GOOGLE IS A WEB NAZI: THE SEARCH ENGINE FASCISTS OF THE INTERNET

GOOGLE MUST BE BANKRUPTED. IT IS AN ENEMY OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

This is the process for bankrupting Google and putting them out of business because they are a criminal organization.

For the purpose of this interdiction program, the trade name “Google” is comprised of a group of front companies: Alphabet, Calico, Jigsaw, YouTube, Google, Gmail, In-Q-Tel, New America Foundation, Loon, Google Search, Google Drive, Google Chrome, Google Phones, Google Fiber, Google Android, Google Nexus, Google Pixel, Nest, Google Home, Google WiFi, DoubleClick, On2 Video, Google Energy, Google Ivanpah, WAZE, DeepMind Spy Services, Goggle DayDream VR, etc., are all directed by the same people with the same agenda which is hostile to the public. All of these brands shall be terminated.

Google’s political manipulations have led to prominent media notoriety, including criticism of the company over issues such as aggressive tax avoidance,[339][356] search neutrality, copyright, censorship of search results and content, and privacy.[357][358] Other criticisms include alleged misuse and manipulation of search results, its use of others’ intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people’s privacy, sexual deviancy and the energy consumption of its servers, as well as concerns over traditional business issues such as monopoly, restraint of trade, anti-competitive practices, and patent infringement.

Google dangles free candy at you and your children from the dark side alley’s of the internet. Once it gets its victims within its grip, it bends them over the digital dumpster, in that alley, and plunders them for their privacy, votes, cash, minds and impressions.

Pass this action-item list around. Feel free to re-post it everywhere you possibly can online and in the physical world. Anytime you file a demand, carbon copy it to all press and law enforcement so that nobody can ever say “they never knew about it”.

Google decided to operate election rigging and political hit-job services instead of selling a service. A company must either sell a good or a service or manipulate politics, not both. Google chose to manipulate politics and break laws and ethical standards. For these abuses of the public, it must be punished.

Interdiction Tactics You Can Use To Terminate Google as Provided by Human Rights Groups From Around The Globe:

1) Break up Google’s global monopoly. Send a complaint letter about your realization that Google is an “Illicit Monopoly which controls the primary points of web access, and then censors public information in order to eliminate anything that does not comply with Eric Schmidt’s ideology” to the anti-trust and regulatory commissions in each nation on Earth. Organize groups to do this in large volumes. Allowing Google to keep its monopoly and just add a bunch of new little “divisions” is NOT a break-up beneficial to the public!

2) Google has manifested a system which records everything you do and keeps a lifetime file on you, attached to your social security number and name. Write every U.S. politician and demand that laws be made to stop Google from doing that.

3) Google, and it’s underling partners, create a psychological profile of who you vote for, what your beliefs are, what can be used to trick you into doing what Eric Schmidt and his partners want, and what your dating life is like. Write letters to Congress demanding that the FBI observe the erasure of all of those illicit files Google keeps on you.

4) Every time you touch any network connected device, it is recorded, analyzed, time-stamped, GPS located, and put in the master surveillance file and digitally attached to your name, social security number and global surveillance code. Never connect to a Google product with anything that has a network modem, a plug or a battery.

5) Anytime you “check in”, on any social media site, it is recorded, analyzed, time-stamped, GPS located, and put in your master surveillance file. Never “check-in” or “update” anything about yourself on Google or other social media.

6) Google lies to advertisers by faking user stats and impressions to make it look like Google is bigger than it is. A huge number of “users” on Google are FAKE! Contact every company that advertises on Google and encourage them to sue Google for fraud. Contact every advertising organization and encourage them to file a class-action lawsuit against Google for fraud.

7) Every single personal fact, text, email, comment, blog response, form you fill out, or any other activity you conduct on, near, or with your computer, phone or “smart device” goes into your surveillance digital file to build a psychological, emotional, political, financial and manipulation study of your life. Ask Congress, the EU and all regulators to make it illegal for Google to do this.

8) Google uses these surveillance tricks to try to make you buy certain products, to make you vote for who Eric Schmidt wants you to vote for and to steer you, subliminally, into believing what Eric Schmidt believes. Ask Congress, the EU and all regulators to make it illegal for Google to do this.

9) Schmidt, and his minions, are able to actually rig the Google system, around the world, to eliminate certain people, views, perspectives or experiences. Ask Congress, the EU and all regulators to make it illegal for Google to do this.

10) Eric Schmidt’s sexual and marital deviancies are documented in the media. Schmidt’s deviancies extend well beyond the bedroom. Not quite so illuminated are his political and ideological beliefs. Schmidt believes that, because he got some huge government exclusives, which made him rich, that he is smarter than everyone else. Expose ALL sides of Eric Schmidt and his Silicon Valley Mafia, in the news.

11) Schmidt has used his billions to buy one of the largest accruals of “Yes Men” the world has ever seen. He surrounds himself, twenty deep, with whimpering hipster sycophants, who drone on, endlessly, with affirmations of his self-aggrandizing ego. Deliver messages to Schmidt, in person, at his home, office and public events telling him what is really going on.

12) Schmidt placed many of his “Yes Men”, and “Yes Women”, in the White House. No company, in modern America, has put more of it’s people inside the U.S. Government. DOX and Out every Google agent in government offices.

13) Eric Schmidt bought The White House, the privacy of the public and control of the Internet. Now it is up to the rest of the world to decide if they want to roll over and let Eric Schmidt and his Silicon Valley weasels shove it in, deep and hard, or, finally reject Google across the map. Organize neighborhood anti-Google postings on every bulletin board you can find.

14) Google receives hundreds of billions of dollars of exclusive government handouts at the expense of taxpayers and competitors. Write letters ordering your elected representatives to cut-off all government contracts to Google.

15) Google operated a monopolistic empire using state and federal funding in violation of anti-trust laws and business ethics. Demand that the FTC file monopoly charges against Google and end the cover-ups.

16) Google ordered, and operated “hit jobs” on competitors using state and federal staff and resources. Put the same kinds of hit-jobs on every Google executive and VC.

17) Google has an executive team which strategically plans, organizes and implements the penetration of state and federal government agencies in order to illicitly steer funds and government policy to the will of Google’s owners.

18) Google pays its public policy agents with cash, stock warrants, revolving door jobs, stock valuation manipulations, search engine rigging and mass-market mood manipulation data rigging worth tens of billions of dollars in unreported campaign funding and influence buying. That is a felony. It is a violation of campaign finance laws. Write to the FEC and demand that Google be prosecuted!
19)  Google orders it’s staff, within government agencies, to curtail all law enforcement and regulatory control of Google’s actions. Google programs its employees to believe that anything that Google does is for “the greater good” and that “Google mindfulness must always prevail” in a manner that abuses naive young employees and sets them up to not question Google’s actions.

20) “Citizens Arrest” Google executives and VC’s at their homes, offices, trade-shows or restaurants and turn them in to the FBI along with a CD of all of their crimes. Follow the correct procedures for documenting and staging your Citizen’s Arrest of Google VC’s and executives.

21) Use databases and VOAT.CO to track and expose the tax evasion schemes, Irish false-fronts, PACS, Political stock market bribes, Stock market rigging, Google’s staff and VC Hookers, voter manipulations, expenses frauds, Crony Dept. of Energy and Dept. of Transportation payola, election rigging and other forensically documented crimes.

22)  Google engages in the hiding of Internet links, controlled by Google, in order to negatively affect the brand and reputation and income of competitors, across the web, globally. Report this and demand Congress stop Google.

