BFP Nightly Quote

 “The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.”-Charles Bukowski  

International Newsworthy

Mullen Demands Pakistan Launch a Military Offensive Against North Waziristan

Egyptian Army Clears Tahrir Square with Force

Libya Transitional Council Rebels in Total Disarray

China Blames Pakistan for Harboring Uyghur Terrorists

Russia Accuses US of Fueling Georgian ‘Revanchism’

Mongolia Military Trains with US, Buys Fighters from Russia

US Grows a Tree of Tension with Iran

Turkey: Military Resignation Strategy Backfires

* * * *

National Newsworthy

CIA Forced to Release Long Secret Official History of Bay of Pigs Invasion

Wall Street-ers Top Obama Re-election Supporters: Even more than 2008!

Debt Deal Barely Changes DOD Mega Spending Expectations

Who Gains from Debt Deal? The Pentagon, For One

Report: US Contractor in Iraq Charges Pentagon $900 for $7 Control Switch

Landsdowne Partners Sell Entire $850 Million Stake in Goldman Sachs

Manufacturing Growth Hits Lowest Levels in 2 Years

‘Israeli Style’ Airports in Ex America

* * * *

Noteworthy Editorials

U.S. ‘Black Hole’ Prison’s Activities Kept Secret

The Development of ‘Privacy Killing Technologies’: A Link to the Murdoch Scandal?

Debt Posturing

Kurram: Operation Eye-Wash in Pakistan

Why are Banks Bulldozing Foreclosures?

* * * *

BFP Nightly Funnies

“According to reports, Apple now has more cash on hand than the U.S. government. Which sounds impressive until you realize that Radio Shack has more cash on hand… Actually, the big difference between Apple and the government is that their stuff is made in China, while we’re owned by China. Two different things.” –Jay Leno

* * * *

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Video 1: John Pilger on War by Other Means

Video 2: Rense & Susan Lindauer on NATO’s Libyan War Crimes

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.

Welcome. This is our EyeOpener Video Report by James Corbett for BoilingFrogsPost.com.

A recent court case in Utah has uncovered yet more evidence that the FBI is hiding key documents from the public by placing them in a separate, hitherto unknown electronic storage medium known as an “S-drive.” The fact that this drive was previously unknown has raised the specter that the FBI is using it as a place to hide requests for sensitive documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Now, a federal judge has given the FBI until the end of the month to explain what the S-drive is, how it is being used, and whether it contains key documents related to the case in question.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI is not required to say if a document exists, only that they searched their database and found no records responsive to the request. If these documents are placed in an external or disconnected storage drive, however, the agency can insure that they will never show up in any FOIA request. In fact, the FBI has been known to have used this very technique in the past. Going under such names as “June files,” “zero files” and “I-drive,” the agency has a long and documented history of placing key evidence in special, compartmentalized files that are reviewed by senior officials before the information is placed into the bureau’s official files.

Joining James Corbett this week to discuss the history and significance of the FBI’s secret storage drives are attorney Jesse Trentadue and the former privacy act coordinator at the Minneapolis FBI field office and noted FBI whistleblower, Coleen Rowley.

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

Here is an exclusive video by James Corbett with the inaugural edition of the EyeOpener, a new weekly video series produced in conjunction with Boiling Frogs Post, on Obama’s Secret Transparency Award. This news clip is a prelude to our petition, ‘Rescind Obama’s “Transparency Award” Now!,’ co-written by Coleen Rowley and me, and signed by more than 25 high-profile government whistleblowers and over 20 organizations, which will be launched tomorrow morning. We are going to need every single one of you, your signatures, your support, and your voices to get these organizations to take back the undeserved and hypocritical award. Please watch this video. Maybe watch it again. Think about it. Get angry. Share this with everyone you know. Help up disseminate this and encourage others to watch think, get angry, and take action. We are counting on you; on us.

For further information and more background on this action campaign you can read this and this.

Please stay tuned for our upcoming petition tomorrow morning, and thank you all.

Sibel Edmonds

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

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Obama as the worst president when it comes to whistleblowers and transparency, and the only one to actually receive an award for it. Of course I had mixed reactions and greatly varying reception. On one hand those who value transparency and our Constitution objectively; on the other hand, those who value partisanship above all and are blinded to the realities on the ground. In my writings I had made sure I included the media’s role in giving this awful president the pass despite his solid track record in being the ‘worst’ and the group of foundation-puppies who have been secretly rewarding him for his ‘worst-ness’ in return for a couple of extra bones from their masters. I believe in being fair, well, at least I try. Salon had an excellent piece by Greenwald on Obama’s record as ‘the most awful’ when it comes to transparency and whistleblowers, and here is a well-put quote on ‘awfulness’ of those organizations presenting this ‘awful’ president with an award for simply being awful toward transparency and whistleblowers…and doing so secretly:

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.

…

Bravo to Greenwald for telling it as is and Salon for actually publishing it. I encourage you to go and read the entire article here at Salon, and while you are there thank him for speaking out on these extremely troubling issues.

Also today, I came across another article at Guardian on ‘Obama: the Worst President for Whistleblowers’ echoing my own piece from two weeks ago titled ‘When it Comes to Whistleblowers Obama Worse than Nixon & Far Worse Than Bush.’ Here are excerpts from Guardian’s article:

Barack Obama has the worst record of any US president when it comes to dealing with whistleblowers, according to the Oscar-nominated director of a documentary about the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s.

