The term "global markets" is a euphemistic sound bite promoted for 3 decades to convince us that it's only natural the US become a 'service oriented economy' via so-called trade agreements to include shaping of US political policy. Stakeholders who assumed we were conquered face going broke with America First economics. Thus, they oppose Trump and the interests of 63 million Americans who elected him to stop their exploitation of us

.
"The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.” What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress. It’s not."...

12/26/17, "Exiting NAFTA – The Myth of Global Markets," tcth, sundance 

"Approximately a decade ago the U.S. Dept of Agriculture stopped tracking, and reporting, U.S. consumer food prices. The food sector joined the ranks of fuel and energy in no longer being measured to track inflation and backdrop Fed monetary policy. Not coincidentally this was simultaneous to U.S. consumers seeing massive inflation in the same sector.

There are massive international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.

When you understand how trade works in the modern era you will understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.

The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists. It doesn’t.

Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity. 

Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics.

The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.

In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
 
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations.

The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.

U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.

Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.

That is, global financial exploitation of national markets. 

FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.

♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China, and against the backdrop of NAFTA being renegotiated, revisiting the economic influences within the import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter. There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.

For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. 

Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?

Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”

What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress. It’s not.

It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates and massive financial corporations.

Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.

This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). 

This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.

Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations-simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.

A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.) 

However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).

Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

During the past several decades national companies merged. 

The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.

…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.

National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. But most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
 
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.

Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is how the corporation maximizes it’s profits.

Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.

If the U.S. harvest is abundant, they will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.

The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.

The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly BS.

A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.

Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.

EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).

Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.

With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins.

The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.

In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.

EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). 

It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, it’s almost everything.

Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can afford the high prices.

Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system).

Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.

The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.

Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).

This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, ore, then sells the finished good back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations). ‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.

Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump."



.................

Star over Bethlehem

.

The Little Drummer Boy


 
.............

Mexico murders reach record high in 2017. 23,101 murder investigations opened in first 11 months of 2017, murder rate 18.7 per 100,000. US murder rate 5 per 100,000-Reuters

.
"Mexico would have died...without the option to send its rural poor--fully one-fifth of its population--to the United States."... 6/17/2013, "Syria and Egypt can't be fixed," by Spengler, Asia Times   
 ........................
12/23/17, "Mexico murders hit record high, dealing blow to president," Reuters, Diego Ore and Dave Graham; Editing by Andrea Ricci

"Mexico has this year registered its highest murder total since modern records began, according to official data, dealing a fresh blow to President Enrique Pena Nieto’s pledge to get gang violence under control with presidential elections due in 2018.

A total of 23,101 murder investigations were opened in the first 11 months of this year, surpassing the 22,409 registered in the whole of 2011, figures published on Friday night by the interior ministry showed. The figures go back to 1997.

Pena Nieto took office in December 2012 pledging to tame the violence that escalated under his predecessor Felipe Calderon. He managed to reduce the murder tally during the first two years of his term, but since then it has risen steadily. 

At 18.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, the 2017 Mexican murder rate is still lower than it was in 2011, when it reached almost 19.4 per 100,000, the data showed. The rate has also held below levels reported in several other Latin American countries. 

According to U.N. figures used in the World Bank’s online database, Brazil and Colombia both had a murder rate of 27 per 100,000, Venezuela 57, Honduras 64 and El Salvador 109 in 2015, the last year for which data are available. 

The U.S. rate was 5 per 100,000. 

Still, Pena Nieto’s failure to contain the killings has damaged his credibility and hurt his centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which faces an uphill struggle to hold onto power in the July 2018 presidential election. 

The current front-runner in the race, leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has floated exploring an amnesty with criminal gangs to reduce the violence, without fleshing out the idea. 

Mexican newspaper Reforma said on Saturday that after a campaign stop in the central state of Hidalgo on Friday, Lopez Obrador again addressed the issue when asked whether talks aimed at stopping the violence could include criminal gangs. 

“There can be dialogue with everyone. There needs to be dialogue and there needs to be a push to end the war and guarantee peace. Things can’t go on as before,” Reforma quoted Lopez Obrador as saying.

