Too Many Wars. Too Many Enemies.

NATO is staring down “the worst crisis in its history,” says Pat Buchanan, and the U.S. decision on whether to stand with the Kurds against Turkish aggression or abandon the Kurds will determine if NATO survives. With this and many other hotspots at a boiling point, what is the mainstream American media focusing on? Whether Mueller’s Russiagate witch hunt will be discredited.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Turkey is not bluffing, U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria, could be under fire by week’s end, and NATO engulfed in the worst crisis in its history.

Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his troops will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.

Erdogan’s foreign minister demanded concrete steps by the U.S. to end its support of the Kurds, who control the Syrian border with Turkey east of the Euphrates, all the way to Iraq.

If the Turks attack Manbij, the U.S. will face a choice: Stand by our Kurdish allies and resist the Turks, or abandon the Kurds.

Should the U.S. let the Turks drive the Kurds out of Manbij and the entire Syrian border area with Turkey, as Erdogan threatens, U.S. credibility would suffer a blow from which it would not soon recover.

But to stand with the Kurds and oppose Erdogan’s forces could mean a crackup of NATO and loss of U.S. bases inside Turkey, including the air base at Incirlik.

IRS Loses Cases

Turkey also sits astride the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea. NATO’s loss of Turkey would thus be a triumph for Vladimir Putin, who gave Ankara the green light to cleanse the Kurds from Afrin.

Yet Syria is but one of many challenges to U.S. foreign policy.

The Winter Olympics in South Korea may have taken the threat of a North Korean ICBM that could hit the U.S. out of the news, but no one believes that threat is behind us.

Last week, China charged that the USS Hopper, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal, a reef in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, though it is far closer to Luzon in the Philippines. The destroyer, says China, was chased off by one of her frigates. If we continue to contest China’s territorial claims with U.S. warships, a clash is inevitable.

In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.

U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with being a duplicitous and false friend.

Neocon Threat-Roberts-cover
Dangers of the neocons laid out by Paul Craig Roberts, at the bookstore.

“The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

As for America’s longest war, in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, the end is nowhere on the horizon.

A week ago, the International Hotel in Kabul was attacked and held for 13 hours by Taliban gunmen who killed 40. Midweek, a Save the Children facility in Jalalabad was attacked by ISIS, creating panic among aid workers across the country.

Saturday, an ambulance exploded in Kabul, killing 103 people and wounding 235. Monday, Islamic State militants attacked Afghan soldiers guarding a military academy in Kabul. With the fighting season two months off, U.S. troops will not soon be departing.

If Pakistan is indeed providing sanctuary for the terrorists of the Haqqani network, how does this war end successfully for the United States?

Last week, in a friendly fire incident, the U.S.-led coalition killed 10 Iraqi soldiers. The Iraq war began 15 years ago.

Yet another war, where the humanitarian crisis rivals Syria, continues on the Arabian Peninsula. There, a Saudi air, sea and land blockade that threatens the Yemeni people with starvation has failed to dislodge Houthi rebels who seized the capital Sanaa three years ago.

This weekend brought news that secessionist rebels, backed by the United Arab Emirates, have seized power in Yemen’s southern port of Aden, from the Saudi-backed Hadi regime fighting the Houthis.

These rebels seek to split the country, as it was before 1990.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE appear to be backing different horses in this tribal-civil-sectarian war into which America has been drawn.

There are other wars—Somalia, Libya, Ukraine—where the U.S. is taking sides, sending arms, training troops, flying missions.

Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fight for scores of nations, with troops on every continent, and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware.

“I didn’t know there were 1,000 troops in Niger,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. “We don’t know exactly where we’re at in the world, militarily, and what we’re doing.”

No, we don’t, Senator.

As in all empires, power is passing to the generals.

And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial city?

Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russiagate. 

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

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM



Arpaio Will Run for Senate

Famed Arizona lawman “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio spoke with AFP about his upcoming campaign plans to run for the Arizona U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Jeff Flake. He talks about his sole reason for running, his previous election experiences, the recently concluded criminal misdemeanor contempt case brought against him by the feds and its one “loose end,” and more. 

By Mark Anderson

Former longtime Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio spoke to AFP Jan. 21 in an exclusive interview about his recently announced bid to fill the seat of departing U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). While reflecting on his 58 years in federal and state law enforcement and discussing his political views, the embattled but resilient lawman said he intends to serve for one term and feels he has a respectable chance to prevail.

“What’s good about my race is that I’m not going to make a career out of it,” he told AFP. “My sole intention is to serve the people of Arizona.”

Comparing his Senate bid with his past Maricopa County election efforts that earned him the sheriff’s post for 24 years, Arpaio is challenging mainstream-media naysayers. He points out that, since Maricopa County is larger in population and/or land area than 18 states, this statewide Senate race is not too much of a stretch, especially given his notoriety.

IRS Loses Cases

“I’ve never lost a Republican primary,” he said. “I won seven of them,” including even the 2016 sheriff’s office primary by a comfortable margin despite media efforts to scuttle his primary bid. He lost the general election to a former Phoenix police officer, amid sustained negative publicity about the government taking him to trial.

A three-way primary is already shaping up. Besides Arpaio, Republican Kelli Ward, a former state senator, is running, as is one-term GOP Congresswoman Martha McSally, a retired Air Force officer. Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is running, too, and she’ll likely have a primary challenge.

Since Sen. Flake is vacating his seat, partly over blowback from excessively ridiculing Trump’s policies, Arpaio has the advantage of not having to unseat an incumbent. He also has good statewide and national name-recognition in a border state whose two sitting senators both stump for amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“Arizonans largely continue to see illegal immigration as a major problem but believe undocumented immigrants should be treated humanely,” according to a March 2015 poll by Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

Arpaio said that his critics who see him as a rogue character “forgot all the drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs I had in the jail,” referring to humane policies he applied toward assisting prisoners, including illegal aliens.

Arpaio said that a major motivation for his Senate run is that Flake, along with the other Arizona senator, John McCain, are part of a small establishment-Republican vanguard who’ve unduly and unfairly obstructed the president’s agenda, including Trump’s pledge to stop runaway immigration, an issue on which Arpaio and Trump clearly agree.

Yet most media, Arpaio said, report as if this vanguard represents virtually the entire Senate.

“You can count the vocal ones on one hand,” Arpaio remarked. “But I don’t like what’s going on with the two senators from Arizona zeroing in on the president.”

Notably, Sens. Flake, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) are in a faction called the “gang of six,” joining forces with Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), scandal-ridden Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.). Their goal, according to a recent op-ed in The Hill, a Beltway newspaper, is to “give amnesty to millions of so-called Dreamers [those who entered the U.S. illegally as children] and their illegal-alien parents.”

Arpaio has a rather colorful background. After a U.S. Army stint from 1950-53, he became a Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police officer in 1957. He also briefly served as a Las Vegas patrolman. Pursuing higher aspirations, he was sworn in as a federal Drug Enforcement Administration officer in Chicago that year in November, while getting married the following month. He calls 1957 his banner year. He and his wife, Ava, recently celebrated 60 years of marriage.

Politically, Arpaio came out early in support of Trump in 2015. Previously, he was honorary state chairman for George W. Bush’s first campaign and supported the presidential runs of Rick Perry in 2012 and Mitt Romney in 2008. He feels he’s a loyal Republican but not a GOP “rubber stamp.”

“I do agree with the president’s policies on international trade—anything that will help the economy of our country. We should be using money spent overseas on our country, on our highways and byways,” he told AFP.

STATE of EMERGENCY: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
Related, at the AFP Bookstore: STATE of EMERGENCY.

Thus, Arpaio supports Trump on the NAFTA renegotiation, because it could rev up the U.S. economy as well as Mexico’s—a rebalancing that Arpaio believes would reduce the incentive for illegal border crossings into the U.S.

