The Most Influential People of All Time – The Secret List

The Most Influential People of All Time – The Secret List
Rank – Name – Year of Birth – Score
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 227
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
  28. 28
  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
  34. 34
  35. 35

    The Wright Brothers

  36. 36
  37. 37
  38. 38
  39. 39
  40. 40
  41. 41
  42. 42
  43. 43
  44. 44
  45. 45
  46. 46
  47. 47
  48. 48

    added by: Polar Bear

  49. 49
  50. 50



Secret Photos and Inside Viewws of the Scientology Headquarters “Gold Base”

Secret Photos and Inside Viewws of the Scientology Headquarters “Gold Base”


The international headquarters of Church of Scientology, also called the Gold Base or Int Base,1 is located on a 500-acre parcel of land in San Jacinto in Riverside County, California. The Church of Scientology purchased the site, a former resort used by celebrities, in 1978. Many of Scientology’s organizations are headquartered there, including the Religious Technology Center, the Commodore’s Messenger Organization International and Golden Era Productions. Golden Era Productions manufactures the E-Meter and produces and distributes all church audio-visual materials, both internal and promotional. The motif of the facility is designed to look like a Scottish castle, perhaps as a reference to one of Hubbard’s largest ideological inspirations Aleister Crowley. Like Mr. Crowley’s Boleskine House, which is located near Loch Ness, Scotland, Mr. Hubbard also refers to his house in a singular epithet “Bonnie View”. 2 The two facilities also share architectural similarities and the Boleskine House is considered to be of great importance in Thelema, Crowley’s own psuedo-religious magical organization.

Cine Castle

Scientology has a long, sometimes stormy history in the Inland area, dating to the 1960s, when the first mission opened in Grand Terrace. In 1974, the church opened a mission — then the largest worldwide — near University Avenue and Lime Street in Riverside, in what is now the Life Arts Center.

But Scientology’s largest presence here is the Gold Base — home to Golden Era Productions, where all the church’s training videos, books and audiotapes are made.

The compound is nestled against rolling green hills and bisected by winding, two-lane Gilman Springs Road. The movie studio is designed after a Scottish castle, with conical turrets and a sky-blue tiled roof.

Each of the three dozen buildings in the complex shares the motif. Flagstones line bright white exterior walls and gates are made of rough-hewn oak on wrought-iron hinges.

Fraser joked that people stop “about 50 times a day” just to ask what the place is.

The church bought the site, formerly a resort popular among Hollywood moguls, in 1978.

Golden Era’s high-tech studios produce 300 different videos, films and audiotapes a year for distribution worldwide, along with books, television commercials and E-Meters — the electronic devices used for personal counseling, an underlying feature of Scientology.

About 500 staff members live and work at the base, and another 100 or so non-Scientologists are employed there.

Photographs of Hubbard are everywhere, and several corridors are lined with signed photos of celebrity Scientologists, including John Travolta and Isaac Hayes.

Fraser said the site has hosted more than 100 fundraisers for local charities. She serves on the board of a youth museum, and another staff member is on the Hemet Public Library board and helped with a plan for San Jacinto’s Main Street.

Fraser gives free tours of Golden Era and has hosted Riverside County leaders. 3

Notable buildings and features in Gold Base include:4

Upper Villas—RTC offices and housing, where David Miscavige and other high level Scientologists live and work
BonnieView—L. Ron Hubbard’s fully-furnished mansion, still maintained and staffed in the belief that he will return in another body.
Cine Castle—main film studio in the shape of a castle, for producing church A/V materials
OGH buildings—Old Gilman House. Formerly “isolation” space for physically ill staff. Possibly now used for auditing or solo auditing.
Del Sol—CSI offices, and auditing rooms for staff.
Staff berthing—four buildings where staff live.
Qual Gold—Headquarters for Qual Sec, in charge of “quality control” as per the Hubbard organization policies. In practice this mostly means facilities staff auditing and training.
MCI—This large building is the staff dining hall, known as “Massacre Canyon Inn” from the building’s pre-Scientology name when the property was a resort.

Unusually Strong Security Measures at Gold Base

Gold Base has a number of unusually strong security measures, including razor-tipped fences, motion sensors, snipers nests and a large number of regular and infrared CCTV cameras. However, it is unclear whether the purpose of many of these security measures is to protect the base from outside threats or to keep unruly members inside the compound. The outer fences are lined with razors and motion sensors at regular intervals of approximately 20 ft. The facility also has infrared cameras, anti-protester speaker systems as well as floodlights arranged at regular intervals. There are are also “lookout posts” that are akin to snipers’ nests in the sides of the hills surrounding the complex.
Razor-tipped fences at Gold Base point both inward and outward.
Motion sensors are positioned at regular intervals along the outer fences of Gold Base.

