By: Marshall Ramsey II, Worthynews.com U.S. Correspondent
FALLS CHURCH, VA (WorthyNews) -- US Investigative Services reports a computer breach on August 6, 2014; says it has "all the markings of a state-sponsored attack;" USIS runs background checks for the Department of Homeland Security; the "cyber attack" probably involved theft of personal info of DHS employees, according to the Washington Post, who first broke the story.
PROBABLY involved theft of personal information? Please. If I were going to hack into USIS, I would DEFINITELY steal some personal information!
Homeland (Homeland today involves the United States, Canada, and Central America) Security suspended all work with the company amid an FBI investigation. A "multi-agency cyber response team is working with the company to identify the scope of the intrusion" said Peter Boogard, a spokesman for DHS.
A "multi-agency response team?" Mr. Boogard is acting like he doesn't know the name of the team. Yet, in the article by the Washington Post, the name of the "response team" is the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S.-CERT), a component of DHS!
It would be unnecessary to say "multi-agency response team" if it was done by DHS. So why pretend? The fact that this statement was used suggests agencies other than those of the United States are investigating the breach. This tactic suggests the real "attacker" was the United States government, possibly with "help" from Canada, Mexico, and other Central American nations.
Such misdirection moves are used when a group that has committed a crime wishes to identify themselves as the party responsible yet draw away the casual observer from further investigating the matter, as in the case of the murder of Vamond Elmore in South Carolina. Although specifically not mentioning a "multi-agency response team," multiple agencies were used (US Marshals Service, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Dorchester County Sheriff's Office, and Charleston County Sheriff's Office) in an effort to try to deflect from their criminal activity.
"At this time, our forensic analysis has concluded that some DHS personnel may have been affected, and DHS has notified its entire workforce, out of an abundance of caution, to advise them to monitor their financial accounts for suspicious activity," he said, adding that employees whose data had likely been compromised would be informed.
Most people already associate the word 'forensic' with criminal investigations. The use of the word in this case gives the listener the feeling of "being on the inside," that is, it causes the reader to feel special, as though they are part of the investigation, or receiving inside information.
Additionally, if DHS has already notified its entire workforce of the breach and has asked them to monitor their financial accounts for suspicious activity, there would be no need to notify them if their data had been compromised - they would already know. This suggest two things: 1) DHS is planning to commit theft upon their own employees, which is unlikely; or 2) DHS employee data wasn't the real target, which means there was some other objective. The question that has to be asked now is, "What?"
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also suspended work with USIS, Washington Post stated, adding that government officials don't believe the breach affected non-DHS employees.
If the data breach is handled by DHS corporate, why bring in OPM? The only reason for this is that non-DHS employees were affected, contrary to what OPM is saying. OPM, then, appears to be covering up for the "state" that performed this attack.
To use the word state the way it was used above is talking about a nation, not a 'state' such as South Carolina, Georgia, or New York. This state-sponsored event, then, refers to a particular nation behind the attack. In the recent murder of Vamond Elmore, SLED personnel, along with CCSO & DCSO personnel said they were going to turn over evidence (of their 'investigation') to the Georgia State Patrol/Georgia Bureau of Investigation so they could "do this right" and have as much "transparency" as possible.
By using an "outside" agency, this creates the illusion that the agency that committed the crime, is going to come down especially hard on the person/persons it says are responsible and that they did not in fact, commit the crime themselves. The average person will not pick up on this, especially if they think that their government (in this case the United States government) would not do something like this; they think their leaders are genuinely looking out for their good, despite obvious signs they are not.
In addition, the actual target of the crime may be introduced at some point after sufficient delusion is put on the observer to help further the deception. This is called misdirection or sleight-of-hand, to use a magician's term.
"We are working collaboratively with OPM and DHS to resolve this matter quickly and look forward to resuming service on all our contracts with them as soon as possible," USIS said in the statement on its website. This can be found at www.usis.com/Media-Release-Detail-aspx?dpid=151.
To collaborate on something means to work together on something. Since it is reasonable to assume that USIS, if not guilty of wrongdoing, would automatically cooperate with investigators, there would be no need to say they are working collaboratively with DHS & OPM. The fact that they went out of their way to say they were indicates they are lying, that is, they are lying as to the end of the matter. This serves also as a de-facto confession of guilt and a revealing of co-conspirators, namely the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management, the heads of which both of which have deep ties to President Obama.
"We will support the authorities in the investigation and any prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this criminal attack," it said.
What honesty can we expect from criminals saying they are going to investigate their own crime? The words investigation here is a substitute word that hides the true intention of OPM, DHS, and any other non-US government and other agencies involved.
In one instance, the words cover up apply, indicating again an admission of guilt in the computer breach. In another instance, set up and/or framing can be used. Either of which give indication that not only are DHS and OPM guilty of this crime but that they are going to make it look like someone else did the job. Given the above information, the statement put out by OPM should be read like this: "We will support the authorities in the cover up of what really happened here and give our consent and help to any prosecution of those they will say are responsible for this criminal act (which we ourselves committed.)" The above statement by OPM only furthers the deception being shoveled upon the American people.
