2018 Could Be 2016 All Over Again

With media predicting an “easy win” for Democrats and loss of control by Republicans, Phil Giraldi points out that “On issues that really matter the Democrats are still clueless.” If they lose again this time, who will they blame? Certainly, they aren’t apt to accept any responsibility for being completely out of touch with most Americans. With Election Day tomorrow, we’ll find out soon enough.

By Philip Giraldi

Am I the only one who thinks the 2018 midterm election smells an awful lot like the 2016 presidential election? In both cases the punditry and media have been promising an easy win for the Democrats, in many cases predicting that the GOP will lose control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. One might argue that those who are praising the Democrats are themselves committed establishment progressives who hate Trump and would hardly do otherwise, but winning will require selling something to voters that is more than that hatred combined with negative vibes for some women coming out of the Kavanaugh hearings.

On issues that really matter the Democrats are still clueless and continue to be a party that reactively plays both a “blame the Russians” and a “diversity” card to confuse, divide, and conquer rather than presenting any programs that would actually resonate positively with voters.

Opinion polling suggests that there are two issues that really are of concern to voters. Top of the list is healthcare. The Democrats rightly excoriate clowns like Paul Ryan—currently on his way to reap his lobbying rewards from a grateful K Street—who has often cited entitlements as the big federal spending problem. He conveniently ignores runaway defense spending and massive tax cuts for the rich, which he promoted while in office, meaning that the budget will always be unbalanced.

But, Paul Ryan aside, anyone who actually pays for health insurance out of his or her own pocket will no doubt observe how healthcare costs have skyrocketed under Obamacare to the point where insurance is available but unaffordable, with premiums that in many cases have trebled per month over the past four years. Those on Medicare and Medicaid might rightfully fear more GOP mischief, but the real damage has already been done by the Democrats, and those who are personally paying for insurance know that.

Trump and the Republicans want to replace Obamacare with something better, though there has been no clarity on what that might mean. But it is an admission that Obamacare is seriously flawed, a viewpoint that many voters would appear to share. So the choice is between something that is very bad for users versus something as yet defined that might just turn out to be better. The Republicans win on that one.

The second biggest issue for voters is immigration, both legal exploiting existing loopholes in the system and illegal. The legal immigration problem consists of those who are allowed to get green cards legally and then proceed to bring their entire families over including cousins. That was not the intent of the 1965 legislation. In fact, chain immigration was dismissed as a possible consequence of the law, with President Lyndon Johnson and Democratic congressmen including Senator Ted Kennedy assuring the public that it would not occur. Of course, they were wrong. Or they were lying.

Illegal immigration is the more visible issue and the Democratic solution to the problem is, apparently, to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) giving the United States open borders. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who argue that the horrible mess in Central America is the result of U.S. meddling in their countries for the past 100 years, but that does not necessarily mean the solution is an open-doors policy that will drastically change America. Bringing in thousands or even millions of uneducated and unskilled migrants who do not speak English and then requiring local governments to educate, house, and feed them is a recipe for disaster. Indeed, it has already proven to be a disaster for many communities, with standards declining and neighborhoods in decay.

Most Americans have sympathy for the poor would-be immigrants, even if their mass migration is currently being funded by George Soros to coincide with an election, but they also long for a return to the time when communities were safe places where everyone knew their neighbors and worked hard to get along. Today the social justice warriors have made a sense of community a crime, because it does not invite enough diversity.

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

So, comparing how the two parties stand on immigration, the Republicans win hands down, as they are pledged to stop the illegals and have also spoken out against chain immigration. It is a major issue, and the Democrats are predictably on the wrong side of it, just as they are with healthcare.

My big issue is, of course, foreign and national security policy, but it ranks low in voter concerns, even though it is a cluster of related policies that are corrupt and ripe for exploitation if there were anyone out there bold enough to challenge the status quo. Donald Trump appears to be, with the exception of Iran, disinclined to continue America’s warfare state policies, but the punditry appears to think that he is being consistently outmaneuvered by his hawkish cabinet to come down hard on Russia and China while also remaining in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.

Recent elections suggest that there is something like a “peace consensus” in the United States, citizens who are tired of warfare and of the constant discovery of new enemies to fight. I think it is true that Barack Obama’s margin of difference consisted of voters who thought that he would not exercise the military option as frequently as his predecessor George W. Bush. In any event, Obama was worse than Bush, going hard after whistleblowers, assassinating American citizens, and destroying the Libyan government to leave behind chaos, a hotbed for terrorists and even for slave traders.

I also believe that Trump, like Obama, won because of the support of “peace” voters, being far less bellicose sounding than Hillary Clinton, and committed to détente with Russia and retrenchment in the Middle East. I know many voters like myself selected him because of those views, and he received considerable support because of them in the traditional conservative and libertarian media. Unfortunately, he has failed to deliver, but it is possible that the good instincts are still there. They are absent in the Democratic Party, which, because of its crusade against Russia, is far more hawkish and dangerous than the Republicans.

And then there are the intangibles: Having the Clintons and Obama out campaigning for Democratic candidates is like waving a red flag in front of conservatives, who will all make sure they get out and vote. And the economy is growing faster than under Obama. So, on balance, I think the GOP will do well this week with issues-focused voters and will retain its advantage in both houses of Congress. If that is so, the recriminations from the Democrats will start immediately. Will their failure be blamed on the Russians again this time or possibly on the Chinese?

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.




Go Home

Who’s funding the massive caravan of migrants trying to invade the U.S.? Allegations George Soros is involved are no conspiracy theory.

By John Friend

The so-called “caravan” of Third World migrants marching their way through Mexico in an attempt to enter the United States and seek asylum or claim refugee status has the nation in an uproar, with President Donald Trump openly describing the situation as a potential invasion of the country and vowing to provide military support to border patrol and immigration authorities.

The caravan, which originated earlier this month in Central America before crossing into Mexico to make the northward journey toward the southern border of the U.S., has sparked outrage, controversy, and division across the country.

In late October, the Department of Homeland Security announced that gang members and other criminals are among members of the migrant caravan, and that many of those walking are from countries outside Central America, including the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. A young migrant man recently interviewed by Fox News openly admitted that “criminals are everywhere” within the caravan before insisting that there were also “good people here trying to get through Mexico and then to the United States.”

Additionally, Fox News also reported that about 80% of the caravan is comprised of young men under the age of 35, raising alarms and calling into question the notion that those traveling in the caravan are potential refugees and persecuted asylum seekers, as left-leaning supporters of the caravan insist.

Kingdom Identity

Trump took a strong and forceful stand against the migrant caravan when it first generated headlines earlier this month. He publicly urged the participants to go back to their home countries.

“Many gang members and some very bad people are mixed into the caravan heading to our Southern border,” the president tweeted recently. “Please go back. You will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our country and our military is waiting for you!”

Defense Secretary James Mattis also announced recently that roughly 5,200 U.S. soldiers would be deployed at positions along the U.S. border with Mexico in an effort to reinforce and support National Guard units and federal immigration and customs officials protecting and guarding the border. The military is in the process of moving heavy equipment such as concrete barriers to the border and will help construct additional fences and barriers as well as provide logistical support to Border Patrol agents.

Previously, the Trump administration vowed to cut off foreign aid and investment in the countries deemed to be facilitating the several-thousand-strong migrant caravan, including Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico.

American Free Press has looked into who exactly is funding the massive migrant caravan that has been wending its way north. It should come as no surprise that George Soros’s foundations along with at least five other well-funded immigrant advocacy groups are behind the army of migrants that is attempting to cross into the United States in violation of the law. See article below for details.


Caravan Needs Funding

Money and orchestration are needed to coordinate the movements of a veritable army of Central Americans to get to the U.S. Border. Where is it coming from?

The current migrant caravan, like previous high-profile attempts to organize massive armies of immigrants, has many wondering who is funding and facilitating these groups, which have at times included up to 7,000 people, mainly Central Americans.

