As some politicians describe it, the Social Security program is an economic disaster forced upon younger generations by the demands of greedy baby boomers. News media obediently parrot the scare stories, seldom questioning the math in a story that is all about the numbers. A rare departure from that script occurred on July 29 when an alert Washington Journal moderator stalled a Businessweek editor’s argument for Social Security cuts by observing that the data he brought with him showed a projected Social Security surplus.[C-SPAN Video: Washington Journal, July 29, 2011. Interview begins at the 28-minute mark.]

Bloomberg’s Peter Coy was on the program that day to discuss his article, Why the Debt Crisis is Even Worse than You Think. Coy described a long-term “fiscal gap” of $211 trillion dollars, which he explained is “the difference between tax revenue…and everything we expect to spend.” His published article provides a bit of additional explanation.

A more revealing calculation is the [Congressional Budget Office’s] measurement of what’s called the fiscal gap. That figure is conceptually cleaner than the national debt—and consequently more alarming. Boston University’s Kotlikoff has extended the agency’s analysis from 2085 out to the infinite horizon, which he says is the only method that’s invulnerable to the frame-of-reference problem.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid entitlements bear most of the blame for the $211 trillion shortfall, Coy said. As he spoke, C-SPAN moderator Susan Swain pointed to the article’s accompanying chart of the data, entitled “The Debt Deluge.” Seconds later, the wheels came off Coy’s talking points.“You’re saying Social Security is part of the solution,” commented Swain. “[But], in this illustration…it shows Social Security with a surplus…right?” She pointed to the chart where it clearly indicated a Social Security debt of $110 trillion and projected Social Security receipts of $132 trillion.“ Am I reading that correctly?” Swain asked politely.

Weakly, Coy answered, “Yeah.” After fumbling for a better response, he concluded by telling Swain that he would look again at the data and provide an explanation the following week. But, the following week, Ms. Swain was not there–a male moderator appeared, instead. Coy did not revisit the $22 trillion surplus and did not offer a correction. Instead, Coy repeated his call for Social Security benefit cuts and added that he viewed the program as a “Ponzi scheme,” an allegation the Social Security Administration extensively refutes.[Video: Washington Journal, August 4, 2011]

If a long-term surplus is a possibility, what could be motivating politicians to risk public ire by cutting Social Security benefits? An article in the Christian Science Monitor provides a clue, reminding us that government officials made a decision in 1983 to sell Social Security bonds back to the government, allowing the government to use the surplus for other purposes that are normally funded by income taxes.

Using Social Security payroll taxes to finance those expenses made it possible for government to keep income taxes low. That created an economic windfall for wealthy Americans because the payroll tax is a regressive tax that claims a higher percentage of income earned by people at the lower end of the economic scale, whereas the income tax is progressive; those with the highest incomes (in theory) pay higher tax rates.

That imbalance would be corrected, per the original plan, by raising taxes beginning in 2018 when baby boomers begin to retire, reported the Christian Science Monitor. But, that promise may not be kept.

Proposals have been made to cut Social Security benefits without raising income taxes. In that case, the U.S. treasury would not have to buy back the bonds, leaving low and middle income Americans with an unfair bill for America’s wars. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting calls that “a massive fraud and transfer of wealth, as trillions of dollars specifically collected to pay for workers’ retirement benefits would never be used for that purpose, and instead would merely have transferred the cost of government from progressive income taxes to the regressive payroll tax (Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1/27/05).

In fairness, Peter Coy acknowledged that some kind of tax increase for the wealthy is appropriate, but he did not explain that the “big winners” got that money at the expense of everyone else.

The top one percent…has, like, a third of the wealth. I probably have those numbers wrong. The point is the concentration has grown, so it’s hard for the wealthy to argue that they’ve somehow been unduly harmed by the economy to date. They’re the big winners and maybe they should share some of their largesse with the rest of the public which would make it easier to help both the older and the younger generations. (Washington Journal, August 4, 2011)

Failing to raise the income tax rate would bring a second economic windfall to millionaires–a group that notably includes Congress as well as the corporate moguls who fund Congressional campaigns. In that context, it is not surprising that Congress and the mainstream news media are ignoring the projected Social Security surplus. Even the July 29 interview that mentioned the surplus is not easy to find. Contrary to its usual procedure, Washington Journal does not list Coy as a guest on that show, although he is prominently featured on the August 4 show.

Former U.S. senator Alan Simpson, co-chair of the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, is one of many who don’t understand the Social Security arithmetic Mother Jones magazine reports. Apparently, Simpson doesn’t want anyone else to understand the math, either, as today he appeared on CNN and urged the Congressional “Super Committee” not to look at any new numbers.

Instinctively, perhaps, the grassroots suspect a scam. A whopping 72% of Americans want Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy and to preserve Social Security benefits. But, the cut-Social-Security train seems unstoppable and any numbers that might derail it are being swept from the tracks.

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).

Plan C was prepared by Obama’s White House advisors and staff, during the time that Congress was preparing their Plan B, as a last-resort wild-card maneuver to play the never- before-failed Al Qaeda Card. Although some consider the report moot and no longer of any significance, others are alarmed by the possible implications of this contingency plan as the preferred method of choice in future presidential-congressional dances involving a wide range of issues,  including  even pharmaceutical and environmental laws and regulations.

Boiling Frogs Post obtained the report prior to the deal reached by the White House and Congress on August 2. However, as a responsible news organization, BFP refrained from publishing the report until now in order to protect our national security interests in the face of the never-waning and ever-increasing Al Qaeda threat targeting our government, major mega institutions, and perhaps even insignificant and ordinary citizens. We believe we have fulfilled our journalistic obligation to our government and mega institutions by observing this grace period by sitting on the story, and now are ready to present some of the highlights of the Obama administration’s not-used but saved to-be-used-later Plan C.

Plan C emphasizes the urgent need to raise the debt ceiling in order to meet the increase in government spending on the to-be-expanded War on Terror against Al Qaeda overseas and domestically:

We are a nation at war. We are a nation involved in several wars. We are a nation intent upon getting involved in even more wars; nationally and internationally. We call it our global and domestic ‘War on Terror.’ These wars are fought to defeat Al Qaeda around the globe and within our borders. Not raising the debt ceiling would cut funding for our current wars and planned future wars, since spending money we don’t have is the only way to pay for these wars and more wars. Thus, not raising the debt ceiling would result in handing Al Qaeda terrorists our defeat. For Congress not to raise the debt ceiling is to side with terrorists; is to aid Al Qaeda. We have analyses by our legal scholars who argue that not raising the debt ceiling can actually be considered an act of terrorism; whether direct or indirect, providing aid and support to Al Qaeda terrorists is an act of terrorism.

…

In the Plan C proposal the administration provides several studies on and analyses of the ‘American Way of Life;’ what it really means today, and how the inevitable future bailouts of financial institutions are necessary to preserve and maintain this way of life:

It is a known fact that Al Qaeda hates our way of life; our previous President himself has eloquently stated so. Our corrupt financial institutions have become an inseparable part of life in America. These corrupt financial institutions are woven into the fabric of life here in the United States of America. Thus, to let these corrupt financial institutions collapse is to fulfill Al Qaeda’s objective; is to help Al Qaeda win. Is this really what Congress wishes to do? To side with Al Qaeda and let them destroy our way of life? Because to not facilitate or approve soon-to-come additional bailouts of these corrupt institutions is to fulfill Al Qaeda’s wish: to Destroy the American Way of Life. Thus, raising the debt ceiling without really capping federal government spending, including its ability to keep bailing out our corrupt financial institutions is to stand for the American way of life. You, the Congress, are either with us and our way of life, or against us and with them – the terrorists…

…

Obama’s Plan C also includes a persuasive argument against any congressional investigations into or pursuit of accountability against any of the financial industry executives who generously helped themselves to hundreds of millions of dollars in compensations taken out of government bailout packages, either past or future. This argument also heavily relies on Al Qaeda related risk evaluations:

We know that ambitiously crooked executives helped themselves to outrageous sums that came right out of generous government bailout packages to the banking industry. Yes, we are talking CEO’s taking home hundreds of millions of dollars in ‘bonuses.’ We expect to have additional bailouts in the near future, and with those, we expect to see the same CEO robbery trend happening again and again. It is a fact of life today; a fact of the American way of life. We understand public pressure to do something about this mega thievery, but we urge you not to give in. These executives are more privy to our nation’s sensitive secrets than even our high-level intelligence executives. We cannot isolate them. We cannot turn them away. Think about their value to the terrorists we are at war with – the Al Qaeda. Can we take a chance on even the slightest possibility of these executives playing for the other side? We smoke and chase them out, and the other side, the Al Qaeda, may welcome them with open arms. We consider these executives valuable potential recruits for the terrorists – the Al Qaeda. And we cannot take a chance. And we are asking you not to take that chance…

…

In the end, the Obama administration’s Al-Qaeda wild card, Plan C, was not needed in settling the debt ceiling crisis in the duel with Congress. However, the Al Qaeda wild-card outline was saved, and is being refined further. No one knows when it may come to play in full force. Will it be during the next expenditure cut duel? Will it be on the next humongous black budget item in need of congressional approval? Will it be during the next wave of corruption charges against defense, financial or intelligence industry entities? No one knows, but many expect it to come, and some with certainty. So please stay tuned.

*This article is part of Boiling Frogs Beltway Buzz Satire series.

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

Some of the shriller Fed critics offer simple but misleading slogans like “The Federal Reserve is a private entity” and “The Fed isn’t audited.”  The truth is more complicated, and the historical background matters for citizens trying to understand why, how, and how well the recent GAO audit of the Federal Reserve was conducted.

The Federal Reserve was created in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, a product of compromise among a variety of political forces. Back then, as well as over time, the Fed’s governance has included a variety of interesting features designed, in theory, to promote the independence of monetary and related policies from muddy political forces.  Fed independence is constrained by law, however.  Independence does not mean unaccountability, or freedom from scrutiny by Congress.

The proximate moving force for the creation of the Fed has been called the ‘Panic’ of 1907.  In this episode, increasingly widespread but rational concern about the quality of bank deposits led to bank runs and disruption in lending and payment systems, together with a sharp economic downturn.  The new central bank was designed and advertised to promote banking stability and an ‘elastic currency’ — a money stock that was managed to meet the needs of commerce, and didn’t drive downturns all by itself.

Twenty years later we had the worst banking crisis in our nation’s history, the product of a few forces including Federal Reserve policy itself.  We added a new government agency, the Federal Reserve Board, to ‘govern’ the government-chartered but member-bank ‘owned’ Federal Reserve Banks.  We added a new Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on top of the Federal Reserve as another means to try to instill and maintain depositor confidence in banks.  We also added a similar Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation for the banks’ sister industry.  In 1970, after a euphemistically-named ‘paperwork crisis,’ a new Securities Investor Protection Corporation was created to stand behind investor accounts at securities firms.

We didn’t stop there, of course, including the development of a variety of government guarantees and entities advertising safer and more liquid investments for housing and related financial markets.

