Charlie Rose

How Free Trade Is (Still) Killing America

When the Trilateral Commission set about to create a New international Economic Order in 1973, so-called Free Trade blossomed as nations dropped their external tariffs that allowed multi-directional trade.

Before 1973, there was no trade deficits, as evidenced by the chart below. Starting in 1976, the deficits started and grew to historic levels of over $50 billion per month. The cumulative deficit from 1976 through 2018 is $13.1 trillion. This represents the loss of national wealth.

Trade Deficits

The 1994 videos presented are hosted by Trilateral Commission member Charlie Rose, as he argues in favor of Free Trade, NAFTA and GATT. He interviews Sir James Goldsmith, who properly schooled Rose on the outcomes of Trilateral policy. 

In the 25 years since this interview, the working class of America has been economically gutted, just as he correctly predicted. Wealth has been transferred to global corporations who have no national boundaries or loyalties.


Globalization Is Destroying The ‘Great American Middle’

Sen. Hawley has correctly nailed the big picture, except to name those who created weaponized globalization in the first place. TN readers can start with The Trilateral Commission and its New International Economic Order. ⁃ TN Editor

The ruling class’s consensus in support of globalizing the American economy is working “quite well” for its architects, the “cosmopolitan class,” while leaving behind the “great American middle,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says.

During his keynote address at the National Conservatism Conference, Hawley slammed what he called the “political consensus that reflects the interests not of the American middle, but of a powerful upper class and their cosmopolitan priorities” that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats for decades.

The goal of the “cosmopolitan class,” Hawley says, is mass globalization, not only of the American economy but of the American way of life, with efforts for “closer and closer economic union, more immigration … more trade on whatever terms” to blur the “boundaries between America and the rest of the world” and eliminate land and economic borders.

“Call it the cosmopolitan consensus,” Hawley said of the ruling class’s globalist priorities.

Hawley continued:

The goal is to build a global consumer economy, one that will provide an endless supply of cheap goods, most of them made with cheap labor overseas, and funded by American dollars. [Emphasis added]

But it’s about more than economics. According to the cosmopolitan consensus, globalization is a moral imperative. That’s because our elites distrust patriotism and dislike the common culture left to us by our forbearers. [Emphasis added]

The cosmopolitan elite look down on the common affections that once bound this nation together: things like place and national feeling and religious faithThey regard our inherited traditions as oppressive and our shared institutions—like family and neighborhood and church—as backwards. [Emphasis added]

The cultural and economic model that has been foisted on American citizens by the ruling “aristocracy,” Hawley said, is one entrenched in “a progressive agenda of social liberation in tune with the priorities of their wealthy” counterparts around the globe.

This “cosmopolitan economy” and culture has “worked quite well” for the ruling elite, but has left the American middle class behind with economic and social destruction, according to Hawley.

“Whom it has not served are the people whose labor sustains this nation,” Hawley said. “Whom it has not helped are the citizens whose sacrifices protect our republic. Whom it has not benefited is the great American middle. Because in this bargain, foreign competitors get to make the goods, and we just buy them. And then they buy up American companies with the profits.”

“And yes, in this bargain there are lots of jobs—jobs on Wall Street, or in Hollywood, or in Silicon Valley,” Hawley continued. “Because the truth is, the cosmopolitan economy has made the cosmopolitan class an aristocracy. At the same time, it has encouraged multinational corporations to move jobs and assets overseas to chase the cheapest wages and pay the lowest taxes.”

This, Hawley said, has left middle America with “flat wages, with lost jobs, with declining investment and declining opportunity” that has translated into a social crisis for the working class, declining rates of marriage, declining birth rates, falling life expectancy, as well as an opioid and drug addiction epidemic.

Hawley said:

Is it any surprise that in the last half-century, as our leaders have pursued a program the American middle does not espouse, does not support, and does not benefit from, that public confidence in American government has collapsed? Is it any wonder that American voters regularly tells pollsters they feel unheard, disempowered and disrespected? [Emphasis added]

Because who now listens to the American middle? The cosmopolitan agenda has driven both Left and Right. The Left champions multiculturalism and degrades our common identityThe Right celebrates hyper-globalization and promises that the market will make everything right in the end, eventually … perhaps. [Emphasis added]

In truth, neither political party has seemed much interested in the American middle for quite a long time. And neither has seemed much interested in the republic the middle sustains. [Emphasis added]

comprehensive survey by Pew Research Center released in March reveals an overwhelming divide between the country’s working and middle class and the ruling class, as well as their allies in the donor class.

