Lorie Van Auken joins us and shares with us her reflections ten years on about the events of 9/11 and her loss. She discusses the still- classified 28 pages of the JICI dealing with terrorist financing, the 9/11 families’ stalled lawsuit to bankrupt the terrorists and the direct interventions by the White House to protect the Saudi regime against the justice-seeking families, and the many uninvestigated questions and facts covered up by the 9/11 commission. She questions our current many-fronted wars and the senselessness of the occupation of and our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden both dead, while our economy is crashing here at home. Ms. Van Auken talks about the three versions of the NORAD timeline, the passage of the Patriot Act as a vehicle to erode our civil liberties, NSA’s illegal wiretapping of our domestic communications under the guise of security, and more!

Lorie Van Auken, the mother of two children, lost her husband Kenneth Van Auken in the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. She is one of the “Jersey Girls” who, along with Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza, fought the Bush administration for a commission to investigate the attacks. Ms. Van Auken is also a member of the September 11 Advocates.

Here is our guest Lorie Van Auken unplugged!

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

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.

BFP Nightly Quote

“If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.”- Thomas Jefferson

International Newsworthy

US Prepares for Worse-Case Scenario with Pakistan Nukes

‘NATO Planning Military Attack on Iran’

Libya: Benghazi Blues

Turkey’s Erdogan & Calculated Syrian Affront

US-Bahrain Defense Pack Renewed; for 10 Years

Uproar in Egypt as US Funnels Aid via NGOs 

New U.S. Envoy in Israel to Clear Obstacles for Obama’s Second Term

Georgia: Putin Tweaks Tbilisi on Ossetian Annexation

* * * *

National Newsworthy

Obama Campaign to Get Big-Screen Osama Bin Laden Boost

End of the Road for Hedge Funds?

US Prepares for Military Intervention in Somalia

The Air Force to Spend $23 Billion on the “Escalade” of Spy Drones

Colorful Maps: US Military’s Costly Weapon in the War in Afghanistan

Military Spending Threatens America’s Future Strength

Solar Politics

Law Professors Ask SEC to Write New Political Donation Disclosure Rules for Business

Funding Nicholas Schmidle

‘Only’ 20% of US House of Representatives will Visit Israel During Summer Recess!

* * * *

Noteworthy Editorials

Afghanistan’s Innocent Victims

Barack Obama: The Bizarro FDR

The Dubious Death of Osama Bin Laden

Where Have Libya’s Children Gone?

* * * *

BFP Nightly Funnies

“Why doesn’t Israel want to become the 51st state? Because then it would only have two senators.”

Hitler Learns About Tent Cities & Housing Protests in Tel Aviv

* * * *

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Video 1: The Essence of the Banking Industry…

Video 2: ‘Ending War’- Obama Flashback

Video 3: John Pilger’s War by Other Means- Part IV

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

Anyhow, today I am going to talk about another very confusing label-adjective that is being used too often, and most often too broadly, confusedly and inaccurately. The fashionable adjective is ‘progressive;’ being progressive. What does it really mean to be progressive? Once upon a time I was sure I knew what it meant. Then came a time when I was not sure what it was. And now, I don’t have a clue what it means to be a progressive. I’ll go even further and say, if it means what many people claim it does, and use it as, then, I consider it an adjective far from flattery.

Sure. You can look it up in any dictionary and give progressive a common definition. Progressive: Favoring or advocating change, improvement, or reform; employing or advocating more enlightened ideas… Or find the popular definition of progressivism as a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. If you were to stop here, stay within this once-upon-a-time definition and usage frame, and then call me a progressive, I’d nod and say ‘thank you.’ However life is never that simple. And in this case the overly popular progressive does not mean what it used to mean, and is not used as it once was.

Allow me to put it in perspective. I am going to use real-life context and experiences; the real life being my life, and the experiences coming directly from me and my surroundings:

A few months ago I was having lunch with a good friend whom I’ve known for over 20 years. He has university degrees and a high-level position in an IT related company. I was telling him how happy I’d been without a TV and garbage propaganda sold as news for over the past six years. He agreed and said: “I try to limit myself and only watch progressive news delivered by real progressive reporters. Most of the time I tune in to the Daily Show- Jon Stewart.” I asked: “you mean for fun and satire?’ He said: ‘Not really. For a progressive take on major news.’

My friend used the word ‘progressive’ three times in describing himself and his choice for ‘news.’ I have heard Jon Stewart being described as a real progressive reporter, and a solid source for real news for some progressives more than a few times. Let’s move to another experience-context:

One of the mothers in my daughter’s play group is a teacher who considers herself politically savvy and an activist; that is, in a progressive way. A few weeks ago we were casually chatting about activism and alternative news sites for activism. She said: ‘I don’t like the mainstream. I go to a few progressive sites to get my real news and real take on political issues.’ I asked, ‘Which progressive site tops your list?’ And she replied: ‘Of course Huffington Post!’

To make a long story short on that particular experience: my daughter’s friend’s progressive mother considers Madame Huffington the mother of all progressives. And next:

A few days ago a former colleague stopped by for a cup of coffee. We started talking about the awfulness of our plentiful wars. I took the opportunity and asked him whether he regretted his Obama vote. He responded: ‘Of course not. That was a progressive thing to do. Even with all these wars and stuff we are better off. We proved to the world that yes we can elect a black man as our president, and that is a sign of a progressive nation. Electing Obama as a president is a win for all of us progressives; no matter what…’

Suffice it to say, my progressive friend is determined to vote progressive again in order to make a progressive statement to the rest of the world. He will vote a progressive vote; he will vote Obama.

I know more than a few activists who consider themselves progressive, and define their progressive activism as actively chatting at DailyKos on a daily basis. I also know progressive antiwar activists who consider our war in Libya a progressive intervention, not war. I know a few progressives who consider raising the debt ceiling while increasing government expenditures as we increase all taxes real progress…

[By the way if you are worried about my personal neighbors, friends and former colleagues who were exhibited in the examples above (albeit without their personal information) getting ticked off by what I am saying here, please don’t. They consider this site far from being progressive, thus never visit here.]

If Jon Stewart is a real progressive reporter delivering progressive news; if Arianna Huffington and her AOL-owned site is the mother of all progressive websites; if Obama is a progressive president and electing him a progressive thing to do; if our new wars can be written off as progressive interventions …Then, if you call me a progressive I’ll consider it a cuss word; a real insult!

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

There are certain people; more than a few. In fact, based on certain measurement criteria they may even be considered the majority. Well, at least they were in 2008, or they were mixed and included in a certain majority back then. Not all, but certain definitions of ‘blind faith’ apply to these people; to list a few: ease of belief, rash conviction, uncriticalness, unquestioning belief, wishful belief. To a certain extent the adjective ‘fanatic’ applies to these people- fanatic as in excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a person, cause or an idea. In some ways these people can be described as biased and ignorant. Unquestionably and most definitely all of these certain people have been very audacious. They have been audacious in maintaining their ignorant, fanatic and blind faith placed not in a particular religion, cult or a cause, but in a conning man. And they’ve been ignorant and blinded enough to maintain this fanatical and blind faith despite all revelatory signs and facts marching before them day in and day out; for over three years.

When these certain people are presented with the truth, that is the real truth about the man they have been conned into blindly believing in, they automatically go into this deaf mode, a trance-like state, and cease to hear or see anything before them-around them; everywhere. In this frequently occurring state these certain people closely resemble the Whirling Dervishes; who engage in long and continuous ecstatic dancing and whirling trance-like rituals. Like these Whirling Dervishes, these certain blinded and deafened fanatics go into a self-induced trance of ignorance, and they remain there.

I am sure you know many of these certain people. At least you come into contact with them frequently. Let me give you a few hints and you’ll recognize them immediately:

Before the 2008 elections, when they were told about Obama’s track record as a Senator. prior to his presidential candidacy, such as how he played a key role in passing the outrageous wiretapping bill to grant lawsuit immunity to telecommunication companies involved in illegal domestic wiretapping, these certain people:

Shrugged it off. Completely disregarded it. They were in the middle of heated ecstasy and could not be bothered with nuances like that. They were high on hallucinogens marketed and administered to them under a recently popularized brand- Audacity of Hope.

During the early stages of his campaign, Obama promised that he would only take public funds to finance his election campaign. When he very quickly changed, opted out and abandoned public financing, this is how these certain people reacted:

They shrugged it off. They ignored it. A few of them actually defended it; in a fanatical way. Those few claimed, in a blinded way, ‘He has to do what he has to do to get into the position to implement his change, promises. So what? A man must do whatever a man must do! Good for him!’

As a presidential candidate, when Obama started receiving  his top donations from those same financial institutions that brought down our country’s economy; from Goldman Sachs to JP Morgan, City Group, Morgan Stanley and beyond, these certain people:

They waved it off. They looked the other way. Some started spinning like whirling dervishes and went into self-induced trances to block the nasty smell and feeling. Others actually cheered and supported it, and said: ‘This is the reality on the ground. The ultimate goal is winning and getting the position to bring about needed audacious changes! Once Obama gets into the White house he will say to all those donors ‘screw you all’…I have that much faith in him!’

When, after securing his presidency, Obama immediately went about securing the nomination of top Wall Street culprits, those who have sided with banks against the public interest -we are talking about people such as Larry Summers, Mary Schapiro, Gary Gensler Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Rahm Emanuel and others, these certain people…

Some of them began to engage in more whirling and spent more time in their trances. Others defended their cult-man as a president new to the job and in the process of finding his way…that is, a way to bring about audacious changes.

