Chemical Weapons in Iraq and Beyond

Posted on by
During the first Gulf War, distribution was made to our soldiers for the protection of chemical weapons.

U.S. troops were frequently ordered to don their gas masks and protective suits. The term Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) refers to the amount of protective gear that troops are ordered to wear in response to an assessed chemical-warfare threat, and ranges from MOPP-0 (no protection) to MOPP-4 (the entire protective ensemble).

The incidents are recorded here by date, location and the type of chemical weapon. The Veterans Administration noted the types of risks and was careful omitting admission of chemical weapons, yet did include them on the website.

There was also congressional testimony in 1992/1993. One cannot ignore the in depth report the New York Times did about two years ago.

Soldiers Exposed to “Chemical Unknown” in Iraq not Getting Adequate FOIA Responses from DOD, and More: FRINFORMSUM 5/19/2016

May 19, 2016

 

The two-page 2003 Camp Taji Incident report -- released a dozen years after the dangerous exposure.

The two-page 2003 Camp Taji Incident report — released a dozen years after the dangerous exposure.

The Defense Department is telling soldiers that were exposed in 2003 to a “chemical unknown” in Taji, Iraq that it has no documents on the incident – after a decade of saying that documents on the event were classified.

C. J. Chivers of the The New York Times reported in May 2015 that, for over a decade, the US military denied FOIA requests on the chemicals soldiers were exposed to, resulting in chronic illnesses. The Army only released the two-page 2003 Camp Taji Incident report, written by the multinational Iraq Survey Group, after years of FOIA requests; the report found that the chemical soldiers came in contact with was a potentially fatal “carcinogen and poisonous chemical.” The Archive’s Director Tom Blanton told the Times in 2015 that, in addition to the secrecy trumping common sense, that “the outrage here is extraordinary.” Blanton noted, “Soldiers exposed to something really dangerous cannot find out what it was because ‘Sorry it’s classified’?” he said. “It’s creepy and it’s crazy.”

Now, according to reporting by Samantha Foster at the Topeka Capital-Journal, the Army is telling soldiers like Army Spc. Sparky Edwards and former Sgt. First Class Dennis Marcello that there are no documents on the chemical they were exposed to or the incident. Nate Jones, the Archive’s FOIA project director, notes that the DOD may be claiming to have no documents because they were possibly destroyed or misfiled during the war – or because the large, decentralized Defense Department genuinely doesn’t know where to look to find the records. Jones identifies this as a prime example of why FOIA requesters “must specify exactly where they want to search or risk the agency not going the extra mile” to find them, and that it is always a good idea to appeal a “no records” response.

According to Department of Justice statistics, last fiscal year an obscenely high 130,113 FOIA requests (16.9 percent of requests processed) were deemed to result in “no records” responses. As the Archive has learned, more often than not, appealing a “no records” response and explaining why you think the records exist and even suggesting which records (including the Washington Records Center –control f) the agency should search leads to more records being found. Link for citation is here.

As recently as last month, it was found that Islamic State had taken cached and reserve chemical weapons and made a new factory at Mosul University.

Just last week:

ISIS testing chemical weapons on prisoners and animals in grisly laboratories

VILE Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis are testing chemical weapons on its prisoners in grisly suburban laboratories, terrified Iraqi citizens have claimed.

ExpressUK: The sick militants are testing chlorine and mustard gas on its captives, in direct opposition to the Geneva Protocol’s war crime guidelines.

ISIS’s laboratories are located deep within its territory in the city of Mosul in northern Iraq.

 

The lunatic extremists are understood to be working frantically to improve its chemical and nuclear weapon capabilities, with plans to launch attacks in Iraq, Syria and on the West.

Abu Shaima, the head of ISIS’s chemical warfare unit, has now moved the operation away from the city’s university to residential areas like al-Mohandseen, which are surrounded by innocent civilian homes.

Concerned residents have reported several houses in the area have now been taken over by ISIS researchers, according to The Telegraph.

