Is Bolton Steering Trump into War with Iran?

John Bolton never met a war he didn’t like. If President Trump is serious about stopping U.S. involvement in wars, he’d better find a way to rein in his national security adviser.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Stop the ENDLESS WARS!” implored President Donald Trump in a Sunday night tweet.

Well, if he is serious, Trump had best keep an eye on his national security adviser, for a U.S. war on Iran would be a dream come true for John Bolton.

Last September, when Shiite militants launched three mortar shells into the Green Zone in Baghdad, which exploded harmlessly in a vacant lot, Bolton called a series of emergency meetings and directed the Pentagon to prepare a menu of targets, inside Iran, for U.S. air and missile strikes in retaliation.

The Wall Street Journal quoted one U.S. official as saying Bolton’s behavior “rattled people. … People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

Bolton’s former deputy, Mira Ricardel, reportedly told a gathering the shelling into the Green Zone was “an act of war” to which the U.S. must respond decisively.

Kingdom Identity

Bolton has long believed a U.S. confrontation with Iran is both inevitable and desirable. In 2015, he authored a New York Times op-ed whose title, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” said it all. He has urged that “regime change” in Iran be made a declared goal of U.S. foreign policy.

When Trump announced his decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops now in Syria, Bolton swiftly imposed conditions: ISIS must first be eliminated, Iranian forces and allied militias must leave, and the Kurds must be protected.

Yet enforcing such red lines would require a permanent presence of American troops. For how, without war, would we effect the removal of Bashar Assad’s Iranian allies, if he declines to expel them and the Iranians refuse to go?

Bolton has an ally in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In Cairo last week, Pompeo declared it U.S. policy “to expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria.

And though Hezbollah has been a “major presence” in Lebanon for several decades, “we won’t accept this as the status quo,” said Pompeo, for Hezbollah is a “wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime.”

But how does the secretary of state propose to push Hezbollah out of Lebanon peacefully when the Israelis could not do it in a month-long war in 2006?

Pompeo’s purpose during his tour of the Middle East? Build a new Middle East Strategic Alliance, a MESA, an Arab NATO, whose members are to be Egypt, Jordan and the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

There are other signs a confrontation is coming soon. The U.S. has objected to Iran’s pending launch of two space satellites, saying these look like tests of missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads. Yet Iran has never produced weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and never tested an ICBM.

Pompeo has also called for a conclave in Poland in February to bring together an anti-Iran alliance to discuss what is to be done about what he calls “our common enemy.”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu boasted of Israel’s latest strike in Syria: “Just in the last 36 hours, the air force attacked Iranian warehouses with Iranian weapons at the international airport in Damascus. The accumulation of recent attacks proves that we are determined more than ever to take action against Iran in Syria, just as we promised.”

Israel brags that it has hit 200 targets inside Syria in recent years. The boasting may be connected to Bibi’s desire to strengthen his credentials as a security hawk for the coming Israeli election. But it is also a provocation to the Iranians and Syrians to retaliate, which could ignite a wider war between Israel and Syrian and Iranian forces.

What does the U.S. think of the Israeli strikes? Said Pompeo: “We strongly support Israel’s efforts to stop Iran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon.”

In short, forces are moving in this country and in Israel to bring about a U.S. confrontation with Iran — before our troops leave Syria.

But the real questions here are not about Bolton or Pompeo.

They are about Trump. Was he aware of Bolton’s request for a menu of targets in Iran for potential U.S. strikes? Did he authorize it? Has he authorized his national security adviser and secretary of state to engage in these hostile actions and bellicose rhetoric aimed at Iran? And if so, why?

While Trump has urged that the U.S. pull out of these Mideast wars, Pompeo has corrected him, “When America retreats, chaos often follows.”

Is Trump looking for a showdown with Iran, which could result in a war that might vault his approval rating, but be a disaster for the Middle East and world economy and do for him what Operation Iraqi Freedom did for George W. Bush?

One thing may confidently be said of the rhetoric and actions of Bolton and Pompeo: This is not what brought out the new populists who made Donald Trump president, the people who still share his desire to “stop the endless wars.”

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.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Trump Abandoning the Kurds to Make a Deal With Turkey

Is the U.S. a trustworthy ally? Many former partners are questioning their alliance given President Trump’s abandonment one U.S. ally, Syria’s Kurds. 

By Richard Walker

The Kurds have sacrificed a lot in blood to assist American special forces fighting radical Islamists in Iraq and Syria, but it now appears that, after President Donald Trump’s announcement that the U.S. is pulling troops out of Syria, Washington will abandon Syria’s Kurds after years of propping them up.

The Syrian Kurds are facing the real prospect that Turkey will drive them from the east of the country. In the north, they may soon find themselves at the mercy of a rejuvenated Syrian government in Damascus that would like to control the Kurds’ rich agricultural land in the north and the oil under it.

Numbering 30 million people scattered over Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, the Kurds have always longed for a homeland of their own. They thought they might get one when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, but they were deceived and denied nationhood by the British who took over much of the region.

Over the past century, the Kurds have been victims of power plays by big nations, and, in 2018, it was no different.

In Syria, the Kurds had hoped that their alliance with the U.S. would not only deliver them from Syrian control but also from Turkey, once the war against ISIS came to an end.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The Kurds fear the Turks as much as Assad, because Turkish President Recep Erdogan has regularly made it clear he wants to crush the Kurds and push them well away from the Syrian-Turkish border, arguing without evidence that Syrian Kurds are aligned with Turkish Kurds who have fought an insurgency within Turkey.

Washington has publicly rebuked Turkey for making the allegation, calling it false. That does not deter Erdogan, who sees himself dominating the region and creating a new Ottoman dawn.

The writing was on the wall earlier this year that the Trump administration might abandon the Kurds in return for better relations with NATO ally Turkey.

In January, Turkey launched a military assault on Afrin, a town close to the Turkish border that the Kurds had seized from ISIS. The United States did not intervene, and the Kurds were forced to flee after losing a lot of men.

The Turkish invasion followed a messy political period when Washington promised to create a border force to ensure there would be no clashes between Turkish and Kurdish forces.

When Turkey protested the proposal, delivered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Washington backed down, and the Turks launched the Afrin attack.

For some observers, Afrin signaled that Washington would cut and run if the Turks moved against the Kurds. There were whispered suggestions that U.S. generals were angry that their Kurdish allies were betrayed for a vague political objective, which may simply have been establishing better relations with Erdogan.

An estimated 2,000 U.S. personnel, many of them contractors and special forces, remain in Syria supposedly to help mop up the last ISIS holdouts.

ISIS Is Us
Shocking truth, available from the AFP store.

The Pentagon has publicly warned Turkey that its threats to launch strikes against the Kurds could endanger Americans, but Turkish officials counter that Washington has secretly given Erdogan the green light to launch more strikes. If this is true, it further reinforces a belief in many parts of the region that Washington cannot be trusted.

That could reverberate in Iraq where there is a growing clamor for the U.S. to leave.

A European intelligence source has confirmed to American Free Press that there has been an ongoing struggle between the Pentagon, the White House, and U.S. allies over what to do about Syria. Pentagon hawks and generals in the Middle East have argued that leaving Syria will open the playing field to Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Trump contends that it is time to get out of Syria in keeping with promises he made during 2016 to bring home U.S. military personnel once ISIS was defeated.

The problem is that not everyone agrees that ISIS is defeated. The source also revealed that U.S. allies in NATO have quietly pleaded with the White House not to be hasty in declaring an end to operations in Syria.

When Trump announced on Dec. 19, via a tweet, that ISIS was defeated, and he was pulling U.S. troops out of Syria, there was immediate blowback within the Pentagon and the military.

The president’s message was subsequently adjusted to indicate the withdrawal would not be immediate.