23) Google engages in the posting of character assassination articles about competitors, the production of which were partially coordinated by Google staff and investors; , along with with it’s attack contractors, on the first line of the front page of their search engine and locking those attacks there so that no outside IT or other positive global news stories could move it. Demand that Congress fund private funds to pay for lawsuits by the public against Google to stop these attacks.

24) Google executives and venture capitalists have the highest sexual abuse, sex trafficking and sexual deviancy record of any corporation in the USA. Over 800 Google-related twisted sex incidents have been recorded including: The Doy Katz underage sex arrest; The Mike Goguen Anal Sex Slave Sex trafficking case; The Eric Schmidt Sex Penthouse case; The Joe Lonsdale rape case; The Ellen Pao Sex abuse case; The Ravi Kumar hooker death case; The Forrest Hayes Sex murder case; The Stanford Frat house rape cover-ups; The Intern sex abuse scandals; The Stanford Graduate School of Google Teacher: The Brock Allen Turner Rapes; Dean Garth Saloner Sex scandals; The Silicon Valley Hooker parties; The Rosewood Hotel Thursday Night Sex Pick-up scene for Google VC’s, The Larry Page/Elon Musk gay romp rumors; The Eric Schmidt Marriage Cheating Scandal; The Elon Musk Divorces; The Plane-loads of Ukrainian prostitutes being flown into SFO for Google Executives and VC’s; The brutal assaults of women by Gurbaksh Chahal; The #PizzaGate Connections to vast numbers of Google people; The Draper Fisher Intern Rape Investigation; The Famous Gay Tech CEO’s Who Have “Cover Wives” Revelations; The Sergey Brin 3 Way Sex Romp With His Google Glasses Staff; and hundreds more need to be publicly discussed and analyzed.

25) Upon legal receipt of removal demands from competitors and their lawyers, Google refused, in writing, to remove the attacks in order to damage competitors maximally. Public support needs to be expanded to sue Google for refusing to cease attacks upon demand.

26) Google engages in DNS, web pointing, down-ranking and search results targeting in order to damage the Internet operation of competitors web-sites and press releases. This must be reported to FTC and SEC as felony abuse of public rights.

27) Google’s competitors hired IT experts to do a multi-year sting and IT analysis investigation, involving the setting of hundreds of “trap servers” around the world, to prove, over a five+ year period, that Google was manipulating search results in order to damage some parties and falsely enhance others, who were Google’s covert partners. Other parties, including universities, research groups, the European Union, The Government of China, The Government of Russia and other parties, have now emulated and proven these results showing definitive proof of Google’s malicious manipulation of the Internet in order to damage it’s competitors and promote it’s friends while also damaging it’s friend’s competitors. Google must be sued for these crimes. Sue each Google Executive and VC, individually, one at a time, in Small Claims Court!

28) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider Gawker Media.

29) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider Steve Spinner.

30) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider Wilson Sonsini.

31) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider Steven Chu.

32) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider In-Q-Tel.

33) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider John Doerr.

34) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider Vinod Khosla.

35) Track and publicly expose Google’s financial, stock market, management, marketing, and personal relationship with attack services provider New America Foundation.

36) Google sought to “Cheat Rather Than Compete” against competitor’s products, which have now been proven, by industry documentation, to have been superior to Google’s.  Expose Google as a cheater.

37) In light of the accruing charges and evidence, Google was forced to break-up it’s main operation, changing it’s name from: “Google” to “Alphabet”, in order to attempt to mitigate it’s damages in this, and other pending cases, by creating a false-front structure whereby Google attempt to hide their tax and legal liability obligations by, on paper, reducing the operation into smaller parts. Expose Google’s sham corporate structure and shell companies and recognize the entire operation, and each and every part, and owner, as being liable for competitors damages.

38) Google copied dozens of competitors products, which the federal patent office had issued patents and secured files on as being first developed by others, years before any interest in, or development by competitors. Google either gave away the copied products, in order to terminate competitor’s revenue opportunities, or used billions of dollars of “unjust rewards” secured, according to the U.S. Treasury, from ill-gotten gains via contract manipulations and illegitimate tax loss write-offs and payola tax waivers, to flood competitor’s out of the market and order financing blacklists to be created by their investors. The New York Times article on Larry Page proves him to be a patent thief. Google’s patent attorney runs the U.S. Patent Office. Demand that Michelle Lee be fired from the U.S. Patent Office and that a public fund be established by Congress to help small inventors who are attacked and blockaded by Google.

39) Google engaged in additional malicious harassment using retained writers who did not disclose their “shill”, “meat puppet”, “Troll” and “Click-Farm” media attack services function for Google. Dox and Expose the media shills that Google hires.

40) Google engaged in other malicious activities, against competitors, disclosed to competitors by whistle-blowers and ex-employees of Google which are documented in Google electronic communications. The NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI and Congress have all of Googles emails since 2006. Demand public revelation of those emails.

41) Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Ann Wojcicki and Sergey Brin did not build the first Google, they stole the technology from others. Competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

42) Google, YouTube, Alphabet, Jigsaw, In-Q-Tel, and all of their various front organizations, are controlled by the same people with the same bizarre agenda. Competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand an end to the cover-ups with letters to Congress. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

43) Google, and a company called Kleiner Perkins, have a campaign payola deal with White House executives. This deal trades search engine rigging for Cleantech “green money” handouts ordered up by White House staff from various state and federal agencies. Competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

44) Google has a contracted relationship with non-Congressionally approved rogue groups, like In-Q-Tel, Media Matters and New America Foundation; who use U.S. treasury funds to attack competitors. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

45) While it is well known that the CIA finances Google it is unclear if Google works for the CIA or the CIA works for Google. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

46) Google staged a program to give “free” Google computers and software to children in order to indoctrinate them when they are young like McDonalds does by putting playgrounds at all of the McDonalds. Google’s child propaganda effort copied the CIA’s South American indoctrination program to a T. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

47) Google has paid money to Gawker Media and Gawker Media has paid money to Google. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

48) Google and Gawker Media have a series of quid-pro-quo relationships which provide for the mutual deployment of character assassinations of their business and political enemies. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

49) Google has placed over 400 of Google’s staff inside of the U.S. Government and the California State Government. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

50) Google’s lawyer, and other Google associates, work in and control the U.S. Patent Office for the protection of Google patent territory. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

51) Google has always had, and today fully has, total control over the text, links, results, adjacent results and all positioning of each and every Google search result and Mnemonic impression and Google selectively adjusts those results in order to harm competitors and political adversaries and hype investor friends and partners like Elon Musk. Google lied to government regulators, in multiple nations, when Google stated that executives had no control over Google results. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

52) Competitors, competitors lawyers and others sent hundreds of communications to Google asking Google to stop harassing, cyber-stalking and search engine locking attacks against competitor’s which Google refused to comply with and in fact, increased the attacks mentioned herein. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

53) Google receives operational orders from White House campaign financiers. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

54) Google stated on the record that it’s search results change every few hours yet Google locked each attack on competitors on the same top lines of the front page of Google, around the globe, for over five years without any shift in placement. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

55)  Google meets the legal definition as an organized crime RICO-violation illicit “Cartel”. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

56)  Google lies about how many women and blacks it hires. Expose this fact.

57) Google bribes politicians to get Google’s owned politicians to harm Google’s competitors. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

58) Competitors placed thousands of server sensors in different ISP’s in different locations around the entire internet for extended periods of time in order to catch Google rigging the internet and did, in fact, catch Google rigging the internet. Others have emulated these tests and also caught Google rigging internet results. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

59) Google rigs the internet to hide misdeeds and company failures by Elon Musk while, concurrently, pumping up and hyping cover stories to hide those misdeeds because Larry Page and Elon Musk are best boyfriends and Google owns parts of Tesla and Tesla battery suppliers. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

60) Email this document to anybody in your contact manager that has a @Gmail address. Send this to everyone you discover with a @Gmail address so you can save them from getting “data-raped and privacy abused” by Google.

