Skip to content

Facebook VP of Ads responds: I’ve seen all the Russian ads and can say definitively that swaying the election was not the main goal. It’s not well known that most Russian ad spending was AFTER the election-Rob Goldman twitter, 2/16/18

2/16/18: Facebook VP of ads, Rob Goldman, explains key facts of Russian actions that still aren’t well understood following Rod Rosenstein reading indictments from Mueller committee. From Mr. Goldman’s twitter account (8 separate twitter entries follow):

Very excited to see the Mueller indictment today. We shared Russian ads with Congress, Mueller and the American people to help the public understand how the Russians abused our system. Still, there are keys facts about the Russian actions that are still not well understood.

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was NOT the main goal. … 

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared it, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Trump and the election. …

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation. …

The single best demonstration of Russia’s true motives is the Houston anti-islamic protest. Americans were literally puppeted into the streets by trolls who organized both the sides of protest. …

The Russian campaign is ongoing. Just last week saw news that Russian spies attempted to sell a fake video of Trump with a hooker to the NSA. US officials cut off the deal because they were wary of being entangled in a Russian plot to create discord. …

There are easy ways to fight this. Disinformation is ineffective against a well educated citizenry. Finland, Sweden and Holland have all taught digital literacy and critical thinking about misinformation to great effect. …

We are also taking aggressive steps to prevent this sort of meddling in the future by requiring verification of political advertisers and by making all ads on the platform visible to anyone who cares to examine them.


Below, 8 twitter entries from FB VP Ads Rob Goldman reflecting text above 

Above 8 twitter images from Facebook VP Ads, Rob Goldman twitter

More on Russian ads:

2/11/18, “A group of industry insiders is putting Russian election meddling up for ad awards,

“A group of industry insiders is putting Russian election meddling up for ad awards.”

Image from TechCrunch


Added: 9/11/2017, from Daily Beast: Alleged Russian Facebook group promoted an Aug. 2016 rally in rural Idaho. No proof exists that the rally took place or that anyone attended. It’s possible to claim attendance on Facebook to events that don’t exist. In this case the ‘rally’ was scheduled for a Saturday at a government location that’s closed Saturdays:

“It is also possible to claim attendance on Facebook at an event that didn’t exist.”

9/11/2017, Exclusive: Russia Used Facebook Events to Organize Anti-Immigrant Rallies on U.S. Soil,Daily Beast, Ben Collins, Kevin Poulsen, Spencer Ackerman

Russian operatives hiding behind false identities used Facebook’s event-management tool to remotely organize and promote political protests in the U.S., including an August 2016 anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rally in Idaho, The Daily Beast has learned….

The three-hour protest was titled “Citizens before refugees,” and would be held at the City Council Chambers beginning at 11 a.m. The notice provided the street address and ended with a fiery exhortation….

[parag. 10] Although 48 people clicked that they were “interested” in the protest, only four said they went to City Council Chambers that day, according to the event page, possibly because it was a Saturday and the Council was not in session.“… 

Daily Beast admits there’s no way to tell from Facebook pages if anyone attended alleged events or if events even took place: 

“It is also possible to claim attendance on Facebook at an event that didn’t exist.”… 


Alleged Russian Facebook group promoted an Aug. 2016 rally in rural Idaho. No proof exists that the rally took place or that anyone attended. It’s possible to claim attendance on Facebook to events that don’t exist. In this case the ‘rally’ was scheduled for a Saturday at a government location that’s closed Saturdays-Daily Beast, 9/11/2017

“It is also possible to claim attendance on Facebook at an event that didn’t exist.”

9/11/2017, Exclusive: Russia Used Facebook Events to Organize Anti-Immigrant Rallies on U.S. Soil,Daily Beast, Ben Collins, Kevin Poulsen, Spencer Ackerman

Russian operatives hiding behind false identities used Facebook’s event-management tool to remotely organize and promote political protests in the U.S., including an August 2016 anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rally in Idaho, The Daily Beast has learned….


The three-hour protest was titled “Citizens before refugees,” and would be held at the City Council Chambers beginning at 11 a.m. The notice provided the street address and ended with a fiery exhortation….

[parag. 10] Although 48 people clicked that they were “interested” in the protest, only four said they went to City Council Chambers that day, according to the event page, possibly because it was a Saturday and the Council was not in session.“… 

Daily Beast admits there’s no way to tell from Facebook pages if anyone attended alleged events or if events even took place: 

“It is also possible to claim attendance on Facebook at an event that didn’t exist.”… 


Florida Governor Rick Scott calls for resignation of FBI Director Christopher Wray after he admits FBI completely ignored recent, detailed tip about Florida school mass murderer-Fox News

Fatally out of touch FBI Director Wray: There is no finer institution than the FBI and no finer people than the men and women who work there and are its very beating heart.…12/7/2017, “FBI Director Christopher Wray defends agency after Trump’s attacks,” CNN, Diaz, Shortell…”It’s difficult to find a domestic terrorist investigation that the FBI hasn’t screwed up. 11/20/2017, “Should The FBI Be Abolished?” American Spectator, Steve Baldwin

2/16/18, Florida Gov. Rick Scott calls for FBI Director Christopher Wray to resign in wake of Parkland school shooting, Fox News, Adam Shaw 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to resign Friday in the wake of revelations the bureau ignored a Jan. 5 tip about Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz, who killed 17 when he opened fire on Valentine’s Day. 

The agency said earlier Thursday in a statement that it received a call in January [2018] from a person close to Cruz through its Public Access Line tipline to express concerns about Cruz’s erratic behavior and disturbing social media posts.

That tip said that Cruz had a gun, wanted to “kill people” and there was the “potential of him conducting a school shooting.


It said that while that information should have been forwarded to the Miami FBI field office, it was not, and no further investigation was conducted.

Cruz allegedly walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Wednesday with a gas mask, smoke grenades and multiple magazines of ammunition before firing an AR-15 at students and faculty members.

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public,” Wray said in the statement. “It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.”

But [Gov.] Scott said Wray must resign, saying acknowledging a mistake “isn’t going to cut it.

“An apology will never bring these 17 Floridians back to life or comfort the families who are in pain. The families will spend a lifetime wondering how this could happen, and an apology will never give them the answers they desperately need,” he said in a statement.

“We constantly promote ‘see something, say something,’ and a courageous person did just that to the FBI. And the FBI failed to act. ‘See something, say something’ is an incredibly important tool and people must have confidence in the follow through from law enforcement. The FBI Director needs to resign.”

Cruz was charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder on Thursday and is being held without bail.

Additionally, the FBI confirmed Thursday the bureau received a tip in September [2017] about a disturbing YouTube comment by a user named “Nikolas Cruz” that said “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.”

Special Agent Rob Lasky, in charge of the FBI’s Miami division, said the agency investigated the comment, but said it could not identify the user who made the comment. He also said there was no connection found to South Florida.

On Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said it was “inexcusable” that the FBI failed to follow protocols that could have prevented Wednesday’s shooting.

“The fact that the FBI is investigating this failure is not enough. Both the House and Senate need to immediately initiate their own investigations into the FBI’s protocols for ensuring tips from the public about potential killers are followed through,” Rubio said in a statement.” 