Infrared cameras are positioned around Gold Base.

19625 Gilman Springs Road
Gilman Hot Springs, California 92583

Golden Era Golf Course
19871 Gilman Springs Road
San Jacinto, CA 92583-2105
(951) 654-0130

The large mansion at top right is L. Ron Hubbard’s former house “Bonnie View”.
Close up of L. Ron Hubbard’s former home. The Religious Technology Center Building is in the bottom right. David Miscavige’s office is located in the RTC building
Golden Era Productions and Golf Course. The building at right is “Building 36”. Building 36 contains the Gold Executives and administrative staff, marketing, and manufacturing.
Production studios for video and audio in upper portion of photo. Auditing rooms and “the Ranchos”, which are the book compilation, editing, design and typesetting units, are located to lower right. Flat-roofed building to the left is CMO International and Exec Strata are located in atemporary building, called “The Trailers”. In the nearby “200’s” are the offices of L. Ron Hubbard’s Public Relations staff and the LRH Biographer, Dan Sherman.
Cine Castle. “The Castle” is a large, state-of-the art sound studio for filming. It also has alarge area for set and prop construction and storage, costumes, and makeup.
Garage and motor pool at top. Massacre Canyon Inn is at lower right, where the staff eats, and where they have military-style “musters” three times a day.
The Running Program Track is used for punishment. The Rehabilitation Project Force uses the track to force offending members of the Sea Org to run consistently in circles, without stopping, for up to 12 hours at a time.

TOP-SECRET-Committee on National Security Systems Recommendations for Implementing FICAM on U.S. Secret Networks

TOP-SECRET-Committee on National Security Systems Recommendations for Implementing FICAM on U.S. Secret Networks


Download the original document below


Threats to Federal information systems are rising as demands for sharing of information and intelligence between Federal Departments and Agencies increase. It is essential that the Federal Government devise an approach that addresses both challenges without compromising the ability to achieve either objective. Developing a common governance framework and set of Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM) capabilities that enhance the security of our systems by ensuring that only authorized persons and systems from different Federal components have access to necessary information is a high priority. The Federal Identity, Credential and Access Management (FICAM) Roadmap and Implementation Guidance was developed to address the need for secure information sharing capabilities across the breadth of the Federal Government.

A recent gap analysis conducted to determine gaps between the current state of the Secret Fabric and FICAM revealed substantive differences between levels of adoption of this framework and served as the catalyst for this document. In addition to varying levels of FICAM maturity, the gap analysis also showed significant variations in levels of sharable information, connectivity, and governance structures which further complicate the aim of a common FICAM framework across the Secret Fabric.

Using the gap analysis as a starting point, this document provides four major recommendations:

Establish and Empower a Governance Structure for ICAM on All Networks
 Develop a Common Interoperable ICAM Architecture for the Secret Fabric
 Transition to a Common Interoperable ICAM Architecture
 Prepare for the Evolution of ICAM on the Secret Fabric as New Technology Emerges and New Mission and Business Needs Arise

The following progress chart summarizes the recommendations with objective end states and suggested activities required to accomplish the objectives along a snapshot of status of ICAM on the Secret Fabric as of the publication date of this document. These recommendations, objectives and activities will be included in the FICAM Implementation Plan for the Secret Fabric currently under development by the National Security Systems (NSS) Identity and Access Management (IdAM) Working Group under the guidance of the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE).


SECRET – Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Apple Offshore Profit Shifting Exhibits

SECRET – Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Apple Offshore Profit Shifting Exhibits

The following exhibits were released May 21, 2013 by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

  • 142 pages
  • May 21, 2013
  • 4.4 MB


On May 21, 2013, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will hold a hearing that is a continuation of a series of reviews conducted by the Subcommittee on how individual and corporate taxpayers are shifting billions of dollars offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. The hearing will examine how Apple Inc., a U.S. multinational corporation, has used a variety of offshore structures, arrangements, and transactions to shift billions of dollars in profits away from the United States and into Ireland, where Apple has negotiated a special corporate tax rate of less than two percent. One of Apple’s more unusual tactics has been to establish and direct substantial funds to offshore entities in Ireland, while claiming they are not tax residents of any jurisdiction. For example, Apple Inc. established an offshore subsidiary, Apple Operations International, which from 2009 to 2012 reported net income of $30 billion, but declined to declare any tax residence, filed no corporate income tax return, and paid no corporate income taxes to any national government for five years. A second Irish affiliate, Apple Sales International, received $74 billion in sales income over four years, but due in part to its alleged status as a non-tax resident, paid taxes on only a tiny fraction of that income.

