Friday, June 28, 2013

The Chicago Way – Obama Administration, DOJ, Seize Media Phone Records – Track Journalists and AP Reporters Phone Contacts…

Update 2:  The White House Reponds (Politico) — The White House has “no knowledge” of the Justice Department’s efforts to obtain phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, press secretary Jay Carney said Monday. “Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP,” he said in a statement.  (link)
Update 1Eric Holder personally approved of wiretapping reporters - On Monday afternoon, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had “secretly obtained two months of telephone records” from 20 phone lines assigned to reporters and editors from the global news organization. The shocking revelation comes on top of news that the IRS targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny. It will be harder for President Obama to pin the DOJ’s action on lower level bureaucrats, however, because requests to subpoena news organization records require the approval of Attorney General Eric Holder.  (link)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.
Obama rose garden holder
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.
In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.
The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.  (continue reading)
Obama Holder

Share this:

Obama has blithely claimed that his records have been "thrown out." Chicago columnist Lynn Sweet reports that Obama,

Obama has blithely claimed that his records have been "thrown out." Chicago columnist Lynn Sweet reports that Obama,

Meet the Press’ transcript for Nov. 11, 2007

Barack Obama

updated 11/11/2007 12:26:21 PM ET
MR. TIM RUSSERT:  Our issues this Sunday, our Meet the Candidates 2008 series continues.  An exclusive interview with Democrat Barack Obama.  He was elected United States senator in 2004 and served in the Illinois state senate for eight years prior.  This morning Barack Obama joins us for the full hour and tells us why he should be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
And we continue our celebration of 60 years of MEET THE PRESS this morning in Iowa.  Why?  The caucuses are just 53 days away, and here with us is Senator Barack Obama.
Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL):  Thank you, Tim.  Always great to be here.
MR. RUSSERT:  The Wall Street Journal, NBC News went out and talked to viewers last week, asking them about the Democratic candidates, asking them to give marks, grades to the candidates.  Likeability, this is what they said: Obama, 72; Hillary Clinton, 49, very strong grade.  Then we asked knowledgeable and experience to handle the presidency:  Clinton, 76; Obama, 41.  These are members of your own party.  Why are people in your own party skeptical about your knowledge and experience to be president?
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, look at—I have not been on the national scene as long as some of the other candidates in this race, and so part of our job throughout this campaign is to give people some sense of what I’ve done before I got to Washington; what I did as a constitutional law professor, as a civil rights lawyer, as a state legislator.  And what we discover is when people actually find out my track record, they’re pleasantly surprised.  And so that’s why our focus on the early states like Iowa and New Hampshire’s been so important, because we can interact much more intimately with people and give them a sense not only about my track record but also my vision for the future.
MR. RUSSERT:  Hillary Clinton was first lady in Arkansas, first lady at the White House for eight years, U.S. senator for seven years.  Can you compete with that?
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, you know, if you’re comparing how long I’ve been in public office, I’ve actually been in public office longer than her.  I think that Senator Clinton is a capable and, and intelligent person.  I think she’s been a fine senator from New York.  But when it comes to the issues that are really moving the American people right now—healthcare, energy, how we deal with a shifting economy—those are all issues that I’ve been working with at every level of government.
MR. RUSSERT:  Mayor Giuliani said Obama, Clinton have never managed a city, managed a state, run a business, met a payroll.  How can they possibly want the top executive job in the country?
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, you know, I think I have shown through my legislative work my knowledge of the issues, my judgment and character, and those are the qualities that I think the next president is going to need.  One of the things that I’m very clear about during the course of this campaign as I’m meeting voters all across the country is they don’t expect the president to be the next chief operating officer.  What they want is somebody who understands the struggles they’re going through, is going to be thinking every day about how to make their lives better, has a grasp of the issues that not only Democrats, but Republicans and independents are worried are not being attended to in Washington.  And if I provide that kind of leadership, I think that they will feel confident that I’m going to be able to do the job.
MR. RUSSERT:  Charles Rangel, the Democrat from Harlem, very important in the Democratic Party, was giving an interview.  And he said, “I don’t think on-the-job training is going to be a great asset for the next president of the United States.” Question:  “That’s what we would have to have with Obama?” Rangel:  “Of course.”
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, look, the only real training for the presidency is the presidency.  I mean, the fact of the matter is it’s a unique job, and every president who’s ever taken that job acknowledged—acknowledges that that’s the case.  What right now I think the American people need is somebody who can bring the country together to overcome the gridlock that has become so pervasive in Washington.  I think they need somebody who is willing to push against the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda in Washington.  And maybe most importantly, what they are looking for is a president who can lay out in a honest and clear and convincing fashion what are the choices that we face?  If we’re serious about climate change, what does that mean in the lives of ordinary people?  What decisions do we have to make, what costs and sacrifices are going to be involved?  If we’re serious about healthcare, how do we move a process forward that’s transparent and accountable, so the drug and insurance companies aren’t dominating the debate? Those are the questions I think people are going to be asking.
