Klain is a Jewish Democrat Politico and campaign expert. He is also a Protectorate of Wall St. K Street. He has ZERO medical experience, or any experience dealing with Pandemics. He is there to protect the Democrats interests.
President Obama meets with Cynthia Hogan, Counsel to the Vice-President and Ron Klain, Chief of Staff to the Vice President in the Oval Office, May 21, 2009. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza) This official White House photograph is … more >
1994 – became Chief of Staff and Counselor to Attorney General Janet Reno
Klain helped Fannie Mae overcome “regulatory issues”
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Klain worked as an adviser to Wesley Clark in the early primaries. Later, during the General Election, Klain was heavily involved behind the scenes in John Kerry‘s campaign and is widely credited for his role in preparing Senator Kerry for a strong performance in the debates against President George W. Bush, which gave Kerry a significant boost in the polls. He then acted as an informal adviser to Evan Bayh, who is from Klain’s home state of Indiana. Klain has also commented on matters of law and policy on televised programs such as the Today Show, Good Morning America, Nightline, Capital Report, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and Crossfire.
In 2005, Klain left his partnership at O’Melveny & Myers to serve as Executive Vice President and General Counsel of a new investment firm, Revolution LLC, launched by AOL co-founder Steve Case
Klain apparently signed off on President Obama’s support of a $535 million loan guarantee for now-defunct solar-panel company Solyndra. Despite concerns about whether the company was viable, Klain approved an Obama visit, stating, “The reality is that if POTUS visited 10 such places over the next 10 months, probably a few will be belly-up by election day 2012.
Responding to urgent calls from Congress and a fearful public, President Obama has tapped a former White House official to serve as his “Ebola czar.”
Ron Klain, an attorney who worked for Vice Presidents Joe Biden and Al Gore, is president of Case Holdings, which handles business interests for former AOL CEO Steve Case, and general counsel at Revolution LLC, a tech-focused venture capital firm in Washington, according to the White House.
He will be the point-person in charge of responding to the deadly virus in the U.S., and will report directly to Homeland Security Adviser Lisa Monaco and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
Although Mr. Klain does not come from the public health sector, the White House said he possesses “strong management credentials, extensive federal government experience overseeing complex operations and good working relationships with leading members of Congress, as well as senior Obama administration officials, including the president.”
Mr. Obama had said late Thursday it “may make sense for us to have one person” coordinating the government’s response to the Ebola outbreak, after the Liberian national who brought the virus to America’s shores died and two nurses who treated him tested positive in the following days.
The president said administration officials such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and Ms. Monaco have other responsibilities and may benefit from having one person in charge of the government’s entire response.
“It may make sense for us to have one person in part just so that after this initial surge of activity we can have a more regular process, just to make sure that we’re crossing all the t’s and dotting all the i’s going forward,” the president said.
The appointment won early praise from Democrats and expert observers.
“I’ve known Ron Klain for over twenty years. He is smart, aggressive, and levelheaded — exactly the qualities we need in a czar to steer our response to Ebola,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat. “He is an excellent choice.”
Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who tracks judicial appointments, said Mr. Klain’s experience in executive offices and on Capitol Hill should buoy him through this challenge.
“I think he really does know his way around Washington better than a whole lot of people,” he said.
1 Oct 2014 Newly released documents further support the conclusion that the FBI was working with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki after the 9/11 attacks – in the years before he became the first American targeted for death by a U.S. drone strike. As part of an ongoing investigation of the cleric that began after the 2009 Fort Hood shooting massacre, Fox News was first to reportthat in 2002, al-Awlaki was released from custody at JFK International Airport — despite an active warrant for his arrest — with the okay of FBI Agent Wade Ammerman…The documents further support claims that Awlaki, who eventually went overseas and linked up with an Al Qaeda [al-CIAduh] affiliate, worked with the FBI and was likely a U.S. government asset.
Newly released documents further support the conclusion that the FBI was working with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki after the 9/11 attacks – in the years before he became the first American targeted for death by a U.S. drone strike.
As part of an ongoing investigation of the cleric that began after the 2009 Fort Hood shooting massacre, Fox News was first to report that in 2002, al-Awlaki was released from custody at JFK International Airport — despite an active warrant for his arrest — with the okay of FBI Agent Wade Ammerman.
Watchdog group Judicial Watch has since obtained more than 900 pages of new documents in the course of its federal lawsuit against the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act. They show the cleric was emailing and leaving voice messages with an FBI agent in 2003, a year after Ammerman told customs agents at JFK airport to bypass an outstanding warrant for the cleric’s arrest.
The documents further support claims that Awlaki, who eventually went overseas and linked up with an Al Qaeda affiliate, worked with the FBI and was likely a U.S. government asset.
“I have little doubt that President Obama assassinated a terrorist that was an asset of the U.S. government,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
He added: “There have been so many missed opportunities in getting the bad guys, but it’s one thing to have a bad guy working with you and for you and actually in your custody and then letting them go.”
Fitton questioned whether Obama was even aware of al-Awlaki’s connections to federal law enforcement. “These unanswered questions cast President Obama’s decision to assassinate [al-Awlaki] in a disturbingly different light,” he said.
In one Oct. 2, 2003 email, an FBI agent whose name is redacted writes to a colleague regarding a voicemail: “Holy crap, [redacted] isn’t this your guy? The aman (imam) with the prostitutes.”
Three weeks later, after leaving another voicemail, the cleric uses his personal Yahoo account to write directly to an FBI agent, now stationed at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., to complain about news reports linking al-Awlaki to the 9/11 hijackers.
“I was astonished by some of the talk circulating in the media about me. … I am amazed at how absurd the media could be and I hope that the US authorities know better and realize that what was mentioned about me was nothing but lies,” al-Awlaki writes, appearing to scold the FBI agent.
In another email, an FBI agent bristles at attempts by the 9/11 Commission to locate al-Awlaki and interview him independently, describing the requests as “numerous and unrelenting.” The email says the 9/11 Commission wanted to talk to the cleric after it learned he had been phoning and emailing with FBI agents.
Significantly, the email traffic shows that while the 9/11 Commission was trying to find al-Awlaki, an FBI agent was in direct contact with the cleric and set up a meeting with him in March 2004.
“SA [redacted] has had a conversation with Aulaqi and has tentatively set up an interview for mid-March in London. With the VA. Jihad trial scheduled for early Feb. this will be the earliest SA (redacted) can meet Aulaqi … If the 9/11 commission needs to meet with Aulaqi, we will provide the contact information so they can set up their own interview.”
Previously obtained records show that in 2002, within days of al-Awlaki’s re-entry to the U.S., he showed up in Ammerman’s counterterrorism investigation in Virginia into Ali al-Timimi, who is now serving a life sentence on non-terrorism charges. On Oct. 22, 2002, 12 days after the imam’s return, another FBI memo obtained through the Judicial Watch federal lawsuit (marked “Secret”) includes the subject line “Anwar Nasser Aulaqi” and “Synopsis: Asset reporting.” The existence of the customs entry records was first documented by author Paul Sperry.
Asked about the FBI’s involvement in al-Awlaki’s release and whether the FBI tried to recruit the cleric, in a September 2013 interview with Fox News, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller did not deny it.
