Tuesday, May 20, 2014

More VA Whistleblowers Coming Forward, Campaign Says

More VA Whistleblowers Coming Forward, Campaign Says

Lawyers who have represented VA informers say the agency is a heinous abuser of rights.

U.S. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, left, and Veterans Affairs Undersecretary for Health Robert Petzel testify before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee about wait times veterans face to get medical care on May 15, 2014, in Washington, D.C. The American Legion called for Shinseki to resign amid reports by former and current VA employees that 40 patients may have died because of delayed treatment in Phoenix.
U.S. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, left, and Veterans Affairs Undersecretary for Health Robert Petzel testify before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on May 15, 2014, in Washington, D.C. The American Legion called for Shinseki to resign amid reports by former and current VA employees that 40 patients may have died because of delayed treatment in Phoenix.
By SHARE
Conscientious workers at the Veterans Health Administration aware of their employer's reputation for punishing people who expose wrongdoing were given a new outlet last week.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America unveiled an encrypted web submission form Thursday soliciting horror stories in the wake of a nationwide furor about fudged wait time records and related veteran deaths in Phoenix.
POGO Director of Communications Joe Newman says the groups are looking for systematic problems and received 310 submissions as of Monday morning. The majority of reports are thus far from veterans and members of the public, and less than 10 percent are from VA employees, Newman says.
A few appear promising, but POGO plans to carefully vet allegations before moving forward.

Top VA Health Official Resigns Under Fire

The top official for the health care of veterans resigned Friday amid a firestorm over reported delays in care and falsified records at veterans hospitals. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki said he has accepted the...

[REPORT: More Internal Complaints, But No Proof Deaths Linked]
Blowing the whistle with the help of interested nonprofits is perfectly legal, three attorneys who specialize in whistleblowing law tell U.S. News.
And using a third party to snitch on bad behavior may be well worth considering.
“In short, VA employees can still be protected if they go to nonprofits or the press rather than the agency," says Cornell Law School professor Stewart Schwab. “This is particularly so when there has been a pattern of unresponsiveness.”
Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblower Center, knows the risks of internal reporting. He’s currently representing a surgeon who blew the whistle on shocking safety violations at the VA hospital in Dallas about two years ago.
The surgeon, Kohn says, wrote a detailed memo to superiors noting that colleagues nearly had him remove the incorrect kidney from a patient and, in another instance, presented for surgery a man too senile to provide informed consent.
[VOTE: Shoud Shinseki Lose His Job?]
The surgeon was fired – despite, Kohn says, an admission of the errors from the doctor’s boss – and he’s been struggling ever since for reinstatement from the federal government's three-member Merit Systems Protection Board.
“A VA employee under the law has numerous options for blowing the whistle. The problem is that the agencies that implement the law are biased, incompetent and Mickey Mouse,” Kohn says.
The Office of Special Counsel, which can file a stay stalling disciplinary action against whistleblowers, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, which can reverse disciplinary actions, “have extremely poor reputations among federal employees for providing protection,” he says.
Though Kohn believes the Office of Special Counsel is improving under its current leadership, he finds it too small and too ungenerous with stays. The Merit Systems Protection Board features two presidential employees and offers “second-class justice” from a phony judicial system, he says.
“If they face retaliation, they have a very difficult road ahead,” he says. “The VA is notoriously bad, and institutionally bad, and no one has taken any steps to fix it – Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, the inspector general.”
[RANKINGS: The Best Colleges for Veterans]
Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, says “VA workers have a long-established right to publicly disclose unclassified information that they reasonably believe is evidence of illegality, gross waste, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific threat to public health or safety.”
The VA, Devine says, has the government’s worst record of compliance with the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act and – in reality – the right to blow the whistle doesn’t immunize employees from consequences.
“This is an agency which has a track record of being uniquely intolerant to well-taken whistleblowing,” he says. “The gap between legal rights and reality is tragically broad for VA whistleblowers. … It’s almost the bureaucracy’s lowest common denominator, both in terms of quality of performance and in terms of secrecy enforced by repression.”


More VA Whistleblowers Coming Forward, Campaign Says

Lawyers who have represented VA informers say the agency is a heinous abuser of rights.