Several published reports have alleged that Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders), a radical left-wing activist organization that, according to its website, provides “humanitarian aid and legal advice to migrants and refugees,” has played a key role in helping organize and publicize the current migrant caravan. The group openly organizes rallies and fundraisers for migrants and “displaced persons.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

CBN News recently reported that Denis Omar Contreras, a member of Pueblo Sin Fronteras, is one of the organization’s members currently representing the migrant caravan.

In an article published on Oct. 29, Arizona Republic reporter Daniel Gonzalez, who was embedded with the caravan, wrote that the group had stopped to rest in San Pedro Tapanatepec, Mexico, where “local residents, church groups, and municipal officials in the towns where the caravan stops are feeding the migrants.”

Gonzalez added: “Coordinators with Pueblo Sin Fronteras say the caravan operates with no hierarchy but rather by consensus. Each evening, after the sun goes down and the oppressive heat dissipates, migrants are invited to the center of town to listen to plans put forth by volunteer coordinators.”

“[The migrants] are given a chance to agree or disagree,” explained Pueblo Sin Fronteras volunteer Nelly Espinoza. “No decision is made without the input of our collaborators.” The term “collaborators” refers to the thousands of migrants, who are making the long trek through Central America into Mexico.

Others, including Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, have argued that George Soros, the notorious left-wing billionaire known to support and finance the open-borders agenda, refugee resettlement, and massive Third World migration to the West, is responsible for the caravan.

On a recent appearance on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox News, Farrell declared that the caravan was a very well-organized and well-funded movement that had support from a variety of radical left-wing activist groups, including the “Soros-occupied State Department.”

For years it has been alleged that the State Department has colluded with various international organizations, including Soros’s Open Societies Foundations, to sow division in foreign countries, aid and facilitate massive migration and resettlement, and even destabilize sovereign governments to advance the globalist New World Order agenda.

Farrell was quickly denounced by Fox News, with senior executives of the network condemning his statements and pulling the program from the archives. Due to his remarks, Farrell“will no longer be appearing as a guest on Fox Business Network or Fox News Channel,” the company said in a statement to USA Today.

In the aftermath of the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, allegedly carried out by an insane man named Robert Bowers, many in the mainstream mass media and political establishment are attempting to shut down debate over the migrant caravan by insisting that criticizing Soros or pointing out his long history of supporting radical left-wing political causes is inherently anti-Semitic. Farrell and countless others have been dismissed as crazed anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists for stating facts about Soros and the open-borders agendas he has supported and financed over the years, despite the entirely reasonable, legitimate, and well-founded perspectives proffered by critics of Soros.

Get Out of CashAnd it’s not just private organizations and individuals that are helping to mobilize the migrant caravan.

News and commentary website “Investor’s Business Daily” notes in an editorial, “Migrant Caravan: A Foreign-Financed, Leftist-Led Violation of U.S. Sovereignty,” that even the United Nations (UN) has been offering cash and resources to the group. “[T]he UN is committing resources to the caravan. In essence, it uses U.S. taxpayers’ money to fund a violation of their own border. That way, the U.S. can join all the other countries with a mass immigration problem.”

“Investor’s” cites a UN News Service report that stated: “A priority for the UNHCR [UN High Commissioner for Refugees], which has mobilized extra staff and resources to help those making the journey in Mexico’s southern borderlands, is ensuring migrants are informed on their rights to asylum. In an agency video, a UNHCR protection associate said many migrants were simply unaware asylum was an option.”

Finally, Vice President Mike Pence told The Washington Post, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández said to him that a migrant caravan approaching the U.S. southern border is being financed by Venezuela.

“The president of Honduras told me this was organized by leftist groups in Honduras and financed by Venezuela,” said Pence.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Bipartisan Pastors’ Group Urges U.S. Prison Reform

Strange bedfellows, perhaps, but President Trump and a bipartisan group of black Christian ministers have been meeting to discuss prison reform. S.T. Patrick explains that “most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats have long seen incarceration as one of this country’s gravest ills.”

By S.T. Patrick

No issue seems to have made stranger bedfellows of perceived opponents than the challenge of prison reform. In recent months, groups of black pastors have both visited the White House and stayed in close contact with the Trump administration, urging a partnership on an issue that has long devastated the black community.

RELATED: Listen to S. T. Patrick’s March 2nd interview at Midnight Writer News with Mohamed Shehk of CriticalResistance.org about the Prison Abolition Movement.

CNN’s Don Lemon criticized the group of black pastors for meeting with President Donald Trump, going as far as to tell Pastor John Gray that he was being used as a “prop.” What some casual observers may not realize, however, is that the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats have long seen incarceration as one of this country’s gravest ills.

The modern conservative most closely associated with prison reform was also President Richard Nixon’s “dirty tricks artist,” Charles Colson. He had once boasted that he would “walk over (his) own grandmother” to ensure the reelection of Nixon in 1972. Self-described as Nixon’s “hatchet man,” Colson compiled the “enemies list” of Nixon detractors and was instrumental in orchestrating the illegal actions aimed to discredit whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who had released the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and other newspapers. It was for the Ellsberg activities and not Watergate that Colson would be sent to prison for obstruction of justice in 1974, a sentence he would serve at the federal Maxwell Prison in Alabama.

Kingdom Identity

While going through the legal turmoil that followed Nixon officials out of the beltway, Colson, in August 1973, experienced a religious transformation that would change the rest of his life. Though his attorneys advised him not to do so, Colson pled guilty, a decision he later said was “a price I had to pay to complete the shedding of my old life and to be free to live the new.”

Paroled in 1975, Colson entered into the evangelical movement that was rising throughout the 1970s and forged a new career based upon prison reform. The man who had described himself as Nixon’s “loose cannon” sold millions of copies of his 1976 autobiography Born Again. Though the mainstream media was typically skeptical of Colson’s conversion, 1976 also brought the formation of Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries, which has now opened offices in over 100 countries.

The American Left has long pushed for prison reform, a movement highlighted by the 1968 scandal at Tucker Prison Farm in Arkansas, where investigators discovered a lack of food, 14-hour workdays, systematic rape and the torture of inmates by both guards and inmate “trustees.” It was in January 1968, 50 years ago, that a native Arkansan, Johnny Cash, performed two concerts at Folsom State Prison, thus musically highlighting the need for reform.

Get Out of Cash

Today, the U.S. has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prison population. Lack of treatment as a first step to dealing with drug addiction is a problem that increases incarceration numbers, but so is the over-legislation of American society. According to the Institute for Policy Studies citing John Whitehead, Congress has created an average of 50 new federal crimes per year over the last decade. That means that 500 acts that were legal in 2008 are now illegal and punishable by prison time.

White evangelicals are now on board with prison reform, as well. In May, ministers from across the country met with President Trump to push for a new First Step Act that would allow better conditions for pregnant inmates and would encourage paths to early release for prisoners who earn points for good behavior.

“America is a nation that believes in the power of redemption,” Trump told the audience of ministers.

Whether that belief can transform into action that will give relief to families burdened by the economic and sociological realities of incarceration is the test that analysts believe the Senate may fail. The Senate is populated by stalwarts of their own party’s political machines. They are moderate, by nature, when compared to their more accountable colleagues in the House. Yet, if a popular swell can arise, a movement that rediscovers the belief and hope that America once had in each individual, bipartisan change can occur.

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.




Is This Worse Than ’68?

A palpable sense of divisive anger and even hate seems to be growing throughout the U.S., but despite this, the overall crime rate for the country, including all acts of violence, remains at historic lows. It may seem like we are living through a time that’s worse than 1968, but the truth is, we are very far from those turbulent days when cities exploded with riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Saturday, in Pittsburgh, a Sabbath celebration at the Tree of Life synagogue became the site of the largest mass murder of Jews in U.S. history. Eleven worshippers were killed by a racist gunman.