In addition, the hearing will examine how Apple Inc. transferred the economic rights to its intellectual property through a cost sharing agreement with its own offshore affiliates, and was thereby able to shift tens of billions of dollars offshore to a low tax jurisdiction and avoid U.S. tax. Apple Inc. then utilized U.S. tax loopholes, including the so-called “check-the-box” rules, to avoid U.S. taxes on $44 billion in taxable offshore income over the past four years, or about $10 billion in tax avoidance per year. The hearing will also examine some of the weaknesses and loopholes in certain U.S. tax code provisions, including transfer pricing, Subpart F, and related regulations, that enable multinational corporations to avoid U.S. taxes.

A. Subcommittee Investigation

For a number of years, the Subcommittee has reviewed how U.S. citizens and multinational corporations have exploited and, at times, abused or violated U.S. tax statutes, regulations and accounting rules to shift profits and valuable assets offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. The Subcommittee inquiries have resulted in a series of hearings and reports. The Subcommittee’s recent reviews have focused on how multinational corporations have employed various complex structures and transactions to exploit taxloopholes to shift large portions of their profits offshore and dodge U.S. taxes.

At the same time as the U.S. federal debt has continued to grow – now surpassing $16 trillion – the U.S. corporate tax base has continued to decline, placing a greater burden on individual taxpayers and future generations. According to a report prepared for Congress: “At its post-WWII peak in 1952, the corporate tax generated 32.1% of all federal tax revenue. In that same year the individual tax accounted for 42.2% of federal revenue, and the payroll tax accounted for 9.7% of revenue. Today, the corporate tax accounts for 8.9% of federal tax revenue, whereas the individual and payroll taxes generate 41.5% and 40.0%, respectively, of federal revenue.”

Over the past several years, the amount of permanently reinvested foreign earnings reported by U.S. multinationals on their financial statements has increased dramatically. One study has calculated that undistributed foreign earnings for companies in the S&P 500 have increased by more than 400%. According to recent analysis by Audit Analytics, over a five year period from 2008 to 2012, total untaxed indefinitely reinvested earnings reported in 10-K filings for firms comprising the Russell 3000 increased by 70.3%. During the same period, the number of firms reporting indefinitely reinvested earnings increased by 11.4%.

The increase in multinational corporate claims regarding permanently reinvested foreign earnings and the decline in corporate tax revenue are due in part to the shifting of mobile income offshore into tax havens. A number of studies show that multinational corporations are moving “mobile” income out of the United States into low or no tax jurisdictions, including tax havens such as Ireland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands. In one 2012 study, a leading expert in the Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Department of Treasury found that foreign profit margins, not foreign sales, are the cause for significant increases in profits abroad. He wrote:

“The foreign share of the worldwide income of U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) has risen sharply in recent years. Data from a panel of 754 large MNCs indicate that the MNC foreign income share increased by 14 percentage points from 1996 to 2004. The differential between a company’s U.S. and foreign effective tax rates exerts a significant effect on the share of its income abroad, largely through changes in foreign and domestic profit margins rather than a shift in sales. U.S.-foreign tax differentials are estimated to have raised the foreign share of MNC worldwide income by about 12 percentage points by 2004. Lower foreign effective tax rates had no significant effect on a company’s domestic sales or on the growth of its worldwide pre-tax profits. Lower taxes on foreign income do not seem to promote ‘competitiveness.’”

One study showed that foreign profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) of U.S. multinationals significantly outpace the total GDP of some tax havens.” For example, profits of CFCs in Bermuda were 645% and in the Cayman Islands were 546% as a percentage of GDP, respectively. In a recent research report, JPMorgan expressed the opinion that the transfer pricing of intellectual property “explains some of the phenomenon as to why the balances of foreign cash and foreign earnings at multinational companies continue to grow at such impressive rates.”