U.S. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, left, and Veterans Affairs Undersecretary for Health Robert Petzel testify before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee about wait times veterans face to get medical care on May 15, 2014, in Washington, D.C. The American Legion called for Shinseki to resign amid reports by former and current VA employees that 40 patients may have died because of delayed treatment in Phoenix.
U.S. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, left, and Veterans Affairs Undersecretary for Health Robert Petzel testify before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on May 15, 2014, in Washington, D.C. The American Legion called for Shinseki to resign amid reports by former and current VA employees that 40 patients may have died because of delayed treatment in Phoenix.
By SHARE
Devine says he’s represented a half-dozen VA employees in the past decade, and has seen them put under criminal investigation, stripped of duties, barred from workplaces and harassed. None were charged with committing a crime. Among his clients was Robert Van Boven, a neurologist who blew the whistle on the VA for allegedly wasting $1.2 million, and who Devine says faced a multiyear nightmare following his disclosures.
“Just being put under criminal investigation and living with the possibility you could be branded a crook … those are terrifying consequences,” Devine says, “and the VA’s track record is unmatched for defiance of Whistleblower Protection Act free speech rights, it’s just a fact of life for people in this field.”
Devine says inspector generals and prosecutors sometimes carry out the retaliation without realizing they’re been used for that purpose.
Though the Obama administration is famously hostile to whistleblowers, Devine and Kohn say in recent decades the Department of Justice has exclusively prosecuted whitleblowers who leak national security-related information.

Top VA Health Official Resigns Under Fire

The top official for the health care of veterans resigned Friday amid a firestorm over reported delays in care and falsified records at veterans hospitals. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki said he has accepted the...

So long as disclosed information is not classified or otherwise protected by law from distribution – such as confidential medical records – whistelblowers are unlikely to be prosecuted, they say.
“I’m optimistic that the recent scandals will be a catalyst for a long overdue spotlight,” Devine says. “Now, whether a spotlight will be sufficient for change is another question, that’s a whole 'nother campaign once you get people’s attention.

Rand Paul: Do We Continue to Arm the Enemies of Israel and the U.S. in Syria?

Rand Paul: Do We Continue to Arm the Enemies of Israel and the U.S. in Syria?

Obama Meets With Syria Opposition Leader

President Obama met Tuesday with members of Syria's opposition, though the White House was silent on the rebels' requests for weapons to battle Bashar al-Assad's government. "Both sides reaffirmed their...

In September, the Obama Administration and many Republicans were pushing for the U.S. to intervene in Syria. I said no.

We did not have an articulable national security interest in that country, and it was also unclear if we had any discernible allies in that nation’s civil war.
Five months prior, my colleagues in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly to arm the Syrian rebels who were opposing Bashar al-Assad. I warned that the weapons we gave extremists could be used against Christians in the region. I warned that weapons we gave to extremists in Syria could one day potentially be used against our ally Israel.
Almost a year ago to the day, I admonished the Committee for that vote. I told them, “This is an important moment. You will be funding, today, the allies of al-Qaeda.”
“It's an irony you cannot overcome,” I added.
On Monday, the Washington Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo reported: “One of the militant Syrian rebel groups provided access to advanced U.S. missiles said that it is seeking ‘the return of all Syrian land occupied by Israel,’ a stance that could potentially complicate U.S. military support to the armed rebel group.”
Giving missiles, tanks, and other advanced weaponry to extremist groups who think portions of Israel belong to Syria is problematic to say the least.
But this turn of events should not surprise anyone.
Last September, Syrian rebels groups assaulted historic Christian villages, threatening to kill anyone who refused to convert to Islam. Last June, USA Today reported that Syrian rebel groups were pledging their loyalty to al-Qaeda. In January, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian rebel groups were planning to attack the U.S.
How many examples or lessons do we need to determine that arming the Syrian rebels is not in, and may in fact be against, our national interest?
As the Washington Free Beacon reported, “'This is precisely the problem we’ve faced in arming the Syrian opposition,’ said terrorism analyst Patrick Poole. ‘Despite repeated promises that we would only arm ‘vetted rebels’ there’s no confidence that anyone in the U.S. government has any idea who they’re dealing with or what their agenda might be.'”
The Assad regime is a brutal dictatorship that is an affront to all humanity. But so are many of the groups opposing it. There is simply no U.S. ally in this tragic war.
Washington has a bad habit of thinking that for every conflict abroad, the U.S. must do something. But sometimes these civil wars are simply not our fight. Sometimes “doing something” is far worse than doing nothing.
That America is arming extremists who target Christians, who target the U.S., and now target Israel should be all the evidence we need to stop this type of military aid to that war-torn country.
“We are for the return of all Syrian land occupied by Israel,” now says rebel leader Al-Sa’oud, whose Division 13 has access to advanced U.S. missiles.
I told my fellow Senators a year ago that arming the allies of al-Qaeda would be an irony they would not overcome.
They’re not.

SMOKING GUN PROOF that Malaysia Flight 370 was hijacked by the US Navy??