Chillingly, dozens of dead dogs and rabbits have also been found nearby, hinting at the cruel experiments taking place within, while nearby residents are suffering from breathing difficulties and rashes.

The extremists are believed to have seized chemicals and weapons from Syrian forces, with which they have already launched a devastating chemical attack on the Iraqi town of Taza.

That attack this March killed a three-year-old girl and injured 600 others, as well as highlighting the terror group’s chemical warfare intentions.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, formerly of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, said: “ISIL’s chemical weapons operation has been heavily targeted – as is detailed in this report – and moving into residential areas is exactly what you would expect them to do now.

“Now we know the extent of the ISIL chemical and dirty bomb aspirations we must make doubly sure that our security in the UK is absolutely water-tight against this threat.”

Iraqi forces uncover an Islamic State weapon hideaway including gas canisters used to make homemade bombs. For the slide show on photos, go here.

*****

Chemical Agents as Weapons of Terror Rather Than as Weapons of Mass Destruction

In February 2012, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency identified that “terrorist organizations are working to acquire and employ chemical, biological, and radiological materials.”43 Many experts believe that it would be difficult for terrorist groups to use chemical agents as weapons of mass destruction. In 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment estimated that VX, the most lethal of nerve agents, spread uniformly and efficiently would require tons of material to kill 50% of the people in a 100 km2 area.44 On the other hand, chemical agents might be effectively used as weapons of terror in situations where limited or enclosed space might decrease the required amounts of chemical. That is, the use of the weapon itself, even if casualties are few, could cause fear that would magnify the attack’s effect beyond what would be expected based solely on the number of casualties. Full summary here.

 

Hillary’s People Bracing For Impact

Posted on by

For months and months we have been hearing snippets of the Hillary Clinton server/email saga. We cant begin to put it all in chronological order yet much less can we know all the players involved. We do know there are countless investigations and the most recent State Department Inspector General report is the most damning of all summaries so far. Curiously, Hillary and some in her inner circle refused to be interviewed or cooperate with the IG.

Furthermore, there are more testimonies yet to be recorded where Judicial Watch has been granted judge’s authority to move forward with key Hillary people as the judge is experienced with the Hillary email matter, going back to 1998 Filegate.

   

So, personally, I would like to see some questioned posed to Hillary and her entire team and they include:

  1. If Hillary did not send or receive classified material in her only email address and server, since she never had a dot gov email address, then exactly where did she received or interact on classified material? As noted by this particular email, she asked that items be printed out and delivered to her in hardcopy.
  2. So, we have hardcopies, okay then, well, where is that paper and did she shred the hardcopies? Remember in the case of David Petraeus, he had a hardcopy bound note book, a personal journal that Paula Broadwell got access to.
  3. Two part question: So, now we know that Hillary did not have any password protected mobile device. Did anyone tell her to apply password protections to her Blackberry, iPad or iPhone? When Hillary was asked if she wiped the server and her response was you mean with a cloth? I stood alone responding she does not know how any of this works. Appears to now be quite accurate and further, did not one person in her inner circle teach her the fundamentals?
  4. Did Hillary ever get any briefings in a classified setting like a SCIF? Hillary has never mentioned using a SCIF much less has there been reference to having access to a SCIF in any emails that have been published.
  5. Has anyone asked Hillary or her team if she had other email addresses outside of those listed on her server like at any time like Lavabit or Silent Circle or even Reagan dot com, not that the last one she would even consider? Hillary was using a Blackberry going back to when she was a senator, and Lavabit was the encrypted service of choice at the time.
  6. Barack Obama issued an Executive Order #13526 which further tightened regulations of classified material and interaction of classified material, did Hillary and her team bother to take this seriously and if so how? Did they make the mandated adjustments in this regard?
  7. Did Hillary or any on her team sign a separation document upon leaving the State Department? The answer is not that anyone can find. So, what is the procedure on that with regard further turning over all government material and correspondence?
  8. A top Hillary aid said he wanted to avoid FOIA (Freedom of Information Act Requests) and this is curious as he would likely not care unless it was an edict put out by Hillary herself? So, is this a criminal act in and of itself?