About 73 percent of Americans said the gap between the rich and poor will continue to grow, a plurality of nearly 40 percent said the country will be weakened culturally due to a growing multicultural population, 44 percent said the standard of living for Americans by 2050 will be worse than today’s standard, nearly half of the working class said automation will take their jobs in the future, and majorities across economic groups said the lower class is likely to increase and the middle class is set to decrease.

Read full story here…

epstein Trilateral Commission

Jeffrey Epstein: Former Member Of The Trilateral Commission

‘Birds of a feather, flock together.’ Some current and former members of the elitist Trilateral Commission who participated in Epstein’s follies are likely very nervous that he will ‘flip’ and expose their debauchery, if not their sexual felonies.

The Trilateral Commission was the principal architect of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21, using the United Nations to blanket the planet. The UN has had its own share of sexual scandals as well. ⁃ TN Editor

For decades, Jeffrey Epstein, the finance whiz who has been charged with sex trafficking, moved with open ease between the planet’s highest echelons of power and what prosecutors portray as a sordid world of recruiting and sexually abusing teenage girls.

He met with leaders of the nation’s top universities and research labs, traveled with presidents and princes, and managed money for leading business figures. He said the minimum investment he would handle was $1 billion.

Even as dozens of women were looking to police, prosecutors and courts to hold Epstein to account for his alleged sexual abuses, he was amassing a stunning list of contacts and, in some cases, defenders across the worlds of Hollywood moviemaking, medical research, diplomacy, finance, politics and law.

From humble beginnings in Brooklyn’s Coney Island as the son of a parks worker, Epstein, a college dropout, became a crackerjack trader on Wall Street — a math genius who taught at a Manhattan private school until he was offered a job at Bear Stearns in 1976. He made lots of money for some of the firm’s wealthy clients, and in 1981, he set out on his own, becoming a financial adviser to Leslie Wexner, founder of the Limited retail empire.

Before long, Epstein, now 66, was not just helping the rich get richer but was building his own fortune — and flaunting it with a dazzling array of properties and perks. His house on Manhattan’s Upper East Side was said to be the largest private home in the city, valued at $77 million; his estate in Palm Beach, Fla., rivaled those of Donald Trump and other billionaires.

Epstein used his money to construct a worldwide network of contacts. He donated large sums toward neuroscience research at Harvard and a California lab. He invited researchers to his New York house and talked math with them over equations scrawled on a blackboard in his dining room. He flew former president Bill Clinton and actor Kevin Spacey to Africa to promote AIDS awareness. He was a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Read full story here…


Brookings: Making Sense Of The Backlash Against Online Platforms

Brookings Institution has deep connections with the Trilateral Commission that started the Technocratic New International Economic Order in 1973. Several Commissioners currently serve on its board. Thus, when Brookings speaks, TN listens. ⁃ TN Editor

Not long ago, information technology was heralded as a tool of democratic progress. Some referred to the Arab Spring uprisings that swept the Middle East as the “Facebook Revolution” because activists used social media to organize and rally fellow citizens. Online platform technologies, it was believed, helped promote equality, freedom, and democracy by empowering citizens to publish their ideas and broadcast their everyday realities unconstrained by gatekeepers, communicate freely with one another, and advocate for political reform.

In recent years, however, doubts have surfaced about the effects of information technology on democracy. A growing tech-skeptic chorus is drawing attention to the ways in which information technology disrupts democracy. No country is immune. From New Zealand to Myanmar to the United States, terrorists, authoritarian governments, and foreign adversaries have weaponized the internet. Russia’s online influence campaign during the 2016 United States presidential election demonstrated how easily and effectively bad actors could leverage platform technologies to pursue their own interests. Revelations about Cambridge Analytica, the political consulting firm hired by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign that acquired personal data from 87 million Facebook users, exposed Facebook’s failure to monitor the information third parties collect through its platform and prevent its misuse.

The concern extends beyond isolated incidents to the heart of the business model undergirding many of today’s large technology companies. The advertising revenue that fuels the attention economy leads companies to create new ways to keep users scrolling, viewing, clicking, posting, and commenting for as long as possible. Algorithms designed to accomplish this often end up displaying content curated to entertain, shock, and anger each individual user.[4] The ways in which online platforms are currently engineered have thus come under fire for exacerbating polarization, radicalizing users, and rewarding engagement with disinformation and extremist content. While many large technology companies have underinvested in protecting their own platforms from abuse, they have designed a service that has amplified existing political tensions and spawned new political vulnerabilities.