Malaysia Flight 370 CARGO

Lithium Production

Lithium is a very low-density metal, prone to spontaneous combustion. On the periodic table of the elements it lies directly beneath hydrogen and has but three protons. It is the lightest solid element, with a density only about half that of water. Lithium is silvery in appearance, much like Na and K, other members of the alkali metal series. It reacts with water, but not as vigorously as sodium. Lithium imparts a beautiful crimson color to a flame, but when the metal burns strongly, the flame is a dazzling white. The most common stable isotope is Lithium-7, consisting of three protons and four neutrons; less common, comprising 7.4 percent of normal lithium, is Lithium-6, which has three protons and three neutrons in its nucleus. Since World War II, the production of lithium metal and its compounds has increased greatly. Because the metal has the highest specific heat of any solid element, it has found use in heat transfer applications; however, it is corrosive and requires special handling. The metal has been used as an alloying agent, is of interest in synthesis of organic compounds, and has nuclear applications. It ranks as a leading contender as a battery anode material as it has a high electrochemical potential. Lithium is used in special glasses and ceramics. The glass for the 200-inch telescope at Mt. Palomar contains lithium as a minor ingredient. Lithium chloride is one of the most lyproscopic materials known, and it, as well as lithium bromide, is used in air conditioning and industrial drying systems. Lithium stearate is used as an all-purpose and high-temperature lubricant. Other lithium compounds are used in dry cells and storage batteries.
Lithium [Li] is a critical material for the manufacture of the secondaries of so-called dry thermonuclear devices, which do not require the use of liquid deuterium and tritium. The largest nuclear device ever detonated was a multi-stage Soviet product with a yield of nearly 60 megatons. It was exploded at only half of its design maximum yield of about 100 megatons.
Lithium enriched in the isotope Lithium-6 remains a controlled material because of its utility in the production of compact and highly efficient thermonuclear secondaries. Two-stage nuclear weapons incorporating a lithium-deuteride-fueled component can deliver greater nuclear yield from a smaller and lighter package than if a pure fission device were used. The tradeoff is that the design and construction of reliable two-stage "dry" weapons may require significant knowledge of nuclear weapons physics and technology, knowledge which is hard to acquire without a program involving full-yield testing of the fission primary to be used and measurement of its production of x-rays and their transport through a case surrounding both primary and secondary stages. Therefore, Lithium-6 is more likely to be of interest to a state with nuclear weapons experience than it is to a beginning nuclear state.
Lithium-6 is most often separated from natural lithium by the COLEX (Column exchange) electrochemical process, which exploits the fact that Lithium-6 has a greater affinity for mercury than does Lithium-7. A lithium-mercury amalgam is first prepared using the natural material. The amalgam is then agitated with a lithium hydroxide solution, also prepared from natural lithium. The desired Lithium-6 concentrates in the amalgam, and the more common Lithium-7 migrates to the hydroxide. A counter flow of amalgam and hydroxide passes through a cascade of stages until the desired enrichment in Lithium-6 is reached. The Lithium-6 product can be separated from the amalgam, and the "tails" fraction of Lithium-7 electrolyzed from the aqueous lithium hydroxide solution. The mercury is recovered and can be reused with fresh feedstock. Russia, the UK, France, and China are all believed to be capable of making Lithium-6 in the quantities needed for the manufacture of large nuclear stockpiles. Russia exploded a device making use of Lithium-6 before the United States did; however, the Soviet device was not a "true" thermonuclear weapon capable of being scaled to any desired yield. United States production of 6Li ceased in 1963.

Sources and Methods

  • Adapted from - Nuclear Weapons Technology Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL) Part II: Weapons of Mass Destruction Technologies

Additional Resources




Obama Is Gay & Obamacare Sucks

Does The New ‘White House Rural Council’ = UN’s Agenda 21?

Does The New ‘White House Rural Council’ = UN’s Agenda 21?

