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 [email protected]

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.

Is Putin’s Russia an ‘Evil Empire’?

Can the war-mongering neocons hell-bent on continuing conflict with Russia and attacking Trump as a “traitor” answer Buchanan’s question posed here? “Where, today, is there a vital U.S. interest imperiled by Putin?”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce,” a saying attributed to Karl Marx, comes to mind in this time of Trump.

To those of us raised in the Truman era, when the Red Army was imposing its bloody Bolshevik rule on half of Europe, and NATO was needed to keep Stalin’s armies from the Channel, the threat seemed infinitely more serious. And so it was.

There were real traitors in that time.

Alger Hiss, a top State Department aide, at FDR’s side at Yalta, was exposed as a Stalinist spy by Congressman Richard Nixon. Harry Dexter White, No. 2 at Treasury, Laurence Duggan at State, and White House aide Lauchlin Currie were all exposed as spies. Then there was the Rosenberg spy ring that gave Stalin the secrets of the atom bomb.

Who do we have today to match Hiss and the Rosenbergs? A 29-year-old redheaded Russian Annie Oakley named Maria Butina, accused of infiltrating the National Rifle Association and the National Prayer Breakfast.

Is Putin’s Russia really a reincarnation of Stalin’s Soviet Union? Is Russia a threat of similar magnitude?

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

Russia is “our No. 1 geopolitical foe,” thundered Mitt Romney in 2012, now cited as a sage by liberals who used to castigate Republicans for any skepticism of détente during the Cold War.

Perhaps it is time to contrast the USSR of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev with the Russia of Vladimir Putin.

By the beginning of Reagan’s tenure in 1981, 400,000 Red Army troops were in Central Europe, occupying the eastern bank of the Elbe.

West Berlin was surrounded by Russian troops. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria were all ruled by Moscow’s puppets. All belonged to a Warsaw Pact created to fight NATO. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine were inside the USSR.

By the end of the Jimmy Carter era, Moscow had driven into Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola in Africa, Cuba in the Caribbean, and Nicaragua in Central America, in the greatest challenge ever to the Monroe Doctrine.

The Soviets had invaded and occupied Afghanistan. The Soviet navy, built up over 25 years by Adm. Sergey Gorshkov, was a global rival of a U.S. Navy that had sunk to 300 ships.

And today? The Soviet Empire is history. The Soviet Union is history, having splintered into 15 nations. Russia is smaller than it was in the 19th century. Russia is gone from Cuba, Grenada, Central America, Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique.

The Warsaw Pact is history. The Red Army is gone from Eastern Europe. The former Warsaw Pact nations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria all belong to NATO, as do the former Soviet “republics” of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia.

Plot to Scapegoat Russia
Available from the AFP Bookstore.

When the flagship of Russia’s navy, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, sailed from Murmansk to Syria, it had to pass through the North Sea, the Channel, the east Atlantic, the Straits of Gibraltar, and then sail the length of the Med to anchor off Latakia.

Coming and going, the Kuznetsov was within range of anti-ship missiles, aircraft, submarines, and surface ships of 20 NATO nations, among them Norway, Britain, Germany, France, Spain, and Portugal, and many U.S. bases and warships.

Entering the Med, the Kuznetsov had to travel, without a naval base to refuel, within range of the missiles, planes, and ships of Spain, France, Italy, and Greece. Along the banks of the Adriatic and Aegean there are only NATO nations, except for Kosovo, which is home to the largest U.S. base in the Balkans, Camp Bondsteel.

To sail from St. Petersburg through the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic, Russian warships must pass within range of 11 NATO nations—the three Baltic republics, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Britain, and France.

The Black Sea’s western and southern shores are now controlled entirely by NATO: Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey. Russia’s lone land passage to its naval base in Crimea is a narrow bridge from the Kerch Peninsula.

Greatest Comeback, Buchanan
Available from AFP’s Store.

With the breakup of the USSR, Russia has been reduced to two-thirds of the territory and half the population of the Soviet Union.

Its former republics and now neighbors Georgia and Ukraine are hostile. Its space launches are now done from a foreign land, Kazakhstan. Its economy has shrunk to the size of Italy’s.

