THE WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT: REALITY’S HONEST ELECTION

09/24/2016

http://thegovernmentrag.com/the-winter-of-our-discontent-realitys-honest-election.html#.V-aBPTV75UQ

9-24-2016-11-43-21-am

 By Jack Mullen | The Government Rag | 24Sept2016

“The more a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it” George Orwell, “1984”

“Oh Mortal Man, is there nothing you cannot be made to believe?” — Adam Weishaupt – Co-founder of The New World Order

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false,” ClA Directory William Casey, 1981

The coming election is a side show, part of the circus in a world of bread and circuses, staged to distract America from the real issues of the day; preventing people from contemplating the real decision on the ballot of reality.

THE DIALECTIC

The dialectic is a managed, false, psychologically engineered means to control thought and use manufactured events to create “Reactions” to pre-manufactured “Problems”, followed with an offering of two “solutions.”

The solutions are always the same with only cosmetic differences and the architects of both solutions originate at the same source. For a pure example of the use of the dialectic in the control and ultimate capture and destruction of America see the Federal Reserve Act versus the Senator Aldrich Bill and pay attention to the “Crisis – ‘Bipartisan Commission’ – Solution”

The “2016 campaign trail” was used to create a voting narrative, a simple and sharply bipolar dialectic – focusing American’s attention on just two options for solving the deliberately created problems of the current American political-economic system.

The election dialectic between the radical lawless left as portrayed by Clinton versus the nationalist, “Make America Great Again” right and alt-right of Donald Trump, has been stretched tight like a bubble ready to burst. The dialectic is a deception to create ‘radical’ division between classes of people, and to agitate for a race war between ethnic groups (namely Negroes and Hispanics and Whites.)

The desired solution is not about the candidate, chosen by election, to lead the existing United States, but rather to position for a chaos which will result in a call for a new America creating an opening for ‘radical change’ in government of the United States of America. It’s at this time when European, traditional Americans, will be forced to make real decisions regarding the fate of their country and culture while questioning the nature of life to be, post America.

 RACE, CULTURE, AND NATIONALISM

These real issues will be violently forced into focus because America has been looted, and the White European, Organic America is under attack. The enemy is simultaneously attacking White Western civilizations wherever they are found across the world.

The desired effect will be a worldwide power change, a New World Order arising out of the chaos of destruction.

The immediate decisions facing Americans, requiring a vote of will and courage, are straight forward and can no longer be concealed by bread and circuses and fake dialectics.

Do European Americans have the will to stand and, if necessary, take back what has been stolen from them and their legacy?

Or, will European Americans allow themselves to be dissolved into a slurry of multicultural obscurity, leaving Western Civilization and its incredible creations such as, art, literature, science, buildings, transportation, technology, and the world’s most advanced culture to decay while the lights of civilization go dark?

For an example of a world where the White culture has been forced out, investigate South Africa under the African National Congress or the ruins of Detroit City in Michigan.

The Western financial systems collapse has been deliberately created and pushed to the breaking point; the collapse is coming just like winter.

The enemy forces are seeking to create a fake narrative to explain the financial crisis, while using the crisis to change, forever, the nature of the American government and the racial structure of power and culture in America.

The coming catastrophic collapse of the American financial system will be a stunner, like a Mike Tyson right hook to the body, followed by the finishing uppercut. Americans reeling from the pain will have to think fast and clearly because experts are standing by to turn trouble into demonic destruction.

RACE WARS TO WEAKEN AND DISTRACT

“Anti-racism” is a fabricated, weaponized meme, and the morons enlisted to proselytize, are tools of racial destruction, pitting races against race and empowering white hatred, while claiming the opposite.

Race is an asset at stake in the coming war, a prize or spoil of a war fermenting. The White race has been targeted world wide for genocide; it’s winner take all.

Do Europeans have the will to defend their race and the cultures it created?

RACE IS EVERYTHING

Benjamin Disraeli, the first Jewish Prime Minister of Briton said in the mid 19th century:

“No one may be indifferent to the racial principle, the racial question. It is the key to world history. History is often confusing because it is written by people who did not understand the racial question and the aspects relevant to it… Race is everything, and every race that does not keep its blood from being mixed will perish… Language and religion do not determine a race—blood determines it.”

All races have Natural Law rights to self preservation and can claim moral authority within in their group to fight to survive. Each race is a component of the beauty and expression of the Earth, a true diversity and uniqueness which must fight to prevent their genocide.

However, there are people on Earth, cleverly bundled under the banner and flags of race and religion. A slick well organized group of supremacists who have doubly protected their agenda using weaponized language, systematic falsifying of history and perfected psychological technologies. These supremacists have declared themselves a race-religion; a “chosen” group of elites who are self-ordained to rule the world. This group believes it can rightfully, and morally, asserting the moral doctrine of their religious myth, destroy all Earth’s races (except their own), and like Frankenstein-as-god, blend and create a New World Man, a mono-race, with mono-culture, sculpted in the image of these new gods, and existing only to serve them.

The new man shall be a docile, subservient man, incapable of self-determination and forever unable to organize along true divisions of strength, ingenuity, and productive power. In this “Brave New World”, the fittest will not be allowed to survive; by decree the new world order will be inhabited by the most depraved, intellectually sterile, and the least imaginative. And, it is these people who will envision the future and dominate the planet.

A new world where the most “under” of “under-dog” shall rise to the top of the pack and rule over a monotonous, dull and dumb-downed brown man; ruling as Shepherds controlling their food flock.

“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth” – Mike Tyson

 DO WE HAVE A PLAN?

The real election for Americans is coming, an honest, by fire, decision (vote) on the issues of white genocide, cultural suicide, and the repeal of universal slavery.

There will be no candidates in this election because there is no remaining legitimate system of government in America; this election will decide whether their will ever be a legitimate system of government again.

In the remaining time it would be prudent to think about your choices in the Real, Honest election and consider history as a guide to the outcomes of this election.

Do White people concede they have no right to continue their race, culture and civilizations on Earth. Do Europeans concede all of their accomplishments, science, art, medicine, technology and tools of self defense to those who will most assuredly use them to destroy White Civilization at large and the entire White race?

Do the other races on Earth agree to the eventual blending away of their uniqueness, giving way to a one-race, one-culture, New World Order, fully embracing a new dark age; and, imagining looking through the glass darkly, most of mankind will be seen forever as a slave to a mentally ill master?