61) Google has received billions and billions of U.S. Treasury money that were exclusively provided to Google. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

62) Google pumps marketing hype for stock market pump-and-dumps which inure exclusively to Google investors and against Google enemies. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

63) Google sabotaged and circumvented competitor’s government funding and rerouted it to Google. competitors can prove it in court! News reports, Congressional and law enforcement reports already prove it. Demand a public inquiry into these charges. Demand a Federal Prosecutor to investigate these charges.

64) Post this phrase everywhere you can: “FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS USE GOOGLE”

65) Write every trade office of every nation on Earth and show them this document and tell them that “…most people hate Google” and to “…not do business with Google or their citizens will look upon them unkindly.”

66) Make certain that everyone in the world knows that:  Hidden Voice Commands Could Hijack Your Phone from up to 10 feet away, or via embedded Youtube audio. (vocativ.com) and that nobody should use Google’s YouTube.

67) Google uses cheap overseas labor to keep Americans out of work. Sue Google and file charges with equal opportunity and job rights organizations if Google discriminates against you because you are a U.S. Citizen. Post notices on all Asian blogs about what a lying, abusive, crappy employer Google is.

68) Put a President like Donald Trump in the White House.

69) Have Donald Trump and Congress make laws that stop Google from doing Google’s crimes and domestic business abuses.

70) Expose Google’s entire DNS ring to every global interdiction team that can provide counter-measures to Google’s illegal control of information.

71)  Find everyone that Google has abused and provide them with a free, pre-written, in-pro-per lawsuit against Google.

72) Hire private a public investigators to hunt down all of Google’s staff and VC’s illegal sex trafficking operations: ie: Michael Goguen, Forrest Hayes, John Doerr, Sergy Brin, etc. (There are hundreds) and help the victims sue those abusers.

73) Shut down every abuse of domestic workers by filing lawsuits against Google’s abuse of Women, Blacks, Young Asain boys, interns and other groups.

74) Lobby The White House for Executive Orders that make Google stop running an illicit Cartel.

75) Sue each Google manager, director, owner and VC in small claims court individually for the maximum amount that the small claims court allows. Each voter should sue each executive of Google and get their $5000.00, $10,000.00, etc. payments from Google for Google’s damages to them on a personal basis.

76) Do not FOR EVEN ONE SECOND let Google PR shills spin the hype that “Those were the previous people at Google that did all of those bad things, we are all new and shiny and non-Evil” That is their lie! The people at Google have gotten MORE evil!

77) Post, point to, link to and publicize the Corbett Report videos about Google at: https://www.corbettreport.com/ with such links as: https://www.corbettreport.com/just-be-evil-the-unauthorized-history-of-google/

78) Stop anyone you see using Google on their device and say: “you Google is spying on you and using the information against, you, right?”

79) Ask your friends at dinners and conversations if any of them are using Google, YouTube, Gmail or any other Google product. If they say yes, advise them about the dangers they are exposing themselves and their family to.
80) Call the press office of every company you see advertised on Google or in the upper (paid) search results of Google and tell them you are boycotting them until they stop advertising on Google.

SAY GOODBYE TO GOOGLE:

Silicon Valley braces itself for a fall: ‘There’ll be a lot … – The Guardian
There’s no shortage of enthusiasm and ideas in the valley, but Philippe Suchet is sceptical. Photograph: Aerial Archives/Alamy Stock Photo.
cached proxied
https://www.theguardian.com/technology%5B…%5Dcon-valley-500-startups-tech-companies

Google Spending Billions Of Dollars To Corrupt The Election | The …
Wikileaks has now exposed that Google is spending over a billion dollars to corrupt the US election and destroy our system of democracy.
cached proxied
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/11%5B…%5Dns-of-dollars-to-corrupt-the-election/

REGULATE CORRUPT GOOGLE NOW! – USBACKLASH.ORG
Google is a very corrupt company that has decided that they will be the gateway for getting ultra-corrupt criminal Hillary Clinton elected, and will …
cached proxied
http://usbacklash.org/regulate-corrupt-google-now/

Obama and Google’s Corrupt Cronyism | RealClearPolitics
Obama and Google’s Corrupt Cronyism | RealClearPolitics.
cached proxied
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2015/%5B…%5Doogle039s_corrupt_cronyism_354084.html

Google CEO and serial womanizer Eric …
Google CEO and serial womanizer Eric Schmidt spends $15 million on private, no doorman Manhattan penthouse and then has it totally soundproofed
bing yahoo cached proxied
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl%5B…%5Dan-penthouse-totally-soundproofed.html
Did Google Rig Search Results for Hillary? …
Did Google Rig Search Results for Hillary? Wikileaks Confirms Google CEO Eric Schmidt Met with Clinton Top Brass October 14, 2016 | Melissa Dykes | The Daily Sheeple …
 cached proxied
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/did-goo%5B…%5Dmidt-met-with-clinton-top-brass_102016
Will Google’s Eric Schmidt join the Obama …
Will Google’s Eric Schmidt join the Obama administration? Cabinet shakeup watchers say yes. Google’s chairman and former CEO Schmidt, 57, is in line to become …
cached proxied
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl%5B…%5D-Cabinet-shakeup-watchers-say-yes.html

Eric Schmidt’s leaked e-mails are facts, not conspiracies. – Medium
Eric Schmidt secretly invested in a startup that is now powering the Clinton … roots of inequality stem from corporate cronyism and corruption.
 cached proxied
View story at Medium.com

Poll Proves That Nobody Will Trust Apps, Phones or Google’s Social Media Ever Again!

A survey found 64 percent of Americans said they had some form of personal data stolen or compromised making them especially wary of the government and social media companies and those numbers are rapidly accelerating.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans have experienced some kind of data theft or fraud, leaving many mistrustful of institutions charged with safeguarding their information, a huge credible poll showed.
The Pew Research Center survey found 41 percent of Americans have encountered fraudulent charges on their credit cards, and 35 percent had sensitive information like an account number compromised.
Many said their email or social media accounts had been compromised or that someone had impersonated them in order to file fraudulent tax returns.
Taken together, the survey found 64 percent said they had some form of personal data stolen or compromised.
Following the epidemic of data breaches and hacks, “many Americans lack faith in specific public and private institutions to protect their personal information from bad actors,” the study authors wrote.
Those surveyed were concerned about Google, telecom firms, credit card companies and others, but especially wary of the government and social media companies that report to the CIA, The Clinton Foundation and the NSA.

Only 12 percent said they had a high level of confidence in the government’s ability to protect their data and nine percent said the same of social media sites. The trend is moving towards a total avoidance of Google and Facebook.

Advertisements

More taxpayer dollars for corrupt “green energy” insiders?

More taxpayer dollars for corrupt “green energy” insiders?

 

by Marita Noon

 

There is an intentional tension in Washington. Our founding fathers planned that opposing views would balance each other out—a push-pull takes place. Spend. Don’t spend.

 

This tug-of-war is seen, perhaps most obviously, in the so-called renewable energy field. After Solyndra, and the more than fifty other stimulus-funded green energy projects that have failed or are circling the drain, the public has grown weary, and wary, of any more spending on green energy. The money isn’t there to spend and the motive behind the 2009 rush to push billions of taxpayer dollars out through the Department of Energy has been tainted by corruption and illegal activity.