MR. RUSSERT:  A year ago, you were asked about Hillary Clinton.  And this the exchange.  “Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?” Obama:  “You know, I think very highly of Hillary.  The more I get to know her, the more I admire her.  I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people I’ve ever met.  She’s one of the toughest.  She’s got an extraordinary intelligence.” “She is—she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons.  She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like healthcare and children.  So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate.” Do you still hold to that?  There aren’t any differences?
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, I think that I, as I said earlier, I have admiration for Senator Clinton.  I think she’s a fine public servant.  The reason I’m running is because I think we’re in a unique moment in American history right now. The nation’s at war; our planet is in peril.  We’ve got a series of decisions that we’re going to have to make.  And I believe that I can more effectively than any other candidate in this race bring the country together, overcome some of the same old arguments that we’ve been having since the 1990s.  I think I can reach out to Republicans and independents more effectively than any other candidate that...
MR. RUSSERT:  What arguments do you want to put behind you?
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, look, when we think about, let’s say, foreign policy, we have had a tendency to, to argue along the spectrum of you’re either a hawk or a dove.  Either you’re willing to engage in military action and oftentimes think military action first and diplomacy second, or you’re a dove, you’ve got post-Vietnam syndrome, you’re suspicious of any military action.  I think that the way we have to think about it is to say that right now we live in a dangerous world.  There are times where we’re going to need to act militarily. We should not hesitate to act on behalf of the national interest.  But we have to understand that we’ve got more power than just the military at our, our disposal, and that’s something, obviously, the Bush administration has forgotten.
Having the ability to focus on getting the job done, as opposed to getting embroiled in ideological arguments, which have become so common in Washington, I think, is going to be important for the next president, and that’s what I intend to do as president.
MR. RUSSERT:  You had an exchange with The New York Times.  It says here, “In an interview, Obama said Hillary Clinton was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain.  Asked if she had been fully truthful with voters about what she should do as president, Mr. Obama replied, ‘No.’” On which issues has Hillary Clinton not been truthful?
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, I think that what Senator Clinton’s been doing is running what’s considered a textbook Washington campaign, and what that says is that you don’t answer directly tough questions.  You don’t present tough choices directly to the American people for fear that your answers might not be popular, you might make yourself a target for Republicans in the general election.  So on Social Security, for example, she has maintained, it appears, that if we just get our fiscal house in order that we can solve the problem of Social Security.  Now, we’ve got 78 million baby boomers that are going to be retiring, and every expert that looks at this problem says “There’s going to be a gap, and we’re going to have more money going out than we have coming in unless we make some adjustments now.” Now, I think that Social Security is the single most important social program that we have in this country, and I want to make sure that it’s there not just for this generation, but for next generations.  So that means that we’re going to have to make some decisions, and it’s not sufficient for us to just finesse the issue because we’re worried that, well, we might be attacked for the various options we present.
MR. RUSSERT:  But, Senator, you said last year—earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, “No, no.  Those aren’t off—on the table; I’m taking them off the table.”
SEN. OBAMA:  Tim, that’s not—that’s not what I said.  What I said was that I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available.  That doesn’t mean that as president I will not have strong opinions on how we should move forward.  And when you look at how we should approach Social Security, I believe that cutting retire—cutting benefits is not the right answer.  I meet too many seniors all across the country who are struggling with the limited Social Security benefits that they have.  That raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we’ve got people who ware still in manufacturing.  By the time they’re 67, their bodies, oftentimes...
MR. RUSSERT:  But in May you said they would be on the table.
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, when I—I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected.  That is the option that I will be pushing forward.  But, look, even as president I’m not going to be able to get this done by myself, and that means that I’m going to be listening to any other ideas out there.  It doesn’t mean, though, that I’m not going to have a strong position on it.
MR. RUSSERT:  But they would be on the table?
SEN. OBAMA:  Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options, finding out what is it going to take to close that gap.  But what I’m going to continue to insist on is that the reason we need to fix it now is precisely to protect our senior citizens and maintain not only Social Security as a social
Obama's state government records are missing
By Warner Todd Huston

The media has been on a low buzz about the fact that Hillary and Bill Clinton have made efforts to slow the release of millions of pages of documents that pertain Hillary's actions during Bill's White House years. What, these critics wonder, are the Clintons hiding with their reticence to release these documents? It is a good question, indeed. But, flying low under this Clinton document-gate radar is the stonewalling of a release of documents by another candidate for the Democrat Party nomination for president; Barack Obama.

While in State government here in Illinois, Barack was known as a "nice guy," but has little to show for his years in state government. He was never particularly known by the public at large as a vocal leader and was rarely out in front of any issue. In fact, few Illinoisans even knew his name at all until he ran for the Senate seat against Alan Keyes. He was an unknown, a non-entity as far as state politics was concerned.