Arpaio has faced his share of media brickbats since at least 2006, when he became nationally known as a so-called “hardliner” for wanting to get a handle on the huge influx of illegal immigrants flowing into his jurisdiction. He was clobbered again when the Department of Justice sued him for his “willful” decision to disregard a 2011 federal injunction issued to bar him from continuing to arrest and detain illegal aliens during his time as sheriff.

On July 31, 2017 Arpaio was found guilty of misdemeanor criminal contempt by Judge Susan Bolton—who, according to one of Arpaio’s attorneys, Mark Goldman, improperly issued her verdict from the bench after a brief non-jury trial that ran four days and concluded July 6. Arpaio did not get the jury trial he had sought.

A loose end in those proceedings remains, in that Judge Bolton has refused to strike the misdemeanor from his record—something Arpaio is appealing. “She won’t erase my conviction,” he explained. “I was never brought before [her] and sentenced.”

When Trump pardoned Arpaio last Aug. 25, the prospect of him running for Senate was mentioned, though it wasn’t discussed at-length in major media. According to Arpaio, there’s no connection between the pardon and his Senate run.

“President Trump hasn’t called me, nor have I called him, before or since my Senate announcement,” he said, adding that the last time he spoke with Trump was by phone in November 2016 after Trump had won the presidency.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap

Robert Mueller is on a “Trump hunt,” says Pat Buchanan, and the president’s legal team should not allow him to testify in what has become an obvious “perjury trap.”
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Asked if he would agree to be interviewed by Robert Mueller’s team, President Donald Trump told the White House press corps, “I would love to do it . . . as soon as possible. . . . under oath, absolutely.”

On hearing this, the special counsel’s office must have looked like the Eagles’ locker room after the 38-7 rout of the Vikings put them in the Super Bowl.

If the president’s legal team lets Trump sit for hours answering Mueller’s agents, they should be disbarred for malpractice.

For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a “witch hunt.” It is a Trump hunt.

After 18 months investigating Trumpian “collusion” with Putin’s Russia in hacking the DNC’s and John Podesta’s emails, the FBI has hit a stone wall. Failing to get Trump for collusion, the fallback position is to charge him with obstruction of justice. As a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the tactic is understandable.

Mueller’s problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction case, Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.

IRS Loses Cases

Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets.

The first draft of Comey’s statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses, and Hillary, were even interviewed.

Comey’s initial draft charged Clinton with “gross negligence,” the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent drafts to read, “extreme carelessness.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.

Also edited out of Comey’s statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the public did.

A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, “What did you know, sir, and when did you know it?”

More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher Steele, who worked up—for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign—the Steele dossier detailing Trump’s ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.

Books from Pat BuchananWhile the Steele dossier was shopped around town to the media, which, unable to substantiate its lurid and sensational charges, declined to publish them, Comey’s FBI went all in.

Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ.

Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction.

An aggressive Republican Party on the Hill, however, has forced the FBI to cough up documents that are casting the work of Comey’s cohorts in an ever more partisan and sinister light.

This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump, and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his oath.

Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI.

What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to intemperate speech are using words like “criminal,” “conspiracy,” “corruption” and “coup” to describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers?

Bob Mueller, who inherited this investigation, is sitting on an IED because of what went on before he got there. Mueller needs to file his charges before his own investigation becomes the subject of a Justice Department investigation by a special counsel.

As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses.

This a perjury trap.

Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in writing.

At bottom, this is a political issue, an issue of power, an issue of whether the Trump revolution will be dethroned by the deep state it was sent to this capital to corral and contain.

If Trump is guilty of attempted obstruction, it appears to be not of justice, but obstruction of an injustice being perpetrated against him.

Trump should be in no hurry to respond to Mueller, for time no longer appears to be on Mueller’s side.

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

 




USS Liberty Memorial Planned for Visible Site Near Jerusalem

One brave Palestinian-American thinks it’s high time Israel honored the U.S. servicemen it massacred aboard a U.S. spy ship and for all the sacrifices this country has made to the security and well-being of the Zionist state.

By Dave Gahary

Ibrahim “Abe” Ayad, a Dearborn, Mich. born and raised American patriot, has decided to convert a parcel of land in Israel, which his family has owned for decades, into a living memorial to the 34 Americans needlessly slaughtered and 174 wounded, while serving aboard the USS Liberty (AGTR-5), by Israeli air and naval forces on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.

Abe sat down with American Free Press, to break the news of this significant announcement, explaining the genesis of it and what he hopes to accomplish.

After his grandfather was killed fighting against the British in World War I, his grandmother was in possession of a lot of property. This rankled the extended family, which took out their jealous frustrations on Ayad’s father, who was just five when his father was killed in battle.

“[She] smuggled him off with his cousin overseas to the United States, running away from his own people,” explained Ayad. As fate would have it, Ayad’s father, like his father before him, would fight in another world war.

“My father wound up in America. World War II had broken out, and he was caught being illegal and they gave him the choice,” said Ayad. “He loved this country so much . . . he volunteered. He was a first-wave lander on Anzio, survived the landing, [and] got wounded during the occupation. He got the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and several others.”

Ayad explained the fascinating story behind how he ended up with this parcel of land in Israel, which dates back to Operation Shingle, or the Battle of Anzio—Jan. 22 to June 5, 1944—in which nearly 15,000 young men paid the ultimate price.

“When [my dad] got wounded, he was lost for three days at a MASH unit during the air war,” said Ayad. “So the Army, in its infinite wisdom, had sent my grandmother a letter telling her he was dead. My grandmother couldn’t read English, so she took it to the village elder [who] told her, ‘Your son is dead.’ And she said, ‘He’s not dead. If he was dead I’d believe it.’ ”

Refusing to believe her only child was dead, she prepared for his return from the war.

“She was working as a nurse at a local hospital and they were trying to trick an old lady whose son they thought had died. They’d come and they’d pawn their land to her,” said Ayad, “and she’d buy it and put it in his name.”

When Ayad’s father eventually returned home, “everybody thought he was a ghost.” As his grandmother had accumulated a significant amount of land, the illegal occupation government of Israel began to make moves on it.

“All of a sudden Israel starts confiscating this land, doing all kinds of stuff to it,” said Ayad. It “was illegally confiscated even according to Israeli law, because it’s occupied territory. It can’t be taxed, and they confiscated it for tax purposes.”

Ayad tried to fight them, but Israel sicced its U.S.-based public relations firm on him.

“I’ve been fighting the Anti-Defamation League for 20 years,” he said, “and they wielded their influence over the [U.S.] Department of Justice. Even James Comey came down personally to oversee their raid against me. They robbed me of over $3 million—and this is my own government, who I pay taxes for, doing all this to me.”

Remember the Liberty cover
New at the AFP Bookstore: Remember the Liberty! by Phillip F. Nelson. Ray McGovern calls it “a must-read for anyone wishing to understand what actually happened to the Liberty and to contemplate the implications.”

Ayad then discussed his plans for the Liberty memorial, which he first started thinking about five or six years ago.

“I don’t see any memorials in Israel: not for World War I, not for World War II,” he explained. “[Israel owes] the United States so much from two world wars, not counting all the financial and military hardware [it’s] getting from America. I would love to see a USS Liberty Memorial Hospital for all the victims of the Liberty, her crew, and all the victims that suffered after and all the victims that have suffered in two world wars and since. And it’s about time they honor America.”

The land Ayad chose for the memorial “is right off the freeway that links Jerusalem to the rest of Israel, so anybody coming into Jerusalem will have to see [it].” It’s in a suburb of Jerusalem called Beit Hanina.