“I am not personally familiar with any effort to recruit Anwar al-Awlaki as an asset — that does not mean to say there was not an effort at some level of the Bureau (FBI) or another agency to do so,” Mueller said.
Mueller did not elaborate on a memo he personally sent then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on Oct. 3, 2002 — seven days before the imam suddenly re-entered the U.S., was detained and then released at JFK Airport, by the order of Mueller’s agent — that is marked “Secret” and titled “Anwar Aulaqi: IT-UBL/AL-QAEDA.”
It is not public whether al-Awlaki’s contact information was provided by the FBI to the commission, but in the 9/11 report into the 2001 terrorist attacks, it states efforts to locate al-Awlaki were unsuccessful.
Fitton claims federal law enforcement had al-Awlaki in their custody, until the FBI let him walk — and in the years before he was killed by a CIA drone in 2011, al-Awlaki pioneered the digital jihad, now being capitalized upon by the Islamic State, or ISIS.
“ISIS took that and ran with it — who knows, maybe if we had gotten al-Awlaki and kept him off the streets and in jail or in prison where he belonged that there would have been a much more slower development of the Internet jihad that we’re all facing worldwide.”
Our low opinion of Mr Holder has nothing to do with Race. (Just ask the Black Communities he persecuted!) This guy made even John Ashcroft blush…. HOPEfully he will be held accountable for his crimes on behalf of the global elite!!!
Just for the sake of it – Here is a little walk down Memory Hole Lane:
1) In his final days with the Clinton administration, Holder carried out his duties with Clinton’s last-minute pardon of fugitive and Democratic contributor Marc Rich. Regarding discussions with the White House lawyers on the issue, Holder said he was at first “neutral” on the decision to grant Rich a pardon, but might lean in favor of it if there were national security benefits. Holder said that he was told that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had asked Clinton to grant the pardon.
2) Holder briefly served as Acting Attorney General under President George W. Bush until the Senate confirmed Bush’s nominee John Ashcroft
In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita’s payment of “protection money” to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations. In the agreement, Chiquita’s officials pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million. Holder represented Chiquita in the civil action that grew out of this criminal case. In March 2004, Holder and Covington & Burling were hired by Illinois GovernorRod Blagojevich to act as a special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board. The investigation was subsequently canceled on May 18, 2004.
The firm represented Guantanamo inmates but Holder “never participated directly in the firm’s Guantanamo work”, and is not expected to recuse himself from matters pertaining to it.
4) During his years in private practice, Holder represented the Swiss private bank UBS. Because of this, he recused himself from participating in the Department of Justice investigation of UBS’s abetting of tax evasion by U.S. account-holders and the prosecution of Brad Birkenfeld. (As Attorney General, he also had to bow out of the Roger Clemenscontempt of Congress prosecution because the pitcher was once a client of Covington and Burling.
5) Holder defended the legality of drone strikes against terrorists. Addressing the death of Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen (As well as his 16 year old son, whom had no provable ties to terrorism)
6) On April 1, 2009, Holder announced that he had ordered the dismissal of the indictment against former Senator Ted Stevens on corruption charges. Stevens had been found guilty, but hadn’t been sentenced; Holder’s action effectively vacated Stevens’ conviction
7) In 2010, in the run up to the referendum on California Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana use for personal recreation, Holder stated that the DOJ would continue to prosecute individuals on the federal level for possession of marijuana even if voters approved a ballot measure
* House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley sent Holder a letter in May 2011 asking for details about Operation Fast and Furious, a “botched federal firearms sting” operation that allowed about 2,000 weapons to reach Mexican drug gangs. Grassley and Issa “urged Holder to cooperate and turn over subpoenaed records that would reveal the scope of the government coverup.” (We are all still waiting….)
8) On March 6, 2013, Holder testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the size of large financial institutions has made it difficult for the Justice Department to bring criminal charges when they are suspected of crimes, because such charges can threaten the existence of a bank and therefore their interconnectedness may endanger the national or global economy. (See his connections to Banks above – Under Holder, Prosecution rates against crimes by large financial institutions are at 20-year lows)
Holder has also endorsed the notion that prosecutors, when deciding to pursue white-collar crimes, should give special consideration to “collateral consequences” of bringing charges against large corporate institutions, as outlined in a 1999 memorandum by Holder. Nearly a decade later Holder, as head of the Department of Justice, put this into practice and has demonstrated the weight “collateral consequences” has by repeatedly sought and reached deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements and settlements with large financial institutions such as J.P. Morgan Chase, HSBC, Countrywide Mortgage, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and others where the institution pays a fine or penalty but faces no criminal charges and admits no wrongdoing. Whereas in the previous decade EVEN the Bush administration’s Department of Justice often sought criminal charges against individuals of large institutions regardless of “collateral consequences” such as cases involving Enron, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Tyco International, and others.
9) On May 13, 2013, the Associated Press announced telephone records for 20 of their reporters during a two-month period in 2012, had been seized by the Justice Department. They described these acts as a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into news-gathering operations. Holder testified under oath in front of the House Judiciary Committee and made it clear he recused himself from the leak investigations to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Holder said his Deputy Attorney General, James Cole, was in charge of the AP investigation and would’ve ordered the subpoenas. When questioning turned to possibility of journalists being charged under the Espionage Act for reporting classified material, Holder stated: “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy.”
It was later reported the DOJ monitored Fox News reporter, James Rosen’s activities by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails. NBC confirmed with the Justice Department that Holder had personally signed off on the Rosen subpoenas.
Articles of impeachment against
On November 14, 2013, Representative Pete Olson (R-TX), along with 19 Republicans, introduced an Articles of Impeachment resolution against Holder for his role in Operation Fast and Furious and other scandals of President Barack Obama’s administration. As of June 2014, there awere 26 co-sponsors to the bill.
Contempt of Congress case against Holder will proceed
Opponent says timing of resignation no coincidence
via NPR(National Petroleum Radio / or… National Protection Racket)
Eric Holder Jr., the nation’s first black U.S. attorney general, is preparing to announce his resignation Thursday after a tumultuous tenure marked by civil rights advances, national security threats, reforms to the criminal justice system and 5 1/2 years of fights with Republicans in Congress.
Two sources familiar with the decision tell NPR that Holder, 63, intends to leave the Justice Department as soon as his successor is confirmed, a process that could run through 2014 and even into next year. A former U.S. government official says Holder has been increasingly “adamant” about his desire to leave soon for fear that he otherwise could be locked in to stay for much of the rest of President Obama’s second term.
Holder already is one of the longest-serving members of the Obama Cabinet and ranks as the fourth-longest tenured AG in history. Hundreds of employees waited in lines, stacked three rows deep, in early February 2009 to witness his return to the Justice Department, where he previously worked as a young corruption prosecutor and as deputy attorney general — the second in command — during the Clinton administration.
But some of that early glow faded in part due to the politicized nature of the job and in part because of Holder’s own rhetoric, such as a 2009 Black History Month speech where he said the country was “a nation of cowards” when it comes to discussions about racial tension.