Countries around the world have responded to this growing threat by launching investigations, passing new laws, and commissioning reports. The U.S., meanwhile, has lagged behind other governments even in the face of well-documented abuses during the 2016 election. The U.S. has been slower to rein in “big tech,” in part, because of a fear of state overreach, the constitutional and cultural commitment to free speech, and a reluctance to constrain the capacity of dynamic companies to innovate.

The steps taken by governments around the world, on the other hand, can be explained by some broad principles shared across borders. A growing international consensus holds that the ways in which today’s dominant online platforms are currently designed poses an inherent threat to democracy. Across a number of countries, lawmakers share the view that the structural design of the attention economy has given rise to disinformation and its rapid spread online. Today’s powerful technologies, they argue, have coarsened public discourse by satiating the appetite for political tribalism, serving up information—true or false—that accords with each users’ ideological preference. They believe the ways in which dominant platforms filter and spread information online presents a serious political threat not only to newer, more fragile democracies but also to long-standing Western liberal democracies.

While lawmakers in the U.S. are beginning to critique the ways in which online platforms have failed to police their own technologies, there remains a reluctance to respond to the digital economy’s negative side effects by establishing terms to regulate the flow of information and classifying certain content as unacceptable. This, many believe, would violate First Amendment free speech rights. Meanwhile, other countries have identified a clearer regulatory role to mitigate the threat online platforms pose to democratic societies.

A similar divide between the actions taken in Europe and the U.S. on online privacy issues has taken shape. Europe has responded forcefully to protect users’ online privacy, bolstering its already robust set of privacy laws when it passed the General Data Protection Regulation in the spring of 2016. The law is widely recognized as the toughest and most comprehensive digital privacy law on the books and is grounded in a cultural attachment to protecting the right of individuals to control access to their personal information.

User Privacy

Online platforms that rely on targeted advertising to generate revenue are in the business of amassing as much personal information on their users as possible. For years, tech companies have been able to collect, use, and share users’ data largely unconstrained. A New York Times investigation found that Facebook gave a number of large technology companies access to users’ personal data, including users’ private messages. In another investigation, the Wall Street Journal found that smartphone apps holding highly sensitive personal data, including information on users’ menstrual cycles, regularly share data with Facebook. While Facebook users can prohibit the social media site from using their data to receive targeted advertisements, users are unable to prevent Facebook from collecting their personal data in the first place.

Meanwhile, high-profile data breaches have highlighted the inability of some of the largest tech companies to protect users’ information from misuse. Cambridge Analytica, a political-data firm linked to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign targeted voters in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election by successfully collecting private information from as many as 87 million Facebook users, most of whom had not agreed to let Facebook release their information to third parties. The campaign used this data to target personalized messages to voters and “individually whisper something in each of their ears,” as whistleblower Christopher Wylie described. Just months after the Cambridge Analytica story, hackers successfully broke into Facebook’s computer network and exposed nearly 50 million users’ personal information.

While users enjoy free access to many tech platforms, they are handing over their personal information with little understanding of the amount, nature, or application of the data tech companies hold on them and little ability to stop its collection. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed that entire political systems and processes, not just individual users, are vulnerable when large tech companies fail to properly handle users’ data and leave the door open to those interested in exploiting social and political rifts.

The European Union has made online user privacy a top priority, establishing itself as a global leader on the issue after it passed its General Data Protection Regulation. The law sets out new requirements for obtaining user consent to process data, mandates data portability, requires organizations to notify users of data breaches in a timely fashion, and allows steep fines to be imposed on organizations that violate the regulation. Less than a year after GDPR’s passage, French officials levied a hefty $57 million fine against Google for failing to inform users about its data-collection practices and obtain consent for targeted advertising. After confronting pressure from the European Commission, Facebook agreed to make clear to users that it offers its services for free by utilizing personal data to run targeted advertisements. In Ireland, Facebook is facing several investigations into its compliance with European data protection laws. These moves signal Europe’s commitment to tough enforcement under its new privacy regime.

Read full story here…

George Shultz

Trilateral Commissioner George Shultz Speaks On Emerging New World Order

Original Trilateral Commission member George P. Shultz is 98 years old, but is still talking about the New World Order with the same old talking points as from 45 years ago. Fellow TC member Henry Kissinger is 95 and Jimmy Carter is 94. ⁃ TN Editor

George Shultz has observed that the world ahead will not be like the world behind us. His Project on Governance in an Emerging New World explores the challenge to governance posed by changing demographics, the information and communications revolution, emerging technologies, and new means of production of goods near where they are used. Its contributors aim to understand the impact of these global transformations on our democracy, our economy, and our national security and inform strategies for how best to proceed in a rapidly changing world.

