The DISCLOSE Act Would Turn Transparency into a Political Weapon - COMMENT

From:  National Review 

COMMENT - Let's always remember NR founder's, William F. Buckley's first job out of college was with the CIA.  He loved the benefits sooo much he never left. How The Rockefeller Republicans Raped America: Part 1: William F. Buckley, Jr.

However, it does explain John Fund's career move.  What connection does Fund have to Drones?  This, will be revealed to you, grasshopper.  

ARTICLE 

By  John Fund

May 7, 2013 10:27 AM

There is a fine line between requiring transparency in politics and creating opportunities for politically minded people and groups to be intimidated into silence. A new effort by two senators, Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, is in danger of crossing that line — to the detriment of political free-speech rights.

Back in 2011, the Obama administration drafted an executive order that would have forced government contractors to disclose any donations over $5,000 that the company or its executives made to outside political groups. Federal law already requires such disclosure for contributions to candidates and parties, but the order would have extended that requirement to independent-expenditure groups, a category in which conservatives outspent liberals for the first time in the 2010 election cycle.

The draft order was clearly highly selective in its approach. Federal-employee labor unions and recipients of federal grants, two highly liberal donor populations, were exempted from the disclosure requirements.

The Obama draft was eventually shelved after howls of outrage from federal contractors. It was clearly unnecessary because federal contracts are not supposed to be given out on the basis of which causes companies support. But such highlighting would allow left-wing groups — or at some future point right-wing groups — to strong-arm political opponents of an administration. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out; “Disclosure may sound nice, but the real point is to put companies on notice that their political contributions will have, well, consequences.”  

When a congressional version of the Obama executive order called the DISCLOSE Act was introduced in Congress in 2010, its Democratic cosponsor New York senator Chuck Schumer was quite forthright in saying the bill was designed to “embarrass companies. . . . The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.”

Richard Nixon showed just what misuse selective forced disclosure of political activities can be put to. John Dean, the White House counsel who went to prison for his role in Watergate, drafted a memo on how the Nixon people could keep an “enemies list” that would “determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the Federal Government and how we can best screw them (e.g., grant availability, federal contracts, litigation prosecution, etc.).”

No one is suggesting that a return of Richard Nixon’s tactics to Washington is imminent, but every political weapon will eventually be misused by someone. Recently, the IRS “inadvertently” released the confidential donor lists of conservative nonprofits when replying to Freedom of Information Act requests from liberal groups seeking greater transparency. The groups were asked not to publish the information, but they did so anyway. 

Such information is already being used at the state level to intimidate companies. In 2010, Target Corp. contributed $150,000 to an independent group running ads against higher taxes. But the same group was also backing a pro-traditional-marriage constitutional amendment. MoveOn.org, a left-wing activist group, threatened a boycott of Target stores and said it needed to be made an example of because the company’s so-called “anti-gay” political behavior would become “the tip of the iceberg.” Target immediately backed down.

Ever since the 2009 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court swept away many restrictions on political free speech, liberals have tried to find a way to rein in independent groups that engage in politics. After the DISCLOSE Act failed to pass Congress and the Obama executive order was stillborn, liberal commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission began making noises last March that they might implement their own form of required transparency.  MORE

The Last Step for War – Keeping Saddam Hussein in Iraq

COMMENT - This is a contest.  

Guess how Green Hills Software, and Craig Franklin, assisted in the cover-up leading into the War in Iraq.  Winner gets a Dan (Drone Boy) O'Dowd Tee-Shirt!  

Fax your entry to: 
805-233-6428 

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster 

Why did Saddam Hussein stay in Iraq? There was every motive to leave. He had seen what happened to leaders who attempt to withstand the corporate interests who are looking for an opportunity to loot a country. While John Perkins had not yet written his book, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” he knew the score. He could never withstand an invasion by America. He was not suicidal. He had gotten his start as a hire for the CIA and knew what was poised to happen to him, his family, and his nation. 

Cast you mind back to those dark days when we were reeling, the images of towers falling from the sky still engraved on our retinas. 

Voices were being raised in objection and silenced. 

Look over the time line appearing in Mother Jones, September/October 2006 Issue, titled, “Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq,” by Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson.

The war against Iraq began June, 2002, with intense bombing. The U. S. military flew 21,736 sorties and attacked 349 targets between June and the official start of the war in 2003. 

