Thursday, June 29, 2006

Homeland Security Cyber Chief

The Bush administration apparently has a cybersecurity chief who is a contract employee and earns $577,602 over two years.

By comparison, the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, makes just $175,000 annually.

So now we finally have the explanation for the many visits from the Department of Homeland Security to this blog.

I haven't kept track lately, and graph is from a few weeks ago.

It was the cybersecurity chief.

I wish other readers got that kind of money to read my blog!

Full story here.


Anonymous said...

Yeah Doc, but unlike Chertoff, this guy is probably qualified to do his job.

Anonymous said...

Ok. Nevermind. I just read the article. I guess this guy is another Brown.

Anonymous said...

Fascinating. As I abhor conspiracy theories, this sort of thing makes me really nervous.

Anonymous said...

Ok, could someone rune it by me like I'm stoopit?

Anonymous said...

start reading here:

Anonymous said...

If you want a condensed version, Dr. Rost found out his blogs were being visited by the Rendon Group. They are a PR company that operates more like a propaganda arm of a facist regime. They're the ones that helped fabricate and package the lies told to American public to get us into Iraq. They also helped package the Afgan war among many other devious things. That actaully seems to be their area of specialty - selling wars to the public. They've been involved in selling almost every major war in our recent memory. There is a great expose article in the Rolling Stones which the Doc linked. Read the article and you'll be sick. I think the next day or the day after he posted it, his site started getting visits by the DHS and the CIA (for the first time ever). That doesn't seem suspicious...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but also around this time the HuffPo was making internal efforts to oust the Doc or at least get him not to post on this topic. Makes you wonder what these DHS guys really do.

I heard recently that they're arresting illegal immigrants here in LA too. They must be getting the info off massive data mining which obviously the INS isn't allowed to do since it would violate our freedoms guranteed in the Bill of Rights. So they're getting there before the INS and they're doing the arrests and the INS comes in after and just processes the deportation. Great.

I feel so much more secure knowing that the DHS/NSA is spying on all of us illegally like we live in some totalitarian police state, and now thanks to Bush, the courts have decided that illegal evidence can be used in court. I mean why not if we're using info obtained through torture as realiable enough intel to send thousands of Americans to their death? It's also great that our elected representatives in Congress think this, the violation of the inalienable rights given to us by the founders of this country, the same rights generations and generations have faught and died to preserve, is not really an issue they need to worry about. There's much more important issue they need to address like gay marriage and flag burning. Let's not also forget the important issue of selling the internet to the highest telcom bidder. If somebody set off a nuke in D.C., they might be doing the world a huge favor.

Anonymous said...

Nice. When traffic is slow, post something by Dershowitz. You know his posts always get 5+ pages of comments. Everything he says is always fucking nuts! Why are we deporting illegals who desperately want to come here and become good Americans citizens and we let this asshole shit all over our Country?

Anonymous said...

Dear anonymous,

I totally agree. Dershkowitz is less than an assinine buffoon, but idiots on HuffPo choose to comment about him. Doesn't make for a lively discussion by my book, just lots more basurai on the Internet.

Anonymous said...

I think most people would ignore him until they look at some of the idiotic and incendiary comments posted in his defense. I'm sure a lot of those comments originate from the same HuffPo IP as the troll comments on Dr. Rost's posts.

shooter said...

This blog took off recently because of a common interest in the deceit and betrayal by the Huffington site. Also in a common interest to support Dr.Rost in his unfair and disgusting treatment. Why is it morphing into an anti-Jew, Anti-Israel, anti-Dershowitz oasis for people who obviously have another agenda?
I have no problem discussing any topic in an intelligent and respectfull manner, but I suspect we're being invaded by people with a co-ordinated and troubling motive.

Peter Rost said...

OK guys, comment policy is clear. I do not censor comments based on political or ideological point of view or if they differ from my personal opinion.

But I also have no interest in this site becoming anti-jew or anti-arab or anti-whatever.

Let's discuss issues. If this goes off course I'll start deleting comments that are abusive, off-topic or decreases the enjoyment of this site for other readers. I don't censor like HuffPuff, and I want to make sure all points of view are heard. That's what makes blogging fun.