It would only take a small number of, perhaps “6 million”, people in America to wake up and commit to doing what Americans can do better than any others on Earth, reclaim, rebuild and rationally protect itself and Western Civilization from this parasite. Taking back that which is ours, while leaving to all races the respect and right to their own preservation and growth around the world.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” – Samuel Adams.

A New World Order can emerge, a world built around real diversity and institutionalized vigilance against the violence of “Anti-Racism” – ie., the hatred of all races.

A New World Order must be built which seeks to minimize the incidence of organized mental illness, while noticing institutions structured by pathological narcissism and psychopath personalities and then, making public, through competitive media, information squelching the growth of outbreaks of such cultural malignancies.

It’s time to make a plan.

For the White man it is important to remember “no man is an island” and groups must form. Choose your heritage and following your intuition, motivated people can rightfully and morally claim and defend what is theirs.

“The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.” – Adolf Hitler

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM


UN’s “New Urban Agenda” to Assault Liberty in a City Near You

09/23/2016

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/24110-un-s-new-urban-agenda-to-assault-liberty-in-a-city-near-you

9-23-2016-10-46-14-am

by  Alex Newman

With its “New Urban Agenda” set to be formally adopted by dictators and member governments next month, the United Nations is plotting its latest monumental assault on private property, the free enterprise system, national sovereignty, and human liberty. Taken as a whole, the UN’s radical new plan outlines a vision of an Orwellian world order of centrally planned, “compact” mega-cities run and guided by UN dictates and under total surveillance. Despite all the nice-sounding rhetoric about “equality” and “prosperity,” the text of the document also demands policies that have been repeatedly proven to cause misery, inequality, poverty, and death. Humanity should resist.

The UN’s “New Urban Agenda” seeks to hijack control from local voters and communities over the way cities and “human settlements” are “planned, designed, financed, developed, governed, and managed,” the document explains. The draft UN agreement, set to be “approved” at the UN Habitat III summit in Quito, Ecuador, next month, also purports to lay down “priorities and actions at the global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels” that should be imposed on humanity. Why the dictator-dominated UN ought to be involved in local or even national policy in the first place is never adequately explained throughout the agenda’s 24 pages.

What is clear, though, is that, if implemented, humanity will be subjected to unprecedented government controls on literally everything. That the UN envisions central economic planning, which has resulted in tens or even hundreds of millions of preventable deaths over the last century, is clear from the document itself. Consider, for example, the UN’s demand that cities, in submission to the global agenda, “change to sustainable consumption and production patterns.” There is only one way for consumption and production patterns to be “changed” to fit the UN agenda, and that is through government control over consumption and production.

For evidence of how well the strategy works (or not), a quick trip to the enslaved nations of Cuba or North Korea that practice government control over consumption and production might be illuminating. The two are among the poorest nations on Earth. The former Soviet Union and other communist states also provide bountiful historical evidence of the brutality, terror, and death that is so often associated with central planning and government control. Yet the UN document gets even more explicit, using overtly Marxist rhetoric in calling on authorities to ensure “equal access for all to economic and productive resources and opportunities.”

In other words, private property rights need to be severely limited, if not quashed entirely. The rest of the document makes that clear, too, as do previous UN Habitat reports that explicitly call for ending private land ownership.

Redistribution is also key. “We will support the development of vertical and horizontal models of distribution of financial resources to decrease inequalities across sub-national territories, within urban centers, and between urban and rural areas,” the document states. Put in simpler-to-understand terms, wealth must be commandeered and redistributed by central planners to level out society. Wealth redistribution at the international level is also called for repeatedly throughout the document, with the UN agenda making repeated reference to UN schemes by billionaires and dictators aimed at allowing the UN to acquire its own taxing power.

The UN document is filled with blabbering about “inequality,” promising to redistribute the wealth of what remains of the Western middle class to the UN and its oftentimes brutal Third World member regimes that have impoverished billions. The word “inclusive” appears dozens of times in the document without definition as well. What the document does not explain is that the mysterious term was concocted and pushed by the wealthiest crony capitalists on the planet — including the Rothschild banking dynasty — who have absolutely no intention of surrendering their billions and trillions in ill-gotten wealth. Instead, it is an amorphous term serving mostly as cover for government control, much like the Orwellian phrase “sustainable development.” More on that later.

Under the UN’s “New Urban Agenda,” every facet of human life even beyond economics will be under the purview of authorities. For example, the document directly calls for governments to ensure that everyone receives “education, food security and nutrition, health and well-being,” areas of human life that in the free world have traditionally been considered primarily the responsibility of individuals, families, and voluntary associations such as churches and charities — and occasionally local communities. Governments are even expected to provide “adequate and affordable housing,” the UN agenda states.

There are already a number of UN member regimes that purport to provide “housing” — Cuba and North Korea again come to mind. Free people, of course, can solve their own housing needs. Cattle, prisoners, and slaves, by contrast, rely on their masters to provide housing for them, along with food, healthcare, and more. Left unsaid in the UN document is the fact that free markets and the free enterprise system have already provided a massive surplus of housing and an abundance of housing choices. Centrally planned economies, by contrast, have produced nothing but grinding and often deadly shortages for everyone except the ruling classes and their minions.

The radical UN “Urban” vision also purports to commit UN member governments and dictatorships to adopting what is known as the “smart city approach.” The document describes it in a rather innocuous way, saying the scheme “makes use of opportunities from digitalization.” “We will strengthen the data and statistical capacities at national, sub-national, and local levels to effectively monitor progress achieved in the implementation of sustainable urban development policies and strategies,” the agenda says. The agreement also vows that governments will “support the role and enhanced capacity of national, sub-national, and local governments in data collection.”

What it does not say is that the “smart city” agenda and the massively expanded data-gathering the UN envisions involve total surveillance of every individual in a way that even George Orwell could never have imagined. Privacy, in short, will become a thing of the past.

Another component of the totalitarian vision involves “sustainable development.” Despite sounding rather harmless, even the definitions of the term given by top UN officials and government bureaucrats reveal the real agenda: less freedom, more government, less prosperity, more control, less people, more centralization of coercive power. The new UN agenda is a “critical step” in imposing the totalitarian “sustainable development” agenda “at global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels,” the document says.

