Hackers Hitting US Government Computers a Fake; Crime Done By Members of U.S. Government

By:  Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent

 

Below is an account given by Ken Dilanian of the Associated Press regarding a hack attack on OPM computers and the theft of personal information.  The following is a verbatim copy of the article along with an explanation of what is really happening.

 

Union: Hackers have personnel data on every federal employee

 

By KEN DILANIAN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hackers stole personnel data and Social Security numbers for every federal employee, a government worker union said Thursday, saying that the cyber theft of U.S. employee information was more damaging that the Obama administration has acknowledged.

 

Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said on the Senate floor that the December hack into Office of Personnel Management data was carried out by "the Chinese" without specifying whether he meant the Chinese government or individuals. Reid is one of eight lawmakers briefed on the most secret intelligence information. U.S. officials have declined to publicly blame China, which has denied involvement.

 

     (Democratic, not Democrat leader?  The term democracy does not mean, "the people rule."  It means "Rule the people," and implies a hardship in the manner of ruling.

 

     Why are we just learning about this hack now?  Why did the government want to keep it secret?  Since our leaders will not publicly blame China, yet make the claim that it was the Chinese suggests that our government knows that it is not China.  Since the United States is at war against its own citizens, it is likely an operation by the United States government designed to promote fear among the populace so that we will take absolute government control of everything more readily.)

 

J. David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a letter to OPM director Katherine Archuleta that based on the incomplete information the union received from OPM, "We believe that the Central Personnel Data File was the targeted database, and that the hackers are now in possession of all personnel data for every federal employee, every federal retiree, and up to one million former federal employees."

 

     (Incomplete information received?  This suggests that Miss Archuleta is hiding something Mr. Cox, which suggests criminal activity, possibly even her own involvement in the data hack, as South Carolina governor Nikki Haley was involved in the data hack perpetrated by agents of the State of South Carolina and blamed on the Russians.)

 

The OPM data file contains the records of non-military, non-intelligence executive branch employees, which covers most federal civilian employees but not, for example, members of Congress and their staffs.

 

     (How convenient it only hit the civies, but not any members of Congress.)

 

The union believes the hackers stole military records and veterans' status information, address, birth date, job and pay history, health insurance, life insurance and pension information; and age, gender and race data, he said. The letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

 

     (One should now look to more delays in veterans receiving medical care, pensions and benefits, and receiving free data protection coverage from some online data collection, "protection", company.)

 

The union, which does not have direct access to the investigation, said it is basing its assessment on "sketchy" information provided by OPM. The agency has sought to downplay the damage, saying what was taken "could include" personnel file information such as Social Security numbers and birth dates.

 

     (OPM is lying.  The breaking into federal computers and stealing personal information is a go-to lie when it needs to spread some mass panic fairly quickly.  This may be related to the explosions heard in Flint, Michigan recently in supposed military "testing," which has already been tentatively linked to Jade Helm 15.  OPM is actually increasing the fear factor by stating Social Security numbers and birth dates were stolen, which is what they wanted to happen, as SSNs and birth dates are two of the most recognizable measures of identification in the US in government records.)

 

"We believe that Social Security numbers were not encrypted, a cybersecurity failure that is absolutely indefensible and outrageous," Cox said in the letter. The union called the breach "an abysmal failure on the part of the agency to guard data that has been entrusted to it by the federal workforce."

 

     (So OPM purposefully selected Americans' most sensitive information, Social Security numbers, to be placed in an unprotected file.  Mr. Cox is wrong, it is not an abysmal failure on the part of the government, but rather it was done on purpose, so that it would be easier to steal.)

 

Samuel Schumach, an OPM spokesman, said that "for security reasons, we will not discuss specifics of the information that might have been compromised."

 

     (I wonder why?)

 

The central personnel data file contains up to 780 separate pieces of information about an employee.

 

     (This is a fluff statement, put out specifically to cause people to panic.)

 

Cox complained in the letter that "very little substantive information has been shared with us, despite the fact that we represent more than 670,000 federal employees in departments and agencies throughout the executive branch."