New and rapid societal and technological changes are complicating governance around the globe and challenging traditional thinking. Demographic changes and migration are having a profound effect as some populations age and shrink while other countries expand. The information and communications revolution is making governance much more difficult and heightening the impact of diversity. Emerging technologies, especially artificial intelligence and automation, are bringing about a new industrial revolution, disrupting workforces and increasing military capabilities of both states and non-state actors. And new means of production such as additive manufacturing and automation are changing how, where, and what we produce. These changes are coming quickly, faster than governments have historically been able to respond.

Led by Hoover Distinguished Fellow George P. Shultz, his Project on Governance in an Emerging New World aims to understand these changes and inform strategies that both address the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by these dramatic shifts.

The project will feature a series of papers and events addressing how these changes are affecting democratic processes, the economy, and national security of the United States, and how they are affecting countries and regions, including Russia, China, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. A set of essays by the participants will accompany each event and provide thoughtful analysis of the challenges and opportunities.

Read full story here…

See also: America Can Ride The 21st Century’s Waves Of Change

Trilateral Commission Member Seeks To Replace Germany’s Angela Merkel

As in America, Trilateral Commission members and policies have dominated both sides of the political spectrum in Europe for 45 years. They are apolitical except for promoting the Commission’s New International Economic Order, aka Technocracy and Sustainable Development.  ⁃ TN Editor

Longtime Merkel critic Friedrich Merz launches political comeback

The conservative politician left politics in 2009 after a protracted battle with the German chancellor. Now he will vie to replace her at the top of the CDU. Although they share a party, he and Merkel are poles apart.

It was the surprise after the surprise: First, Angela Merkel announced she would not stand for re-election as the Christian Democratic Union’s (CDU) party leader — a position she has held since 2000 — after the CDU suffered yet another embarrassing defeat in state elections on Sunday. Then, of all people, one of her most ardent critics, Friedrich Merz, announced on Tuesday that he would stand for the position.

The party leadership election will take place at the CDU’s annual convention in Hamburg this December. Should Merz be successful in his bid it would be a moment of personal satisfaction as well as political revenge, for he was one of those who most clearly lost out as Merkel’s political star rose.

During her ascent to party leadership, Merkel successfully dislodged Merz from the party’s top echelons after a series of inner-party disputes. When the CDU and its Bavarian sister party — the Christian Social Union (CSU) — lost Germany’s 2002 federal election Merkel also insisted on taking over parliamentary group leadership in the opposition, a position Merz had held for two years.

The dramatic break between the two would continue to deepen over the coming years. Merz’s constant criticism of the Merkel-led grand coalition between CDU/CSU and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) that governed Germany between 2005 and 2009 was seen by many as sour grapes from a political loser.

Consequently, a frustrated and disappointed Merz withdrew from politics in 2009. When he announced his retirement he said he had made the decision in reaction to “the grand coalition’s current policies.”

Prior to that point, Friedrich Merz had been a powerful political player within the CDU. Trained as an attorney, he had served as the party’s parliamentary leader from 2000 until 2002, as well as serving as deputy parliamentary leader from 2002 to 2004. A financial expert, he was considered to be one of the party’s most-talented members and in many ways Merkel’s political antipode: More business-friendly and conservative but also more provocative and entertaining.

Merz gained attention in parliament for his pointed and sharp-tongued floor speeches, something that further differentiated him from Merkel, who has a reputation for delivering analytical, sleep-inducing lectures.

Merz was well known for seeking to reduce complex issues into the simplest of terms. In 2004, he demanded a tax system where a family could calculate what they owed on the back of a beer coaster. The plan amounted to a 12 percent flat-rate tax on income, with a fixed rate of deduction per member of the household.

Perhaps his most contentious political appeal concerned immigration and what Merz called a “Leitkultur.” The term roughly translates as leading, guiding, or even prominent culture. Merz never defined the term himself, but urged the government to incorporate it into migration policy, and to apply more strict rules on immigration and integration. The comments unleashed a wave of public debate and became a battle cry for those opposed to multicultural society. At the time, Merz said that anyone who wanted to live in Germany “must conform to liberal German leading culture.”