"Experts who have reviewed the evidence gathered to date believe it has all the marking of a state-sponsored attack," the company said.
Of course it does! The crime was perpetrated by members of the United States government, complete with funding coming from American tax dollars. The 'evidence' presented to the American public is most certainly going to be false. The public can be assured, however, that it was a (United States)-sponsored event.
Likely nations to be used would be Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, among others. But the "state" responsible for the attack is as proven earlier, the United States (of America.)
"USIS says it is the biggest commercial provider of background investigations tot he federal government, has over 5,700 employees and provides services in all U.S. states and territories, as well as abroad.
You ever heard the saying, "The devil is in the details?" Well, is this case his children are, throwing a bunch of unnecessary ones out there in an effort to keep the American public from looking further into the matter and finding out for that the 'victims' are really the criminals.
Nonetheless, a few things can be learned here: 1) USIS provides investigative services to the government, not against them. It takes a strong person to investigate their employer for evidence of criminal activity; 2) Since it is unlikely that USIS will perform background checks on government employees (they are not employees before they get hired), this must mean that they are providing background checks to them on regular citizens. Given the recent NSA/PRISM and metadata scandals and the unlawful spying on American citizens, it is reasonable to assume there may be other agencies doing the same thing, including government contractors; 3) USIS is a multi-national company. The average citizen seeing this would likely think they would be of very good use here in the investigation of the computer breach, especially since the perception is that a foreign nation perpetrated the attack. It serves to provide some legitimacy to the claim that they (USIS) are innocent in this matter. However, this is merely another sleight-of-hand trick used to deceive the citizens of the United States into thinking both they, and the government are honest, and have everyone's best interests at heart. This is exactly what DHS, OPM, and USIS are counting on. They want you to think they are trustworthy, the whole time they are slipping a knife behind the back of the American public to make it easier to stab them. They know that if you see the knife, you have a chance to defend yourself, even get justice upon them, which they don't want.
The links below provided information used in this story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/dhs-contractor-suffers-major-computer-breach-officials-say/2014/08/06/8ed131b4-1d89-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-security-contractor-idUSKBN0G62N420140807
http://conspiracyprophecyguy.blogspot.com/2014/08/killer-cops-vamond-elmore-case.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
http://www.dhs.gov/secretary-jeh-johnson
http://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-people-organization/senior-staff-bios/katherine-archuleta/
FALLS CHURCH, VA (WorthyNews) -- US Investigative Services reports a computer breach on August 6, 2014; says it has "all the markings of a state-sponsored attack;" USIS runs background checks for the Department of Homeland Security; the "cyber attack" probably involved theft of personal info of DHS employees, according to the Washington Post, who first broke the story.
PROBABLY involved theft of personal information? Please. If I were going to hack into USIS, I would DEFINITELY steal some personal information!
Homeland (Homeland today involves the United States, Canada, and Central America) Security suspended all work with the company amid an FBI investigation. A "multi-agency cyber response team is working with the company to identify the scope of the intrusion" said Peter Boogard, a spokesman for DHS.
A "multi-agency response team?" Mr. Boogard is acting like he doesn't know the name of the team. Yet, in the article by the Washington Post, the name of the "response team" is the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S.-CERT), a component of DHS!
It would be unnecessary to say "multi-agency response team" if it was done by DHS. So why pretend? The fact that this statement was used suggests agencies other than those of the United States are investigating the breach. This tactic suggests the real "attacker" was the United States government, possibly with "help" from Canada, Mexico, and other Central American nations.
Such misdirection moves are used when a group that has committed a crime wishes to identify themselves as the party responsible yet draw away the casual observer from further investigating the matter, as in the case of the murder of Vamond Elmore in South Carolina. Although specifically not mentioning a "multi-agency response team," multiple agencies were used (US Marshals Service, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Dorchester County Sheriff's Office, and Charleston County Sheriff's Office) in an effort to try to deflect from their criminal activity.
"At this time, our forensic analysis has concluded that some DHS personnel may have been affected, and DHS has notified its entire workforce, out of an abundance of caution, to advise them to monitor their financial accounts for suspicious activity," he said, adding that employees whose data had likely been compromised would be informed.
Most people already associate the word 'forensic' with criminal investigations. The use of the word in this case gives the listener the feeling of "being on the inside," that is, it causes the reader to feel special, as though they are part of the investigation, or receiving inside information.
Additionally, if DHS has already notified its entire workforce of the breach and has asked them to monitor their financial accounts for suspicious activity, there would be no need to notify them if their data had been compromised - they would already know. This suggest two things: 1) DHS is planning to commit theft upon their own employees, which is unlikely; or 2) DHS employee data wasn't the real target, which means there was some other objective. The question that has to be asked now is, "What?"
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also suspended work with USIS, Washington Post stated, adding that government officials don't believe the breach affected non-DHS employees.