Judith Ehrlich, whose 2009 film The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers explored the 70s leak of US government documents on the Vietnam war, said Obama had indicted five alleged whistleblowers since taking office, making him the “worst president in terms of his record on whistleblowing“.

…

Next week, on Monday, we are going to start a public campaign targeting Obama’s assaults on transparency, the First Amendment, and of course whistleblowers, and we, the irate minority, are going to go after those who have been encouraging and awarding this ‘worst’ president for all these assaults. On Monday we’ll have a great video clip for you on Mr. Obama’s real record and the implications of being given an award, secretly that is. On Tuesday we’ll be launching a website and a petition to address this incredibly ludicrous award, and we’ll invite all of you to join us in this petition and related campaigns. Please get ready and stay tuned!

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

For the last two years I have been pounding on Imam Fethullah Gulen’s web of organizations and his charter schools empire in the US. For years I have been marveling about the consistent media blackout on the Turkish Imam Fethullah Gulen’s past and present nefarious activities and highly suspicious partnerships with various US government agencies and elected officials. And of course for almost two years I have been writing and discussing Gulen with you over here at Boiling Frogs Post. Now the New York Times appears to be catching up; at least with a fraction of this notorious Imam’s multi billion dollar network of organizations and businesses. Yesterday, the Times ran a fairly detailed and long exposé on Gulen’s dubious and highly secretive penetration of US school systems via his rapidly growing charter school operations; let’s start with the attention grabbing intro:

TDM Contracting was only a month old when it won its first job, an $8.2 million contract to build the Harmony School of Innovation, a publicly financed charter school that opened last fall in San Antonio. It was one of six big charter school contracts TDM and another upstart company have shared since January 2009, a total of $50 million in construction business. Other companies scrambling for work in a poor economy wondered: How had they qualified for such big jobs so fast?

The secret lay in the meteoric rise and financial clout of the Cosmos Foundation, a charter school operator founded a decade ago by a group of professors and businessmen from Turkey. Operating under the name Harmony Schools, Cosmos has moved quickly to become the largest charter school operator in Texas, with 33 schools receiving more than $100 million a year in taxpayer funds.

…

Some of the schools’ operators and founders, and many of their suppliers, are followers of Fethullah Gulen, a charismatic Turkish preacher of a moderate brand of Islam whose devotees have built a worldwide religious, social and nationalistic movement in his name. Gulen followers have been involved in starting similar schools around the country — there are about 120 in all, mostly in urban centers in 25 states, one of the largest collections of charter schools in America.

…

And this is what the paper says it is attempting to examine:

But an examination by The New York Times of the Harmony Schools in Texas casts light on a different area: the way they spend public money. And it raises questions about whether, ultimately, the schools are using taxpayer dollars to benefit the Gulen movement — by giving business to Gulen followers, or through financial arrangements with local foundations that promote Gulen teachings and Turkish culture.

I suggest you visit the site and read the entire article. It is definitely worth reading. You may also want to read a few select pieces from BFP on Gulen:

Did You Know: The King of Madrasas Now Operates over 100 Charter Schools in US?

Turkish Intel Chief Exposes CIA Operations via Islamic Group in Central Asia

Additional Omitted Points in CIA-Gulen Coverage & A Note From ‘The Insider’

The Sanitized Gulen Coverage Continues

And here are some appetite inducing excerpts from the Times’ article [All Emphasis Mine]:

Records show that virtually all recent construction and renovation work has been done by Turkish-owned contractors. Several established local companies said they had lost out even after bidding several hundred thousand dollars lower.

…

In April, however, the agency notified Harmony of an unreleased preliminary audit questioning more than $540,000 in inadequately documented expenses, the vast majority involving federal grant money. Neither the agency nor Harmony would disclose details of the findings.

…

Today the United States has more Gulen-inspired schools than any country but Turkey, according to a presentation by Joshua Hendrick, a professor at Loyola University Maryland whose 2009 dissertation explored the movement. In Texas, Harmony now educates more than 16,000 children. Eight schools have opened in the last year alone.

…

Last year, local contractors questioned the fairness of bidding on two Harmony renovation jobs in the Austin area. On one job, in the suburb of Pflugerville, the low bidder, at $1.17 million, was a well-known Texas company, Harvey-Cleary. The job went to Atlas Texas Construction and Trading, even though its bid was several hundred thousand dollars higher. Atlas, with offices in Texas and Turkey, shows up on a list of Gulen-affiliated companies in a 2006 cable from the American Consul General in Istanbul, Deborah K. Jones, that was released by WikiLeaks.

…

Dr. Tarim, who came from Turkey and studied aquatic ecology at Texas A&M, objects to common references to the schools as Turkish. Still, even if they are American charter schools first and foremost, the schools do have an undeniable Turkish flavor.

Harmony advertises that its teachers “are recruited from around the world,” but most of its foreign teachers are Turkish men, and all but a handful of the 33 principals are men from Turkey. In addition to the standard foreign languages, the schools offer instruction in Turkish. They encourage students and teachers, even parents, to join subsidized trips to Turkey.