“Fox News’ Lucia Suarez Sang and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


It’s difficult to find a domestic terrorist investigation the FBI hasn’t screwed up. A rash of 140 federal agencies has failed miserably to control crime and make the country safe. National law enforcement agencies have predictably become bloated tools for ruling elites to silence rubes who pay the bills. In most cases, best law enforcement is local-Steve Baldwin, American Spectator, 11/2017

In 2016, Islamist Omar Mateen slaughtered 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. While the FBI did investigate him for 10 months it closed the file because it believed he was “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” Seriously.”

11/20/2017, Should The FBI Be Abolished? American Spectator, Steve Baldwin

Abuses from the likes of Comey and Mueller are just the tip of the iceberg. We need to be reminded why the founders opposed having any sort of national police force.”

“For the last few years, the media has been dominated by a number of sensational stories: that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the presidential election; that the Trump team was wiretapped by Obama intelligence officials; that Hillary used a private email server to transmit classified information; that Hillary and the DNC colluded with Russian sources to compile a dossier on Trump, and finally, that Russia acquired 20% of America’s uranium supply during the same time period $145 million miraculously appeared in the Clinton Foundation’s bank account. It all stinks to high heaven but it’s created a confusing array of facts that has bewildered most Americans. They all know something is seriously wrong with their country even if they can’t pinpoint exactly what the problem is.

But there is a common denominator in all these scandals or alleged scandals, and that would be the FBI and the actions they took or didn’t take. Indeed, it’s hard to not conclude that the agency’s actions in these events were improper if not illegal. If so, this validates the warnings by constitutionalists in the early 1900s that a federal police force would someday be used to prop up the ruling elites and attack those who dare challenge the establishment. 

Under FBI Director James Comey, Hillary was allowed to escape prosecution, even though he presented compelling evidence that she committed numerous felonies by transmitting classified documents using her private email server. Comey also leaked classified information to a friend to be disseminated to the media, another felony, and his FBI was the recipient of a dossier full of sensational but false allegations traced to Putin-connected individuals. Instead of investigating the dossier’s sources, Comey used the phony intel as the basis for his allegation that the Russians intervened in our election, a charge later proven to be without factual basis. It also appears that Comey likely used the dossier’s claims to convince a FISA court to authorize a phone tap on various Trump aides and possibly even Trump himself.

Lastly, Comey refused to demand that the DNC hand over the computer servers they claimed were hacked by Russia, but nevertheless, he announced that the Russians had hacked into the DNC, thereby helping to create the phony Trump/Russia collusion narrative. But a group of cyber experts led by former high-ranking NSA cyber expert Bill Binney has concluded that the hack simply could not have occurred for technical reasons and that the leaked DNC emails had to come from an inside source.

Regardless, for Comey to create a phony “Russia hacked the DNC” narrative without his agency ever analyzing the DNC server calls into question his honesty and his integrity. 

On top of all that, former FBI director Robert Mueller — now Special Counsel — is investigating Trump for collusion with Russia when the evidence is now revealing that the only party that colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 campaign was the Democratic Party. But Mueller doesn’t have the integrity to widen his investigation to cover the Clinton/GPS Fusion/Russian dossier scandal but instead is spending millions on investigating alleged crimes by former Trump campaign workers that occurred years ago and had nothing to do with Trump, Russian collusion, or the 2016 election.

Lastly, when Mueller was FBI Director, he served on the board of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the agency that approved the sale of uranium to Russia by the Uranium One company only a short time after his own agency had arrested a Russian official attempting to bribe American uranium officials. But there is no record of Mueller warning his fellow CFIUS members about the illegal Russian efforts. It likewise begs logic to believe that Mueller knew nothing about the $145 million the Clinton Foundation received from Putin-connected sources shortly after the CFIUS vote. It is also inconceivable that Mueller, as FBI Director from 2001-2013, was not aware that the Clintons were using their foundation and Hillary’s Secretary of State position to operate a massive pay-to-play scam that went far beyond the Uranium One scandal.

It has become abundantly clear that Mueller is a partisan, as is Comey. Both of them have jeopardized national security in order to protect the Democratic Party. This is an unprecedented situation and both men should be investigated. Moreover, Mueller should be removed as the Special Counsel. The foxes are guarding the hen house.

Mueller and Comey have turned the FBI into a partisan force that ignores crimes by the left and fabricates crimes on the right such as the Trump/Russian collusion theory. Again, such corruption of the FBI was predicted by constitutionalists at the time the agency was formed. That time has arrived.

Within most conservative circles today it would be considered sacrilegious to argue in favor of abolishing the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Indeed, older Americans still think of the FBI as an agency full of incorruptible, efficient, clean-cut guys in suits tracking down mobsters and exposing communist subversion. Younger Americans are influenced by popular shows such as television’s Criminal Minds, which, again, portray the G-Men as squeaky clean heroes. 

However, it has become increasingly clear in recent years that this agency has become so politicized, so corrupt, and so large and bureaucratic that it may no longer be an effective agency. The time has come to discuss its abolition.

The FBI was started in 1935, although its predecessor — the Bureau of Investigation — was founded in 1908. In the early 1900s, crime was becoming more nationalized with multi-state mob crime families and the creation of large prostitution smuggling rings that crossed state lines. As a result, advocates of a federalized police force argued that a federal law enforcement agency was necessary in order to keep up with the criminals. The main argument was that the local police forces didn’t have the resources or the flexibility to investigate complex criminal cases or to chase mobsters from state to state.

But note that the FBI did not come into existence until 132 years after the country declared its independence. This was because the founders never envisioned a federal role for law enforcement. It is not one of the “enumerated” duties of the federal government listed in the constitution.

There were reasons for that. Our founders were skeptical of a large federal government and, indeed, not even the “federalist” faction argued for a federal law enforcement role. The Constitution’s authors all assumed that most of the country’s governing would be carried out by state and local governments; the Federal government was created simply to take care of things that states were not well suited to do, such as maintaining a military, minting currency, and negotiating trade treaties.

Indeed, for most of America’s first century, the highest law enforcement officer was the county sheriff.

Except for treason, the idea of federal crimes was not even mentioned in the Constitution. Our founders had a healthy fear of America turning into a tyrannical government such as those which existed all over the world at the time. They wanted to maximize freedom; hence the Bill of Rights.

They assumed the creation of a federalized police force would make it far easier for the federal government to abuse the rights of its citizens. This is why neither the Constitution, the ratification debates, nor the Federalist papers ever mention anything about a federal law enforcement role. Nada.

Nothing. Indeed, in Federalist No. 45, James Madison specifically singles out “internal order” as an “unenumerated power” that must “remain in the state governments.”

In the last few decades, Congress has created over 3,000 federal crimes, thereby undermining the authority of local law enforcement and ultimately making the federal government more powerful and more prone to corruption and tyranny. As the late Washington Times columnist Sam Francis wrote,

“Over the last 30 years or so, the creeping federal incursion into law enforcement has yielded some 140 agencies at the federal level that have such a role… but everyone knows the federal engulfment of law enforcement has failed miserably to control crime and make the country safe. That’s because, by its very nature, effective law enforcement is local.