Beit Hanina, a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem, is on the road to Ramallah, about five miles north of central Jerusalem. Israel split the village in two with its Israeli West Bank barrier, or wall.

The Zionist state claims the separation barrier—built during a September 2000 uprising against the brutal occupation—protects against terrorism. Palestinians know better, and refer to it as an apartheid wall, as it severely restricts travel and interferes with the ability to earn a living. The United Nations has condemned it and the International Court of Justice found the barrier to be a violation of international law.

Winding its way through villages that have existed for thousands of years, the nearly 500-mile obscenity cuts deep into West Bank territory, leaving around 25,000 Palestinians isolated from their history. Initially introduced as a temporary security measure, the Zionists are using it in a conniving way to draw future political borders between Palestine and the illegal occupation government to ensure peace negotiations never succeed, as well as using another blatantly illegal tactic to swallow more and more of the land that is not theirs.

“This village has about five illegal settlements in it,” Ayad explained.

 

Ayad explained another reason why he wants the memorial erected.

“I just wanted to do something for all the people who have died and suffered for needless wars, wars to build up the Federal Reserve so it could keep printing money and we could keep paying interest on it,” he added.

But his main reason for the memorial is the unarmed ship that was attacked by a foreign power in international waters and abandoned by its own government for over 50 years.

“It’s an honor for me to be a part of this,” Ayad told this newspaper, “just an absolute honor for me to be involved with anything that has to do with the Liberty. I will do anything I have to do in order to see it succeed, even if I’m out of the picture totally. I’ll use whatever I have against them—and they know what I’ve got—in order to see this project go through. I’m willing to die for 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 film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See the website erasingtheliberty.com or call (850) 677-0344 for more information.




Earmarks Are Not the Problem

The fact increasing numbers of legislators are “willing to vote against big government than in past years” is not because the practice of earmarks was ended but because “the liberty movement has led to more liberty-minded members being elected to the House and Senate,” says Ron Paul. 

By Dr. Ron Paul

Last week President Trump urged Congress to reassert its constitutional authority to direct how federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars. Ironically, many constitutional conservatives and libertarians disagree with the president. The reason is, President Trump wants Congress to reassert its authority by bringing back earmarks.

Earmarks are line items in spending bills directing federal agencies to spend federal funds on specific projects in a representative or senator’s district or state. Congress ended the practice of earmarks several years ago after a public outcry fueled by a widespread misunderstanding of the issue.

Earmarks are added to spending bills after the spending levels have been determined. Therefore, earmarks do not increase federal spending. What earmarks do is limit the federal bureaucrats’ ability to decide how to spend taxpayer money.

When I served in Congress, I was amazed when self-proclaimed constitutionalists complained about how earmarks prevented funding of federal bureaucrats’ priorities. These “constitutionalists” seem to have forgotten that the Constitution gives Congress sole authority over deciding how taxpayer dollars should be spent.

My support for earmarks in Congress did not add one penny to the spending in the bills. I believed that some of the tax money sent to Washington should actually make it back to congressional districts rather than remain in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. In the end, I always voted against final passage of the bloated spending bills.

Some call earmarks a gateway drug to big spending. They point to how congressional leadership denied earmarks to members unless the members voted for big spending and other anti-liberty legislation. It is true that congressional leadership used earmarks to reward and punish members. During my years in Congress, earmarks for my district were stripped from bills in an (unsuccessful) attempt to make me stop voting against unconstitutional legislation.

Congressional leaders do not need earmarks to reward or punish members. They can, for example, deny plum committee assignments to those who refuse to toe the party line, or discourage donors from supporting them.

Presidents can still use the promise of federal funds to influence congressional votes. “Presidential earmarks” were crucial to passing Obamacare, and President Trump has threatened to withhold aid from states whose senators oppose his agenda. The removal of earmarks has given the president even greater influence over the legislative branch!

The fact that there are more representatives and senators willing to vote against big government than in past years has nothing to do with the lack of earmarks. Instead, the liberty movement has led to more liberty-minded members being elected to the House and Senate.

While the ideas of liberty are growing in popularity, the majority of the people and certainly most politicians still believe the U.S. government should run the economy, run the world, and run our lives. This misplaced faith in big government, not the presence of earmarks, is why most politicians vote for big spending. No politician ever said, “Now that I can’t receive earmarks, I am abandoning my support for the welfare-warfare state.”

Earmarks are a way for elected representatives to ensure their constituents’ tax dollars are spent in a manner that matches constituent priorities. Earmarks do not by themselves expand government. Those who oppose earmarks should work to stop so many Americans from demanding government-provided economic and personal security. Earmarks are not the cause of runaway spending, and removing them has done little or nothing to shrink government and regain our liberties.

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 ronpaulinstitute.org.




Congress Reauthorizes NSA Spying on Americans

Despite cautions from members of both the House and Senate that spying by the NSA threatens Americans’ security and liberty, both houses of Congress reauthorized essentially unrestrained surveillance when they passed the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act. 

By Mark Anderson

Section 702 of the Foreign Surveillance Authorization Act (FISA) was reauthorized Jan. 18 with a Senate vote of 65-34. Originally enacted in 2008, Section 702 provided the authorization for the warrantless surveillance program “that allows the NSA to collect texts and emails of foreigners abroad without an individualized warrant, even when they communicate with Americans in the U.S.,” explains The Hill.

The Senate vote followed an affirmative 256-164 vote in the House on Jan. 11 reauthorizing the law with only minor changes. The House rejected new restrictions proposed by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on how the information gathered can be used.

Section 702 was set to expire as 2017 ended but was temporarily extended into mid-January, as proponents claimed letting it lapse would take the nation backwards in time, to the pre-9/11 days, when surveillance shortcomings helped enable the 9/11 attacks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ability to continue spying on Americans is “essential” to national security and told his colleagues, “[W]e cannot let this capability lapse. The world remains dangerous.”

Urging senators to slow down and “consider the gravity of the issues at hand and to oppose reauthorization until we can have a real opportunity for debate and reform,” on the other hand, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) argued, “The American people deserve better than warrantless wiretapping.”

IRS Loses Cases

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) expressed his intent to filibuster the Senate vote on Section 702 but was shut down by a 60-38 cloture vote Jan. 16 to end debate and prevent Paul from stalling the vote. An online account at libertarian Reason magazine’s website explains the cloture vote also “prevent[ed] any amendments prior to a formal [up-or-down] vote on the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017,” as the bill is formally named.

The act renews and expands “the snooping powers of Section 702 . . . for another six years,” Reason continues. “Though the law has the word ‘foreign’ in its name, the reality is that it has been used to collect and access communications from Americans, often without warrants and without our knowledge.”

Sens. Paul and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led a bipartisan group of senators who tried “to amend the bill so that it would require the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) to get warrants in order to query or access any communications records (like emails or phone calls) from American citizens when [Americans] get drawn into international surveillance,” Reason notes.

Thus, a populist-style impulse entered the fray when Paul stepped forward to oppose Section 702 on principle. This is the kind of bipartisan cooperation that could, if sufficiently focused on essential goals such as turning away from the endless “war on terror,” foil the pro-Zionist war-on-terror stratagem espoused by the neoconservatives that long ago hijacked the conservative movement and placed them in strategic positions to carry forth such a war.

“This bill doesn’t just renew Section 702 for six years,” Reason added. “It also codifies permission for the FBI to access and use data secretly collected from Americans for a host of domestic federal crimes that have nothing to do with protecting America from foreign threats.”

Furthermore, what are known as “about” searches—accessing communications that merely reference a foreign target, not just communications to and from that target—are revived under the reauthorization. These types of searches were said to have been voluntarily ended by the NSA when it became clear that communications were being accessed outside of federal authority. Yet, reauthorization restarts these probes unless Congress acts separately to curtail them.