Does The New White House Rural Council = UNs Agenda 21?On June 9, 2011, President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order, and almost nobody noticed.
(For the record, Obama is on par to match President Bush’s 291 orders executed during his two terms in office. The National Archives defines an Executive Order this way; Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.)
President Obama’s E.O. 13575 is designed to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people. Why didn’t we notice it?  Weinergate.  In the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal, as the press and most of the American people were distracted, President Obama created something called “The White House Rural Council” (WHRC).
Section One of 13575 states the following:
Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America when the phrase “sustainable rural communities” came up. As we know from researching the UN plan for Sustainable Development known as Agenda 21, these are code words for the true fundamental transformation America.
The third sentence also makes it quite clear that the government intends to take greater control over “food, fiber, and energy.”
The last sentence in Section 1 further clarifies the intent of the order by tying together “access to the capital necessary for economic growth, health care and education.”
The new White House Rural Council will probably be populated by experts in the various fields that might prove helpful to the folks who live and work outside of large urban areas, right?  Well, Tom Vilsack, the current Secretary of Agriculture, will chair the group, but let us review the list of members appointed to serve on this new council – according to the order, the heads of the following groups have been appointed:
  • (1) the Department of the Treasury; Timothy Geithner
  • (2) the Department of Defense; Robert Gates
  • (3) the Department of Justice; Eric Holder
  • (4) the Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar
  • (5) the Department of Commerce; Gary Locke
  • (6) the Department of Labor; Hilda Solis
  • (7) the Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius
  • (8) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Shaun Donovan
  • (9) the Department of Transportation; Ray LaHood
  • (10) the Department of Energy; Dr. Steven Chu
  • (11) the Department of Education; Arne Duncan
  • (12) the Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric Shinseki
  • (13) the Department of Homeland Security; Janet Napolitano
  • (14) the Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa Jackson
  • (15) the Federal Communications Commission; Michael Copps
  • (16) the Office of Management and Budget; Peter Orszag
  • (17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; John Holdren
  • (18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; R. Gil Kerlikowske
  • (19) the Council of Economic Advisers; Austan Goolsbee
  • (20) the Domestic Policy Council; Melody Barnes (former VP at Center for American Progress)
  • (21) the National Economic Council; Gene B. Sperling
  • (22) the Small Business Administration; Karen Mills
  • (23) the Council on Environmental Quality; Nancy Sutley
  • (24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; Valerie Jarrett
  • (25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or Secretary of  Agriculture may, from time to time, designate. Chris Lu (or virtually anyone to be designated by the 24 people named above)
It appears that not a single department in the federal government was excluded from the new White House Rural Council, and the wild card option in number 25 gives the president and the agriculture secretary the option to designate anyone to serve on this powerful council.
Within the twenty-five designated members of the council are some curious ties to Agenda 21 and the structure being built to implement it:
Valerie Jarrett from the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs served on the board of something called Local Initiatives Support Corportation (LISC). LISC uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI as their web page details their work to build “Sustainable Communities.”
Melody Barnes head of the Domestic Policy Council – Former VP at George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.
Hilda Solis from the Labor Dept – in 2000 received an award for her work on “Environmental Justice.”
Nancy Sutley head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – Served on the board of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and was one of the biggest supporters of low-flow toilets that are now credited with costing more money than expected while causing some nasty problems.
Is it possible that concerns about 13575 are just typical anti-government paranoia? Let us review the mission and function of WHRC:
Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.
“Economic prosperity” and a better “quality of life,” that all sounds fairly innocent and well-intentioned. But continuing deeper into the order we find the council is charged with four directives:
(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;
The vague language here sounds non-threatening. But, is there a hint here that a “rural stimulus plan” might be in the making? Will the Federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of creating “economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America?” It is difficult to discern as the language is so broad.
We continue with the functions of the WHRC:
(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;
Virtually every aspect of rural life seems to now be part of the government’s mission. And while all of the items in (b) sound like typical government speak, you should be alarmed when you read the words “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). NGOs are unelected, but typically government-funded groups that act like embedded community organizers. And NGOs are key to Agenda 21′s plans.
Continuing:
(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas;
That one sounds very similar to the language found in the United Nations plan for sustainable cities known as Agenda 21. Managing the population in both rural and urban areas, with a focus on controlling “open spaces.”
(d) and identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.
This function of Executive Order 13575 ties energy development with outdoor recreation and “other conservation related activities.” When did outdoor recreation become a conservation related activity?
Aside from the content of this order and some its vague intentions, the timing of the signing should also be considered. Later this month, Washington DC is hosting a meeting of the Agenda 21 operatives who are members of ICLEI:
Washington, D.C. – ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today announced the launch of the National Press Club Leadership Speaker Series to be held on June 28. The event’s inaugural keynote speaker will be the Honorable Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), whose keynote address, The Road to Rio+20, will explain the role of key global and national stakeholders, and the impact and vision of this historic conference.
As Secretary-General of Rio+20, Ambassador Sha Zukang will convene high-ranking leaders from government, the private sector and civil society to chart a pathway to accelerate the implementation of sustainable development decisions and the green economy through the creation of an institutional framework and inclusive participation.
The United Nations has pushed their sustainable development program for almost twenty years. The UN’s “social justice” blueprint called Agenda 21 requires governments to control almost all aspects of an individual’s life, but has recently met with substantial resistance in America. Since The Blaze covered this topic and the story appeared on Glenn Beck’s Fox TV program, we have been inundated with reports from around the country about efforts to remove ICLEI and Agenda 21 from local governments.
Carroll County, Maryland: Starting in February, 2011, all five newly elected county commissioners, led by Richard Rothschild, voted to become the first county in the nation to end the ICLEI contract.