Friday, we learned the identity of the crazed criminal who mailed pipe bombs to a dozen leaders of the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

From restaurants to Capitol corridors, this campaign season we have seen ugly face-offs between leftist radicals and Republican senators.

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

Are we more divided than we have ever been? Are our politics more poisoned? Are we living in what Charles Dickens called “the worst of times” in America? Is today worse than 1968?

Certainly, the hatred and hostility, the bile and bitterness of our discourse, seem greater now than 50 years ago. But are the times really worse?

1968 began with one of the greatest humiliations in the history of the American Navy. The U.S. spy ship Pueblo was hijacked in international waters and its crew interned by North Korea.

A week later came the Tet Offensive, where every provincial capital in South Vietnam was attacked. A thousand U.S. troops died in February, 10,000 more through 1968.

On March 14, anti-war Senator Gene McCarthy captured 42 percent of the vote in New Hampshire against President Johnson.

With LBJ wounded, Robert Kennedy leapt into the race, accusing the president who had enacted civil rights of “dividing the country” and removing himself from “the enduring and generous impulses that are the soul of this nation.” Lyndon Johnson, said Kennedy, is “calling upon the darker impulses of the American spirit.” Today, RFK is remembered as a “uniter.”

With Gov. George Wallace tearing at Johnson from the right and Kennedy and McCarthy attacking from the left — and Nixon having cleared the Republican field with a landslide in New Hampshire — LBJ announced on March 31 he would not run again.

Four days later, Martin Luther King, leading a strike of garbage workers, was assassinated in Memphis. One hundred U.S. cities exploded in looting, arson and riots. The National Guard was called up everywhere and federal troops rushed to protect Washington, D.C., long corridors of which were gutted, not to be rebuilt for a generation.

Before April’s end, Columbia University had exploded in the worst student uprising of the decade. It was put down only after the NYPD was unleashed on the campus.

Nixon called the Columbia takeover by black and white radicals “the first major skirmish in a revolutionary struggle to seize the universities of this country and transform them into sanctuaries for radicals and vehicles for revolutionary political and social goals.” Which many have since become.

In June, Kennedy, after defeating McCarthy in the crucial primary of California, was mortally wounded in the kitchen of the hotel where he had declared victory. He was buried in Arlington beside JFK.

Nixon, who had swept every primary, was nominated on the first ballot in Miami Beach, and the Democratic Convention was set for late August.

Between the conventions, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sent his Warsaw Pact armies and hundreds of tanks into Czechoslovakia to crush the peaceful uprising known as “Prague Spring.”

With this bloodiest of military crackdowns since the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Moscow sent a message to the West: There will be no going back in Europe. Once a Communist state, always a Communist state!

At the Democratic convention in Chicago, the thousands of radicals who had come to raise hell congregated nightly in Grant Park, across from the Hilton where the candidates and this writer were staying.

Baited day and night, the Chicago cops defending the hotel, by late in the week, had had enough. Early one evening, platoons of fresh police arrived and charged into the park clubbing and arresting scores of radicals as the TV cameras rolled. It would be called a “police riot.”

When Sen. Abe Ribicoff took the podium that night, he directed his glare at Mayor Richard J. Daley, accusing him of using “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.” Daley’s reply from the floor was unprintable.

Get Out of CashThrough September, Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey could not speak at a rally without being cursed and shouted down.

Describing the radicals disrupting his every event, Humphrey said, these people “aren’t just hecklers,” but “highly disciplined, well-organized agitators. … Some are anarchists and some of these groups are dedicated to destroying the Democratic Party and destroying the country.”

After his slim victory, Nixon declared that his government would take as its theme the words on a girl’s placard that he had seen in the Ohio town of Deshler: “Bring us together.”

Nixon tried in his first months, but it was not to be.

According to Bryan Burrough, author of “Days of Rage, America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence,” “During an 18-month period in 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported more than 2,500 bombings on U.S. soil, nearly five a day.”

No, 2018 is not 1968, at least not yet.

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



Facebook Censorship Exposes Campaign Against Free Speech

Veterans’ rights attorney Benjamin Krause continues his work exposing fraud within the VA, yet Facebook recently banned his article about the VA’s Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, which he said is “more like the ‘Office of Whistleblower Retaliation’.” He has an idea of Facebook’s real agenda.  

By Dave Gahary

When social media giant Facebook rejected an article written by journalist and veterans’ rights attorney Benjamin Krause that was about the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and was critical of President Donald Trump, Krause knew there was a bigger story there than the conventional wisdom of tech companies censoring conservative viewpoints.

American Free Press sat down with Krause—who spends much of his time helping to expose scandals, fraud, waste, and abuse in the VA through his DisabledVeterans.org website—to discuss what it means to all of us.

AFP Podcast
Dave Gahary talks with veterans’ rights attorney and journalist Ben Krause about why Facebook banned his article and more…

Krause had come across some information on the former VA official who set up the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection for Trump, meant to get the cabinet-level agency on the right path.

“I believe it’s a horrific failure and that it’s not encouraging accountability or whistleblower protection,” Krause explained, “but instead it’s more like the ‘Office of Whistleblower Retaliation,’ where they actually develop intelligence against employees who become whistleblowers, and then use that at the local level to attack them to get them fired or worse.”

Motivated to write an article about this to inform his many thousands of readers via Facebook, utilizing its paid promotion system, Krause “went through the steps to make sure that [he] could promote stories of national importance.”

After going through the sequence and checking all the boxes Facebook required to promote the article—by giving it more exposure than it would ordinarily get—the social media behemoth claimed that Krause’s ad violated their policy.

Get Out of Cash“The article that I was writing was clearly about . . . dealing with [VA] policy and a law that they passed,” Krause explained, “but Facebook does not want that promoted, so they denied my attempt to pay them to do the service they are supposed to be doing, because they didn’t like my speech.”

AFP asked why he thought an entity like Facebook would want to censor such an informative, relatively innocuous article.

“The typical Pavlovian-style tactics that the company uses to psychologically condition and torture users,” explained Krause, “just doesn’t work on veterans the same way. So I think that most veterans are generally pro-Second Amendment, pro-First Amendment, pro-Constitution, and anti-censorship, and anti-European Union . . . views not consistent with what social media and Silicon Valley are trying to push on us, specifically the European Union model of censorship and harmony.

“Apparently, Facebook wants . . . everyone to basically conform to this more lemming-style, harmonized speech model that the European populace uses. They don’t want us to have a voice, and they’re going to shut it down if it’s a voice they can’t control or influence in a way that they want.”

Krause shared his opinion on what is the endgame of all this censorship.

“For them,” he finalized, “it’s not necessarily even about censorship and the supposed harmony-encouraged discourse. For them it’s about control. . . . They could give two rips about whether or not we argue, but they realize that there’s more money in pushing this harmony because they can plug us all into this system in a way that we otherwise wouldn’t be, and then they can profit off of it.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.




Drug Traffickers Using Tunnels to Smuggle Wares Into U.S.

At the same time a new high-tech tunnel has been discovered nearly ready for transport of people and contraband from Mexico into California, a caravan of some 7,000 migrants  from Central America is making its way across Mexico toward the Texas border, believing that President Trump “has to let us in.” Who convinced these people American “has to” let them in? News today reports the president has ordered some 5,000 active duty military personnel to the border to work with Customs and Border Patrol officials if necessary.

By John Friend

A massive and highly sophisticated cross-border underground tunnel was recently discovered near Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif., situated along the porous U.S.-Mexico border, sparking alarm among America’s border control and immigration agencies responsible for policing the southern border.

The tunnel began in a home in Jacume, Mexico, which is less than 100 yards from the U.S. border, and was likely designed to transport drugs and other illegal contraband into the United States, Border Patrol officials stated.