…

Here comes an emphasis on Gulenists’ denial and secrecy game:

“I’m not a follower of anybody,” Dr. Tarim said in an interview. Records show, however, that when applying to the State of Texas to form Harmony schools, he was a consultant to Virginia International University in Fairfax, one of the private universities that lawyers for Mr. Gulen say were originally inspired by his teachings.

At a forum on the schools last December in Houston, Dr. Hendrick, the Maryland professor, argued that such denials had only deepened the ambiguity and helped fuel suspicion. “Why do leaders deny affiliation when affiliation is clear?” he asked.

…

And this one on thousands of Turkish teachers imported here:

American consular employees reviewing visas have questioned the credentials of some teachers as they sought to enter the country. “Most applicants had no prior teaching experience, and the schools were listed as related to” Mr. Gulen, a consular employee wrote in a 2009 cable. It did not say which schools had hired the teachers. Some with dubious credentials were denied visas.

In February, a Chicago charter school union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers complained to the federal Department of Labor, alleging that the Chicago Math and Science Academy and Concept Schools, a group that operates 25 schools in the Midwest, had abused the visa system by “routinely assigning these teachers duties or class load that seemingly do not take into account the laws governing H1-B visa holders.”

The Labor Department had already been investigating at least one Concept school.

…

Here is one example out of many methods they use to pocket elected officials:

One group, the Raindrop Foundation, helped pay for State Senator Leticia Van de Putte’s travel to Istanbul last year, according to a recent campaign report. In January, she co-sponsored a Senate resolution commending Mr. Gulen for “his ongoing and inspirational contributions to promoting global peace and understanding.”

In an interview, Ms. Van de Putte described the trip as a working visit.

…

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

Have you ever tried standing on your head in order to view the world upside down? What if the world stage before you turns upside-down; will you then have to stand on your head to view it right-side up? You see, we have a fraudulent institution that has been standing on its head, and has been trying very hard to get you to either stand on your head to see what they see or simply look the other way and take their word in describing a totally upside down phenomena as right-side up. Enough for riddle-like communication; let me put it all in perspective for you, ok? I’ll start with the actors:

We have a very typical Washington DC NGO institution posing as a front. As a front, this establishment NGO front sells under the pretense of being an advocate for transparency, open government, and whistleblower protections. It gets over a million dollars in grants from guess who, the establishment-from Rockefeller to Carnegie to George Soros, to pose as a not for profit organization for government whistleblowers. And it has done very well for over two decades – evident by the same grants from the same establishment that keep flowing into it; evident by creating lots of noise while ensuring no feathers are ever ruffled during the process. The Congress loves them, and knows how to do the pretense dance with them very well. The executive branch also loves them, and views them as a predictable and reliable ally that has to sometimes pose as their foe.  More importantly, they are adored by the President who pets them and gives them a bone or two for being the good loyal pets that they are.

We have a President in the White House who indisputably has the worst record in our nation’s history when it comes to the insurers of government transparency- government whistleblowers. We have a President who loves unconstitutional secrecy and baseless-imaginary presidential executive powers to quash transparency and accountability. We have a President who has an utter disdain for First Amendment practices such as peaceful protests. Okay, let me provide you a glimpse of this President’s indisputable record on Anti-Transparency:

The worst president in US history in persecuting, prosecuting and jailing government whistleblowers and truth-tellers: The list of his known whistleblower victims so far includes Thomas Drake , Bradley Manning, and Jeffrey Sterling, but then again, these are only known ones, and the President has been busy going after reporters and forming Grand Juries in order to hunt more.

One of the worst presidents when it comes to invoking baseless and unconstitutional executive secrecy to quash inquiries into secret illegalities: The list of this Presidents’ known invocations of unconstitutional secrecy called State Secrets Privilege so far includes NSL Illegal Wiretapping- Jewel vs. NSA & Shubert vs. Obama, Covering up rendition & assassination case- Anwar al-Aulaqi , Illegal torture case- Binyam Mohamed. Just remember, these are only publicly known and proven cases of this President’s unconstitutional secrecy record. There are many others whose existence has been secret.

The only President who has reenacted Fahrenheit 451 by actually collecting and burning a book with a never-justified secrecy and classification excuse: Lt. Col Tony Shaffer’s book-Operation Dark Heart.

A President who has been a staunch supporter of jailing peaceful protestors on his way to becoming a president who has jailed the largest number of protestors in the last three decades: there have been over two thousand six hundred, 2600, arrests of activists protesting in the US, 670 people in 2011, over 1290 in 2010, and 665 a in 2009.

A President under whom FOIA secrecy has been increasing drastically, and for the first time ever this secrecy’s costs have surpassed $10 billion: FOIA under Obama

To recap we have a President known as the worst president in our nation’s history when it comes to transparency guardians-government whistleblowers; one of the, if not the, worst president, when it comes to using and invoking unconstitutional secrecy and executive privileges to cover up his secret illegal actions and practices; the worst president in the last three decades when it comes to arresting peaceful protestors; the only president who intercepts and burns book(s); the first president to ever surpass the $10 billion dollar threshold in creating and keeping secret documents. Would it be a giant leap to conclude that if not the worst, this President is one of the worst presidents when it comes to being anti-transparency?