Such a strategy harbors risks for the former Mexico City mayor. 

A poll this month showed that two-thirds of Mexicans reject offering an amnesty to members of criminal gangs in a bid to curb violence, with less than a quarter in favor. 

The law bars Pena Nieto from seeking re-election." 

------------------

Added: In 2016 Mexico was the world's second deadliest country:

5/9/17, "Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016," CNN, Elizabeth Roberts

"It was the second deadliest conflict in the world last year, but it hardly registered in the international headlines.

As Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dominated the news agenda, Mexico's drug wars claimed 23,000 lives during 2016-- second only to Syria, where 50,000 people died as a result of the civil war.

"This is all the more surprising, considering that the conflict deaths [in Mexico] are nearly all attributable to small arms," said John Chipman, chief executive and director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which issued its annual survey of armed conflict on Tuesday. 

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed 17,000 and 16,000 lives respectively in 2016, although in lethality they were surpassed by conflicts in Mexico and Central America, which have received much less attention from the media and the international community," said Anastasia Voronkova, the editor of the survey.

In comparison, there were 17,000 conflict deaths in Mexico in 2015 and 15,000 in 2014 according to the IISS....

Not on News Agenda

Jacob Parakilas, assistant head of the US and the Americas Programme at London-based think tank Chatham House, said part of the reason for the relative lack of attention paid to Mexico in the international media is "it's not a war in the political sense of the word. The participants largely don't have a political objective. They're not trying to create a breakaway state. It doesn't come with the same visuals. There are no air strikes....

"And Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a journalist. They are intentionally targeted in Mexico, which puts a dampener on the ability to report on this.""...

Unfortunately, 4 US states share borders with Mexico. Map from wikipedia

................

UK Foreign Sec. Boris Johnson visits Russia as both sides have interest in improving relations. Johnson adopts "Trust but verify"-BBC

.
12/22/17, "Boris Johnson says UK wants better relations with Russia," BBC 

"Boris Johnson says the UK's relations with Russia are "not on a good footing" but he wants them to improve, after talks in Moscow.

Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov accused the UK of making "insulting" statements ahead of the meeting.

But he said he trusted Mr Johnson and they had agreed on the need to work together on the UN Security Council.

Mr Johnson is the first UK foreign secretary to visit Russia in five years. 

Mr Lavrov said it was no secret that Britain's relations with Russia were at a "low point".

And he accused Britain of making a series of "aggressive and insulting" public statements ahead of their meeting, saying Russia had done nothing to justify being seen as an aggressor in relation to its actions in Ukraine and Syria.

Cyber-attacks

"I cannot recall any of Russia's actions that would be aggressive in relation to the United Kingdom. We did not blame London for anything," said Mr Lavrov. 

"On the contrary, we have heard accusations, even insultingly formulated - that we support the criminal regime in Syria, that we are aggressors, that we are occupiers, we annex other territories. 

"And all this despite the fact that on all the regional issues in question, and on many others, all information about what our position is, what it is based on, is regularly provided."

The pair also clashed over Russia's alleged attempts to interfere in elections in the West, following UK Prime Minister Theresa May's warnings about the risks of Russia's "sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption".

Ahead of the meeting in Moscow, the UK government said Mr Johnson would warn Russia to stop cyber-attacks which threaten Britain's national security or face retaliation of a similar kind from the UK.

But Mr Lavrov accused Mr Johnson of being a "hostage" of untrue Western narratives on the issue, insisting Russia had not meddled in elections in other countries.

Mr Johnson said there was "abundant evidence" of Russian interference in polls in the US, Germany, Denmark and France."...

