The US government has developed massive surveillance capabilities to monitor communications, travel and financial transactions in this country and abroad. But, even the government cannot monitor everything Americans do—not directly, anyway.  Thus, it created the Communities Against Terrorism (CAT) program to enlist your friendly local businesses as spies for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The CAT program, funded by the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training program (SLATT) is described as a “tool to engage members of the local community in the fight against terrorism.” The program interprets “local community” to mean businesses, and only registered businesses may access the program’s flyers listing “potential indicators” of terrorist activity.

Each flyer is designed for a particular kind of business. For example, this list was prepared for owners of internet cafes. Unquestionably, someone planning a terrorist attack has engaged in one or more of the “suspicious” activities on that list. But so, too, have most of the estimated 289 million computer users in this country.

The government’s flyer designates people as suspicious if they “always pay cash” at an internet café. That’s a jaw-dropping assumption considering that we’re talking about businesses that sell $2 cups of joe, not $600 airline tickets. Good luck paying with a credit card for a purchase under $10.

Evidence that one has a “residential based internet provider” (such as Comcast or AOL) is another pretext for government snooping. If your home internet connection is unreliable, if you are on travel, or if you simply relish a good cup of coffee with your internet browsing, you run the risk of acquiring an FBI file. Trying to shield personal information on your computer screen from the prying eyes of others will mark you as a potential terrorist, also.

It is officially creepy to use a café hotspot to download “photos, maps or diagrams” of a stadium, metro rail stop, or any “populated locations.” To be safe, confine your travel plans to the Alaskan tundra. And, should there be another terrorist attack, do not demonstrate any “preoccupation with press coverage” of the attack. Just move along–nothing to see here.

If you engage in these or any other “suspicious” activities listed on CAT flyers, businesses are encouraged to “gather information” about you, including “license plates, vehicle description, names used, languages spoken, ethnicity, etc.”  At least 25 CAT flyers, collected by Public Intelligence, are known to exist.

The CAT list of “suspicious” internet café activities suggests appalling ignorance of the ways ordinary Americans use computers. Those who are computerless can become surveillance targets, too, if they own guns or precious metals, store a seven-day supply of food, buy a flashlight, believe in conspiracies or participate in peaceful demonstrations.

The government’s paranoia would be laughable were it not for the potential consequences for citizens who find themselves in its crosshairs.  Under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the government may detain indefinitely any terrorism suspects–including U.S. citizens. And, since the government has created pretexts for arresting virtually anyone, no one is safe.

The consequences for public safety are no less grim. If the FBI cannot distinguish between legitimate computer use and credible evidence of terrorist activities, it cannot zero in on genuine threats.  So, what is the purpose of Big Brother and his business partners spying on millions of Americans if it doesn’t make us any safer?  Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Linda Lewis is a policy analyst with degrees in emergency management and geosciences.  Her experience includes 13 years as a policy analyst and planner for the U.S. government.  During that time, she brought attention to serious deficiencies in government preparedness prior to the disasters that confirmed her analyses.  Those included emergency communications (9/11 terrorist attacks), federal assistance (hurricane Katrina) and decision making (Columbia shuttle disaster).

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

This is Part III of our interview series on the Makings of a Police State. You can listen to previous segments here.

Philip Giraldi joins us to discuss the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act-NDAA, the claim by the White House that it will only use this new power carefully and with due process, and contrasts that to the well-established trend of law enforcement and security agencies, which is to expand on powers granted, not to rein them in or limit them. He provides us with his assessment of the recent case of former CIA operative John Kiriakou, and discusses President Obama’s horrendous track record on civil liberties- broadening its definition of war powers, silencing critics and government whistleblowers through the repeated exploitation of the state-secrets privilege, abuses of National Security Letters, continuation of Guantanamo Prison, supporting numerous dubious terrorism prosecutions.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA and DIA counter-terrorism officer, member of the American Conservative Defense Alliance, and contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine. He has a regular column, Smoke & Mirrors, at Antiwar.com.

Listen to the preview Here

Here is our guest Philip Giraldi unplugged! (Subscribers only)

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

The passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001 is by now an all-too-familiar story. The American people, already suffering from the trauma of 9/11, were pushed into outright panic by the anthrax attacks, a series of anthrax-laced mailings that killed five, injured 17 and shut down Congress for the first time in modern history. The Act itself was introduced on a Tuesday and signed into law on Friday, before anyone had read let alone understood the sweeping changes it would introduce to American law.

Some of those changes were amendments to a little-known and little-used FBI instrument called National Security Letters, which allow the FBI and other agencies to issue businesses and institutions requests for private data on citizens, including financial transactions and communications records, regardless of whether or not they are even suspected of any crime, and to hold that data indefinitely. One of the most worrying aspects of the letters is the non-disclosure clause, which not only prohibits recipients from disclosing the contents of the letter, but even the fact that they have received a letter at all.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett, presenting the FBI’s National Security Letters and its predecessor- the 1978 Right to Financial Privacy Act, the aggressive expansion of the program’s scope with the passage of PATRIOT ACT, the gag order accompanying the letters – the non-disclosure clause, the collusion between the FBI, CIA and DOD in the issuance and implementation of these letters, and exposing the macrocosm of the police state control grid as a whole through this tyrannical tool.

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here (Subscribers Only):

*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

This is Part II of our interview series on the Makings of a Police State. You can listen to Part I here.

Coleen Rowley joins us to share her views and thoughts on the state of the misleadingly named ‘criminal justice system’ in the United States today, and the extent to which the apparatus has been transformed into a police state. She discusses the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the implications of this law for American citizens, and the troubling fact that many Americans are not aware of the serious threats to their liberties and rights posed by this police state enabling new law. Ms. Rowley talks about the Obama Administration’s increasing control of all information outlets together with the constant use of fear-hate-greed-false pride and blind loyalty propaganda to manufacture consent for the war machine as well as a panoply of other government-corporatocracy crimes, the escalating retaliation against government whistleblowers and government secrecy, FBI abuses and Director Mueller’s quietly extended term, and more!

Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She came to national attention in June 2002, when she testified before Congress about serious lapses before 9/11 that helped account for the failure to prevent the attacks. She now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and on balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation.

Listen to the preview Here

Here is our guest Coleen Rowley unplugged! (Subscribers only)

We Need Your Support

Boiling Frogs Post is solely dependent on your support. This project is brought to you without receiving a single penny in corporate money or advertisement, without getting any support from agenda-driven corporate foundations, while defying all partisan and status quo boundaries. Here is how you can support Boiling Frogs Post:

Become a BFP Subscriber

You can sign up for our recurring annual subscription program for $50 or more, or if you prefer recurring monthly subscription payments you can sign up for monthly $5 or more. Your subscription will give you access to the following:

-Weekly Investigative Video Report ‘The EyeOpener’ with James Corbett

-Weekly Podcast Interview Series ‘The Boiling Frogs Show’ with Sibel Edmonds & Peter B. Collins

-Weekly Podcast Series ‘Empire, Power & People’ with Andrew Gavin Marshall

-BFP Exclusive Members’ Discussion Forum

-Members Monthly News Letter (Coming Soon)

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Donate to Boiling Frogs Post

You can make a one-time contribution to support our team and projects. Those of you who do not wish to subscribe to our multimedia projects or commit to recurring annual- monthly payments but want to support our team, all the daily news, editorials and other features provided by BFP can make a one-time contribution. Your donation will help us continue and expand upon the following daily coverage and features brought to you by Boiling Frogs Post:

-BFP Select Nightly News & Editorial Round Ups from Alternative Sources

-Select Editorials & Analyses by Independent and Nonpartisan Experts

-Weekly Political and Editorial Cartoon Series ‘Jamiol Presents’

-Open Access to All BFP Archived Video & Podcast Reports

-BFP Exclusive Investigative Reports & Exposés

DONATE NOW

With TSA abuses back in the headlines, continued concern over the NDAA and other legislation codifying martial law, President Obama’s unchallenged use of his self-proclaimed authority to assassinate American citizens without trial, and an increasingly bewildering array of tracking, tracing and pain-compliance technology being used against law-abiding citizens, more and more people are becoming aware of the police state that currently exists in the US, and indeed throughout much of the so-called “free world.”

With this understanding comes a certain amount of apprehension: after all, the enemies of liberty are organized and persistent, and they inhabit positions of authority. The defenders of liberty, meanwhile, seem few and far between, and more time seems spent convincing others that the police state even exists than in working to dismantle these systems of control.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett, presenting the police state as a system of coercion that relies upon the majority’s compliance, the myriad tracking technologies that are used to keep the population docile and compliant, the mental prison constituted by the police state, and the need to shatter the illusion that the system is all-seeing, all-knowing and all too powerful.

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here (Subscribers Only):

*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

This is Part I of our interview series on the Makings of a Police State.

Shahid Buttar joins us to discuss the continuous erosion of our civil liberties from illegal domestic surveillance to Guantanamo, NDAA and its discretionary detention provision authorizing the President to detain Americans accused by the government of supporting terrorism. Mr. Buttar talks about the many abuses committed by the unchecked Federal Bureau of Investigation, the extension of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s Term quietly and readily by Congress, its significance and troubling implications, the capacity of the FBI to be used for political purposes established since the Hoover days, the US media’s silence on this significant issue, and more!

Shahid Buttar is the executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the People’s Campaign for the Constitution (PCC). He received his J.D. from Stanford Law School in 2003, where he served as executive editor of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal and as Professor Lawrence Lessig’s teaching assistant for Constitutional Law. In addition to his work leading BORDC, Shahid serves on the advisory bodies of the Rights Working Group, the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, and the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights. He also supports populist constitutionalism as a civil rights lawyer, independent columnist, community organizer, and hip-hop and electronica MC. In his creative capacities as a poet and musician, Mr. Buttar has performed around the world, co-founded several grassroots art and culture groups around the country, facilitated workshops for young people and emerging artists.

Here is our guest Shahid Buttar unplugged! (Subscribers only)

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

With the National Defense Authorization Act, the Enemy Expatriation Act, and other startling measures by the US government to crack down on their own population making headlines around the world at the moment, the idea of an American police state is becoming an all too familiar tale. Less examined, however, are the international aspects of this encroaching police state, a high-tech 21st century control grid which adheres to no national boundaries and whose influence is increasingly being felt in countries throughout the so-called “free world.”

Just as the tracking, surveillance, pain-compliance and database technology behind this control grid is manufactured and marketed by multinational corporations who profess no loyalty to any nation state, so too is the police state itself nothing more than an idea for the consolidation and leveraging of power in the hands of a select few at the apex of business, government and finance. This idea in turn can be marketed, adapted and adopted from nation to nation, and that is the exact process that has been developing for decades now.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett, presenting the internationalization of the police state through the increasingly sophisticated technological control grid, and the collusion of international corporations and institutions to implement a homogenous and interconnected system for tracking, tracing and controlling the citizenry of the world regardless of nationality.

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here (Subscribers Only):

*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

The popular conception of the police state, derived mainly from works of science fiction,
revolves heavily around the deployment of exotic technologies for keeping the populace firmly under the thumb of an authoritarian government. Perhaps it is the frequency with which these devices are presented to us in fictionalized form that prevents many from noticing that this technology is not the stuff of sci-fi fantasy, but increasingly a part of our everyday lives.

Jack Cover, a NASA researcher, began development on the taser which was completed in 1974, although not widely adopted by police departments until the last decade. Since its inception as a standard police implement the taser has courted controversy, with critics blaming the weapon for as many as 515 American deaths since 2001. It has also been denounced by the United Nations Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, and other organizations as a potential weapon of terror.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett, introducing and presenting the taser, the use and implementation of this ‘pain technology’ in other settings, including airplanes, airports as the front line of the police state and a testing ground for new police state technology, and how the police, TSA and other law enforcement agents are being actively recruited and encouraged to be as aggressive as possible in dealing with the public, and aided in doing so by the federal government, the courts, and the upper ranks of their own departments.

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here:

*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

One of the greatest problems in talking about the police state is that all such discussion of the subject is hampered by the lack of a clear-cut definition. Given the public’s own ignorance of the true nature and function of a police state, story after story after story of intolerable levels of official oppression, secret illegal surveillance, and increasingly sophisticated technology for tracking, apprehending, incapacitating and even killing dissenters can be dismissed because these stories are reported one at a time, in a contextless and therefore meaningless way that invites the interpretation that these stories are only warnings of what is to come instead of sign posts of a reality that is already here.

Those who seek to sow discord amongst the potential opposition to the growing control of the state over every aspect of the public’s lives can confuse and distract those opponents by engaging them in endless dialogues fretting about what a police state is, and whether our society is becoming one. Distracted in this way, the public can be tricked into believing that the police state is some imaginary future possibility, one that will only be realized when menacing troops in brown shirts, red arm bands and jack boots goose step people into internment camps against their will.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett, presenting the police state as a present reality rather than a future possibility, the distraction of the public by design, the need to look at the decades-long history documenting the step by step construction of our current system in order to recognize, understand and acknowledge our current police state status, and finally, the real key to dismantling our current police state.

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here:

*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

I cringe every time I read or hear this self-defeating fallacy repeatedly used in almost all arguments and advocacies intended to counter our government’s assault on our liberties. I know those who use this fallacy, whether a lone-wolf noble politician, enlightened commentators, or civil liberties experts and representatives, all mean well and have the best intentions with what they put forth in defense of our liberties. Nonetheless they are doing a great harm by unintentionally promoting a myth, an illusion, and a major fallacy.