Then, Obama elated Neoconservatives with his other top-tier appointees; from Dennis Ross to Robert Gates, Susan Rice, Tony Lake, Richard Holbrooke, General James Jones … and the list goes on and on. And, these certain people…

More of them engaged in frequent whirling and spending significant amounts of time in a blissful trance. Still, others were furiously defending their man although a bit more desperately. They even tried desperate and ignorant lines such as ‘What do you expect?! He has to first clean up the mess left to him by his predecessor, and it takes a few ally Neocons to know and deal with old Neocons…’

Then, Obama began expanding and more than doubled the Bush Administration’s wars under false pretenses based on false premises- from continuing the overt war in Afghanistan and starting an illegal war in Libya, to covert wars in Yemen and Somalia, and undefined drone offenses in Pakistan. Our certain people…

Even more of them got into the trance-inducing whirling, and boy they kept whirling. Others spent some of their time on whirling and in a trance, and at other times in a semi-lucid state irrationally yet fanatically qualifying Obama’s illegal acts of wars and violence as ‘so very different than Bush.’ They qualified some of his wars as ‘not wars but interventions,’ and others as ‘necessary and temporary, inherited from his predecessor, which must be dealt with…’

When Obama institutionalized and further expanded the Bush Administration’s illegal domestic wiretapping practices,  taking them even further, by astoundingly granting the Executive Branch unlimited immunity for any kind of ‘illegal’ government surveillance, …

When Obama invoked baseless and unconstitutional executive secrecy to quash legal inquiries into secret illegalities more often than any predecessor,…

When Obama amassed the worst record in US history for persecuting, prosecuting and jailing government whistleblowers and truth-tellers, and set a chilling example for potential whistleblowers through the abuse and torture of Bradley Manning,

When Obama started initiating secret assassination programs and publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and actually attempted to assassinate at least one…

At this point almost all these certain people are spending almost all their time whirling, spinning. They have gotten themselves willfully blinded and in a trance state, and are still holding on to their blind fanatical faith.

There are a few of us who were not blinded to the history and track record of the man who sold our nation a bunch of audacious lies and conning promises. There are some of us who quickly woke up and registered the fact that we were indeed conned royally. There are others among us who took a bit longer to get persuaded and accept reality. However, there are certain people who insist on remaining in a trance, who are still blinded by their faith, and who fanatically refuse to see the real truth. They are still engaged in the audacity of hoping hopeless hope. Let us audaciously hope that they are not the majority when the time comes again in 2012.

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

Can we just step back for a few minutes, put aside all the little meddling points showcased by the propaganda machine media and political showmen, take a look at the following facts, and try to see the forest despite the trees?

An ‘alleged’ Mastermind executes a terror attack on September 11, 2001, with a few men, to be exact 19.

Our government responds by sending over at least 150,000 men and women.

 That ‘alleged’ Mastermind implements the 9/11 terror plot with a few hundred thousand dollars; in the range of $400,000.

Our government spends more than $1,000,000,000,000 in response, on wars on terror abroad, at least that much here at home, and keeps on spending.

Our government has been using lots of this:

To bomb the hell out of this:

Because we have this:

And they have only this:

The 9/11 Terrorist Attack cost us 2977 innocent lives. 19 terrorists’ also died on that day; resulting in 2996 deaths.

 In Afghanistan alone our government’s response has resulted in the deaths of more than 2600 coalition forces, at least 10,000 civilians, and many more thousands lumped together as Taliban, Militants or  simply unknown; our estimated total around 20,000.

We suffered greatly as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, with 2977 deaths, nearly 7000 treated for injuries, and tens of thousands suffering the losses of their loved ones.

As a nation we’ve been suffering continuously since then; for almost a decade: with thousands of our soldiers killed, many more thousands wounded, and many many more thousands of these men and women’s loved ones suffering the results. We have also been suffering the loss of trillions of our hard-earned tax dollars. For a decade; Continuously.

As a nation we’ve been causing lots of suffering too; for a decade; continuously. With tens of thousands of people we’ve killed and seriously injured, and with many more tens of thousands of orphans and loved ones left behind to suffer those losses.

Tens of thousands of lives. Trillions of dollars. Tens of thousands of disabled; orphans, and widows. Suffering there. Suffering here.

There must be ‘some ones’ out there immune to all this suffering. Obviously those ‘some ones’ have not been suffering. In fact ‘some ones’ must be gaining a lot from all this suffering.  And maybe, considering the tremendous level of ‘gains’ involved, ‘some ones’ actually want, thus, start and inflict the suffering. Otherwise what could ever explain this insanity?

Tens of thousands of lives lost there. Thousands of lives lost here. Tens of thousands more in pain; and many more mourning. Millions deprived of Trillions of hard-earned dollars. And there are those ‘some ones’ who have been earning billions of dollars from many millions’ sufferings; for almost a decade, and, continuously.

Who could these ‘some ones’ be? Any food for thought?

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

Newsworthy

U.S. Blocks Oversight of its Mercenary Army in Iraq

Egypt Military Postpones First Post-Mubarak Elections

Inside DARPA’s Secret Afghan Spy Machine

General Zia Expresses Concern over Instability in Balochistan

Central Asia & Caucasus: A Look at Tactics Used by Cyber Censors

A New Epoch Beginning in the History of the Euro?

****

US House Committee Saves Israeli Aid in Foreign Aid Cut

Financial Sectors Score Big Money for Obama Reelection

Murdoch’s Cash Lines Pockets of Members of Congress

Justice Department Trips in Anthrax Case- Again!

Next Army Chief Isn’t So Cool with a Smaller Force

New Study Proves Falsity of John Brennan’s Drone Claims

****

Which Side of American Torture Are You On?

Hell-Bent on War

US Afghan Strategy: Senseless & Merciless

Former ‘Antiwar’ Leader Shills for Obama

End America’s Role as a Military Empire

****

Video: The Founders Did Not Intend for the US to be Run by Big Banks & Wall Street

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

Newsworthy

US War Planes Attack Southern Iraq

Yemen Conflict: Generating More Child Soldiers

Carrots for India, Sticks for Pakistan

The Role of UN Security Council in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libya

Dubai Murder-Accused Had Kiwi Link?

A Brief List of Israeli Mossad’s Most Audacious Plots 

****

Pakistan Gave 4 Million Dollars to Illegal Kashmiri Lobby Group in Washington

Obama Top Recipient of Murdoch’s News Corp Donations?!

FBI ‘Anonymous’ Raid on Brooklyn Loft over DDOS Attack

Adding Up Human Cost of Iraq-Afghan Wars

****

How to Lobby for a Foreign Government & Not Get Arrested

Religious Wars in the Balkans was Orchestrated by USA & NATO

Idle Kingdom: Saudi Arabia’s Increasing Jobless Youth

****

Video- Ron Paul: ‘Freedom is a Young Idea & we are Throwing it Away’

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

Newsworthy

US Rebuffs Russians Ingenuity on Iran

Missile Shield in Turkey? NATO Military Action against Iran Implies Suicide

Drone War in Pakistan: Photos from the Ground Showing Civilian Casualties

Canadian Military Stages Show of Force against Russia in Arctic

How Israel Offered to Sell South Africa Nuclear Weapons

100 Hours in Israeli Detention for Trying to Visit Bethlehem

****

DOJ Lawyers Contradict FBI Findings in Anthrax Case

DOJ Casts Serious Doubt on its own Claim about the Anthrax Attack

 USS Cole Bombing Case “Too Tainted” for Death-Penalty Trial

Obama Nominates Former Ohio AG, A Loyal Democratic Donor, to Lead New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Hollywood Producer Was an Israeli Nuclear Agent

****

US War Dept Dances on the Ceiling

Predator Drones & the International Mafia

Imperial Priorities: Obedience First, Character Last

Afghanistan: Hearts, Minds & Murders

Austerity for Everyone, Except the DOD

****

Video 1: In the Past 6 Years Only One Palestinian Minor Acquitted out of 835 Charged with Stone-Throwing!

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

We began our series with a snapshot of Mega Corporate Foundations extending their tentacles to organizations and entities involved in government watchdog practices and grassroots activism. We summarized the classic story of the transformation from Government Watchdogs to Mega-Corporate Lapdogs. We presented to you the profile of “An Ideal Watch-Dog Lap-Dog” from the perspective of a well-known Mega Corporate Foundation-Carnegie: A Government Watch-Dog Lap-Dog that is loved & cherished by the entire government. Now it is time to take a look at the profile of a mini watch-dog lap-dog: the sugar daddies pouring large sums into their panties, how much money they get, who conducts and choreographs the lap-dance shows internally, and what they show and market as ‘performance’ to the public .

Project on Government Oversight (POGO)

Like many grassroots and government watchdog entities out there POGO started small and passionate with noble intentions and objectives:

While working for the National Taxpayers Legal Fund, Dina Rasor led its investigation into the C-5A transport aircraft. In February 1981 Rasor started “Project on Military Procurement”, as an arm of the Fund. The organization was intended as a watchdog group to perform oversight of the military. Early interests included the M1 Abrams tank. The Project first gained wide attention in the mid-1980s uncovering Pentagon waste and fraud by publishing reports, provided by whistleblowers, exposing $640 toilet seats, $7,600 coffee makers, $436 hammers and other overpriced spare parts used by the military. The group was renamed Project on Government Oversight in the late 1990s.

POGO’s mission was formulated and set to achieve the following noble objectives:

POGO’s range of investigations includes national defense and homeland security; abuse in government contracting; excessive secrecy that fails to consider the public good; and mismanagement of natural resources by federal agencies. POGO uses investigative journalism techniques to shed light on the government’s activities, including working with whistleblowers and anonymous sources and accessing information through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ..Corporate whistleblowers and government insiders bring POGO many of its investigative topics. POGO informs the public of its findings, mainly through reports that contain extensive documentation and recommendations for how to solve the problems identified.

All sounds good, actually great, no? We are talking about an organization that would be considered a government nightmare; right? We are talking about investigating government wrongdoings (crime, fraud, abuse, cover up…). We are talking about giving voice to government whistleblowers and putting their reports into an action; aren’t we? Okay, please hold that thought as we get into how eventually the opposite occurred: Government targets began to love POGO and started letting them inside to actually partner with them in ‘governing.’ I say eventually, because that started taking place several years after this organization was formed.

POGO spent a decade or so operating under a very tight budget and within the limitation of that tight budget they actually produced a few noteworthy reports and action items. Recall our classic story of the journey from a watch-dog to a lap-dog:

The group, emboldened by their recent success and strengthened by their newly-found public notice and support, was transformed from a loosely formed coalition with a common cause to a Watch-Dog Group. There were so many cases to tackle, so many corrupt practices to investigate, and way too many abusers to chase after; truly overwhelming. Granted, now they had some visibility that provided more clout, a certain level of public backing, and some experience – making future projects less daunting. But still. They needed more resources; more time and more manpower. So they scrambled and raised a humble amount of money from their public supporters and true believers. They turned their income-earning full-time jobs into part-time work, and spent more time on this noble cause. It was all good. It was all for the good.