So, Judicial Watch is still busy interviewing the Hillary team. The testimony of Ambassador Lukens is here. Cheryl Mills along with her attorney Beth Wilkinson filed a recent motion to block the public release of the video tape of her testimony with Judicial Watch.

There is still the matter of the investigation of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation. My buddy Charles Ortel has given up all other matters to take the deep dive and continue the investigation. He has uncovered some remarkable facts that are beyond dispute. On May 19, 2016, I interviewed Charles. He gave a chilling summary of facts to date.

What Obama Did Not Mention in Hiroshima

Posted on by

Obama started off his speech by saying death fell from the sky. Sigh…. What is more interesting is part of his speech in both audio and text that has been published has been edited already. The sentence that has been removed by most sites is this:

“Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil,” the president said. “We come to ponder the terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past. We come to mourn the dead.”

Evil?

Well there are some facts that the Obama White House protocol office and speechwriters clearly don’t know about that day Japan surrendered, where General McArthur crafted a well organized day demonstrating the full might of the United States and her military in the face of the Japanese aboard our battleship.

Every one of the Missouri’s crew received a card like this for taking part in the surrender in Tokyo Bay almost 59 years ago.

Every one of the Missouri’s crew received a card like this for taking part in the surrender in Tokyo Bay almost 59 years ago.

Tokyo Bay at the signing of the surrender by Japan:  

Douglas MacArthur Receives the Japanese Surrender

Tokyo Bay : 2 September 1945

Japan’s formal capitulation to the Allies climaxed a week of historic events as the initial steps of the occupation program went into effect. The surrender ceremony took place aboard the Third Fleet flagship, U. S. S. Missouri, on the misty morning of Sunday, 2 September 1945. As the Missouri lay majestically at anchor in the calm waters of Tokyo Bay, convoys of large and small vessels formed a tight cordon around the surrender ship, while army and navy planes maintained a protective vigil overhead. This was the objective toward which the Allies had long been striving-the unconditional surrender of the previously undefeated military forces of Japan and the final end to conflict in World War II.

The decks of the Missouri that morning were crowded with the representatives of the various United Nations that had participated in the Pacific War. Outstanding among the Americans flanking General MacArthur were Admirals Nimitz and Halsey, and General Wainwright who had recently been released from a Manchurian internment camp, flown to Manila, and then brought aboard to witness the occasion. Present also were the veteran staff members who had fought with General MacArthur since the early dark days of Melbourne and Port Moresby.

Shortly before 0900 Tokyo time, a launch from the mainland pulled alongside the great United States warship and the emissaries of defeated Japan climbed silently and glumly aboard. The Japanese delegation included two representatives empowered to sign the Instrument of Surrender, Mamoru Shigemitsu, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu of the Imperial General Staff, in addition to three representatives from the Foreign Office, three representatives from the Army, and three representatives from the Navy.68

As Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General MacArthur presided over the epoch-making ceremony, and with the following words he inaugurated the proceedings which would ring down the curtain of war in the Pacific:

We are gathered here, representatives of the major warring powers, to conclude a solemn agreement whereby peace may be restored. The issues, involving divergent ideals and ideologies, have been determined on the battlefields of the world and hence are not for our discussion or debate. Nor is it for us here to meet, representing as we do a majority of the people of the earth, in a spirit of distrust, malice or hatred. But rather it is for us, both victors and vanquished, to rise to that higher dignity which alone befits the sacred purposes we are about to serve, committing all our peoples unreservedly to faithful compliance with the understandings they are here formally to assume.

It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past-a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice.