 

     (This is exactly how OPM, who appears to be running the scam wants it.  As Miss Archuleta was personally chosen by President Obama to head up OPM, and that she answers to him, it is both conceivable and reasonable to think that President Obama knows about and is behind the data breach.  Who is he doing this for?  Himself?  I think not.  Rather, he appears to be doing this on behalf of the Illuminati, who have been directing American government behind the scenes for more than 100 years.  Names are available online of some of the TOP chiefs in the multi-headed hyrda organization.)

 

The union's release and Reid's comment in the Senate put into sharper focus what is looking like a massive cyber espionage success by China.  Sen. Susan Collins, an intelligence committee member, has also said the hack came from China.

 

     (China is a scapegoat, or at least not the party responsible for the hack.  What appears more likely is Miss Archuleta and some of her friends stole personal information on about four million people and sold it to China with the understanding that they were going to accuse someone in China of hacking into their computers so as to throw the American public off the trail and prevent them from finding out what really happened.  The online data protection company CSID has been chosen by OPM to offer data protection services to all those affected by the false hack attack.  This suggests that CSID is guilty of conspiring with the federal government to steal personal information from American citizens instituting a panicked state among the victims, to the end of them giving up more of their personal information which they would not do otherwise.)

 

Mike Rogers, the former chairman of the House intelligence committee, said last week that Chinese intelligence agencies have for some time been seeking to assemble a database of information about Americans. Those personal details can be used for blackmail, or also to shape bogus emails designed to appear legitimate while injecting spyware on the networks of government agencies or businesses Chinese hackers are trying to penetrate.

 

     (Rep. Rogers of Alabama seems to know a great deal of information regarding the intentions of these so-called Chinese hackers.  It appears as though he is in confederation with Miss Archuleta and President Obama, who appears to be running things behind the scene.  Rep. Rogers is also a known member of the criminal organization American Legislative Exchange Council, which has been known to arrange private meetings between Congressmen at the Federal and State levels and wealthy businesspersons so that they can bribe and be bribed without threat of being caught.)

 

U.S. intelligence officials say China, like the U.S., spies for national security advantage. Unlike the U.S., they say, China also engages in large-scale theft of corporate secrets for the benefit of state-sponsored enterprises that compete with Western companies. Nearly every major U.S. company has been hacked form China, they say.

 

     (This is because the U.S. is too busy cutting its own throat and selling the blood to China.)

 

The Office of Personnel Management is also a repository for extremely sensitive information assembled through background investigations of employees and contractors who hold security clearances. OPM's Schumach has said there is "no evidence" that information was taken. But there is a growing skepticism among intelligence agency employees and contractors about that claim.

 

In the Senate on Thursday, Democrats blocked a Republican effort to add a cybersecurity bill to a sweeping defense measure. The vote was 56-40, four votes short of the number necessary.

 

     (This is a bogus statement.  The bill actually did pass, legally.  Apparently, the Senate plays by the rules, "If there is not a filibuster proof majority, it is deemed not to have passed.  This indicates that the United States Senate is not in the interest of protecting the American public.  In a related manner, it also seems to suggest that they think they are not ordinary citizens but something special.)

 

Democrats had warned of the dangers of cyberspying after the theft of government personnel files, but Democrats voted against moving ahead on the legislation, frustrated with the GOP-led effort to tie the two bills together. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the defense legislation over budget changes by the GOP.

 

     (This statement suggests that Democrats know the dangers of cyberspying and moved to help along the criminality of it.)

 

"The issue of cybersecurity is simply too important to be used as a political chit and tucked away in separate legislation." said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.

 

     (Senator Coons is lying.  He also is a member of the criminal organization known as ALEC.  His objection seems to suggest that he would lose a boatload of cash if the cybersecurity rider bill went through.  This is further confirmation that the United States Congress is only looking out for themselves.)

 

Source article:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/union-hackers-personnel-data-every-federal-employee-195138422--finance.html#

Supporting articles:  http://www.opm.gov/news/latest-news/announcements/, http://www.alec.org/initiatives/federal-relations/u-s-house-of-representatives/, http://www.alec.org/initiatives/federal-relations/senate/, http://conspiracyprophecyguy.blogspot.com/2014/05/behind-closed-doors-what-really-happens.html

Data Breach Reported By USIS A Fraud - Real Perpetrators Revealed

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/