POGO began pondering ways to expand and strengthen their base and reach, they needed to expand their humble operating budget, and angelic sounding and wisdom-reeking people with excellent connections and sound-sounding money-raising ideas began approaching them. These people knew the sugar daddies. These advisors knew what it took for POGO to go from tens of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. And they showed POGO the way, and POGO started to learn very quickly.

By 2000 POGO had reached a few hundred thousand dollar budget, and was salivating for more. And the ‘more’ was dangling right under their nose; albeit with a price tag.

In 2002, POGO received $ 432,053 in contributions. By 2003 POGO almost doubled that amount and reached $721, 547. By 2004 POGO broke over $1,000,000 (that is one million). By 2009 with total reported assets of $3,552,953.00 POGO has become the darling of the Rockefellers, George Soros, Carnegie, Ford, and of course, the United States Government- White House, Congress and all executive agencies. Take a look at this telling chart:

POGO Contribution Chart

Our financial analyst, Bill Bergman provided the following analyses:

2009 was a difficult year for the fund-raising business. Many not-for-profit organizations were hard-pressed to keep programs intact, with the pressures on donors coming amid the worst recession since the Great Depression. It wasn’t a tough year for the Project on Government Oversight, however. Total revenue more than doubled from 2008, rising from $1.4 million in 2008 to $3.5 million in 2009. Coincidentally, this was the first year for the new Obama Administration as well.

POGO’s Form 990 filings with the IRS show a large-scale decline in the organization’s ‘public support’ percentage in 2009. This line item backs out the share of contributions coming from individual donors that exceed 2% of total contributions (e.g. large individual donors), to arrive at a ‘public support’ estimate based on running five-year totals. In 2009, POGO’s five-year total ‘public support’ donations fell 2% from 2008, consistent with the difficult year, but the running five-year total for large (above 2%) donations nearly tripled, rising by $2.8 million. In turn, the ‘public support’ percentage fell sharply, from 72% in 2008 to 48% in 2009.

You may want to know more about the sources of these handsome payments to POGO. We have covered that here, but here is a brief profile of POGO’s main mega corporate-foundation sugar daddies, and what they’ve been paying POGO in the last two years:

Carnegie Corporation has paid POGO over $750,000.

George Soros has paid POGO a minimum of $700,000.

Ford Foundation has paid POGO $450,000.

Of course we have the Rockefeller Foundation and various Rockefeller family members who have been giving POGO handsome amounts. More importantly, we have bosses-donors that are classified by POGO as secret and ‘Anonymous.’ That’s right; you heard it right. POGO, who claims to investigate and report on government secrecy and cover ups is not willing to disclose a few ‘strategic’ fund-ers and keeps them classified-secret, aka anonymous. Here is an excerpt from Julia Davis:

POGO’s mission statement exclaims, “In order to preserve our independence, POGO does not accept contributions from the government, unions, corporations, or anyone with a financial stake in the outcomes of our investigations.” Obviously, there is no way POGO could guarantee that its anonymous contributors have no stake in the outcome of POGO’s investigations.

Who are these secret sugar daddies? A foundation set up by Blackwater? A foundation set up by the First Lady? No one knows. POGO doesn’t want you to know. And the three foundation sugar daddies certainly don’t want anyone to know.

You may want to ask: Where did these millions go at POGO? And the answer to that question is also very telling:

POGO Director (Lap dance Choreographer?) Danielle Brian’s ‘reportable compensation’ on the 2009 990 filing was $101,069.  Together with $19,409 in ‘estimated amount of other compensation’ (benefits), making a total of $120,000, up 10% from 2008, which was up 4% in turn from 2007. 

But wait, Danielle Brian was allowed to put her husband, Mr. Peter Stockton, on the payroll:

In POGO’s 2007 filing Danielle Brian’s husband shows up with $65,000 in ‘compensation,’ as a ‘senior investigator.’ That amount plus all the other benefits.

Interestingly, the salary information for Danielle Brian’s husband disappears after 2007 although he’s been there, receiving compensation and showing up as POGO’s face in various media reports. Our investigators contacted POGO for information on Danielle Brian’s husband’s salary, payments, and benefits and of course related perks. Despite numerous recorded phone calls and formal e-mails they were not provided with an answer or any reports or documents. POGO seems to consider this information ‘classified’ or ‘secret.’

Here is what our senior researcher Julia Davis had to report:

In 2009, salaries for the executive members of POGO reached $ 1,133,075.00. Year after year, the salary of POGO’s Executive Director, Danielle Brian, has been growing by leaps and bounds – from $ 78,852.00 in 2002 to $120,000+ in 2009 … At the same time, salaries for the majority of POGO staff are reported to be 0. Out of all POGO’s employees, Danielle Brian is the only one receiving a salary of over $100,000.00 dollars.

I want to emphasize again: In addition to the salaries and special benefits, these choreographers enjoy trips, retreats and perks provided to them by the mega sugar daddies. Let me give you an example:

In 2009 George Soros hand-picked Danielle Brian for a strategic (and quite perky) trip to Eastern Europe for her assistance in strengthening his tentacles over there. Here is a picture of Ms. Brian representing George Soros in Eastern Europe ironically titled “And here we are working hard later that evening”:

That’s right. After democratizing the USA and ending government secrecy and the persecution of government whistleblowers over here, George Soros sent Danielle Brian to democratize Eastern Europe and bring transparency to the governments over there!

In return, in addition to watchdog-turned-lapdog lap dance choreography,   executives like Danielle Brian can be counted on to provide additional ‘sugar daddy services’ outside the scope of their pseudo NGO work. Here is what Danielle Brian did when George Soros said: ‘come coochee coochee, come. Give a little yelp for my little boo boo case’:

Remember the ACORN Scandal? While Congress was trying to defund ACORN, Danielle Brian came rushing to George Soros side defending ACORN: 

The “some” who argue seem to be the Congressional Research Service (yes, they work for Nancy Pelosi) and a group called the Project on Government Oversight. Both claim that legislation defunding ACORN might be unconstitutional “bills of attainder.”

“The Senate language, I think, is plainly unconstitutional,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

Ms. Brian is not an attorney, and her supposed legal conclusion is just flat wrong. The Constitution does prohibit bills of attainder both by Congress (Article I, section 9) and state legislatures (Article I, section 10). A bill of attainder is a legislative act that subjects a person or group to punishment, a legislature acting like a criminal court. Because ACORN has no right to future government funding, Congress’s decision not to provide funding is not the same as a criminal sanction. It’s simply a congressional determination about how they are going to appropriate money. The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky provides additional analysis.

But why is a government oversight group that usually opposes questionable government spending now pushing sticks into the spokes of the effort to defund ACORN? Turns out the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) is funded by some of the same people who fund ACORN, including George Soros (Open Society Institute) and the Tides Foundation. In their last annual report, POGO called on government to “be free from conflicts of interest that undermine the integrity of their decisions.” Maybe POGO needs a dose of that same medicine?

Good little pooch, good!

Let’s not forget the scandalous Transparency Award given to Obama by POGO during a secret ceremony. Again, Sugar Daddies Soros, the Rockefellers, Carnegie and Ford, and highly likely the three Anonymous-Secret POGO fund-ers must have been very pleased with that particular lap-dance from their mini lap-dog.

How about ‘performance’? Well, if you listen to the Sugar Daddies they say: Superb. As Carnegie Corporation reported: The White House, the Executive Agencies, the Congress … all love POGO; so do we. In fact, these sugar daddies liken POGO to savvy investigative journalists. Here is what we have to say on this:

POGO operates with more than a $3.5 Million annual budget.

The average salary for investigative journalists: $34,000. Let’s make that ‘seasoned’ investigative journalists and add benefits and make it $65K.

The average salary for news editors: $35K-$50K. Let’s make that “Seasoned and Savvy” and make it $85K.

The average salary for Editor in Chief jobs in New York is listed as: $60K. Let’s make ours a ‘Superb’ one at $120K.

The Average Salary for webmasters is around $55K. Let’s make ours highly experienced at $75K

For $3.5 Million you can get:

15 Full-Time Seasoned Investigative Journalists at around $1 Million

4 Seasoned Editors at $340K

1 Top Notch Editor in Chief at $120K

3 Experienced Webmasters at $225K

1 Experienced Office Manager at $75K

4 Office clerks-administrators at $120K

Appropriate Sized Office Rent in DC area at $240K

…

To round it up: with $3 Million you’ll get a fairly large investigative news organization targeting the federal government with10- 15 full-time seasoned reporters, 4 editors, 1 top notch editor in chief, all the website and office managers and staff, an in house attorney, an accountant, a large office with all utilities.  You can add another $500K for travel and miscellaneous, and dozens of unpaid interns to do the nitty gritty and assistance…Can you imagine the level of reporting you could get with that? You’d get an unmatched investigative organization that would issue hundreds of reports every year, and expose hundreds of government scandals involving crime, fraud, waste, abuse, bribery…

Now please go check POGO’s track record and see what they have been producing for the last few years with those millions of dollars. You see what I mean?

As Danielle Brian put it to me in 2006: “…about 75% to 80% of our time and energy is spent on fundraising, managing the funds, and relationship maintenance with our board members.” Add to that the time and effort spent on giving awards and medals and honors to the executive and legislative branch such as:

2006 – POGO’s Good Government Award – POGO honored Senator John McCain

2010- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) received POGO’s Good Government Award on Friday

2005- Senator John Cornyn receives POGO’s first Bi-Partisan Leadership Award.

2002- Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA) was presented with POGO’s “Good Government Award”

2001- Philip Coyle III, former Pentagon Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, presented with POGO’s “Beyond the Headlines Award”,

2006 – POGO’s Good Government Award – POGO honored Representative Henry Waxman

2005- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) receives POGO’s first Bi-Partisan Leadership Award.