[Ed. note: This claim isn't supported by reported evidence: "German Intel Clears Russia on Interference," Consortium News, R. McGovern, 2/15/2017; "German Election Mystery: Why No Russian Meddling?" NY Times, 9/21/2017; "The Latest: France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron," AP, 6/17/2017; In Denmark, no election "hacking" reported, despite headline. Attempted and failed email spear phishing isn't "hacking." Spear phishing email attempts to Defence Ministry in 2015 and 2016 were largely unsuccessful, none successful vs classified information: "October 2016: The hacker’s third attempt at stealing login information using a fake login page is attempted and about 1,000 phishing emails were sent to specific employees working for the Defence Ministry." For perspective, the US state of Wisconsin receives 60,000 "attempts" against its computer systems daily: "Two days before the state's April 5 [2016] presidential primary last year, security analysts logged more than 150,000 alerts in a single day. On a typical day over the past two years, the state has logged fewer than 60,000 of these alerts, which attempt to find holes in state systems." 9/26/2017, "In reversal, feds proclaim Russians did not seek to hack Wisconsin's election system," jsonline....No computer is guaranteed secure. Don't use computers for non-public material. As to the US, it has long history of meddling in foreign elections: 10/13/2016, "The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere," Washington Post, by Ishaan Tharoor] 

(continuing): "Mr Lavrov hit back by telling Mr Johnson he himself had said Russia had not interfered in Britain's general election and Brexit referendum.

Mr Johnson interrupted his Russian counterpart to add: "Not successfully."

Mr Lavrov said the evidence produced so far of Russian attempts at interference amounted to no more than the spending of "a few kopecks" on social media adverts.

'Cradle of democracy'

"I think you have made all this up in your Western community and unfortunately right now you are hostage to this subject, it is very difficult for you to climb down from the fence you have climbed."

He also criticised Britain for cutting off ties with Russia's FSB security agency over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London, saying the UK authorities had refused to hand over information in the case.

He said government criticism of British politicians who speak to Russian media outlets, such as the RT television channel, damaged the reputation of the UK as "the cradle of democracy".

Mr Johnson acknowledged the "difficulties" in relations with Russia, adding: "It is a regrettable state of affairs but it should not preclude co-operation."

The UK foreign secretary said they had identified common ground on issues such as North Korea, Syria and trade - and said the UK and Russian security services should co-ordinate ahead of next year's World Cup.

'Boris's coat'

As the mood at the press conference relaxed, Mr Lavrov said: "I trust Boris and I trust him to an extent that I am ready to call him BorIs [Russian-style pronunciation] rather than BOris."

Mr Johnson said he adopted the approach Ronald Reagan had taken with Mikhail Gorbachev: "Trust, but verify."

And he joked that his trust was so great that he had handed his coat with "everything in my pockets, secret or otherwise" to Mr Lavrov when he arrived at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building.

Mr Lavrov joked back: "I can say that there was nothing in the pockets of Boris's coat", to which Mr Johnson responded in surprise: "So you have searched it already?"

Mr Johnson's trip follows Prime Minister Theresa May's accusation last month that Russia was trying to "undermine free societies".

Her criticisms were repeated by Ciaran Martin, chief executive of GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre, who said that Russia was "seeking to undermine the international system"." 

[Comment: What is "the international system?"]

............................

"Analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale:"

"Despite the differences between London and Moscow, both sides have an interest in improving what is a poor relationship.

There are several issues where both Britain and Russia sometimes disagree but want more dialogue. 

On Syria, the UK wants to help shape any future political settlement while Russia needs western money to help rebuild the country. 

On North Korea, both Russia and the UK want to find ways of de-escalating the crisis prompted by Pyongyang's ballistic missile programme. 

And on Iran, both sides want to do what they can to protect the deal they helped negotiate to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. 

So Friday's meeting may have allowed both sides to rehearse their differences - and the veteran Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, gave as good as he got from the comparative novice foreign secretary, Boris Johnson.

But it also allowed them to crack a few jokes and build a relationship that they could need in the years to come. 

This was not a reset or a return to business as usual but the opening of a channel of communication that in recent years has been as frozen as the Moscow winter."

 
..............

US Border Patrol fails to vet convicted heroin smuggler, honors him with "love has no borders" wedding ceremony at border, uses US tax dollars to provide armed guard for cartel wedding. Convicted smuggler cleared DHS check-BBC, San Diego Union-Tribune

.
12/22/17, "US-Mexico border bridegroom smuggled heroin," BBC

US protected drug smuggler, BBC video

"A US man who wed his Mexican fiancée at the border with Mexico last month turned out to be a convicted heroin smuggler, local media report. 