C. Transfer Pricing and the Use of Shell Corporations

The Subcommittee’s investigations, as well as government and academic studies, have shown that U.S. multinationals use transfer pricing to move the economic rights of intangible assets to CFCs in tax havens or low tax jurisdictions, while they attribute expenses to their U.S. operations, lowering their taxable income at home. Their ability to artificially shift income to a tax haven provides multinationals with an unfair advantage over U.S. domestic corporations; it amounts to a subsidy for those multinationals. The recipient CFC in many cases is a shell entity that is created for the purpose of holding the rights. Shell companies are legal entities without any substantive existence – they have no employees, no physical presence, and produce no goods or services. Such shell companies are “ubiquitous in U.S international tax planning.” Typically, multinationals set up a shell corporation to enable it to artificially shift income to shell subsidiaries in low tax or tax haven jurisdictions.

According to a 2008 GAO study, “eighty-three of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations in terms of revenue reported having subsidiaries in jurisdictions list as tax havens or financial privacy jurisdictions….” Many of the largest U.S. multinationals use shell corporations to hold the economic rights to intellectual property and the profits generated from those rights in tax haven jurisdictions to avoid U.S. taxation. By doing this, multinational companies are shifting taxable U.S. income on paper to affiliated offshore shells. These strategies are causing the United States to lose billions of tax dollars annually. Moreover, from a broader prospective, multinationals are able to benefit from the tax rules which assume that different entities of a multinational, including shell corporations, act independently from one another. The reality today is that the entities of a parent multinational typically operate as one global enterprise following a global business plan directed by the U.S. parent. If that reality were recognized, rather than viewing the various affiliated entities as independent companies, they would not be able to benefit from creating fictitious entities in tax havens and shifting income to those entities. In fact, when Congress enacted Subpart F, discussed in detail below, more than fifty years ago in 1962, an express purpose of that law was to stop the deflection of multinational income to tax havens, an activity which is so prevalent today.

SECRET – Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis (JCOA)

SECRET – Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis (JCOA)

Reducing and Mitigating Civilian Casualties: Enduring Lessons

17 pages
April 12, 2013


The United States has long been committed to upholding the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and minimizing collateral damage, which includes civilian casualties (CIVCAS) and unintended damage to civilian objects (facilities, equipment, or other property that is not a military objective). In support of these goals, the U.S. military developed capabilities for precision engagements and accurately identifying targets, such as the development of refined targeting processes and predictive tools to better estimate and minimize collateral damage. These capabilities permitted the conduct of combat operations with lower relative numbers of civilian casualties compared to past operations. However, despite these efforts, and while maintaining compliance with the laws of war, the U.S. military found over the past decade that these measures were not always sufficient for meeting the goal of minimizing civilian casualties when possible. Resulting civilian casualties ran counter to U.S. desires and public statements that the United States did “everything possible” to avoid civilian casualties, and therefore caused negative second-order effects that impacted U.S. national, strategic, and operational interests.

Afghanistan (2001-2002)

The United States reaffirmed its commitment to minimizing harm to the peaceful civilian population when it commenced major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, respectively. On 7 October 2001, U.S. forces began combat operations to capture Al Qaeda leadership and eliminate the use of Afghanistan as a launching point for terrorism. Within days of the start of operations, international media began reporting incidents of civilian casualties. Many of these incidents involved villages where suspected enemy were located, highlighting the challenge posed by fighting an enemy that eschews its obligations under the law of war (e.g., not wearing a uniform and hiding among the population). As a result, obtaining positive identification (PID) was more problematic, and U.S. engagements tended to rely more on self-defense considerations based on perceived hostile acts or intent. Probably the two highest profile incidents during this time were the 21 December 2001 attack on a convoy that the Afghan government claimed included tribal leaders; and the 1 July 2002 AC-130 attack on a group in Deh Rawud, central Afghanistan, that turned out to be a wedding party. In both attacks, U.S. aircraft had observed ground fire and engaged because of self-defense considerations.

Iraq Major Combat Operations (2003)

During major combat operations in Iraq, the ability to distinguish the enemy from the civilian population was simplified by the fact that the enemy was the Iraqi military. Iraqi forces were generally located away from civilian areas; their military equipment and uniforms reduced the ambiguity of engagement decisions relative to those faced by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. However, the Iraq military purposely violated law of war rules designed to protect the peaceful civilian population by employing human shields, misusing protected symbols for impartial humanitarian organizations (e.g., Red Crescent), and placing equipment in protected sites. In addition, Fedayeen Saddam forces did not wear uniforms and fought using irregular tactics, contributing to U.S. challenges in obtaining positive identification.