Everybody must submit. To make sure nobody escapes the emerging UN control grid, the declaration calls for ensuring that the “informal economy” — the economy that exists outside of government regulation, control, and direction — is subject to a “sustainable transition to the formal economy.” Indeed, one of the key “principles” upon which the UN plot is based is described as “leave no one behind,” also a theme of the equally draconian UN Agenda 2030.

Even culture will be guided by the supposedly wise and benevolent overlords who will be taking charge of all other aspects of life under the emerging UN plans for humanity. “We will include culture as a priority component of urban plans and strategies,” the document says. “We will support leveraging cultural heritage for sustainable urban development.” With UN control over education and even “values” of children, who are referred to as “key agents of change” in the New Urban Agenda document and other UN schemes, the future of human life will be easy for the would-be masters to engineer.

The nightmarish vision outlined in the UN document is completely alien to the American system of limited government and federalism. As just one example, the document purports to commit national governments and dictatorships to funneling “financial transfers from national government to sub-national and local governments.” That may work for totalitarian regimes, where local government works to implement the dictators’ decrees. But in places such as the United States, sovereign state governments and independent local governments accountable to their communities are supposed to raise their own resources, rather than become administrative units of a centralized regime with no limits to its power.

Another red flag is that the New Urban Agenda is “grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Of course, the UN’s declaration of pseudo-human rights is incompatible with real human rights, granted by our Creator, as enshrined, for instance, in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The UN declaration even explains explicitly that the privileges governments and treaties purport to grant can be revoked under virtually any pretext. In Article 29, the declaration is clear that the UN’s bogus “human rights” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” By contrast, God-given rights cannot be legitimately infringed upon by government — period — whether it upsets the UN or not.

The UN outfit behind the latest “agenda” has a long and controversial history of advocating totalitarianism. As Karl Marx and other totalitarians have understood, private land ownership and private property more broadly must give way if collectivist slavery is to succeed. The very first plank of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto goes like this: “Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.” (Others include government education, progressive incomes taxes, government control of transportation and communication, and more.)

In its very first report on “Human Settlements” coming out of the 1976 UN Habitat I Conference, the dictator-dominated outfit made its agenda perfectly clear. “Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market,” claimed the UN report, a predecessor of the latest agenda. “Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”

As has become typical in recent years, the mass-murdering communist dictatorship enslaving mainland China is blazing a trail on the totalitarian “urban” agenda. The New American reported in 2013 that the brutal regime is plotting to herd hundreds of millions of rural peasants into centrally planned Orwellian super-cities in the years ahead — at gunpoint if necessary. Similar outrages are regularly promoted to Americans by establishment voices. Obama has only been too eager to join in. In fact, just this week, in violation of every principle upon which the United States was founded, Obama called for surrendering more U.S. sovereignty and “binding ourselves to international rules” crafted by unelected, unaccountable, oftentimes murderous foreign regimes.

Indeed, one illegal Obama program to “diversify” American cities, known as the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing decree, is perfectly in line with the UN’s “New Urban Agenda.” The Obama program uses federal bribes to break up higher income and ethnically homogeneous communities by encouraging and subsidizing the redistribution of people based on race, income levels, and other factors. So, for example, if your suburb is too wealthy, the federal government might seek to put government housing there to drop welfare recipients into it. The UN document outlines exactly such schemes, vowing, for instance, to “encourage mixed-income development to promote social inclusion and cohesion.”

In fairness to the UN, the economic model promoted in the latest “agenda” is not quite socialist or communist, but rather a hybrid of government-directed fascism and technocratic governance often described as “technocracy” by critics who have studied it. In many ways, it is similar to the horrifying  “governance” (more accurately described as oppression) practiced today by the Chinese Communist Party — an outfit that has murdered more innocent people than any other group in human history, with conservative estimates starting around 60 million victims, not including those slaughtered in forced abortions.

Regardless of labels, though, the UN vision outlined in the “New Urban Agenda,” the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the UN Paris Agreement, and other grandiose plots is deeply totalitarian. It is not compatible with human liberty or dignity. It replaces the choices of individuals with the choices of tyrants. Much of it is flatly unconstitutional when it comes to the United States. For the sake of humanity and prosperity, the UN’s extremist agenda must be defeated. The surest way to do that is with an American exit, or Amexit, from the UN.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

Related articles:

UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism

“Smart Cities” to Spy on You in Ways Orwell Never Imagined

Communist Chinese Regime Forcing Rural Population Into Cities

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

Dictators and Billionaires Demand Creation of UN Tax Agency

Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21

Rothschild Crony Capitalist Summit Plots Against Free Markets

New Film Exposes Communist Roots of “Sustainability” Agenda

UN Seeks “Unprecedented” Amount of Data to Impose Agenda 2030

UN Plotting to “Dramatically Alter” Your Views and Behavior

Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

Obama to UN: U.S. Must “Accept Constraints” on Sovereignty in Order to Accomplish UN Goals

UN Adopts “Education” Plan to Indoctrinate Children in Globalism

UN Panics Amid Growing Scandal on Child Rape by “Peace” Troops

United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.

Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN

#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!

U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence

Battle Rages as GOP Saves Obama Plot to Diversify Neighborhoods

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM


Freedom Rights and the Common Law

09/22/2016

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/about/

About me . . .

John-Henry Hill is a pseudonym I have used recently (since 2008) when submitting essays solely on THIS BLOG, which I refer to as my “Law Blog”, even though it contains a small number of essays on “topics of the day”, plus a “JOKES” page, a LINKS page and so on… So, WHO am I really?

John-Henry Hill, M.D. is a pen-name used by this author, who is, in point of fact, a former physician and medical researcher, having earned a doctor of medicine (M.D.) degree in the early-1970’s. Within a few years I decided to center my career around private-sector clinical-medical-health research, whose clients most often were numerous U.S. government medical-health agencies. By the mid-1980’s, as personal computers and primitive computer networks (“local area networks” or LANs) began to appear, out of necessity and efficiency in terms of my own projects, I studied and took formal courses in database theory and programming; and soon was programming databases, not only for my own research projects, but for other researchers as well. It was actually FUN, so that I changed careers again and a became full-time medical-health research programmer and LAN specialist for private-sector companies and later two federal agencies,

In 1998 some colleagues and I also formed our own privately-owned company, specializing in database programming for medical-health research for major medical centers, U.S. government medical-health agencies, pharmaceutical companies and similar entities both in the U.S. and Europe. (We did the same work type of work that we had been doing, except that we integrated by code several software products into one system.) For over 20 years prior to my early retirement in late 2009, I worked as a software database programmer and LAN specialist. In the early 1990’s I also earned a Ph.D. degree in American history, with a specialization in The Evolution of American Law-Political History from the Colonial Period Through the American Civil War.