Five years later, violence erupted between police and protesters in Ferguson, Mo., after a white policeman killed an unarmed black 18-year-old. And this time, the White House dispatched Holder to speak his piece, in effect jump-starting that conversation and helping to settle nerves in the frayed community.
Another huge controversy — over his decision to try the Sept. 11 plotters in a New York courthouse in the shadow of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center — prompted venomous reaction from lawmakers, New York City officials and some victims’ families.
Under pressure that threatened his job and his legacy, the attorney general reversed his decision and instead sent the cases to military court — where they continue to languish even as Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and other terrorism defendants are serving life sentences in maximum-security prisons on American soil.
Holder most wants to be remembered for his record on civil rights (seriously?): refusing to defend a law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman; suing North Carolina and Texas over voting restrictions that disproportionately affect minorities and the elderly; launching 20 investigations of abuses by local police departments; and using his bully pulpit to lobby Congress to reduce prison sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Many of those sentences disproportionately hurt minority communities.
And then there’s his relationship with Congress. From the day Holder’s nomination was announced, Republicans led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., signaled that he would be a political lightning rod.
The attorney general’s portfolio, which spans sensitive law enforcement cases and hot-button social issues including marijuana and gay marriage, didn’t help. But even longtime aides say Holder didn’t do enough to help himself by shrugging off preparations and moot sessions before congressional appearances and speaking off the cuff — and obliquely.
Things hit a crisis point when the GOP-led House voted him in contempt for refusing to hand over documents about a gun trafficking scandal known as Fast and Furious. That represented the first time an attorney general had ever been rebuked that way, but still Holder held on to his job.
In the end, the decision to leave was Holder’s alone — the two sources tell NPR that the White House would have been happy to have him stay a full eight years and to avoid what could be a contentious nomination fight for his successor. Holder and Obama discussed his departure several times and finalized things in a long meeting over Labor Day weekend at the White House.
The attorney general told DOJ staff the news this morning and has called civil rights icon (And corrupt money skimmer) Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Ethel Kennedy, the widow of former AG Robert F. Kennedy.
The sources say a leading candidate for that job is Solicitor General Don Verrilli, the administration’s top representative to the Supreme Court and a lawyer whose judgment and discretion are prized in both DOJ and the White House.
Friends and former colleagues say Holder has made no decisions about his next professional perch, but they say it would be no surprise if he returned to the law firm Covington & Burling, where he spent years representing corporate clients.
The friends say Holder is also considering donating his papers to a university in Washington, D.C., or his native New York, where he could establish a civil rights center to work more on law enforcement interactions with communities of color and host public forums on those issues.
Even though the attorney general has his eyes on the door, the two sources say several more policy and enforcement initiatives are underway and could be announced soon.
For instance, Holder sent a memo to U.S. attorneys Wednesday urging them not to use sentencing enhancements known as “851” tools to gain leverage in plea negotiations with defendants — in essence, threatening defendants into avoiding trial with huge amounts of prison time. The practice has been criticized by U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn and other jurists.
Holder is also expected to notify federal prosecutors in coming days that the Justice Department will no longer require defendants who plead guilty to waive their rights to appeal based on ineffective lawyering. Many U.S. attorneys now forgo that practice, but not all.
Long-awaited racial profiling guidelines for federal agents will be released soon, too. Those guidelines will make clear that sexual orientation, ethnicity and religion are not legitimate bases for law enforcement suspicion, but controversial mapping of certain communities — including Muslim Americans (or enemies of the Obusha admin…) — would still be allowed for national security investigations, one of the sources said.
We are told that the dread disease, which produces symptoms like something out of a horror movie, is spreading to the USA. Some Americans are canceling their vacations and refusing to fly, believing that they might catch Ebola on an airplane.
People are being terrorized by horrific images, fear of a quick and awful death, and fear of airplanes. The fears are out of all proportion to the reality of the threat. Where have we seen this before?
On September 11th, 2001, the American public was subjected to trauma-based mind control – an intensive form of the brainwashing technique known as coercion, described in a book by Douglas Rushkoff of the same name. Trauma-based mind control uses extreme fear or horror to shape the subconscious minds of its victims. It is a highly effective technique for making people submit to authority without realizing what they are doing or why.
In the autumn of 2001, we were brainwashed into believing that radical Muslims, using airplanes, anthrax, and who knows what else, were willing and able to kill large numbers of Americans. As a result, the US went to war against Muslim nations, persecuted Muslims worldwide, shredded the Constitution, threw away trillions of dollars, and risked moral as well as fiscal bankruptcy.
Since then, evidence that the 9/11-anthrax scare was a hoax has left many Americans sadder but wiser. Today, whenever the government and mainstream media begin terrorizing people with a hyped-up menace, knowledgeable observers ask themselves: Is this threat real? Or just another false flag?
In an exclusive interview with Truth Jihad Radio, Dr. Garth Nicolson, a leading expert in emerging diseases and biological warfare, suggested that the Ebola threat has been exaggerated due to the spectacular nature of the symptoms. Indeed, Dr. Nicolson suggested that it is precisely those spectacular symptoms, which show up very quickly, that make Ebola relatively easy to contain:
“If you have a vicious, highly lethal disease like Ebola, that gains a lot of attention. But you can isolate those patients immediately, and that contains the whole process.”
A spectacular disease that gains a lot of attention, but is incapable of killing a large number of people, is ideal for false-flag manipulations of public opinion. One of the leading indicators of a false flag is disproportion between the event’s massive public relations impact and the feeble reality of the alleged threat.
This pattern has existed for centuries.
In early 17th-century England, Robert Cecil’s war party wanted to launch an assault on the Spanish and Portuguese empires, but was constrained by the irenic policies of King James and some of his advisors, and by the recalcitrance of peace-loving public opinion. Since Spain and Portugal were Catholic countries, Cecil needed to convince his countrymen that they faced a terrifying “Catholic threat.” So he found a radical Catholic agitator, Guy Fawkes, put Fawkes and a few barrels of soggy gunpowder in a tunnel beneath the Parliament building, and had him arrested according to plan.
Cecil’s plot worked to perfection. From every Anglican pulpit in the land, preachers denounced the evil Catholic extremists who had nearly blown up the entire British government. The British public entered a state of anti-Catholic hysteria similar to America’s post-9/11 anti-Muslim hysteria. And Cecil got his war.
In fact, British Catholics had posed little or no actual threat to anyone. But due to the enormous public relations impact of Cecil’s gunpowder plot, the public was convinced that a wave of Catholic mayhem was washing over their shores.
The US government, like the British government, has repeatedly convinced its citizens to fear an exaggerated or nonexistent threat. In 1847 Washington fabricated a phony “Mexican invasion.” In fact, Mexico was much weaker than the US and posed no threat whatsoever. But frightening headlines stampeded Americans into war against Mexico, and Washington stole nearly half of Mexico’s territory.
In 1898 a fake “Spanish threat” was fabricated by the false-flag sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor. In reality, Spain posed no threat to the US; being the weaker party, it wanted to avoid war. But once again, Americans were brainwashed into fearing a non-existent threat by a false flag attack. And once again, Washington used the ensuing hysteria to grab large swathes of territory for its bankers and capitalists to feed upon.