In contrast, the United States and its allies went to great lengths to minimize collateral damage; for example, in Iraq, similar to Afghanistan, most air engagements used precision-guided munitions. While no Department of Defense (DOD) assessment of civilian casualties during Iraq major combat operations could be found by this author, an independent assessment judged U.S. pre-planned attacks to be relatively effective in minimizing civilian casualties. The main concerns over civilian casualties centered on coalition forces conducting time-sensitive targeting of leadership in urban areas.

Counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan

As insurgencies developed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States was forced to adopt a counterinsurgency (COIN) approach for which it was largely unprepared. With civilian protection being a central feature of COIN, the reduction and mitigation of CIVCAS became a key issue in these operations.

Counterinsurgency in Iraq

In Iraq, noncombatant casualties were primarily caused by escalation of force (EOF) incidents, both at check points and during convoy operations. These incidents resulted in a significant outcry from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the media; the shooting of a vehicle containing Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and her rescuers during an EOF incident further increased visibility of this issue. In mid-2005, U.S. forces in Iraq adapted and made heightened efforts, widely seen as successful, to prevent and mitigate the effects of civilian casualties. Still, this issue was not completely resolved: later in the conflict, Multinational Forces – Iraq (MNF-I) pointed to the strategic importance of reducing CIVCAS from EOF and cited the lack of available nonlethal capabilities and inadequate training in their use as key deficiencies.

Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, President Karzai made his first public statements regarding CIVCAS in 2005, asking the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take measures to reduce such casualties. Initial initiatives to reduce CIVCAS in Afghanistan, such as the “Karzai 12” rules for approving operations in 2005 and the initial Commander, ISAF (COMISAF) Tactical Directive in 2007, were not successful in reducing high profile incidents. Additional efforts, including redrafting the COMISAF Tactical Directive in 2008, were made in response to several high profile, high casualty CIVCAS incidents; however, a May 2009 incident in Bala Balouk highlighted the lack of progress in effectively addressing the issue of civilian casualties.

The Bala Balouk incident served as an impetus for major efforts to reduce CIVCAS by both ISAF and the United States. Since mid-2009, ISAF leadership clearly and consistently emphasized the importance of reducing CIVCAS, and ISAF modified its policies and procedures to that end. Similarly, concerted efforts on the part of the United States—spearheaded by the U.S. Joint Staff CIVCAS Working Group, currently led by a three-star general officer—aided efforts to improve U.S. pre-deployment training to better prepare U.S. forces for CIVCAS reduction and mitigation in Afghanistan. This renewed focus addressed deficiencies in pre-deployment training regarding the use of nonlethal weapons (NLWs), amongst many other efforts. Collectively, these dedicated efforts bore fruit: because of improved guidance and training, ISAF forces adapted the way they conducted operations in light of CIVCAS concerns, and ISAF-caused CIVCAS decreased over time. Importantly, analysis of available data suggested that these CIVCAS mitigation efforts were a win-win, with no apparent cost to mission effectiveness or increase in friendly force casualties.

CIVCAS: An Enduring Issue

While the progress in Afghanistan is good news, to date the changes put into place have remained largely focused on supporting operations there. Sharing lessons between operations and institutionalization of those lessons are less apparent. For example, existing lessons from Iraq regarding EOF did not appear to migrate to Afghanistan, and lessons from Afghanistan regarding air-to-ground operations did not reach North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) participants in Libya during Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR (OUP). Further, a CIVCAS incident where a U.S. Navy ship engaged a small boat in the Persian Gulf and incidents regarding U.S. operations in Yemen and Pakistan (as reported in the international media) also suggest that the applicability of lessons regarding ways to minimize civilian casualties and mitigate their impact are not limited to Afghanistan. Former COMISAF, General David Petraeus, echoed this point, describing the enduring nature of the challenge of CIVCAS: “Avoiding civilian casualties is a central operational challenge in Afghanistan and Iraq and it will be a challenge in any future conflict as well.” Lessons learned in the past decade should therefore be looked at with an eye toward their application in future conflicts, as well as their continued importance to current operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

This paper identifies key CIVCAS lessons that are applicable to future operations conducted by the United States and its allies. These lessons were drawn from four years of analytic effort focused on understanding and effectively responding to the challenge of CIVCAS in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. These lessons are not limited to COIN operations; rather, they apply to a wide range of potential combat activities, including major combat operations (in light of the political impact of CIVCAS during 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars), airpower-focused operations such as OUP in Libya, and counterterrorism operations such as the U.S. is currently conducting in Pakistan. Since each of these cases included an enemy that did not appropriately distinguish itself from the peaceful civilian population, these lessons should be particularly applicable in other, similar situations.