Now, ladies and gentleman, this is where the above world stage turns upside down, and does so in secrecy. Less than two months ago,  Project on Government Oversight (POGO), along with four other NGO clowns, put together an award, Anti-Secrecy & Transparency Award, walked to the White House, and presented this award to the worst president when it comes to government whistleblowers & truth-tellers, and unconstitutional executive privileges and secrecy. Wait, that’s not all, they go along with the President to keep the meeting secret.

President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.

The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.

This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.

…

The transparency advocates who presented the award to Obama say that the recognition is important, because despite the work left to be done, Obama has done a lot to change the government’s posture toward openness issues.

…

That’s right. During the worst period ever for government whistleblowers, when they are facing jail and torture, in the midst of Kafkaesque government practices- torture, state secrets privilege, raids on and arrest of peaceful protestors, POGO, a phony NGO that has been milking government whistleblowers’ suffering for decades, goes about appeasing their grant-giving establishment masters and emboldening a ruthless totalitarian president by presenting him with a mockery of an award- Anti-Secrecy & Transparency Award. Maybe less than a few public spectators were permitted to know about and cheer this mockery, but nonetheless, it is a despicable act against all government whistleblowers, and all peaceful protestors who have come under this totalitarian president’s raids and arrests. It is a disgrace to transparency and open the government advocacy. It is an insult to all liberty-loving Americans.

In case you are wondering why I have singled out POGO among the disgraced group of five: I’ve known this organization for years; many government whistleblowers I represent have known and seen through this establishment institution. For years they have sabotaged many of our activities in Congress by making behind the closed door deals with establishment guardian representatives and senators. They have used our cases and names to further their whistleblowers-defeating agenda. They have enriched themselves handsomely by serving their Carnegie-Rockefeller-Soros masters handsomely. More importantly, they have created a false illusion of whistleblowers and transparency advocacy – robbing the public of their trust and assurance. For the last few years I’ve been practicing the excruciatingly painful exercise of ‘biting my tongue’ in the face of their anti whistleblowers and anti public operations, and justifying it under the  ‘prioritizing one’s battles’ mantra. This ridiculous assault they launched against transparency and whistleblowers was the last straw. As it should be for any American who values integrity, transparency and accountability.

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

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

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

Here is our guest Stephen Kohn unplugged!

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

Now I want you to consider a real-life case. The place- The United States of America. The court- United States Foreign Surveillance Court. The parties- US Federal Government vs. Secret Foreign Targets inside the Unites States. The purpose- for independent and judicial judges to oversee government requests for surveillance warrants, and after carefully reviewing the requests and shown causes, make decisions to grant or not to grant warrants. Last year, in 2010, the federal police agencies brought before these FISA judges 1506 such warrant requests. Last year, in 2010, the FISA Court, every single judge in the FISA Court, eleven out of eleven judges of the FISA Court, granted every single warrant requested of them by our federal police agencies. All 1506 of them. Every single request:

The secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved all 1,506 government requests to electronically monitor suspected “agents” of a foreign power or terrorists on U.S. soil last year, according to a Justice Department report released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The two-page report, which shows about a 13 percent increase in the number of applications for electronic surveillance between 2009 and 2010, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists and published Friday.“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

The 11-member court denied two of 1,329 applications for domestic-intelligence surveillance in 2009. The FBI is the primary agency making those requests.

…

Let me preempt a few possible, and possibly reasonable, arguments in favor of this real-life and real US government case. May I?

The US Federal Government, in this case mainly the FBI, must be very diligent and thorough with their targets, evidence & presentation of these cases

There have been reports after reports issued by government-leaning government investigative agencies revealing widespread abuse of power, when it comes to our federal police agencies and their unchecked surveillance and search practices. This may give you the flavor and extent of what we are talking about here:

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats

…

Or maybe this one on how the FBI presents its cases to the federal courts:

Violations of the Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Other Legal Authorities: In the third category EFF found violations which “were consistently the most brazen and egregious” ones. FBI reported that “its agents had made false statements in written declarations to courts,” in addition to using “improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas.” The FBI would also use “a target’s username and password to access and download account information and a warrantless search of password-protected files.” However, it was found that these violations are often the most redacted and that redaction occurs on an inconsistent and arbitrary basis—supporting the conclusion that the FBI is withholding information.

…

This is not a big deal for us the citizens since the warrants allow only the surveillance of suspected foreign entities.

Okay, do you remember my State Secrets Privilege case? While I cannot divulge specifics such as the methods of intelligence gathering or target details, I can tell you this much: the FBI collects information directly and indirectly. What do I mean by that? Let’s say we have this foreign person José, and the FBI is tapping his phone and all his e-mails. This José guy in any given day talks with dozens of people over the phone, and some of these people who are either calling José or receiving calls from José are American citizens. The FBI collects everything said/written not only by José, but also everything said and written to José by everyone; including those non-suspect US citizens. Are you following me so far? Okay, good. Now, when the FBI gets what it considers ‘juicy stuff,’ not only criminal or terrorism related juicy, but even politically juicy stuff, it keeps, saves, shares and uses that information in various ways. It doesn’t matter whether the originator of the particular ‘juicy stuff’ is José the target or not. Please tell me you catch my drift!