Allow me list a few old and recent examples:

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” – Benjamin Franklin

PBS Headline- America at a Crossroads: ‘Security Versus Liberty: the Other War’

“If we allow the interests of national security to take away our freedoms, we surrender what it is to be an American.” – ACLU

Title: “Ten Years of Trading Liberty for Security” – Anthony Gregory, Independent

Title: “Guantanamo Bay Detainees: National Security or Civil Liberties” – Pamela M von Ness, FAS.Org

Just read the civil liberties related headlines daily and you will compile a very long list of similar titles and arguments. Most, if not all, fortify the false notion of ‘security vs. liberties,’ ‘the compromise between safety and rights,’ ‘sacrificing Constitutional rights to fight terrorism,’ … Granted, some, actually only a few, bother to include the notion of ‘perceived security;’ only in passing, a long way into the body text. For most Americans, busy with life, hassled with chores, too distracted by entertainment news, the part that quickly and easily sticks is the notion of making a choice between security and idealistic liberties.  And for many the answer comes down without any hesitation- it becomes a choice between life and death. And hey, when you face a life and death situation you ain’t gonna bother with some idealistic liberties concerns. Right?

Civil liberties experts and spokespersons, intentionally or unintentionally, help frame the majority’s simple response when it comes to the state of our liberties in a national security state. And as we know, when asked, most Americans go for life- for so-called security. Just take a look at complied surveys for the last decade and you’ll see where the majority stands on this very wrongly framed question.

With the intended and unintended help of our media, civil liberties advocates and experts, liberties have been diminished to a choice, a luxury, and an ideal. We The People, the large majority, are under the false impression of being in a ‘give and take’ situation where liberties are given in return for security, when in reality their position is of ‘give and give.’

Our national security state on the other hand is in the clear position of ‘take and take.’ Think about it, if no grand-scale terrorism incident occurs, they will continue to take by showing their ‘taking’ as the reason for this safety from terrorism. On the other hand, If there is a large terrorism incident, the government will continue to take, and take even more, citing terrorism as justification for more liberty-butchering actions. They will take, continue to take, and most likely take more.

Meanwhile, without a single scientific or rational parallel established between police state practices and increased security, our experts and media continue to propagate this fallacy of linking security and liberty-butchering practices.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Yesterday I came across an article on DHS plans to create its own internal fusion center so that its many agencies can aggregate the data they have and make it searchable from a central location. Let’s read a few excerpts from this typical half-hearted MSM attempt to provide a semi-complete picture of the state of ‘things’ when it comes to our government:

Information sharing (or lack thereof) between intelligence agencies has been a sensitive topic in the U.S. After 9/11, there was a push to create fusion centers so that local, state, and federal agencies could share intelligence, allowing the FBI, for example, to see if the local police have anything in their files on a particular individual. Now the Department of Homeland Security wants to create its own internal fusion center so that its many agencies can aggregate the data they have and make it searchable from a central location…

Of course this is another troubling development in an extremely troubling state of ‘things.’ However, this wasn’t the focus my attention. Here comes the not-really-reported angle in this half-covered story [All emphasis mine]:

The DHS is calling it a “Federated Information Sharing System” and asked its privacy advisory committee to weigh in on the repercussions at a public meeting in D.C. last month…

So what is this ‘privacy advisory committee’ and who are its members? This is what the article provides on that front:

The committee, consisting ofan unpaid group of peoplefrom the world of corporate privacy as well as the civil liberty community, were asked last December to review the plan and provide feedback on which privacy protections need to be put in place when info from DHS components (which include the TSA, the Secret Service, and Immigration Services, to name a few) are consolidated. The committee raised concerns about who would get access to the data given the potentially comprehensive profile this would provide of American citizens…

It sounds good. Doesn’t it? It hits all the rights adjectives and catch phrases: Unpaid, Civil Liberties Community, Corporate Privacy Activists-Experts …Let’s read one more relevant excerpt and then I’ll tell you the ‘real’ significance of this half-covered report:

The committee’s recommendations are available in draft form below. DHS would not provide the original document — a “tasking letter” — that it issued to the committee describing its plans. But DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division did announce this month that it had awardeda contract to Raytheonfor a “new system [that] will enhance how agencies manage, investigate, and report on law enforcement and intelligence activities by improving data sharing between multiple law-enforcement agencies,” reported Information Week. Raytheon’s work started on September 27, a week before the privacy committee got back to DHS with its draft privacy policy recommendations (available below). The committee noted that it had been given an “aggressive timeline” by DHS on coming up with its recommendations…

What got my mind wondering, what should have gotten the wheels turning in MSM reporters’ head, was this question:

Who are the members of this ‘selected’ aka government hand-picked, privacy-integrity advisory committee?

An important and very logical question, no? And I tell you what, not a difficult one to find an answer to. The article even had a link to the DHS website where the members of this ‘select’ committee are listed by name with their background. Check for yourself here. Because the information contained in this page is at least as significant and revealing as the point half-covered in this quasi exposé. Let me show you a few examples of what I am talking about here:

Chairman: Richard V. Purcell, Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Privacy Group, Nordland, Wash. Mr. Purcell runs an independent privacy consulting group, focusing on policies, practices, and education. He is currently Chairman of TRUSTe and was formally the Chief Privacy Officer for the Microsoft Corporation.

Well, Mr. Purcell had served Microsoft Corporations for many years, and only recently left MS to start his ‘vague’ consulting business.

In 2003 Microsoft was chosen as exclusive Department of Homeland Security contractor.

DHS has chosen Microsoft Corp. as its preferred supplier of desktop computer and server software, according to a statement issued late Tuesday…The contract “establishes a key partnership relationship” between the government and Microsoft, the world’s biggest software maker, the statement said…The deal is worth $90 million.

The business (and the large dollars involved) between Microsoft and DHS has been growing and prospering ever since. Every year, including this year, 2011, Microsoft is listed as one of DHS’ major private business contractors. Are you with me so far? Now during all these lucrative Microsoft-DHS business marriage years, Mr. Purcell was working as the CPO at Microsoft. Not only that, he was royally exposed in his involvement in the Microsoft-NSA Key-Echelon case and its subsequent cover up. You can read more on this major 2000 exposé and related communications here at Cryptome. Here is the title of the exposé and some background on Microsoft’s and Purcell’s  ‘intimate’ involvement in the NSA Key controversy and the subsequent cover up:

Microsoft Offer to Resolve “Questions About NSA_Key”, then Put Up a Brick Wall

Background : Duncan Campbell gave a presentation on Global surveillance and the Echelon network at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2000 (CFP2000) conference held in Toronto, Canada from 4-7 April 2000. During the presentation, he instanced the NSA_KEY controversy as one of a number of outstanding issues related to security and surveillance.

Richard Purcell, Microsoft’s Director of Corporate Privacy, also attended the CFP2000 conference. After the presentation, Purcell approached Campbell. He said that he wished to resolved the doubts about NSA_KEY. He would see that this was done.

Campbell then put a number of key questions, politely but persistently. After three weeks, Microsoft backed off. They refused to answer outstanding questions. They declined even to explain why they were unwilling to continue contact. They stopped answering e-mail.
…

I encourage you to read the entire communication-correspondence between the investigator and Purcell’s unit at Microsoft here. Also check out this article on ‘How NSA Access was Built into Microsoft Windows.’

You see, our government, the Department of Homeland Security, could not have cherry-picked a better candidate as its Chairman of Privacy-Integrity Advisory Committee. With his long years in Microsoft as an executive until recently, with his stocks and shares tied to Microsoft, with his proven track record in covering up privacy and liberty-violating government-private business collusion and practices, Mr. Richard Purcell appears to be the best candidate to chair the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.’

Let’s check out another hand-selected colluder by DHS for its mockery of an advisory board on ‘privacy and integrity’:

Christopher Pierson, Chief Privacy Officer and Senior Vice President, Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (Royal Bank of Scotland- RBS). Dr. Pierson was President and Chairman of the Board of the Intraguard Phoenix Member’s Alliance, Inc., from 2003-2007 and served on the Arizona Office of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Coordinating Council from 2003-2006.

Well, right off the bat, this dude used to directly work for the Department of Homeland Security; 2003-2006. Now, what is this the Intraguard Phoenix Member’s Alliance, Inc.? Here are a few noteworthy excerpts from its website:

Arizona InfraGard is an alliance between the Arizona Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and individuals committed to protecting the nation’s infrastructure and its people. The members, who are representative of all infrastructure sectors, public and private, identify and mitigate physical and cyber threats through information sharing. Arizona InfraGard promotes best practices, security awareness and training, community outreach, and the exchange of information between law enforcement and infrastructure owners and operators.

So we have Mr. Christopher Pierson hand-picked by the DHS to watch over DHS practices and objectively advise on whether certain policies and practices violate the people’s privacy and integrity. The man used to work for them-the DHS, he worked with the FBI to help ‘share data,’ and now he will watch out for your privacy and mine!

Let’s check out other member:

David A. Hoffman, Director of Security Policy and Global Privacy Officer, Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, Ore. Mr. Hoffman has experience in privacy policy issues at the business and technical level, working on issues of interoperability, improved data quality, and data retention. He serves on the board of directors for the non-profit privacy compliance organization, TRUSTe.

Where do I begin? Let’s begin with Intel Corporation’s business and services to the federal government as a contractor. They had so much that they had to form a wholly owned subsidiary ‘Intel Federal LLC.’ Of course Intel has major contracts and advisory positions with DHS. Oh, interestingly he is closely connected to Richard Purcell, the Chairman of this DHS mockery privacy advisory committee. Purcell is the chairman of this TRUSTe, and Hoffman serves on its board of directors. And here is another blurb on Hoffman from a release only 3 months ago:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ – The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA), a nonprofit public-private partnership focused on cybersecurity awareness and education for all digital citizens, today announced that David Hoffman, director of security policy and global privacy officer at Intel Corporation, has joined the organization’s board of directors.

…

NCSA board includes all our government partners and contributors to its surveillance program:

NCSA board members include: ADP, AT&T, Bank of America, Cisco Systems, EMC Corporation, ESET, Facebook, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Google, Intel, Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Services, McAfee, Microsoft, PayPal, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Symantec, Verizon and Visa…

Please check the list of this laughable privacy advisory board and continue this thread. Whether it is a member from other government contractor moguls like IBM, or academics from University departments generously and heavily funded by our governments, or lap-dog watch-dog organizations funded by the shadow government players such as Rockefellers, Soros, Carnegie, Ford…you’ll see a board of clowns juggling self-interest and profits while faking advisory roles on the 99% absent-privacy and long-gone integrity committee.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

“[A] panel operating out of the White House — that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates — is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider.  It is difficult to describe the level of warped authoritarianism necessary to cause someone to lend their support to a twisted Star Chamber like that.”

The Star Chamber, an English court dating back to the middle ages, reportedly was named for the stars on the ceiling of the courtroom, located at Westminster Palace.  Over time, it grew increasingly powerful and corrupt.  By the 17^th century, under Charles I, it had become a vehicle for prosecuting political dissent.  The court’s procedures made it virtually impossible for defendants to get a fair hearing and served as a rubber stamp for the monarchy.

“Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.”

The Star Chamber also punished religious dissent, ultimately driving the Puritans to seek refuge in North America’s wilderness. Their descendents would form a new nation and endow it with laws that prohibited Star Chamber abuses. Today, “star chamber” is a pejorative term used to describe any administrative body with “strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings” that “cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings.”  Notwithstanding its infamous past, the Star Chamber appeals to government officials who abhor accountability.

The panel that authorized the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki is the most public U.S. example of a star chamber–but it is far from the only one.  The federal government operates a network of star chamber courts administered by government agencies for the purpose of hearing appeals from military and civilian federal employees stripped of their security clearances. Many of those employees are whistleblowers who have disclosed government wrongdoing, thus implicating senior officials.  Senior officials use the star chambers to punish whistleblowers, to discredit their disclosures and to discourage other employees from exposing negligence, waste and corruption.  Existing whistleblower protection laws are helpless to protect federal employees with security clearances from agency reprisal.

Security clearance star chambers violate the U.S. Constitution’s due process protections by presidential order–Executive Order (E.O.) 12968.  These courts go by a variety of names.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Star Chamber is the “Personnel Security Review Board.” The Department of Defense (DOD) calls its star chamber the “Department of Hearings and Appeals.” Each federal agency interprets the executive order differently, and some—for example, USDA—actually provide less due process than E.O. 12968 allows.  All are offensive to modern notions of justice, but none have been held accountable.  Government officials argue that national security requires the suspension of due process; but, a close examination of the appeals process shows that the government’s claim is a fraud.

“Due process” is defined as “a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property.”  In addition, it is a guarantee that a law “shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.”

The U.S. Constitution lists due process rights primarily in the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.  Amendment V states that no one may be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. “Amendment VI defines due process as “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury; the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”  Amendment VII applies those jury trial rights to civil cases as well as criminal cases.  Amendment XIV, adopted in 1868, guarantees equal treatment under the law.

By contrast, E.O. 12968 denies a federal employee the right to a public hearing (an important check on judicial corruption), the right to be confronted with witnesses against him, the right to present his own witnesses, and the right to an impartial jury. With these restrictions, the courts enable agencies to orchestrate a hearing’s outcome. An agency can freely smear an employee with hearsay and innuendo–even allegations from officials implicated in wrongdoing–secure in the knowledge that the employee’s attorney can never cross-examine the sources.  Agency officials also get to select the agency employees who will review the evidence—which must be written–and render a decision.