Arguing in favor of renewing Section 702, an editorial by the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky published at the neoconservative “FoxNews.com” states: “It is a violation of the law [under Section 702] to collect information from targets inside the U.S.—whether they are Americans or foreigners—or to deliberately target the online communications of American citizens.”

But in an official news release, Sen. Paul noted that due to a “backdoor loophole,” the bill “does nothing for the thousands of Americans whose private communications are searched without a warrant every year, including those who are not even the subject of an investigation.”

A “dear colleague” letter from Sens. Paul, Wyden, Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) adds: “The so-called ‘warrant requirement’ reform in the bill applies only to criminal suspects, and then only to the government’s access to their information at the final stage of an investigation, a situation that, according to the most recent annual data from the Director of National Intelligence, has occurred once. This means that the bill actually treats those suspected of a crime better than innocent Americans.”

Sadly, these warnings went unheeded as both chambers of Congress voted to reauthorize essentially unrestrained NSA spying and all Americans’ Fourth Amendment liberties were further deteriorated.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




50 Years Later, We Don’t Know Who Killed Martin Luther King

At this 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., mainstream media has once again presented the “open-and-shut case” assumption that he was murdered by James Earl Ray. Yet numerous respected assassination researchers as well as members of King’s family have long disputed this establishment story. They suggests that, instead, Ray was merely a patsy.

By S.T. Patrick

Even through the latest JFK assassination file releases, the questions regarding the life and death of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. still penetrate the American conscience 50 years later. King was shot outside the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tenn. on April 4, 1968. James Earl Ray, a fugitive from the Missouri State Penitentiary, was captured two months later at Heathrow Airport in London. Within nine months, Ray had been convicted, legally and publicly, of assassinating King and sentenced to 99 years. He died in prison in 1998 at the age of 70.

Though the case was closed in the minds of the mainstream media and the historical establishment, doubts existed in the minds of dedicated researchers who never accepted their final conclusions. Like Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan—the supposed assassins of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, respectively—Ray seemed to be a patsy. Ray later confirmed that he was a patsy to a mysterious figure named “Raoul.”

More than Oswald and Sirhan, Ray was an archetypal figure tailor-made for the divisive times in which the murder occurred. Even the civil rights era’s most palpable black leader was killed by a racist Southerner, many thought.

IRS Loses Cases

Some of the most respected assassination researchers of the late 20th century believe that Ray was innocent of the King murder. Attorney and author Mark Lane helped free witness Grace Stephens from a sanitarium. Stephens was at Bessie’s Boarding House with her common-law husband, Charlie Stephens, when King was shot at the Lorraine. Ms. Stephens clearly saw a man running from the communal bathroom after shots were fired. When urged to testify, she refused to testify that the man quickly exiting the bathroom was Ray. Though Mr. Stephens was drunk, without his glasses, and did not see the man clearly, he fingered Ray as that man. His testimony was then used to extradite Ray from England. Ms. Stephens was sent to a sanitarium.

Dr. William F. Pepper was accused assassin Ray’s last attorney. He exhausted every option available in an attempt to gain Ray a trial before his death. Pepper still adamantly believes that Ray was never given the trial constitutionally promised to him. In 1969, Tennessee officials and Ray’s first attorney, Percy Foreman, intimidated Ray into a guilty plea. Pepper later won a televised mock trial for Ray in 1993 when the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict.

As it turns out, King’s greatest enemies did not reside in the Southern United States at all. J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was targeting King throughout the Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson presidencies—away from Kennedy’s reach and with active participation from Johnson. The newly released JFK assassination files contain a 20-page FBI analysis of King that portrays him in the harshest light. The document alleges ties to communist influences, usage of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) as “a tax dodge,” and philandering of the highest order.

In 1964 a package arrived at the home of King and his wife, Coretta. The package contained various tapes compromising to King’s marriage, as well as a letter that appeared to urge him toward suicide. “There is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is,” the letter read. The package was sent anonymously, though a Senate committee later confirmed that it had been sent by the FBI.

An Act of State, William F. Pepper
Updated version is now available from the American Free Press Bookstore!

Unlike the Kennedy family, which has remained publicly quiet on the subject of the JFK and RFK assassins, the King family has been both opinionated and active. Since 1997, Coretta Scott King and youngest son Dexter have worked with Pepper in an attempt to free Ray, literally until Ray’s death and historically thereafter. Inspired by Pepper’s book An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, King’s daughter Yolanda and cousin Isaac Ferris were also on board to find the truth of the assassination. In 1997, Dexter King, with the aid of Pepper, even visited Ray in prison.

When, at a later wrongful death trial, a jury affirmed that they believed “others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy,” Ms. King invoked her late husband’s words: “My husband once said that the moral arch of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

The civil court ruling prompted an 18-month investigation by then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s Justice Department. It ruled that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King was neither proven nor present.

As the 50th anniversary of the assassination approaches in April, media attention will increase. The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and the three-letter national networks will inevitably convict Ray once more.

Skeptical authors like Phillip Nelson will release the revisionist counterpoint. Nelson’s Who Really Killed MLK? The Case Against Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover will be available in April.

As Donald Sutherland’s character says to Kevin Costner’s “Jim Garrison” in Oliver Stone’s “JFK”: “Kings are killed, Mr. Garrison. Politics is power. Nothing more.” Whether or not the FBI dossiers on King are to be believed—credible information exists that at least some of them are—the question of assassination and the guilt of Ray are still dubious at best. But when we allow political assassination to go unchecked, the spine of democracy weakens and the core threatens to crumble.

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.




Ending Pakistan Aid a Two-Edged Sword

Stopping the annual $1.3 billion “bribe” the U.S. has been giving Pakistan for years could spell trouble for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Without any allies on bordering the country, movements of equipment and supplies will be much more difficult. Giraldi explains why, for the time being, Pakistan is worth it.

By Philip Giraldi

The Trump administration has announced that it will be stopping the subsidies given to the Pakistani government since the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The payments increased dramatically after 9/11 as Pakistan became the launching pad for U.S. efforts to overthrow the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda. They have continued since that time and currently amount to a considerable $1.3 billion a year, a sum which more or less buys the compliance of the country’s military, which serves as something like a Praetorian Guard for the nation’s civilian leaders. The money is forthcoming with the understanding that the Pakistan government, army, and security services will cooperate with the United States in efforts to stabilize the situation in neighboring Afghanistan while also combatting the possible resurgence of radical Islamic groups in the region.

President Donald Trump has tweeted his decision in characteristic fashion, stating, “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

Trump’s judgment, tersely expressed, is not exactly wrong, nor is it exactly right. American policymakers who had a basic understanding of the politics of central and south Asia understand that Washington’s bilateral relationships with countries in the region are based on mutual interests, which means that they can diverge when conflicting interests get in the way. Pakistan has long been nervous about the instability in neighboring Afghanistan, which means it is supportive of some efforts at reconstruction and political reconciliation by its neighbor, but it also believes the political turmoil to be endemic, partly due to the tribal and ethnic rivalries that cannot be erased through top-down, foreign-instigated regime change.

As a result, Islamabad has had from the start its own secret arrangements with Afghan groups that are protected and even sheltered inside Pakistan, which are loyal to Islamabad and not to whomever is in charge in Kabul. This includes the Haqqani Network, which functions virtually as a semi-independent arm of the feared Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI). The Haqqanis have been involved in large-scale drug trafficking and have waged their own war inside Afghanistan against the country’s police and military. They have also been accused of bombings in Kabul as well as attacks on U.S. and other NATO soldiers.