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




French Prez Calls on Former Foe for Help

Average Frenchmen say they can’t make ends meet under the existing system and have flooded the streets in Yellow Vests, and the country’s leftist president has turned to a conservative for advice.

By S.T. Patrick

With Paris flooded by protestors, tension, and turmoil, President Emmanuel Macron has turned to an unlikely source for counsel. Within the last three weeks, the leftist Macron has sought input from former conservative French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy was in office from 2007 to 2012, before being defeated by Socialist Party candidate François Hollande by a narrow margin. Sarkozy guided France through the global recession of 2008 and the Arab Spring of 2010. A former minister of the budget and minister of finances, Sarkozy, a hardliner on law and order, is well-equipped to aid Macron in navigating through the protests that have taken over Parisian streets.

“Yellow vest” protestors have demonstrated in some of the most posh districts of Paris in recent weeks. The yellow vests have called for the resignation of Macron as president, as well as lower fuel prices, a higher minimum wage, and a lower national tax burden on the middle and poorer classes.

Kingdom Identity

Quite unlike the American Republicans, the French right is now steeped heavily in populism. In the U.S., the GOP has convinced its middle-class voters to back policies that place the desires of billionaires over an improved cost of living, for example. The French right, however, represents the majority of the yellow vests, named after the 2008 law that required French motorists to carry a yellow vest in their vehicles. Their chief concern is a worsening daily condition for those who work full-time.

The French right wing still stings from the loss of their candidate, Marine Le Pen of the National Rally Party. At 39, Macron became the youngest French president in history. The middle class and those on the right who had voted for Mrs. Le Pen, however, did not lose their passion for the issues because the results of an election were announced. Many of them have taken to the streets and have refused to allow the status quo to continue to rule France.

There have already been concessions by the Macron government. An agreement was made that the new gas tax would be cancelled and a six-month moratorium on gas price changes would be installed, the minimum wage will be raised significantly by 2019, and the tax on overtime hours and annual bonuses would be eliminated.

There are historical problems with Macron, of which the yellow vests are fully aware. He has always had his mind on government. He graduated with a masters of public affairs and studied at a college founded for French civil servants. More importantly, he was a banker. But he was not just any investment banker. Macron honed his trade under the watchful eye of the Rothschild family at Rothschild & Cie Banque. His policies have enriched those who control the industries that receive financing from those banks. If the French elite win, Rothschild & Cie wins. The French have shown that they are wise enough to fight these policies en masse.

Sarkozy can also be an ally at the bargaining table. He was once called upon to mediate between Russia and Georgia in 2008. Whether Macron, currently hovering around a 20% approval rating, can ameliorate the concerns of the angst-ridden voters in the new year is anyone’s guess. Can he convince those hurting and struggling to make short-term sacrifices in an effort to achieve long-term growth?

Americans could learn something from the yellow vests. It is easy to sit in front of the big screen television and scoff at those protesting around the world. There was once a time in America where citizens also took to the streets to protest taxes, mercantilism, tariffs, and tea.

Yet the yellow vest movement is spreading. Yellow vest marches have sprung up throughout Europe and beyond. From Italy to Serbia, from Egypt to Canada, safety vest-clad protestors are marching in an attempt to bring attention to rising energy prices, lower comparable wages, and economic uncertainty.

The French workweek is 40% shorter than it was in the 1950s—and it isn’t because the workers want to sip champagne along the shores of the Seine. The tax structure in France has become so burdensome that it has depressed the drive to work. Atlas has shrugged in Paris, and the take line is now more attractive and profitable than the line of givers.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.




War With China a No-Win Scenario

The U.S. allegedly has the capability to defeat Chinese military, but at what cost?

By Richard Walker

Despite gloomy predictions that the U.S. could lose a war with China in the South China Sea, the reality is that the U.S. military has all the weapons to defeat its Chinese counterpart, though the cost in lives and the subsequent political and economic fallout from a war of that magnitude would be devastating. There is also the unquantifiable and horrifying possibility that a conventional conflict could spiral into a nuclear exchange, which would impact all life on Earth.

When warnings were made in Congress this year that America could lose a war with China or Russia, the immediate reaction in many sections of the media was to assume the worst and to focus on a potential conflict with China as the most likely one to occur in the near future. It is true, of course, that there is a greater risk of a war breaking out in the South China Sea than one with Russia in Eastern Europe.

One with China would spread quickly into the Pacific region. In recent years, China had been militarizing the South China Sea through which 100,000 merchant ships pass annually. China regards the South China Sea as its own, its aim being to control all the energy resources within it to the exclusion of the rights of neighboring countries like Vietnam. But the Chinese military strategy has a dual purpose. In placing bases and advanced weaponry on islands throughout the South China Sea, it is preparing for a conflict with the U.S. military. The islands would not only be a defensive chain to create a barrier between mainland China and the Pacific, but a staging ground for the Chinese to use their massive arsenal of short-range ballistic missiles to attack U.S. bases like Guam and U.S. aircraft carriers.

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

There is no question that China militarily has the means to inflict serious damage to U.S. forces, but it has to be remembered that China has not fought a war since it invaded Vietnam in 1979, and that was a short conflict. America, in contrast, has the kinds of capabilities China lacks, both in terms of military experience as well as strength in the air, on the sea and under the waves. In the field of cyber and drone warfare, as well as command and control, it has the targeting precision China lacks.

While China may imagine its chain of militarized island outposts represents a major threat to the U.S., the Pentagon has made it clear those islands will be wiped out at the beginning of a conflict. In May 2016, Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff, made it clear to China that the U.S. military would do just that.

“We have a lot of experience, in the Second World War, taking down small islands that are isolated,” he said. “It’s a core competency of the U.S. military that we’ve done before.”

A conventional war with China might be long and drawn out with considerable damage done to its military assets within China. The U.S. would use its airpower and missiles to devastate Chinese military infrastructure. There would also be a massive cost in lives, especially if China decided to attack Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines, or sought to engage India, another U.S. ally.

It is impossible to predict how such a war could be ended without one side capitulating, and, during such a war, because of the long supply lines needed to sustain U.S. forces, Washington would need the unquestioned support of allies in the region and of people back home.

New World Order in Action book cover
On Sale at the AFP Online Store.

Few military experts who understand the capabilities of both sides doubt that the United States has the capability to win, and all agree the cost in lives will be astronomical and the risk of such a conflict going nuclear cannot be ruled out.

America’s massive nuclear edge means it could quickly overwhelm China with nuclear strikes just from its submarines in the Pacific. China, on the other hand, lacks the intercontinental ballistic missile strength to impose equivalent damage on the U.S. But whatever happens, the costs would be terrible, and the nuclear fallout would eventually affect everyone.

No one should doubt the fact that there is a growing drumbeat in Washington for the U.S. to degrade China’s military power before it becomes impossible to achieve that goal. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping came to power, he has played a game of military chess, promising on the one hand President Barack Obama and now President Donald Trump that China has no strategy for militarizing the South China Sea while doing just that on a scale never seen before.

But what options does the U.S. have?

Senior U.S. generals and strategists contend that Xi has given his military the task of preparing for a war with the United States and that the building of fortifications on island chains is designed to create operating bases to attack the U.S. fleet and U.S. bases in the Pacific when a conflict begins.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is convinced it is time for the U.S. military to devise a plan to destroy all island fortifications maintained by China should war break out. He argues that, if China thinks the U.S. does not have the stomach to confront it, it will become unstoppable. His reasoning is that, if the U.S. does not prepare for a war in the region, it will be driven from it.

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




Progressives Resist Ending the Wars

Pulling our troops out of Syria is manifestly good, so why all the bipartisan condemnation?