Yet, the Obama camp has made no effort to assist investigators to look into his state records. In fact, Senator Obama has blithely claimed that his records have been "thrown out." Chicago columnist Lynn Sweet reports that Obama, who has called for "transparency in government" from his rivals, is not much interested in revealing his own documents.

    "I was in the state Senate for eight years," Obama said. "I had one staff person, that was what was allocated. I don't have archivists in the state Senate. I don't have the Barack Obama state Senate library available to me, so we had a bunch of file cabinets. I do not have a whole bunch of records from those years. Now, if there are particular documents that you are interested in, then you should let us know". ... "As I said, I didn't have the resources to ensure that all this stuff was archived in some way . . . it could have been thrown out."
But, the Chicago Tribune has been trying for months to get the Senator's state papers and has met with no response from either the state of Illinois or the Obama camp. Even Tim Russert brought up the candidate's state archives to an evasive Obama.

On the November 11th episode of Meet the Press, Russert brought up the records question.

    You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, "What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois," you said, "I don't know." Where, where are the — where are your records?
Obama replied that "every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois," but that other records do not exist.

That is a pretty convenient situation when questions of his dealings with shady businessman Tony Rezco comes into play. In fact, it is pretty convenient all around when it comes to who Obama met with and who he dealt with while in state government.

What ever the case, Obama's own document-gate is not getting near the attention that the Clinton's stonewalling is getting but it should get at least as much. Obama is right, of course, to say that the Clinton's are defeating transparency in government by trying to slow or stymie investigators from looking into past records. After all, he should know from experience.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Video: Obama Speaking In Kenya With Mass Murderer Raila Odinga: I Am So Proud To Come Back Home; Michelle Obama Agrees...

Video Flashback: Barack Obama Speaking In Western Kenya With Mass Murderer Raila Odinga: "I Am So Proud To Come Back Home..." - August 26, 2006 - Hat tip to RS. Clip embedded below... U.S. Senator Barack Obama arrived in western Kenya on Saturday (August 26) to a welcome from thousands of cheering well-wishers, there to greet the rising political star of the America's Democratic Party as a native son. Obama flew into Kisumu, on the shores of Lake Victoria, on the way to his Kenyan father's village for the highly anticipated climax of his two-week African tour.... -Source.

2007: Michelle Obama declares Obama is Kenyan and America is mean - 2:00 min mark:

2008: Michelle Obama declares Barack Obama's Home country is Kenya:

FLASH: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE. 

Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here. 

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. -Details here. 

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here. 

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here. 

Detailed reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].
What U.S. President in History Has Multiple Sources in a Foreign Country Saying He Was Born There?

Senators Ask if NSA Collected Gun Data

Potential to construct gun database, senators say
James Clapper / AP
James Clapper / AP

Senators are questioning whether the National Security Agency collected bulk data on more than just Americans’ phone records, such as firearm and book purchases.
A bipartisan group of 26 senators, led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to detail the scope and limits of the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities in a letter released Friday.
“We are concerned that by depending on secret interpretations of the PATRIOT Act that differed from an intuitive reading of the statute, this program essentially relied for years on a secret body of law,” the senators wrote in the letter.
The NSA’s surveillance program has come under intense scrutiny following a leak revealing the agency harvested the phone metadata of millions of American citizens.
The senators noted that the federal government’s authority under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is broad and rife with potential for abuse. Among the senators’ concerns was whether the NSA’s bulk data harvesting program could be used to construct a gun registry or violate other privacy laws.
“It can be used to collect information on credit card purchases, pharmacy records, library records, firearm sales records, financial information, and a range of other sensitive subjects,” the senators wrote. “And the bulk collection authority could potentially be used to supersede bans on maintaining gun owner databases, or laws protecting the privacy of medical records, financial records, and records of book and movie purchases.”
The senators asked Clapper in the letter whether the NSA used PATRIOT Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of other types of records, and whether there are any instances of the agency violating a court order in the process of such collections.
Civil libertarians say such surveillance is a violation of privacy. However, the government has defended the program, saying it helped thwart several terrorist attacks and is minimally invasive.
Second Amendment groups and Republican members of Congress have long warned against the creation of a national gun registry. Fears of such a registry bogged down several attempts to forge a bipartisan gun-control bill in the Senate earlier this year.
“In this country, the government can’t just monitor your constitutionally
protected activities—like gun ownership—just because it wants to,” said Brian Phillips, a spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), who signed onto the letter.  “The justification that, ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have to worry about it,’ turns us into a police state very quickly. That’s why
Congress is right to seek broad oversight of the NSA’s data collection programs.”