The terms and conditions upon which surrender of the Japanese Imperial Forces is here to be given and accepted are contained in the instrument of surrender now before you ….69

The Supreme Commander then invited the two Japanese plenipotentiaries to sign the duplicate surrender documents: Foreign Minister Shigemitsu, on behalf of the Emperor and the Japanese Government, and General Umezu, for the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters. He then called forward two famous former prisoners of the Japanese to stand behind him while he himself affixed his signature to the formal acceptance of the surrender: Gen. Jonathan M. Wainwright, hero of Bataan and Corregidor and Lt. Gen. Sir Arthur E. Percival, who had been forced to yield the British stronghold at Singapore.

General MacArthur was followed in turn by Admiral Nimitz, who signed on behalf of the United States, and by the representatives of the other United Nations present: Gen. Hsu Yung-Chang for China, Adm. Sir Bruce Fraser for the United Kingdom, Lt. Gen. Kuzma N. Derevyanko for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Gen. Sir Thomas A. Blarney for Australia, Col. L. Moore-Cosgrave for Canada, Gen. Jacques P. LeClerc for France, Adm. Conrad E. L. Helfrich for the Netherlands, and Air Vice-Marshall Leonard M. Isitt for New Zealand.

The Instrument of Surrender was completely signed within twenty minutes. (Plate No. 132) The first signature of the Japanese delegation was affixed at 0904; General MacArthur wrote his name at 0910; and the last of the Allied representatives signed at 0920. The Japanese envoys then received their copy of the surrender document, bowed stiffly and departed for Tokyo. Simultaneously, hundreds of army and navy planes roared low over the Missouri in one last display of massed air might.

In signing the Instrument of Surrender, the Japanese bound themselves to accept the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, to surrender unconditionally their armed forces wherever located, to liberate all internees and prisoners of war, and to carry out all orders issued by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to effectuate the terms of surrender.

On that same eventful day, the Supreme Commander broadcast a report to the people of the United States. Having been associated with Pacific events since the Russo-Japanese war, General MacArthur was able to speak with the authority of long experience to forecast a future for Japan:

We stand in Tokyo today reminiscent of our countryman, Commodore Perry, ninety-two years ago. His purpose was to bring to Japan an era of enlightenment and progress by lifting the veil of isolation to the friendship, trade and commerce of the world. But, alas, the knowledge thereby gained of Western science was forged into an instrument of oppression and human enslavement. Freedom of expression, freedom of action, even freedom of thought were denied through supervision of liberal education, through appeal to superstition and through the application of force. We are committed by the Potsdam Declaration of Principles to see that the Japanese people are liberated from this condition of slavery. It is my purpose to implement this commitment just as rapidly as the armed forces are demobilized and other essential steps taken to neutralize the war potential. The energy of the Japanese race, if properly directed, will enable expansion vertically rather than horizontally. If the talents of the race are turned into constructive channels, the country can lift itself from its present deplorable state into a position of dignity….70

Immediately following the signing of the surrender articles, the Imperial Proclamation of capitulation was issued. The Proclamation, the draft of which had been given to General Kawabe at Manila, read as follows:

Accepting the terms set forth in the Declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain and China On July 26th 1945 at Potsdam and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, We have commanded the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to sign on Our behalf the instrument of surrender presented by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and to issue General Orders to the Military and Naval forces in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.

We command all Our people forthwith to cease hostilities, to lay down their arms and faithfully to carry out all the provisions of the Instrument of Surrender and the General Orders issued by the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters hereunder.71

Plate No. 132, Surrender Document

Plate No. 132, Surrender Document More here.

1. Although the formal surrender of Japan did not occur until September 2, 1945 aboard the U.S.S. Missouri, the occupation of that nation began five days earlier when a team of 150 American personnel arrived at Atsugi airfield on August 28. They were originally supposed to arrive on August 25 but a Japanese delegation in Manila informed the Americans that several more day were needed to ensure that military resistors to the surrender could be disarmed. They were correct since a few days before the Americans arrived, Japanese pilots took off from Atsugi airfield and dropped leaflets on Tokyo and other cities urging resistance by the civilians. Fortunately those pilots were gone, along with any resistance, by the time the Americans arrived at Atsugi.