The Pakistanis clearly see having a viable major player inside Afghanistan as a national interest that weighs more heavily than whatever it is doing with the United States. To be sure, Pakistan’s major effort to eliminate its own Taliban in 2014 was only a partial success and resulted in numerous casualties while its semi-autonomous tribal region continues to be both radicalized and restive. Pakistan’s leaders reason, and have occasionally suggested, that they and their Afghan proxies will still have to deal with what is going on in the region long after the United States becomes tired of the effort and goes home. It is not an unreasonable point of view, nor is it reasonable to expect that Washington will continue to subsidize a country that is working contrary to U.S. interests, even if those interests have been unattainable.

And even if the Pakistanis are currently playing a two-faced game it is important to recall what benefit has derived from the relationship. Without Pakistan’s cooperation the Soviets would never have been driven out of Afghanistan in the first place. In the years after 9/11, when the U.S. mission was to destroy al Qaeda, nearly every major arrest or killing of senior cadre of the group took place in Pakistan and was carried out by the Pakistani police and intelligence services. Subsequently, Islamabad allowed the U.S. to set up secret drone bases inside Pakistan, something that was revealed accidentally by former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), to track and kill suspected terrorists.

Currently, Pakistan serves as the conduit whereby U.S. and other allied forces are supplied with fuel, heavy equipment, and other war-making commodities. Most supplies arrive at the port of Karachi and are trucked through the mountains on Pakistani-provided vehicles to Afghanistan. If Pakistan chooses to play hardball with Trump, it can cut off that supply line immediately and the U.S. effort to stabilize and democratize Afghanistan—if it might be called that—would be over.

In another part of the world, the Trump administration is considering cutting off its aid to the Palestinian Authority and is delaying payment of $125 million currently due. Trump has tweeted  “[W]e pay the Palestinians hundreds of millions of dollars a year and get no appreciation or respect. They don’t even want to negotiate a long overdue peace treaty with Israel. We have taken Jerusalem, the toughest part of the negotiation, off the table, but Israel, for that, would have had to pay more. But with the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?”

The threat over money appears to derive from Amb. Nikki Haley’s threatened “revenge” over recent UN votes. The president’s bizarre beliefs that Israel wants peace and that stealing Arab Jerusalem and granting it to Benjamin Netanyahu is some kind of gift is breathtaking, but one of his aides might well advise him that much of the money given to the Palestinian Authority is used to man and train a police force, which largely exists to keep Palestinians from attacking Israelis. Trump’s Zionist supporters are already cheering the decision but will find that it yields bitter fruit if the West Bank erupts in violence. The reality is that Washington should spend money when there are good reasons to do so.

Is Pakistan worth it? Yes, until the day comes when Washington departs the region. Afghanistan costs something like $100 billion per year, and the Pakistani bribe is a minimal expense.

The similar bribe to provide some separation between Palestinians and Israelis is a different game altogether. Its utility as yet another costly measure to protect an intransigent Israel is certainly debatable.

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




Little Rocket Man Wins the Round

It would appear Kim Jong Un’s strategy has worked, and nuclear war has yet again been averted. Now, says Pat Buchanan, is the time to reconsider our longstanding obligation to defend South Korea.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After a year in which he tested a hydrogen bomb and an ICBM, threatened to destroy the United States, and called President Trump “a dotard,” Kim Jong Un, at the gracious invitation of the president of South Korea, will be sending a skating team to the “Peace Olympics.”

An impressive year for Little Rocket Man.

Thus the most serious nuclear crisis since Nikita Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba appears to have abated. Welcome news, even if the confrontation with Pyongyang has probably only been postponed.

Still, we have been given an opportunity to reassess the 65-year-old Cold War treaty that obligates us to go to war if the North attacks Seoul, and drove us to the brink of war today.

2017 demonstrated that we need a reassessment. For the potential cost of carrying out our commitment is rising exponentially.

Two decades ago, a war on the Korean Peninsula, given the massed Northern artillery on the DMZ, meant thousands of U.S. dead.

Today, with Pyongyang’s growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, American cities could face Hiroshima-sized strikes, if war breaks out.

What vital U.S. interest is there on the Korean Peninsula that justifies accepting in perpetuity such a risk to our homeland?

We are told that Kim’s diplomacy is designed to split South Korea off from the Americans. And this is undeniably true.

For South Korean President Moon Jae-in is first and foremost responsible for his own people, half of whom are in artillery range of the DMZ. In any new Korean war, his country would suffer most.

And while he surely welcomes the U.S. commitment to fight the North on his country’s behalf as an insurance policy, Moon does not want a second Korean war, and he does not want President Trump making the decision as to whether there shall be one.

Understandably so. He is looking out for South Korea first.

Yet Moon rightly credits Trump with bringing the North Koreans to the table: “I give President Trump huge credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, and I’d like to thank him for that.”

But again, what are the U.S. interests there that we should be willing to put at risk of nuclear attack tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea and our bases in Asia, and even our great cities, in a war that would otherwise be confined to the Korean Peninsula?

China shares a border with the North, but is not treaty-bound to fight on the North’s behalf. Russia, too, has a border with North Korea, and, with China, was indispensable to saving the North in the 1950-53 war. But Russia is not committed by any treaty to fight for the North.

Why, then, are Americans obligated to be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Why is the defense of the South, with 40 times the economy and twice the population of the North, our eternal duty?

Kim’s drive for a nuclear deterrent is propelled by both fear and calculation. The fear is that the Americans who detest him will do to him and his regime and country what they did to Saddam Hussein.

The calculation is that what Americans fear most, and the one thing that deters them, is nuclear weapons. Once Soviet Russia and Communist China acquired nukes, the Americans never attacked them.

If he can put nuclear weapons on U.S. troops in Korea, U.S. bases in Japan, and U.S. cities, Kim reasons, the Americans will not launch a war on him. Have not recent events proven him right?

Iran has no nuclear weapons and some Americans clamor daily for “regime change” in Tehran. But because Kim has nukes, the Americans appear more anxious to talk. His policy is succeeding.

What he is saying with his nuclear arsenal is: As you Americans have put my regime and country at risk of annihilation, I am going to put your cities at risk. If we go down in your nuclear “fire and fury,” so, too, will millions of Americans.

The whole world is watching how this plays out.

For the American Imperium, our system of alliances, is held together by a credible commitment: If you attack any of our scores of allies, you are at war with the United States.

From the Baltic to the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf, from the South China Sea to Korea and Japan today, the costs and the risks of maintaining the imperium are growing.

With all these promissory notes out there—guarantees to go to war for other nations—one is inevitably going to be called.

And this generation of Americans, unaware of what their grandfathers obligated them to do, will demand to know, as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan: What are we over doing there, on the other side of the world?

America First is more than a slogan.

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Victory for the Bundys

Federal agents and prosecutors repeatedly lied and hid evidence during the Cliven Bundy legal proceedings, prompting Judge Gloria Navarro to dismiss the entire case with prejudice. The government is thus barred from prosecuting these patriots again on these charges. The long nightmare Bundy and his family and supporters have faced is over.

By Mark Anderson

On Jan. 8, U.S. federal Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed with prejudice the case against Cliven Bundy and his sons, Ammon and Ryan, and Ryan Payne. After spending nearly two years in prison, the Bundys celebrated their hard-fought victory along with property-rights advocates and proponents of small government around the country.

Cliven Bundy spoke with AFP on Jan. 9 in an exclusive interview. He said he was filled with joy and relief over the fact that his ordeal, and that of his family and supporters, is essentially over, and chuckled that he was a bit jaded from giving nonstop press interviews

“I went into that place a free man and I intended to leave it as a free man,” Bundy stated, referring to the jail in which he spent 700 days.

During his incarceration, federal prosecutors feverishly tried to nail these patriotic men for resisting and protesting an attempted but failed impoundment of Cliven’s cattle by armed Bureau of Land Management and FBI agents.