By Philip Giraldi

Liberal interventionists in the media want America’s wars to continue forever. Last Thursday I actually turned on “PBS Newshour” with Judy Woodruff, which I never watch, but the other offerings on television were dismal, and I was flipping channels. She had on as guests her regular commentator Mark Shields and Michael Gerson of The Washington Post. Shields is a hardcore liberal and Gerson is a neoconservative longtime critic of Donald Trump, presumably filling in for regular PBS “conservative” David Brooks. The discussion was about Syria and the resignation of Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

Woodruff had had the pathologically ambitious Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on earlier, which was a bullet I quite happily dodged. He reportedly said that Trump was “about to make a major blunder on Syria,” aligning him with fellow Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.), who said pretty much the same thing.

Given the fact that NPR has a bobo audience that it answers to, I fully expected that there would be a lot of tap dancing about the events of the week but was somewhat surprised to hear nothing but damnation from Shields and Gerson about how the Trump move would do grave if not fatal damage to U.S. national security and how the president, unlike seasoned patriot Mattis, cannot distinguish right from wrong. Gerson said, “You know, you look at his [Mattis’s] resignation letter, which coldly and rationally said to the president, you do not understand our friends, and you do not understand our enemies.”

As America’s self-defined friends in the Middle East might best be described as “frenemies,” I was wondering if either Shields or Gerson (or Rubio) ever venture past the comics pages of their daily newspapers. As they all spend their time in Washington, that newspaper would be The Washington Post, which perhaps explains things, as the paper’s vitriol against Trump and the Syria move has been astonishing by any measure.

In other words, the PBS coverage of a major story was all pure improvisation, straight out of the establishment playbook, and Woodruff wasn’t even canny enough to push back.

Getting out of Syria and hopefully eventually Afghanistan is the best thing that Trump has done for America so far, if he has the guts to actually do it. Both are wars that were unnecessary from day one and are now unwinnable in any real way. They largely keep going fueled by the lies coming from “friends” like Saudi Arabia and Israel aided and abetted by the defense contractor community and the quislings in Congress who are willing to sell out completely to the military-industrial complex because it creates “jobs” in their constituencies.

When I could take no more, I flipped channels and “Democracy Now!” came up, another program I find nearly as loathsome for its unctuous goodliness as PBS news. Amy Goodman fortunately had history professor Andrew Bacevich on, and he explained, citing the general’s letter of resignation, how Mattis “when he talked about his four decades of engagement with these matters, is very telling. He represents the establishment’s perspective, that has evolved over the course of those four decades. And for anyone who says—who looks at U.S. policy over the past four decades, particularly in the Middle East, and says, ‘Yeah, it’s really gone well,’ then I would think that they would view Mattis’s resignation as a disappointment.

Now, when Trump ran for the presidency, he denounced our wars in the Middle East. He promised to withdraw militarily from the Middle East. Two years into his presidency, that hasn’t happened. And in many respects, Mattis has been among those who have frustrated the president’s efforts. Now, I’m in the camp who thinks that we ought to wind down these wars, that we’ve got more important things to do.”

Bacevich also pointed out that the prevailing establishment foreign policy is both morally and practically wrong and unsustainable. He hoped that Trump would prevail against the tremendous pressure that is being exerted against him to recant. I said “bravo” and turned off the TV.

Here is my problem with liberals like Shields and neocons like Gerson: They hate Trump so much that they will do anything to bring him down, even when he is doing something that is manifestly good for the country. Gerson at least is consistent in that he hates Trump and likes America’s wars, but what about Shields and Woodruff? You would think that ending a conflict in which most of the casualties are civilians would be praised by them and the broader social justice warrior community, but where are the liberals supporting Trump on this bold step to disengage from endless and pointless war in the Middle East, either in the media or among the politicians and punditry? MSNBC’s resident progressive screamer Rachel Maddow has been practically foaming at the mouth about Trump since the announcement of the withdrawal was made.

There are indeed some exceptions among genuine liberals who actually have a conscience rather than just a bunch of grievances, to include Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), who tweeted, “The hysterical reaction to the decision to withdraw troops from Syria is astonishing and shows just how attached to war some are. Lindsey Graham and others want us to continue our regime change war in Syria and to go to war with Iran. That’s why they’re so upset.”

All Out War on Trump
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

But in general, reliable leftists have become invisible regarding withdrawing from Syria, a complete reversal to what they were saying some months ago when Trump seemed prepared to stay the course. As a completely unscientific survey of liberal opinion on the issue I cruised through the names of the many friends I have on Facebook that are of progressive persuasion and could not find a single one who was supporting the president. Hypocrisy? Obama’s belligerency, including Syria, which he turned into a war and almost succeeded in escalating into something much bigger, is given a pass while anything Trump does is sheer unmitigated evil.

Trump is under intense pressure from all sides to reverse his decision on Syria and also regarding Afghanistan, which will see a 50% reduction in force. But it is up to all Americans who care about the future of this country to speak up in support of ending the wars that have bled us for the past 17 years. If liberals and neocons cannot bear the thought of supporting a president they loathe who is actually doing something right for a change, we will all regret the failure to end the cycle of war and retribution that has roiled the Middle East since the United States invaded Iraq based on lies in 2003.

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.




Trump’s Foreign Policy Remains Muddled

Insanity: President Trump doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

By Dr. Ron Paul

After a week of insisting that a meeting with Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Argentina was going to happen, President Donald Trump at the last minute sent out a statement explaining that due to a Russia-Ukraine dispute in the Sea of Azov he would no longer be willing to meet his Russian counterpart.

According to Trump, the meeting had to be cancelled because the Russians seized three Ukrainian naval vessels in Russian waters that refused to follow instructions from the Russian military. But as Pat Buchanan wrote in a recent column: How is this little dispute thousands of miles away any of our business?

Unfortunately, it is “our business” because of President Barack Obama’s foolish idea to overthrow a democratically elected, pro-Russia government in Ukraine in favor of what his administration believed would be a “pro-Western” and “pro-NATO” replacement. In short, the Obama administration did openly to Ukraine what his Democratic Party claims without proof the Russians did to the United States: meddled in a vote.

U.S. interventionism in Ukraine led to the 2014 coup and many dead Ukrainians. Crimea’s majority-Russian population held a referendum and decided to re-join Russia rather than remain in a “pro-West” Ukraine that immediately began discriminating against them. Why would anyone object to people opting out of abusive relationships?

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

What is most disappointing about Trump’s foreign policy is that it didn’t have to be this way. He ran on a platform of America first, ending foreign wars, NATO skepticism, and better relations with Russia. Americans voted for this policy. He had a mandate, a rejection of Obama’s destructive interventionism. But he lost his nerve.

Instead of being the president who ships lethal weapons to the Ukrainian regime, instead of being the president who insists that Crimea remain in Ukraine, instead of being the president who continues policies the American people clearly rejected at the ballot box, Trump could have blamed the Ukraine-Russia mess on the failed Obama foreign policy and charted a very different course. What flag flies over Crimea is none of our business. We are not the policemen of the world, and candidate Trump seemed to have understood that.

But now Trump’s in a trap. He was foolish enough to believe that Beltway foreign policy “experts” have a clue about what really is American national interest. Just this week he told The Washington Post, in response to three U.S. soldiers being killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, that he has to keep U.S. troops fighting in the longest war in U.S. history because the “experts” tell him there is no alternative.

He said, “Virtually every expert that I have and speak to says if we don’t go there, they’re going to be fighting over here. And I’ve heard it over and over again.”

That is the same bunkum the neocons sold us as they lied us into Iraq. We’ve got to fight Saddam over there or he’d soon be in our streets. These “experts” are worthless, yet for some reason Trump cannot break free of them.

Well, here’s some unsolicited advice to the president: Listen to the people who elected you, who are tired of the U.S. as the world’s police force. Let Ukraine and Russia work out their own problems. Give all your “experts” a pink slip and start over with a real pro-American foreign policy: non-interventionism.