Let me give you a real example of this. We, at FBI counterintelligence, had a certain foreign target we were monitoring 24/7 (all his/her communications). This target had intimate (financially, criminally, and in one case, sexually) relationships with several elected officials in the US Congress. The FBI had compiled thick files not only on the foreign target, but on every single congresswoman and congressman. And to add insult to injury, this was not done for the sake of justice and possible criminal prosecution, but for political leverage used in rainy days…A solid veteran FBI agent filed his documented complaint on these cases in 2001-2002:

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

Before his retirement in 2002, SA Gilbert Graham worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) Squad NS-24. One of the main areas of Mr. Graham’s counterintelligence investigations involved espionage activities by Turkish officials and agents in the United States. On April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic surveillance. In his unclassified report SA Graham states: “It is the complainant’s reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR [electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters.” Graham blew the whistle on this illegal behavior, but the actions were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office.

Click here to read the unclassified version of SA Graham’s Official Report.

…

Rubber-Stamping Judges does not necessarily mean ‘Crooked Judges.’

You are wrong. In most cases it does. I have another veteran FBI agent who spent 4 years of his/her early career as an agent tasked with running background checks on to-be-appointed federal judges. Not a single candidate judge whom this agent obtained and documented various nefarious activities and or background on was excluded from judgeship. According to him/her, the DOJ-FBI shied away from ‘quirky and squeaky clean’ candidates.

Speaking of crooked and or crooked-smelling judges, let me leave you with a real-life real-judge of our current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court:

The judge who presided over the trial of vice presidential aide Lewis Libby has been appointed to the secret court that oversees U.S. intelligence wiretaps. Reggie Walton, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts effective May 19 [2007].

…

So who is this Judge Reggie Walton? Well, neither he nor the federal government wants you to know. They have ensured his not very ‘squeaky clean’ past remains a secret:

What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds — have in common?

They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own.

All federal judges are required under ethics rules to file what is known as “financial disclosure reports.”

The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch, is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the public’s right to know of our times. …

…

So given the high-stakes poker being played in both these cases, one civil and one criminal, why has no one in the establishment press bothered to ask what is contained in Judge Walton’s financial disclosure statement? After all, his investments and financial backers would be of keen interest in gauging his ability to hear these cases in an unbiased manner, right?

…

So Judge Walton seems to be in a critical role in serving as the point man in the federal judicial system for two explosive cases — the Edmonds civil case and Libby’s criminal case — both of which have vast implications for the White House and for the country in general.

So shouldn’t we know who’s buttering Walton’s bread in terms of financial backing? Why have ethics rules mandating such disclosures, if the information is not disclosed in cases, such as these, where the stakes are so high?

Well, it seems, at least according to the only document that Judicial Watch could shake loose in its public-records quest, that Walton doesn’t think so. His financial disclosure statement, the one released for public inspection through Judicial Watch, is completely redacted, every line of it.

Take a look here for yourself.

Now, ask yourself, why would that be, and what might lurk in the shadows of Judge Walton’s fiscal closet? If there nothing to hide, then there is nothing to lose by shedding some light on the retractions, is there?

…

I am going to answer one of Mr. Conroy’s excellent questions: “what might lurk in the shadows of Judge Walton’s fiscal closet?” My answer: It is exactly what it takes to be appointed to FISA Court as a judge
 

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

Last Thursday morning, while driving my daughter to her play group, as I was listening to NPR’s usual circle of experts dissecting and interpreting Bernanke’s press conference, it all came back to me: numerous economic courses taken during my bachelors’ and graduate studies, the Bible of academics in the field of economics – Keynesian economics – the absolutism minus common sense, unquestioning conformity as a prerequisite to acceptance by one’s elite peers, and in the middle of all these convoluted ingredients the questioning  little ‘me.’ I assure you, not the kind of memories you want to come rushing back during a hectic drive. But ‘they’ started it: the Keynesians.

Please don’t be tempted to stop reading further only because you haven’t taken those mandatory courses in economics or because you don’t consider yourself an economic expert. In fact, you may have been saved and still in possession of ‘common sense’ easily erased by systematic academic indoctrination in economic fascism. The following general description of the Keynesian model, if read with sufficient common sense and a bit of critical thinking, should give anyone a pretty good idea of what I mean by economic fascism or an economic model enabling government fascism:

Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the government, such as monetary policy and fiscal policy to stabilize output over the business cycle.

Keynes solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy through some combination of 2 approaches: a reduction in interest rates and increased government expenditure. The solution suggested that active government policy could be effective in managing the economy.

Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation’s economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays.

Military Keynesianism is a government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military to increase economic growth. Increased military demand for goods and services is funded directly by government spending, and this direct spending induces a multiplier of consumer spending.

 
Increasing the Power of Centralized Government is a must. There are no such things as ‘temporary’ government programs or expansions; there never have been. When government adds and expands, the additions and expansions are here to stay. Period. Keynes either totally disregarded this never changing fact, which I seriously doubt, or, he purposely sought it via an economic model perpetuating an ever expanding centralized government and its powers. What better way of creating a beastly powerful centralized government than giving it the proposed Keynesian economic role and powers?

Disregarding the Lobby & Corruption Factors. Keynes had the highest regard for government and the entities within it; giving them the ultimate power and discretion to conduct our nation’s monetary policy and regulate banking institutions. The role of powerful lobbies directly and indirectly influencing all decision making of the entities making up this large and powerful government was completely disregarded and glossed over. How could Goldman Sachs’ contributions to a president’s campaign fund have any influence over decisions and actions involving bailouts?! So what if the revolving doors between government offices and big corporate conglomerates keep revolving?!