Adding insult to injury, federal agencies may further limit the amount of due process allowed.  For example, USDA’s appeals process arbitrarily limits the hearing to one hour, and allows the agency to provide only a “brief” statement of the charges (which may be impossibly vague) instead of the detailed explanation required by E.O. 12968.  One particularly Kafkaesque provision denies the employee any opportunity to appear before the panel that will evaluate his credibility and decide his fate.  The provision makes a mockery of the concept of jury trials by enabling panel members to render unfair decisions without having to look their victims in the face. The panel’s decision, USDA says, cannot be appealed.  In practice, even the pitifully thin due process described in USDA’s regulation have been denied; oversight and enforcement of the government’s star chambers being practically nonexistent.

Senior government officials would have us believe that national security is best served by allowing honest government employees to be railroaded out of their positions on the basis of unquestioned allegations from witnesses who may be lying to cover up corruption or neglect of national security threats.  This defies logic, as well as public policy established by courts over the years. Denying due process to federal employees is, moreover, hugely hypocritical, because employees of federal contractors—whose whistleblowing poses no direct threat to federal officials–are allowed significantly more due process rights.

Unlike USDA employees, employees of USDA contractors are permitted a public hearing, may cross-examine the Department’s witnesses against them, and may introduce witnesses of their own (See here and here).  An administrative judge, not a panel of laypersons, issues the decision, and the decision may be appealed to a board of three administrative judges.  Meanwhile, until a final decision is reached, a contractor employee retains access to classified information–unlike the federal employee, whose access is suspended.

A December 12, 2003 report issued by the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Office acknowledges the absurdity of that disparity in the treatment of federal and contractor employees.

“Whether an individual is a contractor, a civilian, or a military employee, the DoD security clearance allows access to the same categories of information. Therefore, access requirements and the application of the adjudicative guidelines for DoD security clearances should be consistent regardless of the process through which the clearance is received.”

The OIG solicited comments from senior DoD officials on the disparate treatment described in its report. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence claimed “the report lacks clarity,” but would give no examples. The Deputy General Counsel slammed the report as “fundamentally flawed,” and also failed to provide examples. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and the Deputy General Counsel alleged there is no “persuasive” argument or “rationale” for creating a single appeal process.  The Deputy General Counsel maintained that the current arrangement “appears to work well.”  It would have been nice if the OIG had pointed out that the support expressed by these officials for star chambers violates their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

In addition to violating the Constitutional due process rights of federal employees, the star chambers’ separate-and-unequal appeals process violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.  The disparate treatment of federal and contractor employees is neither logical nor consistent with common notions of fairness.  Depriving federal employees of due process “works well” mainly in hiding government wrongdoing.

Star Chamber abuses thwart accountability and silence whistleblowers, thus leaving the nation vulnerable to threats, foreign and domestic. Whistleblower cases like those of Franz Gayl and Thomas Drake illustrate the importance of whistleblowers to national security, and the extremes to which agencies will go to silence them. Gayl, a U.S. Marine Corps scientist, drew attention to DoD neglect of a battlefield request for urgent request potentially life-saving Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) troop carriers. His commendable service may soon be terminated if superiors get their way.  Drake, a computer specialist at the National Security Agency (NSA), angered supervisors by opposing the implementation of a computer program that violated privacy laws and was less efficient than another at intercepting terrorists.  Not satisfied with firing Drake and destroying his career, the government also tried, unsuccessfully, to convict him of espionage.

The refusal of federal department heads to provide a reasonable, lawful rationale for establishing star chambers indicates that the motivation is neither reasonable nor lawful.  Star Chamber courts deal in expediency, not justice.  They efficiently dispose of terrorism suspects and trustworthy public servants alike, and protect corruption in preference to the public.

Perhaps the greatest peril of star chambers is their effect on public trust and domestic stability.  The original Star Chamber’s abuses ended in a revolt by Parliament, which dissolved the court and freed its prisoners. A civil war followed, bringing an end to the king’s rule and, for awhile, the English monarchy–proving that the harder one grasps power, the more likely it is to crumble.

Linda Lewis is a policy analyst with degrees in emergency management and geosciences.  Her experience includes 13 years as a policy analyst and planner for the U.S. government.  During that time, she brought attention to serious deficiencies in government preparedness prior to the disasters that confirmed her analyses.  Those included emergency communications (9/11 terrorist attacks), federal assistance (hurricane Katrina) and decision making (Columbia shuttle disaster).

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

BFP Nightly Quote

“Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.” - Marshall McLuhan

International Newsworthy

Military Aid Remains Cut as Drones Pound Pakistan 

Islamabad Demands Veto on Drones

China Launches 2-Month Xinjiang ‘Terror’ Crackdown

Massive Bomb Defused at N. Caucasus Market

More War with Iran Propaganda

Libya, NATO & the Sinister Western Media

Al Jazeera Journalist Held in Israeli Prison

Half of Somalian Aid may not Reach Starving Refugees

* * * *

National Newsworthy

Who & What Are Behind the “Official History” of the Bin Laden Raid

Obama: “Lone Wolf” Terror Attack Biggest Concern

$360 Million in U.S. Tax Dollars Ends Up with Taliban  & Criminals

New Reports Confirms the US Army Approved Up to 5 Million Pieces of Worthless Body Armor

U.S. Weapons Industry Makes Too Much Profit from Pakistan to Reject its Government

AIG Sues Bank of America for $10 Billion Over “Massive Mortgage Fraud”

Investors Hedge Their Bets on America’s Biggest Banks

TSA: Hair Pat-Downs

* * * *

Noteworthy Editorials

The Empire at Dusk

Shaping a New World Order

Assassination as US Foreign Policy

The Media is the Enemy

How Safe is the US?

Congress & Obama: We Need more Innocent People in Jail

Report: $3.7 Trillion for U.S. Wars, $12,000 per Person

* * * *

BFP Nightly Funnies

“Republican Congressman Phil Hinkle, who voted to ban gay marriage, was caught propositioning a male prostitute. Hinkle said, ‘Well, I wasn’t going to marry him.’” –Conan O’Brien

* * * *

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Video 1: Rumsfeld Faces Torture Charge from U.S. Contractors Abused in Iraq

Video 2: Goldman ‘Too Important’ for Criminal Charges

Video 3: Ron Paul: “I’m Running Against Bush & Obama!”

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 BFP Nightly Quote

“Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today” – Mahatma Gandhi

International Newsworthy

Pepe Escobar: Syria- Why the Regime Won’t Fall

Lebanon Intercepts Covert Arms Shipment Bound for Syria

IED Attacks: Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs

The Pain to Come for Chinese Export

Russia & Azerbaijan: An Obstacle to the U.S. in the Caucasus

Tajikistan: In Dushanbe “Religious Radicalism” Comes in Many Forms

France, Italy, Spain & Belgium Ban Short-Selling

* * * *

National Newsworthy

DHS Trying to Make New Terrorist “Watchlist Service” Exempt from Privacy Act

Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses CIA Officials of 9/11 Cover Up

Washington Funds Venezuela’s “Made in the USA Opposition”

State Department Awards $200,000 to Elliott-Abrams Led Thinktank Repeatedly Cited by Israel’s Mass Murderer

Bank of America’s Backdoor Bailout

FDA Conducting a Secret War Against Dairy Farmers

Supreme Court Likely to Rule Big Oil Human Rights Abuse Lawsuits Possible 

* * * *

Noteworthy Editorials

Hiroshima & Nagasaki: 66 Years Later

Begging for Change

The Military: “Closer to you than your Family”

Over 160 Children Reported Among Drone Deaths 

* * * *

BFP Nightly Funnies

“Did you know that China has the exact same credit rating that we do? You’d think their credit would be better, but it’s not. Look who owes them all the money.” –Jay Leno

Obama Proposes Tax Increase On Meanest 2% Of Population 

* * * *

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Video 1: We Now Have More Soldiers That Have Died by Suicide Than Conflict

Video 2: AIPAC Sends US Congress on Vacation

Video 3: Ron Paul’s Iowa Debate Q & A

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Basically, a bunch of already-proven incompetent, abusive, biased, and criminal people who have been high on their government-given limitless powers will be freely using their subjective judgment on whether you look or act suspicious, or not. Now I want you to think about agitation, eye-aversion, nervousness, being stressed out, being shy …Think about it, and then calculate the odds of you being determined a suspect, thus one of their chosen ones:

If you are one of those Starbuck’s addicts used to running on several shots of espresso, then place a good size bet on being one of the many TSA chosen ones. You know you are going to be jittery, and TSA will probably read your jitteriness as an ultimate indicator of your suspiciousness. You’ll be chosen.

If you are one of many ladies out there (like myself) with temperament-changing and mood-swinging monthly menstruation cycles, quickly check out the calendar and make sure your next flight does not coincide with that time of the month.

If you are one of those parents travelling with children, some of them in their terrible twos-threes or fours, see if you can ship the kids via cargo. We all know how frustrating and agitating it can be to travel and handle kids that age-especially when we go through shoe-removing, belt-removing, patting and groping checkpoints. Your frustrated and agitated state will probably land you in the circle of TSA’s chosen ones.

If you are one of the racial minorities …well, need I say more? Think of those abusive bigot cops incidents, multiply that several times, and there: those are the odds of you being selected as one who looks suspicious, thus a suspect, and therefore a chosen one.

If you happen to be shy, then you are totally out of luck. You know you most definitely will avert your eyes…at least once or twice while being watched-interpreted-detected. Do yourself a favor and cancel all your air travel. You ain’t gonna make it; you’ll definitely be a chosen one.

…

Actually, when it comes right down to it, if you are an ‘American,’ you may as well put all your bets on being TSA’s chosen one; at one point or another. Because the American Government has designated you, every single one of you as a ‘suspect.’ When it comes to your communications-phone, e-mail, etc. every single one of you is a suspect, according to your government, thus, under phone wiretaps and other communication related surveillance. Think about it, even the ‘ordinary’ airport security procedures you are forced to undergo are meant to screen you, check you out, as a suspect. Whether you engage in some sort of a suspicious behavior or not is actually a moot quandary. We, my friend, all of us, were designated as suspects nearly a decade ago. We may as well return that ticket, forget that darn flight, and drive while we can. Before the suspicious behavior detection police take over the roads and make that humiliating or impossible too.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

BFP Nightly Quote

 “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”- Thomas Jefferson

International Newsworthy

US Missile Shield May Be Precursor for Attack on Iran 

Iran Explores Russia’s Plan

Russia Vows Response to US Magnitsky Blacklist

Kyrgyzstan: Detained Turkish Terror Suspect now Unwanted at Home

Al-Qaeda Leader Hails Syrian Protestors

In Afghanistan Parents Balk at ‘Suicide’ Schools

Torture Still Rampant in Post Revolution Egypt

Libya Campaign is Running into the Sand

Defense for Children International Report: Palestinian Children Endure Systematic Abuse from Israeli Military Courts

****

National Newsworthy

Nervous Hillary Clinton Urges Veto on Foreign Relations Bill

Pelosi: ‘It is Clear we Must Enter an Era of Austerity’!

Ford Takes US Taxpayers Bailout & Deserts Sinking Ship: Builds 3 New Car Factories in China!

The Secret Bailout of General Electric (GE)

Greater Lack of Healthcare Access for Rural America

Feds to Grab Land for Homeland Security

TSA Agent Poses as Cop to Harass Woman

US Embargo Forces German PayPal Users to Forgo Cuban Goods

****

Noteworthy Editorials

The Moral Bankruptcy of American Spooks

The New York Times’ Ostrich Act on JFK Assassination Getting Old

Obama Returns to the Fraud of Equal Sacrifice

What is a Dollar?

Fooling People: Something Obama is Really Good at

Hidden Hegemony: Canadian Mining in Latin America

Analysis: Why Mumbai? Why Now?

****

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Video 1: Social Security Reform Bill Encourages Americans to Live Faster, Die Younger!

Video 2: 5.8 Million Israelis get $100,000,000,000 in US Tax Dollars While American States are falling apart

Video 3: Rebel Militias Include the Human Traffickers of Benghazi

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

International Newsworthy

US in ‘Denial’ Over China’s Pacific Plans 

Britain Expels Diplomats & Officially Recognizes Libyan Opposition

Former Russian Foreign Minister: “What will Happen after Gadhafi?”

US ‘Threatens’ Reaction to Iran over Rising Violence in Iraq  

Iran Courts Post-Mubarak Egypt, Worrying Allies

NATO Bargaining Hard on Turkish Air Defense

Jordan Receives $1 Billion Grant from Saudi Arabia

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Behind Docu-Reality Series ‘Is.Real 2011′

Israeli President: Syrian Leaders Assad Must Go

Afghanistan: Long-Term Deal with US Conditional

****

National Newsworthy

Here We Go Again- Obama: Bin Laden Death Ups Terror Risk for Americans!

Why Are US Lawmakers Determined to Make the Job Crisis Worse?

Hedge Funds Regulation: Not Working

Near-Bankrupt Alabama County Once Hired DC Lobbyists

Poll: 46% of Americans Think Most in Congress are Corrupt

Anthrax Emergency Use of Doxycycline Hyclate

Halliburton Whistleblower Receives $970K for Exposing Halliburton No-Bid Contract in Iraq

****

Noteworthy Editorials

US Sponsored “Democracy” in Colombia: Political Assassination Poverty & Neoliberalism

The Solution to America’s Debt Ceiling Crisis: Looting What Has Already Been Looted…

The Political Theater & the Debt Ceiling Crisis: Are we Being Had?