It has one-tenth the population and one-fifth the economy of its looming neighbor, China, and, except for territory, is even more dwarfed by the United States with a GDP of $20 trillion, and troops, bases, and allies all over the world.

Most critically, Russia’s regime is no longer communist. The ideology that drove its imperialism is dead. There are parties, demonstrations, and dissidents in Russia, and an Orthodox faith that is alive and promoted by Putin.

Where, today, is there a vital U.S. interest imperiled by Putin?

Better to jaw-jaw than war-war, said Churchill. He was right, as is President Trump to keep talking to Putin—right through the Russophobia rampant in this city.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.


Trump Calls Off Cold War II

With media and Congress screaming that President Trump is acting “treasonously,” it’s valuable to consider a brief history lesson-reminder of U.S actions that might have caused Putin to respond as he has. Who is acting immorally?

By Patrick Buchanan

Beginning his joint press conference with Vladimir Putin, President Trump declared that U.S. relations with Russia have “never been worse.”

He then added pointedly, that just changed “about four hours ago.”

It certainly did. With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation and the fate of his presidency.

He has rejected the fundamental premises of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and blamed our wretched relations with Russia, not on Vladimir Putin, but squarely on the U.S. establishment.

In a tweet prior to the meeting, Trump indicted the elites of both parties: “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

Trump thereby repudiated the records and agendas of the neocons and their liberal interventionist allies, as well as the archipelago of War Party think tanks beavering away inside the Beltway.
Looking back over the week, from Brussels to Britain to Helsinki, Trump’s message has been clear, consistent and startling.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

NATO is obsolete. European allies have freeloaded off U.S. defense while rolling up huge trade surpluses at our expense. Those days are over. Europeans are going to stop stealing our markets and start paying for their own defense.

And there will be no Cold War II.

We are not going to let Putin’s annexation of Crimea or aid to pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine prevent us from working on a rapprochement and a partnership with him, Trump is saying. We are going to negotiate arms treaties and talk out our differences as Ronald Reagan did with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Helsinki showed that Trump meant what he said when he declared repeatedly, “Peace with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

On Syria, Trump indicated that he and Putin are working with Bibi Netanyahu, who wants all Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias kept far from the Golan Heights. As for U.S. troops in Syria, says Trump, they will be coming out after ISIS is crushed, and we are 98% there.

That is another underlying message here: America is coming home from foreign wars and will be shedding foreign commitments.

Both before and after the Trump-Putin meeting, the cable news coverage was as hostile and hateful toward the president as any this writer has ever seen. The media may not be the “enemy of the people” Trump says they are, but many are implacable enemies of this president.

Some wanted Trump to emulate Nikita Khrushchev, who blew up the Paris summit in May 1960 over a failed U.S. intelligence operation–the U-2 spy plane shot down over the Urals just weeks earlier.

Khrushchev had demanded that Ike apologize. Ike refused, and Khrushchev exploded. Some media seemed to be hoping for just such a confrontation.

When Trump spoke of the “foolishness and stupidity” of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that contributed to this era of animosity in U.S.-Russia relations, what might he have had in mind?
Was it the U.S. provocatively moving NATO into Russia’s front yard after the collapse of the USSR?

Was it the U.S. invasion of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have that plunged us into endless wars of the Middle East?

Was it U.S. support of Syrian rebels determined to oust Bashar Assad, leading to ISIS intervention and a seven-year civil war with half a million dead, a war which Putin eventually entered to save his Syrian ally?

Was it George W. Bush’s abrogation of Richard Nixon’s ABM treaty and drive for a missile defense that caused Putin to break out of the Reagan INF treaty and start deploying cruise missiles to counter it?

Was it U.S. complicity in the Kiev coup that ousted the elected pro-Russian regime that caused Putin to seize Crimea to hold onto Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol?

Many Putin actions we condemn were reactions to what we did.

Russia annexed Crimea bloodlessly. But did not the U.S. bomb Serbia for 78 days to force Belgrade to surrender her cradle province of Kosovo?

How was that more moral than what Putin did in Crimea?

If Russian military intelligence hacked into the emails of the DNC, exposing how they stuck it to Bernie Sanders, Trump says he did not collude in it. Is there, after two years, any proof that he did?

Trump insists Russian meddling had no effect on the outcome in 2016 and he is not going to allow media obsession with Russiagate to interfere with establishing better relations.