2. The surrender ceremony aboard the U.S.S. Missouri on September 2 was carefully planned…except for one small but very important detail. The fancy British mahony table brought aboard the Missouri for the surrender was too small for the two large documents that had to be signed. In desperation, an ordinary table from the crew’s mess was drafted as a replacement. It was covered by a green coffee-stained tablecloth from a wardroom. After the 2 surrender documents were signed on the table, it was returned to the mess and was being set for lunch until the ship’s captain and others realized it was an historical object and removed for posterity.

3. There were 280 allied warships in Tokyo Bay when the surrender took place but no aircraft carriers. They were out at sea as a reserve force just in case the Japanese changed their minds.

4. There was a thick cover of low dark clouds over Tokyo Bay during the 20 minute surrender ceremony. Unfortunately, 2000 planes were scheduled to fly over the bay the moment the ceremony finished. However, at the last moment the clouds suddenly parted, as if in a Hollywood movie production, and the sun burst through allowing all aboard the U.S.S. Missouri to view the mightiest display of air power ever seen.

5. When Emperor Hirohito announced over the radio the acceptance of the allied terms of surrender on August 15 (Tokyo time), very few Japanese listening to him understood what he was saying because he was using formal formal court language not used by the general populace. It wasn’t until the radio announcers followed up by describing what he said that the public understood what he meant.

6. After Emperor Hirohito made his surrender announcement, the Japanese public ran through a gamut of emotions…anger, despair, sadness, and relief. However, one Japanese person had a very different thought on his mind…how to make money off the surrender. He was Ogawa Kikumatsu, a book editor. Ogawa was on a business trip when the surrender was announced on the radio. He immediately returned to Tokyo by train and while traveling he began thinking of how to take advantage of the impending occupation.. By the time he reached Tokyo, he had his idea…to publish a guide booklet of Japanese phrases translated into English with the aid of phonetics. It took less than three days for Ogawa and his team to prepare the 32 page booklet and it was published exactly a month after the surrender. Its first run of 300,000 copies sold out immediately and by the end of 1945, 3.5 million copies had been sold.

 

 

Meet Some that Donate To Donald and Hillary and Why

Posted on by

The ‘why’ is the real problem actually. No one is pointing to specific policy positions, objectives or character. The electorate remains uninformed and likes the station of ‘low information’. The Hat, Really? Nothing about liberty, national security or repealing bad legislation….

Meet the people who have donated to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Analysis reveals one of Election 2016’s smallest — and oddest — clubs

PublicIntegrity: Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump have precious little in common.

But the two all-but-certain presidential nominees do share this: at least three-dozen campaign contributors who gave money to both of them, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of federal campaign finance filings.

The donors compose one of the nation’s smallest political clubs, to be sure, although it has its share of notable members. They include a former U.S. ambassador to Sweden, the heiress to the National Enquirer fortune, the mother of an Ohio state senator, a professional poker player, a writer for the ABC hit television series “Castle” and a law professor who has challenged the constitutional eligibility of former Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz.

The reasons for their double dealings vary. Some gave to both politicians after undergoing ideological conversions. Others donated because they were asked by friends or trusted associates. Some Clinton supporters just wanted Trump’s iconic “Make America Great Again” hats — even if the money they spent would aid the billionaire businessman’s presidential bid.

While Americans may only vote for one presidential candidate come November, there’s nothing stopping them from giving money to multiple White House hopefuls. Nine of these overlapping donors contributed $2,700 — the legal maximum allowed during the primary — to both Clinton and Trump.

Others gave more modest sums.

With the primary season now nearing its end, both Clinton and Trump are also aiming to make inroads with voters who typically vote for the other party in order to prevail on Election Day in November.

Trump is hoping his populism can win over some Democrats, while Clinton believes that Trump’s brash antics will attract some Republicans to support her candidacy.

Both can already claim some converts.

Changes of heart

For instance, Victor Williams, a law professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., last year donated $400 to Clinton’s campaign as a “dutiful Democrat.”