The Most Dangerous Word in the World

How Obama Squandered the High Hopes of Those Who Elected Him

****

Video 1: Classic Johnny Carson Lie Detector for Politicians

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 International Newsworthy

A Saudi Beacon for Iraq’s Sunni Militias

Amnesty International Website Blocked in Saudi Arabia

The Cause of the Latest Russian-Kyrgyz Energy Row 

New US Envoy: NO Rush to Leave Afghanistan

NATO Admits: 5 Children Wounded in Afghanistan Air Strike

Afghan Lawmakers Tackle Karzai on US Deal 

Britain Farmers Find Promise in a Crop Illegal in Afghanistan

Iraq “Ignores” US-Imposed Sanctions Against Iran 

NATO Strikes Kills 7 in Libya Hospital

****

National Newsworthy

Goldman Sachs: US Credit Risk if Wars Counted as ‘Cuts’

Federal Reserve Attorneys: Fed Banks are NOT Agencies but “Independent  

Corporations” with “Private Boards of Directors”

Pentagon: US Transport Funds End Up with Taliban!

Top Cyber Official Resigns Abruptly

Super Congress Moves Forward Despite Tea Party Opposition

Navy Vet Arrested After Videotaping Police in Tampa

****

Noteworthy Editorials

The Cyber-Security Industrial Complex 

How America Became an Empire 

As the American Empire Spreads Abroad, it Becomes a Police State at Home

The Spinning of Polls & Demonization of Palestinians 

Obama: Job Destruction Makes us Richer?

****

 Video1: CIA Funding & Manipulation of the US Media

Video 2: We Are Mad As Hell & Can’t Take This Any More!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Newsworthy

Foreign Powers behind “Cambodia Killing Fields?” 

US Turns Heat on ISI: Says it Spies on Pakistani-Americans

Iran Draws the Line with Turkey on Syria

More Predator Drones for Libya

As Central Asia Dries Up, States Spar Over Shrinking Resources

Murdoch’s Misery, China’s Delight

****

Obama Declares Transnational Organized Crime Threat A National Emergency!

You hack, We Shoot:  Pentagon Discusses Armed Counter-strikes to Cyber-Attacks

$16 Trillion in Secret by Fed

Companies Churn Out Profits But Jobs Don’t Follow

 Lobbying Surges by AT&T & Other Communication Companies

1400 Arrests for Antiwar Protesters

****

Fear-Mongering & Servitude

The Power Elite & the Police State

9/11: Who Really Benefited?

Who Rules America: 0.1% Controls Legislative & Political Process

The lesser Evil

****

Video1: Former Guantanamo Guard-Whistleblower Brandon Neely on Former Guantanamo Inmate David Hicks

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Lew Rockwell, founder and Chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, joins us to discuss the constitutional rule and the roll back of our liberties and constitutional rights during the past decade, the rise of the police state, the PATRIOT ACT and our tyrannical government’s exemption from the rule of law domestically and internationally, our current economic model based on corporate fascism, and the need for ideological enlightenment. He talks about Eisenhower and how despite his commonly remembered speech warning against “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” he himself entrenched this very machinery in American life, and forged a program for the permanent militarization of our country. Mr. Rockwell talks about the Tea Party, and voices his criticism of their tendencies toward inconsistency, especially on the military and the issue of war, xenophobia, and on favoring national IDs, John Maynard Keynes and his admiration of the Nazi economic program, and more!

Lew Rockwell is a libertarian political commentator, activist, author, and founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He served as Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff between 1978 and 1982. His website, lewrockwell.com, features a selection of articles, including opposition to war and imperialism. Mr. Rockwell is the author of Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard with Walter Block, and The Left, The Right, and The State.

Here is our guest Lew Rockwell unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Paul Craig Roberts joins us to discuss the September 11 terrorist attacks as the defining event of our time, which has launched our nation on interminable wars of aggression, a domestic police state where the American President is a Caesar and completely above the law. He describes the US corporate media’s role today, which is to serve the government and the interest groups that empower the government, their astonishing blackout on legitimate investigations regarding 9/11 such as the investigation results supported by more than 1500 architects, and how currently the majority of Americans are ruled by propaganda and with little regard for truth and little access to it. Mr. Roberts talks about the conflicting, ever-changing and in many ways dubious accounts of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Military Industrial Complex’ need for the next ‘black hat,’ the question of China, and more!

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has been reporting on executive branch and cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books, and has published many articles in journals of scholarship. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Mr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy, and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. His writings frequently appear on OpEdNews, Prisonplanet.com, Antiwar.com, Lew Rockwell’s web site, CounterPunch, and the American Free Press.

Here is our guest Paul Craig Roberts unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

They say don’t count your chickens before they hatch. I say this doesn’t apply to the US political hatching machine, since there are more than chickens at stake. I’ll go even further and say we must start counting the eggs regardless of how many ultimately hatch. The cycle of laying eggs to hatched chickens is way too long in US political machinations hard at work towards the new world order. If one wants to keep up and be aware, one must pay close attention to the incubators and each entering egg. The Obama administration’s Bin Laden Death Script is the new designated incubator for a special batch of eggs. No matter how many will actually hatch. No matter how many will turn into specially designed future egg-laying chickens. What matters is the ultimate objective in engineering this latest designed political incubator. What matters is the path or paths set to follow the machine’s chicken delivery conveyor belts that will extend and wrap the globe, and deliver the new order.

We have had a few chickens hatch immediately following the death script; the early chicks. After the Osama Death Script release Obama’s job approval ratings jumped 11 percentage points to 57 percent according to a New York Times poll, and 9 percentage points according to a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. The Osama Death Script also brought a reversal in months of rising opposition to the war, when polls showed that record-low levels of Americans thought the war had  been worth it in the long run. Also, a slim majority of Americans now say things are going well for the United States in Afghanistan, a four-percentage-point increase from late March. This marks the first time in nearly two years that the majority has held this view, and only the second time since Gallup began tracking these opinions on the war in 2006.

Pakistan appears to be the batch about to hatch. I am going to reiterate what I wrote in my article, Bin Laden Death Script & the Needed Trigger for Next Step-Pakistan, neither party-US-China-Pakistan, has played all their cards yet:

The White House neocons are in the midst of age-old diplomatic games, bluffing, and hedging their bets. They have the ‘foreign & military aid’ card. They have the ‘ISI dirt files’ card. They have the ‘ultimate China leaning’ card. And of course, they have the ‘mighty power of preemptive occupation war’ card which is always blessed and supported by NATO and overlooked by their butlers in the UN.

…

Sometimes we come across an odd egg or two standing out like a giant Ostrich egg among tiny chicken eggs; like the following strange case popping up with even stranger timing; could it be an egg from the Iran Batch? :

Two defectors from Iran’s intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials had “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks,” according to a court filing Thursday in a federal lawsuit in Manhattan that seeks damages for Iran’s “direct support for, and sponsorship of, the most deadly act of terrorism in American history.”

Interestingly, despite all the contradictory, hole-filled and ever-changing Osama Death Script, and with so many eggs in the hatchery, we haven’t had any serious ‘Egg on the face’ case. One of the biggest reasons this hatchery-incubator had remained in a designed stage so long, until coming into the implementation stage recently, was the fear of losing a chicken or two that had been hatched from the 9/11 incubator. It was the question of what if the ‘Osama Death Script’ backfires and ends the motivation-reasons behind the many wars abroad and many newly gained government police powers here in the United States? It was the uncertainty as to whether we could continue this ‘Al-Qaeda Fear Brand’ and ‘war on terror’ without a healthy-wealthy and very alive Osama Man. The outcome, so far, has proved those fears baseless:

  Thanks to the real powers’ PR and propaganda machine, Al-Qaeda and the virtual terror machine have been deemed independent of Osama Bin Laden, and able to sustain, expand and grow ever increasingly and ever more powerful. The Bin Laden Chicken has been replaced by McQaeda Franchisees:

They kidnap Westerners in the deserts of Africa, turn Western-born Muslims into radicals, send bombs to the United States from Yemen and mount bloody attacks in Iraq and Pakistan.

These homegrown terror groups worldwide are informally dubbed Al Qaeda franchises – affiliates that do most of their own fundraising, recruiting and killing. The question now is this: What impact will the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden have on the ability and willingness of the franchises to mount attacks?

Emails found on flash drives from bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan two weeks ago show that he was communicating more than Western intelligence had thought. But Al Qaeda’s ideology plays a much bigger role in fostering terror than bin Laden’s personal involvement, said Gen. David Richards, Britain’s top military chief.”Yemen, Somalia and other places in the Middle East are today more important in a counter-terror context than what was going on…in Osama’s compound,” Richards told British lawmakers.

…

However, Al Qaeda franchises were responsible for the 2008 attacks in the Indian city of Mumbai that killed 166, and the 2002 attacks on a Bali island night club that killed 202 people, many foreign tourists.

The head of Britain’s domestic spy agency MI5, Jonathan Evans, has said it’s only a matter of time before “we see terrorism on our streets” from the Al Qaeda movement in Somalia, known as al-Shabab. He also said it is likely that Al Qaeda supporters in the Arabian Peninsula will step up attacks on Western targets.

…

And just to reassure our real hatchery and incubator-designers, a few days ago, after the supposed Bin Laden death, our supposed representatives from both houses and both parties reached a deal on a long-term extension of the PATRIOT Act without any of the inconvenient civil rights provisions and for an additional four years.

As any critical thinking and attention paying reader may already suspect, there were many eggs laid inside the Osama Death Script incubator. Some have already hatched; time will show how many will last long enough and grow into full chickens. Some are about to hatch; follow the news and developments around the world and you’ll see and recognize the chicks as they pop up. Some may take a while to hatch; patience is a virtue, if the only one, our ‘real’ rulers are known to have. And some will never hatch; well, they say no risk no rewards.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Once upon a time there was ‘the divine right of kings,’ a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy asserting that kings are subject to no earthly authority, deriving their right to rule directly from the will of God. The king was thus not subject to the will of his people. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king, the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

Then came a time and men like Thomas Jefferson to change all that, and with it a new doctrine that basically said: “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.” 

But things never remain the same. Do they? In this case, devolution of some sort took place, gradually, sometimes more rapidly than at other times, and things reverted back to what they once were. The Divine Right returned, albeit with one or two cosmetic and inconsequential differences. Change the word ‘king’ to ‘Federal Government,’ expand the right to make it ‘rights,’ add a body of votes issued and granted (sometimes) by those who serve the throne, and there you have it: The Divine Rights of the US Federal Government; far bigger than a one-man kingdom, far more dangerous than a few-man monarchy, and far more powerful than a napoleonesque empire.  It is a kingdom in layers: the not so visible top-tier kings-think MIC, Financial Conglomerates; the immune and untouchable presidency layer- think King George and King Obama; the leviathan bureaucracy unleashed with unlimited police powers- think CIA, Pentagon, Homeland Security, FBI and the rest …and let’s not forget the most crucial layer, the largest in size, the smallest in voice, and the most willing in rendering the power: the neo-indentured servants, as in ‘we the people’.

Here is a cursory list of a few  characteristics of our federal government’s divinity in action:  Our kings’ absolute power to declare wars and empire, Our kings’ ever-expanding police to spy upon the people, Our kings’ use of a iron fist when it comes to dissent or opposition, Our kings’ unlimited right to take away its servants’ money & spend it as it wishes; some of it in total secrecy…

 And here is one the latest on the divine government protecting and further expanding its divinity:

Two U.S. senators introduced sweeping privacy legislation today that they promise will “establish a framework to protect the personal information of all Americans.” There is, however, one feature of the bill (PDF) sponsored by senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that has gone relatively unnoticed: it doesn’t apply to data mining, surveillance, or any other forms of activities that governments use to collect and collate Americans’ personal information.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., McCain said the privacy bill of rights will protect the “fundamental right of American citizens, that is the right to privacy.” And the first sentence of the legislation proclaims that “personal privacy is worthy of protection through appropriate legislation.” But the measure applies only to companies and some nonprofit groups, not to the federal, state, and local police agencies that have adopted high-tech surveillance technologies including cell phone tracking, GPS bugs, and requests to Internet companies for users’ personal information–in many cases without obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

…

It also doesn’t apply to government agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration, the Census Bureau, and the IRS, which collect vast amounts of data on American citizens.

…

Making the governmental exemption more pointed is the fact that the senators’ press conference comes as the Obama Justice Department is lobbying for broader surveillance powers and trying to head off pro-privacy reforms.

…

Last week, the Justice Department said it opposed proposals–backed by AT&T, Google, Microsoft, eBay, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Americans for Tax Reform–to protect Americans’ privacy by requiring a search warrant to access online files and track Americans’ locations. Then, on Friday, the Justice Department renewed its opposition to being required to use a search warrant to access the Twitter accounts of Wikileaks volunteers.