2010- POGO presents Representative Carolyn Maloney with POGO’s 2010 Good Government Award.

…

…and the list goes on…and even the President with the worst record in presidential history on transparency and government whistleblowers gets to receive an award from POGO albeit in secrecy!

$3.5+ Million to perform lap dances for mega sugar daddies, hand out awards, and offer one or two itsy bitsy reports. Keep watching this pet project of the mega corporations as it grows in budget, shrinks in performance, and remains the poster lap-dance fool for the megas.

Project on Government Oversight, a Government Watchdog turned Lap-Dog, provided to you by the Mega Corporate Foundations, giving you the illusion of activism, manufacturing consent, and fooling unknowing and trusting government whistleblowers.

# # # #

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

Previous Chapters in our Series:

Part I. The Tentacles of Megas

Part II. The Journey From Watch0Dogs to Lap-Dogs

Part III. A Watch-Dog for All Seasons

Video: The EyeOpener: Who Watches The Watchdogs?

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

James Bamford joins us to discuss the case of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, the government’s overreach in bringing espionage charges against him, and the Obama Administration’s unprecedented level of retaliation against government whistleblowers. He discusses the Obama Administration’s shift from military wars to covert-secret wars, the increased use of the CIA as a war branch, and Obama’s violation of the Presidential War Powers Act. Mr. Bamford talks about the CIA operations in Yemen and the use of cluster bombs there as early as December 2009, the implications of WikiLeaks, the absurdity of Obama’s Nobel Peace Award and his recently given Transparency Award, the ineffectiveness and uselessness of NSA in monitoring Osama Bin-Laden’s activities, the absence of real coverage and analyses in the US Mainstream Media, and more!

James Bamford is one of the country’s leading writers on intelligence and national security issues. His books include “The Puzzle Palace,” “Body of Secrets,” “A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies,” and most recently “ The Shadow Factory”. Mr. Bamford coproduced NOVA’s “The Spy Factory”, which was based on his latest book. He has written for many magazines, including investigative cover stories for The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post Magazine and The Los Angeles Times Magazine, and is a contributing writer for Rolling Stone. His 2005 Rolling Stone article “The Man Who Sold the War” won a National Magazine Award for reporting. He also spent a decade as the Washington investigative producer for the ABC News program, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, and taught at the University of California, Berkeley, as a distinguished visiting professor.

Here is our guest James Bamford unplugged!

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.

Last month, the EyeOpener investigated the “transparency award” that was bestowed on Obama this past March by a bevy of government watchdog NGOs who are ostensibly advocating for more government openness. As we saw in that report, dozens of high profile government whistleblowers and organizations have launched a petition at takeawardback.org calling on these NGOs to rescind the award in light of the Obama Administration’s abysmal record of government secrecy and unprecedented levels of whistleblower prosecution.

 In response to the petition, one of the NGOs named in our report posted a reply defending its decision to honor Obama on the transparency issue and questioning the motives of those opposing that decision. In the rebuttal, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) wrote:

“It is undeniable that the Obama administration has achieved more openness than any other recent president,” adding that “Public debate and disclosure is often healthy. But there is so much to be done to safeguard our rights and expand openness – our community just doesn’t have the luxury to waste time on distractions.”

A new investigation into the funding sources of the very NGOs who are supposed to be holding the government’s feet to the fire reveals some alternative explanations for why these organizations are so reluctant to call out the Obama administration for its egregious expansion of government secrecy.

The new series on Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and Corporate-Foundation Sugar Daddies looks further into corporate-foundations and Watch-Dogs turned Lap-Dogs. Here are the first two parts in our series:

Part I. The Tentacles of Megas: Reaching from the Government to the Emasculated Watchdogs

Part II. The Journey from Watch-Dogs to Lap-Dogs

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

I am not a big fan of ‘one size fits all.’ I do not subscribe to ‘everything is either black or white.’ I usually refrain from hasty labeling and categorization based on too few facts. With that said, and with no hesitation, I am about to tell you a classic story applicable to most, if not all, multi-million dollar profitable nonprofit  watchdog organizations with mega corporate-foundation sugar daddies. It is a sad story, but more importantly, it is a highly troubling pattern successfully disguised by the corporate media and corporate-foundation backed quasi alternative media. Because without seeing this pattern, without looking at the entire picture with all the pieces in place, people tend to chase their own tails or run around like headless chickens thinking they are engaged in some kind of active citizenry. Some groups exhaust themselves by futilely targeting elected officials, whether White House or Congress. Other groups burn out chasing after corporate-run media. Other people stumble upon each other protesting and screaming about mini scandals as they pop up at a bewildering rate. It is as if the ‘real culprits’ have put out these mock targets for people to waste their time chasing, targeting, and attempting to shoot.

The real culprits, the megas, hand pick political candidates and finance their election campaigns. They own the media. They fund and control any grassroots or watchdog NGOs that exhibit the tiniest sign of success, visibility and or viability. They foresee we the people’s easily foreseeable reaction and possible restlessness or dissent, and make sure it is properly misinformed, misguided, channeled, and diverted. Thus, the small minority of active citizens continues to become exhausted, burned out, and never gets anywhere. Then, the cycle repeats itself; again, again, and again.

Okay, back to the classic story of government watch-dogs turned into lap-dogs.

Once upon a time there was a passionate and visionary person. This person came across a major government corruption or fraud case. He took it upon himself to research and investigate the case; most likely after his daytime work was finished, after his children’s bedtime, while sitting behind his computer in the basement of his home. He was driven by his strong sense of justice and honesty, and his feverish passion to expose and hopefully put an end to the injustice and corruption he had discovered. Along the way he found a couple of comrades who shared his vision, and they too kept working, researching and investigating. They found sources within the target agency, aka whistleblowers, who provided them with inside information and leads, and they made sure they protected the sources anonymity.

And then, bam! The passionate and visionary group realized they had piled up enough data and smoking guns to fire, and they fired. They published their report, worked hard to disseminate it, and gained attention with their uncovering of a certain government agency’s  waste and fraud. They earned deserved applause from the general public, even various media publications. It became one of those admired David v. Goliath stories. A ‘real’ one. A ‘genuine’ one.

Then came the second chapter in this story: The earning of the attention and wrath of the affected bosses, and their bosses- the megas.

The intermediate bosses, the executive bureaucrats and appointees, were filled with contempt and rage over the exposure of their fraudulent and corrupt practices. They, known to be reactionaries, wanted to exterminate this newly formed idealistic and driven coalition; they wanted to shut them up-shut them down. If they had their way, they would have collected dirt on this group, or even better, they would have made up dirt. They knew various ways to use the media to marginalize dogs like this. They knew channels that could get them persecuted or prosecuted. But …

The intermediate bosses’ bosses, the megas, known for their shrewd, calculated, and long-term planning capabilities reined them in. Short term solutions could have short and long term negative consequences. Short term solutions, even if good, would have short-lived benefits. This was not the first time they were facing a tiny little adversary group of dogs with surprisingly well developed testicles, thus, a fairly loud bark, and a pretty good set of sharp teeth. They had nearly a century of experience with little dogs like that, coming along once in a blue moon. The megas and their long term tentacles in key government agencies had developed a good solution, a well-devised mechanism, to deal with ‘dogs’ like this. The key component of their long-proven successful method was to emasculate the watch-dogs and turn them into loyal lap-dogs: Reduce the watch-dogs’ testicles size and functionality by attaching strings to them weighted down by anchors, and afterwards file down the watch-dogs’ teeth, one-by-one.

Back to the newly formed coalition, high on success, eyes bright with resolve, and ready to take on the intermediate rulers’ fraud, abuse, and corruption.

The group, emboldened by their recent success and strengthened by their newly-found public notice and support, was transformed from a loosely formed coalition with a common cause to a Watch-Dog Group. There were so many cases to tackle, so many corrupt practices to investigate, and way too many abusers to chase after; truly overwhelming. Granted, now they had some visibility that provided more clout, a certain level of public backing, and some experience – making future projects less daunting. But still. They needed more resources; more time and more manpower. So they scrambled and raised a humble amount of money from their public supporters and true believers. They turned their income-earning full-time jobs into part-time work, and spent more time on this noble cause. It was all good. It was all for the good.

And again, they had another successful round, bringing them more recognition and further public cheering and support, and with it raised expectations-both from themselves and the public in general. If only they could afford an office and more and better computers. If only they could hire a few researchers to conduct the nitty-gritty research and footwork, leaving them free for the major aspects of the tasks at hand. If only they could afford to travel and meet with some of their out of town sources and whistleblowers. If only they were able to afford legal advice to maneuver the treacherous channels…If only. This ‘if only’ would become the major determinant in whether the story would stop right here, or, enter the next chapter, chapter three: when the corporate-foundations guardian angels started arriving.

The megas who had been closely watching the newly formed government Watch-Dog Group (I say closely because the megas have their ways and channels to keep close tab on their enemies, even those perceived as tiny little enemies). For them now was the right time to slowly make their entry into the Watch-Dog circle and make their way toward getting at these dogs’ testicles and teeth, and begin the emasculation process.

As the Watch-Dogs pondered ways to expand and strengthen their base and reach, angelic sounding and wisdom-reeking people with excellent connections and sound-sounding ideas began approaching them. Here are some examples of the dialogue between the Watch-Dogs (WD) and the angelic-sounding advisors (ASA):

ASA: “You certainly need some savvy PR people and legal advisors, and a few experienced researchers.”

WD: “Sigh. You think we don’t know. The problem is; how do we get the badly-needed funds to accomplish all that?…”

ASA: “Surely you can. Of course, you must organize and set yourself up better, before you can even begin to raise those needed funds…I know a few people and noble foundations who would love to help you out, but you are not ready yet…that is, organizationally speaking.”

WD: “And how is that?”

ASA: “ Well, I would start with a solid Board of Directors, and after that, a distinguished Board of Advisors for your organization.”

WD: “That sounds so bureaucratic. Wouldn’t that restrict our decision-making process? With all those people on board, wouldn’t it be harder and much slower making decisions and getting things done?”

ASA: “ Not at all. The alternative is what? You end up working yourself to exhaustion, and achieve very little if anything. Add to that the size of the enemies-the targets you are after, and you know…Of course, it is your decision.”