Bombing is an act of war. 

Rove, Cheney, and the Bush Administration, thwarted with the lack of evidence Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, falsified evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Reports by debunked sources, specifically Curveball, who is known to be unreliable, are treated as trusted sources. 

Every conceivable action is taken to suppress the truth and allow the spin campaign, which began as the White House Iraq Group in August of 2002. This included, Rove, Libby, Rice, as well as Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. 

Cheney personally lied, over and over again, to get Congress to acquiesce, to the media and to the public. 

The Administration knew they were manufacturing, spinning, to start a war even while Saddam Hussein was offering to allow UN inspectors in (September 18, 2002) and all reports from returning CIA moles affirmed Saddam had abandoned WMD programs. This information is buried in the CIA bureaucracy. 

Anything which disagrees with the drive for war in Iraq is suppressed. Lies, 'sexing up,' reports, are reported publicly. 

The use of torture has been rationalized and is being used, despite the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on Human Rights and the Conduct of Hostilities. 

The Bush Administration is, collectively, behaving like a bunch of chimps working themselves up to violence, to a person, ignoring their actions are, effectively, converting a nation dedicated to individual freedom and human rights into its antitheses. 

One September 26, 2002, during a Rose Garden speech, Bush said, ""The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."" The same day, during a speech in Houston Bush said of Saddam, "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad."

Two days later Bush said in his address to nation: "'The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given."'

In an ominous foreshadowing of what was to come, Bush delivered a speech on October 7, 2002, in which he stated, "'Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."' Today we know effective deployment of drone technology was far beyond anything available to anyone – but the U. S. 

Battered and intimidated, on October 11th, “Congress—including all serious Democratic contenders—votes to grant Bush power to go to war.”  On November 5th, control of the Congress moved to the GOP. The campaign of lies, using fear and their love of country, had allowed the ongoing theft of elections by Karl Rove to work again. 

On November 10th the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 offering Iraq '"a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."" Iraq immediately agreed and UN weapons inspectors returned.

Saddam Hussein would have known of every comment and been forced to consider his options. His country was being hammered by bombs, his plans to sell oil to partners other than the U. S. were, therefore stymied. It would be a compelling reality for him to consider an exit strategy at this point. 

Only one event could now stop the War in Iraq from going forward, for Saddam to offer to leave Iraq. Given his options, this would have been the only safe thing for him to do. All previous events, now clear to us and documented, show he was being set up. His very life, and those of his family members, were on the line. 

Saddam made just this offer in November of 2002. 

Clearly, the Bush Administration would ignore this request. Saddam, therefore, made contact with the previous administration. The Clintons, through their associate Sidney Blumenthal, former White House and his son, Max, pulled out all of the stops to ensure the one event which could derail plans to invade Iraq. 

The offer was made by Saddam, via email, through Max Blumenthal, this forwarded on to his father. With the Clintons assurances, they were able to persuade Saddam to stay in Iraq.

Sidney was then unaware his computer had been hacked. A keylogger was sending his emails to another party, who reported this to the CIA. The same party then found themselves subject to a barrage of harassment and threats beginning as the Iraqi Invasion began. 

How much was it worth to keep Saddam in place? Could pay-offs have been made to ensure the cooperation, and silence, of the Clintons and Blumenthals? 

According to a Los Angeles Times article, titled, “Clintons disclose wealth,”published April 05, 2008| written by Peter Nicholas, Robin Fields and Dan Morain,when the Clinton's left the White House, “in January 2001, they (The Clintons) had amassed more than $11 million in legal debts, incurred during investigations into the Whitewater controversy and the former president's affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.” Within the next year or so their, “returns show that the family's annual income shot up after her husband left the White House, rising from $358,000 in 2000 to $16 million a year later, when Bill Clinton listed his occupation as "speaking and writing." “

Sidney Blumenthal also left the White House in less than prosperous financial condition. The cause was also a law suit stemming from elements of the NeoCon cabal which went into the White House in 2001. 

In 1997, Blumenthal had filed a $30 million libel lawsuit against Internet blogger Matt Drudge and AOL, Drudge's employer, because of a false claim Drudge made of spousal abuse.

In fact, the article was the brain child of Drudge and John Fund, then still on the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal. Drudge had attributed the story to "top GOP sources." Drudge later retracted the story. 

