforts of the West, its Arab allies, and Israel to redraw the map of the Middle East by forcing regime change in Syria has exposed Israel’s declining power across the region.

Russia’s intervention in the Syrian war on the side of Syria’s government turned the tide against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the al-Nusra Front who received arms, intelligence, and training from the West and its allies, especially Britain, France, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. It also placed a spotlight on a regime change policy that had all the hallmarks of a neoconservative agenda that risked helping Israel find an excuse to go to war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and provoke a major confrontation with Iran that would drag in Western powers.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Israel has been advocating for regime change in Syria from the days of the Bush-Cheney administration. It convinced Vice President Dick Cheney that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran were ripe for a campaign to overthrow their leaders. Cheney saw to it that Syria was at the top of a regime hit list drawn up in the Pentagon and in the smoke-filled rooms of big corporate donors in Washington.

The reason Syria featured so prominently was because of Israel’s undue influence in Washington politics and its determination to hold on to the Golan Heights, which it illegally seized and has continued to hold since the 1967 Six-Day War. The Golan Heights was and, according to international law, remains Syrian territory that Israel is exploiting for military and financial gains.

From the time it seized the Golan Heights, Israel has been determined not to lose it. To that end, it has plotted to weaken Bashar al-Assad’s government and to advocate in Washington for a plot to put in place a pro-Western Syrian government that would never question Israel’s Golan occupation.

During this latest regime change war in Syria, Israel secretly aided the al-Nusra Front and illegally bombed Syria. It has continued to do this as the war winds down. Israel has also made every effort to drag Hezbollah and Iran into a shooting war, but they have not taken the bait.

High Priests of War, Piper
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Israel’s aim has been to widen the Syrian conflict so that Syria would be one of the dominoes to fall should the West be encouraged to join a wider war. The West, too, has no longer taken the bait and has decided that the regime-change effort was a disaster. Turkey was one of the first NATO nations to see the writing on the wall and moved closer to Russia, thereby ending its own efforts to unseat Assad.

In the past three years, as Israel has contemplated the possibility of the Assad government remaining in power, it has feared that Syria will eventually relaunch its rightful claim to the Golan Heights, with backing from Russia and China. This reality encouraged devious warmongers in the Israeli government like Benjamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett to plot ways to ensure the Golan Heights can never be returned to Syria. Bennett wants to resettle over 100,000 Jews, many from Eastern Europe, in the Golan Heights, enabling Israel to eventually argue before the UN that it could not hand over an area populated by Jews to a non-Jewish regime.

Another strategy is the building of expanded military fortifications in the Golan Heights. An intelligence source in Moscow who spoke to American Free Press off the record warned that Israel may have put missiles with a nuclear capability in the Golan Heights.

“But you have no hope getting that confirmed,” the source added.

Netanyahu has long believed if Washington can be persuaded to publicly declare the Golan Heights Israeli territory the sovereignty issue will be over. He believes he has found a way to do that, knowing oil and gas provide a route map to Washington decision makers’ bank accounts and influence. When he learned that the Golan Heights held massive quantities of oil and gas, he made an unknown American company, Genie Energy in New Jersey, a partner to sharing in those riches, giving it the rights to explore 135 square miles of the Golan Heights. It was, of course, no ordinary little company. Its board membership tells you how powerful it could be in ensuring Israel gets what it seeks while Genie gets the energy riches. The board includes Dick Cheney, Lord Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Larry Summers, the treasury secretary under Barack Obama.

It must, therefore, have come as a shock to Israel when Russia suddenly announced that it was entering the Golan controversy. On Aug. 2, Russia dispatched its military police to patrol the Golan Heights where it meets the border with Syria. The tactic was designed to stop Israel exploiting Islamist activity in the area to continue bombing the Syrian military.

Russia said its military police would operate eight command posts under a UN mandate to monitor the Golan Heights.

UN forces withdrew from the border area in 2012 fearing they were vulnerable. The Russian military appears to have no such fear. In a move sure to anger Netanyahu, Russia said it would transfer control of the command posts to the Syrian military when tensions eased.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Jewish Man Guilty of Bomb Threats

Remember the slew of bomb threats a couple years back against Jewish Community Centers and other targets, including transportation hubs, in multiple countries? Yes, the threats the ADL insisted were evidence of the increasing problem of “anti-Semitism” and scream it was Donald Trump’s fault? Turns out, the perpetrator, found guilty in an Israeli court, is actually an Israeli-American teenager, who even tried to sell his “school bomb threat” services online. He was found guilty of extortion, sending fraudulent messages, money laundering, computer hacking, and assault.