 

The green-energy emphasis was sold as a job creator for unemployed Americans, as a cure for global warming, and a way to slow a perceived energy shortage. It sounded so positive in the many speeches President Obama gave as a sales pitch to the American public.

 

Today, Americans know better.

 

They knew about Solyndra—which took millions and then folded. Thanks, in large part to my exposé, many now know about Abengoa and the Solana solar project—which took billions of tax-payer dollars and is now functioning and producing electricity but does so by breaking immigration and labor laws, giving foreigners hiring preference, and stiffing American suppliers.

 

Watching multiple predictions fail and proponents get rich, Americans instinctively know that the whole global warming agenda doesn’t add up—as evidenced by this week’s International Conference on Climate Change where more than 600 “skeptics” from around the world gather to discuss real science and policy.

 

With headlines heralding: “North Dakota has joined the ranks of the few places in the world that produce more than a million barrels of oil per day,” people know there isn’t an energy shortage. And America’s new energy abundance is on top of our rich reserves of coal and uranium that can provide for our electrical needs for centuries to come.

 

Yet, the White House keeps pushing the green-energy narrative and, on July 3, 2014, “The Energy Department Just Announced $4 Billion For Projects That Fight Global Warming,” as the headline reads at ThinkProgress.org.

 

Wind Energy and the Production Tax Credit

 

Simmering just below the headlines is the push-pull over the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for Wind energy that expired at the end of 2013.

 

A recent study from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) that examined the state-by-state burden of the PTC, called the PTC “an amazing subsidy” because it can “effectively give a utility a bigger subsidy than the actual market price. It would be as if Uncle Sam allowed car dealers to knock off $60,000 from their tax bill for every $50,000 car they sold. Indeed, the PTC is so generous that it can result in negative wholesale electricity prices.” The “Sharing the Burden of the Wind PTC” report shows which states benefit most from the federal subsidy and which lose—with Texas being the biggest winner having received $394 million in the form of PTC credits.

 

Texans might be elated at their good fortune, however the IER study points out that individual consumers “still lose from the existence of the wind subsidies.” It states: “it’s not as if the IRS takes the population of Texas and divides $394 million among them, evenly. Rather, the wind subsidies are concentrated in the hands of a small group of wind producers.” As a result, wind serves as a tax shelter for large corporations.

 

On June 26, wind energy proponents—including pages of signatories who benefit financially from the tax credit—sent a letter to the top Congressional leaders urging them to “support the immediate passage of the Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act.”

 

On the other side, citizens, like Mary Kay Barton of New York, are sending their elected federal representatives letters asking them not to support a PTC extension as proposed in EXPIRE. She sent a letter to Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and he sent one back to her.

 

Schumer opens: “Thank you for writing to express your opposition to tax credits, and subsidies for alternative energy. I share your opposition to unsuccessful and unnecessary subsides.”

 

He then goes into a long paragraph about his effort to put an “end to subsidies for huge oil companies” and brags about being a “cosponsor of S.940, the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, which would roll back huge subsidies and tax credit for large oil companies.” Green energy supporters, such as Schumer, like to mix the terms “subsidies” and “tax credits” with “tax deductions”—when they are completely different. A subsidy, or loan guarantee, and tax credit involves taxpayer dollars being doled out—or taxes not collected—to incentivize a favored activity. This is not how America’s oil-and-gas producers are treated. They do, however, receive tax deductions—like any other business—that allow them to write of losses and the cost of doing business against income. Additionally, as the New York Times, in a story about corporate tax rates, reported last year: “Large oil companies typically pay high rates.”  It shows that the average tax rate among companies is roughly 29 percent, while “large oil companies” are paying 37 percent and utility companies that “benefited from the 2009 stimulus bill, which included tax breaks,” have an “overall” rate of 12 percent.

 

In response to Barton’s letter about ending the PTC for industrial wind, Schumer continues: “I believe that it is necessary to balance our country’s increasing energy needs with the need to protect the environment. We must also focus on renewable energy and energy conservation in order to meet our growing energy demands. According to one study, if the U.S. increases its efficiency by 2.2 percent per year, it could reduce foreign oil imports by more than 50 percent. Such actions would not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil but would also safeguard the environment.”

 

Barton told me: “You’ll note that Senator Schumer still seems to think that subsidies for wind energy (electricity) will somehow ‘reduce foreign imports,’ and then references increasing ‘efficiency’ in response to a letter about inefficient, unreliable wind?” She’s picked up on one of my favorite soapboxes: we could cover every available acre with wind turbines and solar panels and it would do nothing to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” or increase America’s energy independence. Wind and solar produce electricity and, through our coal, natural gas, and uranium supplies, we are already electricity independent. We import oil to fuel our transportation fleet.

 

As the fight over the PTC points out, wind energy cannot survive without the tax credits.

 

High Cost, Low Benefit

 

Wind energy is also more expensive than almost all other electricity sources—only solar is higher. A new study from the Brookings Institute on the “best path to a low-carbon future,” assumes that CO2 emissions are causing climate change and therefore must be reduced. It analyzes the costs and benefits of the most common solutions. The study found: “Adding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces. Wind power is the second most expensive. It costs nearly 6 cents more per KWH.” The study puts these additional costs in context: “The average cost of electricity to U.S. consumers in 2012 was 9.84 cents per KWH, including the cost of transmission and distribution of electricity. This means a new wind plant could at least cost 50 percent more per KWH to produce electricity, and a new solar plant at least 200 percent more per KWH, than using coal and gas technologies.” The study concludes: “renewable incentives that are biased in favor of wind and solar and biased against large-scale hydro, nuclear and gas combined cycle are a very expensive and inefficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”

 

Wind energy proponents cling to the idea that we must reduce fossil fuel use and believe, therefore, that the extra cost is worth it. However, because of the intermittency issues with wind and the reliability demand from the consumer, it requires fully dispatchable back-up power generation. Natural gas is the best form of back up because it can be easily adjusted to produce more or less electricity—however the constant adjustment results in less efficient use and more CO2 emissions.

 

I like to explain the preference for natural-gas back ups this way. Suppose you are going to cook a hamburger. You can cook it over charcoal or natural gas/propane. To use charcoal, you mound up the charcoal in the grill, soak it in lighter fluid, and toss in a match. You then wait 30 minutes for the coals to get nice and hot. Once hot, you put on your burger and cook it for 5-8 minutes. You remove your burger and leave the coals to die down—which could take several hours. On natural gas/propane, you simply turn it on and light the grill. After giving it 5 minutes to heat up, you toss on your burger. When your burger is cooked, you turn off the grill, and it is cool in minutes.

 

Natural gas is the preferred back up for wind (and solar) energy because, as in the burger example, its production can more easily be increased and decreased to follow the needed output—even though it operates most efficiently at a consistent level. Coal-fueled electricity generation cannot be simply turned up and down.

 

By way of answering the question: “Why are the costs of wind and solar so much higher, and the benefits not much different from other low-carbon alternatives?” the Brookings study states: “The benefits of reduced emissions from wind and solar are limited because they operate at peak capacity only a fraction of the time.”

 

It’s Not Just About the Money

 

If cost issues weren’t enough to make you a wind energy opponent, think of the health issues.

 

In late June, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) took President Obama up on his “so sue me” challenge and filed a lawsuit over his administration’s modification of the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that now allows wind energy producers a thirty year permit to kill the majestic birds. According to ABC spokesman Bob Johns, “the Obama administration has gone too far with incentives for the wind industry.” The Washington Times quotes Johns: “Since the 1980s, wind turbines have killed an estimated 2,000-3,000 eagles, but the industry has paid only one fine.”