There is SO MUCH MORE to learn – for all of us!!! I have just scratched the surface in my years of research and studying; and consequently in all of my essays on this Law Blog. I have been studying this stuff (mostly as a “U.S. history junkie”) for over 55 years; and learned a great deal more when researching for my Ph.D. However, I still do NOT consider myself an “expert” in law, medicine or medical database programming. To me NO ONE is an “expert”; there are simply people who know more about a topic than most other people. None of us can learn everything – not even about our work or profession, our hobbies, or anything else. Life is simply too short. And all people possess knowledge that they never write down, so it is lost to the living and future generations. It is a pity that until about 100 years ago, it was customary for all Americans to keep diaries and write a great deal about what they knew, read, had done that day and so on. Watching sports, radio, films, TV, personal computers, the internet and cells phone have killed off that custom of a daily diary. Those were the people who were the true historians of past generations – and from which most real professional historians (who perform their own original research, as opposed to simply quoting so-called “facts” from books published by other historians) always use such diaries as one of their primary sources of information. It was the ordinary people who wrote such diaries who were the true historians.

My ultimate decision to leave America forever was precipitated by a JOKE I told to a U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (CIS) officer at “Passport Control” at Boston’s Logan Airport upon arriving from Europe in December 2008.  The first two incidents were the most grueling and took place at Boston’s Logan Airport. What transpired and the means by which I sought remedy are described in one of my essays on this blog titled“DONUTS, THE U.S. CUSTOMS-IMMIGRATION SERVICE (CIS) AND COMMERCIAL LIENS” It is FUNNY and SAD at the same time. However these incidents were NOT the root cause for my decision to leave the U.S. forever. Instead these incidents were the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

In 2009 I abandoned America forever as my home and have lived with my wife in Europe ever since, taking an early retirement, with homes in Ukraine, , Crimea (now part of the Russian Federation,  with by far the greatest amount of autonomy of any Republic in the Russian Federation, retaining its own independent, the sole Republic with right and power to postpone and in some instances render void within Crimea the application and enforcement of certain Russian Federation laws, while retaining ts own independent legislature and court system) and Switzerland. I have has NO intention of returning to America… ever!  I am a member of NO political party – neither the Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or whatever – since all political parties are simply competing factions within a Mafia-like system of oppression and wealth extraction.

As the old joke says, “How can you tell when a politician is lying?” Answer: ”His lips move.” Another relevant joke regarding the apathy of most Americans goes like this: One man asked another, “What do think about the ignorance and apathy of the average American?” To which the second man replied, “I don’t know and I don’t care!” 

John-Henry Hill, M.D. , Ph.D.

BUY GOLD and SILVER !!!!!!

e-mail: JohnHenryHill@Yahoo.com

THANK YOU for reading my essays! 

They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” – Gerald Massey

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”  Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)

“He, who would be deceived, let him.” – ancient Roman maxim of law

Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’“. Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington)

“We have people in government who should not be allowed to play with matches.” — Will Rogers

“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s CONSENT.” – Abraham Lincoln

“The Constitution is NOT neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.” William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

“I have never had but one opinion concerning BANKING. They [BANKS] are like party spirit, the delusion of the many for the interest of a few.” John Adams (second President of U.S.A.) in letter to John Taylor of Caroline; Quincy, Massachusetts, March 12, 1819 as cited in “The Life and Works of John Adams”, 10 volumes, (Charles Francis Adams, Editor); Boston, 1850-1856, X, Page 375


All of MY essays were thoroughly researched and written by me; and concern primarily the various types of law from America’s colonial period under British rule, the 3 types of law authorized by the U.S. Constitution (1) the Common Law,  which technically SUPERSEDES all other types of law, except when on waives some of his rights by CONTRACT. In the U.S, Britain and most of the former British colonies; (2) Equity Law (often called “Statutory Law”; and (3) Maritime-Admiralty Law which applied SOLELY to ships at sea; (and NOT even when a ship was anchored in a harbor or a dock), but which in the U.S. since the mid-1950’s has slowly been applied ON LAND primarily due to judge’s rulings at lower and mid-level courts within the U.S.  In addition there is the U.S. version of (4) the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) which in the late 1950’s began to gradually replaced Equity Law (“Statutory Law”) at the federal and state levels; and finally the oldest form of law called (5) International Commercial Law accepted by all nations engaged in commerce with any other nation and from which ALL 4 of the previously mentioned previous types of law (1-4) listed above wee derived. There are also essays on how the various types of law originated and evolved (or more accurately “devolved” or were “corrupted”) over time in the United States to the present day.

On rare occasions I will post an article or essay written by another man or woman, with extensive citations and documentation included within that essay on law; and whose background, credentials, text of the essay and documentation and citations therein I attempt to verify to the greatest extent possible. Usually such posts are written by people who are recognized experts on the subject of their essay/article.

First, the MOST important piece of information people should know is that, PRIOR the to the 14th Amendment of 1868, there was such NO such entity as a “U.S. CITIZEN”. Any person if asked about his citizenship would either say “American” (to foreigners) OR give the name of the state in which lived. This fact is accurately demonstrated in the film “GETTYSBURG” in which a Confederate general explains to a British officer/observer that “My country is Virginia”.