The government seizure of Associated Press telephone records in the course
of a leak investigation undermined freedom of the press in the United
States, congressional critics said yesterday.

"It seems to me the damage done to a free press is substantial," said Rep.
Zoe Lofgren at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

Pursuant to subpoena, the government captured call records for 20
telephone lines of Associated Press reporters and editors over a two month
period last year.  The records are logs of calls made and received, but do
not include their contents.  It was a "massive and unprecedented intrusion"
into newsgathering activities, wrote the AP's president Gary Pruitt in a
May 13 letter.

The Justice Department denied that the action deviated from established

"We understand your position that these subpoenas should have been more
narrowly drawn, but in fact, consistent with Department policy, the
subpoenas were limited in both time and scope," wrote Deputy Attorney
General James M. Cole in a May 14 reply.

The  move arose from an AP story about a disrupted bomb plot originating
in Yemen that led to the revelation of a classified counterterrorism
operation and the existence of a valued agent. "This is among the top two
or three serious leaks that I've ever seen" said Attorney General Eric
Holder. He did not elaborate.

Meanwhile, the upshot is that any presumption of confidentiality in the
source-reporter relationship has been compromised across the board,
especially but not only in national security reporting.

"Reporters who might have previously believed that a confidential source
would speak to them would no longer have that level of confidence, because
those confidential sources are now going to be chilled in their
relationship with the press," Rep. Lofgren said yesterday.

Last year, congressional leaders harshly criticized the Obama
Administration for supposedly failing to aggressively combat leaks of
classified information, including in the present case.

"The Administration's disregard for the Constitution and rule of law not
only undermines our democracy, it threatens our national security," said
Rep. Lamar Smith, at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on June 7
of last year. "The Justice Department has not taken the initiative to
prosecute leaks of national security secrets. Recent leaks about a foiled
bomb plot out of Yemen and a cyberattack against Iran are, in the words of
Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, quote, 'very detrimental,
very concerning, and hurt our country,' end quote."

The irony was not lost on Rep. Jerrold Nadler.

"I think we should put this in context, and remember that less than a year
ago this committee's Republican leadership demanded aggressive
investigation of press leaks, accusing the administration itself of
orchestrating those leaks," he noted. "Then, members of this committee
wanted the reporters subpoenaed, put in front of grand juries and
potentially jailed for contempt. Now, of course, it is convenient to attack
the attorney general for being too aggressive or the Justice Department for
being too aggressive."

"But this inconsistency on the part of my Republican colleagues should not
distract us from legitimate questions worthy of congressional oversight,
including whether the Espionage Act has been inappropriately used looking
at leakers, whether there is a need for a greater press shield,... and
Congress' broad grants of surveillance authority and immunity," Rep. Nadler

Rep. Lofgren said that the damage done to freedom of the press by the
clandestine seizure of AP phone records "will continue until corrective
action is taken."


The Government Printing Office is blocking public access to some
previously released records of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, while the records are reviewed to see if they contain
export-controlled information.  The move follows the controversial
disabling and partial restoration of the NASA Technical Reports Server
(NTRS) ("NASA Technical Report Database Partly Back Online," Secrecy News,
May 9.)

"GPO has been asked to suspend any activity related to making these
documents available if they have not been reviewed," GPO said in a notice

"During this time, PURLs that GPO has created for the electronic versions
of NASA Technical Reports found in cataloging records accessed through the
Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP) may not link to the documents
that the catalog record describes."


"In 2009, China overtook the United States to become both the world's
largest producer of and market for motor vehicles," a new report from the
Congressional Research Service notes.

That is not altogether bad news. "Every year since 2010, General Motors
has sold more cars in China (through exports and its joint ventures there)
than in the United States," CRS said. "On the other hand, China maintains a
number of trade and investment barriers that affect trade flows in autos
and auto parts."

See U.S.-Chinese Motor Vehicle Trade: Overview and Issues, May 13, 2013:

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that
Congress has declined to make publicly available include the following.