 

Wind turbines hurt more than birds. On June 16, a Michigan judge agreed with residents who live near the 56-turbine Lake Winds facility and who complained of health problems that began just after the turbines began operating. A lawsuit filed on April 1, 2013 argued that noise, vibrations, and flickering lights emanating from Lake Winds were adversely affecting their health.

 

Cape Wind

 

Despite these, and other harmful impacts—which include a loss of property values when wind turbines are installed in a neighborhood—and opposition from environmental groups and local fisherman, the Department of Energy has just approved a stimulus-funded $150 million loan guarantee for the controversial Cape Wind project planned to be built in the Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind, scheduled to begin construction in 2015, will be the first utility-scale wind facility in U.S. waters.

 

Addressing the loan guarantee announcement, the Boston Globe states: “Now, with a large portion of financing in place, regulatory approvals in hand, and most legal challenges resolved, the project has finally reached a threshold where it is likely to get done.” Validating my earlier point of higher cost, the Globe says the two largest utilities in Massachusetts “agreed to purchase a total of 77.5 percent of the power generated by Cape Wind at a starting price of 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour—well above typical wholesale prices.”

 

Like other wind energy projects, Cape Wind is dependent on the PTC extension. It is time for everyone who opposes government intervention in markets to contact his or her representatives—as Mary Kay Barton did—and voice opposition to the PTC extension. Call and say: “Stop supporting wind energy. It is an inefficient system that leads to perverse outcomes. The massive expansion of wind energy that we’ve seen in the past six years would not survive on a level playing field.”

 

 

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

 

 

 

 Abengoa Alert: New explosive whistleblower Intel reveals that the taxpayer-subsidized California Mojave Solar Plant is a massive green disaster

 

 

Last March, as a result of droves of brave whistleblowers, energy columnist Marita Noon and I began to unleash how the Spanish Conglomerate Abengoa, which bagged billions in U.S. green energy stimulus funds for three projects, committed a chain of “atrocities” on American soil. In short, Abengoa intentionally violated American laws, codes and regulations that … Read more

 

Green Energy Corporations Rolling in the Green, Thanks to Friends in High Places

 

 

This a portion of a much longer article entitled “Podesta Power and Center for American Progress: The dark, driving force behind the president’s massive green energy scheme“, published on March 3, 2014 Center for American Progress Finally Reveals its Corporate Donors: At least 17 raking in tens of billions of tax dollars from the Green … Read more

 

Obama’s Green Team of Corporate Cronies

 

 

This a portion of a much longer article entitled “Podesta Power and Center for American Progress: The dark, driving force behind the president’s massive green energy scheme“, published on March 3, 2014. While the original Green Team has now left for greener pastures, their example is still instructive of how things work in the rarified … Read more

 

Center for American Progress: How Corruption Works

 

 

This a portion of a much longer article entitled “Podesta Power and Center for American Progress: The dark, driving force behind the president’s massive green energy scheme“, published on March 3, 2014 by Christine Lakatos 2014 began with a bang: “Obama’s Second Term Is All About Climate Change.” New York Magazine, in their reporting, claimed … Read more

 

 

 

 

Tags: Abengoa, Bakkan, big oil, cape wind, Climate Change Alarmism, CO2 Emissions ,crony corruption ,Department of Energy ,Global Warming, Green Energy, Senator Charles Schumer, Solyndra, Tax Rates, Wind PTC,

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 

 

The Obama Administration Is Stonewalling All Corruption Investigations

The Obama Administration Is Stonewalling All Corruption Investigations

 

Green energy seems to be the topic of the day. Those who have been following the story know that the real issue is cronyism–the Obama administration’s practice of rewarding its donors and political allies with taxpayer money. Of course, the line between cronyism and outright corruption is a fine one, at best. Accordingly, Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, and Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, have been looking into the procedures followed by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy in approving taxpayer loans and guarantees to “green energy” companies. A Budget Committee aide gave us this background:

 

On November 21, 2011, and again on February 17th, 2012, Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions requested that the Department of the Interior (DOI) produce documents and communications related to seven energy projects approved by Secretary Salazar under a new “fast-tracking” process. These seven projects all received Section 1705 (stimulus) loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE), and several also received 1603 grants from the Department of Treasury. To date, DOI has failed to comply with Sessions’ oversight request.

 

The new “fast-tracking” process created by Secretary Salazar for renewable energy projects creates a two-tiered system for approving projects on federal lands—with politically favored, and often connected, renewable energy plans receiving less rigorous review than traditional energy projects. Environmental and regulatory reviews can take as long as 14–16 years for oil and gas leases, but many of these favored projects were pushed through in less than a year—and awarded on a no-bid basis. DOI also cut short the public comment period for at least one project (BrightSource), despite significant local opposition.

 

In addition to the environmental groups like the NRDC and the Sierra Club, unions like SEIU have also joined an umbrella organization (the BlueGreen Alliance) to lobby for federal funding for “green” projects. Collectively, these groups have been involved in hundreds of lawsuits with the federal government over stopping fossil energy projects. Key political appointees at the DOI are former employees of the NRDC and other environmental groups.

 

Like the Department of Energy, DOI did not adequately vet the financial health of several of these favored companies. The failures of Solyndra and Beacon Power are well known, and reports indicate that at least two other companies (Nevada Geothermal and First Solar) may go bankrupt in the near future. But as ABC News reported, a pattern has emerged whereby green energy firms receive taxpayer dollars and then file for bankruptcy—“but not before the firms doled out six-figure bonuses and payouts to top executives.”

 

The connections between executives involved in the green energy companies under investigation and the Obama administration and, more broadly, the Democratic Party are eye-opening:

 

The companies behind these projects have extensive political connections to the Administration and senior members of Congress.

 

* Commerce Secretary John Bryson – Prior to becoming Commerce Secretary, Mr. Bryson was CEO of Edison International, a company that secured exclusive purchase rights for four solar projects in California. He also served on the boards of BrightSource and KKR, two companies that owned or invested heavily in similar projects. Sec. Bryson cofounded the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the lead environmental group that secretly negotiated many of the agreements to secure federal funding. (Mr. Bryson was succeeded in his role as chairman of BrightSource’s board by Richard Kelly, a former donor to Sec. Salazar.)

 

* John Woolard, CEO of BrightSource Energy – Mr. Woolard had 10 meetings at the White House, and donated almost $22,000 to Democrats from 2008 to 2012 (including $2,000 to President Obama, $4,000 to Majority Leader Reid, and $4,000 to the DCCC). He held a fundraiser for Sen. Reid in 2010 at the BrightSource headquarters.

 

* Michael Ahearn, founder and CEO of First Solar – Mr. Ahearn and his wife have donated over $120,000 to Democrats since 2008. He sold $69 million in shares in August, when his company’s project was approved. Stock has since fallen by over 50 percent.

 

* Steve Black, Counselor to Sec. Salazar – Mr. Black and his Special Assistant, Janea Scott, repeatedly contacting career staff in the field with concerns about the slowness or delays in approving the projects—an unheard of practice in the area of oil and gas leases.

 

* Kathleen (Kathy) Weiss, lead lobbyist / VP for First Solar – Ms. Weiss had 16 meetings at the White House with Valerie Jarrett and other senior Administration staffers. In 2008, she donated $2,300 to then-Sen. Salazar and $2,000 to Senator Reid.