Prior to World War I, a nonexistent German threat to the US was manufactured by two public relations stunts: The forged Zimmerman Telegram that convinced Americans Germany was conspiring with Mexico to invade the USA; and the orchestrated sinking of the weapons-laden passenger liner “Lusitania.” Americans arose in hysterical fear of Germans – and went to war on behalf of the British and their Zionist financiers.
Washington and London also dragged the US into World War II through a fabricated threat. They used an Eight Point Plan that included cutting off Japan’s oil supplies to force Japan to attack the US at Pearl Harbor. The shocking, spectacular newsreel footage convinced Americans that they faced a horrific threat from Japan and its German ally. In fact, had the US simply remained neutral, it never would have faced any such threat.
In the 1960s, another nonexistent threat – this time from Vietnam – was fabricated to drag the US into full-scale war against that country. A fake Vietnamese attack on America, the famous Gulf of Tonkin Incident, was arranged.
These are just a few of the many examples showing that media-hyped public hysteria is almost always in service to a hidden agenda.
What might be the hidden agenda of the Ebola scare?
Researcher Anne Sullivan argues that an orchestrated Ebola outbreak in America could be used to “create a level six pandemic emergency that includes mandated vaccines, which will contain their patented weaponized Ebola.” This nightmarish worst-case scenario envisions the eugenicist faction of the global elite using a fake Ebola threat to create a real one.
With or without an actual threat, the US government could use the specter of an emergency pandemic to lock down Americans and remove the few remaining shreds of their Constitutional rights. President Obama recently signed an amendment to George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13295, which authorizes the “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases.” Obama’s amendment broadens the order to allow the detention of unlimited numbers of Americans based on mere suspicion that they have a dangerous illness.
Why would the US government manufacture a disease threat, real or feigned, as an excuse for martial law and mass detentions? It might do so as a pre-emptive measure against the likelihood of popular unrest when the dollar collapses and the American economy implodes. Currently the BRIC nations, led by Russia and China, are pulling the plug on the US dollar, which is swirling with increasing rapidity as it prepares to go down the drain. When the dollar takes its final plunge, Americans will face the full consequences of their government’s squandering of trillions on the 9/11 wars. The likely result: A second American revolution.
If the US government can terrorize Americans with Ebola, militarize society, and lock up thousands or millions of people in concentration camps, it may be able to head off the revolution before it starts. That, at least, might be their plan.
But natural Ebola could not possibly create a pandemic in America. It is not easily transmissible, it lacks a long latency period, and it cannot survive outside the body except in extremely hot, humid temperatures.
So be forewarned: If the mainstream media reports an alleged Ebola pandemic in America, there are only two possibilities: Either they are lying, or they have created a synthetic, weaponized version of Ebola.
If that happens, we had better start the revolution…before they lock us up.
The increased near nonstop mainstream reporting about Ebola in recent weeks is undoubtedly in part government propaganda designed to frighten people as well as perhaps take some of the heat off its number one genocidal ally Israel. The security state typically exaggerates or fabricates crises after crises in order strengthen its control through fear tactics over the general population. It only solidifies the absolute authority and power of the police state. Add the media propensity to over sensationalize as a tool of state sponsored propaganda and sufficient excuse emerges to activate security forces to quell ensuing panic and disorder. That said, local citizens in all nations do need to stay informed of any real global danger if in fact an Ebola pandemic does break out in a neighborhood near you, whether by accident or by sinister government design.
Right in stride with the Ebola hype comes the signing of Obama’s latest executive order. “Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases” allows for the “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases,” added to George Bush’s 2003 Executive Order 13295. This means that anyone with respiratory problems that might include bronchitis, COPD or pneumonia can potentially be rounded up at any time. This disinformation of protecting people under benign pretense is the deceptive bait by which the totalitarian police state closes in on its stranglehold of the American populace. Every week the government is ratcheting up conditions ripe for the next manufactured crisis on domestic soil that will ultimately pave the way for martial law and the FEMA roundups of American citizens. With these latest developments, we are one step closer.
Under CDC authority not just people with respiratory problems can be apprehended and detained against their will under the protocol of being quarantined. CDC asserts that any healthy American can be detained as well based on mere suspicion that he or she might have come into contact with an infected person. This loosening of the criteria for detaining individuals opens the floodgate for Big Brother to round up virtually anyone.
In other recent related news, along with people with respiratory problems, there is a current plan in place to soon be rounding up the homeless in Los Angeles and locking them up in FEMA concentration camps with implanted RFID chips. They will be baited with a promised meal. That famous poem by Martin Niemöller comes to mind about the passivity and denial of so many German citizens in response to the series of Nazi prewar mass roundups – “when they came for the homeless, I did not speak out because I was not homeless.” The Orwellian nightmare is officially underway.
Fact or Fiction?: The Ebola Virus Will Go Airborne
Interviews with several infectious diseases experts reveal that whereas such a mutation—or more likely series of mutations—might physically be possible, it’s highly unlikely. In fact, there’s almost no historical precedent for any virus to change its basic mode of transmission so radically. “We have so many problems with Ebola, let’s not make another one that, of course, is theoretically possible but is pretty way down on the list of likely issues,” says infectious diseases expert William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University. “Everything that is happening now can easily be comprehensively explained by person-to-person spread via body contact. We don’t have to invoke anything else.”
Here is what it would take for it to become a real airborne risk: First off, a substantial amount of Ebola virus would need to start replicating in cells that reside in the throat, the bronchial tubes and possibly in the lungs. Second, the airborne method would have to be so much more efficient than the current extremely efficient means of transmission that it would overcome any genetic costs to the virus stemming from the mutation itself. Substantial natural hurdles make it unlikely that either event will occur.
Currently, Ebola typically gains entry into the body through breaks in the skin, the watery fluid around the eye or the moist tissues of the nose or mouth. Then it infects various cells of the immune system, which it tricks into making more copies of itself. The end result: a massive attack on the blood vessels, not the respiratory system.
Even viruses that are well adapted to attacking the respiratory system often have a hard time getting transmitted through the airways. Consider the experience so far with avian flu, which is easily transmitted through the air in birds but hasn’t yet mutated to become easily spreadable in that fashion among people.
Since the outbreak of the deadly strain of Zaire Ebola in Guinea in February, around 90 people have died as the disease has traveled to neighbouring Sierra Leone, Liberia and Mali. The outbreak has sent shock waves through communities who know little of the disease or how it is transmitted. The cases in Mali have added to fears that it is spreading through West Africa.
The Guardian also reported that Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known in English as Doctors Without Borders (Both a creation of the Rockefeller Foundation via Richard Rockefeller – son of David, and whom just died in a Plane Crash) , had established treatment centers in Guinea, one of which came under attack as locals accused the foreign aid group of bringing the disease into the country. Also under fire is the government of Guinea itself, which has proved incapable of handling the crisis.
This latest outbreak, which has yet to be contained and is being considered by Doctors Without Borders as an “unprecedented epidemic,” illustrates several troubling truths about global health care, emergency response to outbreaks, and the perception many have of a West subjecting the developing world to a “medical tyranny.”
People who fish along the coast have been complaining to local government officials about the lack of fish. (This is due to Oil Leakage ala the BP / Halliburton Gulf Spill or Exxon / BP Valdez spill… It is said that this is why some villagers have resorted to “piracy”) — Now there won’t be complaints as there won’t be many fishermen left either.