Regulation of Fertilizers: Ammonium Nitrate and Anhydrous Ammonia, May 9,

Haiti Under President Martelly: Current Conditions and Congressional
Concerns, May 10, 2013:

Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, May 9, 2013:

The Peace Corps: Current Issues, May 10, 2013:

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, May 10,

The Federal Budget: Issues for FY2014 and Beyond, May 9, 2013:

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

The Secrecy News Blog is at:

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to:


OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation:

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
voice:  (202) 454-4691
twitter: @saftergood



Almost a year and a half after he was nominated by President Obama in December 2011, the Senate yesterday confirmed David Medine to be the chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board by a vote of 53-45. Republicans, led by Sen. Charles Grassley, opposed the nominee and voted against him. “I was disappointed that he failed to answer a basic yes-or-no question about national security law: ‘Do you believe that we are engaged in a war on terrorism?’,” Sen. Grassley said. “Instead of a simple yes or no, he opted for a more limited answer that military power is permissible in appropriate cases.” Democrats, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy, praised Mr. Medine and the Board that he will now lead. “The confirmation of this nominee is a significant victory for all Americans who care about safeguarding our privacy rights and civil liberties,” Sen. Leahy said. “The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is a guardian of Americans’ privacy rights and civil liberties as well as an essential part of our national security strategy,” he said. But this seems like an overstatement. The size of the five-member Board and the resources available to it are not commensurate with the responsibilities it has nominally been assigned. It cannot possibly perform comprehensive oversight of the broad range of privacy or civil liberties concerns that arise in the national security domain. Expectations to the contrary are bound to be disappointed. At best, the Board may serve as a boutique oversight shop that tackles a couple of discrete policy issues each year. For background on the origins and development of the Board, see Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: New Independent Agency Status, Congressional Research Service, August 27, 2012: INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER DOD DIRECTIVES The procedures by which the U.S. Air Force establishes international agreements for the exchange of intelligence information with foreign military services were described in a new Air Force Instruction. “Foreign military organizations being considered for inclusion in an IIA (international intelligence agreement) must clearly support U.S. security and foreign policy objectives. The foreign government must have favorable relations with the United States; a well-developed, secure intelligence service; and a stable domestic environment and military unity. Known national characteristics of the foreign government in question must fall within the guidelines of the United States national disclosure and security policy, and be reasonably expected to have adequate fiscal means, and conform to legal guidelines,” the Instruction states. Such agreements must “Provide for mutual support (quid pro quo)” and must “Provide intelligence that would otherwise be denied to the United States.” See Air Force Instruction 14-102, International Intelligence Agreements, April 29, 2013: Another new Department of Defense Instruction governs records management within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “It is DoD policy,” it states, “to limit the creation of records to those essential for the efficient conduct of official business and to preserve those of continuing value while systematically eliminating all others.” See OSD Records and Information Management Program, Administrative Instruction 15, May 3, 2013: Other noteworthy new military publications include the following. Information Operations (IO), DoD Directive 3600.01, May 2, 2013: DODD 5134.10 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), DoD Directive 5134.10, May 7, 2013: THE U.S. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORKFORCE, AND MORE FROM CRS New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has not made available to the public include the following. The U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce: Recent, Current, and Projected Employment, Wages, and Unemployment, May 6, 2013: Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Background and Policy Issues, May 7, 2013: Tax Reform in the 113th Congress: An Overview of Proposals, May 6, 2013: Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, May 3, 2013: Terrorist Watch List Screening and Background Checks for Firearms, May 1, 2013: Missing Adults: Background, Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress, May 7, 2013: Kosovo: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, May 7, 2013: Central America Regional Security Initiative: Background and Policy Issues for Congress, May 7, 2013: Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, May 2, 2013: No-Fly Zones: Strategic, Operational, and Legal Considerations for Congress, May 3, 2013: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2013, May 3, 2013: _______________________________________________ Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists. The Secrecy News Blog is at: To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to: To UNSUBSCRIBE, go to OR email your request to Secrecy News is archived at: Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation: _______________________ Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists web: email: voice: (202) 454-4691

Trotz Internet-Attacken der “GoMoPa”:Wer wirklich und tatsächlich Geld erhielt: “GoMoPa” und Genossen !

Trotz Internet-Attacken der “GoMoPa”:Wer wirklich und tatsächlich Geld erhielt: “GoMoPa” und Genossen !


Alle Internettacken der mutmasslichen STASI-Typen der “GoMoPa” können die Wahrheit nicht stoppen.