“Sophisticated tunnels take a lot of time and money to make,” Border Patrol Agent Tekae Michael told The Los Angeles Times, noting that such tunnels are common in the area. “When we find them, they’re a pretty big deal.”

The discovery once again underscores the harsh reality of America’s immigration crisis, as illegal aliens and illegal contraband continue to flood across the southern border.

A team of officials with the U.S. Border Patrol, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration worked with Mexican police and military officials, who initially discovered the tunnel during an operation in mid-September. Although the tunnel did not yet have an exit into the United States, it did stretch beneath the U.S.-Mexico border, reaching approximately 336 feet into U.S. territory near the small town of Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif.

The tunnel was equipped with a rail system that stretched the entire length of the passageway, and a solar panel system was installed to power lighting and ventilation. A water pumping system was also built in the tunnel.

According to U.S. officials, the tunnel is roughly 3 feet tall and 2.5 feet wide, and stretches for 627 feet. No arrests have been made in connection with the discovery of the tunnel, although the investigation is still underway, according to Border Patrol officials. Border Patrol Agent Vincent Pirro told The Los Angeles Times that once the investigation is complete, the tunnel will be filled in so smugglers cannot use it.

This tunnel is the first cross-border smuggling tunnel discovered in fiscal year 2019, according to officials. Last fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, two cross-border tunnels were discovered in the San Diego sector near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

The discovery comes as yet another caravan of Central American economic migrants make their way north from Honduras and into Guatemala, with plans of eventually crossing the border into Mexico before heading further northwards into the United States in an attempt to claim asylum or refugee status.

According to Reuters, roughly 3,000 migrants [Since this story was written, estimates have risen to 7,000 migrants in the caravan, now in Mexico-Ed.], most from impoverished Central American countries, crossed from Honduras into Guatemala earlier this week following a standoff with police in what organizers have called the “March of the Migrant.” They are attempting to gain asylum in Mexico or the United States, organizers have claimed.

“We’re going to drop in on Donald Trump,” Andrea Fernandez, a 24-year-old Honduran mother who is participating in the march with her newborn baby and two other young children, aged five and seven, told Reuters. “He has to take us in.”

The Trump administration has called on political leaders in Mexico and Central America to deal with the issue head on and have pledged economic development and investment in return. However, President Trump also warned Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that any financial assistance given to these Central American countries would end “if they allow their citizens, or others, to journey through their borders and up to the United States” with the intention of illegally entering America, the president tweeted.

The president also sent out a warning via Twitter to those seeking to enter the country illegally: “Anybody entering the United States illegally will be arrested and detained, prior to being sent back to their country!”

Many economic migrants falsely claim they are violently persecuted in their home countries in an effort to gain political asylum or refugee status. Others are lured with false promises of finding jobs and economic security by leaving their impoverished home countries. Countless organizations exist in the United States that seek to facilitate the refugee resettlement process, often exploiting loopholes and taking advantage of America’s generous immigration policies. Some left-wing groups have even offered legal training to migrants in order to help them gain refugee status.

Get Out of CashMany Americans are calling on the Trump administration to pressure the Mexican government to block the migrant caravan and others seeking to illegally enter the U.S.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, recently told “Breitbart News Tonight” that, ideally, the Trump administration should simply not allow the migrants to enter the country.

She also called on Trump to “put pressure on Mexico to not issue them transit visas,” referring to the economic migrants. “They have no basis to enter Mexico unless Mexico is going to give them asylum.”

“The best possible solution is to not let [them] enter,” Vaughan stated. “The goal should be to have people not get across, at all, because then it’s a whole different story once they set foot in the United States, whether they’ve been admitted or paroled or whatever. As soon as we let them across, that’s when it becomes extremely difficult to remove them and return them to their home countries.”

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.




Elites Regretting Saudi Love Fest?

Recent behavior of the psychopathic Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman has advocates questioning U.S. support, both from government and from the entertainment industry.

By Richard Walker

Elites in Hollywood, and in the board rooms of Silicon Valley and big media outfits in New York and Washington, will have difficulty explaining their love affair with the Saudis after reports that they kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and dismembered Kamal Khashoggi, a journalist and a permanent U.S. resident.

Khashoggi, who lived in Virginia, vanished after he entered the Saudi embassy in Istanbul on Oct. 2. As a critic of the new Saudi regime led by Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, Khashoggi refused to call himself a dissident.

He went to the embassy to get documents for his impending marriage, and it is now believed the Saudis lured him there with the aim of seizing him. Turkish intelligence, which monitors foreign embassies, later posted footage of him entering the building. There was no evidence he ever left it alive.

The Turks released photos of what they called a 15-man Saudi assassination team that also entered the embassy. The team had a recognized forensic expert and someone reportedly carrying a bone saw. This led the Turks to claim that Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered inside the building and his remains transferred to two private planes that flew into Istanbul that day and later left for Saudi Arabia. It was a classic hit and a tactic they have been using against Saudi dissidents in other countries.

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

To the astonishment of the Turks, the Saudis declared that Khashoggi left the embassy unharmed, but refused to provide video footage. They complained that their video cameras had been out of operation. Their excuse was dismissed as pure fantasy by most intelligence experts since the Saudis are very security conscious at all diplomatic facilities. In all foreign installations, non-functioning cameras trigger a top-level security alert, but that did not happen at the Istanbul embassy. The Saudis even told Khashoggi’s future wife, who had waited outside the embassy for him for three hours, that he must have passed by her without her knowing.

A few media outlets speculated that the 15-man hit team, which Turkish intelligence said included several known Saudi special forces operatives, probably intended to kidnap and rendition Khashoggi to the Saudi capital, Riyadh, but something went terribly wrong and they killed him. Turkish intelligence dismissed that theory as a wild attempt by pro-Saudi elements to deflect from the evidence.

A question lurking in the background of the abduction is what American intelligence knew. Reports indicate the CIA knew in advance about the threat to Khashoggi. If Jared Kushner, the Mideast point man, was alerted to the threat, he had a duty to warn and protect Khashoggi, who was a U.S. resident.

So what does all of this mean in terms of what we know about Saudi Arabia and its young, impetuous leader, MBS? During a two-week East to West Coast tour in March this year, he had everyone eating out of his hand. He met Hollywood moguls, the titans of Silicon Valley, and the big names in media and politics in New York and Washington. Most of all, he spent time with Trump and Kushner, and CBS’s “60 Minutes” broadcast an upbeat profile of him.

Get Out of CashLost in the euphoria of his visit was a warning AFP referenced in November 2017 that MBS needed watching because he was impetuous and capable of destabilizing the Middle East. This assessment was first made in 2015 when he was Saudi defense minister. It came from the BND, Germany’s foreign intelligence agency. The warning was ignored in Washington, Paris, and London where Saudi money has always bought silence and blind loyalty.

What was even more shocking about the American elites who met him in March 2018 is that they had to know that months earlier he invited Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Riyadh, had him arrested, and forced him to resign and make crazy claims about Lebanon in a television broadcast. The West intervened, and Hariri was eventually released. MBS then detained many of his own princes in a hotel and forced them to hand over their riches. He threatened to invade Qatar, but that was averted after American generals convinced the White House that Qatar was a valuable ally. Despite pleas from EU nations, he continued to expand his war in Yemen, slaughtering thousands of women and children and bombing food supplies and food production in the famine torn country.

Since taking over the Saudi kingdom, he has been emboldened by his personal relationship with Kushner, who has met with him privately but has never recorded what transpired at their meetings. He threatened Qatar after a meeting with Kushner, who has established links between MBS and his family friend, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Khashoggi affair may be a bridge too far for Western leaders, though Trump seems to be running cover for MBS, claiming that a rogue group of Saudis likely killed the journalist. It will, however, be fascinating to see if the elites in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and New York who bought into the MBS charm offensive now have any regrets.