Just stay on course and I'll stay away from delete button.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to leave this post as anonymous as one never knows who will read it. I was one of the posters whose post got deleted from the thread on the Yaco-Mink incident and had my trusted poster status yanked. It was very strange because I did think exposing Yaco-Mink went to far. Having said that, It does appear to me that there was an orchestrated smear campaign against Dr. Rost. The complaints about his blogs were specious and over the top. It is interesting that at the same time this came down, Arianna was off playing footsie with advertising executives and wrote a puff piece about that industry. I have also noticed an influx of anti-Semitic and right wing trolls on the site who have appeared out of nowhere and seem to have instant posting priviledges. Also, I have noticed Arianna excoriating Democrats over their votes on the flag burning amendment. Anybody with half a brain understands that this amendment was nothing but a political scissors game meant to trap and divide Democrats. It could be that Arianna has never switched sides at all, but is working a PsyOps campaign to divide and confuse the left. It's just speculation, but I no longer trust her or the site. One wonders who will be next on the agenda. David Sirota?

Anonymous said...

I am always amazed at the anti semitic comments anywhere. I can, sort of, maybe, kind of, understand that anywhere will always have these nutjobs, but it seems like liberal sites attract them more.

WHICH does not make me think there are more anti semitics in the liberal blogosphere, but rather it is being done by trolls, for the most part, who want to label the liberal sites with these comments.

When I go to rightwing sites, you never see them, which I understand has more to do with the fact they have someone on the delete button 24/7, than anything but one does wonder about this.

There was a guy who was always posting over at huffingpost nomorewarforisrael and a dozen other split personalities and he came over here for a while and hopefully he has been not allowed to return here. I am still convinced he was a real GOP troll or more likely, posting from the Mid East.

BUT back to the topic.

There is nothing more dangerous to this administration or any administration that works strictly with fear than an honest man.

The good Doctor is one of those people who also has the intelligence and ability to spot unwanted and unwelcome visitors and let us know.

If there is a God and If he puts Al Gore in the White House, I think the Doctor would be the perfect person to run the FDA.

Corporations hate honest men. So do fascist goverments.

Anonymous said...

The anti-Semitic comments bother me a lot too. If for no other reason than they detract from any type of intelligent and informed discussion that people could have about the US policy towards Israel. I honestly feel that at this stage Israel is as much of a pawn in the power game that this administration is playing in the Middle East as the Arabs are.

Going back to the subject of the actual post, I was wondering if anyone else thinks that people like the cybersecurtity chief are just paranoid themselves and also creating importance for their jobs. There just seems to be a needless amassing of tons of information about US citizens lately. I honestly can't imagine that the people who are collecting all the information have the intelligence or creativity to actually analyse it properly.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else seen that the latest ads on HuffPo are from the American Medical Association. They are against Medicare cuts, which I'm actually for BUT inversely Bush's new Medicare drug plan definitely benefits the pharmaceutical companies too.

Somebody here, please help elucidate this connection. What ad agency handles the AMA marketing?

shooter said...


Anonymous said...

Fair enough, Beeta. At least you lay out thoughts of your own and not just spewing out pre-determined talking points. I wish I could stick around and talk about this, and anything else, in an intelligent way but it is really late. I'll be back and " lets's get it on."

Anonymous said...

Color me curious, exactly how did you come to the conclusion this particular visitor IP belongs to the cybersecurity chief, and not some other random employee within the offices of the department of homeland security at this DC location?

One would think that the 'cybersecurity chief' would have enough brain cells to employ the use of an IP randomizer when surfing the net on the public's time and dime. Then again...

Anonymous said...

I don't like going on these tangent either, but I also don't like injustice so here goes:

The Jews that do promote hardcore, right-wing, Likud, Zionist ideals ARE the ones in power in this country and the ones that are left-wing, Labour, and anti-Occupation are NOT. That you cannot deny. Hello Neocons? The latter doesn't even have a voice here. You can't even attempt to start a discussion about the issues here without being labeled an anti-Semite, even if you're Jewish! I like how Dershowitz called potential responders anti-Semites even before they responded. Pre-emptive profiling... That's really telling. If you have a defensible position, why try to silence debate before it even starts?