I am an American, born and raised in Massachusetts; NOT the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts” or the “State of Massachusetts” which for-profit corporations. And a man or woman living in a state of the Union (but NOT a “State”, which a “legal fiction” as a corporation created later) can be a citizen of his state, but NOT a citizen of the United States (or the converse), as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions. I do NOT and will NOT ever identify ever myself as a “citizen of the U.S.” (or any variation thereof). I identify myself as an “American”. The reason can be found in the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which for the FIRST TIME ever defined a “citizen of the United States“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

First, a “person” is NOT a man or woman, but rather a legal fiction. Second, a “State” in the NOT the same entity as as state of the Union, but rather a sub-corporation of the United States Corporation (also created in 1868 in Edinburgh, Scotland). However, a careful reading of this first sentence shows that, in order to be ” a CITIZEN of the United States”, TWO conditions must be met. The first condition may seem fairly simple: being born or naturalized in the U.S. – until you read the various definitions (below) of the U.S. recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Were you born in Washington, D.C., Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands? Or were you born in one of the various states? The second condition is that is that you must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]”. Unless BOTH these conditions are met, you are NOT a citizen of the United States. And since Washington, D.C., the Territories and insular possessions are under the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of the Congress, the people living in those areas are NOT protected by the Constitution. Only the PEOPLE living in the various states are protected by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights – as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled hundreds of times. So what do “citizens of the United States” receive in exchange for waiving their rights? The answer is found is the second sentence if Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “No State [as opposed to a state] shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Consequently, by waiving ALL of their inherent, natural rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, “citizens of the United States” fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, become subject to ALL of its acts (statutes; and the regulations that spring therefrom); and possess only PRIVILEGES granted by Congress, such as “due process” and “equal protection of the laws”. However, any PRIVILEGE granted by Congress can just as easily be taken away. Personally, I would rather possess my inherent, natural RIGHTS as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights than waive ALL those right to a Congress which then grant me PRIVILEGES as it sees fit, unrestrained by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Further, I am NOT bound by any acts (statutes) passed by Congress since Congress has NO jurisdiction over the PEOPLE of any state, UNLESS those people, as individual men and women, CONSENT to that particular statute OR enters into a CONTRACT with the United States which binds them to that statute. In short, to the PEOPLE in the various states [NOT States, which are sub-corporations of the United States Corporation] and acts (statutes) passed by Congress are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”, which the people are free to accept [give their CONSENT] or reject.

The problems of the last 100 years in America is that the United States and especially its courts have made the PRESUMPTION in law, without presenting any evidence of a contract containing full disclosure and agreed to by mutual, voluntary consent, that We the People have living in the various states have AGREED to their jurisdiction. And several ancient Maxims of Law state, “He, who does not object, consents.”; “An oath is a contract in law.”; “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.”; “An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.” ; “They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of those who receive it.”; “While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.” (The man who quits first loses; the last-man-standing wins.)

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are a MINIMUM of three definitions of the term “United States” and, according to the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 and subsequent amending acts, the “United States” means either solely Washington, D.C. OR Washington, D.C., U.S. Territories, insular possessions and areas within the various states permanently ceded by that state’s legislature to the U.S. (such as for the erection of forts, etc.). Thus, the various states are NOT part of the “United States”,  but are in fact the creators and “bosses” of the United States”

The root  cause of increasing dissatisfaction with the U.S. government over the last 30 plus years is the result of years of study and simple observation over my lifetime.  The evolution of certain types of law, along with the devolution and essentially the practical elimination of other types of law from our justice system and our society of was once most commonly used type of law in America: the COMMON LAW.

After the ratification of the original (“organic”) “The Constitution for the united States of America”, written in plain English for all to understand, the courts, Congress and people accepted as FACTS OF LAW that the people as individuals were the sovereigns of the Union states, the various states were viewed as separate “foreign countries with respect to each other and with respect the United States”; and most almost all legislated acts (statutes; from which regulations were written) applied ONLY to employees and agents of the U.S. government. The Congress had jurisdiction only over Washington City, as the seat of the federal government, federal Territories, federal forts and and naval stations within a state; and federal buildings within a state, usually federal Post offices. Federal statutes applied to people living in one of the sovereign states ONLY if that individual man CONSENTED to that particular statute. The federal courts existed solely to settle disputes between states; and disputes between people from two different states

..at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjectswith none to govern but themselves….. [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421..

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

Even Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington) and one of the most ardent advocates for a strong  central government wrote,Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’“.

“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states. ~ Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1854);

Our government is founded upon compact [contract]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the peopleGlass v. Sloop Betsey, U.S. Supreme Court, 1794.

This last quote reflects the fact as understood by the Founders and the American people at that time that the Constitution was a type of CONTRACT as a legal TRUST (called “The Constitution for the united States of America” among the various independent and sovereign states. This contract was written by and for the people. The American people were the creators of this Trust. The Grantors (or Trustors) were the states; the Trustee was the new federal government called the “United States of America”; and the Beneficiaries were “we, the people and our posterity [descendants]”. The President was the essentially the chief executive or CEO of the trust, the Congress its “board of directors” and the Supreme Court the arbiter for the trust to prevent the employees (federal official officials and employee) from exceeding the powers granted to it by the Trust AND to settle disputes among the Grantors (states). As in any contract in the form of a Trust, the powers and obligations of the Trustee must be explicitly states; and the Trustee may NOT grant itself any new powers. Only the Grantors can alter the Trust contract, and in our system this can be done ONLY by Amendments to the original Trust contract, in this case by the ratification any proposed amendments by a minimum of three-fourths of the Trustors or Grantors (states). All legislated acts (statutes) passed by Congress were essentially “rules” for the agents and employees of the Trustee (the federal government), as well as the residents of what became “Washington, the District of Columbia” (i.e., Washington, D.C.), the Northwest Territories and later territories, federal employees working within the various states (e.g. Post Office employees”), and federal installations on land ceded by state legislatures to the federal government (such as for forts, naval yards). And if a fort or other federal installation was abandoned or went unused by the federal government, that land reverted back to the jurisdiction of the state in which it was located, UNLESS the state legislature ceded permanent ownership and jurisdiction of that piece of land to the federal government. For everyone else living in the various states, all U.S. statutes passed by Congress are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”. As with any contract, if you agree to it, then you must obey the specifications of that contract. But if any state or individual person with any state does NOT agree to it (he or she rejects it; does not sign it), then there is NO such contract applicable to that man or woman. The PROBLEM since the 1860’s is that the U.S. government and the courts ALL make the PRESUMPTION that every man and woman HAS AGREED to every statute (Offer to Contract) and therefore those statutes apply to everyone within America (without the required “full disclosure” necessary for any contract). We have unknowingly agreed by contract to be under the JURISDICTION of the U.S. government). Further, such statutes NEVER become True Law. Instead, like ANY other contract, by our contractual agreement these statutes assume the FORCE OF LAW”.

And as I wrote above: Several ancient Maxims of Law (which are accepted by the courts as absolute truth and need not be proved again in any court) state, He, who does not object, consents.”; “An oath is a contract in law.”; “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.”; “An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.” ; “They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of those who receive it.”(sounds a lot like politicians); as former Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev wrote, “All politicians are alike; they want to build a bridge where there is no river.”); “While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.” (“The man who quits first loses; the last-man-standing wins.”)