Former CIA Director John Brennan rages that, “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki . . . was . . . treasonous. . . . He is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

Well, as Patrick Henry said long ago, “If this be treason, make the most of it!”

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.


Russia or the Deep State: Who’s Really Undermining ‘Democracy’?

In politics, timing is everything. So what does that say about the deep state timing its indictment to break only days before President Donald Trump was to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin?

By AFP Staff

On July 13, three days before President Donald Trump was scheduled to hold his historic face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, the Justice Department announced a grand jury had indicted a dozen Russian intelligence officers “for conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” Of course, the mainstream media worked itself into a lather over the indictment of Russian spies who, realistically, will never be brought to justice. Missed in all of the rumpus, however, was the staging of the indictment, which was cynically timed to undermine a sitting president who openly admitted that the goal of the top-level meeting was to seek peace with a major, nuclear-armed foreign power.

It’s worth noting that the charges were not brought by the special counsel investigating possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Instead, it was brought by the Justice Department’s National Security Division—the deep state—and announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

Rosenstein, who lords over special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign staff, was nothing more than a useful idiot in the announcement, seeking to take a swipe at Trump.

Of late, Rosenstein has come under increasing pressure for allowing Mueller to run wild and charge individuals with crimes unrelated to his purview. Earlier this month, congressional Democrats and never-Trump Republicans just barely fended off calls in Congress to impeach Rosenstein for failing at his job.

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

According to last Friday’s indictment, prosecutors acknowledged that the Russians were working on their own—as spies do—and that no Americans knew they were communicating with Russians.

“The conspirators corresponded with several Americans through the Internet. There is no allegation in the indictment that the Americans knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers,” noted the press release issued by Rosenstein’s office on the indictment.

The charges only relate to spying work done by the Russians. They include:

Count One charges 11 defendants for conspiring to access computers without authorization, and to cause damage to those computers, in connection with efforts to steal documents and release them in order to interfere with the election.

Counts Two through Nine charge eleven defendants with aggravated identity theft by employing the usernames and passwords of other persons to commit computer fraud.

Count Ten charges the eleven conspirators with money laundering by transferring cryptocurrencies through a web of transactions in order to purchase computer servers, register domains, and make other payments in furtherance of their hacking activities, while trying to conceal their identities and their links to the Russian government.

Count Eleven charges two defendants for a separate conspiracy to access computers without authorization, and to cause damage to those computers, in connection with efforts to infiltrate computers used to conduct elections.

Finally, a forfeiture allegation seeks the forfeiture of property involved in the criminal activity.

No one should be naïve enough to think that countries do not spy on each other and attempt to influence politics in foreign powers, especially among rival nations. In fact, the U.S. government is probably the most skilled in that, having openly and brazenly meddled in the elections of dozens of countries and even toppled several over the course of the last few decades.

Russia is by no means innocent in this. The Kremlin has most likely been trying to influence U.S. politics for many years, which begs the question, why indict Russian spies operating on Russian soil just before the leaders of the U.S. and Russia are set to meet if for no other reason than to send a stark warning to these two men that the deep state will not stand by while the heads work to bridge the divide and promote peace between the two nations.

In a related news item, Putin did drop a bomb on the deep state that few media outlets have picked up on.

During a press conference, Putin unloaded on the U.S., saying that Washington should investigate how U.S. intelligence helped a billionaire fleece the Russian government and get out of paying $1.5 billion in taxes and then turn over some of that money—$400 million—to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Putin then invited Mueller’s team to come to Russia to further its investigation so long as the U.S. allows Russia to look into the billionaire’s transactions.

In other words, while Russia is accused of mocking and trolling ignorant American voters, the U.S. deep state directly funded the campaign of a presidential candidate, which it preferred over the other.

So who really is undermining the United States democratic republic here?

U.S.-Israel Military Juggernaut Grows

From Alaska to the Negev Desert, cooperation between Israeli and American militaries is putting U.S. troops in harm’s way.

By Philip Giraldi

The increasing ties between the Israeli and American militaries have gone virtually unnoticed in the U.S. media apart from reports about the $3.1 billion in military assistance that Tel Aviv receives each year. The United States has just completed the largest ever joint military exercises with Israel, even though there is no bilateral defense agreement or treaty between the two countries.