And there’s no doubt that national police forces in other countries have been used to transition a country to a dictatorship. Historian William L. Shirer wrote in his famous history of Nazi Germany, The Rise and Fall of the Third Rich, “On June 16, 1936, for the first time in German history, a unified police as established for the whole of the Reich — previously the police had been organized separately by each of the states …the Third Reich, as is inevitable in the development of all totalitarian dictatorships, had become a police state.”

But the FBI has never seemed concerned about its growing powers. Indeed, in the aftermath of WWII, the FBI was so impressed with Hitler’s police state, they secretly hired hundreds of Nazis as spies and informants. As Rutherford Institute president and conservative civil rights lawyer John Whitehead writes, the FBI “then carried out a massive cover-up campaign to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. Moreover, anyone who dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.”

But long before the rise of Hitler, America’s founders understood that the more locally controlled law enforcement is, the more accountable they are, whereas, a federal police force tends to be abused by a central government and is largely unaccountable to local and state governments. Indeed, it is unsettling to review the long list of incidents in which the FBI abused the rights of Americans and was clearly used by one political faction or another to carry out police state-like tactics. Let’s take a trip down memory lane:

Prosecuting Opponents of World War 1. President Woodrow Wilson used the FBI’s predecessor to illegally harass and prosecute thousands of peaceful opponents of World War 1, a war most conservatives would argue America had no business entering. [“Over there, over there, send the word to beware over there, cause the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming.”…]

COINTELPRO. This was the FBI’s covert internal security program in the 1950s and ’60s, created to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize” groups and individuals the government deemed to be enemies. It was carried out under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover with the consent of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Congressional hearings found that “Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that … the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association…” Many conservatives of the day cheered on COINTELPRO since it targeted Marxists and antiwar groups, but that cheering ended when the FBI set its sights on the right.

FBI Preparations for Martial Law. MuckRock, a group that exposes governmental corruption, obtained a 1956 FBI document via a FOIA request that described the FBI’s plans to implement martial law and round up dissidents in the event of nuclear war. The document, titled “Plan C,” states that ‘”as of April 17, 1956, 12,949 individuals were scheduled for apprehension in an emergency.” The FBI’s secretive list of “anti-government” citizens they felt needed to be rounded up has never been revealed but it’s clear the FBI was keeping files on anti-government individuals.

The Ruby Ridge Murders. In 1992, a BATF informant convinced former Green Beret Randy Weaver to sell him two shotguns which had barrels shortened illegally, thus creating the pretext for the FBI to launch a military-style assault on Weaver’s remote Idaho cabin, eventually killing his wife and fatally shooting his son in the back. The FBI agents violated numerous rules of engagement and an Idaho jury found Weaver innocent of almost all charges.

According to author James Bovard, “Judge Lodge issued a lengthy list detailing the Justice Departments misconduct, fabrication of evidence and refusal to obey court orders.” No one was held accountable; indeed the agent in charge, Larry Potts, was promoted to FBI Deputy Director.

The Waco Massacre. In 1993, 76 citizens — including 26 children — were burned to death when the FBI laid siege to a Branch Davidian compound in Waco on the grounds they believed cult leader David Koresh possessed unauthorized weapons.

However, there was no reason for the FBI to use police state tactics. Koresh visited town almost every week and could have easily been arrested during these excursions. Six years later the FBI admitted during the course of a civil lawsuit that the tear gas it fired into the compound was, in fact, pyrotechnic tear gas, which, probably caused the fire that killed most of the people. The shells were even stamped with a fire warning. Moreover, a law enforcement infrared video revealed muzzle flashes from the FBI’s positions, so contrary to the FBI’s testimony that they did not fire “a single shot,” it appears its snipers were shooting people as they tried to escape the compound. Indeed, a Policy Analysis report by the Heritage Foundation stated that “numerous crimes by government agents were never seriously investigated or prosecuted” and therefore, “the people serving in our federal police agencies may well come to the conclusion that it is permissible to recklessly endanger the lives of innocent people, lie to newspapers, obstruct congressional subpoenas, and give misleading testimony in our courtrooms.”

Helping Bill Clinton Collect Dirt on his Enemies. Often referred to as “Filegate,” in 1993-94, the FBI willingly turned over as many as 900 background check files on Republicans to the Clinton White House. Nothing came of the investigation into this as the Clintons claimed it was all a big mistake. Right.

Project Megiddo. This was another shady FBI project, launched in 1999, created for the purpose of monitoring groups on the right, such as constitutionalists, devout Christians, anti-tax activists, anti-UN and pro-gun groups and individuals, all considered by the FBI to be budding terrorists. Such descriptions cover just about everyone on the right. It is not known if Project Megiddo violated the rights of individuals as the FBI did with previous similar programs, such as COINTELPRO, but it’s likely.

Not surprisingly, much of the info used by Project Megiddo was fed to them by hysterical leftist groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), as even the FBI has publicly acknowledged. Shameful.

Use of Criminals as Undercover Agents. Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead writes, “FBI agents are also among the nation’s most notorious lawbreakers. In fact, in addition to creating certain crimes in order to then ‘solve’ them, the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law… USA Today estimates that agents have authorized criminals to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day. Some of these informants are getting paid astronomical sums.”

Operation Vigilant Eagle. This FBI program initiated in 2009 targeted anti-government activists such as Tea Party activists and, alarmingly, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who are, as one FBI document states, “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering for the psychological effects of war.”

The purpose of this program was allegedly to counter terrorism, but there’s not a shred of evidence veterans are more prone to terrorism than any other citizen. Nonetheless, the FBI actually claimed that veterans who challenge the government are suffering from “Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD).” One of the program’s first targets was 26-year-old decorated Marine veteran Brandon Raub.

Due to posting anti-government statements on his Facebook page, the FBI arrested Raub with no warning, labeled him mentally ill and placed him in a psych ward against his will. Thankfully, Rutherford Institute attorney John Whitehead intervened and secured his release. Whitehead writes that he “may have helped prevent Raub from being successfully ‘disappeared’ by the government.” And this has happened to other veterans. If the FBI paid as much attention to jihadists as it does to military veterans, it would have stopped every domestic terror plot!

Targeting Pro-Lifers. In 2010, The FBI held a joint training session on terrorism with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. The main message of the seminar was that all pro-lifers are potential terrorists, an outrageous allegation. Indeed, material passed out by the pro-aborts at the seminar listed three pages of “anti-abortion websites,” including those of National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Human Life International. None of those groups advocate violence. This is another example of how the FBI allows itself to be used by the left to go after its enemies.

Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the FBI created a project called VAAPCON to create files on pro-life religious leaders such as Rev. Jerry Falwell. Indeed, Judicial Watch, representing Falwell, sued the Clinton White House, seeking info on the project, but all the files mysteriously disappeared, Clinton style.

The IRS Scandal. The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained documents revealing that the FBI was involved with the illegal IRS effort to investigate — and thus silence— around 500 conservative and Tea Party groups during Obama’s 2012 reelection. Perhaps the worst use of the IRS in American history, this was about manipulating the 2012 presidential election and the FBI was complicit in this abuse of governmental power. As JWs Tom Fitton writes, “Both the FBI and Justice Department collaborated with Lois Lerner and the IRS to try to persecute and jail Barack Obama’s political opponents.””…

[Ed. note: The Tea Party was no threat to Obama. It was a mortal threat to the GOP Establishment. It cost Obama nothing to use his influence with the IRS to help his GOP E pals who in any case desperately wanted Obama re-elected in 2012 and would elect him for life if they could.]