Drudge publicly apologized to the Blumenthals and the lawsuit was dropped with Blumenthal, who, ironically, settled by making a small payment to Drudge over a missed deposition. 

In his book, The Clinton Wars, Blumenthal claimed he was forced to settle because he could no longer financially afford the suit, which had proven to be expensive. Drudge, who was guilty, had managed to receive support from both solicitations, claiming he was being harassed, and likely from operatives working for the NeoCons.

Saddam's actions, in offering to leave, were entirely predictable. 

Soliciting support from the Clintons, by the Bush White House, resulted a cooperative relationship between the former and then president which was mutually beneficial, ending any threat from the Clintons and sealing them into a role within the power elite, which they continue to enjoy today.

The PR Campaign Begins Anew for The Drone Industry - Unmanned Flight

From:  National Geographic 

COMMENT - Drone technology has potential for peaceful use in many applications.  However, this in no way ameliorates the harm being done overseas and the uses with the U. S. which violate the rights of Americas while costing taxpayers money they cannot afford. 

PR campaigns are run to persuade us.  The same kind of campaigns persuaded us going into Iraq was the right thing to do.  Drone contractors also profited enormously, along with Halliburton, oil companies, and the tens of thousands of other 'enterprises,' which eagerly supplied the materials for actions which were illegal, violating the Constitution and the

Geneva Conventions. 

Except for the one diatribe we have seen no response to the first question.  We will now  begin the process of making the Green Hills Software Dream Team more visible to you, as individuals, than they are at present.  Stay tuned!  

The Drones Come Home

Unmanned aircraft have proved their prowess against al Qaeda. Now they’re poised to take off on the home front. Possible missions: patrolling borders, tracking perps, dusting crops. And maybe watching us all?

By John Horgan

Photograph by Joe McNally

At the edge of a stubbly, dried-out alfalfa field outside Grand Junction, Colorado, Deputy Sheriff Derek Johnson, a stocky young man with a buzz cut, squints at a speck crawling across the brilliant, hazy sky. It’s not a vulture or crow but a Falcon—a new brand of unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, and Johnson is flying it. The sheriff ’s office here in Mesa County, a plateau of farms and ranches corralled by bone-hued mountains, is weighing the Falcon’s potential for spotting lost hikers and criminals on the lam. A laptop on a table in front of Johnson shows the drone’s flickering images of a nearby highway.

Standing behind Johnson, watching him watch the Falcon, is its designer, Chris Miser. Rock-jawed, arms crossed, sunglasses pushed atop his shaved head, Miser is a former Air Force captain who worked on military drones before quitting in 2007 to found his own company in Aurora, Colorado. The Falcon has an eight-foot wingspan but weighs just 9.5 pounds. Powered by an electric motor, it carries two swiveling cameras, visible and infrared, and a GPS-guided autopilot. Sophisticated enough that it can’t be exported without a U.S. government license, the Falcon is roughly comparable, Miser says, to the Raven, a hand-launched military drone—but much cheaper. He plans to sell two drones and support equipment for about the price of a squad car.

A law signed by President Barack Obama in February 2012 directs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to throw American airspace wide open to drones by September 30, 2015. But for now Mesa County, with its empty skies, is one of only a few jurisdictions with an FAA permit to fly one. The sheriff ’s office has a three-foot-wide helicopter drone called a Draganflyer, which stays aloft for just 20 minutes.

The Falcon can fly for an hour, and it’s easy to operate. “You just put in the coordinates, and it flies itself,” says Benjamin Miller, who manages the unmanned aircraft program for the sheriff ’s office. To navigate, Johnson types the desired altitude and airspeed into the laptop and clicks targets on a digital map; the autopilot does the rest. To launch the Falcon, you simply hurl it into the air. An accelerometer switches on the propeller only after the bird has taken flight, so it won’t slice the hand that launches it.

The stench from a nearby chicken-processing plant wafts over the alfalfa field. “Let’s go ahead and tell it to land,” Miser says to Johnson. After the deputy sheriff clicks on the laptop, the Falcon swoops lower, releases a neon orange parachute, and drifts gently to the ground, just yards from the spot Johnson clicked on. “The Raven can’t do that,” Miser says proudly.