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid Arthritis
i have   Rheumatoid Arthritis
and my son went to hit me 
i put up my hand to block him and that is how i hurt my hand 
doctor wants me to get x rays 
says there is trama
and now

deformity in my hand my have to have it set

thing is bone could of broke or it spilter 

so may be out if i have to have it worked on

Email exchange: Obama tried to steer $10 million to Chicago nonprofit under investigation




Patrick Howley
Investigative Reporter
While he was a sitting U.S. Senator, Barack Obama attempted to steer $10 million in taxpayer money to a Chicago nonprofit under investigation for potential fraud, according to an email sent by the nonprofit’s then-director of operations.
Former Save-A-Life Foundation (SALF) director of operations Vincent Davis sent an email dated June 10, 2007 to Eric Brandmeyer, an official at an Illinois hospital trying to implement SALF’s controversial first-aid training programs at a local school district. Davis assured Brandmeyer that public funding for SALF would remain strong in the aftermath of a local media report on the group’s potentially fraudulent activities.
“Naturally, I am aware of the recent press from ABC of Chicago and am concerned about SALF funding. Please give me your thoughts on the future of SALF funding in our area,” Brandmeyer wrote to Davis on June 5, 2007.
“All is ok regarding funding, and we are getting Obama to help push through our legislation for an additional 10 million which is part of the Homeland Security bill,” Davis wrote in his June 10 reply email.
SALF officials believed that their organization would be the intended recipient of at least $10 million in federal funding from the Community Response System Initiative (CRSI) Act of 2006, introduced by then-Minnesota senator Norm

 Davis’ email also disparaged the reporting of ABC of Chicago reporter Chuck Goudie and whistleblower Peter Heimlich, who helped bring SALF’s potential fraud to light in 2006.
“I’m not surprised that Mr. Davis would make false and absurd allegations about me and reporter Chuck Goudie,” Heimlich told The Daily Caller. “Since hardly any kids received first aid training, what happened to the millions of tax dollars awarded to SALF for that purpose?” 

Davis did not immediately return a request for comment for this story, but he told the Dubuque Telegraph Herald that his email does not necessarily mean that Obama was more invested in SALF’s future than other Illinois politicians of the time.

“Some supported it, others didn’t. As far as any specific person supporting it, I don’t recall at this point which ones did and which ones didn’t,” Davis said. “There was probably other emails (that mentioned other legislators). There was nothing special about this one.”
As The Daily Caller reported, Democratic Illinois senator Dick Durbin, a former SALF “Advisory Council” member, also urged a U.S. Senate subcommittee chairman to appropriate $1 million in federal funds for SALF in 1999.
The Save-A-Life Foundation is reportedly under investigation for misappropriating potential millions of dollars in taxpayer money by the Illinois Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Bureau.
The controversial nonprofit, which received nearly $9 million in federal and Illinois state funding to teach schoolchildren CPR and the Heimlich maneuver, dissolved in 2009 but is still under investigation amid claims that it misrepresented the number of children it provided services to and of “money unaccounted for.”
“We can’t really find anywhere that there were a lot of kids that were trained. There may have been some kids, but not the claims that were made in the thousands or tens of thousands. It doesn’t seem to exist,” Illinois state Sen. Tim Bivins said in March.
Former Chicago schools CEO and current Obama administration Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in 2006 that it seemed unlikely that the Foundation could have trained as many children as it claimed. The Foundation previously claimed that it trained more than 1 million schoolchildren, which would have conceivably brought thousands of EMTs and other outside employees into classrooms.
“There’s money unaccounted for through Save-A-Life,” Bivins added.
Save-A-Life also purchased a building in Springfield, Ill., with $200,000 in state grants in 2003, only to sell that building to a private owner upon its dissolution in 2009 without reporting the location of the sale money to the Illinois Attorney General.
Illinois resident Carol Spizzirri founded the Save-A-Life Foundation in 1993 to teach emergency life-saving procedures to students after her own daughter Christina died in what Spizzirri she claimed was a hit-and-run car crash, reportedly due to the first responders’ inability to provide first aid.
It was later reported, however, that Spizzirri’s daughter died at a hospital, rather than at the scene of the crash, as Spizzirri claimed, and that she did not die in a hit-and-run but rather in a single-car crash that resulted after she drove with an illegal blood alcohol level. Spizzirri’s claim to be a registered nurse was also disputed, as no records exist to support her claim. Spizzirri now lives in southern California.
SALF claimed in 2006 that Obama was a staunch supporter of the foundation and that he even met with Spizzirri while in the U.S. Senate to discuss her organization’s goals.
“Save A Life Foundation (SALF) President and Founder Carol Spizzirri recently spoke with U.S. Senator Barack Obama and Illinois Congresswoman Melissa Bean regarding SALF’s future lifesaving efforts,” according to a Feb. 27, 2006, SALF news release that featured a photograph of then-Sen. Obama.
“While in the Illinois legislature together, Obama and current Illinois Senate President Emil Jones were always supportive of SALF’s efforts to train Illinois schoolchildren in life-sustaining skills for free. … Spizzirri says she looks forward to implementing SALF’s future goals with both U.S. Senator Obama and Congresswoman Bean on a national level,” according to the SALF news release.