If the data breach is handled by DHS corporate, why bring in OPM? The only reason for this is that non-DHS employees were affected, contrary to what OPM is saying. OPM, then, appears to be covering up for the "state" that performed this attack.
To use the word state the way it was used above is talking about a nation, not a 'state' such as South Carolina, Georgia, or New York. This state-sponsored event, then, refers to a particular nation behind the attack. In the recent murder of Vamond Elmore, SLED personnel, along with CCSO & DCSO personnel said they were going to turn over evidence (of their 'investigation') to the Georgia State Patrol/Georgia Bureau of Investigation so they could "do this right" and have as much "transparency" as possible.
By using an "outside" agency, this creates the illusion that the agency that committed the crime, is going to come down especially hard on the person/persons it says are responsible and that they did not in fact, commit the crime themselves. The average person will not pick up on this, especially if they think that their government (in this case the United States government) would not do something like this; they think their leaders are genuinely looking out for their good, despite obvious signs they are not.
In addition, the actual target of the crime may be introduced at some point after sufficient delusion is put on the observer to help further the deception. This is called misdirection or sleight-of-hand, to use a magician's term.
"We are working collaboratively with OPM and DHS to resolve this matter quickly and look forward to resuming service on all our contracts with them as soon as possible," USIS said in the statement on its website. This can be found at www.usis.com/Media-Release-Detail-aspx?dpid=151.
To collaborate on something means to work together on something. Since it is reasonable to assume that USIS, if not guilty of wrongdoing, would automatically cooperate with investigators, there would be no need to say they are working collaboratively with DHS & OPM. The fact that they went out of their way to say they were indicates they are lying, that is, they are lying as to the end of the matter. This serves also as a de-facto confession of guilt and a revealing of co-conspirators, namely the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management, the heads of which both of which have deep ties to President Obama.
"We will support the authorities in the investigation and any prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this criminal attack," it said.
What honesty can we expect from criminals saying they are going to investigate their own crime? The words investigation here is a substitute word that hides the true intention of OPM, DHS, and any other non-US government and other agencies involved.
In one instance, the words cover up apply, indicating again an admission of guilt in the computer breach. In another instance, set up and/or framing can be used. Either of which give indication that not only are DHS and OPM guilty of this crime but that they are going to make it look like someone else did the job. Given the above information, the statement put out by OPM should be read like this: "We will support the authorities in the cover up of what really happened here and give our consent and help to any prosecution of those they will say are responsible for this criminal act (which we ourselves committed.)" The above statement by OPM only furthers the deception being shoveled upon the American people.
"Experts who have reviewed the evidence gathered to date believe it has all the marking of a state-sponsored attack," the company said.
Of course it does! The crime was perpetrated by members of the United States government, complete with funding coming from American tax dollars. The 'evidence' presented to the American public is most certainly going to be false. The public can be assured, however, that it was a (United States)-sponsored event.
Likely nations to be used would be Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, among others. But the "state" responsible for the attack is as proven earlier, the United States (of America.)
"USIS says it is the biggest commercial provider of background investigations tot he federal government, has over 5,700 employees and provides services in all U.S. states and territories, as well as abroad.
You ever heard the saying, "The devil is in the details?" Well, is this case his children are, throwing a bunch of unnecessary ones out there in an effort to keep the American public from looking further into the matter and finding out for that the 'victims' are really the criminals.
Nonetheless, a few things can be learned here: 1) USIS provides investigative services to the government, not against them. It takes a strong person to investigate their employer for evidence of criminal activity; 2) Since it is unlikely that USIS will perform background checks on government employees (they are not employees before they get hired), this must mean that they are providing background checks to them on regular citizens. Given the recent NSA/PRISM and metadata scandals and the unlawful spying on American citizens, it is reasonable to assume there may be other agencies doing the same thing, including government contractors; 3) USIS is a multi-national company. The average citizen seeing this would likely think they would be of very good use here in the investigation of the computer breach, especially since the perception is that a foreign nation perpetrated the attack. It serves to provide some legitimacy to the claim that they (USIS) are innocent in this matter. However, this is merely another sleight-of-hand trick used to deceive the citizens of the United States into thinking both they, and the government are honest, and have everyone's best interests at heart. This is exactly what DHS, OPM, and USIS are counting on. They want you to think they are trustworthy, the whole time they are slipping a knife behind the back of the American public to make it easier to stab them. They know that if you see the knife, you have a chance to defend yourself, even get justice upon them, which they don't want.
The links below provided information used in this story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/dhs-contractor-suffers-major-computer-breach-officials-say/2014/08/06/8ed131b4-1d89-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-security-contractor-idUSKBN0G62N420140807
http://conspiracyprophecyguy.blogspot.com/2014/08/killer-cops-vamond-elmore-case.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
http://www.dhs.gov/secretary-jeh-johnson
http://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-people-organization/senior-staff-bios/katherine-archuleta/
No comments:
Post a Comment