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




Famed CFR Researcher Speaks Out About 9/11

Renowned for his work on the Council on Foreign Relations, researcher and author James Perloff discusses the now-fractured 9/11 truth movement, 9/11 motives and perpetrators, and Greater Israel.

By S. T. Patrick

Seventeen years have passed since Sept. 11, 2001. The 9/11 truth community that was spawned that day has since become fractured and disorganized, every lead theorist and researcher now vehemently defending their own pet explanations. The cantankerous arguments often revolve around the “what happened” of the day. AFP contributing editor S.T. Patrick interviewed James Perloff, the author of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior and operator of JamesPerloff.com, about the 9/11 truth movement and the responsible parties that perpetrated 9/11. The following is an excerpt from that interview.


AFP: The 9/11 truth community began as a hyperactive group of skeptics who wanted to challenge the official narrative. It has become, over time, very fractured with everyone wanting to plant their ideological flags in stone. How did this happen, and can it recover?

PERLOFF: I think they are still hyperactive skeptics who want to challenge the official narrative. I think the fracturing is largely the result of disagreements over how this very clever crime was executed. As you know, there are differing theories on how the twin towers were destroyed, and what hit them in the first place. Some of these ideas may come from infiltrators, but I think most are honest attempts at resolving what happened. I don’t know anyone who has the whole thing figured out, but we’ll keep trying.

AFP: Two of America’s most vital population centers, four planes, three large metro airports, and multiple well-protected targets were involved that day. Who was responsible for planning and then executing such a massive plot?

PERLOFF: The overwhelming evidence points to Israel and its American Zionist allies in high places. This includes the five notorious “dancing Israelis” arrested after celebrating the attack; Michael Chertoff, whose mother was a founding Mossad agent, put in charge of the investigation; security at all three airports run by an Israeli-owned company; Netanyahu’s pal “Lucky” Larry Silverstein, who bought the World Trade Center less than two months before the attacks; Philip Zelikow, a dual-citizen Israeli, heading the 9/11 Commission; Judge Hellerstein, a Zionist whose son lives in Israel, blocking all litigation from victims’ families—that’s just the tip of the iceberg. For the iceberg, I recommend the Wikispooks online post “9/11: Israel Did It.” Remember, Israel, not the United States or Muslims, benefited from 9/11.

AFP: In the long-form interview we recorded for the “Midnight Writer News Show” and American Free Press, which was posted online, you mentioned possible involvement from the Sayeret Matkal. Who are they and in what ways do you believe they may have been involved?

PERLOFF: They are Israel’s elite special ops. As we discussed in the interview, it would be virtually impossible for the alleged amateur Arab hijackers to have seized the cockpits with such deadly proficiency, then to have flown all three planes into their targets with bullseye accuracy at speeds well over the planes’ design limits. I have reviewed this with pilots, and one of the scenarios we’re looking at is that remote-control drones were substituted, a variation on Operation Northwoods. If this occurred, we believe the original planes were indeed hijacked, but diverted over the Atlantic, a mission Israel would have only entrusted to Sayeret Matkal.

AFP: What was the endgame for 9/11? Was it the perpetuation of a war state? Was it about domestic surveillance? What was it all for?

PERLOFF: Long term, it was certainly about starting these perpetual Middle East wars that are clearing the way for what Zionists call “Greater Israel,” as well as the police state at home. Short term, there were some other benefits—shorting airline stocks, destroying investigations into financial scandals, and a credible case has been made that the destruction of the twin towers, and the immolation of humans inside, may have been a type of Luciferian sacrifice, not unlike Dresden and Nagasaki.

AFP: JFK assassination researchers have rejected the public notion that there is a “smoking gun” to be found through more research. It is resolved in the field that Oswald was not the “lone nut.” In the 9/11 research field, where is the research headed? What are the next steps of research that will be conducted over the next 10 years?

PERLOFF: I can’t say that I notice any general trend in the 9/11 community that would enable us to forecast where it will go next. I do sense that there is a greater willingness among some to reexamine some of the hypotheses that have been out there. Because, of course, when you have competing hypotheses that contradict each other, they can’t all be right. And that was certainly true for the Kennedy assassination as well.

Shadows of Power, Perloff
“The CFR and the American Decline” at the AFP Online Store.

AFP: New researchers need a good starting point for their work. If you had a college student ask you what the first thread of research to pull should be, what would you tell them? Where should they begin?

PERLOFF: I’d start with the most obvious evidence. For most people, that’s building 7, which fell at free-fall speed even though no plane touched it. Then I’d look at the towers themselves, and how everything inside them other than steel—all the furniture, toilets, computers, concrete—were vaporized into dust. Many buildings have collapsed over the years, but can anyone name one that had an outcome like that?


James Perloff set a new bar for research regarding the Council on Foreign Relations in his book The Shadows of Power. He continued that research into the New World Order with Truth is a Lonely Warrior. He is currently working on a book solely about 9/11.


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




Nikki Haley for President?

Israel-firsters are eyeing former UN ambassador and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley for president in 2020, but, as Philip Giraldi points out, “Haley did nothing to enhance American security and only succeeded in pandering to certain powerful constituencies within the United States, to include the neoconservatives in the media and the Israel lobby.”

By Philip Giraldi

The New York Times has produced an astonishing editorial, “Nikki Haley will be missed,” on the resignation of America’s United Nations ambassador.

It is comparable in some ways to the whitewash afforded to the hideous warmonger and self-promoting liar Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on his death in August. The oleaginous Haley eulogy has to be read to appreciate how low America’s self-described newspaper of record has sunk. According to the Times, Haley, a “moderate Republican,” . . . “could talk bluntly” while also proving to be a “practitioner of multilateral diplomacy” who played “constructive roles” and also served as “a pragmatic envoy who could explain the president to a world confused by the chaos in Washington.”

Given that kind of effusive language it would have been interesting to see what the Times came up with to support all the praise. Actually, the bits of her bio cited do little to support the narrative. It is claimed that she “protected some of the American investment in the United Nations against the most drastic budget cuts sought by the White House, while also working to reform the United Nations bureaucracy” for which there is no clear evidence.

Get Out of CashThe editorial also claims that she maintained some independence from the president on relations with Russia, Venezuela, and other matters, though her degree of separation can certainly be questioned, as she was often the one leading the charge using threats directed against foreign governments and their policies. She has also been the seemingly dedicated advocate of nearly continuous pro-Israel positions, ranging from using the UN to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, to also including blocking any investigation of the Israeli army’s slaughter of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza. In addition, she led the effort to cut funds going to the agency providing critical food and medical assistance to millions of Palestinian refugees.

Haley has consistently taken a hard line against Iran, aggressively supporting Trump’s abrogation of the agreement to control its nuclear weapons, and she has ominously warned that Washington will be “taking names” of countries that don’t support its agenda in the Middle East, to include moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and American military engagement in Syria.

Admittedly, going after the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is a bit of low-hanging fruit, as the position seems to attract individuals who like to vent their dissatisfaction with the world while also providing one remedy, namely that everyone should follow the American lead on all things. Former ambassadors include Madeline Albright, John Bolton, and Samantha Power, making it measurably more difficult to rank Haley as the worst ambassador of all time. But there are some firsts associated with Haley. She was the first ambassador to witness an American president being laughed at during the annual speech to the United Nations General Assembly, a response that the Times attributes solely to a decline in America’s international standing under Trump, ignoring completely the impact of Haley’s threatening language and demeanor.

On balance, Haley did nothing to enhance American security and only succeeded in pandering to certain powerful constituencies within the United States, to include the neoconservatives in the media and the Israel lobby. Praise of her on her impending departure from the UN is suggestive of whom exactly she managed to please while she was in office. The ubiquitous neocon-in-chief Bill Kristol, who now hangs his hat at the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Emergency Committee for Israel, has long been promoting Haley for president. One leading member of Kristol’s neocon chorus, Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tweeted “Thank you [Nikki Haley] for your remarkable service. We look forward to welcoming you back to public service as president of the United States.” Dubowitz is a Canadian and it would be nice if he could be deported to a remote Internet-free spot on Baffin Island where he can cease interfering in American politics.