…

A naïve, or wanna-be naïve, or simply wanna sound naïve Jim Harper of Cato institute asks: “What’s a bill of rights if it doesn’t provide rights against the government?” And he follows with another wanna-be naïve statement: “Kerry and McCain are saying, ‘Do as I say, not as I do,” Really?! Is this a recent trend? Has he just begun to observe this divine and exempted class attitude? Where has he been?! Please someone tell this either utterly naïve or naïve sounding man:

The Divine Right of Kings doctrine has been back for quite some time, and has been expanding at an exponential rate during the last decade – with a slight change in name: The Divine Rights of the US Federal Government.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Tom Woods joins us to discuss his latest article on the Phony Arguments for Presidential War Powers which has triggered intriguing reactions from the media on both sides of the isle. He provides us with historical background and a ‘real’ constitutional view of war making powers vested in US presidents, and tells us why the mainstream, left and right, usually proclaims the congressional power to declare war  “obsolete.” Dr. Woods defines ‘State Nullification,’ provides us with examples and an historical context for this power vested in the states, and counters uninformed arguments and generalizations spread by the mainstream on this topic. He talks about the Federal Reserve and the disastrous government bailout, the polarized and sound-bite oriented media, the labeling of critics of the status quo,  the case of the states and medical marijuana, the man most responsible for the beginning of the  imperial presidency in the US, and more!

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of eleven books, most recently Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. His other books include The New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, as well as Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (with Kevin R.C. Gutzman). Dr. Woods’ writing has appeared in dozens of popular and scholarly periodicals, including the American Historical Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Investor’s Business Daily, Modern Age, American Studies, New Oxford Review, Catholic World Report, and Journal of Libertarian Studies. He is presently a contributing editor of The American Conservative magazine, and a contributor to six encyclopedias. He publishes regularly at his website http://tomwoods.com.

Here is our guest Tom Woods unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

In February we provided you with coverage of the brutalization and arrest of Veteran Ray McGovern during Hillary Clinton’s speech at George Washington University. McGovern had dared to stand up during the speech, peacefully and silently, in a Gandhi-endorsed way, expressing his stand. That was his crime deemed by our government deserving of being beaten up, brutalized, and arrested. As part of our coverage we also provided you with brief video footage of Mr. McGovern’s assault. Now, I want to ask you to watch this video clip one more time to observe a far more troubling trend captured by that same brief footage. A trend that did not receive any coverage; at least not that I know of. A trend that should alarm anyone with the tiniest shred of common sense,” an alarm that hopefully will translate into seeking an explanation and possible remedies. Here is the video again:
 

I hope you observed more than Hillary Clinton, McGovern’s peaceful protest, and his beating and dragging. If you didn’t, please click the ‘play’ button and watch it again. Do you see what I see? A room filled with supposedly bright and educated university students, and supposedly intellectual elite. A room full of our young on its way to becoming the educated new workforce – filling up positions; from government bureaucrats’ and diplomats’ desks to the pacers of our congressional halls; from the corporate ladder climbers to the NGO drivers…That’s right. The Jack Morton Auditorium at George Washington University was filled with over 200 such people.

What was the reaction of these more than 200 people, mostly senior students and professors, to the dragging, beating, and brutalization of a veteran who dared to silently stand up? Please tell me, what did they do? Maybe you have to watch it for the third time with this question, this context in mind. Please do it; it’s only 1 minute long. Do you see what I see?

That’s right. This audience simply glanced over their shoulders, registered the brutalization of a peaceful senior veteran with pure disassociation, no rage and zero sympathy, and then quickly turned their faces towards a woman engaged in hypocritical talk; as if ‘nothing’ had happened. Not a single student objected vocally to this police state practice before their very own eyes. Not a single academic stood up and left in protest. Not a single reporter commented or whispered a word. Not a single person reacted; period.

Who are these people? What type of youth are we seeing here? What kind of education system and university are we talking about? Forget political apathy. We are talking about alarming social apathy. And how did they get here? Institutionalized docility? Indoctrination towards a numb and dumb generation to be ruled and policed easily? A tranquilized youth and a robotic citizenry?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

I just received the following news and I am way too upset to write a coherent piece on this. Ray McGovern is a good friend of mine. We live less than 10 miles apart. Together we have participated in many events and protests. He is one of the most informed, articulate, gentle, peace-loving and peace-seeking human beings I’ve ever known…For me, this hits too close to home: My father was similarly brutalized by dictator regimes, and that was only the beginning, before it escalated to being tortured and having his toenails pulled out by the state police. Why? He was a doctor, a surgeon with an inquiring mind, and he spoke out whenever he could against dictatorships and for liberties. Participating in peaceful demonstrations, encouraging others to rise up for their rights, and reading authors such as Steinbeck (the American author black-listed there as ‘communist and anarchist’) landed him on the list of to-be-punished and pacified…
 
Right now, at this point, all I have to say to those who second-guess our nation’s police state status is this: “Shame on you!” As for my irate minority friends over here at Boiling Frogs, please help disseminate this news, because the scum bag media won’t;’ thank you.

At Clinton Speech: Veteran Bloodied, Bruised & Arrested for Standing Silently

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday, condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail. She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back. Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.

Blind-sided by security officers who pounced upon him, Mr. McGovern remarked, as he was hauled out the door, “So this is America?” As you see, Mr. McGovern is covered with bruises, lacerations and contusions inflicted in the assault.

Mr. McGovern is being represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). “It is the ultimate definition of lip service that Secretary of State Clinton would be trumpeting the U.S. government’s supposed concerns for free speech rights and this man would be simultaneously brutalized and arrested for engaging in a peaceful act of dissent at her speech,” stated attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the PCJF.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Nick (Nicholas) Merrill joins us to recount his ‘surreal’ experience as the first American to stand up and challenge the FBI’s National Security Letters, living under FBI gag orders for the past six years, and being identified only as ‘John Doe’ in court documents. Mr. Merrill relates what made him resist the FBI order, and dicusses the unconstitutionality of these practices- government warrantless surveillance and searches, and violations of American’s liberties and privacy. He talks about the implications of the issuance of 50000 FBI national security letters per year seeking information on ordinary Americans and US businesses, our nation’s descent towards a police state, the importance of speaking out and resisting these government practices that violate our constitutional rights, our moral obligation to protect our liberties and privacy as a nation, his goals to raise public awareness on these issues, and ways to deal with them through his recently established nonprofit organization, and more!

Nick Merrill is the founder of Calyx Internet Access and the Calyx Institute. He was the first person to file a constitutional challenge against the National Security Letters statute in the USA PATRIOT Act. After receiving a National Security Letter from the FBI, he sued the FBI and DOJ and became the plaintiff in the lawsuit Doe v. Ashcroft filed on behalf of a formerly unknown ISP owner by the ACLU against the U.S. federal government. Mr. Merrill never complied with the FBI’s NSL request, and eventually – several years into the lawsuit – the FBI decided it no longer wanted the information it had demanded and dropped its demand for records. However for several years after dropping the demand, the FBI continued to prevent him from publicly speaking about the NSL, or even from being publicly identified as the recipient of the NSL. Because National Security Letters are accompanied by an open-ended, life-long gag order, Merrill was unable to be identified in court papers as the plaintiff in the case and instead was referred to as “John Doe”. In 2010, after more than 6 years, Nick Merrill was partially released from his gag order and allowed to reveal his identity, although he still cannot reveal what information the FBI sought from him.

Here is our guest Nick Merrill unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

It was a rainy April day in 2004, and I was in the office of one of my professors at the university’s Public Policy Graduate Department. I was having one of those defeated and disillusioned moments that kept recurring during that time period. I think you would have found it justifiable: I had been slapped with two separate gag orders via two separate invocations of state secrets privilege, I had just witnessed the Congress being hit with another gag order in my case via retroactive classification issued by the Justice Department, we were at war in Iraq based on lies, the PATRIOT ACT was in full swing, secret kidnapping and detention operations by our paramilitary were taking place all over the world, congressional corruption and revolving door scandals were popping up one after another…So, you see, all this and being almost at the end of my masters program specializing in US public policy, where what we were taught didn’t match reality on the ground (US politics and government) whatsoever, gave me a certain degree of justification for feeling  the way I felt that day.

Sitting across from my professor I threw out the questions: Why can’t I see a single instance of practices indicative of our so-called system of checks and balances? Isn’t it more like three illusionary branches but actually one system serving the interests of a very few? Isn’t our nation headed towards a police state; fast and furiously? How do all these in-theory-only fanciful policy concepts apply to real-politics on the ground? …

My professor smiled and nodded. After letting me vent, he calmly replied:

“You are young. You have to look at what’s been happening and place it in historical context. If you look at the US political climate over the last century you’ll see this Pendulum Trend. Things get really bad for civil liberties and good governance for a few years, sometimes even for a decade or more, then, things swing back the other way, and you see Renaissance-Like changes towards the other direction. We go through a hawkish period with wars, and then, we get into a more pacifist mode. We get a conservative administration and lose some of our welfare gains, but a few years later we get a liberal government and put in place new welfare programs…Things don’t stay the same. It’s been only three years or so since 9/11. Very soon people will get over the initial shock and fear, and they’ll push out the current national security state of government…This is the cyclical nature of US politics…”

I looked up at him, and asked:

“So you are saying this Pendulum will swing the other way? All by itself? So we just sit tight and wait for this pendulum to swing the other way?”

He shook his head, and replied:

“It’s a bit more complicated than that, but yes, time takes care of some of that. Other actors outside the state will play their role…you know, various NGOs, etc. Changes in the economy will be another ingredient…of course, the media…the Bush administration will be replaced, and most likely, it will be replaced by the other party, bringing in a liberal oriented administration… So, yes, give it some time and you’ll see the Pendulum swing the other way…”

Tell you what: I have heard this ‘Pendulum Swing’ story-theory many many times since; especially from academians, tunnel-vision analysts, crusty politicians, and to a certain extent, from the general public – those with a bit higher education who consider themselves politically involved and savvy. The more I study history, the further I delve into our real governance record, the more I look at the last half century’s graph on fluctuation of the real ingredients (here at BFP we call these the real diseases, the macro causes)…well, the more I get pi..ed with this utterly nonsensical and false yet widely-held notion of ‘just wait for the ‘Pendulum Swing.’

The only area where the ‘pendulum swing’ applies, and even that with a major caveat, is this yoyo illusionary cosmetic change of party every few years. That major caveat being: two parties as two sides of the same coin; the monopolistic power above made to look like a duopoly where naïve and ignorant citizens are led to believe they’ve been given two choices – Product A packaged in Red & Product B packaged in Blue. If you haven’t read my pieces on this, the ones that brought loads of attacks due to ‘me not giving enough time or chance to Obama,’ read the pieces here  and here. You don’t have to go far back in history to see this exact phenomenon. Just take a look at the ‘actual’ records for the Bush and Obama administrations, and you’ll see that on everything that actually counts (again we are talking macro level factors) the records match; Product A (Bush) in Red & Product A (Obama) in Blue, and of course, beneath the two, all the poor suckers who are still under the illusion of having a say, having a choice, when it comes to their votes.

Back to the damaging misguided illusionary ‘Pendulum Swing.’ If poor suckers count the same product in different packaging as governance choice, the two-party system as two opposite ends of governance, then they certainly can argue that this ‘pendulum swing’ notion applies. I’ll leave this group alone, and go to non-suckers, almost all my known readers who look for the master factors, the big bubbas of US politics-governance determinants: the ever expanding Military Industrial Complex, the  ever extending and expanding federal police and intelligence sector, the ever increasing campaign finance domination by the very few, the ever ongoing-increasing government-elected official corruption and revolving door practices, the ever expanding US wars (and their ever increasing costs), the ever failing-damaging hypocrisy-ridden foreign policy practices, the ever diminishing civil liberties and citizen privacy rights…We pretty much named all major trends-determinants-ingredients of US politics-governance, and one look at the record on these will tell you, with 100% certainty, that NO, there ain’t no swinging pendulum involved in those things that matter and really count. It is a myth. If there is a pendulum it is broken and totally malfunctioning; it is stuck, travelling only in one direction, and going fast, my friends.

I came across the following quotes in a well-written article published at New Internationalist Magazine:

Some people take comfort in the back-and-forth sway of the political pendulum. It is part of the greatness of our ‘two-party system’, they contend; it reflects the American aversion to extremism on ‘either side’. For the mainstream media, charting each degree of the pendulum’s swing is the essence of the 24-hour news cycle.

The problem is that focusing on the to-and-fro of electoral politics, like staring at the hypnotist’s medallion, can lull you into a trance. Once there, it is easy to miss those political trends that transcend episodic US elections. A graph of these trends would not show undulating curves that rise and fall based on shifts in Congress. It would be marked by arrows pointing steadily upwards.

…

In recent decades, raising the budget for US military spending has been a bipartisan passion. That budget now amounts to around $680 billion per year, more than seven times the military spending of the US’s nearest rival, China, and enough to sustain a network of more than 700 bases scattered globally across some 130 countries.

…

Economic inequality is another arrow, and perhaps the most distressing one. Since the 1970s, the once-garish sight of a CEO making more than 250 times the pay of an average worker has become the norm. This, combined with the steady growth of corporate power, has given the wealthy a firm hold on the levers of our democratic politics. A landmark Supreme Court decision in January, which eliminated restrictions on corporate spending in elections, only strengthened their grasp.

…

When I was living in other parts of the world I came across oppressed, repressed and abused people, the perpetrators being the government and or the monarchy’s extensions. Some of these people, not the majority but the irate minority, had the fire in their eyes and the will and the energy to fight for change. There were others, perhaps not far from being the majority, who took pride in their faith-religion, and refused to do anything about their conditions; they even smiled about it. They would be open and quickly tell you why they refused taking actions and just waited, and that with such conviction. You see, their religious leaders whose strings were in the hands of that same oppressive government told them, day in and day out, that their suffering was temporary since it was only worldly suffering, and that when they died, when they entered the land of eternity, they would be handsomely rewarded for all their suffering and live happily, and forever. They hung on to this notion administered to them like opiates by those in power; it was their version of ‘Pendulum Swing,’ it was what pacified and lulled them, and it was exactly what the powers above wanted.