(continuing): “FBI Worked With the SPLC. For much of the Obama era, the FBI listed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on its website as part of its effort to combat “hate crimes.” However, many of the groups identified by the SPLC as “hate groups” are not. One example is the Family Research Council, a mainstream pro-family organization. As a result of the FBI’s promotion of SPLC’s phony hate group list, a shooter entered FRC’s headquarters in 2012, wounding the front desk security guard and attempted to slaughter all the FRC employees. He was subdued by the wounded guard. Indeed, the SPLC believes all Christian groups that oppose the gay agenda or abortion are “hate groups,” a bizarre notion that has never been condemned by the FBI even though it did, in 2014, quietly drop the SPLC from its website.

Data Mining Innocent Americans. In 2013, Bloomberg exposed the FBI’s data mining project carried out on hundreds of thousands of Americans, most of whom were not guilty of any crimes.

Raids on Homes of Anti-Government Activists. Repeatedly, the FBI has raided homes on the flimsiest of evidence. In 2014, it raided the home of prepper Martin Winters, claiming he was some kind of domestic terrorist. But nothing was found aside from food stocks and other survivalist gear. 

Then there’s Terry Porter, also a prepper, whose house the FBI raided in 2012 using twice as many agents as in the Branch Davidian raid. Again, nothing alarming found there. Since when did anti-government preppers become terrorists? The FBI raids group meetings as well, such as when it raided a Republic of Texas secessionist movement meeting in 2015. No one was arrested because no one did anything illegal. But once again, the FBI treated a handful of elderly men discussing constitutional issues as a terrorist plot.

Fraudulent Forensics. Special Agent and whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst revealed in 2015 that FBI crime lab technicians routinely testified falsely about crime lab samples throughout the 1980s and 1990s. As former Judge Andrew Napolitano writes, “its agents and lab technicians who examine hair samples testified falsely in 257 of 268 cases that resulted in convictions. Of the convictions, 18 persons were sentenced to death, and of those, 12 have been executed.” Yes, innocent people died, thanks to the FBI.

FBI High School Informer Network. In 2016, the FBI launched an effort to enlist the help of high school students to ostensibly identify terrorists, but the FBI documents in question reveal they were also urging students to report on anti-government groups such as libertarian and constitutional groups. This effort is shockingly similar to the informant networks set up by the KGB in the USSR and the Stasi in East Germany.

The FBI Record on Fighting Terrorism.

Many Americans assume, however, that at least in the area of Islamic terrorism, the FBI has kept Americans largely safe.
Not so fast. The record doesn’t quite show that. In fact, the agency has blundered many terrorism investigations and thus jeopardized the security of Americans.


  • In 2009, Islamist Nidal Hasan fatally shot 13 people at the Fort Hood Military Base, but his radical associations and open support for jihad were previously known by the FBI. It even had emails in which Hasan stated he wanted to kill his fellow soldiers. Indeed, records show that not only was there reluctance by officials to drum Hasan out of the military — for political reasons — but he was promoted at every opportunity.
  • In 2013, local officials caught seven foreign Muslims trespassing after midnight onto Quabbin Reservoir, a critical Northwest drinking reservoir. The FBI took over the case but let the trespassers go because they believe them to be just “tourists.” Yes, just midnight tourists. Only a few months earlier, another terrorist had been arrested for planning to poison a different reservoir.
  • In 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring hundreds more. Russian intelligence warned the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the agency even interviewed him, but it appears the FBI determined that Russia’s intelligence was not accurate. Until the bombs went off.
  • In 2015, when the government watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained documents confirming that ISIS terrorists were crossing the Mexican/Texas border, concerned FBI agents held meetings at the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez with Mexican officials. But not to figure out a plan to deal with such crossings, but rather to deny these allegations and to determine who leaked the info to JW. Forget the message and attack the messenger. What a great counter-terrorism strategy.
  • In 2015, the FBI failed to prevent the San Bernardino terror attack by an Islamic couple from Pakistan connected to an Islamic terrorist group whose files were among those purged earlier by the FBI, thereby making it nearly impossible for the agency to detect this pair.
  • In 2015, two Islamic terrorists attacked a Muhammad art expo in Garland, Texas, but the FBI actually had an informant at the scene with the terrorists, but it never bothered to warn the expo’s organizers of the impending attack. Apparently, the agency didn’t want to blow the informant’s cover! Fortunately, security guard Bruce Joiner shot and killed both shooters before they could get inside the exhibition hall. Joiner wonders why the FBI would allow this attack to transpire, stating “That’s not the kind of thing we do in the United States with our citizens.”
  • In 2016, Islamist Omar Mateen slaughtered 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. While the FBI did investigate him for 10 months it closed his file because it believed he was “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” Seriously.
  • The FBI has flat out denied that Las Vegas shooter Steven Paddock has any Islamic terror connections, but the reality is it really doesn’t know enough about him to make such a claim. Indeed, ISIS never takes credit for attacks that are not its own and on three occasions, it has announced Paddock was connected to ISIS. It even revealed Paddock’s Islamic name: Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki. Also, Paddock made trips to the Middle East. Given the FBI’s record, ISIS’s statements may be more credible than the FBI’s denials.
  • The latest terrorist incident in New York City was also bungled. Months before Sayfullo Saipov mowed down over 20 people, the FBI interviewed him because it knew he was connected to two men with terrorist connections. As such, his visa should have been revoked and he should have been deported, but the agency didn’t even open up a file on him.
  • Finally, the 9/11 terrorist attack itself could have been prevented by the FBI. It had enough intel to connect the dots but didn’t. Many of its pre-9/11 reports on al Qaeda were lost or not shared with the proper people. One was a memo by Phoenix FBI Agent Ken Williams, describing suspected al Qaeda members training at U.S. flight schools. How could that not result in a full-scale investigation? And Special Agent Mark Rossini sent a message to FBI headquarters warning that 9/11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar had a multi-entry visa to enter the U.S. before 9/11. But that cable went “missing” when Congress held hearings on how our intelligence agencies manage to completely miss so many obvious clues.

And there are many other examples that can’t be cited here due to lack of space, but it’s difficult to find a domestic terrorist investigation that the FBI hasn’t screwed up. The above incidents alone cost the lives of almost 3,200 Americans. One would think that in the aftermath of 9/11, the FBI would make an effort to become more efficient when it comes to counter-terrorism, but with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the FBI not only remained overly bureaucratic but became hyper politically correct.

Incredible as it may seem, in 2011, Obama’s FBI Director, Robert Mueller, met with a coalition of radical Islamic groups and agreed to purge thousands of files “offensive” to Muslims. Judicial Watch said the “purge is part of a broader Islamic ‘influence operation’ aimed at our government and constitution.”

In other words, the FBI caved in to groups that do not have our best interests at heart. Indeed, two of the groups Mueller met with, ISNA and CAIR, were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Many terror experts believe this purge crippled the FBI’s abilities to detect some of the terror plots that occurred during the Obama years. Due to its desire not to offend Muslims, the FBI jeopardized the lives of many Americans.