Amador County, California: The Mother Lode Tea Party lead the successful effort to remove ICLEI form Amador County.
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Activists Ruth Miller and Maggie Roddin have raised awareness that lead to the removal of ICLEI.
Edmond, Oklahoma: Molly Jenkins motivated 200 people to attend the city council meeting and demand action against ICLEI.
Las Cruces, New Mexico: continues to debate the issue, but rational voices are gaining momentum in the community.

Spartanburg, South Carolina: City Councilman Roger Nutt successfully directed the effort against the program and Spartanburg became the 6th community to kick out ICLEI in a vote of 6-0 by City Council (with one abstention).
There have also been anti-ICLEI rallies held in several cities this week, with more planned in the near future:
  • June 27, 11:30am-3:00pm
    Exeter, NH, Exeter High School
  • June 27, 5:00pm-8:30pm
    Galveston, TX, Galveston Convention Center
  • June 27, 8:30am-5:00pm
    Ocean Shores, WA, Quinault Beach Resort and Casino
  • June 30, 1:00pm-5:00pm
    San Francisco Bay Area, CA, TBD
  • June 30, 10:00am-5:00pm
    West Long Branch, NJ, Monmouth University
There appears to be a developing, grass-roots movement to reject programs like Agenda 21. It remains to be seen if these groups might also reject a Washington-based control over rural lands, like the council created by Executive Order 13575.
As long as there’s not another Weinergate, maybe they’ll notice.

NSA Refuses To Release Secret Obama Directive On Cybersecurity

NSA Refuses To Release Secret Obama Directive On Cybersecurity

Share on Facebook1,309Tweet about this on Twitter440Share on Google+0

Order may allow military takeover of internet

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Nov 21, 2012

The National Security Agency has refused to release details of a secret presidential directive which experts believe could allow the military and intelligence agencies to operate on the networks of private companies, such as Google and Facebook.
As we reported last week, an article in the Washington Post, cited several US officials saying that Obama signed off on the secret cybersecurity order, believed to widely expand NSA’s spying authorities, in mid-October.
“The new directive is the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an “offensive” and a “defensive” action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism.” the report states.
In response to the move, lawyers with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (PDF) demanding that the Obama administration make public the text of the directive.
The NSA responded to the FOIA request this week with a statement arguing that it does not have to release the document because it is a confidential presidential communication and it is classified.
“Disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” the NSA response reads.
“Because the document is currently and properly classified, it is exempt from disclosure,” the statement notes.
Attorneys for EPIC say they plan to appeal and force the text of the secret directive to be publicly disclosed.
“We believe that the public hasn’t been able to involve themselves in the cybersecurity debate, and the reason they can’t involve themselves is because they don’t have the right amount of information,” EPIC attorney Amie Stepanovich said.
In an official statement to Congress earlier this year, EPIC explained that the NSA was a “black hole for public information about cybersecurity.”
EPIC is also involved in ongoing lawsuits involving the secret nature of the NSA’s relationship with search engine giant Google, and a similar secretive presidential directive issued in 2008 regarding the NSA’s cybersecurity authority.
As we have also noted, the latest secret directive appears to also legally enable the US military and the NSA to use newly created computer viruses to attack any organisation or country deemed to be a cyber threat. Obama has already shown the willingness to carry out such attacks, as new details surrounding the 2010 stuxnet attack revealed earlier this year.
Key Reading:
Obama’s Secret Directive On Cybersecurity Prompts Lawsuit
Privacy Watchdog Presses Court On NSA/Google Partnership
Department Of Justice Wants Court To Keep Google/NSA Partnership Secret
Feds Admit NSA Spying Violated 4th Amendment
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Obama’s Secret Directive Keeps Evolving Cybersecurity Policy Concealed