It's common knowledge that AIPAC does not even entertain the idea that the Palestinians have rights to the land that was taken from them. In their minds, Palestinians are like cockroaches -pests to be exterminated. They prefer the word terrorist over cockroaches (like Bush), but we know what they mean. If you can kill hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians and just chalk it up to collateral damage, you don't consider the people you're murdering actual people. Either that or you're a sick fuck and you need help.

Do you remember when the infantada started and they were actually keeping a body count on both sides for a few weeks as if it'd be proportial? As if Apaches, tanks, and F16s manned by professionally trained soldiers versus rock throwing by civilians would be a contest? We stopped seeing those stats pretty quick.

I strongly believe it behooves all sane Jews to stand up to the crazy Zionists because when people have had enough, they won't bother distinguishing between who were the good Jews and who where the crazy Jews. You'll all be just Jews. No doubt anti-Semites and anti-Semitism exist on their own, and continually defending the indefensible because they're "your people" will create anti-Semites out of normal people who are just fed up. As Robert Fisk said, you'd be making that word respectable. You are taking anti-Semitism from the fringes and making it mainstream. This is no different with other religions like Islam or Christianity. It's happening now for both. Think about it. Try posting something pro Christianity these days on the HuffPo and see what happens.

I understand there is a security situation. But you can't ignore the occupation issue when discussing security. If there were no occupation, if the Palestinians got their land back and they were left alone to live in peace and prosperity, yet they still continued suicide bombings, do you think the world will still be united against Israel? Could anyone seriously claim then that these people were still "freedom fighters" given these new conditions?

With all the advanced weapons donated by the US over the decades, Israel could probably take on all her neighbors at once using only conventinal weapons and still win. Israel has an estimated 100-200 nuclear weapons.
They have enough to make all of the middle east one huge radioactive crater. All the neighbors know this. Any asshole with an internet connection knows this. Given those FACTS, the necessity of occupation for security argument seems extremely weak if not dishonest.

After being informed of the situation and some basic facts, if you still think the occupation is the answer, not only are you irrational, but you are a dispicable human being. Apartheid is not a humane or just policy no matter how you dice it. Take it from someone who is probably THE authority on apartheid, Nelson Mandela:

Finally, it's not anti-Semitic to oppose the Israeli government's policies. If that were the case, then 40-50% of the Israelis living in Israel are anti-Semites because they believe the occupation is wrong and more of a security risk to Israel than any kind of benefit. The argument that being anti-Israeli govt is anti-Semitic is akin to Fox's argument that being anti-Bush is being anti-American. If that's your best argument, you're skating on very thin ice.

Here's a really good article I read from someone who has really thought about the issues. Before you post any kneejerk ranting responses, please read it through first. I would love to see anyone try to criticize this guy:

Anonymous said...

Wow. Holy Shit. I'm stunned. Go Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...


You brought up something really interesting that though I'm tired as hell I want to say something about.

I'm genuinely one of those liberal minded Christians that legends are told about. I believe that God's most cherished gift to humanity was the gift of free will. Therefore people must be allowed to choose freely or their decisions aren't of any moral value.

I've tried to post on HuffPo that most Christians in this country aren't fundamentalist idiots and I've been viciously attacked. It's the same way when I've dared to say anything a bit anti-Zionist (which I happen not be and am conflicted by) I get called names.

If HuffPo is so damn liberal, why the complete pro-Zionist and anti-Christian slant? It just seems too black and white and with some second agenda.

Today HuffPo completely ignored the fact that Obama said that the Democrats should embrace the vast spirituality of most Americans and that the Episcopal church is dividing from the greater Anglican communion over ordaining gay bishops. And what about representing the great number of Jews both in this country and in Israel who are vehemently against Israeli expansion?

HuffPo by being pro-Zionist but anti-Christian serves this administration well. They actually pull over people who might be undecided to basically this administration's view of manifest destiny.

Now sleep...