The Constitution was a CONTRACT as a TRUST (COMPACT;) among various sovereign states that ratified it in the form of a Trust called the “organic Constitution” or “The Constitution for the united States of America” – as opposed to a revised version (called the “corporate Constitution”) for the “United States Corporation”  (created in 1868) called the “The Constitution of the United States of America”. And as the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times regarding the organic Constitution, that: (a) the states, NOT the people, were the parties to this contract which created the federal government; (b) it was NOT a contract between the states and the people; (c) it was NOT a contract between the states and the federal government, which was impossible because the federal government  did NOT even exist until AFTER the Constitution was ratified;  and (d) it was NOT a contract between the people and the federal government for same same reason as item c.  It is impossible to create a contract with a man or entity that does NOT yet exist!

In short, legislated acts (statutes) passed by Congress and approved by the President (the CEO  of the Trust) did NOT apply to ordinary men and women living in the various states OR to the various sovereign states. And the ONLY way that this could happen was if that man or woman individually consented, or state through its legislature, And ALL contracts, in order to be valid require full disclosure of the terms, “consideration” (an exchange of things of equal value as determined by both parties, with rights and privileges-benefits exchangeable considered items of value), the mutual CONSENT or agreement of both parties – called a “meeting of the minds” of that particular contract. Therefore, all legislated act (statutes) passed by Congress were applicable and enforceable by the courts ONLY federal employees and agents and to the areas of land noted above under Congress’s exclusive jurisdiction; NOT to ordinary men and women living in the various states. For these people within the various states (as non-employees and non-agents of the federal government) “federal statutes were simply “OFFERS TO CONTRACT’” which each individual one could could accept (consent) or reject.

The most widely used TYPE OF LAW in the Union of these sovereign states until the 1930’s was the unwritten COMMON LAW as adopted from British Law (based on local customs and rules of the local society over the eras), which was simple for all people to understand: In essence, the Common Law can be summed up as, “Only if a man violated another man’s rights or caused injury to that man’s property, was a crime committed.” And the “property” was then defined as all of a man’s possessions, his money, his home, land and even his own physical body.” The shortened version can be stated as, “No injury means no crime committed.”

And the most commonly used COURTS were courts operating under the Common Law within a state (called COURTS OF RECORD).  COURT OF RECORD is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (Revised), 1968 as:

  1. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate [judge] designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] My note: a Tribunal in a true Court of Record is ether the plaintiff or, if requested by the accused/respondent, a jury of 12 local people (the accused or respondent’s “peers”) Only the tribunal (the jury) can issue orders, rule of issues of law and procedure and render verdicts. Indeed, there are numerous Supreme Court ruling which explicitly state that it is “the duty and obligation of the jury to be the sole judge of the both the FACTS and LAW of the case; disregarding all instructions of the judge to the contrary”.  In fact, the administrator (usually a judge) on a Court of Record – a court operating under solely under the Common Law (see item B  below) can issue NO orders, rulings, verdicts, etc. is role is simply as the organizer of the proceeding, whose role to to keep it moving in an orderly and civil manner. An should a judge issue ANY order, ruling verdict, or whatever, he can be found in “contempt of court” by the tribunal (the jury) and even fined or imprisoned
  2. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] (My note: Such a court EXCLUDES legislated acts (statutes) and even attorneys. Both the accused and the accusor must “PRESENT” himself in court as a private individual man or woman; and can NOT be “RE-PRESENTED” to the court by an attorney, which converts that man into legal fictions called a “person” and a “client”. And in any major law dictionary “client” is defined as either a child; or an adult person mentally incapable of defending himself, thereby making that client a “ward of the court”. In other words, by hiring an attorney, you voluntarily declare that mentally incompetent to defend yourself and make yourself a ward of court, which ma then do to you what it wishes for “your benefit”. And even being sentenced to prison is, under law, considered a “benefit”. Prior to the 1930’s the accused often used unlicensed LAWYER, whose role was an “advisor” and “spokesman” for the accused, but all affidavits, claims, etc. had to be issued by sworn affidavits written and signed by the accused – a lawyer could NOT do these things for the accused. Today, a man can sign a contract with an attorney called a “Power of Attorney” in which that attorney can write and sign an agreement or contract with others, as specified with that “Power of Attorney” agreement WITHOUT any further approval or even notification the the client required, even over non-judicial matters such as selling one’s home, conducting his business transactions and investments and just about an other matter.
  3. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231] (My note: a court TRANSCRIPT is NOT a “an enrolled or recorded written document of the acts and proceeding of a court to be held in perpetuity. Instead a transcript, under law, is merely the notes written and kept by the Court Clerk, which need NOT be preserved after all appeals are exhausted.
  4. D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]    (My note: It is the Tribunal – the jury – which has the power to fine or imprison someone for contempt of court; NOT the administrator or judge.)
  5. E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]  (My note: this last item, a SEAL, has been and is still now considered optional. In the far past, some jurors were often illiterate and could not write their signatures on the verdict and rulings issued by the jury. Instead, such jurors would “make their mark” (often a simple “X”) on such documents, witnessed by the other jurors, who then used a SEAL as a sworn attestation that the juror’s “mark” on the document was truly that of a juror, as a substitute a that juror’s signature. In many respects it is similar to the SEAL used my “notary publics” in the U.S. by which any written, signed and dated document by a man or woman is converted into a type of “affidavit of truth” after that individual swears “oath” (itself a contract in law) in the presence of two witnesses and the notary public (all of whom must write their signatures on that date of notarization. Only then does the “notary public apply his SEAL to that document over his on signature. The “notary public” and the two other witnesses, under law, become a Tribunal (“Tri” meaning three; derived from the Latin word “Tribune”: “An officer of ancient Rome elected by the plebeians to protect their rights from arbitrary acts of the patrician magistrates,” In legal disputes in ancient Rome, initially three (3) tribunes could over-turn and void the rulings of patrician magistrates, although that number was later increased to  was later

The relationship between the PEOPLE and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has been turned upside down by the Congress and affirmed by the courts over the 20, most especially the U.S. Supreme Court. And ever since the events of “9/11”  September 11, 2001).