Trouble is, all these publicly-provided insurance mechanisms, including the Fed, effectively amplified risk-taking via moral hazard incentives.  And we were given another lesson we didn’t learn in the ‘savings and loan crisis’ of the 1980s.  This broader banking disruption was addressed and advertised fixed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) of 1991. 
When they start calling things Improvement Acts, and PATRIOT Acts, look out for your wallet.

One of the threats to taxpayers and the economy from the bursting of the real estate bubble and the exposure of financial institutions in the 1980s had to do with something called regulatory ‘forbearance.’ Insolvent or near-insolvent ‘zombies’ (Ed Kane’s term, more about him down the road) had incentives to gamble for resurrection, given that public insurance and other confidence-inspiring mechanisms that helped them stay in business.  They gambled and lost, with the help of regulatory authorities that let them stay in business hoping for the same thing the gamblers were hoping for.  Losses and failures trebled in the late 1980s, and our public stewards then shelled out a lot of our money to stand behind the public promises.

Enacted in 1991, FDICIA did a lot of things, and even inspired some hope among public-spirited types that things had been fixed. Among other elements, FDICIA set up a system of ‘tripwires’ and ‘prompt corrective action.’  Regulators of depository institutions with thin/declining capital levels were forced (in theory) to resolve failing financial firms before they threatened the taxpayer.  But the fixes depended importantly on credit ratings from Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO’s), the SEC and Fed-sanctioned oligopoly that ended up blessing massive quantities of suspect securities, earning themselves massive compensation at ultimate massive public expense.  (If you work at the Fed and point out in the early 2000s that practices like this effectively outsourced regulatory responsibilities, in ways that could prove disastrous if the ratings were inflated, and if you propose a policy project to eliminate the use of ratings in Fed regulations and operating practices, they just sneer at you, and don’t let you write it up.  A longer story.)

Books could be written, and are being written, about the causes and consequences of the 2007-2010 interval.  And the chapters are still evolving.  

So … Why, How, and How Well Did the GAO Just Audit the Fed?

After all the fixes we put in place in the 1900s, we’ve just endured the worst financial crisis and associated economic calamity since the Great Depression – again, not just despite, but because of, the cures we’ve developed for financial instability.

In recent years, citing what they asserted were disastrous consequences of not acting, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve provided massive quantities of public aid for large financial institutions, foreign and domestic, themselves threatened by the consequences of their own decisions.  Justifiable if tardy public outrage about ‘bailouts’ for parties that had made loads of money on the upside drove the demand for the audits.  

But which audits are we talking about, specifically? 

The Fed has had a variety of regular audit procedures already in place, including annual audits of the Reserve Bank financial statements from an external auditor, annual reviews of Reserve Bank operations from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, internal audits within the Federal Reserve banks, and reviews by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General.  All of these mechanisms have been in place for years.

The Fed is also audited by the General Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of Congress.  The GAO audits are irregular, and depend on Congressional desires. 

The specific audit news this past week was the release of the GAO report on its audit of Federal Reserve emergency lending during the financial crisis of 2007-2010.  The GAO was required to undertake this audit by a provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.  In other words, this audit took place because the law directed it to take place.

Because the law directed it to take place, it was also limited in scope to what the law directed it to do, and not to do.  Specifically, the law directed the GAO to audit, in constrained ways, the emergency lending the Fed conducted under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The central bank is known as a ‘lender of last resort,’ but some resorts are laster than others. Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Fed to lend to ‘individuals, partnerships, and corporations’ (e.g., not just banks) in ‘unusual and exigent circumstances.’  The Fed made over a trillion dollars worth of loans, at peak levels, in this capacity in recent years.

Dodd-Frank also called for a separate but related audit.  The second audit will review Fed governance relating to the emergency lending facilities, and a GAO report on that audit is due by October 2011.  This second report will include consideration of the selection process for Federal Reserve Bank directors, the extent of actual or potential conflicts of interest in the Reserve Bank boards, and any proposals for changes in the selection process that could improve public representation on the Reserve Bank boards.

How Well Was the Fed Audited?  Ask the Patient

The latest GAO audit report included a comment letter from Scott Alvarez, General Counsel of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Summing up, Alvarez said:

‘As the report notes, the actions reviewed here took place in times of great economic stress. The Federal Reserve responded with carefully crafted programs, developed rapidly under great pressure. The report shows that the emergency lending programs created during those difficult times were effectively designed and effectively operated. We also appreciate the GAO’s recognition that the emergency lending programs have, to date, recouped all funds lent and are expected to recoup all remaining outstanding balances.’

Alvarez noted GAO’s recommendations, and indicated the Board was willing to take them under consideration in developing policy down the road.

Others, including the sponsor of the amendment leading to the ultimate GAO audit directive in Dodd-Frank (Sen. Bernie Sanders), have taken a sterner view of what the audit said.  We’ll be reviewing those takes in coming weeks.

And some perspective on Alvarez’s assertions can also be had from Milton and Rose Friedman.  In the 1990 edition of their book Free to Choose, in a chapter on banking crises, the Friedmans’ concluding paragraph reads:

In one respect the System [the Fed] has remained completely consistent throughout. It blames all problems on external influences beyond its control and takes credit for any and all favorable occurrences. It thereby continues to promote the myth that the private economy is unstable, while its behavior continues to document the reality that government is today the major source of economic instability.

When Boiling Frogs readers consider those comments in light of national security policy, not just financial market ‘stabilization’ policy, well, that could be another source of valuable perspective.

The Path Ahead

In coming weeks, I will review the development of the GAO audit directive in Dodd-Frank, describe the views of critics who saw it that directive as strategically and unfairly constrained, summarize the audit findings, review mainstream media coverage, and take a peek at the road ahead.

My early impression is that the GAO report may have been incomplete, in part because it was constrained by the law, and in part by the choice of its authors.  The report is certainly ‘incomplete’ in that a related report on Fed governance practices relating to the emergency lending will be issued in October.  We will have more to learn about the GAO’s findings, and the GAO itself, in that report.

But the GAO report does appear incomplete in another sense.  Many readers of this space are familiar with criticism of the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission. The latest GAO report includes some deferential language eerily similar to the way the ‘independent’ 9/11 Commission cited other ‘thorough’ government investigations as controlling evidence for its own conclusions. Yet the GAO report also provides substantive new detail useful for anyone trying to understand how we got here, and where we are going. 

Congress created the Federal Reserve, and could disband it tomorrow.  Similarly, the Congress created the GAO.  If we, and our representatives in Congress, aren’t satisfied with its audits, the investigatory authority vested in the Congress itself can provide a rational way to pursuing the truth.

As we point fingers, we should be pointing them in the mirror as well.  As citizens, we all share responsibility for this mess, and We the People shouldn’t let it happen again.

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.

In theory, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guarantees the legal right of the American public to obtain federal agency records. Judicially enforceable, FOIA was designed to ensure public access to Executive Branch records. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that FOIA’s purpose “is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold governors accountable to the governed.”

In practice, FOIA morphed into a monstrosity that not only denies citizens their right to obtain information, but causes some of the requesters to become targets of investigations. The Supreme Court has consistently held that FOIA does not permit agencies to investigate either FOIA requesters or their reasons for submitting requests. In 2004, the Supreme Court held that “[a]s a general rule, withholding information under FOIA cannot be predicated on the identity of the requester.”

President Obama pledged to foster a new era of openness and transparency. On his first day in office, he issued memoranda relating to transparency and open government issues, including “Freedom of Information Act” and “Transparency and Open Government”. Inspirational speeches are great, but actions speak louder than words. The record reflects that during Obama’s presidency FOIA has become even less transparent than before. Those asking the questions and telling the truth are being prosecuted and otherwise attacked at the rate surpassing all prior American presidencies.

Undeterred by the facts, the so-called privacy advocates and government watchdogs (financed largely by the President’s supporters) recently bestowed a Transparency Award upon Obama. Come election time, it will undoubtedly be used to exemplify this administration’s achievements in the area of enhanced transparency. While the Transparency Award is resting next to the Nobel Peace Prize on the Presidential mantel, let’s examine the facts.

One of the government’s most despised agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, has been hard at work trying to steam-clean the wrinkly uniform of its public image. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recently completed an 8-month investigation that exposed the DHS under Secretary Janet Napolitano of corrupting the agency’s FOIA compliance procedures, exerting political pressure on FOIA compliance officers, and undermining the federal government’s accountability to the American people.

A New Era of Openness? How and Why Political Staff at DHS Interfered with the FOIA Process

Sounds bad? Just wait, because it’s a lot worse than you might think. The DHS staff attempted to frustrate the Congressional investigation through official non-cooperation, tampered with witnesses and even tried to steal Committee documents. Yes, you’re reading this right. After a witness interview on March 4, 2011, Reid Cox (one of the DHS lawyers) stuffed Committee’s exhibits into his bag and headed straight for the door. Republicans and Democrats alike protested that the Department’s attorney couldn’t leave with the Committee’s exhibits. Cox disagreed and kept on going. The report noted, “Any attempt to steal Committee documents is a serious matter. If the motive for stealing Committee documents is to use them to conduct a forensic investigation to identify a Committee source, it creates an extremely sensitive situation. The Department was notified that any future efforts to remove documents would not be tolerated.”

In a March 4, 2011 e-mail to the DHS’ Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Nelson Peacock, members of the Congressional committee stated: “[W]e have had some bizarre exchanges with your lawyers. They keep trying to steal the exhibits we show the witnesses.”

What was in those exhibits that the agency is so determined to hide? Some of the highlights include the evidence that career FOIA professionals at the DHS have been stymied in their statutory compliance by the unprecedented intrusion of Napolitano’s political appointees, also known as the “Front Office” staff (Noah Kroloff, John Sandweg, Amy Shlossman, Julia Fox and Jordan Grossman). Chief Privacy Officer and Chief FOIA Officer is another one of Napolitano’s political appointees, Mary Ellen Callahan.

In 2010, the writer of this article was reporting on Janet Napolitano’s testimony before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations. During the hearings, Napolitano repeatedly turned to her unimpressively lethargic staff for answers. Shrugging their shoulders, time and time again, they had nothing to offer. In return, Napolitano parroted their responses to members of the Congress, stating “I’ll have to get back to you on that later.”

The “Front Office” appointees don’t show much respect for either FOIA or agency personnel who intend to comply with the Act’s requirements. As the report reflects, “by July 2009, Amy Shlossman and the rest of the political appointees in the Office of the Secretary had effectively ground the Department’s FOIA operation to a halt. By burdening the FOIA Office with unnecessary questions and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary’s political staff created a problem that did not exist during the previous Administration.”

The documents show that the Secretary’s political staff attempted to edit and amend responsive documents to avoid embarrassment. For example, they insisted upon changing the original document and then submitting the amended version in response to the FOIA request. Career FOIA staff refused to let that happen and informed the “Front Office” staff that they would “under no circumstances alter agency records before they are released to “avoid embarrassment.” The career FOIA staffer was “never forgiven” for this by Mary Ellen Callahan, who refused to speak to her ever again. In December 9, 2010 e-mail exchanges between Napolitano’s political appointees, Callahan complained to John Sandweg about career FOIA staffers, stating “Are you f#*^ kidding me?” and “I have idiots for staff.”