But he now says he’s “a Trump man” — and has donated $5,400 to Trump’s campaign, $2,700 toward the primary and $2,700 toward the general election.

Another way he’s trying to help Trump: He’s been the main force behind a so-far-unsuccessful New Jersey lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility to be president. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen living in Canada when she gave birth to her son. (Presidents must be “natural-born citizens.”)

In order to have legal standing for the case, Williams himself also launched a long-shot presidential bid.

On his campaign website, Williams asserts that Clinton should be “criminally indicted” for some of her actions as secretary of state. He further argues that “we must replace the feckless, weak Barack Obama with a strong, determined 45th president.”

“What I’m genuinely excited about is the possibility that the established political order and those elites who have been at the trough for 40, 50 years will be sent home,” Williams told the Center for Public Integrity. “It’s really now or never.”

Then there’s Anthony Brennan, the owner of a Long Island, New York-based heating and air conditioning company. He says he regrets donating $2,700 to Clinton, whom he calls “corrupt to the core.”

“I have no faith whatsoever that this lady can run a country,” said Brennan, explaining that he made the contribution to Clinton after being asked to give by some people with whom he does business — and before he had done any research on her.

Campaign finance records indicate Brennan has now also contributed $244 to Trump — money that, he explained, went toward Trump gear, stickers and the 40 Trump signs he now displays in his yard.

“The country has written off the hard-working men who are the backbone, who keep this government funded with our payroll taxes,” Brennan told the Center for Public Integrity, adding that he plans to donate up to $100,000 to pro-Trump efforts this year because “our country is in need.”

“Finally there’s a voice for us,” he continued.

Professional poker player Daniel “Miami Boss” Suied also likes Trump’s economic views.

Suied, who gave Clinton’s campaign $500 last year at the behest of some Democratic Party friends in Florida, has also donated $367 to Trump’s campaign, including at least $200 in April.

“I was a huge fan of Bill Clinton,” Suied told the Center for Public Integrity. “I like Trump now.”

Making hats great again

Meanwhile, New York City-based lawyer Chris DiAngelo, a self-described “Rockefeller Republican,” told the Center for Public Integrity he gave Clinton’s campaign $2,700 last June, after being asked by a friend.

Six months later he became a Trump campaign donor because, he says, he purchased six of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” hats for a New Year’s Eve party.

A “big hit” is how DiAngelo described the headwear.

So who will DiAngelo be supporting in November? “It’s probably either going to be Hillary or nobody,” he said. “Unless Trump does something amazing, like, I don’t know, the pope is his running mate.”

Television writer and producer Moira Kirland — whose credits include ABC’s “Castle,” CBS’s “Madam Secretary” and the CW’s “Arrow” — is a registered Democrat who likewise became a Trump donor after buying merchandise.

“I just wanted to wear that ‘Make America Great Again’ shirt ironically in January!” said Kirland, who is listed in campaign finance records as giving $211 to Trump and $900 to Clinton.

A similar story played out for Adam Conner, who works for technology company Slack in Washington, D.C., and spent $533 buying Trump hats while at the same time giving $360 to Clinton’s campaign.

“I thought they’d be good gifts and a fun collector’s item and didn’t think I’d have very long to buy them. Guess I was wrong,” Conner told The Daily Beast earlier this year.

Reached by the Center for Public Integrity, Conner stressed that he was “a committed Democrat who will support the Democratic nominee,” even if his hat purchases helped fund Trump’s campaign.

Giving big, saying little

For some of the people who have given money to both Clinton and Trump, their motivations aren’t readily apparent. Nor are they particularly willing to discuss their political giving.

For instance, campaign finance records show that Nancy Beang, the former executive director of the Society for Neuroscience, donated $2,700 to Clinton in July. She then donated $250 to Trump in January.

Reached by phone, Beang, who was a member of the District of Columbia Women for Hillary Council during Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, declined to comment.

In March, Beang told The Daily Beast that she was backing Trump because she thought he would “make America great again.”