Maybe my experiences rightfully or wrongfully helped shape my loath and disdain for this utter nonsense called ‘Pendulum Swing’ and the elite advocates I keep encountering here and there. It is here in my home country today that I often see those lulled and pacified, some even smiling, doing nothing and waiting for their pendulum to actually swing…magically. How about ‘You’? Are you waiting for the Pendulum to Swing?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Isn’t it good to see a joint focus on macro issues and real diseases? Even better, to see micro differences and lame sideshows put aside for the badly needed greater good? What do ‘you’ think?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

In May 2009 the Inspector General of the Justice Department found that 35% of the nominations to the Department of Homeland Security’s Terror Watch Lists were outdated, many people were not removed in a timely manner, and tens of thousands of names were placed on the list without predicate. A September 2009 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that the process for clearing innocent travelers from the list is a complete mess. Although significant, both reports failed to mention their findings on the number of names of already-dead US citizens who seem to be stuck there permanently. Even more significantly, it’s been reported that the TSA Terror Watch List includes the names of Long-Dead but well-known and well-respected US citizens, including several members of a group collectively known as the Founding Fathers of the United States. So far, based on our former and current TSA sources, we have been able to confirm the inclusion of two such long-dead persons on at least one DHS-TSA joint Terror Watch List: Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

A former TSA manager and a member of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) provided us with his first-hand knowledge of what he referred to as the ‘DHS-TSA Terror Watch List Black Hole’, where US citizens’ names remain ‘forever.’ According to this source:

‘The current one million plus list contains the names of many deceased US persons, since there is no working mechanism in place to remove names, whether due to mistaken inclusion or those deemed cleared later, or even those no longer alive…We are talking about the names of thousands of dead Americans who still remain on our terror watch list, and keep getting renewed! Yet they spend millions of dollars to maintain this black hole and keep it classified-secret from the public…’

The most explosive aspect of these recent reports, confirmed by three former and current government officials, was the revelation that since 2002 several well-known historical figures known as the ‘Founding Fathers’, who served our nation in various capacities, including one US President, and all that over two hundred years ago, have been on one  joint DHS-TSA Terror Watch List. Through documents and several sources we have been able to confirm two such cases involving Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

After several attempts I was able to secure a phone interview with the current TSA Chief John Pistole by agreeing to his condition. Mr. Pistole asked me to sign an agreement pledging that I would provide him with the names of my sources who had leaked these reports and the names of the Founding Fathers currently on the DHS-TSA Terror Watch List. I complied (At the end of this article I will provide you with additional details on this fulfilled agreement), and within an hour after I faxed his office the signed and notarized agreement we began our interview:

Sibel Edmonds (S.E.): Sir, I have confirmation from three sources, but for the record I would like to receive your confirmation on the report that at least two members of the group ‘Founding Fathers’, Mr. Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Benjamin Franklin, are on one of your most comprehensive joint Terror Watch Lists.

John Pistole (J. P.): Let me first express my utter contempt for those who leak classified and highly sensitive information such as this. As you will see soon we will hold these individuals accountable for divulging sensitive national security intelligence. And to answer your question…YES. Based on solid evidence, evaluation, and subsequent investigations and reviews we have determined that those individuals, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin, pose a high-level threat to our national security. After careful review and investigation they were placed on our watch list in 2003, and have remained there since our bi-annual review still finds them to be a threat to our security.

S.E.: Could you please explain what you mean by ‘threat to our national security. I mean these individuals are revered as the founders of our democracy, our political system… architects of our nation’s Constitution. How could they possibly be perceived as a ‘threat to national security’?

J.P.: It is because whether indirectly or even unwittingly they aid and abet our enemy, who happen to be the bad, very bad terrorists. With inflammatory writings and speeches they undermine our national security and that my friend is what the terrorists are hoping for, waiting for!

S.E.: I still don’t see it, Mr. Pistole. Okay, let’s take Thomas Jefferson here. Please tell me how Mr. Jefferson can possibly aid and abet terrorists.

J.P.: Have you read this man’s preposterous writings? Have you paid attention to his shameless propaganda against the government? Just listen to this quote: “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all” This man, this anarchist, is encouraging Americans to resist us; to resist us the government, who are in charge of protecting their national security!! By making us the government the enemy of you the people, he is making the terrorists the friends of you the people. Because you the people are either with us the government or with the enemy! You understand that, Ms. Edmonds?! And while we are at it, here is another one: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” We the rulers are the protectors of your security, and this man uses his fame and name to make us the real enemy of the people??! He may as well work for the terrorists!

S.E.: Okay, let’s move to the next one. Tell us about Mr. Benjamin Franklin.

J.P.: Oh, that Franklin guy! First, he is what we despise the most. He is what his current highness Obama is determined to quash forever. Yes, he is a known leaker, a whistleblower, a proven traitor. He defied the higher power in charge of people’s security by leaking the Hutchinson Letters, thus, undermining the rulers’ government. Our regime won’t show the meekness and weakness of the Bush regime. As you can see we now arrest and jail these leakers-whistleblowers. And Franklin is not and won’t be an exception!!! Of course, there also are his inflammatory and preposterous propaganda against national security such as this: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” What kind of nonsense terrorist-abetting sh.. is this?! We have also suspicions that he may be behind this ludicrous OPT-OUT movement. I wouldn’t put it past him!! If so we’ll also issue him a $11,000 fine, and have the right to indefinitely hold him in custody…

As we approached the end of our interview I quickly asked him the following question:

S.E.: Sir, these men have been dead for over two hundred years. How can long-dead men be of any threat to our national security?!

J.P.: We haven’t found any hard-evidence, any scientific proof of their deaths; have you?! Sure, it is ‘said,’ only ‘said,’ that they in fact died. Can you, with no doubt, prove that the men inside those graves marked with the names Jefferson and Franklin are indeed the real Jefferson and Franklin? Maybe with excavation and DNA samples and …however, that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Come on, these guys were known for their resilience with a propensity for resistance. Who says they couldn’t still be alive today?! When it comes to our national security we do not take any chances, and this is NO EXCEPTION. Americans have trusted us with their security through their private parts and hard-earned dollars, and we are not about to let them down by taking chances on resilient men keen on resistance who may unwittingly and indirectly aid and abet terrorists; whether they are said-to-be-long-dead Founding Fathers or Quaker grandmothers…

S.E.: One last question, Mr. Pistole. How about Patrick Henry, John Paine…or even the US Constitution, are those all classified as terror threats and watch-list inhabitants?

J.P.: We are not going to divulge classified information, and the names of our suspects are all considered classified. As for the Constitution? Who says there is a Constitution? Last time we investigated we found it to be mythical and highly irrelevant. Now I am going to hang up and wait for your list of names, the sources you pledged to divulge.

At this point Mr. Pistole, also known as Mr. Pee-Stool, hung up. As for my list of names faxed to his office? I kept my word, and faxed him a signed paper containing the following names: John Brown, Aaron Dwight Stevens, and Mary Jenkins Surratt. They may all be long-dead men and women, but as Mr. Pistole says, these people were known to be resilient, and who can prove they are really dead!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Naomi Wolf discusses the fascist shift in the United States, how the state of our liberties has been getting worse under the Obama administration, and how President Obama has assumed the same position as Bush on States Secrets Privilege, unlawful detention and torture, and other similar assaults on our liberties. Ms. Wolf talks about the deplorable state of our two-party system and alternative approaches, the hypocritical silence of liberal antiwar activists, the need for new grassroots institutions and approaches to take back our civil liberties, and more.

Naomi Wolf is an author, activist and political consultant. She is known as an avid advocate of feminist causes and progressive politics, with a more recent emphasis on arguing that there has been a deterioration of democratic institutions in the United States. In The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of Fascism, outlining the 10 steps necessary for a Fascistic group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens. The book details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks.

Here is our guest Naomi Wolf unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

John Young provides us with a brief overview of the history, purpose and mission of his well-known website Cryptome.Org. He talks about the recent controversy involving Microsoft Corporation’s attempted legal action against Cryptome, and the temporary shutdown of the site by the ISP Network Solutions. He speaks to the importance of the free flow of information and challenging the governments’ self-serving secrecy as prerequisites for an informed citizenry and a functioning democracy, the importance of whistleblowers and anonymous disclosures, the existence of various trap websites, impostors and false flag operators to manipulate information, trick whistleblowers, and or plant specific propaganda, and more.

John Young is a New York based architect and online archivist who owns and operates Cryptome.Org, a website that functions as a repository for information about freedom of speech, cryptography, spying, and surveillance. In February 2010, the ISP Network Solutions shut down Mr. Young’s website after he posted a document summarizing Microsoft’s dealings with law enforcement agencies. Shortly after initiating legal action to suppress a document on how to subpoena online user data Microsoft withdrew the complaint, and the website was restored.

Here is our guest John Young unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

With almost a decade under its belt, our multi-front war on a vaguely defined notion of terrorism targeting never-really-defined enemies across the world and here in the newly rephrased ‘homeland’ has come to define the state of our nation. Even the meager limitations on presidential powers of the last six decades have in effect been nullified and replaced with a newly declared and interpreted authority mirroring those of past emperors and kings, and of any classic authoritarian regimes’ rulers. One look at the last decade’s successfully won legal arguments on behalf of the executive, the presidency, is enough to establish the common theme that ‘the war on terror is global and indefinite in scope, and that it effectively removes all traditional limits of wartime authority to the times and places of imminent or actual battle.’

Whether it is illegal domestic eavesdropping or unlawful detention and torture, these newly claimed and boldly practiced presidential entitlements rely on one factor, and that is the extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Here is a perfect example of the new permanent wartime presidency in action; boldly, loudly, and unfortunately thus far successfully:

On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president’s war-making powers in legal briefs as “plenary” — a term defined as “full,” “complete,” and “absolute.”

The current status of our nation’s president’s war-making powers is defined, recognized, and has been practiced as ‘plenary;’ complete and absolute. Now, let’s add to this the fact that our multi-fronted war on terror is global and indefinite, a war open-ended in time and with no national boundaries. What do we have with this equation? A permanent wartime presidency with absolute powers. The Constitution indeed granted the president the power to fight with any resources Congress makes available in wartime, and accordingly the executive is expected to do whatever it takes to protect the nation, even if it leaves some room for abuse of this power. But did our founders factor in the notion of indefinite, open-ended, perpetual wars, and with them, a permanent wartime presidency status? The Constitution gave presidents the freedom to defend the nation, but what about the nation’s need to protect itself against the abuses of this freedom, including the creation of perpetual wars accompanied with indefinite and absolute presidential powers?

The following excerpts are from the Devil’s Advocate, John Yoo:

Critics of presidential war powers exaggerate the benefits of declarations or authorizations of war, and they also fail to examine the potential costs of congressional participation: delay, inflexibility, and lack of secrecy. Legislative deliberation may breed consensus in the best of cases, but it also may inhibit speed and decisiveness. In the post-Cold War era, the United States confronts several new threats to its national security: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the emergence of rogue nations, and the rise of international terrorism. Each of these threats may require pre-emptive action best undertaken by the president and approved by Congress only afterward.

…

The Constitution creates a presidency that can respond forcefully and independently to pre-empt serious threats to our national security. Instead of demanding a legalistic process to begin war, the framers left war to politics. Presidents can take the initiative and Congress would use their funding power to check him. As we confront terrorism, rogue nations, and WMD proliferation, now is not the time to engage in a radical change in the way our government has waged war for decades.

…

Mr. Yoo considers a thorough congressional review and authorization based on findings and careful review as tending to ‘exaggerate the benefits of declarations or authorizations of war.’ If put in an appropriate context, this exaggeration could probably have prevented a preemptive attack on Iraq based on false and made-up intelligence on nonexistent WMD, and we may have saved thousands of American soldiers’ lives, tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned money, and would have prevented the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians’ lives. Only in John Yoo’s book of ‘cost & benefits analysis’ would this make it to the ‘exaggerated cost column.’

As for ‘Congress would use their funding power to check him,’ his pretend innocence would not get a pass from even the most naïve or ignorant. Considering where the real funding of the inhabitants of our congress comes from, taking into consideration the old adage ‘thou shall not bite the hand that feeds you,’ and understanding the power of ‘bacon sent home,’ who is Mr. Yoo kidding here; really?

Let’s look at it from the other side of the fence. What executive office wouldn’t want to possess this level of power? How many presidents would resist gravitating towards the enormous powers granted to a Commander in Chief in practice? How many of today’s ‘viable’ presidential candidate’s bread is heavily buttered by the war industry? Here is how Richard Norton Smith put it during an interview:

However you define national emergency, whether it’s a foreign war, whether it’s a civil war, whether it’s an economic depression, whether it’s a Cold War or the current war on terror, the fact is power gravitates towards the president…It’s a tug of war, Jim, that’s been going on, a constitutional tug of war between the executive and the legislative branch. And what I was picking up off what Ellen said I think the last 75 years has, if anything, distorted what the founders intended. Because of the Great Depression, because of World War II, because of the Cold War, now the war on terror, the fact is that that tug of war has actually been very one-sided. I don’t think this is the presidency that the founders really envisioned.