Background checks failed to reveal Brian Houston was awaiting sentencing in San Diego at the time, and the US Border Patrol approved the event.

The wedding was part of a "Door of Hope" event which allows meetings between people not allowed to cross.

The BBC and other media reported on the unusual wedding. 

Joshua Wilson, from an organisation representing border guards in San Diego, told the San Diego Union-Tribune that agents were "upset".

"They feel like they were taken advantage of, feel like they were duped," he said. "Turns out we provided armed security for a cartel wedding."

The incident may put the annual event on jeopardy.

Houston, who is from San Diego, signed official Mexican documents with Evelia Reyes of Mexico, making them husband and wife.

"It's a statement that love has no borders," Houston said afterwards.

He had been arrested in February [2017] at another border crossing after police found 19.5kg (43lb) of heroin, 21kg [47 lb] of methamphetamine and 19.5kg [43 lb] of cocaine in his car, according to the complaint.

However, he was released on bail with a ban on leaving the US after he pleaded guilty in court in May. His sentencing is in February.

A Border Patrol spokesman, Takae Michael, said Houston had been screened through an internal vetting process based on information provided by the event's organisers, the Border Angels group, and no criminal activity had shown up. 

Nor were his plans for the wedding reported to the Border Guard in advance. 

"They showed up dressed for a wedding," Mr Wilson said. "The agents there were powerless to stop it. We were certainly put on the spot."

The annual meetings on the border between San Diego and Tijuana started in 2013.

Enrique Morones, executive director of Border Angels, said his organisation had never done "any background checks as the Border Patrol advised us they will do all background checks and advise us which families have been cleared"."
......................

Added:

12/21/2017, "Border groom passes federal background check, turns out to be convicted drug smuggler," San Diego Union-Tribune, Kristina Davis

US-Mexico border, U-T video

"When Brian Houston wed his Mexican fiancée in a surprise ceremony during a rare opening of the steel gate on the U.S.-Mexico border fence last month, he said it was because he could not cross into Tijuana. Now we know why.

Houston, a U.S. citizen, is awaiting sentencing in San Diego federal court on a drug smuggling conviction
— a fact that the Border Patrol says it did not know when it ran a background check on him clearing him to participate in the event at Border Field State Park.

Houston was arrested in February as he crossed through the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Found hidden in his Volkswagen Jetta were 43 pounds of heroin, 47 pounds of methamphetamine and 43 pounds of cocaine, according to the complaint.

“The agents are upset, feel like they were taken advantage of, feel like they were duped,” said Joshua Wilson, vice president and spokesman for the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613.

“Turns out we provided armed security for a cartel wedding.”

The incident could put future “Door of Hope” events in jeopardy. 

The event is closely monitored and choreographed, with a handful of vetted families on the U.S. side allowed to embrace and greet family members on the Mexican side in three-minute reunions under the watchful eye of Border Patrol agents. The encounters are held in a small strip of land owned by the Department of Homeland Security known as Friendship Park.

The enormous border gate has opened with fanfare like this six times since 2013.

The events are organized by the Border Angels nonprofit group, run by executive director Enrique Morones. He gives questionnaires to interested families who cannot cross the border legally for whatever reason, and the forms are then provided to the Border Patrol for approval.

“Border Angels has never done any background checks, as the Border Patrol advised us they will do all background checks and advise us which families have been cleared,” Morones said in a statement Wednesday.

Twelve families were approved for the Nov. 18 opening — including Houston — although one family did not show, Morones said.

Border Patrol spokesperson Takae Michael said Houston was “screened through an internal vetting process based on biographical information provided to us” by Morones. “A review of the provided information, through our DHS systems, did not indicate criminal activity,” Michael said.

The wedding between Houston and Evelia Reyes was a surprise to agents. The couple — in only a few minutes — signed documents from the Tijuana municipal authorities, posed for pictures and hugged. The nuptials were widely covered by news outlets on both sides of the border, including the Union-Tribune.