Conservatives Should Quit Defending the FBI
The FBI has a long history of being used by various administrations to harass certain groups and individuals, or, conversely, to allow certain groups and individuals to commit crimes without fear of prosecution. The FBI is supposed to uphold the Constitution but instead has repeatedly violated the constitutional rights of Americans. This politicization has cost many Americans their lives and their freedoms. The abuse listed here is not comprehensive but it’s enough, one would think, to make conservatives think twice about defending this agency’s police state tactics.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal has reported that “nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database,” even though most of them have not been convicted of a crime. Does anyone really believe our founding fathers would be fine with such sweeping federal law enforcement powers?

The aforementioned conservative civil rights attorney, John Whitehead, summarizes today’s FBI: “In additions to procedural misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, the FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, and harassment.” President Harry Truman once said, “We want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is trending in that direction.” And that was 72 years ago.

It’s Time to Turn Over FBI Investigations to the States

If the FBI was abolished and its workload turned over to the states, it would not be as difficult as some would portray it.
Indeed, what most Americans don’t realize is that almost every state already has a state version of the FBI. New Mexico has the New Mexico State Police, the Golden State has the California Bureau of Investigation, Texas has both the Texas Rangers and the Texas Department of Public Safety, and Georgia has the Georgia Bureau of investigation. (One can view the list here.)

Moreover, all these agencies are equipped with crime labs and the latest forensic tools. At one time, such tools were prohibitively expensive for state police agencies to acquire, but technological advances have brought the cost of such equipment down, resulting in most states having the latest forensics equipment that at one time was monopolized by the FBI. For example, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is famous for its forensic work: “The Division of Forensic Sciences envisions a future in which we continue to build and develop an internationally recognized forensic laboratory system that partners with governmental and private entities….”

Today, much of the FBI’s work entails the investigation of federal crimes committed within one state. There is no reason why the states can’t handle these investigations and if the case does happen to cross over into other states, then the states simply coordinate. Those days in which a criminal would escape the law by crossing a state line are long gone. Indeed, that practice was one of the reasons why the FBI was created, but with today’s advances in communication technology, that simply doesn’t happen anymore. All states today have the technology to easily track criminals as they cross state lines and it’s not difficult for two states or more to work together in the apprehension of a criminal.

Already, states today cooperate on a wide array of governmental actions; there is no reason why they can’t coordinate on a police investigation or criminal apprehension.

Some of the FBI’s workload involves complex white-collar cases such as tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud, and commodities fraud, but if a state police agency feels it doesn’t have the expertise to investigate such crimes, it can enlist the assistance of existing agencies that already investigate such crimes. The IRS, Securities Exchange Commission, Treasury Department and the Secret Service all have investigative branches that handle different aspects of financial crimes.

Then, of course, there are the federal crime databases largely maintained by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center database, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Integrated Fingerprint Identification System, and the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). These databases should be turned over to the Department of Justice, which, in part, already play a role in maintaining them. More importantly, the state police agencies will need to be given ready access to these databases if they are to take on cases formerly handled by the FBI.

State law enforcement agencies are not perfect but it is far more difficult for the federal government to politicize the actions of a state agency. Moreover, it is much easier to hold state agencies accountable for any abuses they commit, just by virtue of being closer to the people.

Indeed, with access to federal crime databases, most state police agencies have the capability to handle cases the FBI now handles, including domestic terrorist investigations. It’s a good bet that, given the FBI’s record on terrorism, the states will do a better job at stopping and preventing terrorism.

America’s founders were wise men and they knew not to make law enforcement a federal responsibility. They foresaw how the federal government could use a national police agency to play favorites, wreak havoc on our democratic institutions, and ultimately move us closer to a police state. The only question that remains is whether any politician will have the guts to initiate discussion on abolishing the FBI.”

Triumph for Trump: US trade deficit with China drops 13% in Dec. 2017; US exports to China surge 7.5% to record high in Dec. 2017; imports from China fall 7.6% in Dec. 2017-Reuters, Commerce Dept. 2/6/18…(Reuters waits til 23rd paragraph to report good news of Dec. 2017 drop in China trade deficit and surge of US exports)

Exports to China surged 7.5 percent to a record high in December. As a result, the U.S.-China trade deficit declined 13 percent in December.” (Last sentence of article, 23rd paragraph–you cannot make this up. The article was about December 2017 numbers reported today 2/6/18).

2/6/18, U.S. trade deficit rises to nine-year high on robust imports, Reuters, Lucia Mutikani, David Lawder

“The U.S. trade deficit widened more than expected in December to its highest level since 2008, as robust domestic demand pushed imports to a record high, adding to the stiff headwinds faced by the Trump administration’s “America First” trade policies

The import-driven surge in the trade gap reported by the Commerce Department on Tuesday also suggests 3 percent annual economic growth may be hard to achieve. Imports, which subtract from gross domestic product, could get a further boost from a $1.5 trillion tax cut package that became effective in January….

[paragraph 7] The politically sensitive U.S.-China trade deficit jumped 8.1 percent to a record $375.2 billion last year. President Donald Trump has vowed to shrink the trade gap by shutting out more unfairly traded imports and renegotiating free trade agreements…. 

Many American factory workers bought into the promise of the president’s trade policy reforms, but they are still waiting for results,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing….

The Trump administration believes a smaller trade deficit, together with deep tax cuts, could boost annual economic growth to 3 percent on a sustained basis. Late in January, Trump imposed broad tariffs on imported solar panels and large washing machines, and is considering slapping tariffs or quotas on steel and aluminum for national security reasons.

Such actions may prove politically popular with Trump’s working-class supporters, particularly in states hard-hit by factory closures and import competition. But economists say they would likely do little to change the growth trajectory of the overall trade deficit, which is tied more to macroeconomic factors….

[paragraph 19] Imports from China fell 7.6 percent in December. There were also declines in goods imported from Canada and Mexico, the United States’ major trading partners.

[paragraph 20] Exports of goods increased 2.5 percent to $137.5 billion in December, the highest level since October 2014. Exports of capital goods hit a record high, lifted by civilian aircraft and industrial machines.

[paragraph 21] There were also gains in exports of industrial supplies and materials. Petroleum exports increased to their highest level since August 2014.

Exports are being boosted by a strengthening global economy. A weakening dollar is also making American-made goods more competitive on the international market. 

Exports to China surged 7.5 percent to a record high in December. As a result, the U.S.-China trade deficit declined 13 percent in December.” (paragraph 23)

Comment: Reuters was apparently so upset about the Dec. 2017 good China trade news for Trump that they saved it until the very last sentence of the article. In its important first paragraph, Reuters informs readers of sad news of stiff headwinds faced by the Trump administration’s “America First” trade policies.

Reuters took the additional trouble to change the thesis of their article without explanation in the 7th paragraph. Instead of reporting Dec. 2017 trade results about China announced today (the reason for the article), they decide to report results for the entire year 2017, during which China deficit “jumped to a record high.” Trump wasn’t even on the job for the entire year. In the tapestry woven by Reuters, readers have no choice but to believe Trump is a failure on US-China trade. Reuters expands its “Trump is a failure” narrative by including select quotes they’ve miraculously found agreeing that Trump’s had no results (one of which I included above). “Reaction” quotes are all before the good news of paragraph 23.