…

A Little Bit of History

On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman in 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon in1970 and 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. These vast ranges of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

With the melting of the Cold War-the developing détente, with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.

As we all know the establishment did not let the ‘melting Cold War’ argument stand. During the Reagan era the Cold War reached new heights, with a massive military buildup in an arms race with the USSR, before it came to an end. It wouldn’t be difficult to imagine the panic experienced by the real powers as the Berlin wall and with it the several-decade Cold War came crumbling down. How could the massive Military Industrial Complex, and those feeding upon it, survive this ‘ending,’ and find a way to sustain itself? How about maintaining the role and power of the Executive Intelligence Complex? The creation, existence, and practices of these agencies were based on and justified by the ‘Evil Empire,’ and with it gone, so was the justification sold to the public for the existence of many dependent upon it here in the States.

Sure there were other wars; Gulf War, Kosovo… But those were mini-wars; peanuts. What was needed, that is for the sustainability, survival, and even the fantasy of expansion, was another long-lasting war. Not a dingy little country or two, and certainly not a clear-cut enemy and pinpointable target to hit and be done with. No. In fact, learning from experience, it had to be something that could not end with some darn wall coming down, or a massive regime being taken out. An open ended war; a war with undefined enemies in many colors, with many tongues, and scattered across the world; a war that could be pointed at one place, then at another, and yet another without having to fit any military definition of target or strategy; a war with no boundaries; a war with no possible end. A war that couldn’t even be defined as a war, yet could act as the mother of all wars – a Perpetual War.

If anyone laughed at even the fantasy of such an absurd objective, they certainly weren’t the ones who had the last laugh. All that was needed to make it happen was the creation of a state of emergency. After all, it had been done for a long time, and done so very successfully. People were used to it – living under various degrees of a state of emergency for many decades. Just take it up a notch or two, then sit back and watch the panic take root and spring into full bloom. Jazz it up with a disaster-loving and panic-driving media, and the state of emergency will go into full effect. And from there – hello Perpetual War.

Here is more on the report by the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency:

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.

…

Because Congress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations … the temporary states of emergency declared in 1938, 1939, 1941, 1950, 1970, and 1971 would become what are now regarded collectively as virtually permanent states of emergency (the 1939 and 1941 emergencies were terminated in 1952). Forty years can, in no way, be defined as a temporary emergency.

‘Forty years can, in no way, be defined as a temporary emergency;’ really? Obviously it can, and it was. Not only that, it actually got worse. Today they don’t even bother adding ‘temporary,’ and leave it out completely. How could you win or lose, and declare the end of the ‘war on terror’? Is it possible to capture and neutralize that one last boogie man, announce that the last of the terrorists has been terminated, and then go about dissolving Homeland Security, Motherland Security, Fatherland Agency, Intelligence Czars, Domestic Eavesdropping…? How about the entire industry, the thriving many trillion dollar industry, with the ‘war on terror’ as their sole reason for existence? Obviously this would not fit the vision put in place by the few who matter, and the many grown dependent on them.

The Mother of all perpetual wars, War on Terror, followed by unjustified and undeclared wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran… Who are the enemies? Bad Taliban, Semi-bad Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda Supporters, Possible Al-Qaeda, Islamists, Fanatics, semi-fanatics, fanatic-looking dudes, Iran-ists, and with them all the civilians ‘just our collateral damage.’; babies, women, elderly…Kidnapping, torture, assassinations, black sites, black operations, black budgets…

Here at home: airport security check-points, no-fly list, semi-no-fly-list, many secret lists, tapping all phone calls, monitoring all e-mails, billions of secret documents, thousands of secret operations & plans.

For the winners in the Perpetual War, the military-intelligence-surveillance industrial complexes, the empire presidency and its advocates, and the parasitic class who lives beneath and off of them…the state of Perpetual War is a long-held dream coming true.

For the losers, we, the public majority, the mothers losing their sons and daughters to wars, the spouses left to deal with their returning amputated loved ones, many in need of medical care but with no coverage or assistance, the hard-working class dutifully parting with needed dollars and foregoing all expectations, the seekers of liberties…the realities of these made-up emergencies, and the real consequences of these vague wars are either not registering, or are being accepted and paid for silently.

This applicable quote comes to mind: “Inter arma silent leges: in time of war the laws are silent.” And, I feel like extending the line by adding”…for as long as the people wish to remain silent.”

# # # #

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Soon-to- be- Launched Boiling Frogs Exclusive Video

I’m going to start with an exciting update on our Boiling Frogs Exclusive Video Project. Again, I’m not known for being very patient, and in this case I’m not able to contain my excitement.

Kristina Borjesson and Katrina Rill have been working very hard on the production side, and have been doing it under extraordinary circumstances. Kristina’s brother lives in Haiti and for almost 4 days they were unable to establish contact with him, know about his well-being or whereabouts. They heard from him yesterday, after days of frantic phone calls, e-mails, and stressful waiting-pacing. I am so very happy and relieved. Additionally, during that chaotic period they had to resolve several software-hardware related problems and glitches. Fortunately, they have now arrived at the ‘happy-satisfied-exciting’ stage where they are putting their final touches on our first four-part video series.

The upcoming video series will be based on exclusive interviews with Larry Wilkerson, with great footage. I don’t believe anyone has ever heard or seen some of the extraordinary revelations and commentaries contained in these clips; at least I hadn’t. Here is a glimpse of what I’m talking about from the transcript:

Larry Wilkerson on Israel:

I have not mentioned one other motivation in here which was, I think very much at work. And that’s Israel… Douglas Feith, for example as many people often said in the state department, including the highest members of the state department, was a card carrying member of the Likud Party… what it meant of course was that he had a double set of interests in mind at most times and those interests were not just America’s interests, they were Israel’s interests…

We have a situation today in both Israel and the United States created in part because of incompetent leadership but in part because of very venal leadership in exploiting the politics of fear, that can’t bring us peace—either of us—and is making lots and lots of money as Andrew Basevitch said, off not bringing us peace. Lots of money.

there are a group of people in this country who have an interest in Israel’s security that goes beyond America’s interests…. When the Cold War ended, Israel in that regard became a strategic liability, not an asset…

LW on our Disappearing Civil Liberties:

…So we’re moving away rapidly from all those things—the constitution, the rule of law, operating within our own revenues instead of debt, debt, debt and so forth, all because the presidency has become so powerful that it can do these things and it has become powerful in some respects because of the politics of fear…

LW on the Role of Military Industrial Complex:

In our country, money is negating democracy. It is doing it in a host of ways. It is doing it in a way Dwight Eisenhower warned it would do in 1961 when departed the Oval Office…

…there’s nothing out there that will tell you how to deal with this. This is not the president of Lockheed Martin, the president of uh, of uh General Dynamics or Graumann or whatever plotting at night to take over Washington or to take your money away from you. This is much more insidious than that. It is power, and building over time as we decided after world war two to build a national security state and to make security the end all and be all of our existence. Just listen to the democratic candidates the other night in the debate. Every one of them I believe as I recall even the guys on the fringes they essentially said the first requirement of any president is to protect the United States of America. Hogwash. The first requirement of any president is to protect the Constitution. The Constitution will, if it’s adhered to, protect America.

…….

Okay, you see what I mean? How could I not be ultra excited?! The interview is loaded with macro points and facts long ignored by the media and others, and issues and realities that have been chosen by our public to be denied rather than being faced and dealt with.

Buckle up and get ready for our soon to be launched video series. For some of you who have not registered with the site, this is a good time and even a better reason to go ahead and do it. The full-length clips will be available only to Boiling Frogs Registered Users, those I refer to as members of the Irate Minority Club.

………

Boiling Frogs Podcast

We had a great interview session with Chris Hedges. After reading his sound analytical pieces, hearing him articulate issues relevant to our discussion, and knowing a bit about his sincere and non-partisan outlook, I decided to add his ‘corner’ to my ‘must-read’ daily list. I say corner, because I don’t particularly like some of the angles and partisan approaches of the general site, and I believe that’s mutual, since those operating it happen to not like mine either On the other hand, I try to give credit where it’s due, and in this case, having Chris Hedges on board is a major positive.

This week we’ll interview Professor Julien Mercille and Coleen Rowley. I know I’ve said this a gazillion times, but I truly enjoy these sessions, and end up learning so much. I’m looking forward to having both guests this coming week.

Coming up on Friday: Our interview with Andy Worthington.

………….

And here is a round up of a few headlines and news of interest:

US Public Majority: Willing to Sacrifice Liberties for Perceived Security

The following makes us truly members of the irate minority club:
 

           Most OK with TSA full-body scanners
           By Thomas Frank, USA Today

Air travelers strongly approve of the government’s use of body scanners at the nation’s airports even if the machines compromise privacy, a USA TODAY/Gallup poll finds.

Poll respondents appeared to endorse a Transportation Security Administration plan to install 300 scanners at the nation’s largest airports this year to replace metal detectors. The machines, used in 19 airports, create vivid images of travelers under their clothes to reveal plastics and powders to screeners observing monitors in a closed room.

…

In the poll, 78% of respondents said they approved of using the scanners, and 67% said they are comfortable being examined by one. Eighty-four percent said the machines would help stop terrorists from carrying explosives onto airplanes. The survey was taken Jan. 5-6 of 542 adults who have flown at least twice in the past year.

…

And, this one:

            Poll: Most Americans would trim liberties to be safer
            By Steven Thomma, McClatchy

After a recent attempted terrorist attack set off a debate about full-body X-rays at airports, a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll finds that Americans lean more toward giving up some of their liberty in exchange for more safety. The survey found 51 percent of Americans agreeing that “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.” At the same time, 36 percent agreed that “some of the government’s proposals will go too far in restricting the public’s civil liberties.”

…

Here are my questions for the ‘majority’ who support giving up privacy and liberties for perceived security:

Let’s say the next attack, or attempted terrorist attack, takes place in a shopping mall on a busy Saturday. What should be our government’s measures and so-called solutions afterwards? Should they place metal detectors at all main entrances of all US shopping malls? And since they happen to be ‘ineffective,’ should they go all the way and have these body-scanners instead? But then, some terrorist or terrorist wanna-be or just mentally deranged person may try to pull the explosive truck in the parking lot trick. Then what? Should we also place search guards and detectors at all entrances of all US shopping malls?

Please feel free to replicate the example, scenario above, for all the mega movie theaters, mega hotels, mega amusement parks, mega restaurants, museums… Each one of them a possible target. Each one of them vulnerable. Each possible attack with a possible large civilian death toll. So I’m asking those supporters of giving up privacy and liberties for some irrational and perceived security: What would you want to be done to make you feel secure, safer? Will you be willing to stand in long lines and check points, spread your legs and arms before government patters, maybe even bend over for a good ole cavity search and enema, for shopping, dining, entertainment…? And don’t pull that ‘oh, that’s different’ line with me. Because it isn’t. Because there are millions of ways for those who are willing to execute terror plots, and there are thousands of places to be targeted. Even if we were to turn the entire country into a massive check point with scanners and patters, even if we were to turn our entire population into security guards and police… So, what you gonna do? Maybe ignorantly do the following:

Fail-Proof Way of Creating Hatred & Terrorism

           Afghan, US forces shoot, wound five civilians: NATO
           AFP

KABUL — Five Afghan civilians were shot and wounded by US and Afghan troops outside a military base in a restive area of the war-torn country, NATO said Friday, also reporting the death of an American soldier.The incident involving the civilians took place in the Garmsir district of Helmand province on Wednesday, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement — where a violent demonstration took place a day earlier.

An ISAF spokesman said warning shots were fired as a crowd of up to 400 people gathered outside the gate of a military base, Combat Outpost Sher.

On Tuesday seven people were killed during a demonstration sparked by rumours that foreign soldiers had desecrated a Koran in an operation the previous day, officials said earlier this week.Referring to the Wednesday incident, Lieutenant Todd Breasseale told AFP: “The five Afghan civilians were wounded by bullets.”

…

Or this:

           Troops Opened Fire on Motorcycles in southern Kandahar Province
           Antiwar

In what appears to have been the latest in a growing string of civilian killings by the international alliance in Afghanistan, Kandahar police are confirming today that NATO soldiers shot and killed two civilians along the highway.

…

Or this:

           US steps up missile attacks in Pakistan
           AP

The United States has unleashed an unprecedented number of missile attacks by unmanned drones in northwest Pakistan over the last two weeks, including one Thursday that officials said killed 12 alleged militants at a meeting of Taliban commanders.

…

A U.N. investigator said the surge added to the need for the cloak of secrecy to be lifted from the CIA-run program, which has killed civilians as well as insurgents. Critics say the program does more harm than good because it fans anti-U.S. sentiment and anger at Pakistan’s own government.

…

And of course, thanks to our media the following doesn’t register with the Let’s Give Up Liberties-for-Perceived Security majority:
 
           Were Afghan Children Executed By Us-Led Forces? And Why Aren’t The Media Interested?
           Zcommunications

Ignoring or downplaying Western crimes is a standard feature of the corporate Western media. On rare occasions when a broadcaster or newspaper breaks ranks and reports ‘our’ crimes honestly, it is instructive to observe the response from the rest of the media. Do they follow suit, perhaps digging deeper for details, devoting space to profiles of the victims and interviews with grieving relatives, humanising all concerned? Do they put the crimes in perspective as the inevitable consequence of rapacious Western power? Or do they look away?