Merz was vehemently attacked by politicians from the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Left Party for the concept. Green Party politicians accused him of racism. Only the conservatives thanked him for his contribution to sociopolitical discourse — and they continue to do so to this day. Although Chancellor Merkel did not agree with Merz’s vision, she nevertheless stood by him. The refugee issues that dominate German political debate today were not on the horizon at the time he made the contentious statement, though migration to Germany from the Balkans following the wars in the region in the 1990s was high.

Since leaving parliament, the conservative Christian Democrat has taken on a number of different jobs. In 2010, he managed the privatization of the beleaguered German state bank WestLB. He is also a board member at a number of German businesses, such as the Cologne/Bonn Airport. He has served as chairman of the non-profit Atlantik Brücke (Atlantic Bridge) association, which promotes German-American Atlanticism, since 2009. He is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, which seeks to foster cooperation between Europe, Japan and the US.

Read full story here…

Author Of Brexit Article 50 Revealed As Member Of Trilateral Commission

Baron John Kerr is a member of the Executive Committee of the European branch of the Trilateral Commission. He regrets having authored Article 50 that made Brexit possible. Kerr has served on many boards of several giant companies like Shell and Rio Tinto. ⁃ TN Editor

As Brexit unfolds, come along and hear from the man who wrote Article 50.

John Kerr, Baron Kerr of Kinlochard is to be the keynote speaker at the Insider and Scotland Is Now Top 500 Business Breakfast early in the New Year.

Kerr, as a crossbench or independent peer is right at the heart of the parliamentary debate on Brexit as it goes through the machinery of government.

He has said: “I don’t feel guilty about inventing the mechanism. I feel very sad about the UK using it. I didn’t think that the United Kingdom would use it.”

Former diplomat Kerr has been key to the development of the EU over many years first as British Representative to the EU at the time of John Major’s Government.

As Secretary-General of the European Convention he drafted Article 50, the procedure under which the UK is leaving the EU.

He was Permanent Under Secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the time of Tony Blair’s Government before becoming an independent peer in the House of Lords in 2004.

His business career has been as a director of Shell and then chairing the group of directors who brought about the creation of Royal Dutch Shell plc in 2005. He was deputy chairman and senior independent director of the company until 2012.

He was a director of Rio Tinto Zinc from 2003 to 2015.

He has been a director of the Scottish American Investment Trust since 2002 and of ScottishPower since 2009. He became deputy chairman of ScottishPower in 2012.

He is chairman of the Centre for European Reform and a member of the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission

Read full story here…

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley Was Mentored Every Two Months By Trilateral Commissioner Henry Kissinger

According to Harper’s Magazine, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley recently delivered a speech to the elite and secretive Council for National Policy (CNP).  On October 4, Haley had previously resigned her UN assignment as of the end of 2018.

Harper’s Magazine reported on the CNP speech as more or less recapping her 19 months of service in the Trump Administration. The article first states,

In a way, Haley had deployed a version of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s “madman theory,” holding up Trump as an unstable actor who might do anything. It seemed that she herself also genuinely had no idea what Trump would do. [emphasis added]

This suggests that President Trump was used as a prop to her UN agenda. But, who were the puppeteers? The article explains from her own words:

While learning on the job at the UN, Haley said, she sought out Henry Kissinger as her personal foreign policy mentor, meeting with him every two months to absorb his lessons. During a tense diplomatic standoff with North Korea, she appeared to have embraced a version of Kissinger and Nixon’s notorious “madman theory.” [emphasis added]

Henry Kissinger, of course, was one of the founding members of the elite Trilateral Commission. President Trump considers Kissinger a long-time personal friend, and has received him at the Whitehouse on multiple occasions.

The fact that both Trump and Nikki Haley are taking foreign policy queues from Kissinger is highly disturbing because it suggests that reality and perception of the Trump Administration are far apart.


Google’s Deep Relationship With China Spells Technocracy

Eric Schmidt runs Alphabet, Inc, which is Google’s parent company. Schmidt is a member of the elite Trilateral Commission that has groomed China since 1976 to be a Technocracy that will dominate the world. Thus, we can expect Google’s involvement in China to be deeply transformational – and, in fact, it is! The original Trilaterals who inducted China were Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. ⁃ TN Editor

Google analyzed search terms entered into a Beijing-based website to help develop blacklists for a censored search engine it has been planning to launch in China, according to confidential documents seen by The Intercept.

Engineers working on the censorship sampled search queries from, a Chinese-language web directory service owned by Google.