WD: “ And what do these foundations and generous people want in return? We pride ourselves on being independent and nonpartisan…”

ASA: “Oh, don’t be silly. Just look around you. How many successful and powerful Watch-Dogs do you see out there without big foundation and large donor funding? The ones who didn’t make it, the ones you don’t see, were the ones that didn’t know how to go about getting foundation support and raising funds.”

So the wise and angelic sounding new friends, the megas’ messengers and small-level players, made their way into the Watch-Dog group and started planting the seeds of ‘Grand NGOs via Grand Grants via Grand Foundations.’

 The Watch-Dogs didn’t see any harm in putting together a Board of Directors. Of course, the wise and angelic sounding advisors were always there to show them the way:

WD: “Okay, so the three of us and two of our recently retired whistleblowers-sources will be on our board of directors…”

ASA: “That is so cute. It is simply adorable. BUT, it doesn’t work that way. You want a distinguished and experienced group of people. I would say, at least 10-12 distinguished people who are connected to and familiar with the foundations that will be providing you with grants. Maybe a few scholarly academic people who already work with-for these foundations and wealthy individual donors…”

WD: “Hell. How are we going to find and persuade these people to come and sit on our board?!”

ASA: “Oh, don’t be so pessimistic. They would be honored. We’ll give you a list. In fact, we would be more than happy to be the conduit…”

And slowly but surely the Watch-Dogs began implementing their wise and angelic sounding advisors’ to-do list. They established a large and distinguished-sounding Board of Directors. They put together a lengthy list of impressive-looking advisors. They began frequenting cocktail parties. They made their way into the circle of corporations and foundations which form the corporate-foundations, and of course wealthy individuals and philanthropists. They had very little time left for their ‘real’ objectives; the watch-dog-ing, but they considered it a temporary thing. Once they had the needed funds and resources, once they had the dollar guarantees, then, well then they could get busy and do tons of watch-dog-ing.

Months went by, and then years. The Watch-Dog Group, now Watch-Dog Organization, expanded; that is, in budget size, staff size, and office size. Per their Board of Directors and Board of Advisors instructions, aka advice, they replaced the director, their original founder, with a savvier, aka shrewder, person who knew how to handle and please the entire Board of Directors, Board of Advisors, and of course, the corporate-foundations and individual wealthy donors. They spent a lot of time in cocktail party circles, at wealthy foundations-grantees retreats, and on legal calculations, tax calculations, public relations…Of course, they did some Watch-Dog-ing work, or more like Watch-Dog-ish mini projects, and they learned how to make their mini Watch-Dog-ish projects sound like grand Watch-Dog projects. It was an art, and their board members were all masters of this particular art.

As for the megas, by this time they considered their emasculation project completed and yet another long-term success:

The megas’ men and women had penetrated the group as members of the board. They now watched the watch-dogs very closely; every move and every plan. They now ruled the watch-dogs. They reported back on all the anonymous sources within the government agencies that were naively providing information to the watch-dogs, and helped the megas and intermediate government bosses keep tabs on all these insiders-whistleblowers.

The Dogs were placed on a very tight leash. They had built new lives based on highly addictive handsome salaries and benefits: They had bought seven figure houses, enrolled their kids in prep schools, and had grown dependent on high dollars and perks. Their staff’s livelihoods were also dependent upon the same high dollars. The maintenance of their luxury-filled lives and their dozens of staff had become the number one objective, their first priority.

The Watch-Dogs’ testicles were pulled down and dragged on the ground by the attached multi-strings and weighty anchors – the money from their corporate-foundations’ sugar daddies.

With the testicles almost gone, the Watch-Dogs’ barks became high-pitched and far less audible; more like a wimpy yelp than an actual watch-dog bark. And they whimpered and yelped only once in a while.

As for the teeth, slowly but surely they were filed and ground down; every one of them; one-after-another.

Basically, in the end, there was not much left of the original Watch-Dogs. Without testicles, with their teeth gone, with an embarrassing yelp rather than a bark, and of course, with their newly acquired lap-dance skills to obtain the highly-addictive foundation grants, they now were officially considered Lap-Dogs- Lap-Dogs of the Corporate-Foundation Sugar Daddies.

 # # # #

Coming Up Next: 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.

Russ Baker joins us to discuss the case of the former Israeli Spy Chief Meir Dagan, who contends that Israel’s top leaders lack judgment, considers a military attack on Iran “a stupid idea”, and criticizes Israel for having failed to put forward a peace initiative with the Palestinians by foolishly ignoring the Saudi peace initiative promising full diplomatic relations in exchange for a return to the 1967 border lines. He talks about the Obama administration’s harsh and hawkish stand on Iran, the evidence pointing to a plan to create an “Arab Spring” for the Good Old Boys—CIA, banks, and oil companies, the poor journalism by the mainstream media in covering Libya and the alleged crimes committed by Qaddafi as a part of a larger disinformation effort of the sort that has always been part and parcel of war, and more!

Russ Baker is an award-winning investigative journalist and the author of Family of Secrets- – the Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. He has written for The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Village Voice and Esquire. He has served as a contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review, and is the founder of WhoWhatWhy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organization.

Here is our guest Russ Baker unplugged!

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

The mega billionaires of the mega corporations directly influence and control the mega public servants – think from presidents down to presidents’ appointees. Some aptly refer to these ‘megas’ collectively as the shadow government. The mega billionaires of the mega corporations set up mega foundations to channel, centralize and control grassroots dissent and activism in order to shield and protect their mega interests. The little watchdogs turned lapdogs and activists turned puppets run the nitty gritty errands, and do their dirty work under the pretense of activism and watchdog-ism for their mega masters while they dream of becoming mega NGOs. If we get past the illusions, all that pretense, and the entire smoke and mirrors settings, we see a mega country ruled and run by these mega elites and their errand boys making mega profits and with every passing day becoming even more mega. But that is a big ‘if.’ Because the mega tentacles of these megas have also wrapped themselves tightly around educational channels and media outlets – coercing them into producing mega lies and more illusions.

Have you had enough mega? I have. I am sick and tired of fighting megas everywhere and feeling like Don Quixote day in and day out. Whether it is elected representatives being bought out by the megas, thus mainly representing the megas, or, mini megas down the ladder in the media pumping more smoke into the atmosphere already filled with smoke and mirrors, I am sick of megas. So let’s put  megas in general aside for a while and discuss a few specific examples. Since our series deals with self-proclaimed transparency and government whistleblowers NGOs funded primarily by a handful of megas, let’s talk about these megas, their tentacles in the government and wrapped around these NGOs. Let’s talk about Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and their mega masters: Soros, Carnegie, Rockefellers and Ford.

It is one thing to have big corporations set up foundations to help with…let’s say the homeless and with setting up soup kitchens to feed the poor or maybe even funding art projects. However, it is an entirely different ball game when the corporation foundations who are heavily entrenched in high-level governmental positions start funding, thus influencing and controlling, the NGOs’ that claim to be government watchdogs. I mean come on, you have a powerful billionaire X who finances elected officials and presidents big time, who places his J, K, L, M, N men and women in the government, and turns around, funds and controls government watchdog NGOs who are supposedly watching, investigating, and reporting on that same government that is financed and managed by their master, billionaire X.

Carnegie Corporation is one of POGO’s primary donors. This mega contributed $350,000 in 2008 and $400,000 in 2010 to POGO. That’s a lot of zeros, no? Okay, at the same time, Carnegie is a major supporter of White House presidents and in return, the presidents are very grateful to Carnegie, so grateful that they like to handpick their appointees from (or maybe be given their list of appointees by) Carnegie Corporation. Let’s check out a few Carnegie-Executive Branch appointees; let’s take a look at a few Carnegie men and women in US government and other related institutions; shall we?

Richard Celeste

Celeste served as a Director of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Celeste with Thomas Kean (co-chaired the 9/11 Commission) co-chairs the Homeland Security Project for The Century Foundation. He also sits on the board of the Independent Strategic Assessment Group, United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which is the military command over the USA established in the wake of the attacks of September 11.

Thomas Kean

Speaking of Thomas Kean, the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, let’s note his position as the current Chairman of the Carnegie Corporation and how he has been the trustee of the Corporation for several terms.

Vartan Gregorian

Gregorian served as president of Carnegie Corporation and a trustee. In June 2009 President Obama appointed Gregorian to the President’s commission on White House Fellowships.

Sam Nunn

Another Carnegie man, Mr. Nunn is currently an informal advisor to President Obama. He is married to Coleen O’Brian who used to be employed by the CIA.

William J. McDonough

Another Carnegie Corporation Trustee, William J. McDonough served as president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from July 1993 to July 2003. He has been a director of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1995.

***Other noteworthy Carnegie men and women with high-level executive branch/White House roles include Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Pickering, and Vannevar Bush.

You see, the last thing these Carnegie Corporation-Foundation-Government men and women would want is independent, fierce, and ‘real’ government watchdog organizations on their back. It simply wouldn’t work for them. Naturally, these megas would want to own and control the watchdogs; they would want to emasculate and tame the watchdogs – turning them into their lapdogs.

Let’s look at another mega donor with stakes at what government watchdogs so. The Ford Foundation is the second-largest philanthropy in the United States, with more than $10.5 billion in assets and $500 million in annual giving. It celebrates its 75th anniversary of philanthropic leadership in 2011. Well, this mega, in 2010, gave POGO $450,000. There are way too many Ford men and women who’ve been in high-level government positions, so I will just take a couple of examples from the present administration:

Luis A Ubinas

Luis A. Ubiñas is president of the Ford Foundation. He joined the board of Electronic Arts in November 2010 and has been nominated by President Obama to serve on the U.S. Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiation.

Timothy Geithner

Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Geithner’s father, Peter F. Geithner, was the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York in the 1990s. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner was in charge of the Ford Foundation’s microfinance programs in Indonesia, where he oversaw the work of Mr. Obama’s mother, who developed the organization’s microfinance programs in Indonesia.