Reuters includes no quotes or reactions to the good news in paragraph 23.


Media have become enemy of the American people and fundamental threat to democracy says former Democrat pollster Pat Caddell, 9/21/2012. Media have “made the decision they will control the political process.” In 2012 Romney should’ve said, ‘I’m running against the media which will not tell you the truth’-Sept. 21, 2012 remarks

Sept. 2012 article:

9/27/2012,Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become “Enemy of the American People”, Roger Aronoff, AIM

“In remarks to the AIM conference…on September 21st, former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, “I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy.” Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from “organized governmental power,” they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers.

Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was covered up for nine days because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack. 

We’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this,” said Caddell. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers.”

Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but “It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know.”

He closed his talk with these words: “The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and go to serve—to decide that they will now become an active participants—when they decide that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if…we allow this stuff to go on, and…we’ve crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.”

You can watch highlights of his talk here. You can also watch the entire talk along with Q and A below, or watch along with a transcript here.” “The Audacity of corruption.”

More Pat Caddell from 9/21/2012 transcript referenced above:

“These individual reporters—let me tell you something about the press: Reporters become reporters and don’t enter the political fray because, basically, they can’t stand the heat.”…

9/21/2012,“The Audacity of Corruption,” Transcript, Accuracy in Media Conference, Speaker: Pat Caddell

From Caddell transcript:When I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people. That changed in 1980.  There’s a lot of reasons for it…. 

Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever. But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. 

We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances. We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.

The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to…. 

The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.” Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference.  Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it….

There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it.… We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t…. 

Too many political people in the Republican party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press.  You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning.”… 

From Q and A:

“CADDELL: The corruption in this town is so great.  Everybody in Washington seems to almost be on the take….When you have firms that have Ed Gillespie in business with Jack Quinn, who was the counsel for Bill Clinton, and responsible for the pardon of Marc Rich, among other things, is because everybody in this—those people on K Street, in both parties, are about arrangements and money. Everyone in the press is. We have stimulus money being given. We have people who, as I said, the relationships, when people are making contracts, and their husbands and wives are getting—Jay Carney’s wife works in the government! Now he works—he was the head of the Time Magazine! He was a liar then, and a liar now, apparently! You know—and nobody says there’s anything wrong with this. And you’re right: Everybody’s on the take here, and everybody’s cutting up their stock. That’s why, what used to be one of the best and most important things for the press, which was the investigative journalism of corruption and money, the stealing of the taxpayers, the looting of the Treasury isn’t an issue, and why no one speaks of it in this town….

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: Thank you….I am very concerned about Romney’s poor campaign, combined with the media bias the way it is. Is there anything that Romney can do at this point?

CADDELL: Well, he should’ve been out there already! He should’ve been out there pushing back—and so should the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment, as I said, in this town…to me, a lot of the establishment, is getting a lot of money to line their pockets, and not fighting or doing things that are effective. Why aren’t they out there challenging this? Why isn’t Romney himself getting up and saying, “I’m running against two organizations: I’m running against the Democrats and the President, and I’m running against the mainstream media, which will not tell you the truth”?

Now let me tell you something: You want to liven up some of your rallies? That’ll do it. But they don’t do it because this man dares to be cautious. He’s going to dare-to-be-cautious himself right out of a race that was his to lose, and he’s losing it….

(Caddell): These individual reporters—let me tell you something about the press: Reporters become reporters and don’t enter the political fray because, basically, they can’t stand the heat. That’s my experience. You ever watch reporters under attack in a public venue and so forth? They wilt like—they melt like ice on the equator. The fact is that they need to be called out. Their organizations need to be called out. Ezra Klein still writes for The Washington Post? I mean, this is unbelievable! They had a secret operation group, “Journo” group, online, coordinating how they would promote Obama, and how they would attack Republicans—and he’s still there? But nobody calls out the publisher, or the editor, or whatever—there is no effort here—or calls him….

We have a different press now. They have now made the decision they will control the political process. They are serving—with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the networks and these newspapers are, in effect, contributing—in-kind contributions to candidates in the Democratic Party. 

That’s the legal issue that I would have been exploring.  I mean, I would begin to put the heat on.

But the Republicans never said a word.”…


Pat Caddell is the founder of Cambridge Survey Research, a public opinion pollster, and an expert in analyzing public opinion.  Many will recognize him from his frequent appearances on Fox News, and some of us—the older ones in here—will remember him from all the way back to the McGovern campaign.  He also worked on the Carter campaign, for Gary Hart, for Joe Biden, and Jerry Brown. What some of you might not be aware of is that Pat Caddell also worked as a consultant to various movies, TV shows, and documentaries, most notably Apocalypse Now, The West Wing, on TV, and, most recently, to a documentary you may have seen the last couple weeks on Fox called The Hope and the Change.  And without further ado, I’m going to welcome Pat Caddell.”

Vicente Fox, Labor Pimp, views Mexicans as a product for export: “Mexico would have died without the option to send its rural poor-fully one-fifth of its population-to the United States.” David Goldman, 6/17/2013. Global dictators and tyrants appreciate that US taxpayers are their slaves. US acceptance of foreigners by the millions enables incompetent governments around the world. Normal consequence of bad government can’t take place because US is always there to take the pressure off–“Vicente Fox, Labor Pimp,” Johnson, Human Events, Feb. 2005

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

“Normally, bad government is unstable government. When a government makes a substantial part of its population destitute or unhappy, it can expect them to work against that government, first as individuals and over time as political parties, gangs–or even armies. But with America close-by to absorb the most unhappy, bad governments have found a release for those segments of their populations they most fear: the poor, the ambitious, the disgruntled.”
Feb. 2005 article (during Vicente Fox 2000-2006 administration):

Feb. 8, 2005, “Vicente Fox, Labor Pimp,” Human Events, Mac Johnson

“Mexico’s president, Vicente Fox, has made increasing the flow of his people out of Mexico and into America his highest priority in his relationship with the US. His expressed desire is that the border should pretty much cease to exist — at least for Northbound traffic. He would prefer that America voluntarily acquiesce to his desire to depopulate his nation’s poorest neighborhoods, but he is also prepared to achieve this depopulation unilaterally. Mexican consulates brazenly issue official-looking ID cards to illegal aliens in the U.S. to help them appear legitimate to employers and banks.

And, infamously, the Mexican government recently published a “how-to-guide for those wishing to illegally smuggle themselves into the United States. In poignant testament to the extent to which Mexico’s government has utterly failed its people, the guide was issued in comic book form, to facilitate its use by the illiterate….