Deficit spending is good; so are the bailouts paid out with the deficit. In the Keynesian view there is no reason to be alarmed and irked by thirteen-figure deficit numbers; after all, government can keep printing, keep spending, and everything hopefully will come together and we’ll all live happily ever after. For a while. Even if it is for a short while; make it a very short while. Why should it matter if we run trillions of dollars of deficit? What difference does it make if our currency keeps getting devalued? Who cares if we leave behind a heavily indebted nation in a disastrous economic state? Obviously Keynes didn’t. His motto was that ‘In the long run, we are all dead.’ He is dead, but we aren’t; we too will be dead, but not our children. But then again, Keynes didn’t have any children, so I guess as far as he was concerned only a very short-term period mattered, and the heck with those who came after.

Wars are very good. In other words make wars not love. Imperialists love Keynes. Governments with imperialistic policies are enamored with Keynes. What more could they ask for? An economic model advocating big centralized government with big money printing and spending powers and encouraging wars – deficit war spending.  It is appropriate to quote Ludwig von Mises on this: “War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.”

Transparency is bad. The Federal Reserve, which conducts our nation’s monetary policy, regulates banking institutions, and provides financial services to depository institutions, our government, and foreign official institutions, operates and rules in total secrecy and with zero accountability. We are talking about absolute powers vested in government unconditionally, and topping that with unlimited secrecy.

Suffice it to say, despite acing all my courses in economics, I had issues, real big issues, with John Maynard Keynes and his model, and real frustration with the system that did not tolerate any criticism of it. Then came the years of getting ‘intimately’ familiar with the working of our beastly central government, and with that came my increased disdain for anything Keynesian. And of course increased frustration with the ironies everywhere: those who oppose the beastly government’s domestic spying powers and practices, yet trust it with their healthcare; those who protest the beast’s foreign policy practices and perpetual wars, yet vest in it the power of money; those who fight the beast’s human rights abuses, on the other hand have faith in it for their sick-old days…

They say it is wrong to view things only in black or white. Sometimes, even if rarely, things are either black or white. In the case of John Maynard Keynes two major black marks earns him my usage of the word ‘fascism’ – economically & socially; intertwined, inseparable, and as far as I am concerned indistinguishable. And with that, who was John Maynard Keynes?

Keynes: Leader of the British Eugenics Society

Keynes was an avid proponent of eugenics, and proudly served as Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. And here is a brief description of Eugenics:

Eugenics is the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. It was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits.

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people. The “interventions” advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and entire racial groups- such as Jews — as “degenerate” or “unfit”; the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.

Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was Hitler, who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of “defectives” that had been pioneered in the United States.

Keynes, who served on the board of directors of the British Eugenics Society in 1945, had the following to say on eugenics and the ‘perfection of the race‘ through selective breeding: “the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists“.

England’s Sir Francis Galton, who invented the tern eugenics, placed British society into groups. These groupings indicate the proportion of society falling into each group and their perceived genetic worth. Galton “suggested that negative eugenics (i.e. an attempt to prevent them from bearing offspring) should be applied only to those in the lowest social group (the “Undesirables”), while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes.”

I am going to repeat again: Keynes was an avid advocate of eugenics, a social-fascism model in action, and proudly served as Director. How does one separate a man who was a staunch believer of a sociological model based on separation and elimination of certain classes-races-ethnicity, from a man who was the advocate of an economic model based on taking away market and individual powers and vesting those powers with the ruling class-centralized governments? I can’t. 

We have Keynes the avid eugenics advocate, the firm believer in societal class, the supporter of selective breeding, and most importantly, the proponent of ‘higher powers-governments and or institutions’ being vested with the power and authority to implement these social-fascistic principles.

We have Keynes the economist with an economic model vesting unchecked and uncontrolled economic power and authority in governments to override the market, people’s choices and actions, and all associated individual liberties.

We have the Keynesian government, economists, the entire parasitic colony that has been ripping off our nation’s wealth and the Keynesian academics to make sure this trend continues.

And unfortunately we have a broke nation with trillions in debt, increasing unemployment, fiat money, disappearing liberties, perpetual wars maintained by perpetual deficit spending, an ever growing and expanding  mammoth of a centralized government with unlimited powers, and a justifiably grim outlook for the future that has been nearing fast. Keynes’ ‘In the long run, we are all dead’ quote seems to have caught up with us, and we are not dead; only suffering.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

…

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

…

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

…

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

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

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

Last week John Young’s information site Cryptome.Org began publishing documents related to the interviews conducted by the 9/11 Commission which were released for the first time. On January 3, Cryptome posted the 9/11 Commission’s report on my interview (the infamous Sibel Edmonds Case), and aptly titled this particular file as “Sibel Edmonds Censored Yet Again.” Once you read the PDF document you’ll quickly see the reason for Cryptome’s appropriate label. The entire report, by that I mean the entire report, is blacked out (actually, whited-out;-). It took me less than one minute to scan the entire document; basically, scrolling down the white pages-one white page after another. Initially, I was not a bit surprised. Hey, I’ve been declared the most gagged and classified person in US history, after all- State Secrets Privilege invocation twice, gagging the entire Congress for the first (and only) time in US history, hundreds of pages of blacked out DOJ-IG report… So, as I said, I didn’t find it a bit surprising.  However, after the minute it took to go over these blank pages, I started clicking and scanning all the other files (interviews by the 9/11 Commission), and that’s where I was truly surprised:

Despite some redactions here and there, and in a few cases fairly extensive redaction, there were no interviews where the entire interview (and the report on the interview) was blacked out in its entirety. Mine was the only one privileged and honored to such degree! Why? I mean, come on, we are talking about interviews with: FBI Special Agent in Charge on Counterterrorism, CIA Officers with Directorate of Intelligence with a Specific Focus on Drugs & Thugs, The Chairman of National Intelligence Council, NSA Chief of Counterintelligence & SIGNIT Support, Senior CIA Analysts…Yet, none of these interviews was redacted in its entirety. None. Please be my guest and make your own comparison; My 9/11 Commission interview document here, and the rest, here, here, here, here, here…You can check out the rest published by Cryptome here, and if you want more here for thousands of them.

I e-mailed Mr. Young to get his opinion and ask whether he had noticed the same interesting phenomena. He confirmed my observation and we shared the exact same conclusion: This particular interview was ‘exceptionally’ redacted.

Next, I started all over again, and this time I checked for the location of these interviews conducted by the 9/11 Commission. Why? Because after checking with the DOJ/FBI/State Department/DOD, the 9/11 Commissioners insisted that my interview to be conducted in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). I was stuck inside one of these almost airless highly claustrophobic dungeons for over three hours for my interview. I was told by the commission staff that this was due to the ‘extreme secret and sensitive nature of Ms. Edmonds’ information.’ Yet, none of the high-level counterterrorism officials, CIA operatives and agents, senior analysts…(at least all the ones I’ve scanned so far) were required to give their interviews inside a SCIF, or even a cleared room (they have specialists come and declare the room/facility clear & free of bugs). When you go to my interview document (here), look at the top of the page, find ‘location’ and see what it says. For mine it says: GSA SCIF. Now, if you were to go to all the other documents and check the interviewees’ location for the  interview, you’ll see No SCIF, and locations like: Commission’s K Street Office (regular meeting room), or, regular offices or meeting rooms within various government agencies & HQs.

Another interesting point that came to me later had to do with the length of the Commission’s redacted interview with me. I know I was in there for over three hours, and at the top of the report they actually confirm that. I know I didn’t waste time talking about the employment and whistle blowing aspects of my case, instead I asked them to get that info from the IG or various congressional offices. I spent over three hours talking, answering questions, and writing for the 9/11 Commission investigators, with no break, no interruptions, and not even a pause for side conversations. I have transcribed interviews, I have typed many pages of phone/recorded conversations at the FBI while a translator,  I have prepared many reports based on interviews, and I know that there is no way in this world you can transcribe or report on three hours of nonstop interview, especially mine, in less than 10-12 pages (single spaced!). Yet, the total number of redacted pages released by the 9/11 Commission totals about 5 pages. What else did they do with my interview besides redacting? This is what I call ‘sending it to a never-to-be retrieved Black Hole.’

I wonder what the US media has to say on this; especially the ones who’ve done their share of censoring and redacting on this particular case. Any ideas?

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

I am thrilled to announce the addition of a new team member, Luke Ryland, a good friend and a partner whom I have known and worked with since 2006; please welcome Luke and here is his bio:

Luke Ryland is an independent political analyst and online journalist based in Australia. He has been an expert commentator on the Sibel Edmonds case and nuclear black market cases for various progressive radio shows and online publications. Mr. Ryland’s work focuses on the nuclear black market, the Turkish lobby in the US, the energy and geopolitical wars in Central Asia, and the corruption of US Congress. Mr. Ryland has an MBA and a Bachelors degree in Commerce from the University of Melbourne. Visit Luke Ryland’s website.

We recently published Luke Ryland’s expose on FBI documents confirming major criminal investigations of Turkish operatives and their US official friends in Chicago. And here is a link to a recent interview with Mr. Ryland conducted by Scott Horton of AntiWar.Org: Click here.

Starting this coming Wednesday I’ll be on the road for a few weeks, traveling for work and personal matters. I won’t be out of touch. We have three Boiling Frogs interviews, one of which will be posted every other week: Professor Francis Boyle, Naomi Wolf, and Peter Phillips. Meanwhile, Peter B Collins and I will find ways to overcome significant time zone differences and connection difficulties, and continue to conduct additional interviews. We will also have articles and analyses by our contributors, and of course Paul Jamiol’s great editorial cartoons.

Here is my list of noteworthy articles and links from this past week:

Let’s start with our President, since we’ve been keeping tabs on his changes on his promised changes. The following piece is also related to the Obama White House’s 180 degree turn on protection for national security whistleblowers, which we’ve been covering for over a week.

A little secret about Obama’s transparency
Andrew Malcolm, LA Times

The current administration, challenged by the president to be the most open, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush did.

The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.

Transparency and openness were so important to the new president that on his first full day in office, he dispatched a much-publicized memo saying: “All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.”
One of the exemptions allowed to deny Freedom of Information requests has been used by the Obama administration 70,779 times in its first year; the same exemption was used 47,395 times in Bush’s final budget year.