Obama’s Secret Directive Keeps Evolving Cybersecurity Policy Concealed

By: Wednesday November 14, 2012 6:29 pm
google plus icon
(Flickr Photo by The White House)
President Barack Obama has issued and signed a secret presidential directive that the Washington Post reports is “the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an ‘offensive’ and a ‘defensive’ action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism.”
The directive—Presidential Policy Directive 20—will reportedly make it possible for the United States military to respond more aggressively to “thwart cyberattacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks. It “establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies.” And, according to Ellen Nakashima, “For the first time, the directive explicitly makes a distinction between network defense and cyber operations to guide officials charged with making often rapid decisions when confronted with threats.”
Additionally, the secret policy maps out a process for vetting “operations outside government and defense networks” and ensuring “US citizens’ and foreign allies’ data and privacy are protected and international laws of war are followed.” As one senior administration official told the Post, “What it does, really for the first time, is it explicitly talks about how we will use cyber operations…Network defense is what you’re doing inside your own networks. . . .Cyber operations is stuff outside that space, and recognizing that you could be doing that for what might be called defensive purposes.”
The secret directive updates a 2004 presidential directive issued and signed by President George W. Bush that remains secret.
There are a few key points to make here: First, Obama ordered cyber attacks on Iran before this policy was established. That was acceptable and carried out mostly without question from anyone in the establishment or press. It definitely was not a campaign issue. Secondly, this information was classified. It was leaked to the Post. If it was not for a leak, the public would not know Obama had signed and issued a directive containing evolving cybersecurity policy. And the directive could probably be released to the public without jeopardizing national security if all it does is lay out scenarios where the military or government agencies can or should respond defensively and/or offensively.
Details on the cyber attacks in Iran were revealed through “leaks.” It is part of what set off this bipartisan hysteria in Washington that led to anti-leaks proposals being included in an intelligence authorization bill that Sen. Ron Wyden placed a public hold on today.
David Sanger of the New York Times reported on June 1:
From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.
Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.
Sanger noted this was the first time the United States had “repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country’s infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives.”  Obama was reportedly concerned that acknowledging the use of cyberweapons might “enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.”
The cyber attacks were detailed more extensively in his book, Confront and Conceal. They were part of Obama’s “light-footprint strategy.” Like drone warfare, the employment of cyber attacks was intended to ensure America’s “military predominance around the globe without resorting to the lengthy, expensive and unpopular wars and occupations that dominated the past decade.
Sanger posed some critical policy questions:
…What is the difference between attacking a country’s weapons-making machinery through a laptop computer or through bunker-busters? What happens when other states catch up with American technology—some already have—and turn these weapons on targets inside the United States or American troops abroad, arguing it was Washington that set the precedent for their use?… And as the White House gets more comfortable with the technology—because it mixes, in the words of one of Obama’s national security aides, “precision, economy and deniability”—what are the implications of relying on them so frequently as a permanent expression of American power?
Perhaps, the secret directive answers some of these questions, but so long as it remains secret there will be a vacuum that can only be filled with presumptions and speculation.
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Michelle Richardson reacted to the details on the secret directive in the Post.
“This article is really vague,” she said. “It’s hard to really judge how good or bad this is. Theoretically, if in the details it does tow the right lines, it could be an improvement inasmuch as it regulates an area that is right now undetermined… but it’s almost impossible to judge where they drew the line [without seeing the directive itself].”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was, according to Raw Story, “puzzled” as well. So long as the details in the Post are all that is public, the directive will be “outside of our expertise,” the organization stated.
Both the ACLU and EFF are organizations, which engage in watchdog activities. Thus, this is a prime example of how government secrecy can make it impossible for an organization to scrutinize policies that might be objectionable. Without facts or concrete details, they cannot guess whether to take action and so they understandably are muted in their reaction.
On May 30, 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported the Pentagon had “concluded that computer sabotage from another country” could “constitute an act of war.” WSJ suggested this would open the door to responding to sabotage with “traditional military force.” These details came from a formal cyber strategy the Pentagon had put together for responding to cyber threats to critical infrastructure. One imperious military official was quoted, “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks.”
How does this new policy enhance or expand upon the Pentagon strategy? It is impossible to know. (And it is worth speculating that the reason why more details did not “leak” is because of the fact that intelligence agency heads indicated in June they would no longer tolerate intelligence agency employees talking to the press without authorization.)
President George W. Bush issued sixty-six national security directives. At least thirty of them are still classified. Obama has issued twenty presidential policy directives. Only five them are public.
Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News has urged Obama to release a “summary account” of each of the national security directives Bush signed, which remain secret:
…Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the (George W.) Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress…
One might recall Obama said in his first days of office his presidency was “the beginning of a new era of openness in our country.” He told reporters, “For a long time now there’s been too much secrecy in this city.” He paraphrased former Attorney General John Ashcroft and said, “The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed… That era is now over.” He claimed his administration would be on the side of those that seek to make information known and he would hold himself to a “new standard of openness.”
Since then he has presided over a government that has targeted a media organization known as WikiLeaks, which has as its mission a commitment to make information known. He has also embraced the Bush Administration tactic of using overly broad “state secrets” claims to prevent the declassification or exposure of information; fought court orders to release photos depicting abuse of detainees held in US custody and supported legislation to retroactively exempt the photos from release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); threatened to veto legislation to reform congressional notification procedures for covert actions; refused to declassify information on Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, a section believed to allow for the collection of information not relevant to espionage or terrorism investigations and aggressively pursued a war on whistleblowing by prosecuting whistleblowers to a greater degree than any previous president.
The opposite has happened. Obama has ushered in a new standard of secrecy in government. The decision to conceal evolving cybersecurity policy in a secret directive is a continuation of this standard, which he set during his first term and intends to perpetuate during his second term.