From the time American Revolution and later the ratification of the US Constitution until the 1938 Erie Railroad v. Tompkins decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Common Law was the primary law in America. This Supreme Court decision reversed hundreds by years of American legal precedent by ruling that federal courts court no longer use a state’s Common Law as the basis of their decisions. Today, virtually no courts in America will recognize the Common Law and will toss you into jail for “contempt of court” should you assert your rights under the Common Law. But as much as the Congress and courts (at all levels) have tried to eliminate the Common Law from the minds of the People – and they have nearly done so in terms of what people know about the Common Law, and even what attorneys and lower court judges know – which is next to nothing, if the people educate themselves, they can reclaim their rights and once again make government the SERVANT of the people; not their master. And even as recently as 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed:

 “The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

Definitions of aCOURT OF RECORD” and a “COURT NOT OF RECORD“:

A “COURT OF RECORD” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial.; Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass., 171, per Shaw, C. J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.    Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (revised), 1968

A “COURT NOT OF RECORD”: Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal. 225; Erwin v. U. S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.(Note: A court TRANSCRIPT is a collection of notes of a hearing or trial which are the property of the Court Clerk’s Office as notes written a TRANSCRIPT is NOT an enrollment in perpetual memorial of the acts and proceedings of a court trial or hearing.)  Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (revised), 1968

In summary:

COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:

  1. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] (In other words, a judge acts solely as a magistrate and can issue NO ruling, orders, verdicts fines, etc. It is NOT the judge’s court; it is the Plaintiff’s court – and one becomes the Plaintiff by issuing a COUNTER-CLAIM against the judge as a private man in which you challenge his jurisdiction. Only the Plaintiff or a jury of 12 people can act as the Tribunal in a true Court-of-Record. And if the judge, against whom you filed the counter-claim, attempts to issue any ruling, order, decision or whatever, you MUST OBJECT immediately, even if he issues a ruling FAVORABLE to you. Why? Because if you do NOT object, you have just handed him back jurisdiction over you. You or the jury can issue a “writ of error”, voiding his attempt to issue a ruling, then request that the jury issue a similar ruling favorable to you. But NEVER let any ruling or decision issued by a judge in a Court-of-Record (a Common Law court) go unchallenged. If you do, you have just given him jurisdiction over you, which was the basis of your counter-claim over him._

    2. Proceeding according to the course of Common Law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]3. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

[NOTE: A “TRANSCRIPT” is NOT an “enrollment”; a “transcript” is merely the personal record of the Clerk of the Court, whose notes are referred to as “minutes”.]

  1. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

    5. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

One of my hobbies (more like a “passion”) since I was a medical student in Washington, D.C. in the early-1970’s has been U.S. Civil Battlefields – specifically battlefield tactics as they evolve during a battle –  especially at sites in in Virginia and Maryland within easy driving distance of my home, in Virginia. The battles in which I specialized were: Lee’s Maryland Campaign of 1862, resulting in the Battle of South Mountain (actually at 3 nearby locations a few miles west of Frederick, Maryland) and three days later the Battle of Antietam Creek at Sharpsburg, Maryland. The other much smaller battle, but of much greater political significance took place on the banks of the Potomac River just outside Leesburg, Virginia. While truly just a skirmish, it was called the Battle of Ball’s Bluff” – President Lincoln’s longtime and closest friend and the very popular U.S. Senator Edward Baker had resigned from the Senate to join the Union Army as a colonel. Despite his lack of any military knowledge or experience, he led this minor reconnaissance expedition (for political reasons), but foolishly chose to set up a line of battle at the edge of the bluff (rather than establishing his lines further inland). Confederate troops were initially NOT there, but Baker waited around until there were plenty! Colonel Edward Baker was killed soon after and his men fled down the bluff to the river. Most who made it to the river drowned, due their heavy packs – since the Confederates has earlier sunk all the Union boats (left unguarded) in which the Union troops originally had used to cross the river. The battle’s outcome changed the conduct of the rest of the Civil War, one example of which was the creation of the “Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War”. (An open field when I first started studying it, Ball’s Bluff is now over-run by a massive housing development, so that the original battlefield no longer exists. Mr. Ball, who owned the farm on which the “battle” –really a small skirmish – was fought, was a direct descendant of George Washington.)

Battle of Antietam Creek in Sharpsburg, Maryland, September 17, 1862

(Three days earlier was the “Battle of South Mountain” at 3 locations where there are 3 gaps 10 miles west of Frederick, Maryland: Fox’s Gap (extremely steep; leads to Boonsboro, Maryland west of the mountain which is 10 miles from Sharpsburg), Turner’s Gap (steep; just to the south; also leads to near to Boonsboro, Maryland west of the mountain which is 10 miles from Sharpsburg ) and Crampton’s Gap (furthest south and almost flat; leads to Harpers Ferry)

The VERY BEST and most detailed 2 books written on the “Battle of South Mountain” and the “Battle of Antietam Creek” are both by JOHN MICHAEL PRIEST, who happens to live in Boonsboro, Maryland – just west of South Mountain and about 10 miles north of Sharpburg and Antietam Creek. Their titles are:

1.) Before Antietam: The Battle for South Mountain

2.) Antietam: The Soldiers’ Battle

In these books, the authors writes and shows (via hand-drawn maps) where various units were on an hour-by-hour basis – and relied ONLY on ORIGINAL SOURCES. Priest used NOTHING from other, more recent books or articles was used. Only articles, diaries, letters and books written immediately after the battle by the battle’s actual participants – many of which were published in a popular magazine in the 1860’s called “Century Magazine” – were used by Priest. (These articles, written by actual participants (from privates to generals) in various battles for Century Magazine on the Civil War were later published in the 1890’s as a 3-volume set of books, now out-of-print for many years, that took me and friends many years to find all 3 volumes.) Of note: Priest’s books and the 3-volume set of 3 books of Century Magazine articles are INVALUABLE. However, these books are NOT for “beginners” – you should already know a lot about the Maryland Campaign of 1862 and the battles at South Mountain and Antietam Creek in order to appreciate their enormous value, especially if you visit the South Mountain and Antietam battlefields as I did literally hundreds of times, since they were only a 1-hour drive my home in Fairfax County, Virginia during medical school, post-graduate residency and later my medical practice. Even after I changed careers and moved to Massachusetts in the 1990’s, I still visited these battlefields at least twice a year until 2010 when I left the U.S. forever.