An Associated Press examination of 17 major agencies’ handling of FOIA requests found denials 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50% from the 2008 fiscal year under Bush.
…

We’ve been keeping tabs, and our list of ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Worse-Than-Bush’ points has been expanding continuously. Mr. Obama’s love and usage of State Secrets Privilege, his position against government whistleblowers, his support for illegal domestic wiretapping, his passion for wars and drones, his kind-heartedness towards torturers & other criminals…During his first few months in office, a few of his previously duped supporters were too generous and maybe a bit too naïve to label him ‘Bush-Lite.’ How about now? Is it time to call the President ‘Bush-Dark’? You be the judge; what say you?

……………………………………….

 Karzai talks peace with militant group linked to Taliban
Deb Riechmann, AP

President Hamid Karzai held an unprecedented meeting yesterday with representatives of a major Taliban-linked militant group, boosting his outreach to insurgency leaders to end the eight-year war.

Less certain is whether the talks with the weakened Hizb-i-Islami faction represent a game-changer in the conflict, given its demand to rewrite the Afghan constitution and force a quick exit of foreign forces.

It is the first time that high-ranking representatives of the group, led by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, have traveled to Kabul to discuss peace. The reconciliation offer from Hekmatyar contrasts with his reputation as a ruthless extremist.

Hekmatyar, who is in his 60s, was a major recipient of US military aid during the war against the Soviets in the 1980s but fell out of favor with Washington because of his role in the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal. The US government declared Hekmatyar a “global terrorist’’ in February 2003, saying he participated in and supported terror acts committed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Unless that tag is removed, the designation could complicate any move by the United States to sign off on a deal, even though in recent years Hekmatyar has expressed a willingness to negotiate with the Karzai government. A spokesman for Hekmatyar said the delegation had lunch with Karzai at the presidential palace and planned to meet with him again.

…

Last January our team member duo, Liz Gould and Paul Fitzgerald, wrote an excellent piece on this opium dealing terrorist, who happened to get his grooming from our very own CIA. If you haven’t read the Gould-Fitzgerald piece titled ‘Apocalypse of the American Mind’, click here. Was he ever off the CIA list of ‘operators’? I for one would certainly doubt it.

………………………….

NATO rejects Russia’s demand to destroy Afghan poppy fields
Deutsche Press-Agentur

 Brussels – NATO and Russia clashed on Wednesday over how to tackle the drug problem in Afghanistan, where Western nations have been fighting a Taliban-led insurgency for eight years.

The country is the world’s largest producer of poppy seeds, a key ingredient in the manufacture of heroin. Russia is keen to pursue an aggressive eradication strategy, while Western allies fear that such an approach risks antagonizing the local population, who rely on selling poppy crops to survive.

The different points of view came to a head at a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council attended by the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Agency (FSKN), Victor Ivanov and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

‘Afghan opiates led to the death of 1 million people by overdose in the last 10 years, and that is United Nations data. Is that not a threat to world peace and security?’ Ivanov asked journalists after the meeting.

…

Russians know very well what this is about. After all, they used to be a major player in ‘this’ particular field, and now a bit grumpy because…their share of this pie has been significantly reduced? Certainly it’s not about a million+ deaths caused by ‘overdose;’ of that much I can assure you. So maybe our guys will let their guys have a bit more; like this maybe:

However, he stressed that there was ‘a very positive mood’ in the talks with Ivanov and said that the two sides agreed to boost an already existing programme that involves joint training of Afghan counter-narcotics police.

…

Please bring in your two cents (and more).

…………………………………………
 

In the last few days there have been numerous articles portraying the White House as tough on Israel, and depicting Israel-US relations as severely strained. Coincidentally, two months ago similar articles were written in Turkey on endangered ties – Turkey-Israel. In Turkey this usually happens when elected officials see the need, that is, fulfilling public expectations, albeit cosmetically, to appear ‘a bit’ tough on Israel. While they do that, the business of kissing up to Israel continues behind the scenes; as always.

Here is how badly strained is the relationship between the White House and the Israeli bosses:

Exclusive / Despite row, U.S. and Israel sign massive arms deal
Amos Harel, Haaretz

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week absorbing the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Israel’s defense establishment were in the process of sealing a large arms deal.

According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million.

The aircrafts were manufactured specifically for Israeli needs, and include a large number of systems produced by Israel’s defense industry.

The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.

…

That’s right; that’s how strained things are! And here is another exposé on strained Obama-Israel relations; NOT!

Former Obama Aide New Head of AIPAC
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Israel National News

Lee “Rosy” Rosenberg, a jazz recording industry veteran capitalist who accompanied U.S. President Barack Obama on his campaign trip to Israel two years ago, takes over on Sunday as the new president of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosenberg also served on the president’s national campaign finance committee.

The new AIPAC president hails from Chicago, the home state of President Obama, and also is on first-name terms with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior advisor.

…

My advice? Next time you read bologna articles on the Obama White House being tough on Israel, don’t believe it, go do your own bit of research, and determine for yourself who is the ‘servant’ and who is the ‘boss’ in this (Israel Lobby-US President) relationship;-)

……………………………………

And finally, two well-researched and nicely-written reports by my favorite publication, Asia Times:

‘Strategic depth’ at heart of Taliban arrests
By Shibil Siddiqi, ATimes