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.




Deep States Loves Free Trade, Hates Trump

Funny how mainstream media stays silent when Trump’s policies work and globalists’ free-trade policies fail.

By Donald Jeffries

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump became the first major presidential contender to criticize American trade policies since Ross Perot. So-called “free” trade has long been an essential plank of the party platforms of both “opposing” political parties.

Once Trump began actually imposing tariffs on imports, the establishment unleashed the usual “protectionist” smears, and claimed that these tariffs have caused myriad problems. A typical headline from the aptly named Global Times announced, “U.S. Widening Trade Deficit with China Shows Trump’s Trade Policy Backfiring.”

The same kept media was silent after NAFTA was passed in 1993, and the negative effects were obvious. Critics estimated America lost about 20% of its manufacturing jobs during the first 14 years after NAFTA was enacted.

When China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the impact on American industry was compounded. No less an establishment organ than Forbes magazine would report, on Feb. 14, 2011, that the United States had averaged a loss of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the WTO.

Kingdom Identity

Pat Buchanan wrote, in a June 18, 2012 column, how at the time NAFTA was enacted in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of some $1.6 billion. By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of $61.6 billion.

In 1985, Bureau of Census figures showed a manageable deficit with China of $6 million. It was $365 billion by 2015. That represented the largest trade deficit any nation has ever had with another.

Much of the same mainstream liberal press that would blast Trump’s tariffs felt quite differently about the subject a few years previously. The Huffington Post would reflect this, in a March 8, 2014 story headlined, “NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Equality.” The article reported the results of a study by Public Citizen, which noted how the disastrous trade deal had caused a dramatic increase in illegal immigration and corporate welfare, along with a corresponding decrease in American manufacturing jobs.

While corporate giants like General Electric and Chrysler promised to create specific numbers of new jobs if NAFTA was approved, and Bill Clinton assured the public that “NAFTA means jobs,” there were instead significantly increased layoffs and outsourcing. The lure of cheaper labor in countries like Mexico motivated corporations to move their production there.

Trump tapped into the huge discord in the general population with our senseless trade policies, which Perot so memorably predicted would produce a “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving the country. Trump’s persistent snipes at “globalism” invoked the wrath of an establishment long accustomed to pliable free-trade disciples in the political world. Trump’s website expressed his position on trade succinctly with the headline, “Our country is getting ripped off.”

When General Motors recently announced the closing of five domestic plants and the elimination of thousands of jobs, Trump was irate. In typical cockeyed establishment logic, Trump’s imposition of tariffs was somehow responsible for GM’s actions. Trump blasted the corporate giant and threatened to end the federal tax credits it has long enjoyed.

“Very disappointed with General Motors and their CEO, Mary Barra, for closing plants in Ohio, Michigan, and Maryland.” Trump tweeted. “Nothing being closed in Mexico and China.”

GM memorably benefited from one of the most generous examples of corporate welfare imaginable, when taxpayers bailed it out in 2009. In a clear reference to this, Trump took to Twitter again, declaring, “The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the thanks we get! We are now looking at cutting all @GM subsidies, including for electric cars.” GM’s Barra received almost $22 million in compensation in 2017, some 295 times what the average employee at the company made.

While Trump soundly chastised GM and Barra in particular, the globalist giant seemed unmoved.  Labor leaders in Ohio, concerned with the closing of the plant in Lordstown, stated that they were unable to reach any GM officials on the phone. Barra exemplifies the establishment liberal mindset; while paying herself quite handsomely, she ruthlessly eliminates blue-collar jobs, all the while touting an environmentally friendly mantra of “zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion.”

The company had the audacity to claim that the taxes imposed by Trump on steel and aluminum imports had cost them some $1 billion. It didn’t explain why they had to use imported steel and aluminum instead of domestic products.

Harley-Davidson angered the president a few months earlier by announcing a move of some of its production overseas.

Beginning with his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, trade has been one of the areas where Trump has remained true to his campaign rhetoric.

With cheap labor dear to the hearts of globalists everywhere, that isn’t making the Deep State happy.

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by AFP BOOKSTORE.




Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

American Free Press

extends to all our readers

and subscribers

our wishes for a

Merry Christmas and

Happy New Year!!




Here Are Two History Books That Get Their Facts Straight

Authors Stephen Goodson and Peter Hitchens should be commended for their honest assessment of history, especially when compared to, say, chief 9/11 myth-maker Philip Zelikow.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

What is the difference between history and myth? Not much, according to University of Virginia history professor Philip Zelikow. The main author of The 9/11 Commission Report, Zelikow describes himself as “an expert on the creation and maintenance of public myths.” He defines public myths as: “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” As the fraudulent fabricator of the official story of 9/11—Zelikow wrote the report in chapter outline before the commission had even convened—his job was to make sure that the “bin Laden and 19 young Arabs” myth was seared into the collective consciousness of Americans, so it would be forever “shared within the relevant political community” even though it was a big lie.

Zelikow knows that to enshrine a public myth, you need vivid characters, including larger-than-life heroes and villains: “A history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history.” That is why textbook history highlights such memorably heroic figures as Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, alongside the dastardly villains Hitler, Mussolini, Robert E. Lee, Muammar Qaddafi, Osama bin Laden, Guy Fawkes, and so on.

History of Central Banking
Available from the AFP Online Store.

The 2017 third edition of Stephen Mitford Goodson’s A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind features many larger-than-life figures on its cover. Lincoln, Hitler, Kennedy, and Qaddafi are pictured side-by-side. But in Goodson’s version of the past 2,500 years, the two canonical villains (Hitler and Qaddafi) like the canonical heroes (Lincoln and Kennedy) all waged heroic struggles against the real villains: the international bankers who are relentlessly degrading humanity, through the diabolical tool of usury, into abject debt slavery.

Goodson covers a lot of revisionist history in only 200 pages. Though I thought I knew my political assassinations, A History of Central Banking argues that big bankers have murdered more of their opponents than I had realized: not just Qaddafi, JFK, Lincoln, Charles I, and the Romanovs, but also Julius Caesar, Napoleon, British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval (d. 1812), many heirs and relations of the “Sun King” Louis XIV, President James Garfield, Rep. Louis Thomas McFadden (R-Pa.), and many more.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of A History of Central Banking is its world war revisionism: Much of what we have been taught about World War I and World War II is wrong, beginning with the relative heroism and villainy of various larger-than-life leaders. Goodson argues that both wars were orchestrated by international bankers, and that the people our textbooks call heroes were actually stooges of those bankers, while many of the canonical villains were actually rather noble, at least in their willingness to defy the greatest and most diabolical powers on Earth.

Goodson, who died last August, was no conspiracy crank, but the director of the South African Reserve Bank from 2003 to 2012. Like economic hit man John Perkins and International Monetary Fund whistleblower Peter Koenig, Goodson was a banking insider who dared to tell the truth about his monumentally crooked profession.

Get Out of CashAnother author who has rubbed shoulders with the establishment yet tells heretical truths is Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens, whose new book The Phoney Victory (I.B. Tauris Publishers) supports Goodson’s case that our textbook histories of World War II lionize the real villains. The most egregious example of a villain-in-hero’s-clothing, Hitchens argues, is Winston Churchill, a bumbling drunken incompetent who stumbled into the wrong war at the wrong time, lost his country’s empire and wealth thanks to an endless chain of terrible decisions, committed some of the worst war crimes of his or any other era, yet is to this day lionized and mythologized by our ignorant and mendacious media.