By John Friend

An Israeli court found a dual Israeli-American teenager guilty late last month of making roughly 2,000 bomb threats, most of which targeted Jewish institutions, including Jewish Community Centers across the country, as well as the Israeli embassy and the Anti-Defamation League.

He also targeted a number of airports and airliners, malls, police stations, and other institutions in the United States, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, and Australia with fake bomb and public shooting threats between 2016 and 2017.

Michael Ron David Kadar, the 19-year-old Israeli-American man, who has been previously identified as the suspect in the hoax bomb and shooting threats, was found guilty of a slew of crimes including extortion, sending fraudulent messages, money laundering, and computer hacking. Additionally, he was found guilty of assault for attempting to grab the gun of a policewoman who was searching his home.

MidEast Chess Board

The bizarre case drew international headlines shortly after President Donald Trump’s election, causing alarm in the Jewish community about rising levels of purported and threatened anti-Semitic violence. At the time, the mainstream media and other leftists blamed Trump for encouraging and mainstreaming racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry more generally, citing the anti-Semitic bomb threats phoned into Jewish Community Centers and other Jewish institutions around the United States.

According to authorities, Kadar made thousands of threatening phone calls between January and March 2017 using an online calling service that allowed him to mask his identity and disguise his voice. In addition to targeting Jewish institutions, airports, malls, and police stations around the world, he also attempted to extort Ernesto Lopez, a Republican state senator from Delaware.

Kadar offered his extortion services through a shady online black-market place called AlphaBay, where he advertised a “School Email Bomb Threat Service,” offering clients a custom-designed threat that he would send to schools for a fee of $30.

Kadar’s hoax bomb and public shooting threats caused hysteria not only in the organized Jewish community, but at countless institutions he targeted, causing evacuations, panic, and fear.

Psychiatrists said after analyzing Kadar that he suffers from autism and paranoid delusions, but that he is fit to stand trial. His family and defense attorney maintain he suffers from a brain tumor and doesn’t understand the severity of his actions.

That claim was soundly rejected by Israeli Judge Zvi Gurfinkel, who oversaw his recent trial.

“The defendant has changed his version of events multiple times according to what suits him the most,” Gurfinkel stated during the trial. “He very much understands the significance of his actions.”

Gurfinkel maintained that the record demonstrated that Kadar was fully aware of the significance of his actions, that he took steps to conceal his identity and actions, and that he advertised his services online. Furthermore, he noted that Kadar stated previously that he actually enjoyed seeing the chaos and panic that resulted after the hoax threats were called in.

“The defendant sowed terror and panic in a systematic and sophisticated way, all while concealing his identity, and disrupted the lives of many people whom he has threatened,” Gurfinkel stated.

Kadar potentially faces several years behind bars for the convictions in Israeli court. As AFP goes to press, a sentencing hearing has yet to be set following Gurfinkel’s guilty verdict.

In March, several U.S. states and jurisdictions charged Kadar with a range of crimes as well, including the states of Florida and Georgia and Washington, D.C. It is uncertain if Kadar will be extradited to the U.S. to face trial.

Kadar’s bomb threats targeting Jewish centers prompted a number of multinational tech companies to kick nationalists off the Internet and resulted in the banning of several book publishers from retail platforms like Amazon.

Since it is now known that a young Israeli-American was responsible for the mayhem, one would expect an apology was due by tech giants and the mainstream media to all of the groups that were falsely blamed for the calls. As AFP goes to press, however, all of those innocent groups and individuals targeted by the hysteria are still waiting for CNN, Google, Amazon, and PayPal to reach out to them.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Will Tribalism Trump Democracy?

The issue of our age, writes Buchanan, is the “struggle between the claims of tribe, ethnicity, peoples, and nations, against the commands of liberal democracy.” Is America “a unique people with our own history, heroes, holidays, religion, language, literature, art, music, customs, and culture, recognizable all over the world” or have the culture wars made it impossible for us to live amicably? If not, he writes, secession may be inevitable. 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On July 19, the Knesset voted to change the nation’s Basic Law.

Israel was declared to be, now and forever, the nation-state and national home of the Jewish people. Hebrew is to be the state language.

Angry reactions, not only among Israeli Arabs and Jews, came swift.