These oil maps are kind of a coincidence no? They can almost be interchanged for Ebola outbreak maps.
Oil = Ebola = no people and frees up the land.
Ebola = Total Control
Quarantines reinforce energy and resources / land grabs… While limiting Chinese access to same.
CIA torture of terror suspects ‘far exceeds waterboarding, ‘ brought prisoners close to point of death
Lockdown to Combat Ebola in Sierra Leone 6 Sept 2014 Sierra Leone will impose a four-day countrywide lockdown as part of efforts to halt the spread of the deadly ebola virus. Ben Kargbo, a presidential adviser on the country’s ebola task force, said citizens will not be allowed to leave their homes between September 18 and 21. This will allow health workers to identify cases in the early stages of the illness which has killed more than 2,000 people since March.
With great appreciation to our former network, The Micro Effect, we had to move on…
As most of you know, TME just couldn’t meet with our quality standards, and we were losing affiliates, and listeners.
We attempted to help TME by making production and engineering suggestions, but it just seemed like after almost 1 yr, it would never work out. Thanks to everyone over there for carrying the show. It was a good ride.
The kind of radio performed on The Jack Blood Show isn’t the kind of format that 99% of radio stations, or established internet facilities want to align themselves with. (Jack wont stay in a box!) It is challenging for us to say the least.
This may be changing as we speak, but in the mean time we had to take the best opportunity that we were offered.
The show will air LIVE in its usual time slot of 3PM – 5PM EST / Monday – Friday.
The First show back will be Monday, September 8th, 2014
While this may be a bit shocking to some of you, I can assure you that we will NOT be changing our format, or our take on information, history, and breaking news events. Humor and Music will continue to play a key role in the delivery of what can sometimes be bad news.
We will also continue to feature regular contributors, and will be booking some outstanding guests that we have had in the pipeline.
We have been assured that we will have total freedom in our content, and support for our audio issues.
RBN has a decent archive section, and also makes shows available on various global satellites, *Including XDS via Cumulus Media Satellite Services
KU-Satellite Galaxy 19, Frequency 11836, Symbol Rate 20.770, @ 97 degrees west, Identifier “RBN1″
We believe that most of our AM / FM affiliates will pick us up, but if they do not, please pass our location on to them, or have them contact us directly. Jackblood@hotmail.com
*We are also working hard on our NEW website Radio Free Blood. At this site our listeners will have various new media listening options, and extras added as we go. ALL donations are currently getting you a membership there. We will notify all of you when its ready.
We look forward to a great 2014 / 2015 with RBN, and as always… We greatly appreciate your continued support.
If you remember Jack’s predictions for 2014, he stated that there would be a major scandal that could rock the Pauls…. Here it is. —- maybe this is how the game is played… BUT, they lost. Time to invent a new game! ROT Jesse.
Iowa State Sen. Kent Sorenson in federal court that he took bribes from both the Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul campaigns during the 2012 election season in exchange for his support in the all-important Iowa caucus was bound to have some fall-out. As a federal probe into Sorenson and the bribes continue, Jesse Benton, who managed Paul’s campaign in 2008 and 2012 (and Rand Paul’s in 2010) has resigned as campaign manager for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Washington Postreports:
In a statement issued Friday evening, Benton cited “inaccurate press accounts and unsubstantiated media rumors about me and my role in past campaigns that are politically motivated, unfair and, most importantly, untrue.”
“The press accounts and rumors are particularly hurtful because they are false,” Benton wrote. “However, what is most troubling to me is that they risk unfairly undermining and becoming a distraction to this reelection campaign.”
Benton previously weathered controversy over comments caught on tape that suggested he wasn’t committed to McConnell’s politics.
Reason.com has reached out to Benton for a statement.
More evidence of Prior knowledge…. This should NOT be interpreted to say that “Muslim Extremists” planned and executed 911. The Drills planned by US Military and Intel to confuse NORAD give away the REAL culprits…
The main reason for this was because the 9/11 Commissionbarely looked at them, and the information they did come across tried to tie Iran to Al-Qaeda and 9/11. “[For executive director Philip] Zelikow and other staff on the commission, it was just more interesting—sexier—to concentrate on the CIA.”
In late 2003, the NSA will allow the 9/11 Commission access to its archives on Al-Qaeda. “[P]erversely, the more eager [NSA director] General Hayden was to cooperate, the less interested [9/11 Commission executive director Philip] Zelikow and others at the commission seemed to be in what was buried in the NSA files.”
Towards the end of the 9/11 Commission, “Zelikow would later admit he too was worried that important classified information had never been reviewed at the NSA and elsewhere in the government before the 9/11 commission shut its doors, that critical evidence about bin Laden’s terrorist network sat buried in government files, unread to this day. By July 2004, it was just too late to keep digging.”
Interesting, since he seems to be the main reason the 9/11 Commission stayed away from the NSA.
According to this entry from www.historycommons.org: “…both the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission examine the NSA’s intercepts of various calls made by the hijackers to an al-Qaeda communications hub in Sana’a, Yemen.” The portion of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry that touches on this “is heavily redacted so most details remain unknown. It states that, although the NSA intercepted the calls and disseminated dispatches about some of them, THE NSA DID NOT REALIZE THE HIJACKERS WERE IN THE U.S. AT THE TIME THE CALLS WERE MADE (emphasis mine).”
“The 9/11 Commission Report contains a briefer section on the intercepts and deals with those which led to the surveillance of the al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia. In addition, it mentions that Almihdhar called his wife from San Diego in the spring of 2000, but fails to mention that his wife lived at an al-Qaeda communications hub and that the calls were intercepted by the NSA.” On 12/17/2005, George W. Bush says, “as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al-Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here until it was too late.”
In her book “Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow,” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser states: “Unfortunately, the NSA never checked to see where al Mihdhar’s calls were originating from— i.e., San Diego. The NSA’s oversight in not checking to see where the phone calls were being made from seems hard to believe. Nevertheless, the NSA’s negligence in this regard has been excused and overlooked. So for the nearly five months al Mihdhar was in this country and living with al Hazmi in San Diego, the NSA listened in to his phone calls back to Yemen. Notably, because NSAassumed that al Mihdhar was overseas, they passed all of their information regarding al Mihdhar solely to the CIA— not the FBI. If only the billions budgeted to NSA for intelligence had had room for caller ID. If they had just informed the FBI about the presence of al Mihdhar within our borders, the FBI would have been able to begin its investigation more than a full year before 9/ 11. ” (pp. 181-182) Author Lawrence Wrightmakes two statements on the issue: “[h]ad a line been drawn from the [communications hub] in Yemen to Alhazmi and Almihdhar’s San Diego apartment, al-Qaeda’s presence in America would have been glaringly obvious.”
“You know, this is the key. The NSA is all over this phone. And everybody, you know, that has any connection with it is drawing links from that phone. Now imagine eight lines from Yemen to San Diego. How obvious would it be that al-Qaeda is in America[?]” So basically, we are led to believe that the NSA was monitoring calls from San Diego to Yemen from the hijackers, but the NSA could not identify that the calls were coming from within the U.S. Meaning they had no idea the hijackers were in the United States.