Obama veut des élections "démocratiques" en Ouganda; pourqoui pas au Rwanda?

The American congress has directed Obama’s administration to tightly watch Uganda’s preparations for the 2011 elections.
The unprecedented directive, requiring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appraise the lawmakers on the hue of electoral groundwork beginning in March, details a closer scrutiny of candidates’ security during campaigns.

120-day accounts
Independence of the Electoral Commission – a disputed matter locally, creating an accurate and verifiable voter registry; media freedom and citizens right to political assembly as well as timely announcement and posting of election results, are some of the salient issues the Congress wants sorted.
“The conferees direct the Secretary of State to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act and every 120 days thereafter until 30 days after the elections, detailing actions taken by the Government of Uganda to address these concerns,” reads the directive.
The US mission in Kampala said yesterday that it is prepared to implement the legislative directive “because it is what we are doing already.”
“We will follow the directive of Congress and prepare the reports they want,” said Ms Joann Lockard, the public affairs officer, at the American embassy.
News of the legislative directive was broken by Voice of America during the Straight Talk Africa show on Wednesday, hosted by Ugandan-born American journalist, Shaka Ssali.
Daily Monitor has learnt that the directive comes alongside a Congress approval of $70.6 million (Shs134b) to Uganda in development assistance.
State International Affairs Minister Oryem Okello welcomed the directive because “our government is transparent and have nothing to hide”.
“We are confident we will fulfill the expectations not only of the US but more importantly Ugandans that will be participating in the elections,” he said.
Uganda will hold presidential and general elections early next year but emotions are running high over possibility of vote stealing as has happened in previous polls. The ruling NRM and opposition parties are in a political gridlock over composition of the Badru Kiggundu-led Electoral Commission.

Otunnu’s take
The US intervention therefore strikes at the heart of local squabbling on how to organise a credible, fair and free poll.
Mr Olara Otunnu, who is vying to be Uganda People’s Congress presidential flag bearer, while appearing on Shaka Ssali’s show described the directive as a “milestone because for the first time the Museveni regime is being held to the same electoral standards as other governments”.
He said: “Up until now, the regime has enjoyed scandalous exceptionalism, particularly concerning democracy, human rights and corruption. This is the beginning of the end of that impunity.”
The ramification of non-compliance remained unclear but some diplomats said the Congress, which appropriates federal spending, including foreign aid, could freeze assistance to Uganda.
To coordinate international action, the American lawmakers want the Department of State to carry out the electoral audit together with the European Union, Canada and other development partners.
Mr Obama, in a key African foreign policy speech delivered in Ghana last year, identified promotion of democracy as one of the four key pillars of Washington’s renewed engagement with the continent, warning that his administration will work with leaders on the “right side of history” and isolate dictators.
“This is about more than just holding elections. It’s also about what happens between elections,” he said, “Repression can take many forms, even those nations that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty…That is not democracy; that is tyranny.”
Source: Daily Monitor
By Tabu Butagira  (email the author)
Posted Friday, January 15 2010 at 00:00
 
Tag(s) : #Rwanda: élections 2010

wake up retards obamas un agenda means he turns us into a 3rd world nation makeing us his slaves f

Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development


On September 22, 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the first of its kind by a U.S. administration.
The directive calls for the elevation of development as a core pillar of American power and charts a course for development, diplomacy and defense to reinforce and complement one another in an integrated, comprehensive approach to national security.
The Department of State plays a central role in achieving the goals of the PPD. The Secretary of State has responsibility for ensuring that diplomacy and development are effectively coordinated and mutually reinforcing in the operation of our foreign policy. In support of the PPD and the National Security Strategy,  the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, released in December 2010, proposes steps to strengthen our diplomatic and development capabilities to better meet our foreign policy goals. The QDDR provides the blueprint for our diplomatic and development efforts by aligning policy, strategy, authorities, and resources.