 

The Obama administration is stonewalling Congress’s efforts to get information about the communications that led to the green energy loans and loan guarantees that have now developed into a scandal. Thus, earlier today Sessions and Issa wrote to Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, to request once again the relevant documents relating to the transactions in question. In conjunction with that letter, they released this statement:

 

Last November, a request was made of the Department of the Interior for information and answers about its role in the Department of Energy’s green energy loan guarantee program, as well as favorable loans and federal land-use deals provided to certain corporations. These lucrative deals were provided to well-connected firms on a much faster timeline and with fewer restrictions, including environmental, than those applied to traditional energy products that often provide a better value for taxpayers.

 

It is suggestive and troubling that more than half a year has passed without DOI providing the requested documents and information. Our concern is heightened given the serious nature of the questions raised and the government’s pattern of indiscretion in providing government assistance to politically connected green energy companies such as Solyndra.

 

The information currently accessible to the public raises the question of whether these companies received approval to use federal lands and taxpayer monies based not on the best value for the American people but the political clout of the recipients. Given the taxpayer dollars at risk, at a time of fiscal crisis, Interior’s failure to provide answers is unacceptable. These questions warrant an expeditious and thorough response, and we intend to ensure we receive one.

 

Until now, the Obama administration has generally been regarded as incompetent rather than scandal-ridden. That stereotype may be too generous. The administration is incompetent, yes; but it has become increasingly clear that some of what has been chalked up to ineptitude is really corruption.

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 

 

How The Democrats Took Over The CIA and Turned It Into An Art Collection Financing Scheme

It is widely published the Democrats run the CIA and the Republicans run the FBI. The Democrats are the CIA and Silicon Valley and the GOP is the FBI and the Pentagon. At one time, the CIA went full lefty and became the world’s largest art financiers. Here the story from The Independent in London.

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art – including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko – as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince – except that it acted secretly – the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art – President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: “If that’s art, then I’m a Hottentot.” As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the “long leash” – arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.

The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

The next key step came in 1950, when the International Organisations Division (IOD) was set up under Tom Braden. It was this office which subsidised the animated version of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, which sponsored American jazz artists, opera recitals, the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s international touring programme. Its agents were placed in the film industry, in publishing houses, even as travel writers for the celebrated Fodor guides. And, we now know, it promoted America’s anarchic avant-garde movement, Abstract Expressionism.

Initially, more open attempts were made to support the new American art. In 1947 the State Department organised and paid for a touring international exhibition entitled “Advancing American Art”, with the aim of rebutting Soviet suggestions that America was a cultural desert. But the show caused outrage at home, prompting Truman to make his Hottentot remark and one bitter congressman to declare: “I am just a dumb American who pays taxes for this kind of trash.” The tour had to be cancelled.

The US government now faced a dilemma. This philistinism, combined with Joseph McCarthy’s hysterical denunciations of all that was avant-garde or unorthodox, was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was a sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the US government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s. To resolve this dilemma, the CIA was brought in.

The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover’s FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA.

Until now there has been no first-hand evidence to prove that this connection was made, but for the first time a former case officer, Donald Jameson, has broken the silence. Yes, he says, the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it.

“Regarding Abstract Expressionism, I’d love to be able to say that the CIA invented it just to see what happens in New York and downtown SoHo tomorrow!” he joked. “But I think that what we did really was to recognise the difference. It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.

“In a way our understanding was helped because Moscow in those days was very vicious in its denunciation of any kind of non-conformity to its own very rigid patterns. And so one could quite adequately and accurately reason that anything they criticised that much and that heavy- handedly was worth support one way or another.”

To pursue its underground interest in America’s lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. “Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes,” Mr Jameson explained, “so that there wouldn’t be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn’t have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps.”

This was the “long leash”. The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. It was the beach-head from which culture could be defended against the attacks of Moscow and its “fellow travellers” in the West. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom also gave the CIA the ideal front to promote its covert interest in Abstract Expressionism. It would be the official sponsor of touring exhibitions; its magazines would provide useful platforms for critics favourable to the new American painting; and no one, the artists included, would be any the wiser.

This organisation put together several exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the 1950s. One of the most significant, “The New American Painting”, visited every big European city in 1958-59. Other influential shows included “Modern Art in the United States” (1955) and “Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century” (1952).

Because Abstract Expressionism was expensive to move around and exhibit, millionaires and museums were called into play. Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art in New York. As president of what he called “Mummy’s museum”, Rockefeller was one of the biggest backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called “free enterprise painting”). His museum was contracted to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.

The museum was also linked to the CIA by several other bridges. William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members’ board of the museum’s International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency’s wartime predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA’s International Organisations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

Now in his eighties, Mr Braden lives in Woodbridge, Virginia, in a house packed with Abstract Expressionist works and guarded by enormous Alsatians. He explained the purpose of the IOD.

“We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War.”

He confirmed that his division had acted secretly because of the public hostility to the avant-garde: “It was very difficult to get Congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do – send art abroad, send symphonies abroad, publish magazines abroad. That’s one of the reasons it had to be done covertly. It had to be a secret. In order to encourage openness we had to be secret.”

If this meant playing pope to this century’s Michelangelos, well, all the better: “It takes a pope or somebody with a lot of money to recognise art and to support it,” Mr Braden said. “And after many centuries people say, ‘Oh look! the Sistine Chapel, the most beautiful creation on Earth!’ It’s a problem that civilisation has faced ever since the first artist and the first millionaire or pope who supported him. And yet if it hadn’t been for the multi-millionaires or the popes, we wouldn’t have had the art.”

Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA.

But look where this art ended up: in the marble halls of banks, in airports, in city halls, boardrooms and great galleries. For the Cold Warriors who promoted them, these paintings were a logo, a signature for their culture and system which they wanted to display everywhere that counted. They succeeded.

  • The full story of the CIA and modern art is told in ‘Hidden Hands’ on Channel 4 next Sunday at 8pm. The first programme in the series is screened tonight. Frances Stonor Saunders is writing a book on the cultural Cold War.

Covert Operation

In 1958 the touring exhibition “The New American Painting”, including works by Pollock, de Kooning, Motherwell and others, was on show in Paris. The Tate Gallery was keen to have it next, but could not afford to bring it over. Late in the day, an American millionaire and art lover, Julius Fleischmann, stepped in with the cash and the show was brought to London.

The money that Fleischmann provided, however, was not his but the CIA’s. It came through a body called the Farfield Foundation, of which Fleischmann was president, but far from being a millionaire’s charitable arm, the foundation was a secret conduit for CIA funds.

So, unknown to the Tate, the public or the artists, the exhibition was transferred to London at American taxpayers’ expense to serve subtle Cold War propaganda purposes. A former CIA man, Tom Braden, described how such conduits as the Farfield Foundation were set up. “We would go to somebody in New York who was a well-known rich person and we would say, ‘We want to set up a foundation.’ We would tell him what we were trying to do and pledge him to secrecy, and he would say, ‘Of course I’ll do it,’ and then you would publish a letterhead and his name would be on it and there would be a foundation. It was really a pretty simple device.”

Julius Fleischmann was well placed for such a role. He sat on the board of the International Programme of the Museum of Modern Art in New York – as did several powerful figures close to the CIA.

Chicago Investigation Finds That Obama’s Staff Were Hired Under Nepotism Cartel As Unqualified Insider Boobs

Watchdog details how top Democrats under got state jobs for friends, family, Obama schemers

A new report issued Monday by a court-appointed watchdog charged with looking into patronage hiring at the Illinois Department of Transportation details how top Democrats clouted relatives and friends into positions under former Gov. Pat Quinn, even as many of those hired had little or no experience.