Our History

Establishment of the Defense Security Service

The Defense Security Service (DSS), formerly known as the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) was established on January 1, 1972. DSS was created in response to President Richard M. Nixon's approval of proposals suggesting the reorganization of the national intelligence community and the creation of an "Office of Defense Investigation" to consolidate Department of Defense (DoD) personnel security investigations (PSI). Prior to this consolidation, such work was accomplished through U.S. military departments by four major DoD investigative agencies. They were: 1) the U.S. Army Intelligence Command, 2) the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command, 3) the Naval Investigative Service, and 4) the Office of Special Investigations, Air Force. Centralization of PSIs promised economic savings through better program management and more efficient use of resources.
Military departments were directed to transfer certain military and civilian manpower resources to DSS and on May 1, 1972, the agency took operational control of the National Agency Check (NAC) Center and the Defense Central Index of Investigations (DCII). On October 2, 1972, DSS became operational in all 50 states under the direction of Brigadier General Joseph Cappucci, former commander of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Formation of this new agency and the consolidation of the PSI process brought additional benefits to the final investigative product - uniformity, improved quality and timeliness.
Timeline of DSS History

The Early Years

DSS was an organization whose manpower, facilities and operational structure were almost entirely borrowed from the Army, Navy and Air Force and the initial months of the agency's existence proved turbulent. Not only was General Cappucci faced with the arduous task of growing one homogeneous operational organization from separate military investigative units with different procedures, but doing so amidst such obstacles as personnel shortages, inadequate resources, and poor working conditions. As early as March 1973, seven months after its start, DSS had a workload twice the size of that considered the optimum, with 48,000 investigations and thousands significantly overdue. Despite such fertile ground for complaint and low morale, transferees exhibited a great sense of loyalty to the DSS mission and were ready to meet the challenge. By the end of 1974, DSS was on the road to recovery.
As DSS matured, military personnel were gradually returned to their parent services and the workforce became entirely civilian. Additional security functions were transferred to DSS, with the most significant being the transfer of administration of the Defense Industrial Security Program from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to DSS on October 2, 1980. As part of the industrial security program, DSS was given responsibility for what was then known as the Key Assets Protection Program and the Arms, Ammunition and Explosives Program. Along with this alignment, DSS inherited the Defense Industrial Security Institute, giving us the opportunity to train our own personnel for the first time.

A Small Agency with a Big Mission

DSS continued to carry out its mission despite the pressures of workload requirements surpassing resource availability. Between 1974 and 1985, DSS' investigative workload increased over 58%, with 17.5% fewer personnel resources devoted to the mission than were afforded military departments prior to the establishment of DSS.
Despite the escalating workload during these years, DSS sought to improve upon its contribution to national security by introducing new processes and programs. In 1981, DSS implemented a new type of background investigation; the first major change in the conduct of personnel security investigations since World War II. The most striking innovation in the new investigation was the inclusion of an interview of the "subject," which consistently led to the development of more significant information and gained widespread recognition throughout DoD.
In 1983, DSS launched a substantial program whereby periodic investigations were conducted on personnel not only having access to Special Compartmented Information (SCI), but to top secret information. This new and aggressive program was designed to detect those cleared personnel who may no longer be reliable or trustworthy and to deter those who might otherwise become traitors.

The Year of the Spy

In 1985, Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, established the Stilwell Commission following the revelation of the "Walker spy ring" and in response to the alarming increase of espionage cases against the U.S. government. Reported cases of espionage had doubled from the 1950s to the 1970s and then doubled again during the 1980s. The Stilwell Commission was directed to review and evaluate security policies and procedures in DoD and identify weaknesses in security programs. The Commission's findings were published in the report, "Keeping the Nation's Secrets" and their recommendations directly impacted DSS. The Commission believed increased priority should be given to DoD security efforts and that necessary resourcing must be made available. As a result, Congress increased DSS funding by 25 million dollars in fiscal year 1986, with an emphasis on Periodic Reinvestigations.

Significant Enhancements during the Last Decade

DSS has undergone a dramatic evolution since its early days, rapidly developing into a complex security organization providing personnel, information, and industrial security products and services, including research studies and comprehensive security training to DoD and other government departments and agencies. The Industrial Security Program has enabled DSS to move into the international arena and provide assistance to U.S. industry operating in Europe and adjacent geographic areas. The international program has grown by leaps and bounds as the decline of defense spending has resulted in industry's expansion into international markets. The typical cleared defense contractor of today has multiple foreign customers, including both foreign military and commercial sales. The insular, DoD-oriented contractor of the past has been replaced by a global business activity extensively involved with foreign entities, businesses and governments.
In May of 1993, DSS established a counterintelligence (CI) office in response to the dramatic changes taking place in the defense marketplace and the growing need for current and relevant intelligence-threat data by the DSS workforce and industrial managers. In addition to being a rich resource for sharing CI experience and knowledge with the DSS workforce through training, policy development and operational support, this office enables the identification and communication of threat data to industry.
The personnel security investigation (PSI) mission transferred from the Department of Defense (DoD) to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) effective Feb. 20, 2005, and included PSIs for industry personnel under the National Industrial Security Program (NISP). The transfer was made pursuant to section 906(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. DSS retained the function, on behalf of DoD, to oversee the OPM billing and financial reconciliation process for PSIs for the entire Department.
We are proud of our accomplishments through the years. We are confident that our rich history, a quality workforce and improved business strategies will make us the security provider of choice for the future.