St. Louis: Federal Advisers In Mayors Office To Help Transform City; Push “Climate Change Curricula” In Schools/Community

St. Louis: Federal Advisers In Mayors Office To Help Transform City; Push “Climate Change Curricula” In Schools/Community

City Plan
According to a United Nations document titled Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing released in 2013, in order for the World to fight (fictional) Climate Change countries must become more Sustainable:
“..international, national and local governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector.  At the same time, local communities must be encouraged to participate actively and consistently in conceptualizing, planning and executing sustainable policies. Central to this is including young people in society, in politics and in the economy.”
It would seem that the Obama Administration, and the City of St. Louis, have taken this UN directive to heart.
According to a press release on the City of St. Louis’s website, on 1/16/14 the Obama Administration chose St. Louis to receive Federal help in executing the Mayor’s Sustainability plan. This federal help consists of, among other things, Federal Advisers in the Mayor’s Office:
The Obama Administration announced it is expanding the Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2) Initiative to include Brownsville, TX; Flint, MI; Gary, IN; Macon, GA; Rockford, IL; St. Louis, MO; and Rocky Mount, NC. President Obama established SC2 in 2011as an innovative and flexible program designed to strengthen local capacity, coordinate federal investments, and spark growth in economically distressed communities. The SC2 Initiative was developed through engagement with mayors, Members of Congress, foundations, nonprofits and other community partners who are committed to addressing the challenges facing local governments as they work to create economic opportunity for all residents.
A Community Solutions Team from Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2) will be embedded in Mayor Francis Slay’s Office to work alongside City leadership, community organizations, local businesses and philanthropy to help carry out the City’s Sustainability Plan, as well as the Northside Regeneration Project.
What does the Mayor of St. Louis’s Sustainability plan include you ask?
Didn’t you read the UN paper excerpt?  It includes the youth of St. Louis of course.
According to the City of St. Louis’s Sustainability Plan they are going to use that Federal assistance to push fictional Climate Change in public schools and in the community.  Here are some screen shots of that plan:
Strat 1
 strat 2
I wonder if that “education” will look something like this:
stretching_the_truth_scientic_global_warming_fake
I mean really… what could possibly go wrong when Federal Advisers move into the Mayor’s office so that they can help push his plan to transform the City of St. Louis into a more Sustainable one by pushing fictional Climate Change down the throats of your children and your fellow citizens? It’s not like they’re using your own tax money against you or anything.. right?

Italian MEP: ‘Bilderberg is the Root of All Evil’

Italian MEP: ‘Bilderberg is the Root of All Evil’

European Parliament member blames secretive group for wrecking Italy's economy.
Italian MEP: 'Bilderberg is the Root of All Evil'
by Paul Joseph Watson | May 19, 2014
Share on Facebook414Tweet about this on Twitter268Share on Google+20

As the secretive group gears up for its annual confab in Copenhagen next week, Italian Member of the European Parliament Mario Borghezio has slammed the Bilderberg group as being “the root of all evil,” blaming the organization for Italy’s economic crisis.
Borghezio, who is a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in the European Parliament and a prominent Italian politician, appears in a video in which he denounces Bilderberg as “the root of all evil that afflicts Italy,” blaming the group for causing unemployment, poverty, and high taxes.
Borghezio is supported by Italian lawyer Alfonso Luigi Marra, who last year requested that the Public Prosecutor of Rome investigate the Bilderberg Group for its role in “criminal activity.” Marra accused the group of plotting to install Mario Monti as Prime Minister of Italy at Bilderberg’s 2011 meeting in Switzerland, labeling the organization a “unique, illegal brotherhood” of elitists who consider themselves to be “above the law.”
In the video, Borghezio, who is running in the EU Parliamentary elections, takes a swipe at Italy’s political class, asserting, “(Mario) Monti and (former Italian Prime Minister Enrico) Letta are members of the Bilderberg, while (current Prime Minister Matteo) Renzi is their puppet.”
Counter to clichés peddled by the mainstream media that Bilderberg merely represents a “talking shop,” there are innumerable examples of the clandestine group formulating the consensus for policy which is implemented soon after.
In 2010, former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes admitted that Bilderberg attendees are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the annual conference of power brokers. If this is the case, it would violate laws in numerous countries that forbid politicians from being influenced by foreign agents in secret.
In 2009, Bilderberg chairman Ã‰tienne Davignon even bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg Group.
Borghezio’s charge that Bilderberg had a hand in wrecking Italy’s economy is also noteworthy given that the group conspired to set the stage for the housing market and economic collapse at their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, two years before the 2008 financial crisis.
In 2011, Borghezio attempted to enter the site of the Bilderberg meeting in St. Moritz, Switzerland but was beaten and arrested by Bilderberg security.
The 2014 Bilderberg Group meeting will take place at the 5 star Marriott Hotel in Copenhagen from May 29-June 1. Infowars reporters will be live on the scene throughout the week.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.