On 5/14/2012, an article entitled “NSA Analyst: We Could Have Prevented 9/11″ was released on HuffPo. In that article, NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake said: “I can’t say fully, because it’s classified. But I showed that NSA knew a great deal about the 9/11 threats and Al Qaeda, electronically tracking various people and organizations for years — since its role is to collect intelligence. The problem is, it wasn’t sharing all of the data. If it had, other parts of government could have acted on it, and more than likely, NSA could have stopped, I say stopped 9/11. Later, it could have located Al Qaeda — at the very time the U.S. was scouring Afghanistan.” Obviously, that tidbit of information further sparked my curiosity. I went to www.historycommons.org, and found every entry on the NSA that I could find, but could not see what Thomas Drake was talking about.
On 1/7/2014, in this article written by several NSA Whistleblowers, we get a clue about one of the lies about 9/11. “NSA knew the telephone number of the safe house in Yemen at least by 1996 and was, of course, keeping track of calls to it from the U.S. Would Mueller, Morell and Cheney have us believe NSA doesn’t know about caller ID? As William Binney has explained, automated systems take over when such calls are made and as long as you have one valid number you can obtain the other. Was it a case of gross ineptitude on NSA’s part; or was NSA deliberately withholding information linking al-Mihdhar to the known al-Qaeda base in Yemen?” On 6/4/2014, Abby Martin has on two NSA Whistleblowers on her show “Breaking The Set.” They are William Binney and Kirk Wiebe. During this interview, William Binney tells us: “I know specifics… like six or seven phone calls from San Diego back to the Yemen facility. And by the way, BOTH ENDS WERE KNOWN. I MEAN BOTH NUMBERS WERE THERE. THAT’S HOW CALLER ID WORKS (emphasis mine).” What do we learn from all of this? It seems the NSA lied, had BOTH numbers, and presumably knew the hijackers were in the United States and did not tell the FBI about it.
Is this what Thomas Drake was talking about? I don’t know, but it is a pretty big lie. Personally, I would like access to all of the transcripts of the intercepts, and all other information the NSA had on Al-Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks.
*Human Rights Watch documents ‘sting’ operations
• Report raises questions about post-9/11 civil rights
Nearly all of the highest-profile domestic terrorism plots in the United States “since” 9/11 featured the “direct involvement” of government agents or informants, a new report says.
Some of the controversial “sting” operations “were proposed or led by informants”, bordering on entrapment by law enforcement. Yet the courtroom obstacles to proving entrapment are significant, one of the reasons the stings persist.
The lengthy report, released on Monday by Human Rights Watch , raises questions about the US criminal justice system’s ability to respect civil rights and due process in post-9/11 terrorism cases. It portrays a system that features not just the sting operations but secret evidence, anonymous juries, extensive pretrial detentions and convictions significantly removed from actual plots.
“In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act,” the report alleges.
Out of the 494 cases related to terrorism the US has tried since 9/11, the plurality of convictions – 18% overall – are not for thwarted plots but for “material support” charges, a broad category expanded further by the 2001 Patriot Act that permits prosecutors to pursue charges with tenuous connections to a terrorist act or group.
In one such incident, the initial basis for a material-support case alleging a man provided “military gear” to al-Qaida turned out to be waterproof socks in his luggage.
Several cases featured years-long solitary confinement for accused terrorists before their trials. Some defendants displayed signs of mental incapacity. Jurors for the 2007 plot to attack the Fort Dix army base, itself influenced by government informants, were anonymous, limiting defense counsel’s ability to screen out bias.
Human Rights Watch’s findings call into question the post-9/11 shift taken by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies toward stopping terrorist plots before they occur. While the vast majority of counterterrorism tactics involved are legally authorized, particularly after Congress and successive administrations relaxed restrictions on law enforcement and intelligence agencies for counterterrorism, they suggest that the government’s zeal to protect Americans has in some cases morphed into manufacturing threats.
The report focuses primarily on 27 cases and accordingly stops short of drawing systemic conclusions. It also finds several trials and convictions for “deliberate attempts at terrorism or terrorism financing” that it does not challenge.
The four high-profile domestic plots it found free of government involvement were the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; Najibullah Zazi’s 2009 plot to bomb the New York subway; the attempted Times Square carbombing of 2010; and the 2002 shooting at Los Angeles International Airport’s El Al counter.
But the report is a rare attempt at a critical overview of a system often touted by the Obama administration and civil libertarian groups as a rigorous, capable and just alternative to the military tribunals and indefinite detention advocated by conservative critics. It comes as new pressure mounts on a variety of counterterrorism practices, from thecourtroom use of warrantless surveillance to the no-fly list and law enforcement’s “suspicious activity reports” database.
In particular, Human Rights Watch examines the extent and impact of law enforcement’s use of terrorism informants, who can both steer people into attempted acts of violence and chill religious or civic behaviour in the communities they penetrate.
Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, a social services agency, told the Guardian she almost has a “radar for informants” sent to infiltrate her Brooklyn community.
While the FBI has long relied on confidential informants to alert them to criminal activity, for terrorism cases informants insert themselves into Muslim mosques, businesses and community gatherings and can cajole people toward a plot “who perhaps would never have participated in a terrorist act on their own initiative”, the study found.
Many trade information for cash. The FBI in 2008 estimated it had 15,000 paid informants . About 30% of post-9/11 terrorism cases are considered sting operations in which informants played an “active role” in incubating plots leading to arrest, according to studies cited in the Human Rights Watch report. Among those roles are making comments “that appeared designed to inflame the targets” on “politically sensitive” subjects, and pushing operations forward if a target’s “opinions were deemed sufficiently troubling”.
Entrapment, the subject of much FBI criticism over the years, is difficult to prove in court. The burden is on a defendant to show he or she was not “predisposed” to commit a violent act, even if induced by a government agent. Human Rights Watch observes that standard focuses attention “not on the crime, but on the nature of the subject”, often against a backdrop where “inflammatory stereotypes and highly charged characterizations of Islam and foreigners often prevail”.
Among the informants themselves there is less ambiguity. “It is all about entrapment,” Craig Monteilh, one such former FBI informant tasked with mosque infiltration, told the Guardian in 2012.
Informants, the study found, sometimes overcome their targets’ stated objections to engage in terrorism. A man convicted in 2006 of attempting to bomb the Herald Square subway station in Manhattan told an informant who concocted the plot he would have to check with his mother and was uncomfortable planting the bombs himself. One member of the “Newburgh Four” plot to attack synagogues and military planes – whose case is the subject of an HBO documentary airing on Monday – told his informant “maybe my mission hasn’t come yet”.
Once in court, terrorism cases receive evidentiary and pre-trial leeway rarely afforded to non-terrorism cases. A federal judge in Virginia permitted into evidence statements made by a defendant while in a Saudi jail in which the defendant, Amed Omar Abu Ali, alleged torture, a longstanding practice in Saudi Arabia. The evidence formed the basis for a conviction, and eventually a life sentence, for conspiracy to assassinate George W Bush. Mohammed Warsame, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, was held in solitary confinement for five years before his trial.