After repeated interference by Napolitano’s political staff with the processing of FOIA requests, the career FOIA staffer offered to meet with the “Front Office” bunch to explain how the release of documents is supposed to work. Napolitano’s cronies saw it as a joke and their e-mails were included in the evidence with which Cox raced to the door. Napolitano’s appointee Amy Schlossman wrote to her colleague John Sandweg, “This woman is a lunatic. You have to attend this mtg–if nothing else, for the comic relief.”

Aggravated with the very idea of learning how FOIA is supposed to work, Amy Shlossman wrote to Jordan Grossman, “This is their [FOIA staff] f*@#^ meeting!!!!!” (the f-bomb appears in all its glory in various e-mail communications fired off by Napolitano’s belligerent appointees). During the meeting with professional FOIA staffers, Napolitano’s Front Office bunch was bored silly. The staffer giving the presentation was kicked under the table to “move it along”, because Amy Schlossman “was bored and looking at her Blackberry”. When asked during the Congressional inquiry what she remembered about the meeting, Amy Schlossman couldn’t recall anything. How surprising.

The Congressional Report details that “Shlossman responded she could not remember, was unaware of, or simply did not know the answer to a question from Committee investigators 79 times during the course of her four-hour interview. Additionally, Shlossman left the interview room six times to confer with counsel, including twice when she was presented an exhibit in the middle of a round of questioning. Having not objected to a single question asked to the three prior witnesses whose interviews were attended by DHS counsel, Deputy General Counsel Joe Maher objected 11 times during Shlossman’s interview. The behavior of the witness and counsel during Shlossman’s interview gave Republican staff present the impression that her testimony was intentionally vague on the advice of counsel.”

Our rights under FOIA are such an inconvenience to the DHS. Anyone who threatens to expose the Agency’s woeful practices pays a heavy price. While the government doesn’t want you to know much about them, they are definitely interested in learning more about you. Making FOIA requests can get you red-flagged and investigated. As the AP reported, “Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano’s political staff with information about the people who asked for records – such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters – and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican.” Every single media request was tagged for the “Front Office” review.

Napolitano’s political appointees lied to Congress and refused to acknowledge that approval from the Secretary’s political staff was required to release a response to a significant FOIA request. In fact, it was. They still get the first crack at the decision as to whether or not FOIA requests are honored. The Congressional report details that the career staffers in the FOIA Office “was not permitted to release responses to these requests without approval from political staff”. To hide their inappropriate activities, the DHS stopped using e-mail and conducted such political approval procedures over the telephone. They were also doing their best to avoid the word “Approval”, replacing it with such cute little terms as “Awareness,” “Good to Go,” “Affirmative Statement,” “Give the Thumbs Up” and “Active Concurrence”. In spite of their effort to obfuscate the facts, they were caught red-handed, courtesy of courageous whistleblowers.

Following the protocol in releasing such records to the requesters causes severe retaliation against the agency personnel. The DHS demoted Catherine Papoi (former deputy unit chief in charge of FOIA) for disclosing that the DHS had illegally sidetracked hundreds of FOIA requests from journalists, watchdog groups and private citizens. Whistleblowers and honest reporters are loathed by the current administration more than they ever were throughout the American history. The Congressional report determined that the DHS abused the (b)(5) exception “to prevent the release of embarrassing records”. Three out of four FOIA career staff interviewed by the Congressional Committee “have been transferred, demoted, or relieved of certain responsibilities”. In the mean time, all of the “political appointees who came to the Department early in 2009 continue to have a significant role in the FOIA response process.”

The report determined that DHS regards FOIA to be “politically undesirable” and keeps a tight grip on the piggy-bank of information, hiding “abusive and embarrassing official behavior” to avoid “both the shame of public scrutiny and potential criminal prosecution”. The report states that maneuvering by the DHS “slowed a congressional investigation and interfered with the Committee’s access to witnesses. Obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime.”

18 U.S.C. § 1505 states, in pertinent part: “Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress — Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.” Unfortunately for all the truth-seekers, DHS officials don’t have to worry about being prosecuted for their crimes – after all, Eric Holder is too busy prosecuting whistleblowers.

Speaking of whistleblowers, Public Law 111 -117 § 714 states: “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, who – (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the employment of such other officer or employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of such other officer or employee or in response to the request or inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, reduces in rank, seniority, stats, pay, or performance of efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other officer or employee, by reason of any communication or contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in paragraph (1).” In short, any federal manager who takes personnel action against a whistleblower for communicating with any member of Congress is not entitled to continue collecting a salary at the expense of American taxpayers. Does it work that way in real life? Ask 98% of whistleblowers who have lost their cases in courts.

Bill Holzerland, Associate Director for Disclosure Policy and FOIA Program Development, testified before Congress, “All in all, I would say no, there is not more transparency.” The DHS is determined to ensure that you find out only what they want you to know. The Agency’s skewed perspective of “What you don’t know can’t hurt you” doesn’t work, because in this scenario the lack of transparency can and does hurt us as a nation. The report concludes that “The extent of the mismanagement of the FOIA function at DHS calls into question the competence and commitment of high-level staff charged with protecting the homeland from serious threats.”

My suggestion would be that the DHS apply to itself the same theory it attempts to sell to every freedom-loving American: “If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with being watched.” Isn’t that right, DHS? Step into the scanner of public opinion and don’t forget to remove your shoes.

# # # #

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

In the spring of 2010 the Carnegie Corporation issued a glowing report on their favorite government watchdog Project on Government Oversight (POGO). The report was meant to justify and showcase the large grants given to POGO by the corporation over the last few years. In 2008 and 2009 alone the corporation had given over $700,000 to this pet-project (lap-dog aka watch-dog). After reading the report one can’t help but wonder at the miscalculation that went with this report’s intention. What was intended to be a glowing report ends up being a major indicator as to the real nature of this corporate-foundation funded government watch-dog turned lap-dog. Allow me to explain further:

Real government watchdogs, if they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, if they are engaged in what they say they are engaged in, become the object of the government’s wrath and hatred. There is no way around this. No way. The executive branch agencies would be up in arms against them: digging their graves as ferocious and as fast as they can; overtly and covertly. And this includes the office of the United States President; the White House.

The legislative branch would be extremely wary of real government watchdogs. After all, real separation of powers ceased to exist a long time ago. Not only that; the last thing the US Congress wants is the existence of whistleblowers in their own backyard. Considering the level of corruption in Congress (think foreign lobby influence; think various methods of going around campaign finance laws; think campaign donors and conflicts of interest when it comes to the congressional decision and legislation making process) how many whistleblowers have we had coming out of congressional offices with reports of corruption, bribery, and other related misdeeds? I believe I have made the case here; suffice to say, Congress has never liked whistleblowers or genuine watchdog groups, evident by their resistance to providing real protection for whistleblowers, holding real hearings on legit whistleblower cases, and holding the executive branch accountable based on proven reports provided to them by whistleblowers.

I’ll go even further: The corporate mainstream media has never been very kind to government whistleblowers, and they usually perceive a genuine watchdog group as a real threat exposing their own cover-up or biased-filled reporting tainted by their masters in corporate and government. I mean, come on, what happens if a genuine watchdog group issues a report exposing illegal wiretapping by the government, when a giant media group, per order of their bosses, chooses to bury and sit on that same revelation? You see what I mean? The reason for the dislike goes beyond a ‘competitive’ relationship; way beyond it.

Now what should be the first thing, first inference, first conclusion, to come to mind (a rational mind that is) when one comes across a self-proclaimed tax-exempt mega corporation-funded watch-dog that happens to be adored by mega corporations, intensely liked by the Congress, truly liked by the executive branch including the White House, and very much admired and complemented by the tainted corporate media? Do you see something extremely disturbing yet very revealing with this picture? Then, with that in mind, let’s read the glowing report issued by the mega corporation, Carnegie Foundation, on their favorite watch-dog, POGO:

Its (POGO’s) offices are located between the Capitol and the White House, and POGO has been treading a path to both locations. Powered by $850,000 in Carnegie Corporation grants, POGO has made itself known at the White House, where it works with President Obama’s staff on open government.

POGO has achieved a D.C. organization’s dream by working with the White House on open government issues. “They have a really solid impact,” Miller says, “particularly in this administration, which is far more sympathetic to the notion of contractor abuse than the previous one.”

So what is Carnegie Corporation saying here? Because of their dollars, and of course many Carnegie men and women in the  White House who have been appointed by the President, POGO has been working with (or ‘for’) the White House and the President’s staff (including Carnegie men and women?) on open government. Considering this White House, this President’s record as the worst US president when it comes to secrecy and persecution-prosecution of government whistleblowers, shouldn’t we go ahead and give POGO possibly deserved credit as one of the responsible parties in this sorry state of governance? Not only that, doesn’t this give you a pretty good idea as to why POGO awarded this ‘worst’ president with the ludicrous ‘Transparency Award’?

Here comes POGO’s entry inside various executive branch agencies ‘enabled by mega corporations’ backing and dollars’:

Not content just to work outside the government, POGO is also trying to strengthen the progress of federal investigations inside the bureaucracy…It has an ongoing effort to work with inspectors general in various agencies throughout the vast federal government bureaucracy.

Can you imagine our corruption, inaptitude and waste ridden federal agencies giving that level of access to any ‘Real’ government watch-dog? Do you know what it takes to gain that level of trust (confidence) of these waste-ridden tax-dollar abusers? Now ask yourself, how in the world would they allow a real government watch-dog in? Even Congress can’t get that level of access; not even with subpoenas!

POGO is the type of organization where Capitol Hill aides and POGO staffers unwind at the annual holiday party by engaging in small talk on federal whistle-blower statutes.

A highly successful program, which spawned the book noted above, is POGO’s Congressional Oversight Training series. The monthly series is extremely popular on Capitol Hill. Topics range from “The Nuts ‘n Bolts of Investigations” to “How to Prepare for an Oversight Hearing” to “Working with Insiders and Whistleblowers.”

Congressional aides from both parties praise the training seminars. Honorary chairs are Republican and Democratic members of Congress, including well-known senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Carl Levin (D-Michigan). Staffers who have gone to the seminars routinely refer new colleagues to the POGO training. “There aren’t really places in Washington where you can say, ‘this is how you do oversight,’” one congressional committee aide points out. “They serve as sort of a touchstone or rallying point for like-minded individuals.”

Have you been screaming about the declining oversight and performance by Congress? Well, Carnegie says you have POGO to thank. POGO has been responsible for training the entire Congress (representatives and their staff) on oversight and whistleblowers. This Congress, the entire entity, has abdicated their oversight responsibilities for years and has done nothing (or many negative things) when it comes to protection for whistleblowers. And Carnegie Corporation says you have POGO to thank for this disastrous state of the United States Congress. Another point to consider here is how a congress known for its disdain for government whistleblowers, recognized for its contempt for pro-liberties and watchdog groups-overtly and covertly, is so willingly and readily to greet a supposed government watch-dog with open arms and accept them as their ‘trainers & partners’? Does that make sense to you?