“It's a statement that love has no borders,” Houston told reporters at the time. “Even though we are divided by a giant fence here, we can still love each other on both sides of the fence.”

He said his wife was working with an immigration attorney to get a green card to live in the U.S.

Wilson, the Border Patrol union rep, said Morones should have alerted the agents to the wedding.

“They showed up dressed for a wedding,” Wilson said. “The agents there were powerless to stop it. We were certainly put on the spot.”

The Border Patrol said that after the wedding, “a subsequent review of Houston’s information was completed and confirmed a match for a previous arrest for drug smuggling.”

Morones said he plans to meet soon with San Diego’s new Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott to discuss the incident and future events.

“We were shocked to learn this past week of Brian Houston’s very serious criminal situation. That goes against everything Border Angels stands for,” Morones said. Border Angels is a humanitarian group serving immigrants that started decades ago by leaving water and other supplies in the desert for border crossers.

Houston, a SENTRI pass holder, approached the port of entry at 10:30 a.m. on Feb. 28 and said he had nothing to declare, according to the complaint. But the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer smelled a strong chemical odor while inspecting the trunk and noticed scrapes that suggested the lining of the compartment had been tampered with, the complaint states.

Under the lining, several plastic-wrapped packages could be seen, the complaint says. The car was driven through an X-ray machine and several more packages were detected in all four doors, rear quarter panels and the spare tire. There were 67 packages in all.

After his arrest he was granted release on $20,000 bond secured by the signatures of his parents and a 15 percent cash deposit, according to court records. He was also not allowed to enter Mexico and had to surrender his U.S. passport.

He pleaded guilty in May to importing the three drugs. Sentencing is set for Feb. 23."


..................

Two websites for US Inspector General investigation news, one twitter and one .gov

.
"Inspector General Investigations," Oversight.gov

.................

Twitter.com/Oversightgov



............

Wrong man was installed in Ukraine by Obama, neocons, and EU in 2014 Ukraine regime change-Bloomberg, Leonid Bershidsky, opinion...(Like all US regime changes, the result was even worse suffering and corruption at a cost of billions of US taxpayer dollars)

.
"The U.S. had invested $5 billion in their [Ukraine's] “European aspirations"...The Ukraine crisis is spinning out of control, making the State Department’s preferred narrative of the conflict that it’s all Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fault harder and harder to sell....Neocons at The Washington Post and elsewhere still rant about the need for the Obama administration to sink more billions upon billions of [taxpayer] dollars into post-coup Ukraine because it “shares our values.” But that argument, too, is collapsing."..."In other words, the neocons have struck again, dreaming up a “regime change” scheme that ignored practical realities, such as ethnic and religious fissures. Then, as the blood flowed and the suffering worsened, the neocons just sought out someone else to blame."...(2nd parag. from end) 7/13/2015, "The Mess that [Victoria] Nuland Made," Robert Parry, Consortium News
...............

12/5/17, "The West Backed the Wrong Man in Ukraine," Bloomberg View, by Leonid Bershidsky 

"President Petro Poroshenko is sacrificing Westernization to a personal political agenda." 

"It's become increasingly clear that Obama-era US politicians backed the wrong people in Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko's moves to consolidate his power now include sidelining the anti-corruption institutions he was forced to set up by Ukraine's Western allies.

Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So, as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans, they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their agendas turned out to be more self-serving.

While Ukraine was in existential need of Western money, Poroshenko and his political allies followed the conditions attached to the aid. Among other things, parliament voted to set up an independent National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) that was supposed to investigate graft, and a special anti-corruption prosecutor.

Gradually, however, it became clear that though the agency and the prosecutor could make loud noises and investigate hundreds of cases (about 400 so far), they found it hard to make charges stick because the largely unreformed court system pushed back. Ukraine's European and U.S. allies demanded that a special anti-corruption court be set up. Poroshenko, however, has been lukewarm about the idea, pointing out that few countries had such an institution. Despite repeated Western demands, backed by a group of young pro-Western legislators, Poroshenko still hasn't submitted a legislative proposal on the court -- even though the Venice Commission, which analyzes legislation for the EU, has provided detailed recommendations on what the bill should look like. 