The “Bunkerville standoff” in Clark County, Nev. in April of 2014 made world headlines. Scores of supporters, some of whom were armed in the open-carry state, showed up that spring from across the nation to stand with the Bundys. No shots were fired by either side, and the feds eventually backed down.

When AFP spoke with Bundy on the phone, his sons and other family and friends could be heard chatting and laughing in the background.

He commented that, under Article III of the Constitution, judges can hold office only during periods of good behavior.

“Good behavior is when our judges are in tune with the Constitution. When you’ve got judges like I had in my case—abridging the Constitution—nobody holds them accountable,” he remarked.

Bundy was referring to several rulings that, among other things, allowed prosecutors to retry Bundy, his sons, and his supporters—even though juries had repeatedly decided in favor of the ranchers and their friends.

Bundy summarized for AFP: “They tried to ruin my ranch, my heritage, and my posterity. But we’re in the cattle business and we intend to stay there.”

On Jan. 9, AFP spoke with popular radio show host Jim Lambley, the owner of KSDZ-FM, about the long and difficult case that was brought against Cliven Bundy, his sons, and several supporters. Lambley’s station in Nebraska, known as the “The Twister,” has reported on the Bundy case more than any other licensed broadcast-media outlet.

“The government needs to write some checks because it stole the lives of these people for two years,” Lambley commented to AFP, just after the dismissal was announced.

The Jan. 8 dismissal followed Judge Gloria Navarro’s Dec. 20, 2017 decision to declare a mistrial in the proceedings against Bundy and the three others. That alone was a stunning development in the saga of the elder Nevada rancher whose devotion to principle, like that of his sons and supporters, represents in the minds of many a repudiation of the arbitrary exercise of federal power.

Throughout this grueling case, Judge Navarro was believed to be largely unsympathetic to the defendants, but when she decided to dismiss the charges, she stated that prosecutors willfully withheld evidence from defense lawyers, which is what tipped the scales. She referred to it as “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct.”

She also declared, “The court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated.” Her statement implies the government’s misdeeds in this case are legion.

Government misdeeds were not limited to the courtroom. Marooning the defendants in jail for so long, of course, denied them the fair and speedy trial required by the Constitution. Both Ammon and Ryan Bundy were grossly humiliated when they were subjected to body cavity searches every time they were transferred from their jail cells to the U.S. District Court. The government even imposed solitary confinement at times.

Given the conduct of their jailers, you’d think that Bundy and company had already been convicted and sentenced.

Lambley agreed with this AFP writer’s observation that it appears the government committed an especially grave miscarriage of justice in the way it handled the series of Bundy show-trial proceedings that started in February 2016 and finally concluded Jan. 8. Nearly 20 defendants in all were tried under a 16-count indictment consisting of rather vague and redundant conspiracy, obstruction, and weapons charges, among others.

Legal expert Roger Roots, who observed the court proceedings from start to finish, feels Cliven Bundy was correct when he said, right after the dismissal, that he had been jailed for 700 days as a “political prisoner” for refusing to acknowledge federal supremacy over the public land near his southern-Nevada cattle ranch, where his cattle have long grazed. The impoundment was said to have been ordered over Bundy not paying grazing fees, but citing the area’s unique history, he maintains that federal jurisdiction was never established over Clark County.

Asked if Bundy and the 19 others had indeed been political prisoners, Roots replied: “If they had been left-wingers they would never have been looking at such ridiculous charges. The thing about Cliven and the others is that they provided real resistance with real constitutional principles.”

Crucial remaining matters include the Las Vegas Review Journal’s motion to try to force the federal government to open all of its files in this case. If the motion succeeds, the documents could reveal whether illegally secret court hearings were held and, among many other things, provide more information on the existence of federal snipers in the vicinity of the standoff and the Bundy homestead—despite denials by the prosecution that the snipers existed and relevant evidence withheld from the defense.

Roots noted that, despite the judge throwing out the case with prejudice, a government appeal of the dismissal cannot be ruled out.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




What Is America’s Mission Now?

America’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley continues to make the U.S. look ridiculous and make public statements that do not agree with established U.S. foreign policy. When will President Trump rein her in or, better yet, replace her in this position that should truly represent the United States to the world? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Informing Iran, “The U.S. is watching what you do,” Ambassador Nikki Haley called an emergency meeting Friday of the Security Council regarding the riots in Iran. The session left her and us looking ridiculous.

France’s ambassador tutored Haley that how nations deal with internal disorders is not the council’s concern. Russia’s ambassador suggested the United Nations should have looked into our Occupy Wall Street clashes and how the Missouri cops handled Ferguson.

Fifty years ago, 100 U.S. cities erupted in flames after Martin Luther King’s assassination. Federal troops were called in. In 1992, Los Angeles suffered the worst U.S. riot of the 20th century, after the LA cops who pummeled Rodney King were acquitted in Simi Valley.

Was our handling of these riots any business of the UN?

Conservatives have demanded that the UN keep its nose out of our sovereign affairs since its birth in 1946. Do we now accept that the UN has authority to oversee internal disturbances inside member countries?

Friday’s session fizzled out after Iran’s ambassador suggested the Security Council might take up the Israeli-Palestinian question or the humanitarian crisis produced by the U.S.-backed Saudi war on Yemen.

The episode exposes a malady of American foreign policy. It lacks consistency, coherence, and moral clarity, treats friends and adversaries by separate standards, and is reflexively interventionist.

Thus has America lost much of the near-universal admiration and respect she enjoyed at the close of the Cold War.

This hubristic generation has kicked it all away.

Consider. Is Iran’s handling of these disorders more damnable than the thousands of extrajudicial killings of drug dealers attributed to our Filipino ally Rodrigo Duterte, whom the president says is doing an “unbelievable job”?

And how does it compare with Gen. Abdel el-Sissi’s 2012 violent overthrow of the elected president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, and Sissi’s imprisonment of scores of thousands of followers of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Is Iran really the worst situation in the Middle East today?

Hassan Rouhani is president after winning an election with 57% of the vote. Who elected Mohammed bin Salman crown prince and future king of Saudi Arabia?

Vladimir Putin, too, is denounced for crimes against democracy for which our allies get a pass.

In Russia, Christianity is flourishing and candidates are declaring against Putin. Some in the Russian press regularly criticize him.

How is Christianity faring in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?

It is alleged that Putin’s regime is responsible for the death of several journalists. But there are more journalists behind bars in the jails of our NATO ally Turkey than in any other country in the world.

Suicide of a Superpower cover Patrick Buchanan
Have a look at Pat Buchanan’s books in the AFP Bookstore.

When does the Magnitsky Act get applied to Turkey?

What the world too often sees is an America that berates its adversaries for sins against our “values,” while giving allies a general absolution if they follow our lead.

A day has not gone by in 18 months that we have not read or heard of elite outrage over the Kremlin attack on “our democracy,” with the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails.

How many even recall the revelation in 2015 that China hacked the personnel files of millions of U.S. government employees, past, present and prospective?

While China persecutes Christians, Russia supports a restoration of Christianity after 70 years of Leninist rule.

In Putin’s Russia, the Communist Party is running a candidate against him. In China, the Communist Party exercises an absolute monopoly of political power and nobody runs against Xi Jinping.

China’s annexation of the Paracel and Spratly Islands and the entire South China Sea is meekly protested, while Russia is endlessly castigated for its bloodless retrieval of a Crimean peninsula that was recognized as Russian territory under the Romanovs.

China, with several times Russia’s economy and 10 times her population, is far the greater challenger to America’s standing as lone superpower. Why, then, this tilt toward China?

Among the reasons U.S. foreign policy lacks consistency and moral clarity is that we Americans no longer agree on what our vital interests are, who our real adversaries are, what our values are, or what a good and godly country looks like.

Was JFK’s America a better country than Obama’s America?