House Speaker Mike Madigan‘s office successfully pushed a former bricklayer for a job that included “maintaining relationships” with minority road contractors, though the man eventually resigned after being arrested for allegedly “physically assaulting” a then-state lawmaker. Cicero Rep. Lisa Hernandez sent in the resume of a bank manager who was put on the state payroll to inspect roads. And a daughter of 30th Ward Chicago Ald. Ariel Reboyras ended up in another state job after complaints at a different agency.

The final findings are the result of an inquiry that began in 2014 after a federal judge assigned a lawyer to dig into hiring at the agency — an order that came just two weeks before Election Day, as Quinn went on to lose to Republican Bruce Rauner. The judge’s move followed an earlier report that year by then-state Executive Inspector General Ricardo Meza, which found improper hiring began under ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich but accelerated under Quinn.

At issue were hundreds of people hired into “staff assistant” positions after administration officials bypassed strict personnel rules aimed at preventing politics from influencing state hiring. Meza stopped short of placing the blame on Quinn’s office, saying his investigation was “unable to conclude” that top officials in the administration knew of the illegal hiring. Chicago attorney Michael Shakman, who has battled patronage hiring in court for decades, said the state investigation wasn’t enough, and pushed for court oversight.

On Monday, court monitor Noelle Brennan was more definitive, saying Quinn’s office “played a key role in the staff assistant abuse at IDOT.”

Brennan described a system in which Quinn officials routinely sent resumes of “low-level and often unqualified candidates sponsored by the governor’s office and/or other elected officials” to employees in charge of hiring at IDOT and other state agencies. Quinn’s office then pressured agencies to hire those people, aggressively following up on requests and at times specifically ordering an agency to “find a position” for a particular candidate, the watchdog concluded.

The investigation found that politically connected candidates were pushed through the hiring process with “little or no regard” for actual hiring need, or whether the candidate was qualified for the job. Many of the sponsored hires ended up performing duties that had nothing to do with the position for which they were hired. As a result, qualified candidates who were not suggested by Quinn’s office were “sometimes denied employment, despite the requesting department’s request to hire them.”

The report does not address whether Quinn had direct knowledge of the hiring practices, but it said that several of his top aides were involved in tracking resumes and sending large batches to agencies that included suggestions to “flag” and “prioritize” certain people.

Then-deputy chief of staff Ryan Croke created a resume database that could be accessed by others, including a candidate’s background, such as “intern,” “election judge” and “waiter/valet.” Meanwhile, IDOT kept internal documents known as “Lavin Lists,” at the request of chief of staff Jack Lavin, which detailed proposed hires and “were generally updated and circulated multiple times per month.”

The court monitor wrote that during their interviews, Croke and Lavin said names were merely sent along for consideration and that agencies had the discretion to reject candidates. They said they never applied pressure or forced a specific candidate on an agency.

Brennan said that considering the evidence, it was “not credible” that Quinn’s office did not know about the improper hiring.

She cited numerous examples of Quinn’s office directing agencies to conduct interviews and expressing frustration when interviews were not quickly scheduled. The court monitor said transportation employees testified that it was “difficult to refuse” candidates sent by Quinn’s office. Her report also noted the “cryptic” way Quinn aides communicated when sending resumes via email. Messages often included no accompanying text beyond “as discussed” or “see attached,” according to the report.

One exchange between Croke and other Quinn aides had the subject line “Desperately seeking employment.” One participant asked, “do you know who/where this person came from?” Croke responded: “Yes — call for details.”

Quinn did not respond to requests for comment. Contacted Monday by the Chicago Tribune, Croke, who later became chief of staff, said he had to “respectfully disagree” with the report’s conclusions.

“Gov. Quinn took his oath of office seriously,” Croke said. “He wanted for everybody working for him to do the right thing all the time. And that’s what I tried to do every day as chief of staff. When you are managing a government the size of the state of Illinois, it is inevitable that people will make mistakes. And those mistakes have to be corrected. And they were.”

Among the examples of questionable hiring described in the report is a candidate hired after Madigan’s office contacted IDOT directly about a position. The former bricklayer was hired in 2009 for a job in which he would monitor complaints about minority hiring and was responsible for “maintaining relationships” with minority and underserved road builders. In 2014, the man was “allowed to resign” after he was arrested for allegedly assaulting a lawmaker, the report states, but the now-former legislator said Monday that the assault allegation was not true.

A Madigan spokesman said he could not offer a detailed response on Monday, citing the need to review the report and related documents. Spokesman Steve Brown instead sent a memo that was distributed to House lawmakers in 2014 regarding rules about lawmakers making employment recommendations to government agencies. It notes that “elected officials, like any other citizens, have a First Amendment right to make recommendations in support of candidates seeking government employment.”

In December 2010, Rep. Hernandez sent a resume to Quinn’s office on behalf of a bank teller, the report states. The next month, Quinn’s office forwarded that resume to IDOT hiring personnel. Quinn’s office followed up on the hire at least twice before the man was hired on as a temporary “emergency” hire for 60 days. His duties included inspecting roads. The governor’s office successfully pushed for his temporary hire to be extended three more times before he was hired full time to help develop agency policies. The report concluded that “his work as a temporary IDOT employee did not qualify him” for that position.

Hernandez, who worked for Quinn when he was lieutenant governor, said she frequently made hiring recommendations to the governor’s office in an effort to increase the number of Latino workers in state government.

“Where they go, that’s up to the governor’s office,” Hernandez said. “I hand over good, qualified people. And that’s really the bottom line.”

Also hired by Quinn’s administration was the daughter of Ald. Reboyras. The Associated Press reported in 2011 that Allyson Reboyras was hired for a $37,570 post at the Liquor Control Commission under Quinn.

According to Brennan’s report, Quinn’s office twice sent a letter to IDOT asking if Reboyras’ daughter had been interviewed for a job there. It also states that “after complaints from her superiors” at liquor control, the administration tried to find her another job. She landed at the Illinois Racing Board.

Ald. Reboyras said he never reached out to Quinn for any help getting a job for his daughter and that he doesn’t recall ever recommending his daughter for a state job with anyone else in the Quinn administration.

Another high-ranking official whose name appeared in the report was Illinois Auditor General Frank Mautino, who is under federal scrutiny for his campaign fund expenses.

In one case cited, the report said Mautino, a former state lawmaker, helped secure a staff assistant position at IDOT for a person who once worked as a warehouse supervisor for Mautino Distributing Co., a beer distributor in Mautino’s family that focuses on regional brands. The state lawmaker had severed his own ties from the company in 1993.

On Monday, Mautino said the man was an Iraq War veteran and had known the family for years.

“Very rarely did I give recommendations to anyone unless I knew them or their families personally,” Mautino told the Tribune. “I was very selective in allowing my name to be used or giving a letter of reference for them. They had to fit the job.”

Patronage hiring has a long and rich history in Illinois. The watchdog’s report cited two major state inspector general investigations the Tribune revealed years ago, one of which ended up being used against the now-imprisoned Blagojevich during his Illinois House impeachment proceedings.

A September 2004 report by Zaldwaynaka “Z” Scott, then the state’s executive inspector general, issued a searing confidential rebuke that called Blagojevich’s patronage office “the real machine driving hiring” in the Illinois Department of Employment Security. The investigation concluded that the “governor’s office improperly exercised a great deal, if not all, control over the hiring” at that agency since shortly after Blagojevich took office in early 2003.

Scott maintained the Blagojevich administration subverted state laws that gave veterans a preference in hiring and a ban on political considerations for most state jobs. She said the Blagojevich administration’s effort reflected “not merely an ignorance of the law, but complete and utter contempt for the law.”

Though Quinn crafted a persona as a political outsider, he was long involved in patronage.