At the same time, Prosecutor General Yury Lutsenko, a close Poroshenko ally, began an open war against NABU [National Anti-Corruption Bureau]. An agent of the Anti-Corruption Bureau was detained last week while trying to hand over a bribe to a migration service official, and the bureau's offices were searched. NABU chief Artem Sytnyk claimed in response that the bribe was part of a sting operation Lutsenko hadn't known about. That didn't stop Lutsenko from continuing to attack Sytnyk and his bureau, accusing them of illegal operations and unauthorized cooperation with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Poroshenko, while not officially taking Lutsenko's side, denounced the whole squabble: "There's so much noise and screaming, so many feathers flying that it's sometimes reminiscent of some Latin American carnival. It would seem funny if it weren't so sad."

The U.S., however, is openly siding with NABU in the conflict. On Monday, the State Department issued a statement condemning "the disruption of a high-level corruption investigation, the arrest of officials from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and the seizure of sensitive NABU files." It quoted Secretary Rex Tillerson as saying, “It serves no purpose for Ukraine to fight for its body in Donbas if it loses its soul to corruption. Anti-corruption institutions must be supported, resourced, and defended.”

Poroshenko, however, appears to have other plans.

This year, Ukraine has paid $270 million more back to the IMF than it has received from it. Government finances have stabilized on the back of modest economic growth, which, according to the Bloomberg consensus forecast, should reach 2 percent this year. At the same time, the Western position on the conflict in eastern Ukraine has congealed. There is a greater chance than ever that the U.S. will supply Ukraine with lethal weapons. Poroshenko has clearly concluded that he won't lose Western political backing as long as he maintains an anti-Russian stance, and he no longer has a pressing need for financial backing on a firm schedule. As long as Western leaders see Ukraine as a bulwark against Russia, he can act domestically as any other old-school Ukrainian politician, for whom the borders between power, money and brutal force are blurred.

His harsh actions against his most vocal opponent, former Georgian president and former Odessa governor Mikheil Saakashvili, show Poroshenko can be as ruthless as Yanukovych. After a failed attempt to kick Saakashvili, an anti-corruption firebrand, out of Ukraine for allegedly obtaining its citizenship under false pretences, Poroshenko's law enforcement apparatus has harassed and deported the Georgian-born politician's allies. Finance Minister Oleksandr Danilyuk, who helped Saakashvili set up a think tank in Kiev -- which is now under investigation for suspected financial violations -- has accused law-enforcement agencies of "putting pressure on business, on those who want to change the country." Danilyuk himself is being investigated for tax evasion.

On Tuesday, investigators arrived to search Saakashvili's Kiev apartment, and, for a few minutes, the former governor was on the roof of his eight-story building threatening to jump unless left alone. He was then held for hours in an unmarked police van next to his building as hundreds of his supporters prevented the vehicle from driving off. At the time of this writing, Saakashvili, freed by his captors, was holding a rally in front of the Ukrainian parliament.

At this point, even the most vocal Western supporters of the post-revolutionary Ukrainian government have realized that something is wrong with Poroshenko. "President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for economic growth, EU or IMF funding, " economist Anders Aslund, who has long been optimistic about Ukrainian reforms, tweeted recently. 

Poroshenko, however, would have gotten nowhere -- and wouldn't be defending Ukraine's opaque, corrupt, backward political system today -- without Western support. No amount of friendly pressure is going to change him. If Ukrainians shake up their apathy to do to him what they did to Yanukovych -- or when he comes up for reelection in 2019 -- this mistake shouldn't be repeated. It's not easy to find younger, more principled, genuinely European-oriented politicians in Ukraine, but they exist. 

Otherwise, Western politicians and analysts will have to keep acting shocked that another representative of the old elite is suddenly looking a lot like Yanukovych."



................

Google is effectively Karl Marx. 90% of US online searches are via google. Google decides what if anything you can know. Monopoly on means of communication defines ruling elite. Google and Facebook together threaten diversity of thought-Wall St. Journal op-ed, Mark Epstein

.
12/18/17, "The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought," Wall St. Journal opinion, Mark Epstein (Dec. 19 print ed.)