According to Carnegie Corporation the mainstream media accepts and likes POGO very much, and in fact relies on POGO regularly for their reporting. Known for their disastrous state of reporting: burying facts and real issues, censoring and obfuscating the truth, and acting as the mouthpiece for their corporate owners and the government, should this actually be considered a complimentary statement on POGO’s integrity? I certainly don’t think so.

With congressional connections, ongoing relationships with investigative reporters, and a highly active web site and social networking efforts, POGO regularly demonstrates Washington public relations savvy in promoting its work on opening up the government. The project’s investigative research is featured in articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, television news, public radio and congressional hearings.

“They’ve spread out” from their origins, says David Burnham, a former New York Times reporter and investigative journalist who believes in the organization to the point of having his own investigative nonprofit’s D.C. office at POGO headquarters in downtown Washington.

New York Times Burnham serves on POGO’s board.

Carnegie Corporation likens POGO to savvy investigative journalists who watch and expose government through investigative reports. In the same breath, Carnegie Corporation brags about their pet-dog POGO being loved by the executive and legislative branch, so much that they are given access and entry to these agencies and Congress. Imagine what would be said of media investigative reporters targeting government agencies who receive the constant approval and affection of these targets. Can you? We have seen a few cases like that; haven’t we? Remember our embedded journalists covering our wars from the inside? You remember, right? Recall Judith Miller and in-bedded journalists adored by the executive branch and with ‘special access?’ Well, according to Carnegie Corporation that’s exactly the kind of ‘investigative journalism’ POGO is engaged in; adored by all its targets and proud of unprecedented access to government.

The Robber Barons of the 1800s and 1900s grew not only in mega fortunes but also in calculative suaveness and shrewdness when it came to politics, government, societal control and manufacturing consent. They had to. It was and still is a matter of survival for them. The Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller and Ford dynasties, and their modern day counterparts such as George Soros, knew only too well that purchasing, propping and controlling government operators would not suffice in controlling the masses, thus their mega fortunes and influence. Other needed ingredients were the information source- education and media, and means to keep a close tab on dissent, grassroots and public restlessness and activism- foundations and NGOs. As long as they had their men and women in key places, from the White House to key government agencies, from mainstream publications to government watchdog and activist groups, all was going to be well that ended well:

Foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They serve as “cooling-out” agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids

The hefty grants, fierce backing and glowing reports by Carnegie Corporation when it comes to a supposed government watchdog tell quite a story. Remember all the Carnegie Corporation men and women in the  White House and key executive branch agencies: Condoleeza Rice, Vannevar Bush, Thomas Kean, Richard Celeste, Sam Nunn, Thomas Pickering and …Now, would the Carnegie Corporation want a real government watchdog on these men and women’s back? Add to this the men and women from other megas-Rockefeller-Soros-Ford who have confiscated various high-level seats within the executive branch and the president’s office, start using some common sense, and you have it.

We already know about the mega dollars coming to POGO from Mega corporations. We are aware of dozens of these mega corporations’ men and women in the executive branch and others. We pretty much understand how congressional election campaigns are financed by the megas. And we have long suspected and finally accepted our mainstream media’s role as servants of the same megas and megas’ men and women in government. As Carnegie puts in this report: The White House, the executive agencies, the Congress, and the mainstream media all approve, support, and partner up with this government watchdog. So do the Megas. For them POGO is a watchdog for all seasons, and for all players involved. Who they ‘really’ are watching is the question that remains.

*Our investigative researchers Julia Davis & Bill Bergman have contributed to this series.

Coming up Next: Part IV. Project on Government Oversight (POGO) – Lap-Dance for Corporate-Foundation Sugar Daddies

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

The following Action Alert was issued by National Whistleblowers Center today. Every time when I think things couldn’t possibly get any worse, I’m proven wrong and they actually do get worse, and here is a good example: our so called representatives are planning to increase the federal government’s unchecked powers by giving them the right to strip national security whistleblowers of their pensions. In other words, they are bending over backwards to make it easier for federal agencies to punish, penalize and persecute whistleblowers for doing the right thing. Please help our whistleblowers by calling your senators and disseminating the following alert. We need your support and thank you for all you do.

                                                         Sibel Edmonds

Dear Whistleblower Supporters:

National security whistleblowers are under attack and need your help now! The Senate Intelligence Committee has approved an anti-whistleblower bill. The committee voted to give the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the heads of other agencies the power to strip whistleblowers of their pensions.

Section 403 of the Intelligence Authorization Act authorizes these officials to strip whistleblowers of their hard-earned federal pensions, simply by being accused, not convicted, of leaking classified information. Every whistleblower will be at risk because ALL most likely will be accused of making improper disclosures. We urge you to join us in opposing S.719 until Section 403 is cut.

TAKE ACTION! Protect whistleblowers’ pensions!

Here’s how Section 403 works. The head of an employee’s agency can simply accuse a whistleblower of leaking classified information and that whistleblower can automatically be stripped of their federal pension, even after they retire.

The whistleblowers who lose their pensions will not be able to take their case to court. Instead, they will be forced to use the DNI’s administrative procedures to try to defend themselves. In other words, the DNI will be the prosecutor, the judge and the jury to strip pensions from public servants.

TAKE ACTION! Time is of the Essence!

Stripping pensions based on accusations of classified leaks will be yet another way that the government can legally retaliate against whistleblowers. This is an incredible threat and will have a massive chilling effect on the willingness of employees to expose waste, fraud, and abuse.

TAKE ACTION! Tell your senators to support the Wyden hold!

We are not alone in opposing this unprecedented retaliatory law. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has placed a public hold on S.719 until the anti-whistleblower provision is cut. He made a powerful statement before the Senate explaining why Section 403 is so dangerous.

For more information, tune into Boiling Frogs where Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, is interviewed by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and WBRU Radio Host Peter B. Collins on the pension-stripping provision.

PASS THIS ALERT TO A FRIEND! Please take action and pass this alert on to at least one co-worker, friend, or family member.

Sincerely,

Jane Turner
Former FBI Special Agent, 25-Year Veteran

Director of FBI Oversight, National Whistleblowers Center

Sibel Edmonds
Former FBI translator
Founder National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

Stephen Kohn joins us to discuss his book The Whistleblower’s Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing what’s Right and Protecting Yourself. He explains whistleblowing as a civil liberties and a First Amendment issue, the role of whistleblowers as enablers of congressional oversight, and discusses the legal and political implications involved in whistleblowing. Mr. Kohn presents us with astounding statistics and reports illustrating how whistleblowing is far more effective than regulatory authorities, and how contributions by corporate whistleblowers uncover far more fraud and corruption within their companies than all the government police and regulatory authorities combined. Stephen Kohn talks about the differences and the existing double standards between corporate and government whistleblowers, the escalation of retaliation against national security whistleblowers under the Obama administration, the travesty of justice and constitutional violations in the Bradley Manning Case, upcoming legislation in Congress to further penalize whistleblowers, and more!

Stephen M. Kohn is the Executive Director of National Whistleblowers Center, one of the nation’s foremost experts in whistleblower protection law, and the author of The Whistleblower’s Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What’s Right and Protecting Yourself, and the first legal treatise on whistleblowing, Protecting Environmental and Nuclear Whistleblowers: A Litigation Manual. Since 1984, Mr. Kohn has successfully represented whistleblowers in numerous cases (both at trial and on appeal), has testified in Congress on behalf of whistleblower reforms, and has worked directly with the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee on drafting the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate whistleblower law. Mr. Kohn has a J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law; an M.A. in Political Science from Brown University; and a B.S. in Social Education from Boston University. In addition to his books on whistleblower law, Mr. Kohn is the author of Jailed for Peace and American Political Prisoners.

Here is our guest Stephen Kohn unplugged!

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

Corey Pein recounts the creation of the recently launched groundbreaking site warisbusiness.com, a nonpartisan site covering military contracting, the global arms trade and the lobby, and how he began the project with two assumptions: The first- a lot of people are making money from war, while enjoying the comforts of anonymity (such people were once plainly called profiteers), and the second: Privatizing war inevitably prolongs it, creating what economists call a “perverse incentive.” Mr. Pein discusses the bought out generals and the militarization of the economy, and the latest on the ‘Rent-A-Generals’ exposé. He talks about scandals such as Mina Corp and the subsequent cover up, US Embassies as marketing arms of military corporations, the win-win outcome of elections for the Pentagon contractors and arms makers, Wikileaks, and more!

Corey Pein is an award-winning investigative reporter and long-form narrative journalist who writes about the military industrial complex, money, politics and violence from London, UK. Previously, he has lived in New Mexico, Oregon, Georgia and in Southeast Asia. His latest project is warisbusiness.com, a startup news site covering military contracting and the global arms trade. Mr. Pein has worked on staff at Columbia Journalism Review, Willamette Week, the Santa Fe Reporter and IHT ThaiDay, and contributed to Salon, Slate, The American Prospect, and CounterPunch, among others.

Here is our guest Corey Pein unplugged!

Note- Boiling Frogs selects warisbusiness.com as the best website of 2010!

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

James Corbett of Corbett Report has been doing a great job covering the recent troubling developments in the Senate version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S. 372). As many of you are aware this is one of the areas designated as ‘can’t touch this, can’t cover this’ by the mainstream media and the like; something our spineless congressional members take great comfort from. On behalf of all our National Security Whistleblower Members I want to thank Mr. Corbett for his diligent reporting on this long-ignored issue. For his report, which includes a well-written article, a video, and Podcast interview with me click here. And here for his recent interview with FBI Whistleblower Jane Turner.

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

The Electoral College shall be abolished. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1; Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 shall be amended to provide for random computer  selection of all Federal Elective offices from Internal Revenue Service tax rolls of citizens within the appropriate Congressional District, State and Nation respectively according to existing Constitutional requirements. This amendment shall supersede the Fifteenth, Seventeenth and Nineteenth amendments.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

As I look back over my experiences as a voting citizen since 1972, I have viewed with increasing alarm the growing disconnect between the citizenry and the leaders and representatives we elect. I have watched the increased growth and power of a Political Class disconnected from the needs of the citizenry as well as the alarming increase and importance of money in our electoral system. This corruptive influence of money on elections has further isolated the aforementioned political class by allowing a defacto form of two-tier citizenship. One class of the wealthy and corporate citizens who have real influence on government, another, lower class of regular citizens like you and me who have little or no influence on the actions of our government. Over the course of those decades, I have seen the Congress repeatedly try and either fail to enact significant campaign finance reform or have it’s efforts frustrated by contrary legal decisions that enshrine that unequal influence on our elections. This view was most recently reinforced by the Supreme Court’s activist ruling in their recent decision on Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.