For his part, Jeffrey Sherman, a financial advisor at J.P. Morgan Securities in Boston, gave $1,000 to Trump shortly after Trump launched his presidential bid last summer. Yet he’s also given $739 to Clinton so far this year.

Why?

“I’m not commenting,” Sherman told the Center for Public Integrity. “I’m the wrong guy to help you out.”

Meanwhile, campaign finance disclosures show that Lyndon Olson — who served as the U.S. ambassador to Sweden under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 — gave $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign last year. But he also contributed $796 to Trump in February.

Philanthropist Lois Pope, heiress to the National Enquirer fortune, likewise contributed $2,700 to Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. But she’s also given Trump $423 and has attended multiple events for him this year, often sporting sequined, pro-Trump regalia.

Then there’s lawyer Eric Yollick, who earlier this year lost a GOP primary for district judge in Texas. Yollick, who refers to himself as a “constitutional conservative” and pledged to “make our courthouse great again,” has donated $2,600 to both Trump and Clinton.

Olson, Pope and Yollick did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Like buying extra lottery tickets’

Ohio Democrat Janet Cafaro is another donor who’s given significant sums to both Clinton and Trump.

Campaign finance records show she gave Clinton $2,700 in November and $2,700 to Trump in March.

Who is Janet Cafaro? She’s the mother of Democratic state Sen. Capri Cafaro of Ohio and the wife of developer John “J.J.” Cafaro.

The Cafaros, a wealthy Ohio family, have experienced both the glamorous and gritty aspects of politics.

On one hand, they’ve hosted President Bill Clinton at their sprawling, Tudor-style mansion in Chevy Chase, Maryland. On the other hand, John Cafaro was fined in 2002 for bribing former U.S. Rep. James Traficant of Ohio, whom he testified against in court.

Janet Cafaro could not immediately be reached for comment, but Capri Cafaro told the Center for Public Integrity she asked her mother to donate to Clinton ahead of a local event.

“There’s no ideological reason behind their financial support for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump,” Cafaro said of her parents’ political giving. (John Cafaro, like Janet Cafaro, has also donated $2,700 to Trump.)

Only a handful of other donors have contributed $2,700 to both Clinton and Trump.

They include Steve Gorlin, the vice chairman of biotechnology company NantKwest; Scott Powell, the president of the Sacramento Jet Center; and Scott Shleifer of investment company Tiger Global Management, according to federal records. None could be immediately reached for comment.

Political observers note that for some donors, backing multiple candidates can be about access and hoping to influence a politician’s agenda.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, has said that “donating to multiple candidates is like buying extra lottery tickets” because “you have more chances to wind up in the winner’s circle, with all the perks of having backed the victor.”

Ahead of the 2012 election, dozens of donors contributed to both President Barack Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. Likewise, during the 2008 election, about two-dozen donors gave at least $2,300 to both Obama and Republican John McCain.

To be certain, the roughly three-dozen campaign donors shared by Clinton and Trump identified by the Center for Public Integrity represent a conservative estimate as only people who give a candidate at least $200 must be publicly disclosed.

Through April 30, Trump has raised about $10.5 million from people who each gave less than $200 and whose names have not been publicly released. Clinton, meanwhile, has raised about $40.2 million from such small-dollar donors.

Moreover, as Trump now turns to more traditional sources of campaign cash — he’s largely been self-funding his presidential bid to date — the number of donors he shares with Clinton will likely grow.

Undecided between Clinton and Trump

While polls do regularly show a portion of voters still undecided between Clinton and Trump, you might not expect someone who’s opened up their wallet to support a politician to fall into that category.

Yet that’s the case for at least one Florida man who has contributed $287 to Trump and $899 to Clinton.

Michael Ginsberg, a Tampa-based lawyer, explained that his giving was not ideological.

“I’ve gone to their stores and bought things,” he said, adding that he’s been collecting political memorabilia — mainly buttons — since he was a kid and has a collection that now numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands, of items.