One of the excuses provided by POGO for giving that ludicrous award to the worst president in US history when it comes to government transparency and whistleblowers was: we wanted to gain access to White House, have the President’s ear for our noble government watchdog agendas. I would say that through their mega masters, their donors, POGO has way too much access to (and coziness with) the government. Wouldn’t you?

Then we have megas such as the Rockefeller Dynasty. POGO receives big dollars not only from the Rockefeller foundation, but also from their family members individually. Remember that Rockefeller Senator we‘ve had in the Senate for years? Well, he has never been ‘really’ touched by POGO, even when he participated in allowing (and keeping secret) the Bush administration’s illegal wiretapping of Americans. Now add to that the extreme fondness of the Rockefellers when it comes to President Obama, and you’d expect they’d double or maybe even quadruple their grants to POGO for presenting their boy with a ‘Transparency Award.’

Here is one Rockefeller family member supplementing the Rockefeller foundation’s grant to POGO as an individual:

Alida Rockefeller Messinger

Ms. Rockefeller- Messinger has been contributing over $10,000 annually to POGO as an individual donor. She is Senator Jay Rockefeller’s sister, and is listed as a major contributor to Obama’s inaugural committee.

And here are a couple of Rockefeller- Obama men:

William Daley

Mr. Daley is Obama’s Chief of Staff. Daley used to work for JPMorgan Chase. The Chase-side of JP Morgan has long been known as “David Rockefeller’s bank” and the Rockefeller influence has continued after Chase merged with JP Morgan in 2000.

Ariel Pablos-Méndez

He was appointed by Obama as the Assistant Administrator for Global Health, USAID. At the time he was serving as Managing Director at the Rockefeller Foundation

As for Mr. Soros and his Open Society Institute? That mega happens to be the daddy of all POGO mega masters. Mr. Soros’ Grant to POGO topped all donors at $700,000 (“This grant was co-funded with the Transparency and Integrity Fund). I don’t believe I need to provide too much when it comes to Mr. Soros’ support of our current president during his presidential campaign, spilling over to his post presidency inauguration. Do I?

For Obama’s Inauguration, Mr. Soros gave the maximum $50,000 individual contribution, as did four members of his family, for a total Soros donation of $250,000.

The Soros family gave a collective $60,000 to Obama, and that was only for his primary challenge. Mr. Soros’ tentacles, including MoveOn.ORG, provided millions of dollars worth of services for Obama’s presidency campaign.

With all of this would mega Soros want his boy truly watched? Did he deem that transparency award as an ingredient for his boy’s next election run? I’d say considering his mega investments in this boy, he certainly would; wouldn’t you?

Of course we have POGO’s ‘Anonymous’ donors. Are they megas? Unfortunately for us, and maybe fortunately for POGO, we have no way of knowing, since this transparency-watchdog organization has declared them secret aka anonymous. I would say watch that POGO site. Probably the number of listed ‘Anonymous’ donors will go up, or, the list of their mega donors will disappear all together. Maybe we should consider giving POGO one of their kind of transparency awards for the sake of irony.

# # # #

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

Coming Up Next: The journey from Watch-Dog to Lap-Dog

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

I also encourage you to check out this page at POGO and download the information. Lately information and comments posted at their site and facebook have been disappearing, and with our upcoming series it would be good to have the following list:

POGO’s Foundation Contributors in FY08 Include:

Anonymous (2)
The Arca Foundation
Francis Beidler Trust
The Herb Block Foundation
Harold and Stephanie Bronson Fund of the Liberty Hill Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Cavallo Foundation Inc.
Connect US Fund of Tides Foundation
Colombe Foundation
C.S. Fund
Everett Philanthropic Fund of the New York Community Trust
The Ford Foundation
The Fund for Constitutional Government
The David B. Gold Foundation
Helfrich Family Fund
HMJS Marks Fund of The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Robert & Ardis James Foundation
The Lawrence Foundation
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
The New-Land Foundation, Inc.
Open Society Institute
Park Foundation
Pew Charitable Trusts
The Purple Lady/Barbara J. Meislin Fund
Ploughshares Fund
Revenue Watch Institute
Rockefeller Family Fund
The Scherman Foundation, Inc.
William B. Wiener Jr. Foundation

A few facts and points to keep in mind:

The foundation donor information at their site is not ‘up-to-date.’ Our researchers have obtained the incredibly interesting and fairly current foundation donors information, and we’ll provide you with that data in our upcoming reports.

Please pay close attention to two ‘Anonymous’ donors listed at the top. For a self-proclaimed transparency and anti-secrecy organization it is very odd. For example, in reviewing Obama White House ties with POGO donor foundations and the ludicrous transparency award how do we include or exclude ‘anonymous’ donors and their potential conflict of or overlapping interest? You get it, right?

Remember, this is only their list of foundation donors. It does not include individual large $$$ donors and their relationship to the primary corporate- foundation donors. For example, one of their deep pockets individual donors happens to be Alida Rockefeller Messinger who is the sister of Senator Jay Rockefeller, and the daughter of John D. Rockefeller III, thus, a member of (owner of?) Rockefeller corporation funds funding the Rockefeller corporation-foundation. You see what I’m getting at, right?

Pay close attention to Soros’ Open Society Institute, Rockefeller Family Fund, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Ford Foundation.

Again, I highly recommend Corbett’s interview with Mr. Marshall. It will provide you with solid historical and contextual facts.

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

In 2006 I made and announced a decision. I was not going to expand and institutionalize my National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC); we were not going to raise a single dollar from foundations, that is, corporate foundations, or wealthy donors. The price attached to doing so, the strings attached in becoming dependent on those funds and donors would have defeated the mission and objectives of NSWBC. It was a firm and absolute decision; one I’ve stuck with to date.

In April 2009, in one of my weekly round ups, I included a disturbing report showing that the antiwar movement in the US demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success.

Earlier this month I coauthored a petition asking five self-proclaimed transparency organizations to publicly take back their “transparency award” to Barack Obama. The release of the petition was followed by articles on Project on Government Oversight (POGO) questioning the real reason(s) and agenda behind their ludicrous and highly damaging act.

Now, what do the above facts have in common?

Well, it comes down to asking the question ‘why’ rather than multiple what’s.

In 2005-2006 I had close and intimate encounters with the convoluted and typically dirty world of corporate foundations and partisan agendas forming and ruling political government watchdog and related institutions. Last March I tried to give you a little glimpse of how these dealings, compromises (more like sell outs), and typical ‘smoke & mirrors’ creations work by providing you with one personal example out of many. You start getting a little bit of visibility as a grassroots coalition, and ‘they’ come to you dangling the carrots-the badly needed funds to do more. Initially, they don’t ask much in return; maybe a few of their guys and gals on the board of directors they want you to set up, or, a gentle request to tone down certain criticisms of a certain congressman from a certain party. All that in the initial stage.

The same phenomenon applies to funding and publicizing antiwar movements. The ones at the top, the ones with the funds, the ones with the publicity and organizational resources, are the ones that decide when atrocious illegal wars need opposing, and when equally or more atrocious wars need not.

And the exact same factor determines that one awful anti-transparency and anti-whistleblowers president gets to be publicly and directly attacked, while another equally or more awful anti-transparency and anti-whistleblowers president gets to be given an award ludicrously tagged as ‘Transparency Award.’

Back to the question of ‘why.’

While we have tons of resources (articles, discussions, blogs, academic reports, etc.) on widely known diseases such as the corporate mainstream media, corrupt and sold-out elected officials, and the corporate lobby, we don’t seem to have much out there on the convoluted corporate foundations set up to reign in, centralize and control dissent, grassroots activism, and various nonprofit watchdog organizations and coalitions.

It is really interesting. Flags are quickly raised when Bill Gates or Exxon or BP mix in and weigh in to the political world. Yet, somehow, the mega billionaires’ and corporations’ foundations, those established by the same mega oil, banking and financial institutions, and their intimate ties to the political machine raises very few eyebrows; goes under-reported and under-scrutinized.

I couldn’t care less whether the corporate foundations come from the ‘R’ spectrum, think Heritage Foundation, or the ‘D’ spectrum, think George Soros and the Rockefellers. That’s totally irrelevant; one of those self-defeating distractions.  However, since the context happens to be President Obama’s joke of an award, since our upcoming case studies deal with current issues, whether drying up the antiwar movement or pumping cash into those tasked with handing out awards and medals, I’ll be focusing on certain corporate foundations.

Starting today we are going to publish a discussion and analysis series on mega corporations-foundations and their process of channeling dissent and real activism, turning watchdogs into lapdogs, and establishing needed control. We’ll present you with real dollar numbers, on the record Government-Foundation ties, and have you join us in asking the ‘why’ questions and finding the answers to them; together.

For this project I will have a disclaimer and a warning.

My disclaimer will read something like this: Boiling Frogs Post has not received a single dime from any foundation, corporation, or wealthy individual donor; ever. This website is solely operated by individual readers’ kind donations.

And my warning goes something like this: Be warned and prepared- the series you are reading will receive fierce attacks and or censorship by many quasi alternative media outlets and quasi lapdog organizations with glorious titles. You may want to check their names and organizations against lists such as this one, and you’ll know why

We will be investigating Project on Government Oversight (POGO) as our example-case study and their primary fund-ers: George Soros, Rockefeller(s) foundation and family members, Carnegie Corporation and a few others, and then we will look back at President Obama’s Transparency Award advocated for and given to him by POGO. As part of this new series we’ll have a video from James Corbett, but meanwhile check out this recent fabulous clip at Corbett Report on one of POGO’s Sugar Daddies, Rockefeller Foundation- The Last Word on Snake Oil:

This post was meant to be a brief announcement on our upcoming article and video series, but somehow got lengthy. I am going to attribute it to an exhausting trip back home today and the trauma of seeing those TSA agents in 3 airports in one day! Please stay tuned.