Scenarios in the exercises had American soldiers defending Israel by fighting Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians in a mock-up Arab village.

Upon conclusion of the Juniper Cobra exercises, Air Force Lt. Gen. Richard Clark observed that American soldiers should be prepared to die for the Jewish state, adding that they would probably be under the command of an Israeli Air Force general, who subsequently advised that “I am sure . . . we will find U.S. troops on the ground . . . to defend the state of Israel.”

But Washington’s more serious commitment to Israel derives from the recent opening of a U.S. permanent installation at Mashabim Air Base in the Negev desert. The American facility is a base within a base, surrounded by the Israeli Air Force and operating “under Israeli military directives.” It is a shell facility with a few airmen who could be reinforced if Israel goes to war. Together with billions of dollars-worth of U.S. military equipment that is pre-positioned in Israel and can be used by the Israelis as needed, it is all about supporting Israeli war-making and has nothing to do with American security or defense interests.

MidEast Chess Board

Overseas military bases normally serve two functions. The first and foremost should be to defend the United States from attack originating with a foreign power, serving in effect as a forward defense. That is basically what the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar does, as it enables surveillance and both first and retaliatory strike capability in what has become a volatile region. Major American bases in Germany and elsewhere in Europe similarly have considerable defensive and offensive capabilities, making them a forward based deterrent against attack.

More often, however, the existence of Washington’s military installations overseas is to serve as token presences, guarantors that the United States will become involved in the war if an ally is attacked. As no one seriously wants to confront U.S. power directly, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serve as a deterrent, making an offensive action by an antagonist pretty much unthinkable.

That issue of deterrence is why there are American soldiers in Poland and the Baltic States and the real reason why 30,000 troops remain in South Korea. It also assumes that Russia is a hostile and expansionistic power, which is debatable, though the potential truculence of North Korea is better established.

Israel, as is so often the case, does not neatly fit into either rationale for having an American overseas military base, but there has been virtually no pushback either from Congress or the media over what can be construed as a highly risky initiative. The Mashabim military base can be reinforced as needed, but reinforced for what? The United States has far more capable units throughout the region and the U.S. base could not play any significant role if serious fighting were to break out.

If the Israeli base were to be attacked by either Iran or Hezbollah rockets, however, that would mean that the United States would also be considered to be under attack and would respond in kind. So that means that the American presence is to guarantee that any attacker would understand that striking at Israel is the same as striking at the United States, which would be a deterrent. But there is something wrong with that formulation. In the cases of Europe and South Korea, the United States has formal agreements that define how Washington would respond to attacks on its allies within the framework of what is a defensive not an offensive alliance. And those countries are formal allies with established borders, which is not the case with Israel.

There is nothing to prevent Israel from attacking Iran or Hezbollah, producing a retaliatory response, and expecting that the U.S. would suddenly appear to do the real fighting. In fact, given Israel’s history of aggression against its neighbors that is precisely what very well might happen. America has de facto given up its sovereign right to declare war and handed it over to Israel.

And there’s more. The most recent largely unreported news about Israeli-American military engagement comes from the island of Kodiak off the coast of Alaska, where Israel will be testing its new Arrow 3 missile system, which was largely funded by the United States, so it can be deployed in Israel. A reported 62 shipping containers have been turned into sleeping quarters for Israeli soldiers, who will be operating out of the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, where the tests will take place.

The reason given for Israel’s need to begin testing its missiles in the United States is that the Arrow 3 is an exo-atmospheric missile, which flies into outer space coming back down to hit its target. The Mediterranean Sea is apparently too small an area to test such a missile, which has a range of 1,500 miles that includes all of Europe as well as much of Western Asia and North Africa.

Arrow 3 would also give Israel an anti-satellite weapon, allowing it to join only the U.S., Russia, and China with that military capability.

The question that the Pentagon should be asking is, “Who is Israel targeting with its new weapon system and why?” The missile clearly has offensive capabilities that go way beyond Israel’s neighborhood and far in excess of any legitimate defense needs.

The blank check given to Israel is not just in the form of money and an unlimited flow of U.S.-made military equipment. It also consists of an unwillingness to challenge anything that Israel wants, including creating the conditions whereby the United States will be willy-nilly involved in a war initiated by a feckless Benjamin Netanyahu.