World War II and the Cold War gave us moral clarity. If you stood against Hitler, even if you were a moral monster like Joseph Stalin, we partnered with you.

From Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946 to the end of the Cold War, if you stood with us against the “Evil Empire” of Reagan’s depiction, even if you were a dictator like Gen. Pinochet or the Shah, you were welcome in the camp of the saints.

But now that a worldwide conversion to democracy is no longer America’s mission in the world, what exactly is our mission?

“Great Britain has lost an empire,” said Dean Acheson in 1962, “but not yet found a role.”

Something of the same may fairly be said of us today.

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Hollywood Butchers Real History

“The Post,” a new movie from Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg about the famed Pentagon Papers that Daniel Ellsberg released to The New York Times in 1971, ignores the role of The Washington Post‘s CIA-controlled editors and long history of promoting U.S. intelligence agency propaganda. Instead, the movie promotes the “legend” of the paper as a stalwart American institution.

By S.T. Patrick

In the new film “The Post,” Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg have once again crumpled up real history in favor of boosting the legend of a mainstream American institution. Their previous attempt, “Parkland,” which was a failure at the box office, propped up the questionable work of both Vincent Bugliosi and the Warren Commission. This time the deific canonization by two of Hollywood’s most powerful players is reserved for executive editor Ben Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham of The Washington Post.

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst working for the RAND Corporation, released to The New York Times what would commonly be known as “the Pentagon Papers,” a top-secret study of American decision-making in Vietnam. The released report cast doubt on the U.S. government’s honesty regarding its Vietnam War policy. It was White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman who emphasized the substantial importance of the release to President Richard Nixon, who initially did not grasp the Ellsberg releases as a matter of grave importance.

“To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook,” Haldeman told Nixon on June 14, 1971. “But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing. . . . You can’t trust the government, you can’t believe what they say, and you can’t rely on their judgment. And the . . . implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it’s wrong, and the president can be wrong.”

Attorney General John Mitchell sent a telegram to the Times, demanding that they stop publication of “the Pentagon Papers,” but the Times refused and continued the publication. The government then sued to halt publication. Though the paper eventually won New York Times Co. v. United States at the Supreme Court, an earlier appellate court had ordered the publication to be halted.

Correctly anticipating federal legal action against The New York Times, Ellsberg had distributed “the Pentagon Papers” to over 30 newspapers and private contacts. It was a guerrilla strategy based upon information-by-attrition. Although The Washington Post, featured in the new movie, was one of the papers that received the distributed report, they were neither more nor less important to the story than any of the others.

 

Jim DiEugenio of KennedysAndKing.com wrote, “Once Ellsberg made his decision to go public with the [LBJ Secretary of Defense] Robert McNamara-commissioned top-secret history, it was just a matter of how many newspapers would pick up the story after The New York Times initially published it.”

DiEugenio pointed out that in Ellsberg’s 457-page Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (2002) Bradlee is mentioned only once and Graham is not mentioned at all. “The Post” obviously did not use Ellsberg’s Secrets as source material for the script.

The Washington Post is no stranger to playing the public relations and media saturation games in order to create the mythology that it owned a consequential story. Though similar reporting was being done by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and others—often before The Washington Post—the official story of Watergate is now synonymous with the Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose account became a best-selling book and a major motion picture.

Critics of The Washington Post have long asserted that the newspaper has been used as a cover-up asset for U.S. intelligence. Woodward, for example, was portrayed by All the President’s Men as a hungry, young reporter who had been an outsider writing about filthy restaurants. In reality, Woodward had worked at the Pentagon under Adm. Thomas Moorer. According to “Watergate.com,” Woodward ran the communications center and was responsible for the delivery of messages from the Pentagon to the White House and the National Security Council. While performing these duties, Woodward nurtured a connection with Gen. Alexander Haig, who some researchers claim later provided Woodward with some of the information attributed to “Deep Throat,” Woodward’s anonymous source.

In recent years, Accuracy in Media (AIM) has criticized the Post’s lack of transparency regarding the ties of Jeff Bezos to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency. Bezos, the founder, chairman, and CEO of Amazon.com, purchased the Post for $250 million in 2013. He has also brokered for Amazon a $600 million contract with the CIA.

Last December, the Post was the preferred outlet for anonymous CIA leaks regarding Trump and Russia. An unnamed source told the Post that a secret CIA report had concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election for Trump.

Glenn Greenwald of online news source “The Intercept” wrote about the “explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.”

In April, critics blasted the Post for allowing a lobbyist from Raytheon—which manufactures Tomahawk cruise missiles—to publish pro-war editorials without disclosing his background. After the missile strikes in Syria, Raytheon’s stock skyrocketed.

Whether influencing Hollywood productions in an attempt to disfigure credible history or allowing the infiltration of anonymous CIA influences, The Washington Post has a problem that is both historical and current.

In their perpetual drive to be the paper of record on every story that traversed the Graham dynasty, it is now apparent that the Post—the newspaper and its depiction on film—is an untrustworthy media source for those who actually prefer their truth to be truthful.

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.




Pentagon Officially Confirms Government’s Interest in UFOs

The Pentagon has officially admitted its Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, a long-term government investigation into the UFO phenomenon. Notable UFOlogists have written for decades about government programs including Majestic-12 and Project Blue Book. Given this acknowledgement by the official secret-keepers, are we closer to knowing the truth about Area 51 and possible extraterrestrial encounters? 

By S.T. Patrick

After decades of denials, chuckles, and ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning whether or not the United States government has engaged in the study of UFOs, the silence is broken.

Until now, it was easy to label amateur and professional UFOlogists as “the tinfoil hat crew” or “crackpots.” However, the Pentagon has now officially confirmed the existence of a $22 million program that collected, analyzed, and categorized “anomalous aerospace threats”—or “UFOs” in the more common vernacular. According to information released in late December by The Washington Post, the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program was just another instance of what has been a long-term government investigation into the UFO phenomenon.

The investigations date back to the 1950s and 1960s, as UFOlogists such as Stanton Friedman, a nuclear physicist by trade, have known for years. Friedman, educated at the University of Chicago, has written Crash at Corona (1992) about the Roswell incident and Top Secret/Majic (1997) about the Majestic 12 (MJ-12) program that was formed by an executive order signed by Harry Truman.

According to Stanton, who in 1984 received anonymous documents detailing the MJ-12 roster and activities, the program was created in direct response to the Roswell, N.M. UFO crash of 1947. Created to investigate and recover alien (unknown) spacecraft, MJ-12 included such luminaries as Sidney Souers and Hoyt Vandenberg, the first two directors of central intelligence; Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA; James Forrestal, the first secretary of defense; Vannevar Bush, who headed the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II; Donald Menzel, a noted skeptic who Friedman claims was a true believer, and others.

IRS Loses Cases

To his credit, Friedman has uncovered as many hoaxes as he has validated incidents he believes to be real. Some of the MJ-12 documents originally made available to Friedman were ones he invalidated as hoaxes. That, however, does not deter his avid belief that other documents, as well as the program itself, were real. Friedman points out that it is a common practice in top-secret intelligence to include a smattering of hoax documents alongside real ones.

MJ-12 was not the only government project looking at UFOs after Roswell. Project Blue Book was a series of United States Air Force studies on unidentified flying objects. It lasted from 1952 to 1970. By the time it had ceased, Project Blue Book had collected 12,618 UFO reports, most that the National Reconnaissance Office characterized as flights of formerly secret reconnaissance planes such as the U-2 and the A-12.

Annie Jacobsen, a former contributing editor to The Los Angeles Times’ magazine, is an author specializing in what has been called “war, weapons, security, and secrets.” She has written Area 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base (2015), Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program that Brought Nazi Scientists to America (2014), and The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top Secret Military Research Agency (2015), a finalist for the 2016 Pulitzer Prize in History.