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

Haley was also praised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the Twitter social media platform, “I would like to thank Ambassador [Nikki Haley], who led the uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice of our country. Best of luck!” The Israeli army itself had nice things to say, tweeting “Thank you [Nikki Haley] for your service in the UN and unwavering support for Israel and the truth. The soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces salute you!”

Angry responses to the IDF tweet observed “‘Unwavering support’ aka, blind allegiance. You love her for the reasons the rest of us despise her. She left the Human Rights Council, pulled the U.S. out of the Iran deal, slashed funds to UNRWA, moved embassy to Jerusalem, and was exaggerated in her support for the IDF when they abuse Palestinian human rights.”

Like many others in the foreign policy establishment, Haley is all about Israel because she understands that leaning that way provides instant access to money and plenty of positive press coverage, including in The New York Times. She has declared that Washington was “locked and loaded,” prepared to exercise lethal military options against Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies, seen as enemies by Israel. Immediately upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that “nowhere has the UN’s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel” and vowed that the “days of Israel bashing are over.” Not surprisingly, she was greeted by rounds of applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying, “When I come to AIPAC I am with friends.”

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Haley’s embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: “Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the UN are mutually exclusive?” Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking every Palestinian.

Haley is surrounded by neocons. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. A profoundly ignorant Haley apparently also has bits and pieces of her own foreign policy apart from Israel, which makes her particularly dangerous. She has declared that Russia “is not, will not be our friend” and has described the Russians as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children.

So it’s Israel all the way for Haley, and we are likely to see her again in 2020 in spite of her pledge to Trump that she would both support and not run against him. The Jewish publication Forward recently published a speculative article suggesting that if she were to run for president a majority of American Jews might well vote for her, turning the Jewish community from solidly Democratic Party Blue to Republican Red. It would be the first time that a majority of Jews voted for a national GOP candidate. Though a great victory for Israel, it would also be a disaster for the United States if she were elected, like a proudly ignorant Sarah Palin on steroids. That outcome does not seem to bother the editors at Forward one bit, unfortunately.

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.




The Saudis Keep Changing Their Story on the Murder of Khashoggi. What Should We Do?

“Washington’s continued relationship with Saudi Arabia . . . is a partnership that is in no way beneficial to Americans or the U.S. national interest,” writes Dr. Paul. And it’s certainly not beneficial to the thousands of people in Yemen being slaughtered by Saudi Arabia. We must heed the foreign policy guidelines set forth by George Washington and end our “entangling alliances” with all foreign nations.

By Ron Paul

The Saudi version of the disappearance and murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi seems to change every day or so. The latest is the Saudi government claim that the opposition journalist was killed in a “botched interrogation” at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Or was it a fist-fight? What is laughable is that the Saudi king has placed Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, a prime suspect, in charge of the investigation of Khashoggi’s murder!

Though the official story keeps changing, what is unlikely to change is Washington’s continued relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is a partnership that is in no way beneficial to Americans or the U.S. national interest.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

President Trump has promised “severe punishment” if the Saudi government is found to have been involved in Khashoggi’s murder, but he also took off the table any reduction in arms sales to prop up the murderous Saudi war on Yemen. It’s all about jobs, said President Trump. So the Saudi killing of thousands in Yemen can go on. Some murders are more important than others, obviously.

The killing of Khashoggi puts the Trump Administration in a difficult situation. President Trump views Iran as designated enemy number one. Next month the U.S. administration intends to impose a new round of sanctions designed to make it impossible for Iran to sell its oil on the international market. To keep U.S. fuel prices from spiking over this move Trump is relying on other countries, especially Saudi Arabia, to pump more and make up the difference. But the Saudis have threatened $400-a-barrel oil if President Trump follows through with his promise of “severe punishment” over the killing of Khashoggi.

The Saudis have also threatened to look for friendship in Moscow or even Tehran if Washington insists on “punishing” the regime in Riyadh. For a superpower, the U.S. doesn’t seem to have many options.

What the whole mess reveals is just how wise our founding fathers were to warn us against entangling alliances. For too many decades the U.S. has been in an unhealthy relationship with the Saudi kingdom, providing the Saudis with a U.S. security guarantee in exchange for “cheap” oil and the laundering of oil profits through the U.S. military-industrial complex by the purchase of billions of dollars in weapons.

Get Out of Cash

This entangling relationship with Saudi Arabia should end. It is unfortunate that the tens of thousands of civilians dead from Yemen to Syria due to Saudi aggression don’t matter as much as the murder of one establishment journalist like Khashoggi, but as one Clinton flack once said, we should not let this current crisis go to waste.

This is not about demanding that the Saudis change their ways, reform their society on the lines of a liberal democracy, or allow more women to drive. The problem with our relationship with Saudi Arabia is not about Saudi Arabia. It is about us. The United States should not be in the business of selling security guarantees overseas to the highest bidder. We are constantly told that the U.S. military guarantees our own safety, and so it should be.

No, this is about returning to a foreign policy that seeks friendship and trade with all nations who seek the same, but that heeds the warning of George Washington in his Farewell Address that “a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.” If we care about the United States we must heed this warning. No more passionate attachments overseas. Friendship and trade over all.

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.

Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute.



Finish the Fed

The new Issue 43 & 44 of American Free Press is in the mail, and digital subscribers can read their newspaper online here. Not yet a subscriber? Click here for subscription options and don’t miss another issue of AFP. In our front-page article, Fed critic Ron Paul says the Federal Reserve is creating conditions that make a devastating economic crisis “inevitable.”

By Paul Angel

We here at American Free Press resist financial fearmongering for one simple reason. Most of the doom-and-gloom hype over an “impending financial collapse” is usually pushed by Wall Street brokers and banksters who profit mightily from getting you to move your stocks around or avail yourself of their high-priced investment newsletters. But the latest comments by former Rep. Ron Paul about the economy caught our eyes.

As Paul points out in a recent column, early October’s “frantic stock market sell-off indicates the failure to learn the lessons of 2008 and makes another meltdown inevitable.”

It’s been a decade since the financial meltdown of 2008 rocked America, mostly due to the bursting of the Fed’s artificially created housing bubble. Unfortunately, as Paul points out, “The government should have let the downturn run its course in order to correct the malinvestments made during the phony, Fed-created boom. This may have caused some short-term pain, but it would have ensured the recovery would be based on a solid foundation rather than a bubble of fiat currency.”

Survival of the Richest, JeffriesAll of that was caused by yet another gargantuan mistake by the Fed, Paul says, seven years earlier. “In 2001-2002 the Federal Reserve responded to the economic downturn caused by the bursting of the technology bubble by pumping money into the economy. This new money ended up in the housing market.

This was because the so-called ‘conservative’ Bush administration, like the ‘liberal’ Clinton administration before it, was using the Community Reinvestment Act and government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make mortgages available to anyone who wanted one—regardless of income or credit history.”

Banks were more than happy to “lend first, ask questions later, when foreclosing,” says Paul.

So instead of letting the problem correct itself—with a good dose of attendant but necessary pain, Congress instead bailed out Wall Street and the big banks. How? Paul says, “The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to historic lows and embarked on a desperate attempt to inflate the economy via quantitative easing 1, 2, and 3.”

And this has left us where we are today, with Republicans alleging the economy is in the best condition it ever has been in U.S. history and Democrats clamoring to place the credit with the Barack Obama administration. The truth is, government and personal debt are out of control. As Paul says, “Credit card debt is over a trillion dollars, student loan debt is at $1.5 trillion, there is a bubble in auto loans, and there is even a new housing bubble. But the biggest part of the ‘everything’ bubble is the government bubble. Federal debt is over $21 trillion and expanding by [an astronomical] tens of thousands of dollars per second.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Obviously, this cannot sustain itself, leaving the Fed in a bit of a dilemma. Today, the entire economy is a bubble just waiting to burst. And inflation is rearing its ugly head at the same time. To control that, the Fed will have to gradually increase interest rates.