And the U.S. has wound up funding and testing a missile that someday might be used against it and which, incidentally, competes with similar products made by American defense contractors, costing jobs here at home.

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.

Resisting Zionist Censorship

Courageous Jews are risking much to protest censorship by the Zionist Power Configuration, as sociologist James Petras calls the core of pro-Israel, Zionist power. A recent conference included a panel that featured several of these truth-tellers.

By Kevin Barrett

As sociologist James Petras has pointed out, the 52 major Jewish American organizations (MJAO) are monolithically pro-Israel. They form the core of what Petras calls the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC): “The ideological influence of the Israel Fifth Column is concentrated on a single issue: Defending Israel and its crimes against humanity.”

According to Petras, the ZPC’s commanding heights include hundreds of billionaires and millionaires, who finance its political and media operations. Below them, national and state-wide networks “influence the nomination and financing of all candidates, elected officials, and the composition of editorial boards of the major media outlets.”

MidEast Chess Board

Below these networks, at the local level, “every major and minor U.S. city has local Zionist-councils that use their influence to intimidate local professional, business, political, and media groups into ensuring that critics are censored and Israel’s war crimes are covered up.”

It takes guts to stand up to the ZPC. The ZPC, Petras explains, is in the habit of “blacklisting critics, contacting their places of employment and demanding they be fired,” tactics that can escalate into “threatening phone calls and unwelcome ‘visits’.” In rare instances, the Jewish Defense League, an FBI-designated terrorist group that functions as the armed wing of the ZPC, has been known to conduct fire-bombings and murders.

Against this Zionist goliath, a smattering of Jewish Davids are beginning to rise up. I recently hosted a panel discussion with three of them: Gilad Atzmon,* Alan Sabrosky, and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel. Along with former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, the five of us made up the panel for “Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm,” the final segment of a conference entitled Deep Truth: Visionaries Speak Out. Videos from the conference are online at

Wandering Who?
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

Atzmon jokes that he can’t decide whether to be an ex-Jew or a self-hating Jew. Born in Israel, Atzmon served in the IDF but was repelled by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. He emigrated to London and became one of Europe’s greatest jazz saxophonists—as well as an author and noted critic of Jewish power, which he defines as “the power to silence criticism of Jewish power.” Endlessly slandered and vilified by the global ZPC, Atzmon has been banned from speaking more times than he can count—and has even suffered physical attacks. Yet he soldiers on, driven by the same spirit of feisty stubbornness that helped him wake up at an ungodly hour every morning to practice his saxophone and eventually become a great musician.

Alan Sabrosky, the former director of studies of the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, says, “I express my Jewish ethnicity through cuisine, not foreign policy.” In other words, he is a patriotic American, who likes Jewish food and doesn’t give a hoot about Israel.

In 2010, Sabrosky made alternative media headlines by coming on my radio show and announcing that: “I have had long conversations over the last two weeks with contacts at the Army War College and Marine Corps headquarters, and I’ve made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period. The Zionists are playing this as an all-or-nothing exercise. If they lose this one, they’re done.”

Naturally the ZPC’s thought-police outfit, the Anti-Defamation League, has accused Sabrosky of promoting “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”

The sheer terror Sabrosky’s name elicits among the ZPC elite was displayed on May 9, 2016 in the Kansas City Public Library. Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, a patriotic American truth activist from a Jewish-Mexican background, was arrested, along with librarian Steve Woolfolk, by trained-in-Israel off-duty cops. His crime? Asking an uncomfortable question during the Q&A after a speech by Dennis Ross, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel. Rothe-Kushel’s question alluded to Israel’s role in 9/11. Shortly after Rothe-Kushel mentioned the name “Alan Sabrosky” the security guards grabbed Rothe-Kushel, then brutalized librarian Woolfolk for disputing the arrest.

Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

Recognizing that quickly dropping charges would amount to an implicit admission of guilt, a serious disadvantage in case of eventual litigation, the D.A. pressed charges against Woolfolk and Rothe-Kushel—and lost.

On April 26 of this year, Rothe-Kushel filed a lawsuit against the Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Kansas City, two of its employees, and one of its security guards. Also named in the lawsuit is an employee of the Truman Library Institute, along with Kansas City Police Chief Rick Smith, five members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, two Kansas City police detectives and a sergeant.