The attitude of Mexico’s rulers to this chronic exodus now appears to have changed to something more like “Good riddance”. Apparently, they believe every Mexican that leaves Mexico is a Mexican they don’t have to solve any problems for….
The merits of mass immigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico into the US are a source of constant discussion in America.But consider, for just a moment, what the situation must look like from the other side of the broken border. With his enthusiastic support for emigration by the tens of millions, Vicente Fox has essentially said to his people “My best idea for Mexico is to send Mexicans someplace where people have better ideas.” Apparently, Mr. Fox lacks the “vision thing”. Imagine if President Bush’s plan for economic recovery in the last recession had been exporting the unemployed. (But the situation in Mexico is worse than that, because not only do Fox’s policies inspire no outrage, they are popular. When told by their government that perhaps they should just give up and leave, the response of many Mexicans is simply to agree–a sad state of affairs.)
The motivation of Mexico’s leader in becoming an active accessory to the transnational smuggling of his country’s labor force is not just that Mexico is economically dependent upon the dollars that expatriate Mexicans wire home each month (although that motivation should not be discounted). Also at play is his desire to take advantage of a little commented-upon effect that America has had on the world for decades. America’s acceptance of refugees by the millions has made it, effectively, the safety valve for tyrannical and incompetent governments the world over.
Normally, bad government is unstable government. When a government makes a substantial part of its population destitute or unhappy, it can expect them to work against that government, first as individuals and over time as political parties, gangs — or even armies. But with America close-by to absorb the most unhappy, bad governments have found a release for those segments of their populations they most fear: the poor, the ambitious, the disgruntled.
America, of course, does not see itself this way. Our motives for accepting the huddled masses may not be entirely pure, but among these is not the desire to stabilize failure abroad. However, the rulers of other countries recognize the service America unwittingly provides. The most flagrant proof of this was the Mariel boatlift in 1980, in which Fidel Castro organized a mass exodus of 125,000 Cubans from the port of Mariel, Cuba, to Florida. These refugees included common criminals and the mentally ill released from Cuban jails and asylums (Cuba’s “universal healthcare” apparently has it limits), but the overwhelming majority of the migrants were simply the proverbial poor yearning to be free –exactly the sort of people Castro could not depend upon to help maintain his oppressive rule. Castro may claim to detest the fact that Florida is just 90 miles away from the shores of his communist paradise, but if it weren’t, his regime might have ended long ago. Florida is full of the Cubans who would most like to change Cuba. They do Castro little harm in Miami.
Most nations are not so obvious in their use of the safety valve, but America is filled with diverse immigrants who do little to agitate the status quo in their homelands, and the ruling classes in these lands were not sad to see them go.
Mexico is a far cry from Cuba and Vicente Fox is certainly no Castro. But he understands the many ways in which shunting his discontented poor out of the country benefit him and his political allies. 
There is no shame in poverty and no sin in seeking work, but there is something unseemly in a leader who sees people as a product for export. In all the discussion of the immigration issue, the one aspect I have not seen bluntly assessed is what a failed and myopic leader Vicente Fox is. In America, men are made rich and families are well fed by the energetic labor of Mexicans. An admirable Mexican government would set about reforming the country so that that same energetic Mexican labor could create riches and feed families inside Mexico. Fox’s government simply wants to avoid the issue, preserve the established power structure, and make sure it gets a cut when Mexico’s workforce auctions itself off to more efficient economies. Seeing his people forced to sell their labors abroad, Fox simply wants to act as pimp on the sale….
The current (2005) administration of Mexico has apparently decided to support the wholesale export of its people to America as a desirable economic policy.

The stream of economic refugees that has flowed northward from Mexico for sixty years was once a source of embarrassment for the ruling elite of Mexico –obvious evidence that Mexico was so poorly-governed and corrupt that its people’s best hope for a better life lay in escape to America.”…
Added:  Jan. 2008: Officials from Mexican state of Sonora complain to US state of Arizona that they can’t afford to take back Mexican illegal aliens working in Arizona, can’t handle demands for housing and schools they’d create. (It’s assumed that US taxpayers are global slaves).

1/16/2008, Sonoran officials slam sanctions law in Tucson visit,Tucson Citizen, by Sheryl Kornman

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona’s new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora – Arizona’s southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns – cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money. 

The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don’t have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

Its intent is to eliminate or curtail the top draw for immigrants to this country – jobs.

The Mexican delegation, members of Sonora’s 58th Legislature, belong to the National Action Party (PAN), the party of Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderón.

They spoke at the offices of Project PPEP, a nonprofit that provides job retraining for farmworkers and other programs.

The lawmakers were to travel to Phoenix for a Wednesday breakfast meeting with Hispanic legislators.

They want to tell them how the law will affect Mexican families on both sides of the border.

“How can they pass a law like this?” asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales.

“There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,” she said in Spanish. 

“Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems” it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said.

“We are one family, socially and economically,” she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Amparano said the Mexican legislators are already asking the federal government of Mexico for help for Sonora.

Rep. Florencio Diaz Armenta, coordinator of the delegation, represents San Luis, south of Yuma, one of Arizona’s agricultural hubs, which employs some 28,000 legal Mexican workers.

What do we do with the repatriated?” he asked. “As Mexicans, we are worried. They are Mexicans but they are also people – fathers and mothers and young people with jobs” who won’t have work in Sonora.”

He said the Arizona law will lead to “disintegration of the family,” as one “legal” Mexican parent remains in Arizona and the other returns to Mexico.

Rep. Francisco Garcia Gámez, a legislator from Cananea and that city’s former mayor, said the lack of mining jobs there has driven many Mexicans to Arizona to find work. He said they depend on jobs in Arizona to feed their families on both sides of the border.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, in her State of the State speech Monday, said the new law needs some modifications, including a better definition of what constitutes a complaint.
Barrett Marson, director of communications for the Arizona House of Representatives, said Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, “has some concerns about how the law will be administered and applied.”

He said the speaker sought testimony from the business community last fall “to get ideas about how to make following the law easier. In the end, that’s what he wants – compliance, but make it as easy as possible to do.”

Marson said Weiers iswaiting for the governor to come out with her idea of what she wants to dobefore he makes his own recommendations.”

Added: Mexico’s #2 source of revenue in 2015 was remittances sent from the US, money earned by Mexicans in the US and wired home:

Feb. 2, 2016, The Bank of Mexico says money sent home by Mexicans overseas hit nearly $24.8 billion last year, overtaking oil revenues as a source of foreign income for the first time,AP via US News, Mexico City
The central bank reported Tuesday that money sent home by Mexicans overseas hit nearly $24.8 billion last year, overtaking oil revenues for the first time as a source of foreign income.

Remittances were up 4.75 percent from 2014 when they totaled $23.6 billion, the Bank of Mexico said. They had never before surpassed petroleum since the Bank of Mexico began tracking them in 1995. 

Analysts pointed to slumping global prices for oil, which earned Mexico $23.4 billion in 2015, and improved economic conditions in the United States, home to more than 11 million Mexicans and the source of nearly all Mexico’s remittances.

“There is an advance in the recovery of the U.S. economy that has a very high correlation to jobs available for immigrants, and that has a very important impact on the amount of money they send to Mexico,” said Alfredo Coutino, Latin America director for Moody’s Analytics.

Alejandro Cervantes, an economist with Grupo Financiero Banorte, said remittances’ rise over oil reflects an economy that has diversified since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994.

Before NAFTA the flow of petroleum exports represented nearly 80 percent of the total dollar income for the Mexican economy, Cervantes said, noting that today it is less than 20 percent. “The lesson is that the Mexican economy, on the whole, is no longer so dependent on oil.”

Manufacturing exports are currently Mexico’s No. 1 source of foreign income.”