“The Fed will be unsuccessful in keeping the ‘everything bubble’ from exploding. When the bubble bursts, America will experience an economic crisis much greater than the 2008 meltdown or the Great Depression,” says Paul. Paul’s solution, however, is simple.

“A secretive central bank should not be allowed to manipulate interest rates and distort economic signals regarding market conditions. Such action leads to malinvestment and an explosion of individual, business, and government debt. This may cause a temporary boom, but the boom soon will be followed by a bust. The only way this cycle can be broken without a major crisis is for Congress to restore people’s right to use the currency of their choice and to audit and then end the Fed.”

We agree.




WikiLeaks & the Espionage Act

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can’t be tried under the 1917 Espionage Act because he’s a journalist. Should Ecuador oust Assange from its embassy where he’s lived since 2012, he faces extradition by the UK to the U.S. to face charges of leaking classified information. In early October, Ecuador issued a new set of rules for Assange. “Almost seven months after Ecuador threatened to remove his protection and summarily cut off his access to the outside world, including by refusing to allow journalists and human rights organisations to see him, and installing three signal jammers in the embassy to prevent his phone calls and Internet access,” WikiLeaks stated, Assange has filed a lawsuit against Ecuador for the violation of his “fundamental rights.”

By S.T. Patrick

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently told news and commentary website “Consortium News” that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot be tried under the Espionage Act of 1917 because Assange is a journalist. Ellsberg still contends that he, himself, was unfairly indicted under the act in 1973 after he leaked a critical Pentagon study of top-level Vietnam War decision-making to The New York Times and other newspapers.

The charges were dismissed against Ellsberg five months after they were levied in 1973. He has since become an outspoken advocate for whistleblowers and the practice of whistleblowing and has supported Assange as well as Edward Snowden and Chelsea (Bradley) Manning.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

As the pressure and restrictions on Assange heat up in his seventh year within the Ecuadorian embassy in London, changes have been made at WikiLeaks. Assange has appointed Kristinn Hrafnsson as the new editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, though he will remain as publisher. This was announced in a tweet by WikiLeaks after “six months of effective incommunicado detention.” Ecuador’s new President Lenin Moreno has been critical of Assange, but he has stated that Ecuador will maintain Assange’s status “as long as we assume his life may be in danger.”

In an interview organized by “Unity4J.com,” Ellsberg told “Consortium News” editor-in-chief Joe Lauria that the motivations of U.S. leaders have little to do with their repeated justification of “national security.”

“The purpose is not to protect national security but to protect the asses of the people who wrote the directives,” Ellsberg said. He then went on to repeat his long-standing argument that the “classified” label is overused at the expense of the public’s right to know.

Ellsberg then emphasized that the Espionage Act should not be applied to those who are engaging in non-spying activities in an effort to inform the public via publishing or journalism.

“Julian is not a whistleblower per se but a facilitator of whistleblowing,” Ellsberg argued, “the point being that, as a journalist, he cannot fairly be tried under the Espionage Act. . . . It is essential that Julian Assange not be indicted, be convicted, or be extradited to the United States.”

Ellsberg has long been cited as one of the sharpest thorns in the side of the Nixon administration. The administration’s response to Ellsberg was to form a group called the “White House Plumbers,” created by aides Egil Krogh and David Young under John Ehrlichman. The Plumbers would later unsuccessfully carry out the second Watergate break-in. Ellsberg could have made a comfortable life for himself as a Democratic Party politician or activist, but he did not. He has remained loyal to the anti-war movement and to the cause of whistleblowing, regardless of political party.

Get Out of CashIn 2013, Ellsberg became one of the most outspoken critics of the Barack Obama administration’s prosecution of leakers. The administration had prosecuted Manning in 2010 for leaking a large cache of classified documents to Assange and WikiLeaks.

“I’m sure that President Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case,” Ellsberg told The Washington Post in 2013. “First of all, there’s no question that President Obama is conducting an unprecedented campaign against unauthorized disclosure. The government had used the Espionage Act against leaks only three times before his administration. He’s used it six times. He’s doing his best to assure that sources in the government will have reason to fear heavy prison sentences for informing the American public in ways he doesn’t want.”

There is a fear on the part of pro-whistleblower activists that extradition to the United States will almost certainly result in prosecution of Assange by a tough-talking Trump administration. However, there may be a motive beyond national security now, and it may be one that potentially saves Assange. The Trump administration has a vested interest in Assange revealing that his 2016 Democratic Party email leaks came from the murdered Seth Rich, a DNC tech staffer. A Democratic Party that wants that information kept private may also work to block Assange’s extradition, but under different public pretenses.

For Assange’s future, the Rich information may just be the trump card, so to speak, that he needs to guarantee that he can continue the legacy of Ellsberg.

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.




Soros Agenda Clear in Europe

The network of organizations run by George Soros is working tirelessly to flood the European continent with migrants. Hungary’s “Stop Soros” laws aim to thwart his efforts.

By John Friend

The Open Society Foundations (OSF), the subversive globalist organization headed by infamous international plutocrat George Soros, aims to undermine the sovereignty of nation-states around the world. Recently, it was learned that the global group filed applications challenging laws passed in Hungary that target individuals and civic groups working with refugees and asylum seekers to undermine immigration reform measures enacted by the Hungarian government.

OSF supports and finances a number of groups and organizations operating in Hungary that have become targets of the laws, passed in the aftermath of the sweeping electoral victory of Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party earlier this year for the third straight time, as reported on by this newspaper.

Orban, who is increasingly demonized in the Western press as a racist, xenophobic autocrat, is a long-time critic of the European Union, non-European immigration into Hungary, refugee resettlement, and the prevailing liberal order, which he views as an assault on the people, traditions, and culture of Hungary specifically and of Europe more generally. Orban has correctly described the activists that OSF supports as “being paid by Soros to ‘transform Hungary into an immigrant country,’ ” which the populist prime minister and his ruling party are seeking to prevent.

Kingdom Identity

In late August, OSF filed legal challenges to the Hungarian laws at both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France and Hungary’s Constitutional Court.

“The government has undermined judicial independence, tamed the media, and now seeks to silence civil society groups, which are among the last critical public voices left in Hungary,” the organization said in a statement. Other globalist organizations and media outlets have also lambasted the commonsense measures enacted by Orban’s Hungary.

“The Hungarian government has fabricated a narrative of lies to blind people to the truth: that these laws were designed to intimidate independent civil society groups, in another step towards silencing all dissent,” OSF president Patrick Gaspard hysterically stated.

The “Stop Soros” legislation, a series of laws passed in June, threatens with up to a year of jail time “anyone who helps refugees who are not entitled to protection apply for asylum, or helps illegal migrants gain status to stay in Hungary.”

Refugee scams have become a major problem throughout the Western world, as desperate and opportunistic Third World immigrants—often with the active assistance of subversive civic groups and NGOs—lie and embellish their immigration documents to ensure they meet certain conditions for permanent or temporary political asylum.

Soros-Not Easy Being God
The Real George Soros at the AFP Store.

In July the Hungarian Parliament also voted to levy a 25% special tax against non-governmental organizations “supporting or positively portraying migration” by providing financial or material support to groups promoting migration.

OSF attorney Daniela Ikawa said the measures breach EU conventions on freedom of speech and association, and expose “a broad range of legitimate activities to the risk of criminal prosecution.”

“The tax law is so broadly written that the Hungarian government could target virtually all funding for rights groups and civil society even if a small portion of the funding goes to migration,” James Goldston, the director of OSF’s legal team, told the international press following the announcement of the legal challenge.