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of what you said. But I don't think the HuffPo is pro-Zionist or anti-Christian though. I think they're pro-Traffic. The more people are pissed, the more they get engaged. That directly equates to traffic and ad revenue. I think they believe, as I do, that a few articles here and there won't change views people have adopted over a lifetime - most certainly not from the fluff articles being posted. I've seen some decent article about Christianity on there, but none made me see Jesus. I've never seen anyone besides Dershowitz post a pro-Zionst article, and as we all know Dershowitz is not the most credible spokesman for anything besides OJ's innocense. Haha. And anytime he posts, The vast majority of the comments are slamming him - some because he's Jewish, but most because of his flawed arguments.

As far as religion goes, I have a hard time picking one because I'm not sure who is right and who is eternally damned. I get the feeling no one knows and they're all secretly hoping that the one they picked is the right one. If what each religion preaches is true, then everyone can't be saved and a whole bunch of us are going to some version of hell for worshipping the wrong God.

I also don't like the fact that so many of mankind's tragedies were in the name of some religion. Besides using it as an excuse to be inhumane to your fellow man, I find most religions on a practical level (establishing pragmatic societal norms) are very similar. I find that I don't need a specific religion to live a moral life with a clean conscience.

If I had to pick one though, I think Buddhists are the coolest because they don't preach that non-Buddhists are fucked in the after life and they never claim Buddha wants them to attack other countries in his name, but I really, really, really, love steak.... Mmmmm. Just thinking about it makes me drool.

If you get the time, read that last link I posted on that long comment. It's good.

Peter Rost said...

QUESTION: "Color me curious, exactly how did you come to the conclusion this particular visitor IP belongs to the cybersecurity chief, and not some other random employee within the offices of the department of homeland security at this DC location?"

RESPONSE: I didn't. This is, as are many of my posts, a bit tongue-in-cheek. I hope to provide useful information, such as the fact that there is a cyberchief making more money than Chertoff, with entertaining info, such as the fact that Homeland Security likes my site. Hey, who knows, maybe they're checking me out and I'll be offered Chertoff's job? You heard it here first.

Anonymous said...

"Since nobody has any idea what those standards actually are, we'll pretty much be censoring you at random."

RJ had me spraying coffee on the screen this morning. I know, I wasn't going to look, but it's kinda like a train wreck...hard not to.

BTW, typing those funking letters each time is harder than an IQ test.

Anonymous said...

"RESPONSE: I didn't. This is, as are many of my posts, a bit tongue-in-cheek."

Thanks. That's what I figured, hence my comments that followed the question.

"I hope to provide useful information, such as the fact that there is a cyberchief making more money than Chertoff, with entertaining info, such as the fact that Homeland Security likes my site."

Chertoff will more than likely follow in the footsteps of so many that have gone before. In his next life, he'll become a lobbist. Or, he'll conveniently accept a job offer with a private firm that happens to have a nice fat government contract in it's back pocket.

"Hey, who knows, maybe they're checking me out and I'll be offered Chertoff's job? You heard it here first."

Lol, what a nice rich fantasy life you lead. Whatever the future holds for you in terms of employment, I wish you all the best. And, I hope that someone, or some entity, will come to recognize the potential good in forming a partnership with you, as a step in the right direction, when it comes to concepts like - corporate responsibility.

shooter said...

Hello Doctor, and everybody. I see we picked up where we left off last nite, simply proving a "little knowledge being a dangerous thing." To reply to a position where virtually every word is factually incorrect would prove another axiom: the now popular definition of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over........."you know the rest. I'll just say that given enough time and the fact that most of us are not history scholars, powerful interest groups can rewrite history to suit their needs and frame it in a way that many good hearted people get sucked in.
Thus America didn't conquer, kill, and cheat the indigenous inhabitants forming "the shining light on the hill, the beacon of hope, and the fullfillment of God's Will." We simply coined a phrase, "manifest desitny," and that made it all right.
My point is , there is virtually no country on the planet today, that if you went back in time, would have the same boundries as it has today.
To counter the points in the "Zionist Argument" is just too easy, but also never-ending. Unless we all go a retreat somewhere for several months and study, read, and discuss ALL the relevent FACTS, we won't come to any kind of common understanding.

My suggestion Doc, play another cut from "Queen." Or maybe Jefferson Airplane. Or Creedence. Some B52 and Alabama would be nice too.

shooter said...

Beeta, you just made my heart go "pitter-patter." Thanks. Now let's go give the good Doc some encouragement to start a Powerhouse Site.

shooter said...