Former DSS Directors:

  • Brigadier General Joseph Cappucci, USAF, 1971-1976
  • Bernard J. O'Donnell, 1976-1981
  • Thomas J. O'Brien, 1981-1988
  • John F. Donnelly, 1988-1996
  • Margaret R. Munson, 1996-1998
  • Steven T. Schanzer, 1998-1999
  • Charles J. Cunningham Jr., 1999-2002
  • William Curtis, 2002-2004
  • Heather Anderson, 2004-2005
  • Janice Haith, 2005-2006
  • Kathy Watson, 2006-2010
  • Stanley L. Sims, 2010- present

US to lose access to key military base after Russian ally cancels lease

June 27, 2013
Source: Voice of Russia

The United States will lose access to a vital military logistics hub in Central Asia in 2014 following the Kyrgyz president's decision Wednesday to cancel a lease agreement for a military base.
President Almazbek Atambayev signed a law Wednesday that repudiates a 2009 lease agreement, with effect from July 2014, the president's website said in a statement.
The Kyrgyz parliament approved the law last week.
Officially dubbed "Transit Centre," the Manas air base has served as a supply hub for US troops in Afghanistan since 2001.
It has been the subject of much political bargaining between Washington and the Kyrgyz government in Bishkek.
In 2009, the US signed on to a new agreement under significantly higher lease payments of 60 million dollars annually.
That agreement expires in 2014 anyway, but the renunciation law prevents it from being renewed.

You might like:

Obama Donor Set To Profit From Keystone Demise

Billionaire hedge fund manager Steyer: Kinder Morgan, yes, but Keystone, no? Getty Images
Billionaire hedge fund manager Steyer: Kinder Morgan, yes, but Keystone, no? Getty Images View Enlarged Image
Energy Policy: A billionaire hedge fund manager and Barack Obama donor is pushing the president to stop the pipeline that would compete with one he's invested in. That pipeline could send Canadian oil to China.
Environmental activist Tom Steyer donated as much as he could to get Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey elected to the Senate in the recent special election to fill the seat vacated by now-Secretary of State John Kerry. He wanted another senator who's opposed to completing the Keystone XL pipeline that he says would be an environmental plague on the planet.
A few days before President Obama said that Keystone XL would be built only if it could be shown to have no net effect on greenhouse gas emissions, Steyer, a major contributor to Obama's campaigns, urged the president to kill the project.
"We really cannot afford 40 to 50 years of development of a humongous oil reserve that's twice as bad — soup to nuts — as normal crude," Steyer told a gathering at the National Press Club, referring to Canada's extraction of crude from its oil sands in Alberta.
Steyer has mounted an extensive campaign to kill Keystone, yet he owes his personal fortune to a lifetime of investments in oil, gas and pipeline companies. He stands to reap another financial reward through the extensive investments his hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management, has made over the last 27 years in fossil fuel companies. These include holdings that could benefit from the blocking of the Keystone pipeline.
Farallon has made millions for its investors, and left Steyer with a net worth estimated by Forbes at $1.4 billion. One of Farallon's biggest holdings is in U.S. pipeline company Kinder Morgan, which has plans to expand a major competitor to Keystone — the TransMountain pipeline.
Steyer has also lobbied against Northern Gateway, which would carry oil from Edmonton to Kitimat, British Columbia, on Canada's west coast. Curiously, he is not opposed to TransMountain, which Kinder Morgan has sought approval to expand.
If that expansion is approved, TransMountain will be the only available outlet for Alberta crude. If Keystone XL is killed, it will leave TransMountain as the only game in town for transporting oil directly from the oil sands to export terminals, up to 900,000 barrels a day. And most of that oil will be shipped west to China.
Steyer stepped down as Farallon's CEO late last year to focus on political and environmental activism. In his newfound fervor to go "green," he says he's directed the fund to divest him of all positions in oil and coal, including Kinder Morgan. But it appears that process is painstakingly slow. Meanwhile, his holdings increase in value as Keystone remains in limbo.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

We Have The Pentagon’s Training Brochures On How To Stop Whistleblowing Spy Stuff