As a result of these actions, I have been forced to conclude that the pernicious influence of money on politics has become a clear and present danger to the functioning of our Constitutional Democratic Republic. I have further been forced to conclude that the elective system we have currently in place no longer provides for Real Representative Government responsive to the needs of the citizenry at large. I have, therefore, long pondered what changes can be made to restore citizen control of and real representation within that government. With the recent Supreme Court decision throwing out over 100 years of legal precedent, I do not see Public financing of elections as a credible path to reform. It is time to consider radical solutions to this problem. Since the acknowledged intent of the framers was to ensure that representatives to our government would accurately reflect the citizenry at large, what is needed is a mechanism to restore and reinforce that reflection.

My mechanism for reform would abolish all federal elections for legislative and executive offices and replace that mechanism with one based on random computer selection for all current federal elective offices from Internal Revenue tax rolls. All existing Constitutional requirements for office would remain in force. Using myself as an example, as a 56-year-old native-born citizen with no felony convictions from the 2^nd Congressional District in New Mexico, I could be selected as the 2^nd District Congressman, Senator from New Mexico, Vice President or President. Companion laws would be passed based on existing statutes governing National Guard Service and Jury Duty. The mechanism would work as follows.

As a citizen who files a tax return, my records, along with every other taxpaying citizen, are held by the Internal Revenue Service. Every two years in the case of the House of Representatives, four years in the case of Presidential and Vice-Presidential offices and every six years in the case of Senatorial offices, my name would be put in a pool of likely citizens within my Congressional District, the Nation or my state respectively. If I were chosen for office, I would be allowed a leave-of-absence from my job for my term of office. I would still be paid my regular wage while I served in office and all my expenses incurred doing the government’s business in office would be financed by the government. I would serve one two, four or six year term in office. At the end of my term, I would return to private life and my old job as another selectee would take my place. Since selectees would be chosen from IRS rolls, no political party affiliation would be noted or considered. Indeed, for the first decades of the Republic, political parties did not exist as organized entities. There would be no retirement pay or perks given as officeholders get today nor would there be a need for an actual salary for any of those positions as all officeholders would receive their regular wages while in office. Any employee of a corporation would be required to recuse himself from any legislative or executive action benefiting his employer while in office. A companion statute would be enacted allowing lobbying only by citizens within the selectee’s district or state to ensure the officeholder’s independence and impartiality.

This mechanism would, in one stroke, eliminate the corruptive influence of money on politics, restore real citizen representation in government, provide term limits since only one term in office would be allowed, and foster an increased participation in the political process. Officeholder selection would be taken from the hands of political party organizations and opened up to the citizenry at large. Indeed, mechanisms could be built into the selection process to provide a more accurate reflection of ethnic backgrounds so the Congress would actually contain the same ethnic representation as the citizenry itself. I also see this process as a mechanism to open up state and local offices as well. I use the federal offices as a model that could be transposed into state Constitutions with similar mechanisms and results. With a federal model already in place, that example could be amended into the 50 state constitutions. The actual selection process could be overseen by non-partisan organizations such as the League of Women Voters to prevent any attempted chicanery.

This, then, is the essence of my idea. I offer it to this board and the body politic for comment, question and expansion.

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

While dictionaries and encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, provide a thorough definition and description of insect termites, none offers any information on the semi-human termites imbedded within the political system of our nation, where they feed on the lobby and special interest Political Eco System while they cause serious foundational and structural damage to the welfare of the public majority, and to future generations’ prosperity and liberties. These Political System Termites (PST) and their colonies exist and thrive within various branches and layers of the political governing system, and they go by different names or titles, including Representative, Senator, Secretary, and Advisor. Regardless of title differences and purely cosmetic differentiations and technicalities, they belong to the same political eco system and all are considered members of the PST family. This article will focus mainly on Congressional Termites.

Let’s start by comparing some general overlapping characteristics between the widely acknowledged and recognized insect termites and the still-waiting-to-be recognized and defined Political System Termites (PST):

Insect termites divide labor among gender lines, produce overlapping generations and take care of their young collectively. Political System Termites divide their activities based on a corruption hierarchy, create networks of laws and legislations to protect themselves and the establishment, and protect one another collectively, including their retired then turned lobbyist seniors – regardless of cosmetic brand differentiations, such as ‘D’ or ‘R.’

Insect termites are economically significant as pests that can cause serious structural damage to buildings, crops or plantation forests. Political System Termites are also economically and politically significant as pests that can create a seriously damaging web of laws and regulations particularly harmful to society at large, while sucking up taxpayers’ resources and trust, and betraying the people’s interests in exchange for establishment and external interest connected personal gain.

Insect termites live in colonies that, at maturity, number from several hundred to several million individuals. The potency of Political System Termites has a bit less to do with their actual numbers, and much more with the power and freedom granted to them by the very same victims they feed and extract upon. After all, PSTs are in charge of making the laws and rules governing their own existence and survival.

A typical insect termite colony contains nymph workers, soldiers, and reproductive individuals of both genders, sometimes containing several egg-laying queens. A typical Political System Termite colony may include a Speaker of the PST Colony, Chairmen and Chairwomen of sub-colonies, congressional larva (aka aides), and extended networking PSTs in media and PR colonies.

The most significant difference between insect termites and Political System Termites has to do with their ecology. While the former are important in nutrient recycling, habitat creation, soil formation and quality, the later is not known for any positive contribution to the human eco system, at least not in the last few decades. The only known habitats for Political System Termites are those marked by social deceases such as bribery, greed, prostitution, treason …

This should be enough for a preliminary albeit simplified scientific definition and general description of Political System Termites. I will leave further and more expanded descriptions and literature to sociologists and political scientists in academia, where time always seem to be abundant to formulate definitions and answers into long winded gobbledygook no one ever seems to understand, let alone critique.

Instead, I will provide you with a short portrait of a known Political System Termite which acted as the Speaker of the PST Colony of Capitol Hill for nearly a decade. This example should sufficiently illustrate how these termites go about eroding and rotting the nation’s foundation, while putting in place laws meant to ensure further and easier erosion by their larva, the future PSTs.

PST Dennis Hastert: A Portrait

Dennis Hastert, a Republican member of the US House of Representatives from 1987 until 2007, represented Illinois’ 14th Congressional District, and served as the Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007.

Prior to his two-decade long career as a congressman, Hastert was a high school teacher in Chicago with a modest family income. Yet, somehow, he managed to become a multi-millionaire while in Congress: his financial net worth went from less than $270,000 in 1986 to an estimated $4 million to $17 million. No, this was not due to a rich wife or a sudden inheritance, nor was it due to winning a lottery. This fortune came about solely as a result of his activities as a Political System Termite. We will have more on this further down the article.

This PST, while hard at work with his comrade termites eroding and rotting the legislative foundation, while filling up his personal pockets with hard-earned taxpayers money and building a fortune, was involved in almost every major scandal involving the Capitol Hill PST Colony during the last decade: From the Jack Abramoff Scandal to the Mark Foley Disaster, from being pocketed by foreign government(s) to making millions in congressionally earmarked land deals.

Well, this PST may have had retired in 2007, but he is still sucking up taxpayers money, and not a meager amount. Let’s look at the latest on this PST and on our rotten system with real rotten laws drafted by even more rotten lawmakers to benefit the most rotten ones.

Last Monday Politico ran an exposé on Hastert, who’s been collecting and spending more than $40,000 of U.S. Taxpayers’ money per month, around half a million dollars of public money per year, while working for lobbyists and doing the usual dirty lobby work for foreign governments as a registered FOREIGN AGENT. That’s right. If you are not nauseated, disgusted, and outraged, then you haven’t really registered the significance of this ludicrous and appalling exposé. Let me quote directly from the article:

U.S. taxpayers are spending more than $40,000 per month on office space, staff, cell phones and a leased SUV for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, even as he works as a lobbyist for private corporations and foreign governments.

Now, this is pretty rotten on its own, but here is why I characterized our lobby-serving anti-public political system rotten, and those crafting and drafting the laws serving this system and themselves, as PSTs:

The payments are perfectly legal under a federal law that provides five years of benefits for former speakers — but only if Hastert never makes use of his government-funded perks in the course of his lobbying work. Ethics experts say that sort of separation is hard to maintain.

Hastert “has to be meticulous in his schedule to make sure there is no bleed from his publicly subsidized office into his private practice,” said Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission general counsel and congressional ethics authority. Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, called the arrangement “really concerning.”

“It is specifically prohibited — federal dollars can’t be spent on lobbying operations,” Ellis said. “We are paying for his staff [and] for a car, and we need to be very sure that he isn’t spending a dime of that money on lobbying operations. “That all needs to be above board, in the clear and transparent. And it’s not.”

So, what does Denny Boy have to say about all this:

Hastert declined to discuss the situation with POLITICO.

You must give the man credit; at least he’s been very consistent in never providing any answer, any comments, even any denial in every case – on every scandal, on every corruption case, and in regards to all never-investigated criminal deeds. This man’s record in this regard is so very long and his file of black deeds so very thick, so where do I begin and how much should I include?

Head Deep in Foreign Lobby Operations While in Office

I guess it is appropriate to start with a part of Hastert’s shady past (and obviously present) exposed by myself and by several other colleagues’ disclosures in the Vanity Fair article in September 2005:

It may be more than another embarrassing security scandal. One counter-intelligence official familiar with Edmonds’s case has told Vanity Fair that the F.B.I. opened an investigation into covert activities by Turkish nationals in the late 1990’s. That inquiry found evidence, mainly via wiretaps, of attempts to corrupt senior American politicians in at least two major cities—Washington and Chicago. Toward the end of 2001, Edmonds was asked to translate some of the thousands of calls that had been recorded by this operation, some dating back to 1997.

…

Sources familiar with this testimony say that, in addition to her allegations about the Dickersons, she reported hearing Turkish wiretap targets boast that they had a covert relationship with a very senior politician indeed—Dennis Hastert, Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House since 1999. The targets reportedly discussed giving Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in surreptitious payments in exchange for political favors and information.

Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes. To a person who knew nothing about their context, the details were confusing and it wasn’t always clear what might be significant. One name, however, apparently stood out – a man the Turkish callers often referred to by the nickname “Denny boy.” It was the Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. According to some of the wiretaps, the F.B.I.’s targets had arranged for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to Hastert’s campaign funds in small checks. Under Federal Election Commission rules, donations of less than $200 are not required to be itemized in public filings.

…

So, what did Dennis Hastert have to say about all this? Just his usual:

Hastert’s spokesman says the congressman withdrew the genocide resolution only because of the approach from Clinton, “and to insinuate anything else just doesn’t make any sense.” He adds that Hastert has no affiliation with the A.T.C. or other groups reportedly mentioned in the wiretaps: “He does not know these organizations.” Hastert is “unaware of Turkish interests making donations,” the spokesman says, and his staff has “not seen any pattern of donors with foreign names.”