MORE

Dan O'Dowd, CEO, Green Hills Software

From: RTC  The Magazine of Record for the Embedded Computing Industry

COMMENT -  "The recent example  reported in the Wall Street Journal on December 17

stated, “Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones.” Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one of the more promising embedded networking applications in the aerospace world, have been hacked and their video feeds intercepted by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The developers and users of these UAVs were well aware of these vulnerabilities but underestimated the enemy’s ability to exploit them. This appalling lack of security is easily prevented by proper application of and dedication to the PHASE principles."   Quote from Dan (Drone Boy) O'Dowd

When you are protecting your homes and children, you try harder. 

NEWS RELEASE 

THE QUESTION: With embedded devices increasingly connected not only to local networks, but also via gateways to the Internet and ultimately to large servers, the issue of security spreads from the servers to even the smaller and resource-limited devices. Where do you see the major vulnerabilities for such diverse networks and what do you see as the effective strategies for securing them?

DAN O’DOWD CEO, GREEN HILLS SOFTWARE

The world’s commerce and critical infrastructure is increasingly dependent upon the security of embedded devices, their software content and their communications. Yet today’s security posture for most embedded systems is hopelessly inadequate. Devices are saddled with vulnerabilities in both operating systems and applications. We employ filters, scanners and Patch Tuesdays, but there are always new vulnerabilities that leave our critical resources exposed.

Security-critical systems software (e.g. operating systems, hypervisors and communications stacks) and applications must provide users with a high confidence that the system will protect high-value information and services against sophisticated attackers while remaining cost-effective and easy to use. The techniques for achieving this are well known amongst an all-too-small population of the embedded developer community. For example, no commercial jetliner fatalities have occurred as a direct result of an avionics software flaw. High-assurance software developers follow a design and development process that is foreign to what most call “best practices.”

In fact, “best practices” has become a euphemism for “whatever you can get away with.” For example, general-purpose operating systems such as Windows, Solaris and VMware are rated EAL 4+ under the international Common Criteria security standard. The specifications for these ratings assert protection only against “inadvertent or casual attempts to breach the system security.” That is not secure by anyone’s definition.

The most effective strategy for securing embedded systems and their connected networks and servers is to apply high-assurance methodology efficiently. We call this PHASE—principles of high-assurance software engineering. PHASE consists of: minimal implementation, componentization, least privilege, secure development process and independent expert validation. It is much harder to create simple elegant solutions to problems than complex, convoluted ones. Systems must be put together from small components, each of which is easily maintained by a single engineer. Components must be provided access only to those resources that are absolutely required. Security-critical components must meet the most rigorous development process standards, such as those found in DO-178B Level A.

One example of the result of PHASE is Integrity, Green Hills Software’s operating system technology that is the world’s first software to achieve a high-assurance Common Criteria security certification. In contrast to the EAL 4+ standard, our certification was at EAL 6+/High Robustness. This is the assurance level required to protect classified information and other high-value resources at risk of attack from hostile and well-funded attackers. This is secure by anyone’s definition. Among other things, EAL 6+ requires NSA penetration testing and formal methods to mathematically prove system security.

We need to work together as a community to promulgate these higher standards and enable developers to raise the assurance bar in their own applications.  Green Hills Software stands ready to help with software component building blocks, tools, training and consulting.

The ramifications of failing to improve our embedded network posture are perhaps obvious, yet continue to be underestimated or ignored by stakeholders across industries. The recent example  reported in the Wall Street Journal on December 17 stated, “Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones.” Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one of the more promising embedded networking applications in the aerospace world, have been hacked and their video feeds intercepted by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The developers and users of these UAVs were well aware of these vulnerabilities but underestimated the enemy’s ability to exploit them. This appalling lack of security is easily prevented by proper application of and dedication to the PHASE principles.

As we look forward, we will continue to see dramatic increases in the big three C’s—Connectivity, Complexity and Cunning. Devices are increasingly connected to open networks; these devices are shipping with more and more software, leading to more vulnerabilities; and attackers are ever more sophisticated and determined. Following today’s “best practices” is simply not going to get the job done. A paradigm shift in device development is in the works, and the developers and organizations who embrace it will realize improved product reliability, increased market share, longer time in market, better product pricing power, reduced maintenance costs and, of course, bigger profits. Good security is good business.

Green Hills Software.
Santa Barbara, CA.
(805) 965-6044.
[www.ghs.com].