Unlike and other Google services, such as YouTube, is not blocked in China by the country’s so-called Great Firewall, which restricts access to websites deemed undesirable by the ruling Communist Party regime. was founded in 2003 by Cai Wensheng, a Chinese entrepreneur known as the “the godfather of Chinese webmasters.” In 2008, Google acquired the website, which it now operates as a subsidiary. Records show that is hosted on Google servers, but its physical address is listed under the name of the “Beijing Guxiang Information and Technology Co.,” which is based out of an office building in northwest Beijing’s Haidian district. provides news updates, links to information about financial markets, and advertisements for cheap flights and hotels. It also has a function that allows people to search for websites, images, videos, and other content. However, search queries entered on are redirected to Baidu, the most popular search engine in China and Google’s main competitor in the country.

It appears that Google has used as a de facto honeypot for market research, storing information about Chinese users’ searches before sending them along to Baidu. Google’s use of offers an insight into the mechanics behind its planned Chinese censored search platform, code-named Dragonfly, which the company has been preparing since spring 2017.

After gathering sample queries from, Google engineers used them to review lists of websites that people would see in response to their searches. The Dragonfly developers used a tool they called “BeaconTower” to check whether the websites were blocked by the Great Firewall. They compiled a list of thousands of websites that were banned, and then integrated this information into a censored version of Google’s search engine so that it would automatically manipulate Google results, purging links to websites prohibited in China from the first page shown to users.

According to documents and people familiar with the Dragonfly project, teams of Google programmers and engineers have already created a functioning version of the censored search engine. Google’s plan is for its China search platform to be made accessible through a custom Android app, different versions of which have been named “Maotai” and “Longfei,” as The Intercept first reported last week.

The app has been designed to filter out content that China’s authoritarian government views as sensitive, such as information about political opponents, free speech, democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest. The censored search app will “blacklist sensitive queries” so that “no results will be shown” at all when people enter certain words or phrases, according to internal Google documents.

The documents seen by The Intercept indicate that Google’s search project is being carried out as part of a “joint venture” with another company, presumably one based in China, because internet companies providing services in China are required by law to operate their servers and data centers in the country. In January, Google entered into an agreement with the Chinese company Tencent, which Google said at the time would allow it to “focus on building better products and services.” A bipartisan group of six U.S. senators is asking Google CEO Sundar Pichai to explain whether the Tencent deal is linked to the censored search app.

It is unclear whether, as part of the joint venture, Google’s partner company would be able to unilaterally update the blacklists. Documents seen by The Intercept state that that the “joint venture will have the ability” to blacklist websites and “sensitive queries.”

One source familiar with the project told The Intercept that Google has planned to provide the partner company with an “application programming interface,” or API, that it could potentially use to add blacklisted words or phrases. The source said they believed it was likely that the third-party company would be able to “update the blacklist without Google’s approval,” though the source could not confirm this with certainty. The details about the API have not been reported before.

Read full story here…

Diane Feinstein’s Deep Relationship To China

Sen. Diane Feinstein, a long-time member of the elitist Trilateral Commission, has been in bed with China since at least 1979 when co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski put China back on the world map. The Feinstein’s have gotten rich because as TC members transformed China into a Technocracy and the into economic giant that it is today. As a U.S. Senator since 1992 and Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence from 2009-2015, she has reserved herself a special place in the afterlife with both Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. ⁃ TN Editor

“I sometimes say that in my last life maybe I was Chinese.”—Sen. Dianne Feinstein

As media, intelligence agency, and political scrutiny of foreign meddling is seemingly at its apex, a story with big national security implications involving a high-ranking senator with access to America’s most sensitive intelligence information has been hiding in plain sight.

The story involves China and the senior U.S. senator from California, and former chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Democrat Dianne Feinstein. It was buried eight paragraphs into a recent Politico exposé on foreign efforts to infiltrate Silicon Valley, as a passing example of political espionage:

Former intelligence officials…[said] Chinese intelligence once recruited a staff member at a California office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the source reported back to China about local politics. (A spokesperson for Feinstein said the office doesn’t comment on personnel matters or investigations, but noted that no Feinstein staffer in California has ever had a security clearance.)

Later comes additional detail:

According to four former intelligence officials, in the 2000s, a staffer in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s San Francisco field office was reporting back to the MSS [China’s Ministry of State Security, its intelligence and security apparatus]. While this person, who was a liaison to the local Chinese community, was fired, charges were never filed against him. (One former official reasoned this was because the staffer was providing political intelligence and not classified information—making prosecution far more difficult.) The suspected informant was ‘run’ by officials based at China’s San Francisco Consulate, said another former intelligence official. The spy’s handler ‘probably got an award back in China’ for his work, noted this former official, dryly.