Approximately two years after Hastert’s denying all this – his association and business deals with shady Turkish operatives and lobbyists – he resigned and immediately went on the payroll of these same shady Turkish operatives and lobbyists:

Washington – The firm of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) will receive $35,000 a month to lobby for the Turkish government, the Hill newspaper reported on April 10 citing public filings made to the Department of Justice as part of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

…

In August 2005, Vanity Fair magazine published a story referring to a federal investigation that looked into payments that Turkish diplomats allegedly discussed making to then-Speaker Hastert and others in U.S. government in an effort to prevent the Genocide resolution from passing in 2000.While the speaker’s staff denied any knowledge of the matter, in December 2005 Mr. Hastert shed himself of $70,000 in “tainted” campaign contributions, directing them to an unspecified charity, the Village Voice reported at the time.

…

Okay, that’s enough background and highlights on Denny Boy betraying his country for cash and perks from other countries, the highly shady campaign contributions, and his nonverbal confession through actions – by becoming a foreign agent and lobbyist to those whose hands fed him throughout his years in public office. Let’s look at another scandalous incident involving this same Denny Hastert:

Neck Deep in Land-Deal Corruption

When Hastert, a former high school teacher, was first elected to Congress in 1986, he showed assets worth less than $270,000. By mid 2006, after his own real estate investments, Hastert’s net worth had increased to somewhere between $4 million to $17 million. Now, how did this happen? What kind of real estate investments are we talking about here? A very special kind, indeed!

Let’s take a look at an example of Señor Hastert’s not so savvy but so very corrupt and unethical land deal:

An investigation in June by the (Aurora) Beacon News, a sister paper to The Courier News, uncovered the land deals that netted the Yorkville Republican a $1.99 million profit.

In December 2005, Hastert sold for $2.48 million a 69-acre parcel of land he purchased in 2002, taking in a $1.7 million profit. Also that month, he sold for $627,000 a one-quarter interest in an adjacent 70-acre parcel he purchased in 2004, bringing him an additional $287,000 profit.

These deals came four months after Hastert helped earmark $207 million for the Prairie Parkway in the Federal Transportation Bill, which President George W. Bush signed while visiting the Fox Valley in the summer of 2005.

Here is another detailed account of this highly shady yet legal deal:

According to Hastert’s disclosure form and county property records, a 69-acre parcel was put into a trust, Little Rock Trust #225, on May 2, 2005.

Two months later, in July 2005, Hastert pushed the highway appropriation bill through a conference committee. On Aug. 6, 2005 President Bush appeared with Hastert at a ceremony in Illinois to celebrate the new highway’s funding. On Dec. 7, 2005 the trust sold the parcel of land to the developers.

That’s right; just like that!

Waist Deep in Jack Abramoff Scandal

Hastert and his PAC took more than $100,000 in contributions from Abramoff and his clients. In June 2003 Hastert, together with three other members of the GOP leadership, Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, and Eric Cantor, signed and sent a letter to oppose Indian Casino expansion that would have cut into the profits of one of Abramoff’s clients. Interestingly, neither Hastert nor any of the signatories represented any tribal interests! Here are some more interesting facts on this particular case:

Seven days before writing the letter, on June 3, 2003, Hastert attended a fundraiser for his leadership PAC, Keep Our Majority, at Signatures, a restaurant owned by Jack Abramoff. Keep Our Majority collected “at least $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority political action committee from the lobbyist’s firm and tribal clients.” Hastert then failed for two years to report using the restaurant for fundraising, and did not reimburse for the cost as he is supposed to. In total Dennis Hastert and his PAC, Keep Our Majority, took in well over $100,000 in contributions from Abramoff and his clients.

…

You may also remember this from a May 2006 report by ABC News:

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

…

The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.The day Abramoff was indicted, Hastert denied any unlawful connection and said he would donate to charity any campaign contribution he had received from Abramoff and his clients.

…

Consistent Denny! Always deny, and then, turn around and continue your shady and illegal operations bolder and even more daring than the previous ones!

Knee Deep in Mark Foley Disaster

During the early part of the Foley Scandal Hastert denied knowing about Foley’s Page problems, but later he was contradicted by several Republican members who said they’d briefed him on this matter directly. Hastert later changed his story and claimed he may have been told but did not remember the conversations. Good ole consistent Denny! In fact, the media and members of Congress called for his resignation as Speaker of the House. The actions of Hastert’s office were also the target of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

Not only was he involved in the scandal itself, but during his involvement Hastert used his campaign funds to pay for legal fees associated with the Foley Scandal. Here are a few excerpts from a MSM exposé:

According to FEC documents, Hastert last January initially failed to disclose that legal fees had wiped out the final bit of cash he had in his campaign account. The Illinois Republican and former high school wrestling coach filed an amended finance report in February showing that his ’06 campaign had racked up $147,000 in legal expenses in connection with the Foley investigation. In order to avoid substantial fines (and further debt), Hastert quietly agreed last summer to shut down his campaign and pay a $1,000 penalty, the FEC documents show. When he publicly announced on August 17 that he wouldn’t be seeking re-election, Hastert didn’t mention his campaign’s legal debt from the Foley scandal, or the settlement his lawyers were brokering with the FEC.

…

It wouldn’t be difficult to fill several volumes on PST Hastert’s shady business deals, his involvements in high-profile criminal and corruption scandals, and his not very legal connections to and serving of foreign governments and entities. Most likely someone will write it; some day.

Meanwhile, as characteristic of all Political System Termites, Hastert continues to suck the public’s resources, and although technically outside the colony, through ever-expanding and far-reaching PST webs and networks, he is still at work: rotting and eroding the system.

Also very characteristically, this PST’s larva, despite their widely known and acknowledged intellectual and reputational challenges, have been supported and courted into becoming PSTs within the same colony and its network. The oldest one, Joshua, became a lobbyist for Podesta-Mattoon with hot-shot clients such as Lockheed Martin, and all this while his dad served as the Speaker of the PST Colony. Another one, Ethan, who was arrested and cited in 2001 on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and other traffic violations, who also happened to work for Dick Cheney while his dad headed the PST colony on Capitol Hill, is now running for his father’s old seat, set to prove himself a PST worthy and qualified for the Capitol Hill Colony.

As you can see Political System Termites are far more potent and destructive than insect ones. Looking at them, examining the species, as we briefly did with the one sample-Dennis Hastert, makes us ponder the validity and the real intent of the laws we are accustomed to abiding by. These legislations/laws are being formulated and drafted by our system’s termites. So who are these laws meant to serve? Who are they to benefit? One might think of the Patriot Act, funding for war(s), earmarks for ‘national security’…

And finally, all of you, at least those of you who live here in the States, are familiar with spotting and getting rid of insect termites: have your house inspected, use exterminators and treat your home if any are present. In a way, it is easier with some of these Political System Termites. All one has to do: vote them out; especially when you’ve determined their status as a PST. Then, why is it PSTs like Hastert kept getting reelected, every two years, even after all the exposures and scandals? That my friends, is the real question.

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

For those of you who participate in Thanksgiving rituals, I hope you had a nice and feast-full TGD holiday. I truly enjoyed mine; I’m still feasting. Other than that it was a short and fairly calm week. As for our site here, I have a few noteworthy updates:

Two Part Series by Peter Lance

This coming week, starting on Monday, we’ll be publishing a two-part exclusive series by Peter Lance. So what is it going to be about? Here is a hint:

The Fort Hood shootings and the decision by the Justice Department to try 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. What do the two biggest domestic terrorism stories in months have in common?

The answer lies locked up somewhere in custodial witness protection.

Lance’s piece is very engaging, well-researched, and comprehensive. Stay tuned for Part I on Monday, November 30.

Boiling Frogs Podcast Show & iTunes

Our apologies to those who previously subscribed to iTunes on our old site – 123realchange.blogspot.com – we thought that you would automatically be re-directed to the podcasts on this site, but for some reason that we don’t understand, this did not occur. Also, anyone who clicked on the iTunes icon on our sidebar was directed to the wrong address and could not access our latest podcasts. We have resolved the problem and you will now be directed to the correct address in iTunes that will allow you to subscribe to all our podcasts. Unfortunately, for those of you who previously subscribed, you will need to do so again – but it only takes a couple of clicks – just click the iTunes icon & the rest will be self explanatory.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed Joins Boiling Frogs Post

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed has joined Boiling Frogs Post’s Editorials & Analyses Contributors. I am delighted to have Nafeez’ insightful and rarely-covered analysis on topics of our interest: Terrorism, US Foreign Policy, Radicalization & Violent Conflicts, CIA-Terrorism Nexus, Central Asia-Afghanistan-Pakistan, and other related topics. Here is his bio:

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author and political analyst. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and has taught courses in contemporary history and international relations theory at the University of Sussex. His Doctoral thesis investigated the radicalization processes and dynamics of violent conflict in the context of hierarchical social systems in the modern world. Dr. Ahmed has also published extensively on international security issues, including The London Bombings; The War on Truth; Behind the War on Terror; and The War on Freedom. He has been an expert commentator for BBC News 24, BBC World Today, Al-Jazeera English, among others. He is currently advising the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on engaging British Muslim communities. Visit Dr. Nafeez’ Website.

Noteworthy Links:

Azerbaijan’s Lobby Picks Grossman & Armitage to Reach Obama

Those of you who have already read my piece on President Obama’s administration’s no-difference difference from the previous administration, at least on topics and issues that matter most, and those of you who are familiar with my State Secrets’ Privilege case and the involved known US personalities, will find the following piece very relevant and significant. Those of you are not familiar with the mentioned areas, click here and here, for a quick general background.

Okay, back to the not-really-changing faces of the foreign lobby.  One of our regular readers gave me a heads up on this:

Director of Centre for Strategic Studies under Azerbaijan’s President to visit US

Baku. Lachin Sultanova – APA. Director of Centre for Strategic Studies under Azerbaijan’s President Elkhan Nuriyev will visit the US. The center told APA that on December 2, Nuriyev will meet with Vice Chairman of The Cohen Group international consulting organization,
Ambassador Marc Grossman, President of the Armitage International, Ambassador Richard Armitage and other political experts, inform the American diplomats and political analysts about the Center, discuss problems of regional security and prospects of the cooperation with other think tanks of the US.

On December 4, Elkhan Nuriyev will make a speech at the regional conference on the theme “Geopolitical state of the Caspian basin and America-Azerbaijan relations during Obama administration” organized by U.S. Azeris Network (USAN) in Chicago-Kent College of Law of Illinois Institute of Technology. The aim of the conference is to inform the U.S. experts about the geopolitical realities in the Caspian basin, Azerbaijan’s decisive position as the main source of the energy resources in the region and a transit country, role in the global energy security, importance of the strategic partnership between Baku and Washington, other security problems of the region.

Representatives of Azerbaijani Diaspora in the US, leading experts of the Chicago University and officials will attend the forum. Elkhan Nuriyev will meet with heads of think tanks of the US, have discussions on the regional projects on scientific cooperation between the analytical organizations of the two countries.