Another implication of the law-enforcement tactics cited the report is a deepening alienation of American Muslims from a government that publicly insists it needs their support to head off extremism but secretly deploys informants to infiltrate mosques and community centers.
“The best way to prevent violent extremism inspired by violent jihadists is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family,” Obama said in a high-profile 2013 speech .
Yet the Obama administration has needed to purge Islamophobic training materials from FBI counterterrorism, which sparked deep suspicion in US Muslim communities. It is now conducting a review of similar material in the intelligence community after a document leaked by Edward Snowden used the slur “Mohammed Raghead” as a placeholder for Muslims.
* This article (Below)originated in 2009 after a local investigation into the Privatization of TX and the US Border. We have every reason to believe its still going on, though we are still working to confirm it. Follow the Money with this Guy!!!!
He can activate the national guard, but in order to do so, he has to have a clear objective and he has to demonstrate the need for a military force where the deployment needs to take place.
But notice how he’s using the ‘our citizens are under attack’ rhetoric, referring to the drug cartels. That means only one thing: He’s escalating Operation Border Star and probably increasing the funding to the no-bid contractor (ALIS) that leases the equipment, trailers, procedures, support services, logistics, etc. to the troops and DPS at the border.
It’s pure (Hegelian)theater!
A Democrat legislator leaked a memo to the press, mentioning that 1,000 troops is actually a gradual increase to the soldiers already there. In essence, Perry is increasing the budget to the private contractor running Operation Border Star, called Abrams Learning and Information Systems Inc. or ALIS.
Founder, General John Abrams is an internationally recognized subject matter expert in border security, public policy, international treaties, operations, training and education, and technology integration. He served with General Jim Jones, the current National Security Advisor to the President for the Congressional Commission to assess the Iraqi Security Forces in 2007. He is also a recognized corporate leader in developing sustainable strategies and programs. ALIS’ Border Security Operational and IT applications support to the U.S. – Mexico border has enabled the area to significantly reduce border crime over the last two years. ALIS, under John Abrams’ leadership, is committed to supporting government agencies and corporations to improve preparedness and mitigate risk to the many challenges of contemporary threats and hazards.
Perry’s got a sweet tooth and is hooking up his buddies one last time before he leaves office… and politically making Obama look bad at the same time… what a deal, right?!
You’ve got to love these Republicans and how they always say the right things while doing something else completely different at the same time.
Of course this Contractor for the “Security (Control) Industrial Complex” uses an (Illuminati) Torch for it’s logo….
DPS outsourced border security to private firm via no-bid contracts
A little-known private defense contractor from Virginia has quietly received about $20 million under a series of no-bid contracts with the State of Texas to develop its border security strategies, an effort that included shaping the state’s public message on the increasingly controversial nature and extent of violence spilling into Texas from Mexico.
According to an internal Department of Public Safety memo, the role of Abrams Learning and Information Systems Inc. expanded dramatically after Gov. Rick Perry, then in the midst of a campaign for governor, ordered an acceleration of border security operations that the state wasn’t equipped to handle on its own.
Over the next 4 1/2 years — ALIS, founded in 2004 by retired Army Gen. John Abrams — would become intimately involved in nearly every aspect of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s border security apparatus, according to documents obtained by the American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act. Its assignments ranged from refining the state’s Operation Border Star campaign and coordinating the role of National Guard troops along the border, to setting up the state’s joint intelligence support centers and creating a multimillion-dollar high-tech system to map border crime.
Despite the firm’s work on the state’s most important border operations, ALIS flew so far under the radar that outside of law enforcement, few state and local leaders knew of its activities. Several officials who have worked closely on border security issues said they had no knowledge of the firm until contacted by the Statesman.
State Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, said he plans to call for an investigation into the state’s relationship with ALIS, saying that the state had outsourced vital security operations to a firm with “less accountability and less transparency than I would expect from state agencies.”
Even a keen observer of the Department of Public Safety could easily have been unaware of the contractor. Despite more than half a dozen contracts totalling $19.2 million, according to the Texas comptroller’s office, a review of the minutes and agendas of the state’s Public Safety Commission meetings between 2006 and 2011 revealed no public discussion about the firm’s role and only passing references to the firm’s contracts.
Department policy did not require contracts such as those with ALIS to be presented to the commission until September 2009, according to DPS officials.
Nor does the website of the Legislative Budget Board, the only agency charged with gathering information on state contracts, reveal the extent of the ALIS role; it shows just two contracts worth $2.1 million.
The outsourcing also raises questions regarding DPS’s contract procedures. The DPS awarded the initial ALIS contracts on an emergency basis, saying there wasn’t time to solicit bids from other vendors. The DPS then extended the emergency contracts through a state procurement system that is more often used to purchase goods and commodities from a list of pre-qualified vendors, bypassing the bidding process.
The state auditor’s office, while not specifically targeting the Abrams contracts, has reprimanded DPS for its frequent use of emergency contracts and failure to solicit bids as required by state and federal rules.
Doubts about status
Why was the DPS moved to declare border security planning an emergency?
A June 2006 memo from Jack Colley, who was chief of the DPS Division of Emergency Management at the time, spells out the reasons: “The governor directed expanded state and local border security to begin quickly and before any contracting process could begin,” wrote Colley, who died in 2010. Colley added that the state lacked the staff, expertise and technology to coordinate the security operations called for by Perry.
Perry’s call for increased border operations came during a gubernatorial election in which the issue of border security played a central role in Perry’s campaign. Perry’s first campaign ad in the 2006 general election touted the state’s border security efforts, but made no mention of the private firm at the controls.
By 2008, at least some within DPS believed it was a bad idea — and too expensive — to give private contractors such responsibility over border security operations. In the agency’s 2008 budget request to the Legislature, DPS asked for money to hire 19 state employees to replace the contract workers then staffing the border security operations and joint intelligence centers.
“It is more desirable and more cost effective to have state employees planning, coordinating, and evaluating joint state-local border security operations that involve more than $100 million in state appropriated funds,” the document says.
Instead, the following year, Abrams received a $4.2 million contract in part to staff and provide “leadership” to the Border Security Operations Center, where it would produce plans, analyses and “decision support tools for Texas leadership.”
That same year, 2009, the ALIS contract came under the purview of the Texas Rangers. By the next year, it was discontinued — because, officials said, the state could do the work itself for less money.
“The contract was coming to an end and when I looked at what (ALIS) was doing, I promoted people within the division to do the same jobs. It was more cost effective to do it ourselves,” said former Ranger chief Tony Leal, who left the Rangers last year and now is a vice president for a Houston rubber company. “When (ALIS) first came in, they offered a service to do something that the state was not doing at that time. Over time we developed the expertise to do it ourselves.”
High-ranking DPS officials had been aware for some time of the issues with emergency contracts.
In January 2010, DPS Director Steven McCraw told commissioners: “There’s a tendency toward everything being an emergency. We recognize that’s not the way to do business. We need to plan ahead.”
But seven months later, DPS gave Abrams another emergency, no-bid contract, worth $1.4 million, in part to shape the state’s public message on border security.
Controlling the message
As much as the Texas-Mexico border has been a battlefield between drug cartels and law enforcement, so too has it been a battlefield over public perception of what’s been dubbed spillover violence. At stake: the allocation of millions of federal and state dollars, which observers say very much depends on who controls the public message.