After serving as an organizer for Democrat Dan Walker’s successful 1972 campaign for governor, Quinn joined Walker’s staff, where his duties included dishing out patronage as a liaison to state lawmakers.

Later, Quinn left the Illinois Industrial Commission after lawmakers launched an investigation into whether Walker had been hiding the payroll costs of governor’s office workers on state boards and commissions to make it look like the governor’s payroll had dropped.

Although Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner sought to fire most of the patronage workers hired under Quinn, including eliminating the “staff assistant” position, 42 of the employees cited in the report remain on the state payroll. Many cannot be fired under union rules, but a Rauner spokesman said Monday that the administration plans to go to court this week in an effort to prevent the collective bargaining contract from protecting workers who are hired improperly.

While Brennan commended Rauner for taking steps to root out patronage, she said more must be done to put in place permanent changes. Brennan will continue to oversee hiring at IDOT until otherwise instructed by the court.

Ray Long and Hal Dardick reported from Chicago.

mcgarcia@chicagotribune.com

rlong@chicagotribune.com

hdardick@chicagotribune.com

The Movie: “THE CIRCLE” tells the true horrific story of Google and Facebook.

GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK WILL DO ANYTHING TO STOP YOU FROM SEEING: “THE CIRCLE”

 
The Google headquarters in California. One reader said the setting of Dave Eggers’s new novel, “The Circle,” was similar. Credit Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press

Has Dave Eggers written a parable of our time, an eviscerating takedown of Silicon Valley and its privacy-invading technology companies?

Or has he missed his target, producing a sanctimonious screed that fails to humanize its characters and understand its subject?

Book critics are divided over the quality of Mr. Eggers’s highly anticipated novel “The Circle,” which went on sale Tuesday. But in Silicon Valley and beyond, the book’s theme promises to spark an even bigger debate over the 21st-century hyperconnected world that Mr. Eggers describes.

Set in an “undefined future time,” Mr. Eggers’s novel tells the story of Mae Holland, a young idealist who comes to work at the Circle, an immensely powerful technology company that has conquered all its competitors by creating a single log-in for people to search, shop and socialize online.

Continue reading the main story

 

Initial orders have lifted the book to the No. 21 spot on Amazon, no small achievement for literary fiction, and booksellers reported selling copies almost immediately after opening their doors on Tuesday.

In the tech world, some readers have bristled at the reflection of their world. “It makes me feel defensive because it hits home,” said Esther Dyson, an investor in tech start-ups.

Other early readers of the book said they were reconsidering their attachment to the Internet. In an essay titled “Dave Eggers Made Me Quit Twitter,” Michele Filgate, a writer and bookseller in Brooklyn, wrote about her experience swearing off social media for a week, an experiment prompted by the unsettling feeling the book produced.

“I hope that it allows people to step back and have a conversation about how we want to use technology,” said Jennifer Jackson, Mr. Eggers’s editor at Knopf. “I don’t think that this book is really going to make people stop using social media and I don’t think that’s at all Dave’s intent. This book is going to make people be more thoughtful — that’s my hope.” Mr. Eggers, who lives in the Bay Area, declined to be interviewed. He is not doing any readings or events to publicize the book.

Knopf and McSweeney’s, which are publishing the book together, have planned a print run of 125,000, an ambitious number in a busy fall book season where Mr. Eggers will compete against fiction by Elizabeth Gilbert, Jhumpa Lahiri and Thomas Pynchon. A spokeswoman for McSweeney’s declined to reveal the advance.

Photo

 
Posters in San Francisco promoted Dave Eggers’s novel based on the tech world, “The Circle.”

On the McSweeney’s Web site, Mr. Eggers said that he did not base the Circle on any particular company like Facebook or Google, nor did he visit the campuses of Google, Twitter or Facebook, interview their employees or read books about them.

Yet Silicon Valley is recognizable everywhere. The Circle most closely resembles Google, with its Google Glass-like retinal computers, initiatives to map far-flung parts of the world, a triumvirate running the company, antitrust investigations and a secret lab for future projects. TruYou, the fictional company’s core product, has the letters of one of the founder’s names, just like PageRank, Google’s search algorithm, is named after the Google co-founder Larry Page.

The Circle’s founders have mantras that paint a troubling, dystopian picture, like “sharing is caring” and “secrets are lies.”

Those refrains are similar in tone to remarks made by executives like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Eric E. Schmidt of Google, who once said, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

Representatives of Google and Facebook declined to comment on the book. In early September, a spokesman for Google e-mailed Knopf to ask for an advance copy of the book, saying that it sounded like “an interesting an important read for us,” according to the e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by The Times. Knopf did not comply with the request.

Glen Robbe, the manager at Books Inc., in Mountain View, Calif., said that he had read parts of “The Circle” and recognized the Google campus, a place he has visited frequently to sell books during author visits.

“Dave Eggers is so well known in the Bay Area, I have no doubt in my mind it will be a huge hit,” Mr. Robbe said. “People will be enlightened by it.”

Mr. Eggers portrays Silicon Valley as a place with ostentatious goals and an idealistic belief that its technology will change the world for the better, no matter the potential consequences. The Circle’s SeeChange cameras, for instance, stick to walls and broadcast live video, so they can do things like capture protests in the Middle East when journalists have been kicked out. The trade-off is that they also secretly broadcast people’s private moments at home.

Benedict Evans, a tech and media analyst at Enders Analysis, a London research firm, said that Mr. Eggers’s descriptions capture two qualities typical of tech companies: unbridled optimism and the failure to understand real-world consequences of new technologies.

Photo

 
The author Dave Eggers in his office. Early readers of his book said they were reconsidering their attachment to the Internet. Credit Paolo Vescia for The New York Times

“There is a massive bias toward optimism, and that’s why we have computers and all this stuff, because if people sat down rationally at every moment and said, ‘Would that work?’ we wouldn’t have anything,” Mr. Evans said.

But, he added, “The flip side is there is a sort of utopian and a Panglossian approach that comes from never having seen a failure and never having to deal with the reality of people who aren’t in Silicon Valley.”

Some of Mr. Eggers’s references ring false. He misuses technical terms like “operating system,” for instance, and there is little public outrage in the book over the privacy violations the Circle commits, in contrast to the real-life anger that often accompanies privacy intrusions.

Yet part of the reason “The Circle” can seem unnerving is because it stops short of far-fetched science fiction. Many of the inventions are just one small step further than tech companies have already gone.

Sometimes, the book’s characters use technology that is already available. Circle employees and lawmakers “go transparent,” meaning they wear cameras that broadcast everything they see — much like Google Glass can do. In other cases, Mr. Eggers’s dystopian imaginings seem to have come true in the time since he wrote the novel.

In the last week, articles in The New York Times have described several real-life situations that sound uncannily similar to plot twists in “The Circle,” like the privacy risks for children from schools that collect data about students and store it in the cloud, and the ability to search people’s names and find their arrest photos .

Mr. Eggers is using fiction to ask questions that writers like Rebecca Solnit, Jaron Lanier and Evgeny Morozov have raised in nonfiction. The novel continues the debate, and asks whether the semi-imaginary world of “The Circle” is inevitable.

In Silicon Valley, some tech people have criticized the book for its lack of verisimilitude, echoing a column for Reuters in which Felix Salmon criticized the novel.

“Eggers is preaching to a group of people which has already made up its collective mind that social media is dangerous,” Mr. Salmon wrote.

But others thought the tech community doth protest too much. “It’s more of a stark look in the mirror,” said Perry Hewitt, who has worked at tech companies and is now chief digital officer at Harvard. “It’s less about Silicon Valley and it’s more about looking at ourselves.”