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

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, a husband and wife team, began their experience in Afghanistan when they were the first American journalists to acquire permission to enter behind Soviet lines in 1981 for CBS News and produced a documentary, Afghanistan Between Three Worlds, for PBS. In 1983 they returned to Kabul with Harvard Negotiation project director Roger Fisher for ABC Nightline and contributed to the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour. They continued to research, write and lecture about the long-term run-up that led to the US invasion of Afghanistan. They are featured in an award winning documentary by Samira Goetschel. Titled, Our own Private Bin Laden which traces the creation of the Osama bin Laden mythology in Afghanistan and how that mythology has been used to maintain the “war on terror” approach of the Bush administration. Their recent book, Crossing Zero, focuses on the nuances of the Obama administration’s evolving military and political strategy, those who have been chosen to implement it, and the long-term consequences for the U.S. and the region. Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story published by City Lights, January 2009 chronicles their three-decade-focus on Afghanistan and the media.

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

Have you ever pulled over your car on a highway shoulder to be a Good Samaritan and help a driver of a broken car desperately in need of assistance? Have you done it despite the heavy traffic, and a remaining long commute to get home after an exhausting long shift at work? Do you remember thinking ‘hope someone, some day, will do the same for me or my loved one’?

Have you ever found a wallet or a cell phone, and then taken the time and effort to locate and contact the owner? Have you done it despite a hectic schedule, having a long to-do list, and in the midst of daily crisis and demands? Do you recall thinking ‘hope someday, someone, will do the same for me?’

Have you ever been before a federal court judge, with your rights being taken away one by one, your entire biographical existence being classified one after another, and during all this, your entire legal team and advisors being removed from the court room in order to make the screwing of your Constitutional rights completely secret and unobserved? I have:

A federal court in Washington yesterday took the rare step of closing an entire oral argument to the public in the case of a former FBI translator who says she was fired for complaining about security breaches. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit announced that today’s 30-minute argument in the case of Sibel Edmonds, a Middle Eastern language specialist fired in 2002, will be conducted behind closed doors. The court gave no reason for its decision.

…

The unsettling story of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds took another twist on Thursday, as the government continued its seemingly endless machinations to shut her up. The U.S. Court of Appeals here denied pleas to open the former FBI translator’s First Amendment case to the public, a day after taking the extraordinary step of ordering a secret hearing. 

…

I am not going to recount that incredibly awful experience as far as the butchering of our Constitution and liberties goes. Instead I want to briefly recount a minor detail with a major effect on me.

As always on that rainy April day in court there weren’t many mainstream media, or even alternatives to speak of. Of course I had a few family members and supporters who had become my close friends. However, among those few people in front of the court stood a young man who walked up to me and said: ‘I truly appreciate and support your efforts, and I am here in solidarity.’ I asked if he was with one of the DC coalitions or organizations. He said ‘No,’ and added, ‘I drove all night last night to get here. I live in Kentucky, and after reading about the upcoming trial I decided to drive to DC and be here for you. I know the addition of one person is not much help, but still, better than none…’

He was right. But he was also wrong. He was right in what he believed and put in action. But he was wrong about the addition of one person not being of much help. It helped me tremendously. It had a major effect on my resolve to keep pushing. It had a long-lasting impact on believing in the power of one. It turned my battle from one’s battle to one’s cause. And much more.

I was thinking of all this yesterday when I started reading about the protests and demonstrations for whistleblowers rights and transparency being organized around the Grand Jury investigations of Wikileaks and Bradley Manning.

Human rights defenders are presently heading to an Alexandria, Virginia courthouse to protest United States human rights violations of whistleblowers, targeted individuals persecuted for opposing government corruption, illegal wars, and unjust foreign policies. The Bradley Manning Support Network’s founding member David House, ordered to testify today, Wednesday, June 15, before a federal Grand Jury in the WikiLeaks investigation, will be met by some of America’s strongest rights defenders plus others demonstrating outside the courthouse at 9:30am ET before House enters the courthouse at 10:30am.

 Human rights advocates defending the rights of whistleblowers will also be demonstrating at 6:00 ET today in Boston, House’s city of residence.

…

 “By conducting the people’s business in secret and persecuting transparency advocates, government decision-makers have abandoned core American values.” (Emphasis added)

 According to the Bradley Manning’s Support Network, the protests are designed for supporting David House, opposing the grand jury investigation of WikiLeaks, and gaining attention to the ongoing pretrial confinement of PFC Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army intelligence analyst who stands accused of blowing the whistle on illegal and unjust foreign policies.

…

And I wanted to tell these protesters, organizers, and you, that what they do counts; no matter what the results or documentable success by various measures. I wanted to say that every single person’s participation makes a difference. I wanted to emphasize that every single action and participation, however small, is never too small or insignificant.

I know how easy it is for people to shrug off the importance of one signature, one participation, or any one action item. I know how often we disregard an opportunity to participate or contribute, and justify it to ourselves as ‘one signature won’t make any difference,’ or ‘one additional body in a demonstration won’t be noticed or felt,’…Please resists that tendency. Please overcome that defeatist pull. Please. Because for every one of these:

The Washington Post yesterday reported that a widespread FBI investigation has been invading the privacy of various groups of political activists, prompting objections from many civil libertarians on First Amendment grounds. This particular probe included “subpoenas to 23 people and raids of seven homes last fall.”

 The search was part of a mysterious, ongoing nationwide terrorism investigation with an unusual target: prominent peace activists and politically active labor organizers.

 …The apparent targets, all vocal and visible critics of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and South America, deny any ties to terrorism. They say the government, using its post-9/11 focus on terrorism as a pretext, is targeting them for their political views.

They are “public non-violent activists with long, distinguished careers in public service, including teachers, union organizers and antiwar and community leaders,” said Michael Deutsch, a Chicago lawyer and part of a legal team defending those who believe they are being targeted by the investigation.

Add this to the multi-year FBI effort to investigate self-described anarchist and political activist Scott Crow who has been deemed a domestic terrorist and arrested a dozen times, despite having never been convicted of anything. They tracked his phone calls and emails, infiltrated his community of activists with undercover informants, sat outside his house in unmarked cars surveying his activities and visitors, went through his trash to find his personal finance documents, colluded with the IRS in a failed attempt grab him for tax evasion, and installed cameras along street poles outside his home, among other things. Mr. Crow filed a Freedom of Information Act request and got about 440 semi-redacted pages of the 1200 total pages of FBI documents on him.

  We need to have more of these:

 The following petition was co-written by Coleen Rowley and me, and has been backed by more than 25 government whistleblowers and over 20 organizations. Awarding the worst president in US history when it comes to government whistleblowers with a Transparency Award is a huge insult. Presenting a president who has dramatically increased government secrecy with an Anti-Secrecy Award is ridiculous. Rewarding one of the worst US presidents when it comes to invocation of unconstitutional state secrets privilege is ludicrous. This award is a major insult to all liberty-loving Americans. This award is a slap to all freedom-liberty seeking activists. This award is dumb, highly damaging, and extremely dangerous by what it says it represents. Please stand up and say ‘NO’ to this award by signing this petition. I urge you to demand that this award be taken back immediately. I implore you to not let them get away with this in your name. I am asking you to sign this petition and encourage everyone you know to do the same. Don’t let them mock our nation, our people and our values: Take Obama’s Transparency Award Back Now.

 Today, when I was having one of those defeatist and negative moments, I reached out to two friends. They helped pick me up, and this is what one of them sent me:

 “The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing—for the sheer fun and joy of it— to go right ahead and fight, knowing you’re going to lose. You mustn’t feel like a martyr. You’ve got to enjoy it.” —I. F. STONE

 Two days ago we started our petition campaign Take Obama’s Transparency Award Back. The organizations that awarded this awful president are not hearing you. They are not acknowledging you. So far, they are refusing to take their award back, with an added insult. Maybe we are not screaming loud enough. Maybe not enough people are resisting the negative pull. Please overcome that. Please shout louder, or at least take a few seconds and sign the petition here:

Take Obama’s Transparency Award Back

And or tell these organizations that you count:

Tel: (202) 347-1122

Blog Site: http://pogoblog.typepad.com

Please help us accomplish this and then move to our next campaign: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.

Sibel Edmonds

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

By Julia Davis

In response to the petition from numerous groups and whistleblowers, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) authored a blog on POGO’s website. While POGO’s response doesn’t contain any earth-shattering revelations, some of the attempts to justify the “Transparency Award” recently given to President Obama warrant a response.

POGO recently pondered whether they should buy a 30-second video spot on the CBS videotron in Times Square. They asked whistleblowers for feedback about the billboard. Unfortunately, they didn’t ask for feedback when it really mattered – prior to bestowing a Transparency Award upon President Obama. Now, in light of the mounting pressure to rescind this award, POGO dismissively refers to our opposition as a mere “distraction”.

Looking Forward, Moving Backward

POGO disingenuously claims that the Bush administration is at fault for the ongoing investigations and prosecutions against whistleblowers, undertaken by the current administration. In POGO’s blog describing the conversation with President Obama on the day when he received a “Transparency Award”, Danielle Brian wrote: 

“I noted, however, that the current aggressive prosecution of national security whistleblowers is undermining this legacy… The President shifted in his seat and leaned forward. He said he wanted to engage on this topic because this may be where we have some differences.“

POGO claims that the ongoing prosecutions of whistleblowers simply happened to “ripen” just in time to be pursued by this administration. Such an assertion rings hollow in light of this administration’s decision not to file charges against the Bush regime under the guise of “looking forward and not backwards”, stating that this is “a time for reflection, not retribution“. Apparently, this serene forgiveness applies to those responsible for war crimes, torture, and illegal spying, but not to the whistleblowers.

Contrary to POGO’s deeply flawed arguments, it is within this administration’s discretion to decide who gets prosecuted. These decisions have been chilling so far. Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said:  ”The whole point of the prosecution is to have a chilling effect on reporters and sources, and it will.” While such prosecutions are ongoing, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, OpenTheGovernment.org, Project on Government Oversight, OMB Watch and the National Security Archive saw it fit to endorse these actions through a Transparency Award. By definition, an award is something that was earned, is deserved and encourages more of the same. That is hardly the message our supposed transparency advocates should be sending. 

Rewarding Speeches – Not Deeds

The same organizations who chose to give an award to the President see many problems in the level of transparency encouraged by the current administration. POGO’s Danielle Brian writes, “there are many things to bemoan in the Obama Administration’s implementation of its open government goals.” When there are many problems with the implementation of stated goals, what matters more – stated goals or the results? Actions speak louder than words and this administration’s actions against transparency are very alarming. 