As you see I highlighted the ‘key names & key words.’ Again, many of my readers already know the significance of these key words/names. One significant fact that should be obvious to all:

When it comes to ‘foreign lobbies’ and the ‘known bad guys,’ not much seems to have changed under President Obama. You have the same old known traitors and in many ways shady guys like Richard Armitage and Marc Grossman who are chosen as Key Facilitators paving the way to the White House and Foreign Policy Making Machine. Oh, and please don’t forget Chicago…

Obama Administration Wants your Attention Diverted

The mainstream media and Democratic Party HQ connected websites seem to be busy trying to divert attention from the President’s determined assault on our civil liberties via renewing and extending the Patriot Act. Here are a few excerpts from a well-written and objective article by William Fisher:

With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms. And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.

When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections. But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

…

Fisher’s article goes on to provide more details related to the key provisions and responses from the civil liberties groups:

Pitts told IPS, “President Obama’s flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it’s imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualised suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions.”

In a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, “More than seven years after its implementation there is little evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources.”

I strongly encourage you to read the entire article and take the time to write to your representatives. Most likely writing won’t do much good (sorry for sounding cynical, but after nearly a decade of dealing with Congress I dare say I’m being realistic), but still, it is better than not knowing and doing nothing which is exactly what the mainstream media and the partisan blog sites want you to do. Dare their operations geared to make you look the other way.

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

I want to revisit a topic which happens to be extremely important to me, both personally and politically, and even more important to our civil liberties.

Some of you have already read my brief piece on Richard Horn & the CIA dishing out $3 million to buy silence in this narco scandal. Those of you who have not read it click here and read it – because this story also goes to the heart of a very significant and ongoing issue: The State Secrets Privilege.

My recent heads-up piece on Horn focused mainly on the CIA’s attempt to hush another narco scandal where the agency was directly and actively involved. Although I introduced Horn as ‘another recipient of the government’s State Secrets Privilege invocation’, I didn’t delve into the significance of this case on this repeatedly used and abused draconian privilege. This was partly due to wrongly assuming that the media, at least the alternative media, would have gotten all over it since lately the SSP has been a quite fashionable and talked about topic among the wanna-be progressive community. Well, I was wrong. Despite the scandalous nature of the case, and despite the massive implications to SSP, those who’ve been publicizing themselves and cashing in using SSP did not touch or mention the case.

The last time I wrote about the State Secrets Privilege and how it was being misrepresented and twisted by puppets in the media my blood was very close to reaching the boiling point. This time, with this recent Horn case and its direct SSP implications, my blood actually did reach the boiling point. In fact it is boiling now!

Here are a few excerpts from my previous piece on the State Secrets Privilege, starting with the intro:

During the past few months I have been actively following the latest activity on the state secrets privilege (SSP). First, I was pleasantly surprised to see that this issue of extreme importance to our civil liberties and constitutional rights was finally getting long-over-due and deserved attention from the media. After all, the memories of fighting SSP in the federal courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, holding press conferences together with the ACLU to bring needed media attention to this draconian abuse, making the rounds in Congress to have them address this ‘privilege’ through legislation to restrict its misuse and abuse, are still fresh and vivid for me.

Then I started detecting some troubling common trends showing up in media reports and subsequently in discussions and statements within Congress. The most suspicious of these came in the form of sanitizing major SSP abuse cases from reports put forth by both the mainstream media and some in alternative publications. The first invocation of the SSP by the Bush Administration was in my case. Back then, if you had done a Google search on ‘state secrets privilege’ you would have come up with only ‘7’ results; three of them repeats. After successfully getting away with SSP invocation in my case, the administration opened the flood gates for others. Now I invite you to search all the archived news reports on SSP in the last year or so. As you will see, in every single report in which the abuses of SSP and its history are cited, you will not find this first case; my case. Further, if you were to look for other major abuses of SSP, such as the Barlow Case, you will find none. The valid cases cited are mainly limited to:

I then went on citing the cases covered by the MSM and pseudo-alternative alike: Khalid Al-Masri, Maher Arar, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, and Binyam Mohamed.

Finally, I decided to dig further and explore the reasons behind these significant omissions and the accompanying information spin that seems to be packaged with the intention of fulfilling Washington’s objective – seeing the related campaign and activities fail…

I found one of the puppet masters to be: The United States Congress, Bipartisan

A well seasoned congressional staff member connected to a well-known ‘Centrist’ office active in the current SSP debate, who ‘insisted’ on being granted anonymity, had the following to say:

“Contrary to what they may claim in order to pacify the recent ‘Anti State Secrets Privilege’ movement, the Congress does not want to deal with this issue. And this applies to members of both parties…of course we will hold a couple of hearings and show we have investigated and reviewed cases…”

He then went on to list several enlightening points regarding the ‘real’ factors driving the current position on SSP:

• We are being told that the President [Obama] will veto any proposed legislation dealing with State Secrets Privilege…that and that no one in Congress really wants to touch this area. Having the press limit the information to ‘War on Terror Suspects’ [Emphasis added] helps both: the President and the reluctant Congress.
• The cases before us are ‘selectively’ [Emphasis added] related to the War on Terror. A few Arab guys with their claims will not bring sympathy from the majority in this country. Not in Iowa, not in Utah…you catch my drift?
• …I am talking about cases where there are no questions of ‘Criminality’ being involved or covered up. We won’t touch those cases. No one will go for that. The reasons…obvious… Being unfair or making the wrong call to determine if someone is a terrorist does not constitute ‘criminal.’ [Emphasis Added]. As for the NSA related case, well, the new legislation took care of that…
• By the way, we don’t expect to see any cases of abuses of SSP by the Clinton Administration cited anywhere. Holder’s office in the background and the majority leaders up on the front lines are ensuring this through the media and the NGOs.

Let me recap what is being said, the reality ‘on the ground’ here:

Like any other president before him, and probably those who’ll come after him, President Obama is not going to limit his presidential powers when it comes to this draconian absolute executive power. He has made it clear to his now the majority party members and they are set to follow his guideline on this. It is a slam dunk position with a guaranteed ‘win’ since the minority in Congress also encourages and backs this position.

Somehow the Executive Branch and the Congress have managed to accomplish their objectives on SSP through the U.S. media. They want the reporting massaged and messaged in such a way that the publicity on SSP is limited to only ‘select’ cases where ‘executive criminality’ and or ‘covering up executive criminality’ will not be an issue. Those SSP cases where the executive branch used this level of secrecy to cover up criminal deeds would make the need for Congressional action on SSP far greater. After all, we even have an Executive Order that currently prohibits secrecy and classification from being used by the Executive Branch in order to conceal violations of law. Of course with the case(s) involving NSA warrantless wiretapping, as quoted by the congressional source above, they no longer have to worry, since they took care of it through retroactive legislation.

With cases involving wrongful detention and abuse of those ‘wrongfully accused’ in the government’s war on terror, it has been set up so that these cases can be written off as ‘egregious labeling, handling and treatment’ committed immediately following the September Eleven Attacks. Excuses such as ‘extraordinary’ circumstances, ‘bureaucratic bungling,’ and the previous administration’s ‘excess’ have been all lined up to be used if or when SSP makes it’s way into Congress. Further, the government also counts on bigotry to insure that there will be no major public pressure, since the involved victims are not (at least most) Americans, have Arabic names, and are of Muslim background. They believe that the majority of Americans will not be sympathetic to these plaintiffs, so there will be no problem killing any chance of restraining the long-abused SSP through meaningful legislation.

Both the mainstream media and pseudo-alternatives gone mainstream were consistent in serving the objectives cited above and the Congress determined NOT to tackle this draconian and unconstitutional privilege. In doing so, they made sure that any recent SSP cases that did not involve Arabic or Muslim names were left out of their popularized articles, analysis, and TV appearances. Here are a few of these cases omitted, blacked out, and censored:

Richard Barlow, an intelligence analyst and a former senior member of the Counter-Proliferation unit at the CIA lost his job when he objected internally to the George H.W. Bush Administration’s misleading Congress over Pakistan’s nuclear program. For more detailed background and related official documents on Barlow see here.

My case: The legal outline of SSP abuse by the Bush Administration invoked to cover up ‘criminal’ activities and subsequent cover up of these criminal activities can be found on the ACLU site.

And of course, the case of Richard Horn, where CIA got caught with its pants down, lying & cheating in court procedures:

“If Lamberth’s judicial opinions in the Horn case are allowed to remain in the court record — to be recalled and cited going forward by other lawyers, judges and academics — then untold damage could be done to the reputation of the CIA and its leadership. Those judicial opinions memorializing the CIA’s fraud on the court also would serve as a permanent reminder of the occasionally dubious credibility of the Agency’s pronouncements invoking national security and the state-secrets privilege.”

Scholars and activists have been trying to expose the main reason, in fact the only reason, for invocation of this draconian executive privilege as an attempt (so far a very successful one) to cover up illegal and criminal acts committed by the executive branch. In the Richard Barlow case, it was to cover up blatantly lying to Congress to cover up for Pakistan and AQ Khan. In my case, it was to cover up treasonous and espionage activities of US officials. And here, in Richard Horn’s case, it was to cover up the CIA’s involvement and covert activities in thwarting DEA’s anti-narcotics mission in Burma in the early 1990s. However, thanks to a judge with some degree of independence and principle, in Horn’s case the real reason for invocation of States Secrets Privilege seems to be officially, formally, and on the record, exposed and proven.

Now, I am going to ask you, my truly progressive and independent readers, to go and check out ‘Google News’ or any other news search engines you tend to rely upon, and see if you can find any mention of this case, or its implications for the State Secrets Privilege. You ain’t gonna find any. Why?

In my previous piece I reported on the congressional agenda and the media puppets serving this agenda to prevent any chances of getting the State Secrets Privilege issue before the Congress. Are there any other puppet masters involved? Probably, since Congress is usually in the position of puppet rather than puppet master. Is it the Justice Department? Is it the CIA? The Pentagon? Maybe a combination of all three? And the White House, the White House of any administration?

I would say all those possibilities seem logical and foreseeable. Now let’s talk about the puppets in the media:

As far as the MSM is concerned, who’s surprised?! As Senator Grassley puts it: ‘just the usual!’ But let’s talk about the puppet(s) in the pseudo-alternative-gone-mainstream media, since they’ve been doing the most damage by misguiding the ‘REAL PROGRESSIVES’ who believe in them and follow their propaganda.

I’m not going to throw out names and make this a pissing contest between personalities. Just go and check: who’s been making names for themselves on the State Secrets Privilege topic after it became safe to discuss (around 2007)? Who’s been cashing in on writing and speaking on SSP? Who’s been getting invited over and over on MSM run channels and publications to offer ‘misguidance’ on SSP? As we all know, the MSM ain’t in the business of inviting true progressives on real civil liberties related issues and cases.

Once you go and check, and believe me it won’t take you long to have a short list, take a little time and read their polished BS (the ingredients remain BS no matter how polished), and see whether you find Horn, Barlow, Edmonds, or any American sounding names cited in their list of SSP cases. Now you have your culprits. Next, go and actually ask them, send them a note, question them:

Why is the first and most egregious invocation of SSP, Edmonds V DOJ, missing in every single case analysis and article you’ve written?