“I’m sort of torn between the two,” Ginsberg said of Clinton and Trump. “Both have things of interest and elements of concern.”

Chris Zubak-Skees and Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

This article was co-published with The Daily Beast.

Tech, One Extreme to Another

Posted on by

Does anyone remember the floppy disk? How about Windows Me or COBOL?

Sheesh….

Gov’t report: Feds spend billions to run ancient technology

In a report to be released Wednesday, nonpartisan congressional investigators say the increasing cost of maintaining museum-ready equipment devours money better spent on modernization.

Despite a White House push to replace aging workhorse systems, the budget for modernization has fallen, and will be $7 billion less in 2017 than in 2010, said the Government Accountability Office. The report was provided to The Associated Press ahead of a House oversight committee hearing.

GAO said it found problems across the government, not just in a few agencies. Among those highlighted in the report:

— The Defense Department’s Strategic Automated Command and Control System, which is used to send and receive emergency action messages to U.S. nuclear forces. The system is running on a 1970s IBM computing platform, and still uses 8-inch floppy disks to store data. “Replacement parts for the system are difficult to find because they are now obsolete,” GAO said. The Pentagon is initiating a full replacement and says the floppy disks should be gone by the end of next year. The entire upgrade will take longer.

— Treasury’s individual and business master files, the authoritative data sources for taxpayer information. The systems are about 56 years old, and use an outdated computer language that is difficult to write and maintain. Treasury plans to replace the systems, but has no firm dates.

— Social Security systems that are used to determine eligibility and estimate benefits, about 31 years old. Some use a programming language called COBOL, dating to the late 1950s and early 1960s. “Most of the employees who developed these systems are ready to retire and the agency will lose their collective knowledge,” the report said. “Training new employees to maintain the older systems takes a lot of time.” Social Security has no plans to replace the entire system, but is eliminating and upgrading older and costlier components. It is also rehiring retirees who know the technology.

— Medicare’s Appeals System, which is only 11 years old, but facing challenges keeping up with a growing number of appeals, as well as questions from congressional offices following up on constituent concerns. The report says the agency has general plans to keep updating the system, depending on the availability of funds.

— The Transportation Department’s Hazardous Materials Information System, used to track incidents and keep information relied on by regulators. The system is about 41 years old, and some of its software is no longer supported by vendors, which can create security risks. The department plans to complete its modernization program in 2018.

GAO estimates that the government spent at least $80 billion on information technology, or IT, in 2015. However, the total could be significantly higher. Not counted in the report are certain Pentagon systems, as well as those run by independent agencies, among them the CIA. Major systems are known as “IT investments” in government jargon. More here from WashingtonPost.

*****

Smarter than Google?

This new search engine could be way smarter than Google

Search engines that aren’t Google rarely have much that’s interesting to offer to the average consumer. But Omnity, a new search engine aimed at researchers — or even just students doing their homework — offers some glimmers of something new that make it worth taking notice.

Search, as we know it, is ripe for some sort of change, after all. Google is certainly working to bake search more fully into our cars, phones and other devices. Specialized search engines — for flights, places to stay, even .gifs — are going strong.  And then there are those AI bots being promised by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others. What are they but high-powered, repackaged search engines?

Omnity stands out by offering results that best match for any given search term and also how those results relate to each other. So if you’re about to start a research project on a topic you know little about, you can quickly see who is getting cited the most, whose research is the most influential or which university is leading the pack on that subject. It draws from a number of data sets, including SEC filings, public news organization reports, scientific journals, financial reports and legal histories.

You can also drag and drop documents into the search engine to get an analysis of the “rare words” in it — Omnity obviously strips out the little words like “he,” “she,” “it” and “but,” yet also looks for words that are more unique to any given document to get a better idea of what it’s about. For example, I dragged in a legal filing from a case I’m researching for another article. Omnity turned up links to other cases that were relevant but not directly cited in the filing, as well as the names of some experts that I may now end up calling. More from WashingtonPost.