The Price of Face Time

If giving an award is the only way these NGO’s can get an audience at the White House, why aren’t they going public with this revelation? Why is this issue such a low priority for our elected officials, especially after whistleblowers were promised adequate protection? 

POGO’s Danielle Brian writes, “So no, I do not regret taking the opportunity to meet with the President and get him to discuss the prosecutions of national security whistleblowers, and I am not going to withdraw our support for the award.” It seems to be the height of hypocrisy to discuss the ongoing prosecutions of national security whistleblowers, while presenting a Transparency Award at the same time! Will they hand out an award every time a whistleblower is prosecuted and they would like to discuss it? What kind of a message does that convey?

The Sight of Goals

POGO is urging everyone not to lose sight of our common goals. What are they, incidentally? Do the political favors, donations and grants take precedence over the welfare of whistleblowers?

POGO states that petitions are useless, stating in relevant part: “Come join us. Do something concrete to force government to open up. Don’t just carp and blog and petition. Petitions are not going to change the iron law of bureaucracy that all governments will default to secrecy to protect their turf, no matter what“.

This position contradicts POGO’s tendency to circulate petitions, seeking support from whistleblowers and the public. It’s apparent that this statement was designed to call our petition a useless distraction, since it doesn’t agree with the course of action taken by POGO and other NGO’s in issuing an unwarranted “Transparency Award”. Handing out an award implies that the goals of transparency and anti-secrecy have been met with sterling precision. Nothing could be further from the truth in the current situation, while the war on whistleblowers continues to intensify.

Through our petition, whistleblowers are blowing the whistle on those who falsely claimed to act on our behalf. 

Whistleblowers have spoken. Our voices deserve to be heard. The Transparency Award should be rescinded for the sake of achieving true government transparency.

Julia Davis

Department of Homeland Security Whistleblower

*** This article represents the views of this author and not any organization, group or individual.

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

 In a very wordy, hollow words that is, public response, Danielle Brian of Project on Government Oversight (POGO) not only adamantly declines to rescind Obama’s Transparency Award given to him in secrecy, but she actually praises the President as one who has achieved more openness than any other US president, thus deserving of an award given to him in a secret ceremony. Further, Ms. Brian considers this petition and signatories’ efforts a waste of time and a distraction. Here are a few excerpts from POGO’s public response to the petition and all signatories:

It’s undeniable that the Obama administration has achieved more openness than any other recent president.

…

Of course, the fact that this rescheduled meeting wasn’t on the President’s calendar made it an easy joke. When we discovered this, we described it as “crazy stupid.” But the fact that the meeting wasn’t open to the press didn’t strike me as unusual—I have meetings all the time with policymakers that are not open to the press.

…

So no, I do not regret taking the opportunity to meet with the President and get him to discuss the prosecutions of national security whistleblowers, and I am not going to withdraw our support for the award.

…

Public debate and discourse is often healthy. But there is so much to be done to safeguard our rights and expand openness—our community just doesn’t have the luxury to waste time on distractions.

…

It appears as if the people at POGO didn’t even bother to read the petition and the cited facts. But I believe they know the facts. They know them too well. Yet, despite all these cited facts, despite all the cited actions taken by this President and his administration (yes, last time I checked presidents were held liable for their appointees’ practices!) against transparency and whistleblowers, despite all the measures taken by this President and his administration towards unprecedented levels of secrecy, POGO deemed, and still deems,  this president worthy of a Transparency Award; in a closed secret meeting not even logged in White House Schedule-Records.

Further, maybe even worse, despite repeated appeals, despite more than 25 whistleblowers’ implorations, despite more than 20 pro-transparency and pro-liberties organizations’ requests, despite the outcry from the public and journalist communities, POGO insists on the non-existent merits of this award, and it refuses to acknowledge it as a very dumb mistake; and adamantly refuses to take it back. And finally, POGO considers you, me, and everyone else on this petition a group that has the ‘luxury to waste time,’ and calls this petition a ‘distraction.’

Let me address a few ludicrous claims and positions presented by POGO:

Obama Should Not Be Held Responsible for His Administration’s Practices

POGO shields and defends Obama by asking people to blame and go after the agencies, not the President. They put forth a ludicrous and warped defense by claiming that presidents should not be held liable for the practices of the agencies headed by the president’s handpicked appointees.

First, this is akin to saying Hitler didn’t personally participate in annihilation, internment, torturing and killing; those were practiced by his military and police force, thus, he should not be blamed. This is similar to arguing that Abu-Ghraib practices and scandals were limited to a handful of lower-rank military personnel, and those above them with the authority and responsibility should have been absolved from any accountability. POGO says the awful anti-transparency and anti-whistleblower practices are implemented by the agencies and the bureaucracy, and the President does not have any power over them, so leave the President alone, give him awards, and go chase after his employees.

Secondly, POGO’s ludicrous position in absolving the President from his administration and agencies’ anti-transparency and anti-liberties practices reeks with hypocrisy and double talk. This is the same NGO that consistently (and justifiably) blamed the Bush-Cheney office for atrocious practices implemented by the agencies under them.

And finally, based on POGO’s argument we should not bother electing presidents, since presidents and presidential powers have nothing to do with the executive branch and its practices. POGO has declared presidential authority and responsibility moot.

Words Speak Much Louder than Actions & The Award Was Given Based on Obama’s Words

POGO, with a straight face, is telling the public to disregard Obama’s record and pay attention only to his words. This is like letting a serial rapist pedophile who happens to be an author of books on ‘protecting children against pedophiles’ go free despite damning evidence proving him guilty of raping and molesting children. This is similar to absolving the Catholic priests that were found guilty of child molestation because they spoke the right words on Sunday.

POGO even goes further and engages in double-talk and actions similar to the President himself. It is disingenuous for Danielle Brian to claim on one hand that it’s not Obama’s fault that the whistleblowers are being prosecuted, when she, Brian, in her own blog said that when she brought up anti-whistleblowers practices and  the Drake prosecution during the “Transparency Award” meeting, Obama said straight up that he disagreed with her position.

On one hand POGO asserts that ‘there are many things to bemoan in the Obama administration’s implementation of its open government goals,’ yet, on the other hand, they claim that Obama deserves and had actually earned the transparency award. POGO does not refute the facts and cases cited in our petition on Obama’s record as the worst president on whistleblowers and transparency, yet, they find this completely irrelevant to their decision to present this President with an undeserved mockery transparency award.

Do As We Say But Don’t Do As We Do!

Interestingly, as an organization funded by millions of dollars from special interest corporations-foundations that engages in issuing hundreds of in words-only cosmetic petition campaigns, POGO considers the petition signed and backed by numerous noted government whistleblowers, organizations, and activists, ‘A Waste of Time,’ and a major (and inconvenient) ‘Distraction.’ Danielle Brian actually stresses that petitions are useless, and tells people not to waste time going after Obama’s transparency award by campaigning with this petition. If POGO truly believes that then why do they spend millions of dollars, and high six-figure salaries for petitions to Congress and agencies, rather than actually supporting government whistleblowers with badly needed legal advice and help?

Further, for a handsomely-funded organization that feigns transparency advocacy, POGO and their primary funders saw no problem with plotting and executing the transparency award in secret, without any consultation with the related community of whistleblowers and activists, and despite the objections from real transparency advocates. Even now, with all the outcry and objections from the real transparency advocates, activists and whistleblowers, they bluntly reject taking back their unearned, undeserved, and unwarranted award. And what does this say? They refuse, while the entire government whistleblowers community, transparency and liberties activists and organizations, the majority of the Americans, even the media, object to this mockery of an award and want to see it taken back.

Here is a well-articulated media response to POGO’s transparency award given to Obama:

It is not hyperbole to say that the Obama administration is waging an all-out war against transparency and whistleblowing (and the transparency groups who obsequiously awarded Obama a transparency award [one accepted in secret] are as disgraceful as the five Norwegians who awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize as he continues to do things like this). The persecution of WikiLeaks — for engaging in the crux of investigative journalism — along with anyone who supports it is one particularly dangerous weapon in that war. And anyone who defies or resists that war deserves, and will need, ample public support.

…

Who is POGO really representing? Who are the ones behind the scene that override the entire transparency advocacy community? For a self-proclaimed transparency advocacy organization POGO surely keeps and protects that answer as a ‘secret.’

And finally, for an organization that claims to be watchdog, advocacy and public action campaign oriented, POGO surely has insulted and attacked all signatories to this petition by openly calling our action a waste of time and futile.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

I can list many other contradictory, hypocrisy-ridden, and illogical points from the ludicrously wordy insult-response issued by POGO. I will not. The facts in the petition, the noted sponsors and signatories, and the number of public signatories, and the action and position of these organizations in opposition are self-explanatory. 

Obviously this petition and the cited facts don’t seem to be getting through their heads (the same heads that equate President Obama with a champion of transparency!). You may want to contact them directly and let them know how and what you feel about their award and fictional transparency champion President and his practices. Here is their contact information:

Tel: (202) 347-1122

Blog Site: http://pogoblog.typepad.com

Media Contact: jnewman@pogo.org

*** This article represents the views of this author and not any organization, group or individual.

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

Please Sign the Petition Here:Take Award Back.Com

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

The following petition was co-written by Coleen Rowley and me, and has been backed by more than 25 government whistleblowers and over 20 organizations. Awarding the worst president in US history when it comes to government whistleblowers with a Transparency Award is a huge insult. Presenting a president who has dramatically increased government secrecy with an Anti-Secrecy Award is ridiculous. Rewarding one of the worst US presidents when it comes to invocation of unconstitutional state secrets privilege is ludicrous. This award is a major insult to all liberty-loving Americans. This award is a slap to all freedom-liberty seeking activists. This award is dumb, highly damaging, and extremely dangerous by what it says it represents. Please stand up and say ‘NO’ to this award by signing this petition. I urge you to demand that this award be taken back immediately. I implore you to not let them get away with this in your name. I am asking you to sign this petition and encourage everyone you know to do the same. Don’t let them mock our nation, our people and our values: Take Obama’s Transparency Award Back Now.

Please Sign the Petition Here:Take Award Back.Com