"A political website pulled an article after Google’s AdSense team threatened to withdraw advertising."

"A monopoly on the means of communication,” Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson wrote in “Leviathan,” their 1975 novel, “may define a ruling elite more precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of ‘monopoly in the means of production.’ ” Bear that in mind when you hear this next statistic: In 2017 Google and Facebook have accounted for 84% of all digital advertising outside China, including 96% of its growth, according to an industry forecast this month from Zenith, Magna and GroupM. 

Those figures should create more than the typical economic concerns about market concentration. Specifically, the tech duopoly’s dominance threatens the marketplace of ideas. Beyond advertising, Google and Facebook control how millions of people find their news. Americans are far likelier, collectively, to encounter articles via search engines and social media than on a news site’s home page. 

Google is used for nearly 90% of online searches in the U.S. A Pew survey this summer found that the four most popular social-media sites for getting news are Facebook, YouTube (owned by Google), Twitter (which has a Google partnership), and Instagram (owned by Facebook). No more than 5% of Americans use another social-media platform to get news.

In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” Mr. Pai cited YouTube’s decision to place age restrictions on and pull ads from videos by conservative commentator Dennis Prager’s Prager University, including a video by Alan Dershowitz on Israel’s founding. 

He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station. Twitter has refused sponsored tweets from immigration opponents, saying its hate-speech policy is triggered by messages such as “the fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3b compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1b.”

Google, Facebook and Twitter place stricter content policies on advertisers than general users. There are legitimate reasons for this. The tech companies are sensitive to accusations that they not only profit from controversial content but also fund it by giving its creator a slice of the ad revenue.

When virtually all online advertising goes through two companies, however, they have the power to harm websites arbitrarily. One political blog that posted an article trying to distinguish the “alt-right” from white nationalism received a warning email from Google’s AdSense team. An editor took the article down, explaining to readers that the blog “needs revenue from the Google ad platform in order to survive.”"...

[Ed. note: "To survive" as what? A google echo chamber?]

(continuing): "You needn’t agree with the editorial decision to publish the article to be troubled by Google’s vetoing it. 

In his 2014 book “Zero to One,” Peter Thiel notes that because Google “doesn’t have to worry about competing with anyone, it has wider latitude to care about ...its impact on the wider world.” If executives at a Silicon Valley monopoly believe that censoring certain content will push the world in a positive direction, market pressures cannot sufficiently restrain them.

Journalists also argue that tech companies are pushing media toward the lowest common denominator. Social media rewards clickbait—sensational headlines that confirm readers’ biases. Google and Facebook’s advertising duopoly bleeds traditional publishers of the revenue needed to produce high-quality news. At the same time, Google’s search engine is biased against subscription content, depleting another source of funding.

The bottom line is that Google’s and Facebook’s advertising policies and algorithms make it less profitable to produce high-quality journalism from any perspective. Their duopoly also gives tech executives the power to defund and block content they personally object to without taking a major hit to the bottom line.

While these two companies have faced little antitrust scrutiny, the Justice Department has filed suit to block AT and T’s purchase of Time Warner. But look how Randall Stephenson, AT and T’s chief executive, explained this summer one hope for the merger: “Once we complete our acquisition of Time Warner Inc., we believe there is an opportunity to build an automated advertising platform that can do for premium video and TV advertising what the search and social media companies have done for digital advertising.” Now the Justice Department’s lawsuit may perversely entrench the Google and Facebook duopoly.

In October 2016, Donald Trump’s economic adviser Peter Navarro advocated breaking up “the new media conglomerate oligopolies that have gained enormous control over our information, intrude into our personal lives, and in this election, are attempting to unduly influence America’s political process.” Mr. Navarro chose the wrong target. Antitrust authorities ought to be concerned about the undue influence of Google and Facebook."

"Mr. Epstein is an antitrust attorney and freelance writer." 

"Appeared in the December 19, 2017, print edition."

..........