Allan Brownfeld of the American Council for Judaism calls the law a “retreat from democracy” as it restricts the right of self-determination, once envisioned to include all within Israel’s borders, to the Jewish people. Inequality is enshrined.

And Israel, says Brownfeld, is not the nation-state of American Jews.

What makes this clash of significance is that it is another battle in the clash that might fairly be called the issue of our age.

The struggle is between the claims of tribe, ethnicity, peoples, and nations, against the commands of liberal democracy.

MidEast Chess Board

In Europe, the Polish people seek to preserve the historic and ethnic character of their country with reforms that the EU claims violate Poland’s commitment to democracy.

If Warsaw persists, warns the EU, the Poles will be punished. But which comes first: Poland, or its political system, if the two are in conflict?

Other nations are ignoring the open-borders requirements of the EU’s Schengen Agreement, as they attempt to block migrants from Africa and the Middle East.

They want to remain who they are, open borders be damned.

Britain is negotiating an exit from the EU because the English voted for independence from that transitional institution whose orders they saw as imperiling their sovereignty and altering their identity.

Russian Populist, Putin
Available at the AFP Store.

When Ukraine, in the early 1990s, was considering secession from Russia, Bush I warned Kiev against such “suicidal nationalism.”

Ukraine ignored President Bush. Today, new questions have arisen.

If Ukrainians had a right to secede from Russia and create a nation-state to preserve their national identity, do not the Russians in Crimea and the Donbass have the same right—to secede from Ukraine and rejoin their kinsmen in Russia?

As Georgia seceded from Russia at the same time, why do not the people of South Ossetia have the same right to secede from Georgia?

Who are we Americans, 5,000 miles away, to tell tribes, peoples, and embryonic nations of Europe whether they may form new states to reflect and preserve their national identity?

Nor are these minor matters.

At Paris in 1919, Sudeten Germans and Danzig Germans were, against their will, put under Czech and Polish rule. British and French resistance to permitting these peoples to secede and rejoin their kinfolk in 1938 and 1939 set the stage for the greatest war in history.

Here in America, we, too, appear to be in an endless quarrel about who we are.

Is America a different kind of nation, a propositional nation, an ideological nation, defined by a common consent to the ideas and ideals of our iconic documents like the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address?

Or are we like other nations, a unique people with our own history, heroes, holidays, religion, language, literature, art, music, customs, and culture, recognizable all over the world as “the Americans”?

Since 2001, those who have argued that we Americans were given, at the birth of the republic, a providential mission to democratize mankind, have suffered an unbroken series of setbacks.

Nations we invaded, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, to bestow upon them the blessings of democracy, rose up in resistance. What our compulsive interventionists saw as our mission to mankind, the beneficiaries saw as American imperialism.

And the culture wars on history and memory continue unabated.

According to The New York Times, the African-American candidate for governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams, has promised to sandblast the sculptures of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis off Stone Mountain.

The Republican candidate, Brian Kemp, has a pickup truck, which he promises to use to transfer illegal migrants out of Georgia and back to the border.

In Texas, a move is afoot to remove the name of Stephen Austin from the capital city, as Austin, in the early 1830s, resisted Mexico’s demands to end slavery in Texas when it was still part of Mexico.

One wonders when they will get around to Sam Houston, hero of Texas’s War of Independence and first governor of the Republic of Texas, which became the second slave republic in North America.

Houston, after whom the nation’s fourth-largest city is named, was himself, though a Unionist, a slave owner and an opponent of abolition.

Today, a large share of the American people loathe who we were from the time of the explorers and settlers, up until the end of segregation in the 1960s. They want to apologize for our past, rewrite our history, erase our memories and eradicate the monuments of those centuries.

The attacks upon the country we were and the people whence we came are near constant.

And if we cannot live together amicably, secession from one another, personally, politically, and even territorially, seems the ultimate alternative.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


U.S. Policies in Latin America Stupid

News today is “something like an adventure,” says Phil Giraldi: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is ruling by decree and ignoring the National Assembly while his people suffer due to the failing economy, and Ecuador’s president and close Washington ally Lenin Moreno intends to revoke the asylum granted by his predecessor to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. President Trump’s response to this South American chaos? He wants to “do justice” when it comes to Assange, meaning bring him to trial, and force regime change in Venezuela via U.S. military might. 