This anecdote provides significantly more questions than answers. For starters: Who was the spy? For how long was the spy under surveillance? What information about “local politics” was the spy passing back to China? Just how close was the spy to the senator? Did law enforcement officials sweep vehicles and other areas for listening devices? Was there an investigation into whether others in the senator’s circle may have been coordinating with Beijing?

Did the senator expose herself to potential blackmail, or the public to danger through leakage of sensitive, highly classified information? Is firing really the proper punishment for providing political intelligence to a foreign power?

The Details Right Now Are Few and Blurry

We now know only the most basic of additional details about what occurred in Feinstein’s office. Five years ago, the FBI approached the senator to apprise her that a San Francisco-based staffer was being investigated under suspicion of spying for China. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Feinstein’s hometown paper, this staffer, who had worked with Feinstein for almost 20 years, drove her around in San Francisco and “served as gofer in her San Francisco office and as a liaison to the Asian American community, even attending Chinese Consulate functions for the senator.”

An unnamed source added that a Chinese MSS official first approached the staffer during a visit to Asia several years prior. Given his proximity to Feinstein, we have no idea what information he could have gleaned in her employ. We do have a presumed identity. The Daily Caller discovered that a Feinstein staffer named Russell Lowe, listed on the senator’s payroll as an “office director” as of 2013 before he was let go, matches the description of the Chinese asset.

It appears Lowe continues to operate freely in the United States. A year after he was removed from Feinstein’s staff, Lowe spoke at a conference on Chinese investment in California. In October 2017 he visited a South Korean publication’s office with former Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), indicating he still had access to political figures.

Lowe presently serves as secretary general of the Education for Social Justice Foundation, which seeks to “educate the public on unresolved historical conflicts, human rights, and crimes against humanity.” The Chinese government likely views its present focus favorably: Japanese abuses during the World War II era via its “comfort women” system whereby 200,000 girls from 13 or more Asian countries were forced into sexual slavery. Lowe discusses the nonprofit’s work here.

It took a tweet from President Trump implying hypocrisy, given Feinstein’s role investigating “Russian collusion” as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, while a Chinese spy had infiltrated her own office, to force the senator to address the issue.

Feinstein’s account conflicts with what has been reported regarding the recruitment and activities of the Chinese spy. She conveniently omits that her office employed this individual for almost 20 years in a close capacity, while he represented the senator in interactions with Chinese officials.

A Short History of Dianne Feinstein’s Love for China

For the last 40 years, no politician in America has arguably maintained a deeper, more longstanding and friendlier relationship with China, at the highest levels of its ruling Communist Party, than Feinstein. It dates back to the opening of U.S.-Chinese diplomatic relations in 1979.

Shortly thereafter, Feinstein, then mayor of San Francisco, established a “sister city” relationship with Shanghai, one of the earliest and most robust such relationships in U.S.-China history. Soon after, Feinstein led a mayoral delegation to China joined by her husband, investor Richard Blum, a trip they took together many times over the ensuing years as the relationship between both Feinsteins and China grew.

During the 1980s, as mayor of San Francisco, Feinstein developed a close friendship with Shanghai Mayor Jiang Zemin. This substantially enhanced Feinstein’s foreign policy profile, and created an important linkage to the U.S. government for China’s Communist Party (CCP).

Just as Feinstein rose to a prominent position in foreign affairs and national security in the U.S. Senate, first on the Foreign Relations Committee and later as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Jiang rose to the top of Chinese leadership, serving as chairman of the Central Military Commission, general secretary of the CCP, and president of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Under Jiang’s leadership, the PRC initiated a brutal crackdown against practitioners of Falun Gong, including mass imprisonments, beatings, torture, rape, organ harvesting, and murder, and engaging in alleged human rights atrocities against Tibetans. Feinstein never renounced her friendship with Jiang, in spite of these acts.

Feinstein and Jiang reportedly visited each other regularly in the 1980s, with Jiang once spending Thanksgiving in San Francisco with Feinstein and her husband. Jiang supposedly danced with Feinstein during one such visit, which surely must have been a propaganda coup for the CCP a la Ted Kennedy and the Soviets.