Hitchens’s conclusion is that World War II must be demythologized or we will be condemned to repeat it: “Peace, precarious peace, depends now more than ever on casting off these fantasies of chivalry and benevolence and ceasing to hide the savage truth from ourselves.” Though he doesn’t state it outright, Hitchens must know that the most savage truth of all is the one exposed by Goodson’s History of Central Banking: The real villains are neither prime ministers nor presidents, neither general secretaries nor fuhrers.

They are instead the hidden tyrants who dominate and devastate our planet: the international bankers, who orchestrate all our wars in order to tighten their psychopathic grip on our collective throats. Conclusion: The real hero’s journey of our time is the quest to abolish usury.

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.




Global Pushback Against Israel Rises

A growing number of Christian groups and a few brave members of U.S. Congress are no longer willing to bankroll Israel’s genocide.

By Philip Giraldi

One of the remarkable aspects of the Israeli government’s program to turn the United States into a vassal state that exists to provide money, political support, and military interventions to destroy adversaries like Iran is the complete lack of any debate on the issue in the U.S. mainstream media or in Congress. But there are signs that at least some of that might be changing. The election of at least three Democratic congresswomen—Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—who might be willing to discuss Israel in something less than worshipful ways is an only miniscule shift in the alignment of the Democratic party, where Jewish money dominates, but it reflects the views of the party’s grassroots. A recent poll demonstrates that surveyed Democrats favor Israel over Palestine by a margin of only 2%—27% versus 25%—with the remainder of responders favoring neither side.

More significant is last week’s announcement by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that he intends to place a “hold” on the current package of $38 billion in military aid to Israel, which means he can filibuster the issue in the Senate to delay its passage. Paul, who, like his father, is a skeptic regarding foreign aid in general, did not cite any specific issues connected to the aid package, but critics have long noted that Israel is in fact ineligible for any foreign aid from the United States because it has an undeclared nuclear arsenal consisting of at least 200 weapons and delivery systems enabling them to destroy targets in most of Europe and western Asia. For that reason, providing aid to Israel is illegal under the Symington Amendment of 1961 as well as due to the fact that Tel Aviv has rejected signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), for obvious reasons.

Exploding Middle East Myths
On sale now at AFP’s Online Store.

There are other issues relating to Israel, to include its booming economy, which would suggest that it does not need more money from the U.S. taxpayer who does not enjoy the free healthcare and university education that all Israelis receive. And then there is also the problem with using American-provided weapons to commit war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon, illegal under both U.S. and international law.

Nevertheless, Paul’s action is extremely courageous, as he is the first senator since William Fulbright to dare to say anything negative about the Jewish state. Fulbright was, of course, punished by the Israel lobby, which committed major resources to defeating him when he next came up for reelection. Another senator, Charles Percy, who was so bold as to maintain that Palestinian Arabs might actually have “rights,” also found himself confronted by an extremely well-funded opponent who defeated him for reelection. Paul’s action is far from risk free. In fact, the Israel lobby is already reacting hysterically to the “hold,” as is the Israeli government, and one can be sure that all their massive resources will be used to punish the senator.

Another area where one might have expected more pushback from Americans is the lack of any serious resistance from Christian groups to the process whereby the conservative Likud-dominated Netanyahu government is seeking to turn Israel into a purely Jewish state. Israel boasts that it provides a safe haven for Christians to practice their religion, but reports that occasionally surface in some of the alternative media suggest something quite different. Jewish zealots spit on Christian clergy and curse them out in the streets without any fear of repercussions. Some clergy have been harassed and even assaulted by Jewish extremists. Churches and property of religious foundations are frequently vandalized, defaced with obscene graffiti, and the Israeli government has also confiscated or destroyed church property.

At the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 there existed a considerable Christian community inside Israel, on the West Bank and in Gaza. It was estimated that nearly 10% of Palestinian Arabs were Christian, mostly Greek Orthodox or Catholic. There were also churches and foundations in the old city of Jerusalem that adhered to other sects, including Syrian and Armenian Christians. Currently the percentage of Christians is closer to 2% of the Palestinian population with more than a million Palestinian Christians living in other countries, having been driven from their homes by the Israelis in 1948 and after 1967. The Israelis sometimes claim that most Palestinians have departed the country due to persecution by Muslims, but Palestinian sources deny that assertion.

Christian churches have been reluctant to support their co-religionists in Israel and the Occupied Territories presumably for fear of being labeled as anti-Semitic in criticizing the Jewish state, as is routinely done by both Jewish groups and the Israeli government to end all discussion. But, as in the case of Sen. Paul, that, too, is changing.

The Presbyterian Church has led the charge in criticizing Israeli brutality. At its June General Assembly it passed a resolution condemning Israeli apartheid. Its Office of Public Witness has been in the forefront in calling on Israel to cease and desist. An action alert issued this summer entitled “Tell Congress: 70 years of suffering is enough! Stop the killing, hold Israel accountable, and support human rights for all” denounced the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza by the Israeli army.

The Presbyterians also signed on to a letter on May 14 entitled “70 Years On: Seeking a hopeful future in a time of yearning,” which called for an end to the slaughter and justice for the Palestinians. It was also signed onto by 13 other Christian groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Churches in America, the Lutherans, and Maryknoll. A copy was sent to each congressman.

Get Out of Cash

Israel’s friends have pushed back against the Presbyterians, with the American Jewish Committee denouncing “The Church [as] remain[ing] obsessively critical of Israel in its national utterances. For many years and in myriad ways, the PCUSA has gone beyond legitimate criticism of Israel and embraced demonization of the Jewish state.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also criticized the Presbyterians when they withdrew $21 million in investments in Israel, saying hyperbolically, “You come to Israel and you see the one democracy that upholds basic human rights, that guards the rights of all minorities, that protects Christians—Christians are persecuted throughout the Middle East. So most Americans understand that Israel is a beacon of civilization and moderation. You know, I would suggest to these Presbyterian organizations to fly to the Middle East, come and see Israel for the embattled democracy that it is.”

Now it is the turn of the Quakers in Britain, who have banned any investment by the Church in companies that exploit the “military occupation of Palestinian territories by the Israeli government,” prompting a furious response from Jewish leaders. It is the first British Church to do so, and leaders of the group have compared their action to taking steps against apartheid and the slave trade. The Board of Deputies of British Jews immediately described the move as “appalling” and demanded that the policy be reversed.

It is certainly refreshing to see anyone taking on Israel and its all-too-often invincible lobby. What is significant is that Christian churches and even some congressmen have begun to speak out in spite of the knowledge that unprincipled Zionist power in the United States will make them pay a price for doing so. May the realization of just how evil Israel’s government is and the terrible damage it has done to the United States grow, finally reaching a point where some people in Congress, the media, and even in the White House will begin to listen.

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.




Pursuit of Regime Change in Iran Will Lead to War

Neocon warhawks have clearly failed to learn the lessons of the recent past, as those in the Trump Administration continue to beat the drums of war with Iran.

By Richard Walker

As Iran deals with recently enacted sanctions from Washington, war hawks in the Trump administration have an eye on regime change, a policy that could lead to a war that would likely have disastrous consequences in and beyond the Middle East. [See related story, below, “Trump Enacts First Sanctions on Iran,” and podcast.]

The neocons include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who would be happy to create a famine in Iran, and National Security Adviser John Bolton, who has talked openly about undermining and ultimately overthrowing the Iranian regime. Pompeo has warned Iran that if it wants its people to eat, it should bow to Washington pressure.

Those neocons have in their corner Israel, Saudi Arabia, and its Arab partner in the Yemen war, the United Arab Emirates. In the opposite corner are Russia, China, and most NATO nations, including Turkey. This standoff is having the effect of isolating America from its historical allies in Europe and from the world at large.

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

The global consensus is that Iran has played by the rules since it signed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal.