Oh, Yeah: You are TOTALLY going to need David Shire-composed incidental music for this!
Everyone who works for the government is a secret agent now. Their mission: spy on their coworkers just to make sure nobody leaks information — classified, unclassified or totally obvious — to the American public, but especially that Glenn Greenwald guy. (Yeesh, that guy. Amirite, General?) So, how does one educate these career civil servants and contracted employees in the Tippy-Top Secret Art of Intelligence Tradecraft? Basically: pamphlets, mandatory webinars, you know, the usual, maybe have them get together into groups later, do skits.
Last week, McClatchy’s Washington Bureau — the newsgathering arm of fast food giant McClatchy’s — made waves with an investigative report detailing President Obama’s Insider Threat Program: a sweeping crackdown on all government leakers, everywhere, all the time, period, no excuses, Sasha, Malia, your mom, Joe Biden, Bo, grandma inclusive. Initiated in October 2011, Insider Threat broadly expanded the internal profiling of potentially leaky employees, as well as increasing the penalties for either leaking or failing to report things that James Franco’s character in Spring Breakers would call “spicious.” In the intervening two years, FDA scientists, Peace Corp volunteers, Department of Agriculture bureaucrats and Social Security administrators have all been told to spy on one another or git burnt.
Referenced in the McClatchy piece is a pamphlet put out by the Defense Security Service (DSS) titled “Insider Threats: Combating the ENEMY within your organization.” The pamphlet calmly encourages snitching on coworkers who put in “repeated or un-required work outside of normal duty hours” or coworkers who suddenly can afford things like a Bugatti Veyron. But that pamphlet was just the tippy-top of the DSS pamphlet iceberg!
As an agency within the Defense Department, the DSS has been growing from a small counterintelligence auditor for the pentagon to a primary liaison between the national security state and its constellation of domestic and multinational corporate contractors ever since — if you can believe it — the sad times of 9/11. According to their website, DSS now also provides “comprehensive security training to DoD and other government departments and agencies,” like the USDA. God forbid Taliban poppy farmers get our soil-tilling secrets!
We think you’ll agree that we’re exaggerating when we say these pamphlets are EXPLOSIVE. They are mostly sad and pathetic — and frankly a little scary for it, given the stakes involved (e.g. the careers and pensions of nice people) — but occasionally they are, unintentionally, quite funny. A sampling:
From The “Insider Threats” Pamphlet
If your coworker is in silhouette and under an umbrella, that is spicious.
“This overly broad definition of an ‘insider threat’ is the main reason I don’t want you to use my name,” our source for these pamphlets told us. “I think, technically, I could be endangering the homeland just by stealing too many paper clips now.” The source — who declined to be labeled either vaguely by his government employer or by the pseudonym Daniel Smellsberg — also noted that the pamphlets might be available online somewhere. (They are.) “So, it really shouldn’t be a big deal.”
“I can see why you would think it’s funny, but please don’t do that ‘Daniel Smellsberg’ thing in the article,” Smellsberg added.
Suffice to say that Smellsberg is one of the nearly five million Americans who have been granted access to classified documents in a little over a decade’s time. With our nation’s most closely held information now in the hands of that many people, it’s inevitable that some of them will be criminally stupid or worse, making it therefore doubly important (we guess) to spell out even the most obvious bullshit. Like this, for example, from the same pamphlet:
(e.g. the Heliograph)
From The “Foreign Travel Vulnerability” Pamphlet [.pdf]
Oh ... :'( ... a LITERAL missile secret.
Pay very close attention to the body on that flight attendant. Spies can use Mission Impossible-type masks to disguise their faces, so Our National Security could rest on your ability to recognize subtle differences between neatly turned calves or between dis ass and dat ass.
From The “Preparing for Foreign Visitors” Pamphlet [.pdf]
Let's hear it for Keynes.
Fact: DARPA alone spends 2.8 billion dollarsign.jpg’s each year. We can’t afford to just flush dollarsign.jpg after dollarsign.jpg down the toilet due to poor security protocol. Those are taxpayer dollarsign.jpg’s.
Heavy peppering, repeat, heavy peppering. Need more PR Flack. Copy?
There’s not a lot of context for this magical stock photo. Of the seven “techniques” that those sneaky foreign visitors might use to steal our precious American secrets, the one closest to describing this photo is called “Distraught Visitor.” You know, it’s that technique “when the visitor’s questions are not answered [and] he/she acts insulted or creates an uncomfortable scene in an attempt to psychologically coerce information from a target.” Gets ‘em every time. (Yes, most of the techniques have visitor in their name. And: No, there’s no explanation for why this guy is yelling into a phone.)
From The “Elicitation & Recruitment” Pamphlet [.pdf]
You look like a spy in that coat, Dave.
While all of these pamphlets would make a good sight gag on Archer, this one especially meets that criteria.
BUT HEY, SRSLY! Did you know these tidbits? “Despite their personal rationale for committing espionage, all [spies] had other means at their disposal for fulfilling their aspirations, needs, and desires. Most, if not all, spies eventually regret their actions and their decisions to commit espionage.” No? Then you especially should read this pamphlet. These are irrefutable facts because there never was a French Resistance in World War II and we’ve been really getting into that book The Secret.