Klar ist, nicht ich, sondern “GoMoPa” erhielt Geld von S&K.

Nicht ich, sondern “Dr. Rainer Zitelmann” wurde bei Springer als Immobilienredakteur entfernt, nachdem sich der Verlag mit seinen Schriften zu Adolf Hitler und Auschwitz auseinandergesetzt hat.

Ich habe nie bei Axel Springer gearbeitet. Dies kann jeder bei Springer nachprüfen.

Nicht ich, sondern “GoMoPa” und “Dr. Rainer Zitelmann”  haben Beraterverträge mit deutschen Immobilienfirmen.

Die Latrinenparolen sollen doch nur von den tatsächlichem Korruptionsnetzwerk und den alten Genossen und deren Seilschaften ablenken,

wie dies bereits oft versucht wurde.

Und dann wenn alles nichts hilft, werden unseren Seiten gehackt und mit DDoS-Hacker-Attacken angegriffen…

Das leuchtet doch jedem ein ! Hilflose Versuche der korrupten Seilschaften von “GoMoPa” und Genossen.

Und ganz sicher ist auch: Ich bin kein Fähnchen im Wind !

Hier noch einmal meine detaillierte Stellungnahme.

Bernd Pulch

Liebe Leser,

wieder einmal versucht die dubiose “GoMoPa” und deren Handlanger, Konsorten und Komparsen mutmasslich “Peter Ehlers” und “Nawito” von mutmasslich eigenen Taten abzulenken und mir perfide den “Schwarzen Peter” zuzuschieben.

Wie bereits im Falle meines angeblichen falschen Magistertitels, dem Fall Meridian Capital etc pp die Liste ist endlos.

Ein Sammelsurium von  Kolportagen, Fabeln, Märchen und Latrinenpatrolen…

Dabei liegen die Beweis klar auf dem Tisch:

Die renommierten und etablierten Medien wie “ZEIT” und “Süddeutsche Zeitung” haben es aufgedeckt, was hier im Fall “S &K”/”GoMoPa” wirklich lief.

Nachdem zahlreiche Internetangriffe nichts gebracht haben, nun wieder dieser Unsinn.

Hier noch einmal meine Stellungnahme zu der “GoMoPa”/Ehlers/Nawito-Absurdistan-Agit-Propaganda:

Dear Readers,

let me just briefly comment a mental cyberattack which should distract your attention from the real issues.

I have never had any consulting position or contract for any German company.

I have never worked for the Axel Springer Publishing House – not even as a freelance journalist.

These facts are clear and can be verified easily – just by calling Axel Springer.

The facts are

1) Dr. Rainer Zitelmann worked for the Axel Springer Company. You can esaily find out what happened there. I just mention the word “Auschwitz” in this context…As you see from his website and in the internet Zitelmann is in fact consulting many German companies.

2) “GoMoPa” had in fact a consultation contract with estavis and got in fact money from estavis and many various companies i.e. “S&K”

These contracts are known and 100% true and published by various media i.e. “ZEIT”, “MANAGER MAGAZIN”, “SUEDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG” etc.

3) Meridian Capital was the subject of “GoMoPa”s articles.

4) “Nawito” whover or whatever it is did not even bother to contact us.

5) The “information” about one of our companies is false.

6) The “Nawito” informer “Peter Ehlers” did in fact attack Chancellor Merkel and the Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schäuble as “Deutschlands bekannteste Hehler” to name just one fact about “Peter Ehlers” or whatever his name might be who by the way got a lot of money from the bancrupt SAM AG which was also subject of “GoMoPa”‘s reporting and we know similiar cases of this endeavour.

7) The last editor who was attacked by such cyberattacks died in a very mysterious way, Heinz Gerlach. He might have been controversial but nevertheless – the truth is the truth.

He was the first journalist to publish the truth about the mysterious headquarter of “GoMoPa” in New York and their consulting contract with estavis and died suddenly and totally unexpected for most of us – not for all.

The circumstances of his death remain unsolved for me.

We are ready to proof this everytime and do not work with “colportations”.

Obviously cyberattacks on our websites since years are not enough to keep the truth down – defamation must be added – a wellknown STASI technique to irritate the public – MENTAL AND PYSICAL CYBERATTACKS done by the well-know suspects.

Sincerely your

Bernd Pulch

Magister Artium der Publizistik, Germanistik und Komparatistik



graph eastern

graph 3



The attacked website are for example:

and about 20 more.