President Donald Trump abandoned the deal to please Israel and the Saudis, as well as members of the Benjamin Netanyahu cheerleading group of politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Trump broke from the agreement, knowing there was no evidence to show that Iran was in breach of its promise to discontinue uranium production. His plea to the other signatories to the deal—Britain, China France, Russia, and Germany—to follow his example was rejected. Those nations felt that Iran had abided by its promises to not pursue its nuclear ambitions and ought to be rewarded by not having new sanctions imposed on it.

The CIA in Iran
The CIA in Iran: The 1953 Coup and the Origins of the US-Iran Divide, $15 from the AFP Online Store.

Trump felt otherwise, yet overestimated his powers of persuasion because his partners not only opposed his actions, but have since been putting in place a mechanism to undermine his sanctions. A financial tool known as a “special purpose vehicle” (SPV) has been created by EU nations to operate in Paris or Berlin with the objective of undercutting the sanctions. The SPV will allow Iranian companies to do business with European companies without going through the traditional banking system. Instead, they will employ bartering and credits, which Russia will also use. Meanwhile China and India have made it clear they will not abide by U.S. attempts to crush the Iranian economy.

In contrast, Israel has promised Trump that its intelligence agency, Mossad, will help to make the sanctions work, and the Saudis have assured him they will pump more oil to account for the loss of Iranian oil, which cannot be sold on the markets. They hope this will stop oil prices rising.

The Israeli and Saudi roles in the sanctions policy appear to confirm their prominent involvement in shaping U.S. foreign policy.

Many experts see the sanctions as the first step in a wider push to force Iran into a conflict, an outcome Netanyahu has been hoping for and the Saudis would embrace as well. Such a conflict by most estimates would quickly engulf the region and beyond. Oil supplies would be halted, creating chaos in the international markets, and American military, political, and economic assets would be at risk in countries like Iraq, Lebanon, and some Arab states.

The reason why some observers worry that the U.S. may be heading for a war with Iran is that Trump, his pro-Israel lobby in Congress, and the Saudis naively believe that sanctions will bring Iran to its knees. When sanctions fail, as they likely shall, neocons like Bolton and Pompeo will come under pressure from Israel and its Washington backers to pursue military options. The American people will likely oppose a war with Iran, knowing our history in recent conflicts and the overarching evidence that this one would be launched to please Israel and Saudi Arabia, unless, of course, some event were to occur that could be blamed on Iran to enflame U.S. public opinion.

Get Out of CashSanctions represent failed policymaking, especially when they are unilateral like these are, unsupported by all the major players to the Iran deal, including the EU, one of the world’s largest economic blocks.

For example, as far back as 1997, a report showed that U.S. sanctions were effective only 13% of the time and more often than not cost the American economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars. As Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail put it in May, sanctions have winners and losers.

A war with Iran would be opposed by the international community as well, especially in light of the fact that Iran has stayed true to the nuclear deal. It is already apparent that Trump’s decision to abandon the deal was driven by his closeness to Netanyahu and the Saudis.

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


Trump Enacts First Sanctions on Iran

This timely article was originally published in American Free PressIssue 37 & 38, Sept. 10 & 17, 2018, shortly after the White House decertified the nuclear accord with Iran. It is published here with a podcast from S.T. Patrick’s “The Midnight Writer News Show” featuring James Perloff. The two discuss Donald Trump’s foreign policy from 2016-2018, the 2016 election, Russiagate, and Vladimir Putin, why the media was so wrong about the 2016 election, the real purpose of America’s two-party system, using an enemy to reorganize a political party, neoconservatism vs. North Korea, what’s really happening in Syria, why the Rothschilds hate monarchies, Iran, how Trump lost Perloff, whether Trump is really against the Deep State, and more.

By S.T. Patrick

After deliberately upsetting U.S. relations in the Middle East by disavowing and then decertifying the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration enacted the first round of sanctions against the Islamic republic. While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened that the whole of the sanctions will be the “strongest sanctions in history,” the world powers that assisted Barack Obama’s administration in its negotiations with Iran—the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, and Germany—are prepared to rebel.

In an Aug. 7 tweet, President Donald Trump called the sanctions “the most biting ever imposed” and vowed to “ratchet up” the economic restrictions in November. What are meant to be sanctions against Iran will also serve as de facto sanctions against countries that have forged successful business relationships with the most populated country in the Middle East.

The first round of sanctions seeks to end Iran’s ability to trade with U.S. dollars, as well as its trade for cars, metals, and minerals used to buy American and European aircraft. In November, the U.S. will attempt to block 2 million barrels per day of Iranian oil exports, 50% of Iranian production.

In response, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, countered the country could block all oil exports from the region by closing the Straits of Hormuz, through which nearly one-third of all oil traded by sea passes.

Shadows of Power, Perloff
The CFR and the American Decline – Just $12 now at AFP’s Online Store.

In July, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei commented on the suggestion that the Americans would attempt to block Iran’s crude exports.

“(The) U.S. government’s words or even signatures cannot be relied on; thus, negotiations with the U.S. are useless,” Khamenei said. “The assumption that negotiations or establishing ties with the U.S. would solve a country’s problems is an obvious error.”

Rouhani, Iran’s political leader, displayed an even harsher tone when speaking to Iranian diplomats.

“Don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” Rouhani said. “The Americans must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars”

Trump warned that any country continuing an economic partnership with Iran “will not be doing business with the United States.”

Khamenei is not the only national leader wondering what American agreements mean if the stability of the agreement can waver with each president that assumes the office.

Two weeks after the sanctions were enacted, China announced that it would buy Iranian oil, which would be shipped via Iranian tankers. China has clearly stated that it does not support the unilateral sanctions. France, conversely, has stereotypically caved to the American threats.

Shortly after China’s olive branch was offered to Iran, the European Union revealed that it would send $20.7 million to Iran as part of an economic aid package that will total over $50 million. Neven Mimica, the EU’s commissioner for international cooperation and development, outlined the program’s mission.

“With these measures, the EU demonstrates its support to the Iranian people and their peaceful and sustainable development,” Mimica said. “It encourages stronger involvement of all actors in Iran and in particular the private sector.”

As is the case with seemingly every story during Trump’s first term, the world awaits a clear Russian response. Business Insider suggested that the Iranians could save face by negotiating through Russia, while Newsweek noted that the sanctions would be a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as it would move the affected European nations away from the United States and toward Russia, the world’s biggest energy exporter.

Neoconservative Threat, Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony – Paul Craig Roberts at the AFP Store.

The first Trump attack against Iran’s economy was against Iran’s central bank. The global banking elite that favor cooperation with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have advocated for the isolation of uncooperative central or national banks. Iran, Libya, and North Korea have, for decades, been targets of the elite debt slavery cabal that controls the strings of the world’s economic marionettes.

“TheAmericanConservative.com” has bluntly stated that Trump is “pulling a Libya on Iran.” The U.S. had previously reneged on an agreement with Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi, with disastrous, violent results that ended with the attack at Benghazi, the brutal assassination of Qaddafi, and chaos in Libya.

The Iran nuclear deal (officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) required Trump to certify Iran’s compliance every 90 days. Iran had agreed to freeze all nuclear weapon development for 15 years in exchange for suspending the sanctions against Iran. By certifying, Trump was saying that Iran was living up to its end of the agreement. Though they were, Trump did not want to publicly endorse the idea that the agreement worked. Now, threats, violence, and unrest are ever-present throughout the region.

Though the sanctions further destabilize an already fiery region, cause riots and rebellions from the Iranian families that will be hit early and often, and cast an even darker shadow over America’s tenuous alliances, Trump ended his Aug. 7 tweet with an Orwellian statement of intent. “I am asking for world peace, nothing less!” Trump tweeted.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.




Macron Blasts Trump as ‘Unpatriotic’

French president preaches globalism, transnationalism, interventionism.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In a rebuke bordering on national insult Nov. 11, French President Emmanuel Macron retorted to Donald Trump’s calling himself a nationalist. “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism; nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”

As for Trump’s policy of “America first,” Macron trashed such atavistic thinking in this new age: “By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values.”

Though he is being hailed as Europe’s new anti-Trump leader who will stand up for transnationalism and globalism, Macron reveals his ignorance of America.

Trump’s ideas are not ideological but rooted in our country’s history.

America was born between the end of the French and Indian War, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Both the general who led us in the Revolution and the author of that declaration became president. Both put America first. And both counseled their countrymen to avoid “entangling” or “permanent” alliances with any other nation, as we did for 160 years.

Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lacking in patriotism?

When Woodrow Wilson, after being re-elected in 1916 on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War,” took us into World War I, he did so as an “associate,” not as an Allied power. U.S. troops fought under U.S. command.

Kingdom Identity

After that war, the Senate rejected an alliance with France. Under Franklin Roosevelt, Congress formally voted for neutrality in any future European war.

The U.S. emerged from World War II as the least bloodied and least damaged nation because we remained out of the war for more than two years after it had begun.

We did not invade France until four years after France was occupied, the British had been thrown off the Continent, and Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union had been fighting and dying for three years.

The leaders who kept us out of the two world wars as long as they did—did they not serve our nation well, when America’s total losses were just over 500,000 dead, compared with the millions other nations lost?

At the Armistice Day ceremony, Macron declared, “By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest … its moral values.”

But Trump did not say that other countries don’t matter. He only said we should put our own country first.

What country does Macron put first? Or does the president of France see himself as a citizen of the world with responsibility for all of Europe and all of mankind?

Charles de Gaulle was perhaps the greatest French patriot in the 20th century. Yet he spoke of a Europe of nation-states, built a national nuclear arsenal, ordered NATO out of France in 1966, and, in Montreal in 1967, declared, “Long live a free Quebec”—inciting French Canadians to rise up against “les Anglo-Saxons” and create their own nation.

Was de Gaulle lacking in patriotism?

By declaring American nationalists anti-patriotic, Macron has asserted a claim to the soon-to-be-vacant chair of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But is Macron really addressing the realities of the new Europe and world in which we now live, or is he simply assuming a heroic liberal posture to win the applause of Western corporate and media elites?

The realities: In Britain, Scots are seeking secession, and the English have voted to get out of the European Union. Many Basques and Catalans wish to secede from Spain. Czechs and Slovaks have split the blanket and parted ways.

Anti-EU sentiment is rampant in populist-dominated Italy.

A nationalism their peoples regard as deeply patriotic has triumphed in Poland and Hungary and is making gains even in Germany.

Get Out of Cash

The leaders of the world’s three greatest military powers—Trump in the U.S., Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China—are all nationalists. Turkish nationalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan rules in Ankara, Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi in India. Jair Bolsonaro, a Trumpian nationalist, is the incoming president of Brazil. Is not Benjamin Netanyahu an Israeli nationalist?

In France, a poll of voters last week showed that Marine Le Pen’s renamed party, Rassemblement National, has moved ahead of Macron’s party for the May 2019 European Parliament elections.

If there is a valid criticism of Trump’s foreign policy, it is not that he has failed to recognize the new realities of the 21st century but that he has not moved expeditiously to dissolve old alliances that put America at risk of war in faraway lands where no vital U.S. interests exist.

Why are we still committed to fight for a South Korea far richer and more populous than a nuclear-armed North? Why are U.S. planes and ships still bumping into Russian planes and ships in the Baltic and Black seas?

Why are we still involved in the half-dozen wars into which Bush II and Barack Obama got us in the Middle East?

Why do we not have the “America first” foreign policy we voted for?

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.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Israel Exploits Synagogue Shooting

The recent acts of violence against worshipers in a Pittsburgh synagogue have further stifled debate and are paving the way for more extremism.

By Philip Giraldi

Ever since the killing of 11 worshipers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, I have been waiting to see how the Israeli government would cynically take advantage of the tragedy to support its own agenda. It didn’t take long, even though the gunman Robert Bowers was open in his hatred of Jews largely due to immigration issues, while having no particular animus against Israel. In fact, ironically, Israel does not even accept that Tree of Life is an acceptable part of the Jewish religion, as Israel’s Orthodox chief rabbi does not consider it to be a legitimate synagogue because it is too progressive.

Most American Jews are politically liberal and vote consistently Democratic, 79% having done so in the latest election. That in turn means that a majority of them are turned off by President Donald Trump’s words and ideology, so much so that there is some speculation that the opposition to Trump is largely Jewish. The Israeli government and the small but disproportionately powerful percentage of right-wing American Jews are, however, in love with Trump because of his uncritical support of Israel’s actions vis-à-vis its neighbors.

Kingdom IdentityThis has meant that some in the Tree of Life congregation have blamed Trump’s incendiary language as a contributing element in the hate-filled culture that they perceive as being behind the shooting rampage. Some congregants were opposed to Trump’s visiting the synagogue a few days after the incident, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government quickly intervened to defend Trump against all charges.

Trump encountered protesters as he entered the synagogue, where he was not greeted at the door by one of the rabbis or a congregant. Instead, as he entered, he shook the hand of the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer.

Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, described the bizarre encounter: “The fact that the person who officially greeted the president of the United States at an American city at an American synagogue was the ambassador of another country was stunning.”

Dermer had, in fact, been working together with Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs Naftali Bennett to counter any criticism of Trump. “I think blaming President Trump for this horrific massacre is unfair; it’s flatly wrong,” said Bennett before adroitly shifting his comments to what the president has done for Israel: “The president moved the embassy to Jerusalem. The president is fighting Israel’s biggest enemy, which is a terrible regime in Iran. And so, the president is no anti-Semite.”

The hypocritical Israeli response to the massacre in Pittsburgh was hardly overflowing with concern for the victims. Bennett took the opportunity to hit out at other targets deemed to be hostile to Israel that could plausibly be linked to the incident, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who had likened Jews to termites. And the Israeli Consul General in New York City Dani Dayan even became involved in the impending midterm elections, slamming Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar running for Congress for once having said that Israel is “hypnotizing the world.”

Netanyahu also changed the subject from Pittsburgh on the day before the midterms, praising Trump’s courage in increasing sanctions on Iran, saying, “I would like to thank President Donald Trump again for a courageous, determined, and important decision. I think that this contributes to stability, security, and peace. . . . This is a great day for the state of Israel. This is a great day for the people of Israel. This is a great day for the future of Israel.”

Dermer also implicated Israel’s preferred bête noir, attacking the role of what he chose to describe as the “radical left.” The expression is preferred usage by the Israeli government and its allies in the United States to describe supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS). Dermer elaborated: “One of the big forces in college campuses today is anti-Semitism. And those anti-Semites are usually not neo-Nazis, on college campuses. They’re coming from the radical left. We have to stand against anti-Semitism whether it comes from the right or whether it comes from the left.”

So we can expect the Pittsburgh tragedy to be heavily exploited by Israel and its friends. It will be parlayed into all kinds of mischief on behalf of the Jewish state, with the non-violent BDS movement being particularly targeted. BDS has already been attacked through legislation in 23 states with job applicants or recipients of benefits in some jurisdictions having to sign documents confirming that they do not support any boycott of Israel. There are also a number of federal-level bills seeking to define criticism of Israel as a hate crime with legal penalties attached, a direct attack on the First Amendment. Now that the Democrats are in power in the House, it will get worse, believe it or not.

Five key committee chairmanships will be going to Jewish congressmen, all of whom are ardent Zionists. Two of them will be in key positions to further distort U.S. policy in favor of Israel. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will become head of the House Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) will be chairman of the House Foreign Relations committee.