It Turned Out to Be a Lucrative Relationship

In 1986, Feinstein and Jiang designated several corporate entities for fostering commercial relations, one named Shanghai Pacific Partners. Feinstein’s husband served as a director. His financial position was relatively small, less than $500,000 on one project, the only such position in China the Feinstein family held when Feinstein entered the Senate in 1992.

‘They said that Feinstein’s consistent support for China’s interests cannot help but benefit her husband’s efforts to earn profits there.’

That project, however, which Blum’s firm participated in alongside PRC state-run Shanghai Investment Trust Corp., was one of the first joint ventures between San Francisco and Chinese investors, reportedly “cited by Chinese officials as a testament to the friendly business ties between Shanghai and San Francisco that Feinstein had initiated.” Subsequently Blum’s investments in the Middle Kingdom mushroomed.

In May 1993, Feinstein expressed her strong support on the Senate floor for continued trading with China. Contemporaneously, her husband was seeking to raise up to $150 million from investors, including himself, for a variety of Chinese enterprises.

In August 1993, Feinstein and her husband visited Beijing for extensive meetings with Chinese leaders at President Jiang’s invitation. As the Los Angeles Timesreported in a 1994 exposé on Feinstein’s husband’s business ties and the potential conflict of interests they presented: “Such encounters are fondly remembered when deals are clinched back in China, according to American experts in Chinese business practices. They said that Feinstein’s consistent support for China’s interests cannot help but benefit her husband’s efforts to earn profits there.”

The historical record suggests these American experts were right. Blum successfully raised $160 million for the aforementioned Asia fund under his Newbridge Capital investment company, including investing $1-2 million himself. The fund invested in several state-owned and Chinese government-linked businesses.

Why, We Love Trading with China

Blum’s firm’s largest holding—at the time his China investments began to draw scrutiny in 1997—was its stake in Northwest Airlines. The then-estimated $300 million position was poised to significantly appreciate in value, as Northwest happened to be the sole airline operator providing nonstop service from the United States to any city in China.

On one such visit in January 1996, Feinstein and Blum enjoyed a meal with President Jiang.

When questioned on his China investments, Blum pledged to donate future profits from the holdings to his nonprofit foundation to help Tibetan refugees, thereby “remov[ing] any perception that I, in any way, shape or form benefit from or influence my wife’s position on China as a U.S. senator.” But these conflict of interest issues persisted.

In January 1995, Feinstein was appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Subsequently, she made several visits to China, accompanied by her husband, where she met with senior government officials.

During these trips it the couple was wined and dined. On one such visit in January 1996, Feinstein and Blum enjoyed a meal with President Jiang in Zhongnanhai, the exclusive leadership compound for China’s Communist Party, where according to Feinstein they ate in Mao Zedong’s residence in the room where he died.

Feinstein kept up her dogged support for increased trade with China. In May 1996, she penned an editorial in the Los Angeles Times calling for the United States to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China “on a permanent basis and get past the annual dance that is proving to be extraordinarily divisive and not at all helpful toward reaching the oft-stated goal: improvement in human rights.”

Campaign Contributions from Foreign Sources

While Feinstein maintained her pro-China positions, in March 1997, the senator revealed that the FBI had warned her the Chinese government might seek to funnel illegal contributions to her campaign fund. She was one of only six members of Congress to receive such a warning. As the New York Times noted at the time, Feinstein had returned $12,000 in 1994 contributions from people with connections to Lippo Bank, an arm of a multi-billion dollar conglomerate owned by the Riady family, with investments and operations throughout Asia. It employed a senior American executive named John Huang.

At the time Feinstein disclosed returning the Lippo-tied contributions, Huang was under Justice Department investigation.

The Riadys had been friends and supporters of the Clintons since Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Clinton named Huang, a top fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), his deputy assistant secretary of commerce.

At the time Feinstein disclosed returning the Lippo-tied contributions, Huang was under Justice Department investigation for making potentially illegal contributions to the Democratic Party from foreign sources. He later pled guiltyto violating campaign finance laws as part of the investigation into Chinese attempts to influence U.S. policy through illegal campaign contributions stemming from the 1996 election.

It was later revealed that Huang may have had a direct financial relationship with the Chinese government. The DNC returned more than half of the $3 million he had collected for the party. In 1998, an unclassified report from the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs stated that the Riadys—Huang’s former employer, the leader of which had also pled guilty to campaign finance violations—“had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency.”

What is the connection to Feinstein? In June 1996, the senator held a fundraiser at her home attended by President Clinton, Huang, and Xiaoming Dia, chairman of a Hong Kong-based investment company in which Lippo Group had owned a controlling stake until 1994.