Ms. Jacobsen tackled the UFO question regarding Area 51 in a way that may be more controversial than the alien back-engineering theory that has persisted since KLAS-TV Las Vegas journalist George Knapp popularized the phrase “Area 51” while interviewing Bob Lazar in 1989. Lazar claims to have back-engineered alien spacecraft while briefly working at Area 51.

Ms. Jacobsen’s thesis is that Area 51, located in the Nevada desert, has been a vital site for national security and weapons development since its inception. Stealth technology, such as the CIA’s A-12, was developed at Area 51. Early U-2 tests were also conducted at the base. Area 51, Ms. Jacobsen writes, was strategically important during the era of Sputnik, the Bay of Pigs, the lunar landing, and the Vietnam War. It was where America’s most important espionage projects were tested and analyzed. Back-engineering was performed at Area 51, Ms. Jacobsen details, but it was a Soviet MiG and not an alien space craft.

Ms. Jacobsen likens the Roswell crash to the opening shot of the Cold War. She dismisses the alien theories altogether while hypothesizing that the supposed aliens recovered outside of Roswell were actually human guinea pigs, the result of American experimentation gone awry. The UFO rumors, then, were cover stories for the grisly experiments that were conducted on humans.

The official line was to deny even the existence of Area 51, though warning signs, motion- and sound-detection devices, and Wackenhut security lined its outer rim. Government interest in UFOs, Roswell, and Area 51 has leaked in both news and biography. Upon retirement, former CIA director Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter served on the board of directors of the National Investigations Committee for Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), which lobbied against government cover-ups of UFO information from the 1950s through the 1970s.

What we now know is that Area 51, the base also known as “Dreamland,” has been used since the dawn of the Cold War to test aviation that pushed the limits of sight, sound, and detection. Though the Nevada desert can be barren, desolate, and dry, something is, indeed, out there.

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.




Who Wants War With Iran?

The consequences of a U.S. war with Iran would be devastating, so why is Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley indicting Iran in a recent missile fired at a Saudi airport? It would appear the war propaganda campaign is ramping up.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Shortly before Christmas, President Donald Trump was the beneficiary of some surprisingly good news and glad tidings. On Dec. 17, Vladimir Putin called to thank him and the CIA for providing Russia critical information that helped abort an ISIS plot to massacre visitors to Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

Dec. 18 found polls showing Trump at his highest in months. Stocks soared 200 points at the opening bell in anticipation of pre-Christmas passage of the Republican tax bill. The Dow has added a record 5,000 points in Trump’s first year.

And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are being made that Robert Mueller’s sleuths gained access to emails from the Trump campaign illicitly. This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller’s team, already under a cloud for proven malice toward the president. Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered “the Pentagon Papers” to The New York Times, walked free when it was learned that the White House “Plumbers” had burgled his psychiatrist’s office.

With things going Trump’s way, one must ask: What was UN Ambassador Nikki Haley doing in early December at what looked like a prewar briefing at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in D.C.?

Looming behind Ms. Haley was part of what was said to be an Iranian missile fired at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.

Though the rocket had Iranian markings, it was not launched from Iran, or by Iranians. Houthi rebels, for two years victims of a savage war waged by the Saudis—using U.S.-made planes, missiles, bombs, and drones—say they fired it at the Riyadh airport in retaliation for what the Saudis have done to their people and country. If so, it was a legitimate act of war.

Indeed, so great is the Yemeni civilian suffering from a lack of food and medicine, and from malnutrition and disease, Trump himself has told the Saudis to ease up on their air, sea, and land blockades.

As there is no evidence as to when the Houthis acquired the missile, or where, the question arises: What was Ms. Haley’s motive in indicting Iran? Was this part of a new propaganda campaign to drum up support for America’s next big Mideast war? There are reasons to think so.

Ms. Haley went on: “It’s hard to find a conflict or a terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran’s fingerprints all over it.” But Iran is Shiite, while al Qaeda, which allegedly brought down the twin towers with the help of 15 Saudi nationals, is Sunni. So, too, are ISIS, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and Islamic Jihad. Most Mideast terrorist groups are Sunni, not Shiite.

As for these Mideast “conflicts,” which did Iran start? We started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO started the war in Libya. The U.S. helped trigger the horrific Syrian civil war by arming “rebels.” Only when President Bashar Assad looked like he was about to fall did Russia and Iran intervene on his side.

As for the “Shiite crescent,” from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut, who created it? Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was Sunni dominated. It was the Americans who overthrew him and brought Shiite power to Baghdad.

In Syria, it was U.S.- and Sunni-backed “rebels,” allied at times with al Qaeda, who drew Iran and the Shiite militias in to save Assad.

And the Israelis called the Shiite Hezbollah movement into being by invading and occupying South Lebanon in 1982. As Yitzhak Rabin ruefully said, “We let the Shia genie out of the bottle.”

Are we now to fight a new Mideast war against a larger enemy than any of the others we have fought, to clean up the bloody mess we made of the region by our previous military interventions? Before we march, with Ms. Haley as head cheerleader, Trump should consider the likely consequences for his country, the Middle East, and his presidency.

A war in the Persian Gulf would send oil prices soaring and stock markets plummeting, even as it would split us off from our major allies in Europe and Asia. The Airbus-Boeing deal to sell Iran 300 commercial aircraft would be dead.

While the U.S. would prevail in an air, naval, and missile war, where would the troops come from to march to Tehran to “democratize” that nation? Do we think a bloodied revanchist Iran would be easier to deal with than the one with which John Kerry negotiated a nuclear deal?

Would Hezbollah go after U.S. soft targets in Beirut? Would Iraqi Shiite militias go after Americans in the Green Zone? Would the Shiite majority in Bahrain and the oil-rich northeast of Saudi Arabia rise up and rebel?

And who would our great fighting Arab ally be? Jared Kushner’s new friend: a 32-year-old Saudi prince who has become famous for putting down $500 million each for a chateau near Versailles, a yacht on the Riviera, and a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



The Times Rides to Mueller’s Rescue

The New York Times has explained it was not the “dirty dossier” from former spy Christopher Steele, paid for by the Democrats, that led to the FBI’s endless investigation of President Trump for supposedly colluding with Russia to steal the election. Rather, a drunken disclosure of information to the Australian ambassador to the U.S. prompted the massive counterintelligence investigation during the campaign. But Pat Buchanan raises numerous questions about this new “disclosure.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the Trump presidency?

As James Comey’s FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove Donald Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting this investigation?

What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump’s team?

Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as Mueller’s men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.

Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap warrants of Trump’s team are said to have been issued on the basis of a “dirty dossier” that was floating around town in 2016—but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could not validate its lurid allegations.

Who produced the dossier?

Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Writes the Washington Times, Steele “paid Kremlin sources with Democratic cash.”

 

Yet, if Steele’s dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier’s contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem.

Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his investigation discredited.

Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year’s Eve by a major revelation in The New York Times. Top headline on page one:

“Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry”

The story that followed correctly framed the crucial question:

“What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?”

The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for:

“It was not, as Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.”

The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an “upscale London Bar” in the West End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton’s emails.

Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June, Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government, which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.

The Times’s story pounds home this version of events:

“The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Trump’s associates conspired.”

This, the Times assures us, “answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year.”

Well, perhaps.

But if Papadopoulos’s drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017?

According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he had learned from the Russians.

And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.

If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him—as compared to Steele?

Yet another major question remains unanswered.

If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking “into Russian attempts to disrupt the elections,” why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?

If Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation?

Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign’s ties to Russian agents than to Trumpian “collusion” that is yet unproven?

Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished:

They have kept alive a special counsel’s investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI’s reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government.

Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM