Immigrant Caravan: Paid-for and Organized by Globalist Funding

migrant caravan staged photo

“Organized Busing Operation” Exposed, Moving Migrants Closer To US Border

Traveling at a sluggish pace of 10 miles per day, the migrant caravan probably wouldn’t arrive at the nearest US border crossing at McAllen, Texas until February, according to one observer, who debunked claims widely circulated by the media that the caravan would arrive before the Nov. 6 midterm election.

But as it turns out, the organizations that have been aiding the caravan since it first formed in Honduras nearly three weeks ago have already accounted for this. And to help ensure that images of border patrol agents arresting families and separating small children from their parents are flashing across cable news in the days and hours before the polls open, these groups are employing a new tactic: Busing.

That’s right. As Fox News report on Tuesday showed, migrants traveling with the caravan are being loaded on to chartered buses and transported to the next stop on the trail to the US, having refused Mexico’s offer of asylum, shelter and jobs should they opt to stay in the country. Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins revealed that multiple professional buses have lined up to board the migrants, as footage from the report showed.

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-30/fox-news-exposes-organized-busing-operation-moving-migrants-closer-us-border

Migrant Caravan Not Walking – They’re Being Transported to US Border on the Back of Flat Bed Trucks (VIDEO)

Joe Hoft October 24, 2018

The migrant caravan to the US is not walking. That is all for show and just part of a Democrat production. The migrants are actually being carted on the back of flat bed trucks.

The migrants ‘walking’ through Mexico to reach the US appears to be more of a production than reality.

It’s clearly impossible for an individual or a group to cross the southern Mexican border and then walk all the way to the northern Mexican border in a matter of a couple of days. It is simply not possible.

 

InFLUENCE WATCH: Centro Sin Fronteras

October-November 2018 Caravan: BACKGROUND

For more information, see Centro Sin Fronteras (Nonprofit)

In mid-October 2018, a caravan of roughly 4,000 to 7,000 immigrants seeking illegal entry into the United States was launched from Central America. The caravan, which first crossed the Guatemalan border into Mexico illegally on October 19, was organized by at least one activist from Pueblo Sin Fronteras, identified as Denis Omar Contreras (sometimes spelled “Contera” or “Contrera.”[29] A second Pueblo Sin Fronteras activist, Rodrigo Abeja, was later identified as “traveling with the migrants.”[30] Abeja was noted as being “one of the caravan’s leaders” in the Washington Post.[31] He was also a caravan leader in the April 2018 caravan.[32]

After President Donald Trump warned the governments of Honduras and Guatemala that they would be cut off from American foreign aid for failing to control the flow of illegal migrant caravans to the U.S., Pueblo Sin Fronteras accused the Central American countries of adopting “a policy of fear and racism imposed by the United States.”[33]

The caravan met with criticism from many American pro-legal immigration groups, which wrote that “bowing to this migration blackmail would produce an American political backlash that would damage the cause of legal immigration and a humane refugee policy.”[34] David Frum, a moderate Republican and writer for the Atlantic, noted that the caravan’s slogan was “People without borders,” adding that it “chimes with the rising sentiment among liberals that border-enforcement is inherently illegitimate, and usually racist, too.”[35]

INITIAL DENIAL OF PUEBLO SIN FRONTERAS INVOLVEMENT

A number of center-left U.S. media outlets initially denied the role of Pueblo Sin Fronteras and other left-wing groups in organizing the caravan. On October 23, the Washington Post published a report which considered  the caravan to have been created spontaneously by economic migrants.[36] Univision, a Spanish language television network, reported on November 15 that “there’s no organized effort to try to get these migrants from Honduras to the border, to the U.S.-Mexico border.” When asked about involvement by non-governmental agencies, Univision said, “In all our reporting since this caravan started — not only this one, the others that [preceded it] — we haven’t found any evidence of any government involved in funding or financing this effort to try to get these people Honduras to the U.S.-Mexico border. . . there’s no government or state force behind this.”[37] According to the New York Times on October 20: “Did Democrats, or George Soros, Fund Migrant Caravan? Despite Republican Claims, No”:[38]

The notion that refugees will leave their homes solely for a little cash is “crazy,” said Alex Mensing, a project coordinator with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a transnational group that organized the migrant caravan that captured Mr. Trump’s attention last spring. (The group did not coordinate the caravan that is now traveling north, but has been organizing similar journeys for years.)

Pueblo Sin Fronteras activist Alex Mensing later claimed that “[t]here’s no one in charge of this thing [the caravan].”[39] At an October 19 protest in San Francisco, California, however, Mensing denounced efforts to control the flow of illegal immigrant caravans from Central America:[40]

“It’s time the Guatemalan government stand up for its Honduran brothers and sisters,” said Alex Mensing with the San Francisco-based organization Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a group that advocates for migrants’ human rights. “The people who are currently fleeing Honduras are being forcibly displaced from their country … and that is a direct result of the corrupt Honduran government and U.S. intervention and support for that corrupt government.”

In a November 26 radio interview with KPBS, Mensing also said that he was present on the Mexican side of the country’s northern border when caravan members attempted to forcibly cross into the United States.[41] On October 18, Pueblo Sin Fronteras activist Irineo Mujica, who holds dual American and Mexican citizenship, was arrested by Mexican officials during a pro-illegal immigration protest held in Ciudad Hidalgo, near the Mexico-Guatemala border.[42] While Pueblo Sin Fronteras activist Alex Mensing told reporters Mujica was not involved in organizing the October 2018 caravan, Mujica is listed as one of two Mexico-based contacts for a press release following the March 2018 Pueblo Sin Fronteras caravans.[43]

EVIDENCE OF A FALSE MEDIA NARRATIVE EMERGES

On November 13, American documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz reported that the members of the caravan making its way through Oaxaco, Mexico, were approximately “90 to 95 percent” male, despite reporting in the U.S. that the caravan consisted of men and women, and were primarily organized by representatives from a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which organized trucks of food, water, and other supplies to the migrants. Horowitz also interviewed caravan members, who said they were “seeking employment they illegally enter the United States,” and not fleeing gang violence in Honduras, as has also been widely reported by Western news outlets. [44] Horowitz told the right-leaning Daily Caller:[45]

What we do know is this thing [the caravan] cost millions and millions of dollars. . . .  One of the lies the [mainstream] media is trying to propagate is the fact that all this weird organic thing and all the water and the food and medicine, all dropped [like]. . . manna from heaven. It’s bologna. It’s all highly organized. It’s paid for by a number of organizations, we don’t know exactly where the money is coming from.

According to Horowitz, the Pueblo Sin Fronteras he identified in Mexico is connected to, but not necessarily the same group as, the Chicago-based Pueblo Sin Fronteras. “We do know that Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which is the main group which has organized this caravan, has a couple of front organizations in the United States and the money is flowing from them to Pueblo Sin Fronteras [in Mexico].”[46] However, Emma Lozano has traveled to Mexico City before in her capacity as director of Centro Sin Fronteras in order “to support the Familia Latina Unida.”[47]

After the caravan reached Tijuana, Mexico in late November, MSNBC reporter Gadi Schwartz reported from the migrant caravan camp that women and children “are the minority of this caravan. Instead, most of the members of this caravan [are men],” he said, gesturing towards a line of “single men.” Schwartz also reported that many migrants had told him that they had joined the caravan after being falsely told that there were “work programs that they would be eligible for” in the United States. After realizing that there were no such programs and it wouldn’t be easy to cross into the U.S., Schwartz continued, “some of them are deciding to turn back” and return to Central America.[48]

Some center-left groups like the Washington Post initially criticized conservatives for claiming that members of the violent gang MS-13 were traveling with the migrant caravan. On October 25, Post fact-checker Salvador Rizzo criticized the Trump administration for provid[ing] no evidence that criminals, members of the MS-13 gang or people of Middle Eastern descent form[ed] part of the caravan.”[49]

On November 28, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency released a statement that it had arrested a “Honduran citizen and active gang member with the notorious Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) international crime organization. The man also told agents he traveled to the United States border with a large group of people from Central America intending on filing for asylum in the United States.”[50] The agency also announced that it had arrested over 600 convicted criminals traveling with the migrant caravan, although it did not confirm the “backgrounds and identities of all caravan members which possess a national security and public safety risk.”[51]

MEDIA SOURCES CONFIRM PUEBLO SIN FRONTERAS’S INVOLVEMENT

Despite its initial position that the October migrant caravan was not organized by an outside group, on November 19 the Washington Post confirmed that Pueblo Sin Fronteras was “helping [to] guide the caravan” through Mexico and across the U.S. border. The report came after approximately 6,000 caravan members reached the city of Tijuana along the U.S.-Mexico border. The report also stated that “between 8,500 and 10,500” migrants were traveling with the caravan.[52] On November 27, CNN reported that the “annual caravan of Central American migrants heading to the U.S. border [was] organized by Pueblo Sin Fronteras.”[53]

La Razón, a Mexican daily newspaper, also reported that a number of Mexican activists denounced Pueblo Sin Fronteras for “inciting members of the migrant caravan to generate violence on the northern border of Mexico.” Eunice Rendón, a Mexican immigration activist and coordinator for the group Migrant Agenda, reportedly met with Pueblo activist Rodrigo Abeja to offer the group “legal assistance.” Abeja declined because “he pursued other purposes.” Rendón told La Razón that, “In the end, it’s people [like Irineo Mujica] who have other interests and take advantage of the vulnerability of others. They bring political motivations.”[54]

According to Mexico News Daily and Milenio, around 350 migrants chose to leave the caravan once it reached Tijuana, Mexico in order to return to their Central American countries, claiming they were “misled about their chances of gaining entry to the U.S.:”[55] [56]

“Pueblos Sin Fronteras [sic] told us not to worry, that there was going to be transportation, that Mexico was going to open the gates so that we didn’t have to enter [the U.S.] illegally, via the river . . .” Honduran migrant Ulises López said, referring to the attempted border breach Sunday.

“What was offered to the caravan of Honduran migrants was a trap . . . The people that brought us to this place, supposedly [caravan] leaders, took advantage of us, they used us in a horrific way, what they did to us has no name,” he added.

David Abud, a Pueblo Sin Fronteras representative, responded to the claim by denying all organizational involvement in the October caravan, saying: “Let it be clear that we didn’t organize or encourage [the migrants] to carry out the march [to the border].”[57] A report by right-leaning the Epoch Times, however, called Pueblo Sin Fronteras “a well-oiled asylum machine.” According to the report: [58]

The group [Pueblo Sin Fronteras] writes the names of asylum-seekers in its book—each number is assigned 10 names—and when a number is called, that’s the day those people enter the pedestrian crossing into the United States and claim asylum. They have recorded more than 11,000 names since March. U.S. Customs and Border Protection processes around 100 asylum claims per day at El Chaparral.

Colonel Fred Peterson, former chief public affairs officer of the U.S. Defense Department’s Joint Task Force North, which administers counter-drug and terrorist operations in North America, called the caravan “a very well-funded operation. It’s not spontaneous at all.” According to Peterson, the migrants were “just props in a political, staged play.” [59]

According to Kate Morrisey, a reporter with the San Diego Union Tribune, migrants traveling with the caravan confirmed Pueblo Sin Fronteras’s involvement in coordinating it: [60]

There are people who have performed leadership tasks at different points along the caravan’s journey, but they don’t want to be called leaders.

The caravan has a very flat structure — anyone who wants to be involved in decision-making is invited to the meetings that are coordinated by Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a group that has escorted migrant caravans through Mexico for years.

Luis Cruz, an organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, told Fox News on December 3 that Pueblo was helping to organize the caravan in Tijuana. He also urged President Trump to “let these people in. Let them try. Let them try. I mean, most of these people are not bad.”[61]

SUPPORT FROM LEFT-WING GROUPS

Also see By Any Means Necessary (Other Group)

By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), a far-left agitation group, also released a document on November 25 implying that it helped organize the migrant caravan (full document available here) and accusing the Trump administration of being “lawless and repressive”: [62]

Open it up or we’ll shut it down! Everyone must be let in! MEXICANS and AMERICANS stand with us!

The arrival of the migrant caravan at the Mexico-US border has proven once again that the tactic of the caravan is our best strategy for safely reaching the US. Although we have not reached the border without suffering the roughness of the trip and some of us suffering it more than others, united we have almost reached our goal of crossing to the US and have
set the example for thousands of our brothers and sisters that are now making their way in their own caravans through Mexico, while others prepare for the next caravan to take off.

. . .

We live in a daily joint struggle to survive in the US undocumented and we march side by side fighting for immigrant rights. We invite our Mexican brothers and sisters to join our caravan efforts to safely and promptly cross to the US.

The BAMN document called for the Democratic Party to demand the caravan be allowed to illegally cross the U.S. border: “The US midterm elections are over, there’s no reason why civil rights organizations and the Democratic Party apparatus should not be fiercely demanding open access across the border for the caravan and doing everything possible to stop Trump’s racist attacks on the caravan.” BAMN also encouraged Americans in San Diego, California, “to solidarize [sic] with the caravan [and], if are legally able, to get across the border to Mexico and help the caravan to cross the finish line as quickly as possible.”[63]

Pueblo Sin Fronteras reportedly organized a rally in Oakland, California on November 25 “to show solidarity with the caravan of Central American families seeking asylum in the U.S.” According to the far-left website Workers’ World (Mundo Obrero), Honduran immigrant and Pueblo supporter Chris Lopez said: “We are here today in solidarity. We are here to support the rights of all migrants to seek asylum.”[64]

Read More: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/centro-sin-fronteras/

Non-Citizen Votes? Brenda Snipes? Election Fraud?

Pelosi we want open borders because americans dont vote for us anymore

In Palm Beach County, Democrats Argue To Count Votes Cast By Non-Citizens

 10, 2018 By 

…“I would think this is something we could all agree on—that non-citizens shouldn’t vote, but evidently that’s not the case with Democrats,” Barnett said. “It’s really sad that we are having to deal with this in a close election. It just goes to show the depths they will go to in order to win.”

The canvassing board was tasked with reviewing ballots after irregularities were reported in Broward and Palm Beach counties. As of Friday afternoon these were the only two counties in Florida that hadn’t completed counting absentee votes. Broward had also failed to report early voting ballots, which is a violation of state law that requires local canvassing boards to report all early voting and absentee results to the state within 30 minutes after the polls close.

When tabulating the votes on election night, Broward County’s results showed significantly fewer votes than other races on the ballot—25,000. Over the next several days, election officials scrambled to add early in-person votes and absentee ballots to the count. This increased numbers for the Democrats, moving the races into recount margins.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio accused the Broward County elections office of blatantly violating state law. “No early votes have been case since Sunday,” he tweeted. “They had 2 days to tabulate them & submit to the state by 7:30 p.m. Tuesday as required by law. Yet as of latest update these are only partially completed.”

Read More:http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/10/palm-beach-county-democrats-argue-count-votes-cast-non-citizens/


Judge sides with Florida GOP in absentee ballot dispute with Broward County

A judge has ordered the election supervisor in Florida’s second-most populous county to change the way she handles vote-by-mail absentee ballots after the Republican Party sued her for not following the law.

The declaratory injunction, ordered Friday, prevents Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes from opening the mail-in ballots in secret or before the county’s three-member Canvassing Board meets to determine the ballots’ validity. The board can begin meeting Monday to handle absentee ballots, more than 75,000 of which have been cast in Broward ahead of the Aug. 28 primaries.

“We appreciate the court’s order clarifying what Florida law plainly requires — that Supervisor Snipes and her staff must safely keep and may not open any vote-by-mail ballot until the Broward County Canvassing Board canvasses the vote,” said Yohana de la Torre, spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Florida. “The Court’s ruling helps to protect the integrity of this year’s election process not just for Republicans but all voters in Broward County.”

Snipes and her attorney, Burnadette Norris-Weeks, could not be reached for comment.

The ruling is the second major loss for Snipes’ office in court this year. In May, a judge criticized her office for breaking the law by destroying ballots too soon in the 2016 congressional primary between Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova. Snipes earlier won a federal case concerning voter-roll maintenance. Broward has nearly 1.15 million voters, second only to Miami-Dade’s voter population of nearly 1.4 million.

Read More: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/08/13/judge-sides-with-florida-gop-in-absentee-ballot-dispute-with-broward-county-555553

Another blunder for Broward elections: Ballots missing medical-marijuana question

BY AMY SHERMAN AND MICHAEL AUSLEN
October 20, 2016

The Broward County elections office, already under scrutiny for two blunders in the past few weeks, played defense once more Friday as its supervisor came under fire after mail-in ballots turned up that skipped a constitutional amendment question on medical marijuana.

One of the organizations supporting the amendment, NORML of Florida, has asked for an emergency hearing after filing a lawsuit on what it called an error that could be “catastrophic and cataclysmic.” A Broward judge has scheduled a hearing for 10 a.m. Tuesday.

At a press conference Friday afternoon, Broward elections supervisor Brenda Snipes said her office had reviewed 92 different styles of ballots — voters get different ballots depending on where they live — and none were missing Amendment 2.

“In reviewing and reviewing and going back looking through our ballots we found Amendment 2 on all 92 of those styles so it’s still not totally clear why this voter did not have Amendment 2,” Snipes said. She added that she believes that the faulty ballots were test samples for Oakland Park. After a city candidate dropped out, she said, her office recoded the Oakland Park ballot, leading to a creation of a new test ballot. Her office did not notice the missing marijuana question on the test ballots, which are not supposed to be sent to voters but somehow were.

Read More: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article109574732.html

Did We Just Watch an Election Get Stolen Through Fraud?

Brenda Snipes Brilliant Election Fraud Tactician

Election Fraud Or Really, REALLY, Strange Coincidence (Again)?

The House race in Arizona between Democrat Krysten Sinema and her GOP challenger Martha McSally, the Governor’s race in Georgia between former GOP Secretary of State Brian Kemp and his Democrat challenger Stacey Abrams, and the madness again in Florida — land of the 2000 presidential election hanging chads — all looks very familiar, even to people who’s kneejerk reaction to allegations of electoral malfeasance is to scream, “conspiracy theorist!”

Florida is, of course, the worst offender, as the Daily Caller reminds us in an op-ed Sunday:

In 2000 just a few hundred votes separated the two presidential candidates in Florida and chaos ensued. The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court that helped guide its decision to force election officials to follow the law.

Yet 18 years later the state’s electoral process remains broken. The current Broward supervisor of elections, Brenda Snipes, was appointed in 2003 to fix an office beset with problems — the year before it failed to open the polls on time. Yet Snipes has done little better. A former elections inspector, Benjamin Bennett, complained that “Every election there is a snafu of some type.” Noted the Naples News: “it’s not unusual for Democrat Brenda Snipes, the head of Broward County’s election office, to find herself facing questions about bungled elections.”

In the 2004 presidential election thousands of Broward absentee ballots disappeared. Her office transported them in private cars without observers and opened absentee ballots in private. Two years ago, the office was placed under state supervision after it violated both state and federal law by destroying ballots subject to a lawsuit.

Now comes word that a young Broward County election employee filed a sworn affidavit back in 2016 saying she witnessed other employees of the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office (SOE) filling out blank ballots — essentially casting fraudulent votes. (affidavit included)

In Georgia, Stacey Abrams is filing a lawsuit alleging that there are missing provisional ballots that she’s just super certain would be for her if only they could be found somewhere (maybe in a box in a back room at Broward County SEO).

Sinema in Arizona looks to have already won her race.

But no Republican dare accuse anyone affiliated with the circumstances surrounding these odd races of not acting with integrity because if you believe elections can be tampered with you’re a nutter. Period. In fact, Rick Hasen, who will tow those progressive party lines in violation of logic even despite his sizable intellect, wrote a piece for Slate that shows exactly what happens in the aftermath of these kind of hinky goings on: projection on steroids.


This is why Republicans are claiming voter fraud in Florida and Arizona

WASHINGTON – Many Americans knew days ago who their elected officials would be following Tuesday midterm election.

But things have moved slower in several states due to razor-thin races. Some Republicans are claiming voter fraud. Democrats are vowing to make sure every ballot is counted.

The increasingly tense situations in Florida and Arizona have included lawsuits, protests, possible recounts, and even comments from President Donald Trump.

The tight races for Senate in Arizona, along with governor and Senate in Florida, have gotten tighter over the days as more ballots were counted. But the legal bickering has gotten ugly and soured already bitter races in a divided nation.

“It is incredibly troubling,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department voting-rights lawyer. “These counties haven’t even finished counting ballots. This is all about winning and nothing about fraud, but it comes at the cost of delegitimizing our own democracy.”

The drama in Florida

Welcome to the Sunshine State, where the dramatic elections live.

The increasing tense race between Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Bill Nelson in Florida’s Senate race spurred lawsuits from both candidates. All but two counties have finished counting ballots, but those counties have caused the margin of Scott’s lead in the race to fall drastically, from 60,000 to about 15,000.

Scott filed a lawsuit alleging “rampant fraud” in the counties that heavily favor Democrats. Scott requested an investigation and questioned whether Democrat-led counties had been taking longer to count ballots in some sort of effort to inflate the Democratic vote.

He didn’t include any proof of the accusations, but the message took hold with Republicans across the state, even reaching the White House.

“Rick Scott was up by 50,000+ votes on Election Day, now they ‘found’ many votes and he is only up 15,000 votes. “’The Broward Effect.’ How come they never find Republican votes?,” President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter Friday.

The lawsuit led to a Broward County Circuit judge on Friday ordering Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes to release records requested by Scott and the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee related to voting tabulations. The ruling did not include anything about the accusations of fraud.

The Broward County Canvassing Board was to meet in the early afternoon, and about 30 Republican protesters had gathered outside by midday.

“Don’t steal our election!” they shouted in chants alternated with songs including “The Star-Spangled Banner” and reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Read More:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/09/florida-and-arizona-elections-why-republicans-claiming-voter-fraud/1947000002/


Florida Orders Senate, Governor Race Recounts Amid Mystery Box Controversy

Sun, 11/11/2018

After a Florida Judge ordered Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes to allow for the immediate inspection of tens of thousands of ballots suddenly found after Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson lost to Republican Gov. Rick Scott, Snipes failed to abide by a 7 PM deadline set at the emergency hearing. Instead, workers were filmed by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) shuffling boxes into a truck, before he was forcibly removed by a police officer. 

The scene was reminiscent of election night, when Broward County election officials were seen shuffling mystery boxes into a rented truck.

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-10/mystery-broward-ballots-shuffled-trucks-rep-matt-gaetz-forcibly-removed-while

 

The Costs of Open Borders, Catch and Release, Illegal Immigration and Undocumented Residents

every 30 seconds another person becomes a victim of human trafficking

Member of Mexican sex trafficking ring sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment

www.ice.gov 12/03/2018

NEW YORK — Raul Granados-Rendon, a member of the Granados family sex trafficking ring based in Tenancingo, Tlaxcala, Mexico, was sentenced Monday in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) to eight years’ imprisonment.  Pursuant to an investigation by  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in New York, Granados-Rendon pled guilty in December 2017 to trafficking young Mexican women into the United States and forcing them into prostitution. As part of his sentence, the defendant was ordered to pay $1,305,393.80 in restitution to Jane Doe.

“The victims of this man were forced into prostitution after being lured to the U.S. with false promises then threatened, beaten and sexually assaulted,” stated Angel M. Melendez, special agent in charge of HSI New York. “This man was on our agency’s top 10 fugitive list before being extradited and taken into custody early last year. It has been a long road, but now he will face the consequences of his reprehensible actions.”

“With today’s sentence, Raul Granados-Rendon is the latest member of his family’s Mexican sex trafficking operation to be held responsible for preying upon countless women, and profiting from their exploitation and dehumanization,” stated Richard P. Donoghue, U.S. Attorney for EDNY. “This prosecution and sentence mark another important outcome in a nearly decade-long commitment by this Office and our law enforcement partners to obtain justice for the victims,”

From October 1998 to December 2011, Raul Granados-Rendon, 31, participated in a sex trafficking conspiracy with other members of the Granados family, to smuggle numerous young women from Mexico to New York and force them to work as prostitutes in New York City and elsewhere. The male members of the conspiracy used false promises of romance and marriage to lure the victims into relationships and convince them to travel to the United States to make money so that they could build homes for themselves in Mexico. Once in the United States, the victims were subjected to violence, threats and sexual assaults by the defendants. Raul Granados-Rendon directed one of his victims to teach another victim “Jane Doe” how to prostitute. When Jane Doe did not produce as much income as other Granados family victims, the defendant physically abused her, dragging her by her hair into a bathroom and forcing her head into a sink. The defendant also helped transport another victim back to Mexico after his brother impregnated her and failed at his efforts to induce an abortion.

The investigation, prosecution, bilateral enforcement action and extraditions of the defendants apprehended in Mexico were coordinated through the U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Human Trafficking Enforcement Initiative. Since 2009, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have collaborated with Mexican law enforcement counterparts in the Initiative to more effectively dismantle human trafficking networks operating across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The HSI New York’s Trafficking in Persons Unit (TIPU) is comprised of senior criminal investigators, intelligence officers and victim assistance specialists who aid in the rescue of trafficking victims and prosecution of traffickers and trafficking organizations. TIPU investigators focus on the exploitation of victims by force, fraud or coercion regardless of the person’s manor or entry into the United States. All TIPU investigations are victim-centered, seeking to rescue and protect the victims of trafficking.

Read More: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/member-mexican-sex-trafficking-ring-sentenced-8-years-imprisonment


Nearly Two Thirds Of Non-Citizen Households On Welfare

Another day, another revelation as the great fleecing of the U.S. taxpayer continues unabated. A Center for Immigration Studies review of U.S. Census Bureau data reveals a stunning 63% of households in the U.S. headed by non-citizens are on some form of welfare. That’s just shy of two out of every three proving to be a burden to the American people. So much for the lie that massive immigration enriches our nation.

Dead Weight

The information CIS uncovered is infuriating in a number of ways. The 63% figure is almost twice the rate of native-headed American households that use welfare, which is a disturbingly high 35% as it is. But non-citizen households (45%) also utilize food programs at a much higher rate than natives (21%), and disproportionately tap into Medicaid programs as well (50% vs. 23%).

The most telling statistic in the review, however, is that welfare use rises among non-citizens the longer they are in our country. “Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent,” CIS discovered.

Rather than serving as a temporary safety net, our welfare programs are proving to be a lifestyle staple for non-citizens sponging off the American taxpayer. Of course, many of these non-citizens do work, but they are low-skilled Hispanics from Central America laboring at poverty-level jobs. A 2015 CIS report found that 67% of households headed by immigrant farm workers are on public assistance of some form. Swollen-eyed Big Ag industrial farmers crying out about the need to find workers willing to do “the jobs Americans won’t do” are in fact having their cheap payrolls subsidized by the welfare programs of this nation.

Bitter Factors

At a time when native-born Americans are working long hours with less vacation time and fewer benefits, we are being forced to carry the millstone of foreign squatters on our backs. Massive immigration has led to overcrowded cities and towns, aggravating traffic congestion that leads to an even more draining daily commute for Americans just so we can we have the privilege of having our wages heavily taxed to financially support the very same invaders who are making our work day more exhausting. This is madness.

Read More: https://www.libertynation.com/nearly-two-thirds-of-non-citizen-households-on-welfare/


Compared to 35% of native households
By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler on December 2, 2018

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

New “public charge” rules issued by the Trump administration expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, receipt of which may prevent a prospective immigrant from receiving lawful permanent residence (a green card). Analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) shows welfare use by households headed by non-citizens is very high. The desire to reduce these rates among future immigrants is the primary justification for the rule change. Immigrant advocacy groups are right to worry that the high welfare use of non-citizens may impact the ability of some to receive green cards, though the actual impacts of the rules are unclear because they do not include all the benefits non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules. As welfare participation varies dramatically by education level, significantly reducing future welfare use rates would require public charge rules that take into consideration education levels and resulting income and likely welfare use.

Of non-citizens in Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally. Non-citizens also include long-term temporary visitors (e.g. guestworkers and foreign students) and permanent residents who have not naturalized (green card holders). Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.

Among the findings:

  • In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
  • Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
  • Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
  • Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
  • While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.

The following figures include EITC:

  • No single program explains non-citizens’ higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households compared to 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared to 30 percent for natives.
  • Welfare use tends to be high for both newer arrivals and long-time residents. Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent.
  • Welfare receipt by working households is very common. Of non-citizen households receiving welfare, 93 percent have at least one worker, as do 76 percent of native households receiving welfare. In fact, non-citizen households are more likely overall to have a worker than are native households.1
  • The primary reason welfare use is so high among non-citizens is that a much larger share of non-citizens have modest levels of education and, as a result, they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates than natives.
  • Of all non-citizen households, 58 percent are headed by immigrants who have no more than a high school education, compared to 36 percent of native households.
  • Of households headed by non-citizens with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs. In contrast, 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate use one or more welfare programs.
  • Like non-citizens, welfare use also varies significantly for natives by educational attainment, with the least educated having much higher welfare use than the most educated.
  • Using education levels and likely future income to determine the probability of welfare use among new green card applicants — and denying permanent residency to those likely to utilize such programs — would almost certainly reduce welfare use among future permanent residents.
  • Of households headed by naturalized immigrants (U.S. citizens), 50 percent used one or more welfare programs. Naturalized-citizen households tend to have lower welfare use than non-citizen households for most types of programs, but higher use rates than native households for virtually every major program.
  • Welfare use is significantly higher for non-citizens than for natives in all four top immigrant-receiving states. In California, 72 percent of non-citizen-headed households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 35 percent for native-headed households. In Texas, the figures are 69 percent vs. 35 percent; in New York they are 53 percent vs. 38 percent; and in Florida, 56 percent of non-citizen-headed households use at least welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native households.

Read More: https://www.cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

Cultural Marxism or Social Justice?

every socialist is a disguised dictator

Thomas Sowell Explains The Economics Of Discrimination

At 88 years old, Thomas Sowell continues to demonstrate why he’s one of the most formidable intellects of the age. In Discrimination and Disparities, released earlier this year, Sowell rebuts common misconceptions regarding socioeconomic differences among individuals, groups, and nations, and demonstrates that disparities are often explained by economics.

For instance, emotionally loaded phrases like “systemic racism” and “exploitation” are frequently used to explain differences between blacks and whites, rich and poor, and even individual nations. But a better understanding of economics refutes these notions.

Sowell begins by noting there are different types of discrimination. Discrimination I he defines as “an ability to discern differences in the qualities of people and things, and choosing accordingly”—in other words, “making fact-based distinctions.” Discrimination II he defines as “treating people negatively, based on arbitrary assumptions or aversions concerning individuals of a particular race or sex, for example”—in other words, what most people mean today when they talk of “discrimination.”

Ideally, Discrimination I—judging each person individually—would be universally practiced. Rarely, however, is the ideal “found among human beings in the real world, even among people who espouse that ideal.” He gives an example:

If you are walking at night down a lonely street, and see up ahead a shadowy figure in an alley, do you judge that person as an individual or do you cross the street and pass on the other side? The shadowy figure in the alley could turn out to be a kindly neighbor, out walking his dog. But, when making such decisions, a mistake on your part could be costly, up to and including costing you your life.

In short, cost is the relevant factor when determining a course of action. The cost of Discrimination I—judging the person as an individual—may be prohibitively high in some cases, as when you approach a shadowy figure in a dark alley. But that does not mean that choosing to cross the street to avoid that shadowy figure is automatically Discrimination II—arbitrarily expressing antipathy toward a group.

As Sowell explains, in the case of crossing the street,

This is still Discrimination I, basing decisions on empirical evidence. But the distinction between the ideal version of Discrimination I—judging each individual as individual—and making decisions based on empirical evidence about the group to which the individual belongs is a consequential difference. We can call the ideal version (basing decisions on evidence about individuals) Discrimination Ia, and the less than ideal version (basing individual decision on group evidence) Discrimination Ib. But both are different from unsubstantiated notions or animosities.

Not All Discrimination Is Equal

In other words, discrimination based on factual generalizations (Discrimination Ib) is not the same as discrimination based on personal aversions to race, sex, etc. (Discrimination II). Indeed, evidence-based generalizations are used routinely, including by employers whose cost of judging everyone individually may be prohibitively expensive:

To take an extreme example of Discrimination Ib, for the sake of illustration, if 40 percent of the people in Group X are alcoholics and 1 percent of the people in Group Y are alcoholics, an employer may well prefer to hire only people from Group Y for work where an alcoholic would be not only ineffective but dangerous. This would mean that a majority of people in Group X—60 percent in this case—would be denied employment, even though they are not alcoholics. What matters, crucially, to the employer is the cost of determining which individual is or is not an alcoholic, when job applicants all show up sober on the day when they are seeking employment.

Critically, cost is not limited to employers:

[Cost] also matters to the customers who buy the employer’s products and to society as a whole. If alcoholics produce a higher proportion of products that turn out to be defective, that is a cost to customers … To the extent that alcoholics are not only less competent but dangerous, the costs of those dangers are paid by either fellow employees who fact those dangers on the job or by customers who buy dangerously defective products, or both.

Consider, says Sowell, a real-world example. A disproportionate number of young, black job applicants have criminal records, meaning that employers may turn them down at a higher rate, even if they have zero animosity toward them (Discrimination 1b).

Although this is less ideal than discerning each person individually (Discrimination Ia), higher rates of rejection cannot automatically be assumed to be “systemic racism” (Discrimination II), when discernment is based not on personal antipathy but on empirical generalization, even though that generalization does not apply to every individual within the group. In fact, employers who run background checks on all employees regardless of race hire more black males than do other companies. Sowell explains:

Where the nature of the work made criminal background checks worth the cost for all employees, it was no longer necessary to use group information to assess whether individual young black job applicants had a criminal background. This made young black job applicants without a criminal background more employable than before.

Moreover, understanding the economics is more than merely an academic exercise, when our understanding can make the difference between policies that hurt and help real people. Indeed, background checks have increased opportunity for black job seekers, yet many elites—including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have tried to prohibit employers from conducting background checks by suing in the name of “racial discrimination.” If they acquainted themselves with the facts, however, they may realize the folly of their actions and emotionally charged rhetoric.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/07/thomas-sowell-explains-the-economics-of-discrimination/

The Left’s Intersectional Identity Politics Are Racist, Sexist, Anti-American Lies

  28, 2018

The language of intersectionality – speaking of racial, gender, or sexual identity as though those categories represent the most important aspects of a person – is taking over, not just on university campuses and in the legacy media, but also in Fortune 500 board rooms and across social media. Twitter even made its dedication to the academic theory official in its most recent rules update (the one that apparently got The Federalist’s hilarious Jesse Kelly the axe), which implies that abusive behavior on the platform is more consequential, and therefore more deserving of censure, when directed towards those with more intersectional oppressed class notches on their identity belts.

Having finally made it into the Oxford English Dictionary just three years ago, intersectionality is now the go-to explanation for everything from vote totals in the midterm elections to why some people are more interested in astrological superstitions than others.

But viewing human action as reducible to a series of checked boxes strips us of our individuality and rationality, and, oddly for a movement that claims that personal experience dictates worldview, even of how our unique life experiences (rather than those of a large group) have influenced our thinking. Intersectionality is aptly-named, for it reduces each of us to a plotted point on a series of identity axes, a collection of reactions to impersonal forces between large collectives. Not only is this lens for analyzing complex and whole human beings incredibly boring, it often produces one-dimensional, or even outright false assessments of motivations and actions.

Witness the rage on the left against what they see as a bloc of white women voting against the sisterhood by supporting Republicans in 2016 and 2018. A Vogue article after the midterm elections lamented white women’s failure to fall in line. Columnist Michelle Ruiz wrote, “White women voters are establishing themselves as maddeningly, confusingly … unsisterly.”

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/28/lefts-intersectional-identity-politics-racist-sexist-anti-american-lies/

Twitter’s Trans-Activist Decree

On November 15, I woke up to find my Twitter account locked, on account of what the company described as “hateful conduct.” In order to regain access, I was made to delete two tweets from October. Fair enough, you might think. Concern about the tone of discourse on social media has been widespread for years. Certainly, many have argued that Twitter officials should be doing more to discourage the vitriol and violent threats that have become commonplace on their platform.

In this case, however, the notion that my commentary could be construed as “hateful” baffled me. One tweet read, simply, “Men aren’t women,” and the other asked “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” That last question is one I’ve asked countless times, including in public speeches, and I have yet to get a persuasive answer. I ask these questions not to spread hate—because I do not hate trans-identified individuals—but rather to make sense of arguments made by activists within that community. Instead of answering such questions, however, these same activists insist that the act of simply asking them is evidence of hatred.

The statement that “Men aren’t women” would have been seen as banal—indeed, tautological—just a few years ago. Today, it’s considered heresy—akin to terrorist speech that seeks to “deny the humanity” of trans-identified people who very much wish they could change sex, but cannot. These heretics are smeared as “TERF”—a pejorative term that stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist—and blacklisted. On many Twitter threads, the term is more or less synonymous with “Nazi.” Earlier this year, Tyler Coates, an editor at the apparently respectable Esquire magazine, tweeted out “FUCK TERFs!” and promptly got retweeted more than a thousand times.

In many progressive corners of academic and online life, it now is taken as cant that anyone who rejects transgender ideology—which is based on the theory that a mystical “gender identity” exists within us, akin to a soul—may be targeted with the most juvenile and vicious attacks. “Punch TERFs and Nazis” has become a common Twitter tagline, as is the demand that “TERFs” be “sent to the gulag.” (This latter suggestion was earnestly defended in a thread authored by students who run the official Twitter account of the LGBTQ+ Society at a British university. The authors went on to say that the gulag model would, in fact, comprise “a compassionate, non-violent course of action” to deal with “TERFs” and “anti-trans bigots” who must be “re-educat[ed].”)

In other cases, attacks on “TERFs” take the form of taunts that one might hear in middle school. Last August, for instance, The Cut­ published a lengthy investigation into “TERF bangs.” The author, Amanda Arnold, claimed to be interested in how “short, chunky bangs” came to be wrongly associated with “TERFs”; but of course, the whole thing was a thinly veiled attempt to provoke catty disparagement of women who don’t toe the party line on gender mysticism. And while The Cut may be considered a vacuous fashion blog, it is a vacuous fashion blog run under the auspices of New York magazine.

The reason why engagement with the most militant trans activists is fruitless, and yields only a slew of empty mantras and false stereotypes, is that one cannot argue with religious faith. At the core of transgender ideology is the idea that the old mind/body problem that has bedeviled philosophers for centuries has been definitively solved by gender-studies specialists—and that a female mind can exist within a male body and vice versa. Moreover, we are informed that these mystical phenomena are invisible in all respects, except to the extent that they are experienced from within—which means the only reliable indicator of supposed bona fide transgenderism is the self-declaration of trans-identified individuals (many of whom seem to have made these stunning discoveries as part of a sudden social trend).

In March, the San Francisco Public Library hosted an art exhibitfeaturing the work of Scout Tran, founder of the Degenderettes, a trans activist group that has taken to showing up at LGBT and women’s events with baseball bats and mock-bloody t-shirts festooned with the words “I punch TERFs.” This is considered very edgy and progressive in the avant-garde scene. One trans exhibit included a display of these gore-themed shirts alongside baseball bats and axes, painted pink and blue. In case there was any doubt that these are intended to be viewed as weapons brandished in the prosecution of a culture war, some of the bats were wrapped in barbed wire—presumably as a threatened means to turn a regular old woman-beating into a maiming, or even a murder.

While it might comfort some to view these threats as performative or theoretical, that isn’t always the case. On May 29, a lesbian named Taelor Furry was beat up outside the Grey Fox Pub, a gay bar in St. Louis, Mo. Her attackers were queer-identified women who had accused Furry of being a “TERF.”

In April, a trans-identified biological male who goes by the name “Tara Wolf” was convicted of assault after beating 60-year-old Maria MacLauchlan, who had gathered with other women at Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park to discuss mooted gender-identity legislation. Prior to the gathering, this champion of progressive ideals had posted on Facebook, asking where the event would be taking place, as the assailant wanted to “fuck some TERFs up.”

Read More: https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/

China and the EU/UK: Big Brother’s Playground

 

Red Flags for Detainment in Xinjiang
foreignpolicy.com

The Elite Are Creating An Authoritarian ‘Beast System’, And Those That Dissent Could Lose EVERYTHING

Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog

12/03/2018

They are transforming the Internet into the greatest tool of surveillance that humanity has ever seen, and if we stay on the road that we are currently on it is only a matter of time until our society becomes a hellish dystopian nightmare.  I wish that this was an exaggeration, but it isn’t.  Over the past couple of decades, the Internet has completely changed the way that we all communicate with one another.  At one time, all forms of mass communication were tightly controlled by the elite, but the Internet suddenly allowed us to communicate with one another on a massive scale without having to go through their gatekeepers.  This radically altered the landscape, and at first the elite were unsure of how to respond to this growing threat.  There was no way that they could roll back time to an era before the Internet was invented, and so they have decided to use it for their own insidious purposes instead.

Today, the Internet has become the centerpiece of their “Big Brother surveillance grid”, and they are gathering information on all of us on a scale that has never been seen before in all of human history.  But of course it was never going to stop there.  Over the past couple of years we have started to watch the elite use all of this information to punish those that are doing or saying things that they do not like.

Perhaps the most extreme example of this phenomenon is what is going on in China.  The following comes from BuzzFeed

Chinese journalist Liu Hu always knew he’d have trouble with the authorities; he had been exposing corruption and wrongdoing for years. He was used to being hassled with regular fines and forced apologies imposed by his authoritarian government. He nevertheless persisted in truth-telling.

One day in 2017, Hu logged onto a travel site, but couldn’t book a flight because the site said he was “not qualified.” Soon he discovered he was blocked from buying property, using the high-speed train network, or getting a loan. And there was nothing he could do about it. His rights to essential goods and services were now circumscribed through an algorithm designed to discriminate against the 7.5 million people on China’s “Dishonest Persons Subject to Enforcement” list.

In China they call it a “social credit score”, but in reality it is nightmarish authoritarianism at its worst.

They are monitoring all that their citizens do and think – their political opinions, their shopping patterns, their travel history, their Internet behavior, etc. – and if they upset “the Beast system” then they could ultimately lose access to everything.

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment.

Just imagine a world in which you will no longer be able to buy, sell, open a bank account, get a loan, use public transportation or get a job.

Chinese authorities are even putting up surveillance cameras in the schools so that they can constantly monitor students

Here, the surveillance cameras took the data on individual facial expressions and used that information to create a running “score” on each student and class. If a score reached a predetermined point, the system triggered an alert. Teachers were expected to take action: to talk to a student perceived to be disengaged, for example, or overly moody.

You would think that the Chinese would rebel against such a system, but most are already too fearful to say anything about it.

Read More: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-elite-are-creating-an-authoritarian-beast-system-and-those-that-dissent-could-lose-everything

48 Ways to Get Sent to a Chinese Concentration Camp

BY TANNER GREER September 13th, 2018
here is a crisis in Xinjiang. The details are murky. The Communist Party of China has little incentive to reveal the inner workings of the vast system of surveillance and terror it has built to control the 12 million Uighur and Kazakh citizens of China’s westernmost region. From the party’s perspective, the further away the global spotlight is from its activities the better.

But we now have a rough outline of what is happening to the people of the region. In response to growing tensions between Han Chinese and the Uighur population of Xinjiang itself, the recruitment of Uighurs to fight in the Syrian civil war, and several terrorist attacks orchestrated by Uighur separatists, the party launched what it called the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism. Despite its name, the campaign’s targets are not limited to terrorists. No Uighur living in Xinjiang can escape the shadow of the party nor can members of other ethnic minorities, especially Kazakhs.

Some of the methods used to surveil and coerce the population of Xinjiang are straight from the dystopian imagination: The party has collected the DNA, iris scans, and voice samples of the province’s Uighur population, regularly scans the contents of their digital devices, uses digitally coded ID cards to track their movements, and trains CCTV cameras on their homes, streets, and marketplaces.

To students of Chinese history, other elements of the system are depressingly familiar. Cultural Revolution-style struggle sessions have been resurrected: Uighurs now gather in public meetings to denounce their relatives and publicly admit their personal political sins. Most worrisome of all is the vast network of political education camps that have been created to hold and “re-educate” Uighurs who are too attached to their mother culture. Somewhere between 600,000 and 1.2 million Uighurs—that is, approximately one out of 12—are being held in these camps.

What must a Uighur or Kazakh do to warrant detention in one of these camps? This month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a 125-page report on the crisis in Xinjiang that helps answer this question. It is titled “‘Eradicating Ideological Viruses’: China’s Campaign of Repression Against Xinjiang’s Muslims.”

Read More: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/13/48-ways-to-get-sent-to-a-chinese-concentration-camp/

Is China Really More “Dystopian” Than The UK?

RT reported that the UK’s so-called “National Data Analytics Solution” will see an algorithm process whichever of 30 separate data points have been recorded about a person in local and national police databases in order to predict which members of the population are most likely to commit a crime or be victimized by one, after which the state will dispatch local health and social workers to offer “counseling” to them in an attempt to prevent the computer’s envisioned scenario from transpiring. This program is being likened to the 2002 film “Minority Report” and carries with it a vibe of China’s controversial “social credit” system, albeit without any “rewards” being offered for law-abiding behavior. In fact, one can actually make the claim that instead of the UK copying China to a degree, it was actually China that learned from the UK seeing as how the island nation’s mass surveillance system used to be far ahead of the communist nation’s one.

The problem with “pre-crime” technology, however, is that it straddles the fine line between security and liberty in what is supposed to be a “democracy”, therefore making it uncomfortably out of place in the UK while being much more natural to implement in centrally controlled societies like China’s. While the European country insincerely pretends to be a “democracy” in the Western sense of how this system is commonly assumed to function, the East Asian one makes no such pretenses and is proud of having a different organizational model, which should be doubly disturbing for any British citizen because it means that their “democratically elected government” is actually less forthcoming about its nationwide surveillance strategy than comparatively more centralized China’s is. No value judgement is being made about either country’s governing system, but the purpose of this comparison is to point out the surprising similarities between the two that are usually lost on most observers.

For as much as China is demonized for taking proactive security measuresagainst Uighurs who the state fears are at risk of succumbing to terrorist ideologies, the UK will essentially be channeling the same spirit of this strategy through its “National Data Analytics Solution” with what can only be assumed are the ethno-socio minority groups in the country that are statistically more at risk of committing crimes or being victimized by them. The difference, however, is that drawing attention to this doesn’t serve the US’ geopolitical interests because it has nothing to gain by destabilizing the UK and possibly imposing sanctions against it for supposedly violating these subjects’ “human rights”, unlike its stance towards China in this respect. While many are fretting that “East Asia” is pioneering the way for Orwell’s 1984 to come to life, they’d do well to consider just how much “Oceania” has already done to make this a reality too.

Read More: https://orientalreview.org/2018/12/05/is-china-really-more-dystopian-than-the-uk/

 

The Truth About America’s Crony-Capitalism: It’s Controlled by Less Than a Dozen Companies

People act like massive inequalities are the fault of capitalism, a system of buying and trading goods and services that goes back to the beginning of human history.

In fact, none of us would be alive today if our ancestors did not partake in trading, buying and selling.

It has been evident through the centuries, that humans flourish the most when allowed to partake in trade, and they flourish even more depending on how free the trade is from central authorities’ taxation and arbitrary regulation.

The problem with blaming our current inequalities on today’s system of capitalism is that it’s not really a free system, but tightly controlled by corporate and government-created cartels. It’s crony capitalism. It’s corporatism. It’s not allowing people to freely trade with one another.

It would be a mistake to claim that we need to replace today’s system of centrally controlled trade with another system of central control, like socialism. You can’t cure an ill by doubling up on the poison that caused the illness in the first place.

No system that allows for human freedom and happiness can ever create perfect equality of outcomes for everyone.

Humans are messy creatures, we don’t appreciate any centrally-forced solution that reduces our freedoms.

The best we can hope from a system is to provide an equal playing field for freedom of trade… which is exactly the opposite of what we have going on today in the United States, where eleven companies control every consumer good, while five companies control all mainstream media, and a central bank, owned privately by global conglomerates controls our money policy.

11 companies control everything you buy

11 companies control everything you buy – wikibuy.com

The Myth Of American Capitalism Exposed: Competition Is Dying As The Biggest Corporations Gobble Up Everything

Vibrant competition is absolutely essential in order for a capitalist economic system to function effectively.  Unfortunately, in the United States today we are witnessing the death of competition in industry after industry as the biggest corporations increasingly gobble up all of their competitors.  John D. Rockefeller famously once said that “competition is a sin”, and he was one of America’s very first oligopolists.  According to Google, an oligopoly is “a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers”, and that is a perfect description of the current state of affairs in many major industries.  In early America, corporations were greatly limited in scope, and in most instances they were only supposed to exist temporarily.  But today the largest corporations have become so huge that they literally dominate our entire society, and that is not good for any of us.

Just look at what is happening in the airline industry.  When I was growing up, there were literally dozens of airlines, but now four major corporations control everything and they have been making gigantic profits

AMERICA’S airlines used to be famous for two things: terrible service and worse finances. Today flyers still endure hidden fees, late flights, bruised knees, clapped-out fittings and sub-par food. Yet airlines now make juicy profits. Scheduled passenger airlines reported an after-tax net profit of $15.5bn in 2017, up from $14bn in 2016.

What is true of the airline industry is increasingly true of America’s economy. Profits have risen in most rich countries over the past ten years but the increase has been biggest for American firms. Coupled with an increasing concentration of ownership, this means the fruits of economic growth are being monopolised.

If you don’t like how an airline is treating you, in some cases you can choose to fly with someone else next time.

But as a recent Bloomberg article pointed out, that is becoming increasingly difficult to do…

United, for example, dominates many of the country’s largest airports. In Houston, United has around a 60 percent market share, in Newark 51 percent, in Washington Dulles 43 percent, in San Francisco 38 percent and in Chicago 31 percent. This situation is even more skewed for other airlines. For example, Delta has an 80 percent market share in Atlanta. For many routes, you simply have no choice.

And of course the airline industry is far from alone.  In sector after sector, economic power is becoming concentrated in just a few hands.

For a moment, I would like you to consider these numbers

  • Two corporations control 90 percent of the beer Americans drink.
  • Five banks control about half of the nation’s banking assets.
  • Many states have health insurance markets where the top two insurers have an 80 percent to 90 percent market share. For example, in Alabama one company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, has an 84 percent market share and in Hawaii it has 65 percent market share.
  • When it comes to high-speed Internet access, almost all markets are local monopolies; over 75 percent of households have no choice with only one provider.
  • Four players control the entire U.S. beef market and have carved up the country.
  • After two mergers this year, three companies will control 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market.

I knew that things were bad, but I didn’t know that they were that bad.

Capitalism works best when competition is maximized.  In socialist systems, the government itself becomes a major player in the game, and that is never a desirable outcome.  Instead, what we want is for the government to serve as a “referee” that enforces rules that encourage free and fair competition.  Jonathan Tepper, the author of “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition”, made this point very well in an excerpt from his new book

Capitalism is a game where competitors play by rules on which everyone agrees. The government is the referee, and just as you need a referee and a set of agreed rules for a good basketball game, you need rules to promote competition in the economy.

Left to their own devices, firms will use any available means to crush their rivals. Today, the state, as referee, has not enforced rules that would increase competition, and through regulatory capture has created rules that limit competition.

Our founders were very suspicious of large concentrations of power.  That is why they wanted a very limited federal government, and that is also why they put substantial restrictions on corporate entities.

When power is greatly concentrated, most of the rewards tend to flow to the very top of the pyramid, and that is precisely what we have been witnessing.  The following comes from the New York Times

Even when economic growth has been decent, as it is now, most of the bounty has flowed to the top. Median weekly earnings have grown a miserly 0.1 percent a year since 1979. The typical American family today has a lower net worththan the typical family did 20 years ago. Life expectancy, shockingly, has fallen this decade.

So what is the solution?

Read More: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-myth-of-american-capitalism-exposed-competition-is-dying-as-the-biggest-corporations-gobble-up-everything

These 11 Companies Control Everything You Buy

wikibuy.com

Is freedom of choice an illusion?

The rapid rise of variation in everyday goods and services, from which cereal we eat in the morning to which toothpaste we brush our teeth with at night, gives the perception of unlimited choice. For example, if you’re deciding which bottled water to buy, the possibilities range from budget brands, like Deer Park or Ozarka, to higher-end options, like Perrier or S. Pellegrino. But this appearance of choice is actually manufactured. All of the aforementioned brands are owned by one company: Nestle.

Despite the amount of choices in the consumer market, several big companies own a large majority of major brands, effectively controlling everything you buy.

So, how much of “choice” is really controlled by big business, and how well do Americans understand which corporations have a stake in the goods and services they rely on every day? To find out, we took an in-depth look at the major companies that own a majority of America’s food and consumer goods. Then, we surveyed 3,000 Americans about their understanding of which big businesses own which major brands. Check out our full visual below, or skip ahead to see our survey findings.

Read More: https://wikibuy.com/blog/b8b9

 

The Covered-Up Crimes of the Bush Family and George H.W. Bush

We will never forget George W Bush
George H. W. Bush’s casket lying in state

The Bush Family Dynasty

by Stephen Lendman Dec 1, 2018

World headlines announced the passing of GHW Bush at age-94, eulogizing him, ignoring the disturbing Bush family legacy.

It’s not pretty. It goes back over four generations – during and after WW I, closely connected to Wall Street and America’s military, industrial, security complex.

George H. Walker and Samuel Prescott were dual founding fathers. Walker was a St. Louis financier, later working for Averell Harriman, a core member of US foreign policy elders known as “The Wise Men,” along with Dean Acheson, George Kennan and others.

They were lawyers, bankers and diplomats, together when Truman became president in 1945, involved in creating the Truman Doctrine to counter Soviet Russia, the Marshall Plan to keep European countries from going communist post-WW II, and Cold War containment, Kennan the chief architect of containing the Soviet Union after Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were defeated.

Samuel Prescott Bush, GW Bush’s great grandfather, was an Ohio industrialist – later running the small arms, ammunition and ordnance section of Washington’s War Industries Board, a close Herbert Hoover advisor.

Prescott Bush served as a US senator, Wall Street investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman, as well as involvement with weapons and munitions producers.

In the early 20th century, the Bush family was connected to John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, later with Wall Street and the US intelligence community post WW 1.

Family members included a US senator, two governors, a congressman, vice-president, CIA director and two presidents, along with industrialists and investment bankers.

Prescott Bush served as a New York-based Union Banking Corporation director, a holding company for Nazis and German steel industrialist Fritz Thyssen in the 1930s and early 40s, its assets seized by Washington in October 1942 for violating the Trading with the Enemy Act.

Prescott was with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) when the firm had business dealings with Nazi Germany, continuing through the early years of WW II until its assets were seized.

In his book titled “Trading with the Enemy,” Charles Higham documented dealings of Chase Bank, Standard Oil, Ford, General Motors, IBM, Coca Cola, Kodak, Dow Chemical, Brown Brothers Harriman, Alcoa, and other US corporations with Nazi Germany – the Bush family involved.

As vice president in the 1980s, GHW Bush was instrumental in getting Washington to arm Saddam Hussein. As CIA chief, he was involved in covering up agency coups, assassinations of foreign leaders, and notable US figures JFK, RFK, and MLK.

As vice president, he was involved in secret talks with Iran, leading to the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. With help from congressional members, including Rep. Dick Cheney, he remained unaccountable for lies, coverup and related crimes, enabling him to succeed Ronald Reagan as president in January 1989.

Before leaving office in January 1992, he pardoned six indicted Iran-Contra figures, suppressing evidence against them – including Elliott Abrams, Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert McFarlane, and Casper Weinberger.

As president on September 11, 1990, preparing America for Operation Desert Storm, Bush told a joint congressional session that war on Iraq presented “a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation,” adding: “Out of these troubled times…a New World Order can emerge.”

On September 21, 1992, Bush told UN General Assembly members that multinational troops would become a New World Order army, saying:

“Nations should develop and train military units for possible UN peacekeeping operations.” America’s permanent war agenda wasn’t explained – nor anything said about using “peacekeepers” as imperial occupiers, along with getting NATO member states and others to ally with Washington’s aim for unchallenged global dominance – endless wars its favored strategy.

In retirement, GHW Bush was considered an elder statesman, his past buried, forgotten and above rebuke – paving the way for another Bush to become president in January 2001.

Read More: http://globalintelhub.com/bush-family-dynasty/

Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush
‘Call boys’ took midnight tour of White House

Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald
The Washington Times
June 29, 1989

A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and US and foreign businessmen with close social ties to Washington’s political elite, documents obtained by The Washington Times reveal.

One of the ring’s high-profile clients was so well-connected, in fact, that he could arrange a middle-of-the-night tour of the White House for his friends on Sunday, July 3, of last year. Among the six persons on the extraordinary 1 a.m. tour were two male prostitutes.

Federal authorities, including the Secret Service, are investigating criminal aspects of the ring and have told male prostitutes and their homosexual clients that a grand jury will deliberate over the evidence throughout the summer, The Times learned.

Reporters for this newspaper examined hundreds of credit-card vouchers, drawn on both corporate and personal cards and made payable to the escort service operated by the homosexual ring. Many of the vouchers were run through a so-called “sub-merchant” account of the Chambers Funeral Home by a son of the owner, without the company’s knowledge.

Among the client names contained in the vouchers – and identified by prostitutes and escort operators – are government officials, locally based US military officers, businessmen, lawyers, bankers, congressional aides and other professionals.

Editors of The Times said the newspaper would print only the names of those found to be in sensitive government posts or positions of influence. “There is no intention of publishing names or facts about the operation merely for titillation,” said Wesley Pruden, managing editor of The Times.

The office of US Attorney General Jay B. Stephens, former deputy White House counsel to President Reagan, is coordinating federal aspects of the inquiry but refused to discuss the investigation or grand jury actions.

Several former White House colleagues of Mr. Stephen are listed among clients of the homosexual prostitution ring, according to the credit card records, and those persons have confirmed that the charges were theirs.

Mr. Stephen’s office, after first saying it would cooperate with The Times’ inquiry, withdrew the offer late yesterday and also declined to say whether Mr. Stephens would recuse himself from the case because of possible conflict of interest.

At least one highly placed Bush administration official and a wealthy businessman who procured homosexual prostitutes from the escort services operated by the ring are cooperating with the investigation, several sources said.

Among clients who charged homosexual prostitutes services on major credit cards over the past 18 months are Charles K. Dutcher, former associate director of presidential personnel in the Reagan administration, and Paul R. Balach, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole’s political personnel liaison to the White House.

In the 1970s, Mr. Dutcher was a congressional aide to former Rep. Robert Bauman, Maryland Republican, who resigned from the House after admitted having engaged in sexual liaisons with teen-age male prostitutes. Mr. Dutcher also worked on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle when he represented an Indiana district in the House.

A charge also was discovered against the credit card of a former White House staffer who prepared the president’s daily news summary in the Reagan administration. Todd A Blodgett said he had not made the charge.

One of the ring’s big spending clients is Craig J. Spence, Washington socialite and international trade consultant, according to documents and interviews with operators and prostitutes who say they engaged in sexual activities with Mr. Spence.

Mr. Spence spent upwards of $20,000 a month for male prostitutes who provided sex to him and his friends, said to include military personnel who also acted as his “bodyguards.” It was Mr. Spence who arranged the nocturnal tour of the Reagan White House. Repeated attempts to reach Mr. Spence by telephone, fax machine and personal visits to his home, were unsuccessful.

Credit card vouchers confirm that Mr. Spence charged thousands of dollars on American Express and Visa cards, sometimes making $600 charges against his cards several times a day, drawn in behalf of an escort service called Professional Services Inc.

Members of major news organizations also procured escort services from the ring, credit card documents show. These include Stanley Mark Tapscott, who was an assistant managing editor of The Washington Times.

Mr. Tapscott, whose resignation on June 20 was accepted, said he had not procured homosexual escorts or sexual services of any kind. He said in an interview that he had talked to two women he arranged to meet through the escort service as part of an investigation of a dial-a-porn services he had initiated a year earlier when he was editor of the newspaper’s Money section. The charges were made against his company American Express card. His editors knew of no such investigation.

Before joining The Times, Mr. Tapscott worked for the Office of Personnel Management in the Reagan administration.

Managers of the escort ring said that “a few women” were used for clients who called with specific requests but that the regular stable was altogether male.

The documents show that a number of clients — lawyers, doctors and business executives — used corporate credit cards to procure escort services and that a number of military officers from the United States and allied countries — including one foreign officer using a “Department of Defence” credit card — charged male escort services.

One former top-level Pentagon officer said that for the past eight years, military and civilian intelligence authorities have been concerned that “a nest of homosexuals” at top levels of the Reagan administration may have been penetrated by Soviet-backed espionage agents posing as male prostitutes, said one former top-level Pentagon official.

A major concern, said the former official with longtime ties to top-ranking military intelligence officers, was that hostile foreign intelligence services were using young male prostitutes to compromise top administration homosexuals, thus making them subject to blackmail.

Read More:
https://www.wanttoknow.info/890629washingtontimesfranklin

THE FRANKLIN COVERUP SCANDAL
The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse

Originally scheduled to air in May of 1994 on the Discovery Channel, “Conspiracy of Silence” was yanked at the last minute due to formidable pressure applied by top politicians. Some very powerful people did not want you to watch this documentary.

This was the biggest pedophile scandal in the history of the U.S.A. The story received some newspaper coverage but there was a TV News Media blackout on the subject. For this reason, most Americans have never heard of it.

Former republican Senator John Decamp was involved in the production a documentary called “Conspiracy of Silence” it was to air May 3, 1994 on the Discovery Channel. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired.

Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who had ordered all copies destroyed. A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp who made it available to retired F.B.I. chief, Ted L. Gunderson. While the video quality is not top grade, this tape is a blockbuster in what is revealed by the participants involved. You can purchase a VHS copy at this link. Or you can view an online copy at this page. Franklin Cover up video page

Boy prostitutes 15 years old (and younger) were taking midnight tours of the Whitehouse. There are 19 more Washington Times articles in full text about this case available here at this link.
Newspaper scans or text are not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

The story was also covered in the New York Times and other major east coast newspapers, but because of the links to Whitehouse and control from the top the story was killed..

There are two main suspects in the child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. here are some pictures of them. Both were involved in the republican party. King sang the National athem at two republican national conventions during the 1980s. He served time in jail for bank fraud and is now living somewhere on the east coast.. Spence was an important republican lobbyist, he commited sucide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual sex ring. Democrats were also involved in this as well, so don’t expect them to expose the sex ring.

Read More:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Franklin/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

More Memories of George H.W. Bush

Celebrating the Death of George H. W. Bush

10 Things You Should Know About George H.W. Bush, But You Probably Don’t

The great American memory hole has a way of swallowing up inconvenient facts like Hungry, Hungry Hippos swallow little white marbles.

But thankfully, not everything stays hidden. Here—in order of chronology—are ten facts about George HW Bush that have been salvaged from the dank recesses of the memory hole.

1. Prescott Bush, Adolph Hitler, and an Unsuccessful American Coup D’état (1933 and 1942)

George HW Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, was one of the financial backers of the 1933 attempted coup d’état of a United States president.

The plan, known as “The Business Plot,” was a bonafide conspiracy to take down President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The plot was foiled, however, when retired USMC Major General Smedley Butler refused to go along with the plan and, instead, exposed it.

Remarkably, Prescott Bush avoided any repercussions for his treason and continued his business as usual until 1942 when some of his assets were seized under the Trading With the Enemy Act for his profiting from dealings with companies that directly funded Adolph Hitler and his war machine.

The fact that you probably never heard of these things before is a staggering indictment of our public education system.

2. Skull & Bones (Class of 1948) and Bohemian Grove (1973)

George HW Bush became a member of the secretive Skull and Bones Society while he was attending Yale. He later joined the Bohemian Grove in 1973.

3. Operation Zapata (1961)

The failed Bay of Pigs invasion was a CIA regime-changing operation codenamed Operation Zapata. And, although the official historical narrative claims George HW Bush was not an employee of the CIA at that time, it just so happens that the codename Zapata was also the name of Bush’s petroleum company.

And if that isn’t enough of a coincidence, two of the ships used in the Operation Zapata invasion were named the Houston (where Bush lived at the time) and the Barbra (his wife’s name).

Internal FBI memos confirm George HW Bush was indeed part of the CIA long before he become the director in 1976.

4. George HW Bush and a Successful American Coup D’état (1963)

Unlike most people alive at the time (who can tell you with absolute assurance where they were and what they were doing when they heard about JFK’s murder), there remains a cloud of uncertainty about George HW Bush’s whereabouts.

This includes whether or not he remembers where he was that day, and his phone call to the FBI after the assassination, advising them he was in Tyler Texas. It is nothing less than suspicious that there’s so much mystery to where Bush was on that day.

And the suspicions surrounding the obscurity of his whereabouts on 11/22/63 is further fueled by this photo taken moments after JFK was shot, showing a man in front of the Texas School Book Depository bearing a striking resemblance to the 39-year old George HW Bush.

George H.W. Bush in Dallas Texas After Kennedy Assassination (pictures far left)
George H.W. Bush in Dallas Texas After Kennedy Assassination (pictures far left)

5. The Failed Assassination of President Reagan (1981)

It was a cool, overcast day in Washington D.C. on March 30, 1981, when President Ronald Reagan was leaving a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton Hotel. On his way to the limo, shots rang out, hitting and injuring several people, including President Reagan.

Only 70 days into Reagan’s presidency, Vice President George HW Bush nearly became president, but that did not occur because Reagan survived his injuries.

John Hinckley Jr. was the man apprehended, charged, and later convicted of the shooting. And it just so happens that the shooter’s father, John Hinckley Senior, happened to be friends with none other than . . . George HW Bush.

You read that right. Vice President George HW Bush, the man who stood the most to gain from President Reagan’s death (much like Lyndon Johnson in 1963), was friends with the shooter’s family.

The Hinckley’s were regular contributors to Bush’s campaigns over the years and here was one of the Hinckley sons attempting to commit an act that would immediately thrust family friend, George HW Bush, into the highest office in the land.

So close were these two families, in fact, that John Hinckley Senior’s other son, Scott Hinckley (the accused shooter’s brother), was scheduled to have dinner with George HW Bush’s son, Neil Bush, the following night (March 31, 1981).

It never ceases to amaze me how many connections there are between key figures in many of America’s political assassinations (and attempted assassinations). The probability of these connections is mathematically astounding, like how George HW Bush and Lee Harvey Oswald shared a mutual friend. Simply amazing.

6. No Lives Matter (1988)

On July 3, 1988, the US Navy warship USS Vincennes was in Iranian territorial water when it fired a surface-to-air-missile at a Dubai-bound commercial passenger plane. Iran Air Flight 655 was shot out of the sky killing all passengers on board, including 66 children. The US claimed it was a case of mistaken identity.

A month later, during a campaign rally on August 02, 1988, George HW Bush said in regards to this tragedy:

“I will never apologize for the United States — I don’t care what the facts are. . . . I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.”

7. Read My Lips (1988)

There’s an old saying that you can tell when a politician is lying by whether or not his lips are moving. And the same goes for George HW Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign promise of, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” That promise only lasted until 1990 when, now President George HW Bush, compromised with the Democratically-controlled Congress to increase existing taxes.

I suppose an argument could be made that he was telling the truth. After all, these weren’t “new” taxes, just an increase to the same “old” taxes.

8. Midnight Whitehouse Tours (1989)

In June of 1989, The Washington Times reported that a “Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush.”

Call Boys in the White House
Call Boys in the White House

9. Operation Just Cause (1989–1990)

President George HW Bush sent the US military into the country of Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega. And similar to sending a herd of rabid bulls into a China shop to catch one housefly, the destruction and human death toll to capture Noriega was staggering.

Estimates approximate anywhere between 300 to 3,000 Panamanians lost their lives, and 20,000 lost their homes.

In the end, Noriega was convicted on eight counts of drug trafficking, money laundering, and racketeering.

Of note: Any action taken to stop the CIA from smuggling cocaine into the US during this same time period never got any traction. But that’s a different article for a different time.

10. #HimToo (2017)

The year before his death, several women came forward alleging George HW Bush groped them.

“If the American people ever find out what we have done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.”
— George H.W. Bush (1992)

Read More: https://medium.com/@j.l.pattison/10-things-you-should-know-about-george-h-w-bush-but-you-probably-dont-4cbb88df1990

 

 

More George H.W. Bush Truths to Read About

Burn in Hell 41 George H W Bush

Let’s Talk About George H.W. Bush’s Role in the Iran-Contra Scandal

As CIA director in the mid-1970s and as Ronald Reagan’s vice president, Bush helped forge a world of strongmen, wars, cartels, and refugees that continues today. In particular, he was deeply involved in the events that became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, a series of illegal operations that began with a secret effort to arm Contra fighters in Nicaragua in the hopes of toppling the leftist Sandinista government; this effort became connected to drug trafficking, trading weapons for hostages with Iran, and banking scandals.

In 1987, Arthur Liman, chief counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition, described it as a “secret government-within-a-government … with its own army, air force, diplomatic agents, intelligence operatives and appropriations capacity.” Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, tasked with investigating Iran-Contra, concluded that the White House cover-up “possibly forestalled timely impeachment proceedings against President Reagan and other officials.” Bush was a central figure in this.

Read More: https://theintercept.com/2018/12/07/george-h-w-bush-iran-contra/

George Bush’s Wars Set the Stage for 25 Years of Endless War

  12/05/2018

George Bush used the newly apparent Soviet weakness as an opportunity to expand US foreign interventionism beyond the limits that had been imposed on it by a competing Soviet Union. Over the next decade, Bush and his successor Bill Clinton — who very much carried on Bush’s ideals of global interventionism — would place Iraq, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the crosshairs.

But first on Bush’s list was Panama in December 1989. At the time, the Panamanian state was an authoritarian regime that stayed in power largely due to US support, and functioned as an American puppet state in Central America where Communists were often successful in overthrowing right-wing dictatorships. The US regime’s man in Panama was Manuel Noriega. But, after he stopped taking orders from Washington, Noriega became the first in a long line of foreign politicians who were held up as the next “Hitler” by the American propaganda machine. This was done in order to justify what would become an endless policy of invading tiny foreign countries that are no threat to the US — mostly done in the name of “humanitarian” intervention.

Writing in April 1990, Murray Rothbard summed up the situation in Panama:

The U.S. invasion of Panama was the first act of military intervention in the new post-Cold War world — the first act of war since 1945 where the United States has not used Communism or “Marxism-Leninism” as the effective all-purpose alibi. Coming so soon after the end of the Cold War, the invasion was confused and chaotic — a hallmark of Bushian policy in general. Bush’s list of alleged reasons for the invasion were a grab-bag of haphazard and inconsistent arguments — none of which made much sense.

The positive vaunting was, of course, prominent: what was called, idiotically, the “restoration of democracy” in Panama. When in blazes did Panama ever have a democracy? Certainly not under Noriega’s beloved predecessor and mentor, the U.S.’s Panama Treaty partner, General Omar Torrijos. The alleged victory of the unappetizing Guillermo Endara in the abortive Panamanian election was totally unproven. The “democracy” the U.S. imposed was peculiar, to say the least: swearing in Endara and his “cabinet” in secrecy on a US army base.

It was difficult for our rulers to lay on the Noriega “threat” very heavily: Since Noriega, whatever his other sins, is obviously no Marxist-Leninist, and since the Cold War is over anyway it would have been tricky; even embarrassing, to try to paint Noriega and his tiny country as a grave threat to big, powerful United States. And so the Bush administration laid on the “drug” menace with a trowel, braving the common knowledge that Noriega himself was a longtime CIA creature and employee whose drug trafficking was at the very least condoned by the U.S. for many years.

The administration therefore kept stressing that Noriega was simply a “common criminal” who had been indicted in the US (for actions outside the US — so why not indict every other head of state as well — all of whom have undoubtedly committed crimes galore?) so that the invasion was simply a police action to apprehend an alleged fugitive. But what real police action — that is, police action over a territory over which the government has a virtual monopoly of force —involves total destruction of an entire working-class neighborhood, the murder of hundreds of Panamanian civilians as well as American soldiers, and the destruction of a half-billion dollars of civilian property?

The invasion also contained many bizarre elements of low comedy: There was the U.S. government’s attempt to justify the invasion retroactively by displaying Noriega’s plundered effects: porno in the desk drawer (well, gee, that sure justifies mass killing and destruction of property), the obligatory picture of Hitler in the closet (Aha! the Nazi threat again!), the fact that Noriega was stocking a lot of Soviet-made arms (a Commie as well as a Nazi, and “paranoid” too — the deluded fool was actually expecting an American invasion!).

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/george-bushs-wars-set-stage-25-years-endless-war

How Poppy Bush’s Brother, “Uncle Bucky,” Made a Killing Off the Iraq Wars

 

Seeking to distinguish himself from his more predatory relatives, William Henry Trotter Bush, the younger brother of Bush Sr. and an investment banker in St. Louis, gave an interview to disclaim any profiteering on his own part. Indeed, he sounded downright grumpy, as if his older brother hadn’t done enough to steer juicy government deals his way. “Being the brother of George Bush isn’t a financial windfall by any stretch of the imagination,” huffed William H.T. Bush.

Well, perhaps being the brother of the president didn’t generate as much business as he hoped, but having the good fortune to be the uncle of the president certainly appears to have padded the pockets of the man endearingly known to George W. Bush as “Uncle Bucky.”

A few months before his selection as president, Bush’s Uncle Bucky quietly joined the board of a small and struggling St. Louis defense company called Engineered Support Systems, Incorporated (ESSI). Since Bush joined the team, ESSI’s fortunes have taken a dramatic turn for the better. This once obscure outfit is now one of the top Pentagon contractors. Next year its revenues will top $1 billion, nearly all of it derived from defense contracts with the Pentagon or with foreign militaries financed by US aid and loan guarantees. Even sweeter, most of these contracts have been awarded in no bid, sole source deals.

True to form, Uncle Bucky claims that ESSI’s amazing transformation has nothing to do with him or his nephew, the president. “I don’t make any calls to the 202 (DC) Area Code,” Bush sneered to the Los Angeles Times.

Read More: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/04/how-poppy-bushs-brother-uncle-bucky-made-a-killing-off-the-iraq-wars/?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free