The Hungarian government has defiantly stood by its prime minister and the laws that have been enacted to combat subversive and hostile organizations operating on Hungarian territory.

Popular British publication The Independentreports a Hungarian government spokesman stated: “The government stands by the Stop Soros package of laws . . . as the legislation serves the will of the Hungarian people and the security of Hungary and Europe. The Soros organization attacks the Stop Soros package with all possible means, as the legislation stands in the way of illegal immigration. The aim of George Soros and organizations supported by him is to flood Europe with migrants.”

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Trump to UN: America Before Globalism

In speaking to the UN late last month, President Trump emphasized the right of nations to be proud of their heritage and take control of their destiny. “We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

By John Friend

President Donald Trump’s second address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 26 was used as yet another opportunity for the populist businessman turned president to blast globalism and reaffirm his commitment to put America first. The speech echoed many of the themes that got Trump elected and ones which he has long been championing: an emphasis on placing the interests of the American people and workers first and foremost in any foreign or domestic policy consideration, a rejection of globalism, and an affirmation of national sovereignty, among other important topics.

Trump began the speech by trumpeting his administration’s accomplishments, which he argued amounted to “more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” which drew a mixed reaction from those in attendance. The president praised his administration’s handling of the U.S. economy, which he argues is “booming like never before,” and highlighted the success of the stock market, the return of U.S. manufacturing and industrial jobs, and the reduction in the unemployment rate, especially for minorities.

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

The president then moved on to focus on his concept of “patriotism over globalism,” noting that the representatives in the room are each “the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history, and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition, and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth,” emphasizing the right of each unique nation to be proud of its heritage and to take control of its destiny.

“That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination,” the president continued. “I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

The president commented later in his speech that “America is governed by Americans,” and went on to denounce globalism. “We reject the ideology of globalism and accept the doctrine of patriotism,” he boldly declared.

He would later defend his decision to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. He added that the U.S. will “provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court [ICC]” at the Hague.

“As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority,” President Trump defiantly stated. “The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.”

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

Throughout the speech, Trump repeatedly emphasized his America-first stance while underscoring his administration’s respect for the sovereignty of other nations and their desires to pursue their own unique political and economic interests.

In typical fashion, Trump declared that America “will not be taken advantage of any longer,” referring to the disastrous free-trade deals negotiated by previous U.S. administrations that have had serious repercussions for American workers and corporations, particularly in manufacturing and industrial production. He then highlighted the recent trade agreements his administration has negotiated, which include deals with Mexico and Korea, as well as increasing sanctions on Chinese-produced goods that are exported to the United States. Tariffs have been increased on other countries, too, which represent a concerted effort by the Trump administration to protect its citizens from the ravages of unfettered and entirely unfair so-called free trade, a longstanding principal of the post-WWII global economic order.

“We will no longer tolerate such abuse,” the president declared. “We will not allow our workers to be victimized, our companies to be cheated, and our wealth to be plundered and transferred. America will never apologize for protecting its citizens.”

Get Out of CashDespite his strong rejection of globalism and open desire to place the interests of the American people and nation first, the president totally embraced discredited and false neoconservative positions on Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict, demonstrating the strong influence that Israeli partisans and Zionist sympathizers have in the Trump administration. During the speech, the president hysterically denounced the Iranian government for purportedly fomenting chaos and destruction in the region—critiques that any honest observer of Middle Eastern affairs knows full well apply to America and Israel’s aggressive and criminal actions taken in the region over the course of the past two decades.

“Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death, and destruction,” Trump stated during the speech. “They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations.” In reality, it is not Iran but America and its Western allies that have sown “chaos, death, and destruction” in the region—all at the behest of the state of Israel.

Despite the tired neoconservative rhetoric, the president’s speech was clearly a strong and forceful denunciation of the ideology of globalism and the New World Order agenda, and an open and proud embrace of patriotism and national sovereignty.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Caravan Puts Trump Legacy on the Line

With President Trump having been elected largely on an anti-immigration/border security platform, an opportunity for him to defend his line in the sand—and impact the mid-term election outcome—is currently at hand. Writes Buchanan: “As of Thursday, a caravan of 4,000 refugees without visas had crossed from Honduras into Guatemala and was heading toward Mexico. By Election Day, it will either have been stopped, or it will be here. And this caravan is a portent of things to come.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Our mainstream media remain consumed with the grisly killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and how President Donald Trump will deal with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Understandably so, for this is the most riveting murder story since O.J. Simpson and has strategic implications across the Middle East.

Yet far more critical to the future of our civilization is the ongoing invasion of the West from the Third World.

Consider the impact of the decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015 to throw open Germany’s doors to 1 million refugees from Syria’s civil war.

Last weekend, in a crushing blow to Merkel, the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of her CDU, won its smallest share of the vote in half a century, 37%. Her coalition party, the SPD, saw its share of the Bavarian vote fall to a historic low of less than 10%.

The right-wing Alternative for Deutchland saw its support rise to 10% and has become a force in German politics. Some conservatives are urging the CDU to adopt the AfD hardline on illegal immigration.

The message sent by the Bavarian electorate is the message voters across Europe have been sending to their own capitals for years: You are failing in your first duty—defense of the homeland from foreign invasion. Mass migration of unassimilable peoples and cultures from a global South represents an existential threat to our Europe.

As Merkel’s chancellorship approaches its end, French President Emmanuel Macron, her progressive EU partner, has seen his approval fall to below 30%.

The U.S.-led NATO alliance may guard the Baltic and Black Sea regions against a Russian invasion from the east. But in Central, Southern, and Western Europe, the more feared invaders are the peoples of Africa and the Muslim world, whose numbers are expected to triple or quadruple by this century’s end.

And as their numbers grow, so, too, does their desperation to escape, even at risk of their lives, the poverty, wars, and repression of their homelands to cross the Med and fill the empty spaces left by a depopulating Europe.

It also now appears that the U.S. elections, not three weeks away, may be affected by another immigration crisis on the U.S. border.

Get Out of CashAs of Thursday, a caravan of 4,000 refugees without visas had crossed from Honduras into Guatemala and was heading toward Mexico. By Election Day, it will either have been stopped, or it will be here. And this caravan is a portent of things to come.

According to The Washington Post, during FY 2018, which ended last month, 107,212 members of “family units” crossed over into the U.S., “obliterating the previous record of 77,857 set in 2016.”

Citing DHS figures, the Post adds, “Border patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September alone, the highest one-month total on record and an 80% increase from July.”

When Trump, under intense political fire, ended his “zero tolerance” policy of separating refugees from their children, this message went out to Mexico and Central America:

Bring your kids with you when you cross the border. They will have to stay with you, and they cannot be held for more than 20 days. Thus, when they are released, you will be released to await a hearing on your claim of asylum. The odds are excellent that you can vanish into the U.S. population and never be sent back.

Enraged, Trump has threatened to cut off aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala if they do not stop the caravans and has warned Mexico he will use the U.S. military to secure our border.

Unwanted mass migration is the issue of our time, as there is no foreseeable end to it before it alters America irremediably.

As these migrants are almost all poor, not highly skilled, and do not speak English, most will join that segment of our population that pays no income taxes but qualifies for social welfare benefits like food stamps, medical care, and free education in our public schools.

They are thus a net drain upon the resources of a nation that is already, at full employment, running a deficit of $779 billion a year.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

These migrants, however, are a present and future benefit to the Democratic Party that built and maintains our mammoth welfare state, and which, in presidential elections, routinely wins 70 to 90% of the votes of people whose trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Not without reason, Democrats believe that if they can change the composition of the American electorate, they can control America forever.

If Donald Trump was elected on any one issue, it was immigration and his promises to secure the border, build the wall, and halt the invasion.

How he deals with the impending crisis of the migrant caravan may affect both the fate of his party in November and his presidency in 2020.

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