By Philip Giraldi

It is the first time in my lifetime that opening up the morning newspaper is something like an adventure. Last week I learned that the Donald Trump White House had considered a military intervention in Venezuela to remove the admittedly dystopic and despotic government of President Nicolas Maduro. For those who are not following developments in the Southern Hemisphere closely, the Venezuelan “Bolivarian” government is an odd mixture of South American old-style communism based on an aggressive populism that promotes class warfare. Political demonstrations over the past year protesting the deteriorating economy and the threat to what remains of the country’s democracy have been suppressed by violence initiated by heavily armed police in which dozens died. The National Assembly, which is controlled by the political opposition, is being ignored by Maduro, who is ruling by decree. Since he controls the security apparatus there is no one to tell him what he cannot do.

Venezuelans, sitting on huge oil reserves, are starving, unemployed, plagued by hyperinflation not seen since post-World War I Germany, and fleeing the country in the hundreds of thousands. Credit both internationally and domestically has vanished and foreign companies that had set up shop in the country, which refuses to allow them any longer to repatriate their profits, have fled, meaning that consumer goods once readily available have disappeared from the shelves.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

So Venezuela is indeed a basket case and a growing problem for neighbors in South America, but the ones who are suffering most are the Venezuelans themselves, who, one would think, should be the most likely candidates for removing their own government. Not so, according to President of the United States and Leader of the Free World Donald Trump, who, according to the reporting from advisers who actually sat in on the meeting, suggested that there might be a military solution to the problem, i.e., the United States should intervene to restore order and “democracy.” This discussion apparently took place nearly a year ago when the violence in Venezuela reached such a level that it appeared to be threatening to turn into something like a civil war in the country.

According to Associated Press, “As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked them an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country? The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting. . . .”

Trump’s aides reportedly discussed with him the dangers inherent in such a proposal, mostly in terms of costing support of Venezuela’s neighbors, who are already behind punitive sanctions to isolate Maduro’s regime and have been swamped with a refugee crisis. Intervening would also revive unpalatable memories of American incursions in various Latin American countries in the 20th century.

But Trump persisted in his support of a military incursion as a possible option, citing relatively recent Reagan-era interventions in Panama and Grenada as success stories. He also mentioned the possibility of an armed response in a press conference on the following day, a comment that predictably produced a wave of support inside Venezuela for Maduro.

Washington, which appears to have no actual overall policy toward Latin America, is also acting behind the scenes in neighboring Ecuador. As president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, who is now retired from office, was generally remembered as a good leader for the Ecuadorian people, a vocal critic of Washington’s policy in Latin America, and, more particularly for his support of WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange. Since his replacement, Correa has been targeted by the Washington establishment as an enemy and there has been considerable pressure on his successor, Lenin Moreno, to bring Correa to trial for alleged crimes.

Moreno, a former Correa ally, has been currying favor with Washington by blocking Correa from being able to run again for the presidency. He has also turned on Assange, the Australian journalist who has for six years been residing in the Ecuadorian embassy in London under diplomatic protection arranged by Correa.

Moreno wants to revoke the asylum granted to Assange and has prevented him from continuing his journalistic activity by confining him to a tiny part of the building with only limited access to the outside world. Assange has gone from being a guest to being a prisoner in the embassy, and there is concern that he will shortly be expelled from the building, which will result in his immediate arrest by the British and his extradition to the United States where he would face life in prison.

Correa understood clearly that Moreno viewed him as part of the problem. Realizing that he and his family were in danger, he moved to Belgium, but an Ecuadorian court has now asked the Belgians to detain Correa on fabricated criminal charges and extradite him back to Ecuador for trial.

So far, the Belgians have not complied with the Ecuadorian demand, but if Washington gets behind it and quietly nudges Brussels, anything can happen. And, of course, the real story is Assange. Think what one might about Assange’s line of work, he is a legitimate journalist. He received information from whistleblowers and anonymous sources that he published when it was clear that the authorities and politically powerful were behaving illegally or unethically. He did not personally steal classified information and there is even some suggestion that WikiLeaks took care not to publish material that was damaging to individuals personally. Exposing political corruption in entities like Hillary Clinton’s campaign was, however, considered to be fair game, just as it should be.

Assange has been declared guilty without a trial by both the U.S. media and the inside-the-Beltway chattering class in the United States, and his conviction in what might pass for a court of law is a certainty. Ecuador appears to be willing to do what it can to help the process along.

Trump has indicated his belief in Assange’s guilt and stated his desire to “do justice.” The unprincipled response is one with the stated desire to invade Venezuela to sort things out.

Simple responses, all having to do with laying on punishment. That is what the foreign policy of the United States has become.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.