Rothe-Kushel identifies as a Jew and practices the religion of Judaism, identifying with its prophetic “speak truth to power” tradition. Sabrosky rarely thinks about being Jewish. Atzmon isn’t sure he’s still a Jew.

Whatever they call themselves, these guys are freedom fighters and heroes.

* Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who? is available from the AFP Online Store, here.

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.

Was Venezuelan President Assassinated?

Venezuela’s current president, Nicolas Maduro, and others allege the United States poisoned his country’s late firebrand socialist leader Hugo Chavez. Though this may seem questionable, scientists have admitted nano-weapons are now capable of delivering illnesses “ranging from stroke to respiratory failure to AIDS.”

By S. T. Patrick

“I don’t want to die. . . . Please don’t let me die,” were the final words of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2013. Shortly after his death, the Venezuelan presidential guard confirmed the cause of death as a heart attack after a lengthy battle with colon cancer. The state funeral had barely come to a close, however, when rumors of assassination began spreading among Venezuelan diplomats. How close were those rumors to reality? There is real evidence that Chavez was murdered.

Nicolas Maduro, who served as vice president under Chavez, publicly commented on the allegations of assassination as Chavez suffered through his waning days.

“We have no doubt that Commandant Chávez was attacked with this illness; we have not a single doubt,” Maduro said. “The established enemies of our land specifically tried to harm the health of our leader.”

Maduro compared the illness of Chavez to that of former Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat. In 2004, Arafat died one month after coming down with “flu-like” symptoms. Supporters and Palestinian leaders floated the idea that Arafat was medically poisoned by operatives of the Israeli Mossad.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

It is not a fanciful assertion that Chavez could have been targeted for assassination by the international community that controls the world’s most powerful institutions. As president of an oil-rich nation with the largest reserves outside of the Middle East, he enacted a plethora of initiatives aimed at enriching Venezuelans at the expense of globalists.

After having paid its debts five years early, Chavez in 2007 declared that he was severing ties with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He no longer wanted associations with institutions “dominated by U.S. imperialism.”

When the Spanish owner of the Banco de Venezuela attempted to sell the privatized bank to a group of investors in 2008, Chavez nationalized it “to put (the bank) at the service of Venezuela.”

Within three years of Chavez’s death, the internationalists had already encroached into Venezuela in ways that would never have been allowed by Chavez. By 2016, Venezuela’s state bank had entered into negotiations with Deutsche Bank AG. The deal with Germany’s banking power house enabled gold swaps and changes to Venezuela’s foreign reserves.

The international community might as well face that they are addicted to oil, a factor that makes literal and covert control of Venezuela very attractive to the world’s militaristic billionaire class. Petroleum accounts for over 50% of revenue and 70% of exports in Venezuela.

William Blum, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, described the vehemence with which the U.S. military-industrial complex disdained Chavez.

“There was no one in the entire universe that those who own and run ‘United States, Inc.’ wanted to see dead more than Hugo Chávez,” Blum wrote. “He was worse than (Chilean President Salvador) Allende. Worse than Fidel Castro. Worse than any world leader not in the American camp because he spoke out in the most forceful terms about U.S. imperialism and its cruelty. Repeatedly. Constantly. Saying things that heads of state are not supposed to say. At the United Nations, on a shockingly personal level about George W. Bush. All over Latin America, as he organized the region into anti-U.S.-Empire blocs.”

Chavez had seen three other leftist leaders contract cancer in Latin America. But when Argentina’s leftist president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, announced she had cancer in 2011, Chavez wondered aloud whether or not the cancer was random.

“Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer, and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” Chavez asked.

Maduro, who was elected president following Chavez’s death, remained steadfast in his pro-assassination beliefs as he adjusted to the robust necessities of Venezuelan leadership.

“We will seek the truth,” Maduro said. “We have the intuition that our Commander Chavez was poisoned by dark forces that wanted him out of the way.”

By 2016, scientists were admitting that nano-weapons were capable of transporting disease-provoking nanoparticles that can carry illnesses ranging from stroke to respiratory failure to AIDS.

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 [email protected]

NATO’s Middle East Despot Tightens His Grip on Turkey

Turkey’s president is taking steps toward ensuring he rules the country for the foreseeable future. With an indefinite state of emergency in place, many of his political opponents in prison, and 98% of the media in his hands, it seems this former parliamentary representative democratic republic is well on its way to becoming a dictatorship.

By Richard Walker

The NATO leadership will soon have a Middle East despot in its ranks when Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan uses his control over all elements of governmental power to ensure he remains for the foreseeable future president of a country increasingly dominated by staunch Islamic principles.

In April this year, he reset the presidential and national elections scheduled for November 2019 to June 24, 2018 in a move calculated to exploit and consolidate his hold on the Turkish system, including the military, intelligence agencies, police, and judiciary. With many of his political opponents in prison, and 98% of the media in his hands, he plans to rule unchallenged. It is the classic strategy of a budding dictator, say his enemies.

Since July 15, 2016, when elements of his armed forces staged an abortive coup against him, he has arrested tens of thousands of members of the opposition, confining many to jail and political trials. Today, unknown numbers of people remain behind bars. They include civil servants, soldiers, judges, journalists, and university professors. Many have been accused of supporting an American-based cleric, Fetullah Gulen, who was once an Erdogan political ally. Erdogan has demanded Gulen’s extradition to Turkey, alleging he and his supporters in Turkey were behind the coup. So far, the Trump administration has refused to hand him over, creating a widening political gulf between Ankara and Washington.

MidEast Chess Board

Erdogan has used his power to transform Turkey from a secular state to an Islamic one. He has accused the U.S. of playing a role in the coup. Days after he crushed it, he had his military seize control of the massive U.S. military base at Incirlik. Unknown to members of Congress, it held nuclear weapons intended for use in a war with Russia. They have since been moved out of Turkey. Some sources believe they may have been relocated to bases in Europe. The Pentagon has denied reports that it has plans to scale down the U.S. military presence in Turkey, but some believe the process has already begun at Incirlik.

Erdogan was always a man with grand ambitions to dominate the Middle East, but the Turkish economy never performed up to his expectations. It is suspected he has called these snap elections because he knows the economy will continue to underperform over the next year. He hopes by then to have unfettered control of the reins of power.

Until 2016, sharing a border with Russia did not make him feel comfortable, but Russian leader Vladimir Putin has managed to convince him that Washington has no defined Middle East policy and Turkey’s interests are better served being close to Russia, China, Iraq, and Iran. Even Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper recognized the closeness of Turkey and Russia. Moscow has privately suggested that it will mediate a deal with his nemesis in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, permitting Turkey to ensure the Syrian Kurds do not become a problem on its border. Lately, Erdogan warned Washington that its alliance with the Syrian Kurds risks placing American forces in the firing line. It is a threat the Pentagon cannot dismiss.

As a leader who plans to elevate his status as a defender of Muslims in the region, he has cleverly adopted a confrontational tone with Israel over its slaughter of Palestinians. He has branded Netanyahu a terrorist and fascist and has labeled EU nations his enemies.

But it is in the political sphere in Turkey that he has proven to be astute and decisive. In the wake of the coup, he declared a state of emergency and then extended it indefinitely. When the parliamentary and presidential elections are over on June 24, political measures he has already inserted into the law will ensure that only a super majority in parliament will be able to force an investigation of him. That will insulate him legally and politically.

His argument for altering the balance of political power in Turkey is that giving him executive control is vital to preventing coups, led in the past by secular nationalists within the military who he claims were part of the deep state. He has gutted the intelligence services to ensure there are only committed Muslims in the upper echelons. He has either jailed or sacked senior military figures suspected of not being willing to commit to a loyalty pledge to him. Despite his efforts to eliminate threats, a deep state remains deeply embedded in the DNA of the country.

Whatever the future holds, there will be continuing erosion of Turkey’s attachment to NATO and Europe. In the late 1990s, Turkey had hoped to become a member of the EU, but the hope was dashed by fierce opposition from France, Germany, and Britain. At the core of their opposition was a fear that admitting Turkey would be akin to opening up Europe to a massive Muslim influx that would be dangerous and destabilizing. Erdogan has not forgiven the EU, and his resentment extends to NATO and the U.S.