Why is Richard Barlow’s SSP case, involving AQ Khan and the CIA-Pentagon’s misleading of Congress, absent from every single piece, article, and speech?

Why in the world is this recent explosive revelation in the Richard Horn case, where the CIA abused the SSP but was caught doing it, not showing up in your work?

Come on people, do me a favor and go after these phony puppets and grill them. This is very important because the damage caused by these lowlifes impacts all of us, all our civil liberties, greatly. Not only that, these puppets are fueling racism and hatred by singling out Arab & Muslim based names in their citation of State Secrets Privilege cases, and singling them out as the only recipients of the SSP, and as cases related to our perpetual ‘war on terror’ excuse.

These pseudo progressive puppets have successfully taken the SSP topic off the table in Congress, relieving Congress from having to do, or pretending to do, something about a very dangerous Executive Power never written into the Constitution. They have made many believe that SSP is selectively and rarely used in only ‘terror suspect’ cases with Arabic names, thus, preventing a more wide-spread expression of public outrage. They have undone much great work by civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU & EFF, by actually blending with them to garner more credibility. They have churned, twisted, and spun the facts on SSP, and unfortunately even many progressives have bought into it. So let’s expose them for who they are, and let’s help the public get the facts straight on the State Secrets Privilege.

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

Our Boiling Frogs Show is now officially a weekly-based Podcast interview series. The interviews will be posted every Friday afternoon. Our upcoming guests: Mizgin Yilmaz, Kristina Borjesson, Mark Klein, Pepe Escobar, and Russ Baker. We are scheduling several other exciting and informative interviews; stay tuned.

We have an updated version of Joe Lauria’s FROM FLATBUSH TO THE STREETS OF KANDAHAR here. My site statistics report says it’s been widely clicked-upon & downloaded, so check it out if you haven’t read this solid piece, and go back and re-read it if you’ve read the original piece and want more!

Noteworthy Stories & Links

Welcome Comrade Maobama

Pepe Escobar has a two-part series on Obama’s China Visit at Asia Times. For those of you who may not know; I happen to be a big fan of Mr. Escobar, his solid track record in investigative journalism, his bold and witty writing style, and his untainted and independent stand when it comes to real reporting. When you get a chance check out ‘The Best of Pepe Escobar’ at Asia Times . Here is his part I:

Welcome Comrade Maobama, Part I

As mentioned above, last week we interviewed Mr. Escobar, and will publish the interview in about 4 weeks. 

Lobbyists Boldly Craft & Insert Provisions to the House Bill

As the numbers and actions of sold out spineless representatives in Congress increase, the lobby industry’s takeover of Congress and our legislation gets bolder and bolder. Here is a recent example presented by the Sunlight Foundation:

More than a dozen lawmakers inserted statements supporting a biotechnology provision added to the House health care bill that was crafted by lobbyists for the biotechnology firm Genentech.

Wait a minute before you start waving the ‘oh the shameless Republicans,’ or ‘sold out spineless Democrats’ flag, because this ain’t partisan, as most significant problems rotting our nation are not:

The Genentech lobbyists crafted two statements — one for Democrats and one for Republicans — for lawmakers to insert into the Congressional Record. The collection of lawmakers is very bipartisan with ten Republicans and eight Democrats issuing near identical statements. (One Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler, inserted the Republican statement.)

As for the implications? Here is a sound, important, but still micro-level conclusion on implications being cited by several sites and forums:

The words spoken or inserted into the official Congressional Record carry an import that those spoken in a television interview or campaign speech do not. These are official words placed in an archived government document, preserved for posterity. The use of the lobbyist written script by these eighteen lawmakers amounts to full-throated endorsement, not just of the biotechnology provision, but of the interpretation of what that provision means to one particular company, Genentech and their parent company Roche, Inc.

These statements will aid the industry when they lobby the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the implementation of the law and the attendent rules that relate to the biotechnology industry. They also help by putting these lawmakers on the line in official support of Genentech’s view of the provision. In turn, these lawmakers will likely see a hefty rise in campaign contributions from Genentech and their friends. Perhaps Genentech or another biotechnology firm will decide to fund a research project in their district. Even better, the lawmaker could earmark a research grant that could only be filled by Genentech.

And here is my own macro-level, blunt, and totally un-diplomatic conclusion:

Wake up America. This is only one of thousands of diseases inflicting our nation’s governing body. As long as we put off debating, pushing, and fighting for macro-level changes, such as  badly needed campaign finance reform, we’ll be seeing thousands more of these – and worse!

CIA vs.  DNI: The Real Intelligence Wars

The Atlantic has a pretty good analysis of the turf battle between the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence over covert action oversight and the status game when it comes to the White House:

Through intermediaries, Panetta and Blair crossed swords over who should appoint senior intelligence representatives in foreign countries. Now, through interviews, new details are emerging about other, more sensitive conflicts between the two men and their agencies, including which agency is responsible for oversight of the CIA’s controversial and classified Predator drone program.

…

Competition between the CIA, the nation’s intelligence service, and the DNI, its new intelligence manager, has become fierce in the Obama administration. A victory for one side is seen by the other as a loss of power and authority. As part of the agreement, Blair and Panetta plan to meet weekly with National Security Adviser Jones. Face time with the president is preserved for both men. Blair, or his representative, briefs the president daily. Panetta has a standing meeting with the commander in chief at least one a week. In bureaucratic terms, both the CIA and the DNI need buy in. They need the White House to recognize their formal and informal authorities.

I won’t take up the space by quoting too much; here is the link to the article written by Mark Ambinder: Click here.

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

The Art of Pimping Reaches New Heights

I’ve been planning to write a piece on the role of ‘Corporate’ in the US Mainstream Media for Part IV of our ‘Dissecting MSM Series.’ Then, right before the Fourth of July holiday, this stinking scandal came out via Politico:

“Publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few””

By ‘those powerful few’ they mean, and they actually list: Obama administration officials and members of Congress, and also include Post’s own hotshot reporters and editors.

So, how did Politico get a whiff of this sensational leak?

“The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a healthcare lobbyist [Emphasis Added], who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.””

Yep, it’s that bad. They’ve gotten so shameless and awful that even lobbyists are blowing their whistles! We all knew how bad things were with our mass media, but you must admit this exceeds even our expectations.

“With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that “a flier went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do.” “

How is this for a pathetic twisting? Come on, you’d think with all their ‘fiction’ reporters and editors and their ‘highly imaginative’ writers, they’d come up with a better excuse than this pathetically lame line!

“Executive editor Marcus Brauchli was as adamant as Weymouth in denouncing the plan promoted in the flier. “You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s “Hosts and Discussion Leaders.””

And here, this Brauchli guy gets even better:

“Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business side of the Post planned on holding dinners… Brauchli said that Post employees on the business side — not the newsroom — would have been responsible for seeking participants for this event.”

‘Business’ Side’??!! As if there is any other side to this long-tainted industry? As far as we know, and we’ve known all along, when it comes to our popular press there is the ‘Big Business Side’ and in our government the entrenched ‘Pro-Establishment Side’; and since both happen to be on the same side, that makes it only one side.

I love the flowery adjectives used in the following two paragraphs:

“”Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier.”Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders.””

“The flier promised the dinner would be held in an intimate setting with no unseemly conflict between participants. “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No,” it said. “The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …”

“Intimate & Exclusive” in ‘a relaxing setting’ of a ‘home.’ How relaxing? It doesn’t say. But since it is guaranteed to be ‘intimate, relaxing, and homey,’ I envision dimly glowing red lanterns and soft springy lounge sofas decorating this ‘reserved saloon’ at Weymouth’s nest. Seriously, it reads like an ad for one of those high-priced hookers connection events held for ‘discreet’ public figures. Don’t you agree?

‘Interact with Obama Administration & Congressional Leaders’: Well, based on the flier, the high-priced hookers who will be provided ‘intimately & exclusively’ for an annual fee of $250,000 happen to be all the president’s men & our elected officials. Please don’t take me wrong. I don’t intend this to be insulting. Not at all. After all, business is business, and prostitution happens to be the oldest of all. Now I know our government considers this old established line of business, at a lower level, street-vendor style, illegal; against our laws that is, but that’s another story for another day. For this piece, I intend to focus on the business side of this story: The Corporate Media and their intimate, exclusive, and obviously lucrative pimping for Big Business (those that ‘really’ count’), offering up Statesmen members of our legal and prestigious Red Light District.

Back to dissecting the rest of this highly enlightening expose:

“The first “Salon” was to be called “Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate.” More were anticipated, and the flier described the opportunities for participants:

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m. …”

So, since lately healthcare reform debate has been a hot issue, and since timing is everything when it comes to ‘business,’ our entrepreneurial Washington Post justifiably picks it for it’s first ‘intimate saloon’ offering.

They sent invitations to Big Business CEOs and Executive Directors; the movers, shakers, and ultimate decision makers in those issues ‘cosmetically debated’ in our congress and ‘cunningly promised’ by our presidents; you know, our ‘real Mastahs.’ Oh, before I forget, I just caught the following typo or mis-wording in the invitation’s header: ‘”Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans?”’ What they meant was better or worse ‘for your businesses.’

As Weymouth has already admitted, the flier, the invitation, was prepared by the ‘marketing’ division of The Washington Post, so I’m sure the price of $25,000 per ‘saloon’, and of course the enticing discount of $250,000 for advance purchasing, was determined wisely, professionally, and based on well-researched and surveyed analyses. Meaning: the current going rate for our representatives and president’s men offered and guaranteed on an intimate and exclusive basis in a private relaxing homey saloon is a quarter million dollars per year.

I can’t help but envisioning Madame Nancy half sitting half laying on a fluffy chaise lounge, her face half obscured by the shadows in the dim light cast from the red lanterns above, softening her famous crusty deep wrinkles. She is making circles on the rim of her exquisite crystal champagne glass, another sophisticated touch offered by Weymouth at her intimate saloon sessions. Next to her, a balding CEO dressed in a Ferré tailored yet softly crafted suit is kneeling just enough to reach her right ear, whispering intimately and exclusively, while three junior congresswomen a few steps away watch intently, as part of their training. Seated a few sofas away are Walter Pincus, a big Chunky BlackWater Man, and Senator Johnnie the Arms’ Committee Man. Neither of the men is drinking the ‘fu fu’ bubbly, instead they hold their crystal glasses filled with a Real Man’s Johnny Walker; straight up. They don’t whisper either; after all, they are not girlie men. Their topic of the night: ‘How to dodge accountability yet look great in the papers.’ There’s no disagreement, of course. All three know: It’s been done before and will be done again, and then again.

The three-way partnership is one of those rare perfect ones: Win, Win, and Win. The big corporate clients secure all they need, the members of Washington Red Light District guarantee another term or two, and the Pimping Press remains as the connecting bridge, sustaining its own survival while insuring that of the other two. As for us, the majority, the people? We’ve never mattered before and we don’t matter now.

Cartoon by Paul Jamiol