Then there’s the summary on the back:
You really have to admire the gall of this. “Did we mention we currently have access to all of your phone metadata, Skype calls, emails and Facebook messages? Our PRISM and Boundless Informant programs have been real timesavers — at prices that won’t bust open the old piggy bank.”
The “Reporting the Threat” [.pdf] and “Counterintelligence Awareness” [.pdf.] Pamphlets
Or Searching The Electronic Card Catalog & Asking A Librarian
Nothing really funny about these apart from the graphic design, unless the xenophobic plot of Michael Crichton’s Rising Sun is your idea of a gut-busting chucklefest.
An Excellent Summary Analysis For All You
In the past two years, a lot of espionage-grade paranoia that made sense for (say) a Fort Meade janitor or some dinky nerd coding drone-piloting software has now been quietly introduced into every part of the government. Could there be a downside to spicing things up in the federal bureaucracy with more thrills and a little bit of suspense?
“Well, the work environment is already one where people who used to talk to me — and, I suspect, other reporters — are no longer willing to talk, simply for fear that they’re going to encounter retaliation for talking to a journalist,” McClatchy reporter Jonathan Landay told Democracy Now! hosts Severe Lady and the Mumblecore. “And not disclosing classified information, but simply trying to give us context — at least in my experience, trying to give me context about stories that we report normally.”
“So, the environment, as a result of this, seems to be pretty toxic.”
Ha, ha. Whatever, Landay. What’s toxic for the muckraking, “good government” Trotskyites in the LSM must be unequivocally great for the rest of us hard-working U.S.A. Taxpayers.
Bottom Line: Be Assertive. Be Alert. Be Aware. Report Anythang Spicious!
PS -- James Franco fellates a gun in Spring Breakers.
[Pentagon photo by Michael Baird, some rights reserved; typographical bullshit and pamphlet photographs by Matthew Phelan. Baird doesn't endorse these jokes. In fact, we've never met.]
A Hamas leader claims the terrorist group has had "direct meetings" with U.S. officials close to the White House despite a longstanding American policy to have no contact with Hamas.
The claim from Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad was reported in a Palestinian news outlet. Top American representatives were in meetings Hamas had with European ambassadors and officials about two weeks ago, he said.
The officials discussed removing Hamas from the list of designated terrorist organizations, but that "these contacts have not yet reached the level of decision-makers," Hamad said in a Sky News Arabia report translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism. The alleged meeting has not yet been reported in Western media.
His comments can be viewed here.
Concerns over a brewing civil war in Egypt emerged Friday as the country faced a weekend of protests marking Islamist President Mohamed Morsi's first year in office.
At least one person was killed Friday – the fifth death this week – and scores injured in violence that has the country's top conservative clerics warning of civil war. Protesters attacked offices belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood and its political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party, with some offices set on fire. Before becoming president, Morsi was a top Brotherhood official and he has helped fellow Islamists rise to positions of power.
"Vigilance is required to ensure we do not slide into civil war," read a statement from Al Azhar University, Egypt's top Sunni religious body. But Al-Azhar officials blamed Morsi opponents for the violence, with one calling them "ignorant people" and demanding they stand down.
In a speech Wednesday, Morsi claimed he was open to constitutional reforms and asked for dialogue.
Neither is likely to happen.
Computer science student Mohamed Abdul Munim summed up the views of many Morsi critics during an interview with NBC News.
"We are sure that we will go out and get beaten up by the [Muslim] Brotherhood [but] we are going out despite this," said Munim, 23. "There is no security, there is economic collapse, the electricity cuts off and everybody is suffering. They will say Morsi is not at fault, but electricity didn't cut off when the military governed."
Motorists also are waiting in long gas lines.
Morsi's critics also are angry at the United States, which they see as standing squarely behind the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government.
Those who can are fleeing the country, packing departing flights out of Cairo's airport, the Associated Press reported, citing unnamed airport officials. They called it an unprecedented exodus by families of government officials, Egyptian Christians and business and diplomatic officials.
Wael Ghonim, the Internet activist credited with helping stoke the 2011 uprising that ultimately ousted Hosni Mubarak, this week called for Morsi's resignation, saying the president broke his promise to build an inclusive government to represent all Egyptians.
The motto was "Our strength, in our unity." But, Ghonim said, the reality has become "Our strength, in our Brotherhood" as the Islamist groups dominates power under Morsi. "[W]e find that we have replaced a ruling party that considered whoever opposes it to be a traitor and an agent with another ruling party that considers whoever opposes it to be a traitor, an agent and a hater of religion."
Egypt "has become very dangerous," Ghonim added, "and all the parties are motivated against each other, and anyone who loves this country must be worried about what is happening, because in the current conflict, regardless of its future victor, Egypt will lose."