Beeta, one of the problems with multiple threads is, here you are writing a bunch of stuff, and oops, everyone is over there. Right now I think the comments on his "pole" thread is where we ought to be. Your comments are being addressed there. I too have a lot of suggestions, a link to be able to talk privately with the author. Spell check is also great.

shooter said...

for what it's worth, I meant "poll" thread

Anonymous said...

DHS not only scans Internet content (and reads blogs), but they collect and collate news articles on any agency that comprises the DHS. Congratulations. Your words just might have gone from the WWW to Internal Memos.

Your screenshot does indicate that the visitor node is from DHS. Here is the ARIN proof to show that block of IP addresses from their metro location.

Sprint SPRN-BLKS (NET-63-160-0-0-1) -
DeptHomelandSecurity SPRINTLINK (NET-63-162-143-0-1) -

Whether or not this is the DHS Headquarters remains to be proven. Many of the DHS agencies are under the DHS IPs rather than an agency IP. That said, there is a secure firewall that is worthy of consideration. The DHS agency workstations are all networked with specific firewall criteria and most workstations will not permit Internet travel to sites that have been blocked by specific word matches, blogs, or any type of "adult" content. At this point, it would be plausable for your DHS visitor to have more specific "rights" to access the Internet.

So we might assume that you are a perceived "threat" or are "dangerous" (what was written about the tongue being mightier than the sword?). We might also assume that someone at DHS is merely doing a job of collecting documents and/or info tidbits that relate to DHS? Either way, someone from DHS is paying you a few visits.

How about giving the DHS a few things to really think about? Let's start with FEMA since they're in the news the most often.

FEMA is a government agency that predominantly hires temporary employees. The truth behind FEMA's employment structure is that they rely on outsourcing and temp agencies. From their estimations and evaluations to their inspectors to the software firms that have created the entire software enterprise, FEMA is little more than a number of government chiefs who manage temporarily-hired personnel.

The comparison of Purdy's salary to Chertoff's clearly shows the FEMA sham. But, then again, it is not much different than the basic hiring practices at FEMA. The typical FEMA analyst works for a starting salary of approx. $25K. These employees, the actual providers of disaster assistance, do not work on the GS scale, and there are NO benefits for them either. Their conditions of employment are merely "temporary", a status rendering each employee to be "released" at any moment. No reason required. In other words, the majority of people who work for FEMA, handling a large quantity of private, personal information, are not true US Government employees. These FEMA people include the inspectors, the auditors, the evaluators, the caseworkers, and the telephone representatives. The truly frightning problem is that less than 1% of all telephone representatives are educated to handle true disaster, traumatic stresses, and/or suicide calls. Yet, those people are The Call Center. Temps.

What has previously been discovered about FEMA is just the tip of their iceburg world. Why does FEMA portray themselves as an agency that will help people with disaster assistance when the TRUTH is that FEMA will only provide assistance to people who do not have home insurance? Why does FEMA never disclose the TRUTH and inform people that the real property disaster assistance cannot exceed $5,000? And why in the WORLD does FEMA operate the NFIP for national flood insurance? (Why does this smell like collusion or conflict of interest?)

When the unfinished version of FEMA's National Emergency database (aka NEMIS) was released for use in 2003 (after the scheduled date but not completely debugged), why did FEMA not coordinate the software's failings with the four separate FEMA locations? Why did NEMIS fail to adequately process large quantities of disaster victim cases? Why was victim assistance not being correctly identified with the numerous software anomalies found in NEMIS? Where was "headquarters" when victims needed their Federal assistance? (Were they cruizing the 'net reading blogs?)

Some of these problems became serious issues during the 2004 Florida hurricane disasters. Still more problems surfaced in Louisiana, where a large portion of disaster "victims" were provided financial assistance through the AUTO DETERMINED software. (Give the money to anyone who says they were from New Orleans!) With no inspections possible, many people were provided disaster assistance without proof of residency or home ownership/rentals. Yet, the audit statements released only indicated that FEMA was defrauded by bad people.

From where I sit, I see that FEMA has defrauded the US taxpayers with their inability to properly manage disasters and victim assistance.