Some security experts fear that Turkey will become a growing threat in the region. Some point to the anomaly that Turkey is on track to get America’s newest strike fighter, the F-35, while it installs the latest Russian S-400 missile shield that does not integrate with NATO’s own missile system.

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

Iraq War About Oil or Israel?

A new book by oil consultant Gary Vogler proves the U.S. waged war on Iraq to save Israel’s failing economy. “Neocons pushed so hard for war in large part because they intended to loot Iraqi oil on behalf of Israel.”

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

My 2008 book Questioning the War on Terror asked whether the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a resource war or a Zionist war.

At that time, liberals and leftists regularly accused President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of going to war for oil. “No blood for oil” was their protest chant.

It was obvious from day one that Iraq’s immense energy wealth had something to do with “Operation Iraqi Liberation,” but as sociologist James Petras has pointed out, the big oil companies were actually against the war. They would have preferred peace and stability—and Saddam Hussein was willing to give away the store if America would only take yes for an answer, as Susan Lindauer explains in her book Extreme Prejudice.

Petras, Stephen Sniegoski, and many others—including ex-CIA analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison in their 2003 article “Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq”—have marshalled strong evidence that the Iraq invasion was about Israel, not oil.

The architects of the Iraq war were all Zionist neoconservatives. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explained in April 2003 that the war on Iraq was “the war the neoconservatives wanted. . . . I could give you the names of 25 people who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.”

Iraq was one of the “seven countries in five years” targeted for destruction after 9/11, according to Gen. Wesley Clark. All seven were enemies of Israel. None posed any threat to the United States.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose first reaction to the 9/11 attacks was “it’s very good,” still felt that way in 2008: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Netanyahu insisted, according to a report in the April 16, 2008 edition of Israeli daily Ha’aretz.

9/11 and the subsequent American war against Muslim countries helped Israel in numerous ways. Besides “taking out” Israel’s enemies and balkanizing the Middle East in accordance with the Oded Yinon plan, the 9/11 wars also saved the Israeli economy, which in 2001 was on the brink of total collapse. As Naomi Klein writes in The Shock Doctrine (pp. 434-441), Israel was crushed by the dot-com crash, with 300 Israeli tech firms going bankrupt. During the run-up to 9/11, the Israeli government slashed social services to the bone and transferred all of its resources into “a slew of start-ups . . . specializing in everything from ‘search and nail’ data mining, to surveillance cameras, to terrorist profiling. When the market for these services and devices exploded in the years after Sept. 11, the Israeli state openly embraced a new national economic vision: The growth provided by the dot-com bubble would be replaced with a homeland security boom.”

Iraq & Politics of Oil, Vogler
Now available from the AFP Online Store!

Another way 9/11 and the 9/11 wars were designed to save Israel’s failing economy was recently revealed by oil consultant Gary Vogler. In his book Iraq and the Politics of Oil: An Insider’s Perspective. Vogler explains that the neocons pushed so hard for war in large part because they intended to loot Iraqi oil on behalf of Israel. As Douglas Feith’s former law partner Mark Zell explained, the neocons believed the boastful promises of wannabe puppet dictator Ahmed Chalabi:

“He said he would end Iraq’s boycott of trade with Israel and would allow Israeli companies to do business there. He said the new Iraqi government would agree to rebuild the pipeline from Mosul in the northern Iraqi oil fields to Haifa.”

As it turned out, the Mosul to Haifa pipeline was a non-starter. But Chalabi did succeed in stealing Iraqi oil and passing it to Israel at bargain basement rates, by forcing Iraq, against the wishes of almost all Iraqis, to sell oil to convicted swindler Marc Rich’s company Glencore, which has provided almost all of Israel’s oil since 1973.

And though Vogler doesn’t discuss ISIS and Kurdish black market oil sales to Israel, it appears that these and other methods have been used to leverage Iraqi oil to pump up Israel’s failing economy, which only survives thanks to trillions of dollars of tribute coughed up by American taxpayers.

Vogler ends his book with a warning: “The costs to the United States for invading Iraq were huge” (4,489 U.S. troops killed and 32,223 injured, over 134,000 Iraqi civilians and 150 reporters killed, 2.8 million refugees, $2 trillion wasted) “We cannot allow another group, such as the neocons, to push our country into a costly and unnecessary Middle Eastern war as they did in Iraq.”

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