Added: US Federal Reserve Bank partners with Mexican government in the remittance market, a market that helps keep Mexico a third world country whose poorest will endlessly flood the US with slave labor:

Nov. 2008 article

11/1/2008, “Directo a Mexico helps customers join the financial system,Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Michael Grover, Jimmy Nguyen

The Directo a Mexico remittance service could have two major benefits: helping financial institutions in the U.S. compete more effectively in the money-transfer market, and increasing the number of Mexicans who use the mainstream banking system”…
“Recently, financial service providers have developed alternative strategies for lowering the cost of remittances for Mexican workers in the U.S. One alternative is the Directo a México® initiative sponsored by the Federal Reserve Banks and Banco de México, Mexico’s central bank. The principal aim of the initiative is to help financial institutions in the U.S. compete more effectively in the remittance market. Financial institutions in the U.S. that offer Directo a México generally charge lower transaction fees than the big MTOs charge. As the initiative gains ground and market share, its fee structure has the potential benefit of increasing the amount of money families in Mexico receive from their relatives in the U.S….

A cross-border partnership

In 2001, Banco de México and the Federal Reserve Banks agreed to study the possibility of linking the two countries’ payment systems by creating an efficient, interbank mechanism that would be available to all financial institutions in both countries. The service was proposed to improve access to the payments system network for financial institutions on both sides of the border. It also aligned with the Federal Reserve Banks’ mission to ensure an efficient, effective, and accessible retail payments system. From this partnership, the FedACH (Federal Reserve Automated Clearinghouse) International® Mexico Service, now known as Directo a México, was created in 2003. Marketing of the new service to financial institutions in the U.S. began in the summer of 2005.

The main selling points of Directo a México to U.S. financial institutions and the Mexican-American customers they serve are the service’s security, speed, and low cost. Directo a México lowers the cost of sending a remittance in two important ways. First, financial institutions can make money transfers through the service with a very low, per-item surcharge of $0.67. Second, the service offers a competitive exchange rate for converting dollars into pesos, regardless of the amount transferred, that is generally lower than the exchange rate charged by MTOs. For example, the Federal Reserve Banks estimated that the service would save 55 pesos (approximately $5) on a $350 remittance transfer, in comparison to the fee charged by a typical MTO.
While financial institutions charge an add-on fee to their customers for using Directo a México, the overall per-transaction cost of the service is generally at or below $5, or roughly half the total fee charged by most MTOs.6/
One of the key requirements of the program is that both the sender and receiver of the remittance need to have a bank account. Bank-to-bank transfer services are a more secure method of transferring money across the border than informal means such as the mail. Additional advantages of using the service include the ability to automate recurring transfer payments and the fact that money is available to recipients in Mexico on the next banking day. In addition, the Directo a México program helps financial institutions overcome the English-Spanish language barrier. The service provides Spanish-language promotional templates for brochures, pamphlets, and other marketing materials that enrolled U.S. financial institutions can use.

One challenge for Directo a México is that the market for bank-to-bank transfers may be limited by the relatively small proportion of households in Mexico with bank accounts. Several studies suggest that roughly 30 percent of Mexican households have bank accounts, compared to roughly 64 percent7/ in the U.S.
To help overcome this hurdle, the Federal Reserve Banks and Banco de México collaborated with BANSEFI, a bank owned by the Mexican government, to create the Beneficiary Account Registration (BAR) web site. The site allows financial institutions in the U.S. to generate an 18-digit bank account number, also known as a CLABE, at a BANSEFI branch. The financial institution can use Directo a México and the CLABE to transfer funds from the U.S. to Mexico. The web site enables originating financial institutions in the U.S. to initiate a Mexican bank account at any of BANSEFI’s branches, which are typically located in rural and low-income areas throughout Mexico. The beneficiary must then go to the BANSEFI branch, or its affiliated financial institutions, with proper identification to formalize the account. The BAR web site promotes financial inclusion by encouraging the otherwise “unbanked” Mexican citizen to open a bank account and participate in the country’s financial system.

One credit union’s story

To date, more than 380 financial institutions in 42 states have enrolled in Directo a México, compared to just six institutions when the service was launched in 2004. In the Ninth Federal Reserve District, 29 institutions have signed on. The earliest adopters include St. Paul Federal Credit Union, Franklin National Bank, Bank Cherokee, Arcadia Credit Union, and Royal Credit Union.

According to Elizabeth McQuerry, assistant vice president of the Retail Payments Office at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the prevalence of credit unions on that list is no surprise. 

“Directo a México is a natural fit for credit unions, because they are community-focused institutions that work to build and maintain strong relationships with their members. They also tend to be physically located in the neighborhoods of their member base.”

Of the 29 Ninth District institutions that have adopted Directo a México, St. Paul Federal Credit Union (FCU) in St. Paul, Minn., is the market leader in terms of the number of members using the service and the average dollar amount of their transactions. At present, approximately 70 customers use the St. Paul FCU Directo a México service, making a total of 30 to 40 remittance transfers a month and averaging about $600 per transaction.

St. Paul FCU officially kicked off its Directo a México service in July 2007 at a ceremony attended by 200 community members and officials, including representatives from the The Consulate of Mexico in St. Paul, the Mexican government, Banco de Mexico, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Minneapolis, Caja Morelia Valladolid (a Mexican credit union), and Minnesota elected officials

According to St. Paul FCU Branch Manager David De Santiago, encouragement from the consulate played an important role in his institution’s involvement in the program.

“The Mexican consulate helped identify that most of our money transfers in the St. Paul area are to one particular city in Mexico, the city of Tarímbaro. It also identified the credit union branch that most of the beneficiaries use in Tarímbaro, which is Caja Morelia Valladolid. St. Paul Federal Credit Union shared this information with BANSEFI, and BANSEFI in turn added Caja Morelia Valladolid to the BAR web site and initiated a networking relationship between the two institutions.”

Thanks to the Directo a México promotional templates, St. Paul FCU is able to market the service using monthly newsletters, colorful brochures, and press releases. The credit union charges a flat fee of $3 per remittance, regardless of the amount transferred. Since it began offering the service, St. Paul FCU has seen Directo a México serve as an entry product that enables customers to move into a fuller, traditional banking relationship. According to De Santiago, “Directo a México is a useful tool to pull in customers, but it is up to us to keep them as customers and introduce them to all the other traditional products the credit union has to offer.”

Since the inception of Directo a México, participation in the service has steadily climbed. Now, more and more financial institutions are expressing an interest in entering the remittance market

According to McQuerry, “We’ve seen significant increases in payments volume since the creation of Directo a México, and new depository financial institutions sign up to participate in the service every month. Including government items, Directo a México has processed more than 1.3 million items to date, with zero payments lost.”

Still, the true test of the service lies ahead. One of the key challenges for Directo a México will be to gain market share against the more established remittance providers, like Western Union and MoneyGram. It also remains to be seen whether the new service will increase the number of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who leave the ranks of the unbanked. Early evidence suggests that as word of the new service spreads and more financial institutions sign on, the potential benefits of Directo a México may indeed be realized.”

“For more information on Directo a México, visit Jimmy Nguyen served as a Community Affairs intern at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis in the summer of 2008. He is currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree in finance and economics at the University of St. Thomas.”