Get Out of CashEngel is a dream-come-true for Netanyahu, just as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is in the Senate. He opposed Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran while strongly supporting Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. He has attacked the United Nations, the World Court, and the European Union for raising concerns over Israeli violations of international humanitarian law, and he insists that Israel bears no responsibility for thousands of civilian deaths from its bombing of crowded urban areas in Gaza, declaring that Israel is simply exercising its “right to self-defense” and that Israel “goes to extraordinary lengths to target only terrorist actors.” He calls recognizing Palestinian statehood “preposterous,” opposes any United Nations involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and supports using U.S. vetoes to halt any UN resolutions critical of Israel.

There are far too many Engels in Congress, and far too many in the Trump administration. David Friedman, a former bankruptcy lawyer who is Trump’s U.S. ambassador to Israel, recently made a speech in Tel Aviv in which he described the U.S. as his “country of citizenship” while Israel is the country that he “loves so much.” Excuse me, but this buffoon is paid a great deal of taxpayer money to represent the United States not to pander to his coreligionists. It is a travesty that he should be an ambassador anywhere and one more example of how none of the rules apply to Israel. Friedman is by his own admission not loyal to the United States. He should be removed from office, and it should be suggested that he turn in his U.S. passport and go to live in the country that he “loves so much.”

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.




Caught on Camera: ‘Lie for Asylum’

The American head of an NGO immigrant support group has been caught on camera talking about teaching migrants how to cry, feign illness, pretend to be Christians … anything to fool border guards. This coverage of yet more corruption within so-called aid groups working to promote migration is  front-page news in the latest American Free Press newspaper. (Log-in to read your digital copy here; subscribe now here)

By John Friend

The director of a major non-governmental organization (NGO) in Europe that provides legal aid to migrants and helps facilitate the overall asylum-seeking process has been caught on tape admitting to coaching their clients to deceive and lie to border police in order to successfully gain political asylum, it has been revealed.

Immigration critics are now wondering just how widespread this is and if NGOs in the U.S. and in Central America are doing the very same thing.

Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan
Can America Survive to 2025?On SALE at AFP!

Lauren Southern, a popular Canadian independent journalist, political pundit, and documentary filmmaker, released the shocking video earlier this week, sparking outrage and condemnation around the world.

Europe and the wider Western world, particularly countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, such as Greece and Italy, have seen a steady influx of asylum seekers and ostensible refugees fleeing the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia primarily over the course of the past five or more years.

Many view the flood of refugees and other Third World migrants as part of a broader systematic effort to undermine and destroy Western nations by eroding the traditional demographics and displacing the native populations of Europe and other Western nations.

As this newspaper has reported, various NGOs and other activist groups often facilitate the refugee resettlement process and are financially rewarded for resettling Third World migrants in the West. Deceptive tactics are regularly used to facilitate the resettlement process, including forged or faked documents, feigned persecution stories, and other deceitful tactics.

In the video, Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, an NGO operating mainly in Greece to provide legal aid to refugees, openly admits to teaching her clients to lie to border agents by pretending to be persecuted Christian refugees or to be in emotional distress. The undercover video will be featured in Ms. Southern’s upcoming documentary entitled “Borderless,” which focuses on the migrant crisis and massive Third World migration to the West.

Get Out of CashAccording to Ms. Southern’s website, Ricker “reveals that her organization has spent time compiling and studying transcripts of asylum interviews” and uses “them to generate stock answers to key interview questions for asylum seekers to use.” Advocates Abroad even encourages refugee applicants “to pretend to cry, break down or to ask for a break in order to appear more sympathetic” and gain asylum status.

The release of the video has generated controversy around the world but especially in Greece, which is on the front lines of the migrant crisis as a landing point for countless migrants hoping to gain asylum in other parts of Europe.

Dozens of migrant and refugee advocacy and legal groups operate in the United States. While no officials with these groups have been exposed for coaching illegal immigrants to lie to U.S. authorities, there can be no doubt that this type of behavior goes on regularly all along the U.S. border with Mexico.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.




Russia Won’t Kowtow to Israel, U.S.

Putin has given Syria advanced anti-missile technology capable of shooting down Israeli aircraft, despite protests from Tel Aviv and D.C., and Turkey has signed a deal to purchase updated Russian missiles.

By Richard Walker

Russia has shown it will not allow Tel Aviv and Washington to determine who gets its advanced missile systems, probably the world’s most potent in destroying enemy planes and missiles at distances not achieved by competing NATO systems.

Much to the anger of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia has supplied Syria’s military with upgraded versions of the S-300 capable of shooting down Israeli aircraft. The move upset Netanyahu’s friends in Washington and came in the wake of a Russian plane being shot down over Syria after it was mistaken for an Israeli fighter that was illegally operating in Syrian airspace.

Russia had an arrangement with Israel that it would give notice if it intended to send fighters or bombers to attack targets in Syria, but Israel broke the deal.

Israel has also had to sit by as Iran has deployed the S-300 system despite opposition from Washington.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

In a further sign that Russia was not going to be restricted in the sale of its missile systems, in July 2018, Turkey, much to NATO’s consternation, signed a deal with Russia to buy its upgraded S-400 missiles. The Turks responded to criticism of the move, pointing out that for 10 years they had been trying to buy a missile shield from allies, meaning the U.S., and had been turned down.

What worries NATO’s chief is that the S-400 will not integrate with NATO’s missile shield, which includes the U.S. Patriot system. More importantly, Turkey is due to take possession of a consignment of F-35s, America’s most lethal attack aircraft. Security experts fear this will give Turkey the opportunity to test the Russian systems against the capabilities of the F-35. It might enable Russia and other nations with the S-300s and S-400s to make adjustments to them so they will be more effective against F-35s presently being used by the Israeli Air Force.

Quite simply, if Turkish technicians linked the computers in an S-400 battery to the F-35’s sensors, they could pull out data, allowing them to observe how the F-35 evades radar of the kind used by S-300s and S-400s.

China has recognized the value of deploying the S-400 because of its range, which is twice the range of the U.S. Patriot system. It will likely position its S-400s in the South China Sea for use in  any eventual clash with the U.S. Navy and Air Force. While the S-400 is often defined as a defensive missile shield, it offers an offensive capability, permitting it to identify and eliminate stationary targets at 200 miles. Its radar has a surface surveillance capability of 350 miles. The Patriot’s strike range is less than half that of the S-400, and its radar does not reach anywhere near the 350-mile mark.

Just when it seemed that the spread of the S-400 had ended with China making a $2.5 billion purchase of it, India stepped in on Sept. 28 with $5.4 billion to ink a deal with Moscow for five S-400 batteries with 40 launchers and 1,000 missiles. The announcement of the move by New Delhi angered Washington and drew a swift response from President Donald Trump that India would “find out sooner than you think” about his response.

Get Out of CashRussia was quick to point out that it would not be dictated to by Washington. The Russian ambassador to India, Nickolay Kudashev, said, responding to Trump, “India is much too large to depend or be afraid of somebody.” He also hinted that more deals with India were in the pipeline.

Amit Cowshish, a former financial advisor to India’s Ministry of Defense, told Sputnik News that any sanctions by Washington against India would be a setback to developing U.S.-India relations. Without spelling it out, he was warning Washington that its hopes of having India as an ally should war break out in the South China Sea would be dashed, as would India’s cooperation with Washington over security in the Indian Ocean.

While there is much talk of the S-400 system, those looking for a more potent missile system are eyeing the S500, which China and India are likely to purchase. It has the capability to take down military satellites in space, as well as act as a shield against ballistic missiles.

In Western defense circles there are critics who feel that threatening Russia and countries that buy weapons from it is a sign of Washington’s weakness because it cannot control an arms industry in which it is only one of the major players. At least in missile design, it appears Russia has the edge.

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