This fight has largely pitted state Republicans and some law enforcement officials, who portray the Texas border as a war zone, against border politicians and President Barack Obama’s administration, who point to the overall decline in the border’s violent crime rate and maintain it is among the safest areas of the country.
A 2011 American-Statesman analysis of five years of crime statistics in border counties revealed over-simplification by both sides. While many counties across from the worst Mexican violence showed notable crime decreases, other areas have seen crime rates soar in conjunction with drug violence in Mexico (El Paso, long held up as a paragon of the safe border city, saw aggravated assault rates increase 26 percent since 2006.)
State politicians, notably Perry in his successful 2006 gubernatorial campaign and failed presidential bid, have campaigned vigorously on a platform of increased border security and the notion that the federal government has failed to adequately guard the border.
In August 2010, the DPS enlisted Abrams to develop a public and media outreach strategy to “position Texas border security efforts in a positive light,” paying the firm to develop talking points, presentations, testimony and the “orientation” of senior government leaders. Abrams created a public relations campaign featuring 36 principal messages, including “The success of Texas border security and law enforcement efforts are critical to preserving you and your family’s safety and way of life” and “Border Security is a Federal Responsibility but a Texas problem” — the exact language contained in an earlier Perry speech and a common refrain during Perry’s presidential campaign.
A draft document obtained by the American-Statesman, titled “Border Security Public Outreach Themes and Messages,” includes talking points that would seem to boost the firm’s standing. In touting Operation Border Star, the state’s principal border security strategy, the document says that law enforcement agencies “join with private companies” to “reduce border-related crime.” The messages were meant to be used by the agency’s public information department and to guide agency interactions with the media.
DPS officials say they contracted with ALIS on media outreach because they wanted the public to know about Mexican cartels recruiting Texas students to carry drugs and other threats such as smuggling operations and public corruption.
Rodriguez said he thinks ALIS’s public information work represented a conflict of interest. “They are giving talking points to officials so they can make the case for more public money for border security, which they can then use to pay for more contracts,” Rodriguez said. “(ALIS) was doing this to make themselves more relevant.”
Law enforcement officials along the border say the firm brought a military sensibility to border operations, supporting “surges” of local and state law enforcement and helping to form Texas Ranger Reconnaissance teams, units that operate along remote areas of the border. ALIS also helped to set up joint intelligence centers in cities along the border, where military-style “joint” commands of local, state and federal law enforcement come together.
Don Reay, the head of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition, said that ALIS initially butted heads with some border sheriffs. “It was more of a military approach, and some things need more local input,” Reay said, adding that in subsequent years the firm accepted more input from local officials. “The strength of the ALIS contract is that it allowed (DPS) to access former military personnel with expertise in a variety of areas critical to defending and securing terrain,” said DPS spokesman Tom Vinger.
Abrams, a retired four-star general, headed the Army’s training and doctrine command until 2002. After his retirement he became a military analyst for The Associated Press, joining a growing number of retired generals providing paid commentary on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for media outlets.
And like several fellow generals, Abrams went on to create a consulting company to compete for government contracts, mostly in the realm of homeland security. Since its founding in 2004, Abrams Learning and Information Systems has received a number of state and federal contracts, including a $701,597 contract in 2011 with Abrams’ former training and doctrine command. According to its website, the company specializes in management and technology work related to homeland security.
Abrams is not the only retired general to receive a border security contract from the State of Texas: Last year, DPS and the Agriculture Department hired retired Gens. Barry McCaffrey and Robert Scales to produce an $80,000 report that declared spillover violence was occurring at alarming levels and that Texas border counties had become a “war zone.” Though it never mentioned the contractor by name, the report effusively praised the state’s border security infrastructure, much of it designed by ALIS, and called it a “model” for the federal government and the nation’s three other border states.
The amount of money Abrams earned from the state also was a source of some discontent among border law enforcement officials. “I’m not for or against Abrams, but I would rather see money going to boots on the ground to make our communities safer,” Reay said.
Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas said he was stunned to learn the private contractor had received $20 million from the state. According to a state auditor’s report, that represents a quarter of all state money spent on border security between 2005 and 2008 (in more recent years, border security funding has increased sharply). The firm’s federal contract price schedule lists wages for company employees that range from $39.54 an hour for a support specialist to $233.52 an hour for a subject matter expert.
“I hope state money was not being used to propagandize,” Salinas said.
A larger role
The firm’s role grew increasingly complex after it received its first contract in March 2006. That contract, along with several subsequent contracts, was an emergency procurement, which means it was not put out for competitive bids.
That first $471,898 contract called on Abrams to assist the state in setting up the Border Security Operations Center, the state’s Austin-based nerve center for border security efforts. After Perry instructed DPS to redouble its border security efforts, Abrams got a second emergency contract, valued at $679,676, three months later.
That contract vastly increased the firm’s responsibilities, which included developing a statewide border security plan; the National Guard’s mission along the border; a Web-based border surveillance camera program; and the concept for Operation Wrangler, a high-profile “rolling surge” of state and local law enforcement along the border.
The company received a series of contract extensionsbefore landing its largest single contractin August 2009 for $4.2 million. It assigned ALIS responsibility for developing the state’s 2010-2015 Homeland Security Strategic Plan and TXMap, a Web-based map of border incidents and arrests by various agencies.
Despite DPS rules enacted the previous October that required contracts of more than $1 million to be presented to the Public Safety Commission, it was not. DPS officials say the rules didn’t go into effect for such contracts until the following month. Nor was the contract — or any other contract between DPS and ALIS — put out for competitive bidding, according to DPS.
After its initial contract, ALIS became an authorized state vendor under the Texas Multiple Award Schedule, in which state agencies can contract with preferred firms without soliciting bids.
ALIS’s public and media outreach duties came in the form of another DPS emergency contract totalling $1.45 million over four months’ time. In an internal memo asking the Public Safety Commission to authorize the emergency extension in August 2010, DPS officials wrote that contract personnel from Abrams provided services that were “vital to the life, safety and welfare of those citizens and law enforcement officers working and living along the Texas border.”
That contract was presented to the commission but without any discussion of the firm’s specific duties.
At the same August meeting, commissioners expressed concern about how the media presented border violence, complaining about an August 2010 Texas Monthly article that questioned the extent of cross-border violence in Texas.
“Despite fears to the contrary, the violence has not spilled over into Texas,” the article concluded.
“I think it did the governor a disservice (by downplaying the severity of border violence),” said then-Commissioner Tom Clowe. “He’s asking the federal government for troops, we’re asking for more funds, more people, more equipment. I don’t think that article gave a proper impression at all. I think it did the state of Texas, frankly, a disservice.”
Contact Jeremy Schwartz at 912-2942
About this story
Investigative reporter Jeremy Schwartz spent more than three months reviewing thousands of pages of contracts, program status reports and internal Department of Safety Public documents that were the result of multiple open records requests. Schwartz, the American-Statesman’s former Mexico correspondent, has covered border issues for several years and has recently conducted an analysis of violent crime along the border and documented the presence of the La Familia cartel in Austin.