One such case is a report that American-led troops dragged Afghan children from their beds and shot them during a night raid on December 27 last year, leaving ten people dead. Afghan government investigators said that eight of the dead were schoolchildren, and that some of them had been handcuffed before being killed. Kabul-based Times correspondent Jerome Starkey reported the shocking accusations about the joint US-Afghan operation. But the rest of the UK news media have buried the report.
…

Another Random Story of a Political System Termite
 
           Rep. Gary Ackerman may have broken House ethics rules with no-money-down stock deal
           By Benjamin Lesser & Greg B. Smith, NY Daily News

U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman hosted a meeting between Israeli officials and a defense-contracting firm in which he had invested money — and made a big profit, a Daily News probe has found.The Queens Democrat put no money down when he obtained private stock in the company, Xenonics Inc., relying on $14,000 borrowed in 2002 from the company’s top shareholder, a longtime friend.The sweetheart loan required no collateral and had no written payback date, a potential violation of House ethics rules.

…

In the last few years, Ackerman arranged a meeting in his Washington office between Xenonics founder Alan Magerman and two Israeli officials, Magerman said.Magerman said he tried to convince the Israelis to buy Xenonics’ NightHunter, a high-powered flashlight used by the U.S. military. Magerman said Ackerman was “trying to be very helpful.”

…

Other Noteworthy Stories

           George W. Obama
           Nat Hentoff, VillageVoice

           Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year
           AP
 
           America’s next security measure: ‘Israelification’ of airports?
           The National

           Groups seek to challenge U.S. gov’t on seized laptops
           ComputerWorld

           Franken expresses support for Obama’s Afghan troop increase
           StarTribune

           Turkey: Diplomatic spat with Israel won’t scupper $190 million drone deal
           Haaretz

           Empire reloaded
           Pepe Escobar, ATimes

           Balochistan halts $3.5bn copper project
           Syed Fazl-e-Haider, ATimes

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

The Quest for Clearance

It was late spring 2007, and I had arrived right before sunset at Centerville’s new ‘in place’ for the 30 something techie crowd. I was supposed to meet two friends there, have a drink, and then head to the restaurant next door for an early dinner. As soon as I walked in I spotted both of them, and a third person, a man in his early thirties whom I’d never met before, I’ll call him ‘Joe,’ and headed towards their table. After brief introductions the trio resumed their conversation where they’d left off. The topic had to do with current hot jobs and the latest career trends in the area, which caters to the federal government…

I was listening only half-heartedly until one of my friends, a woman in her mid thirties who worked for a midsize travel agency, started talking about how she’d been waiting for the completion of the process to get her security clearance, and that she couldn’t wait to get ‘the darn thing,’ and with it her promotion and a 15% salary increase. Now that perked up my ears and grabbed my full attention. After all, I’d been intimately familiar with security clearances and related issues for several years and dealt with them extensively, working with hundreds of national security whistleblowers, and networking with attorneys. What I couldn’t understand was this:

Why in the world would a travel agent working in a private travel agency need or want to have a security clearance?!

So, I asked: ‘What do you need the clearance for?’

And she responded: ‘The agency I work for has a contract with the federal government. We provide airline tickets, rental car and hotel reservations for some federal employees…’ 

I asked again: ‘So why do you need clearance to do that?’

She said: ‘Well, the government agency requires that only those employees with security clearance handle their account, and since it is a fairly large account the travel agency I work for assigns several travel agents.’

After a brief a pause it dawned on me, ‘Oh, I guess your account is with one of THOSE agencies…DOD, CIA… gotcha…’

My friend interrupted: ‘No, actually it’s not. It’s the Department of Commerce. And it’s not even for their executive level people…just regular employees.’

I kept asking myself why in the world the Commerce Department would require travel agents with security clearance to handle their good ole ordinary travel arrangements.

I guess I was thinking out loud because my friend tried to justify, well, at least her end of this deal: ‘The point is they pay much bigger bucks to my employer, and my employer pays those of us with clearance who handle this account 15% more in salary than the travel agents with no clearance who  have regular accounts…’

I guess it made sense; perfectly. Government agencies don’t pay from their own pockets; they have at their disposal unlimited access to taxpayers’ dollars. So someone in The Department of Commerce apparently made this ridiculous rule – padded their civil servant status and importance – treated their inferiority complex from being placed much lower in the chain of civil servants (waaaayyy below the CIA, DIA, FBI…, ),and made it a requirement to have cleared travel agents handle their travel. As for the travel agency’s perspective: Hallelujah!!! They get a contract with the feds where they can pad their prices and never worry about having to give the best deal in terms of price/value. In fact pad it enough to pay 15% increased salaries to those on the fed account, and still have plenty of profit left.

…………

TSC Compliance & Disclosure on Banging

As I was processing the above information and reasoning, the man, Joe, straightened his shoulders, and if I’m not mistaken, kind of puffed up his chest…you know the body language I’m talking about; right?

He said: ‘I’ve got TSC; Top Secret Clearance. I’ve had it for almost a year now. My pay went up 25% the day I got it.’

Since the other two were obviously familiar with his line of work I was the one with the first question: ‘So who do you service?’

He put on the coolest and most aloof expression he could manage, which ended up being neither cool nor aloof: ‘I can’t talk about it. All I can tell you is that I’m a software programmer and we’ve got big contracts all right…’

I decided not to press ‘who for or why’, and instead, try to find out how much he understood of the significance of having TSC as a private sector employee, both positive and negative.

Obviously he considered the 25% increase in salary as the major positive; well, obviously. And considering his body language and tone he appeared to regard his clearance status as something ‘cool,’ ‘important,’ and ‘ego-boosting.’ He was single, so maybe he thought it made him more of a chick magnet…So I decided to see if he perceived any downside to having a TSC.

I asked him bluntly: ‘There are bunch of things you end up giving up for TSC; some would even say ‘they get you by the …’ don’t you think?’

Joe, already on his third drink, nodded: ‘Yeah.’ And then he said something I was neither expecting nor prepared for, ‘It complicates everything in the banging department.’

After a brief pause I recovered:’ How so?’

Joe: ‘Well, basically, you have to report who you sleep with and all the details if the girl is not a citizen, or has an accent or something.’ He continued, ‘About 8 months ago I met this hot woman with a cute accent and we hit it off right away…stayed together that weekend…and that Monday I had to go and report the entire thing…’

I probed for more details: ‘You mean report in writing? – Orally?’

Joe:’ Both! First, I had to fill out this form, and then I was called in to answer questions and give more details…’

I interrupted him: ‘No kidding! They have a form for this??! What’s it called, ‘Banging Disclosure Form? BDF?’

If he got my sarcasm he didn’t show it, instead he continued very seriously: ‘Just a standard form to fill out general information on foreign persons you come in close contact with, name, nationality, etc. But once in the office for follow up, then they ask you all these details ‘What was her full name?’ ‘What’s her nationality?’ ‘Where does she live?’ ‘How many times did you do it? Over how long?’…you know!’

I nodded understandingly, and he went on: ‘I mean you don’t ask for your new woman’s exact date of birth! How am I supposed to know? Go through her bag for ID while she’s in the bathroom?!…They ask me where she’s from and I can’t even remember; Greece? Lebanon?… Anyway, I’m done with foreign or foreign sounding women…’

This was getting a bit too much for me; trying not to laugh at the absurdity. The man could only come up with, could only think of, one downside and that had to do with ‘chicks.’ And obviously to him Greece and Lebanon were almost the same, either geographically or linguistically. I couldn’t detect in him even a minute trace of political or legal understanding. So, I didn’t bother bringing up issues like:

What happens when you decide to publicly oppose the current butchering of our civil liberties and speak up about it? Won’t they use your TSC and threaten its removal, thus your employment? Or maybe you’ll decide on your own against speaking out; thinking self-preservation. Because in 2005 I received many e-mails/letters from people who told me they wished they could sign a certain petition against constitutional abuses, but they feared for their clearance and job security, so they felt and believed they couldn’t.

What happens when you or your spouse or your partner joins a rally, albeit a peaceful protest, against war(s) or other human rights abuses committed in our name? Won’t they use that constitutionally and democratically sanctioned action against your ‘clearance,’ your job, thus, against you? Because just last month when I called a good friend, who also happens to be antiwar, to join me in an antiwar rally in DC, she was almost in tears and told me she couldn’t because her husband had a clearance, and that they feared her participation in a rally might jeopardize that clearance and their livelihood.

What happens when you witness a criminal or fraudulent act related to your work, and since a contractor to the feds, one with consequences to citizens and taxpayers, and you rightfully feel obligated to report or disclose it to the public? Won’t they come after you with criminal prosecution threats for violating your clearance? Because many whistleblowers have been through this exact experience, and been left with no employment and almost no course of action.

No, I couldn’t tell him all that and more. Even if I did, what would my lone voice accomplish toward raising this guy’s awareness, when the media, the government, and all their related tentacles are doing the exact opposite? He believed he was cleared, he believed he was one of the chosen ones, and unless one day, even if by chance, he faces the dark realities of his valuable rights being substituted for being ‘cleared or chosen’, he’ll hang on to these beliefs.
…

The Nation of Cleared & Not Cleared

Based on GAO’s July 2009 data, about 2.4 million persons currently hold security clearances for authorized access to classified information. And this figure, 2.4 million, does NOT even include some of those with clearances who work in areas of national intelligence.

In fiscal year 2008 the Office of Personnel Management and the Defense Department processed about 450,000 requests for confidential, secret and top-secret clearances. According to bits and pieces of data here and there, there are over three million federal employees who require security clearances for jobs. These jobs range from:

Routine computer system maintenance to sensitive analysis of spy satellite photos. All require at least a background check of personal and work history, foreign travel and finances. Top-secret clearance currently requires interviews with neighbors, references and current and former spouses.

…

Contractors pay a premium for workers with current clearances, often offering higher salaries and signing bonuses. That can cost an extra $10,000 to $40,000 per employee per year, all of which gets passed on to taxpayers, Davis says.

And here is an example of how having clearance is advertised and glamorized:

Job candidates with security clearances are hotter-than-ever commodities in the Washington area and elsewhere, due to higher demand, tighter security requirements and a wave of baby-boomer retirements, according to recruitment officials.

…

ClearanceJobs.com, based in Des Moines, Iowa, recently released a survey that found that those with security clearances earn an average 25 percent more than similarly skilled workers who lack them. That gap has been widening, too.

…

“It’s the hottest ticket in town,” Paul Villella, chief executive of the Reston-based recruitment firm HireStrategy, said of the security clearance. “It’s in many cases better than having an MBA.”

Security clearance has always been the weapon of choice for the federal government when it comes to covering up malfeasance or criminal deeds and dealing with and silencing whistleblowers. The paragraph below summarizes this weakness granted as a privilege and later used and exploited to threaten and silence:

The voices of some of government’s most conscientious and competent employees are routinely silenced by managers who threaten to revoke their security clearances. While most of those with clearance work in defense and intelligence roles, by no means is the problem confined to CIA, NSA, DHS, DOD and the FBI. Many employees at agencies like the Department of Agriculture also hold clearances. Many of those required to hold clearances have little if any real need for them. But, agency managers find security clearances a handy way to make an end run around laws that protect workers from discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, politicization, cronyism, and other abuses. Under the rules established by Executive Order, agencies can fire an employee with a clearance for virtually any reason. Employees who appeal a revocation or suspension have almost no due process protections – and even those are not guaranteed because there is no external review of the agency’s decision

Mark Klein, the AT&T whistleblower, has been emphasizing the importance of not having clearance in his ability to disclose NSA’s illegal wiretapping facilities being housed in, run through, and operated from AT&T facilities. I suggest you listen to our Podcast interview with Mr. Klein if you haven’t already. Here is a quote from Klein on why he decided to do the right thing and disclose the illegality that was/is being committed against Americans:

So I figured I’m it, because see, I don’t have a security clearance. They can’t do anything to me about that.

And here is some information on those with Top Secret Clearance at AT&T who felt bound and tied, and so remained silent against the constitutional abuses committed against their nation:

The former network technician said he knows at least three AT&T employees who have been working in the room since 2002. “It took them six months to get the top-security clearance for the guys,” the network technician said. “Although they work for AT&T, they’re actually doing a job for the government.” He said that each of them underwent extensive background checks before starting their jobs in the room. The vetting process included multiple polygraph tests, employment history reviews, and interviews with neighbors and school instructors, going as far back as elementary school.

Aid said that type of vetting is precisely the kind NSA personnel who receive top-secret SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) clearance go through. “Everybody who works at NSA has an SCI clearance,” said Aid

Another example of how security clearance provides the perfect weapon for threatening, silencing and firing the inconvenient voices:

In its lawsuit, the ACLU charges that the DOE took away El-Ganayni’s clearance to retaliate against him for publicly criticizing U.S. foreign policy and the FBI. The agency sought to cover up its retaliation against El-Ganayni, a foreign-born Muslim, for his constitutionally protected speech by invoking “national security.” As a result of the revocation, El-Ganayni was fired from his job.

“After eighteen years of dedicated service working to improve America’s national-defense capabilities, the U.S. government thanked Moniem El-Ganayni with a pink slip instead of a blue ribbon,” …”The Energy Department knows it cannot admit that it revoked Mr. El-Ganayni’s clearance because he has been an outspoken critic of the U.S. government’s treatment of Muslims here and abroad, so it is hiding behind ‘national security’ to avoid having to explain itself.“

The Subservient States & Local Governments