Most of the other recently written books on Antietam have major errors, contain the author’s speculations, rely on other recently published works for sources, seldom (if ever) use any original sources, and reach conclusions that are based on hind-sight and are often nonsense. That is why Priest’s books and the 3-volume book set (based on the Century Magazine articles) are so incredibly valuable!

But BAD THINGS happen to us all:

My ENTIRE LIBRARY, which I had contracted to have shipped to Odessa, was “lost” (i.e,, “never picked up”, “misplaced” or STOLEN). Among the thousands of books, journals, articles, etc. were: all my MEDICAL books and journals, PROGRAMMING books and journals, HISTORY books and journals (from Colonial America through the U.S. Civil War), vast collection of U.S. CIVIL WAR books, maps and journals, NOVELS, and assorted other books.

Before I moved to Odessa, Ukraine I had contracted with a company to have sent in a steel container by ship my entire library (over 1000 books on medicine, research methods, statistics, programming, novels, and over 400 books – some out-of print for 100 years, very difficult to find with some old copies found by sheer chance in small bookshops – on the U.S. Civil War, along with many maps, etc. I also had photocopies of diaries and letters form the descendants of locals still living near Sharpsburg; and photocopies of diaries and letters of surviving participants of the Battle of Antietam that were kept by their descendants – the latter items collected over a 40-year period. I also had literally thousands of photographs I had personally taken over the years, as well as copies of photographs retained by the descendants of the battles. The only other goods I shipped to Ukraine were clothes and sporting goods. (Firearms are NOT allowed entry into Ukraine, so I gave them to my brother to store them). However, ALL that I received at my Odessa apartment were about 3/4 of my clothes – presumably the rest “disappeared” into some “black hole” somewhere. And from what I could learn, the books composing my library were never even picked up  by the contracting company. Luckily, I had my two laptops in my baggage on my final plane trip out of the U.S. I sued both the U.S. shipping company (I won) and Port of Odessa (I lost; case dismissed –that is the Ukrainian “justice system), but those items lost were irreplaceableonly the books (some extremely rare) and photocopied materials collected over many years mattered; the money did not.

(Of note, I gave away free as gifts to friends and neighbors my fairly new, flat-screen TV, all my furniture and anything and everything else they wanted in the house and tool shed. I had my attorney donate my car – a fairly new V-6 VW Passat with manual transmission, sunroof, etc.) to charity – NOT because I am a “great guy”, but because Ukraine charges such a HUGE fee on cars imported by INDIVIDUALS into Ukraine; and the donation was tax-deductible. But NOT my books – I was going to keep ALL of them!!!) Therefore, below are maps, etc taken from various web sites. They are a very poor substitute for my collection of maps, some detailing the movements of every company and brigade (with the time and duration of each engagement) for both the Battle of South Mountain and the Battle of Antietam.

10 13 11 flagbar


Wards of the Nanny State: Protecting America’s Children from Police State Goon’s, Bureaucratic Idiot’s and Mercenary Creeps

09/21/2016

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/wards_of_the_nanny_state_protecting_americas_children_from_police_stat

By John W. Whitehead
September 20, 2016

When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ [Hitler] said in a speech on November 6, 1933, “I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’”—As reported by historian William L. Shirer

It’s not easy being a parent in the American police state.

Danger lurks around every corner and comes at you from every direction, especially when Big Brother is involved.

Out on the streets, you’ve got the menace posed by police officers who shoot first and ask questions later. In the schools, parents have to worry about school resource officers who taser teenagers and handcuff kindergartners, school officials who have criminalized childhood behavior, school lockdowns and terror drills that teach your children to fear and comply, and a police state mindset that has transformed the schools into quasi-prisons.

In your neighborhoods, you’ve got to worry about the Nanny State and its network of busybodies turning parents in for allowing their children to walk to school alone, walk to the park alone, play at the beach alone, or even play in their own yard alone.

And now in the last refuge for privacy—one’s home—parents are being put through the grinder, their actions scrutinized and judged by government goon squads armed with outrageous, overreaching, egregious laws that subject families to the hyped-up, easily offended judgment of the Nanny State.

The latest slap in the face comes from the Arizona Supreme Court whose 3-2 ruling in Arizona v. Holle paves the way for parents to be charged as child molesters or sexual abusers for such innocent acts as changing their children’s diapers or taking baths with their kids.

I kid you not. This is really happening.

As Chief Justice Bales wrote in his dissent:

Parents and other caregivers who have changed an infant’s soiled diaper or bathed a toddler will be surprised to learn that they have committed a class 2 or 3 felony. They also will likely find little solace from the majority’s conclusion that although they are child molesters or sex abusers under Arizona law, they are afforded an “affirmative defense” if they can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their touching “was not motivated by a sexual interest.” Such a defense, as the majority notes, does not mean that a crime has not occurred, but instead that the miscreant may avoid “culpability” by persuading the fact-finder that the “criminal conduct” should be excused.

Now the court is not fully to blame for this idiotic ruling.

That prize goes to the well-meaning idiots in the Arizona legislature who drafted legislation that criminalizes any contact between an adult and a child’s genitals, whether or not improper sexual intent was involved.

By allowing this legislation to go unchallenged, however, the Arizona Supreme Court has created a paradigm in which parents are de facto sexual predators who, if formally charged, have the burden of proving their innocence “after a lengthy, expensive, and reputation-tarnishing trial.” As legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern writes for Slate: “Arizona’s Supreme Court had an opportunity to remedy this glaring problem… But by a 3-2 vote, the court refused and declared that the law criminalized the completely innocent touching of a child.”

Not only would a parent accused under this law have to prove his or her innocence to the jury “by a preponderance of the evidence,” but they could be forced to spend an undetermined amount of time in jail just waiting to prove their innocence.

The message is chillingly clear: your children are not your own but are, in fact, wards of the state who have been temporarily entrusted to your care. Should you fail to carry out your duties to the government’s satisfaction, the children in your care will be re-assigned elsewhere.

In other words, the government believes it knows better than you—the parent—what is best for your child.

This criminalization of parenthood has run the gamut in recent years from parents being arrested for attempting to walk their kids home from school to parents being fined and threatened with jail time for their kids’ bad behavior or tardiness at school.

For example, working mom Debra Harrell was arrested, spent 17 days in jail, lost custody of her daughter and faced up to 10 years in jail all because she let her 9-year-old daughter play alone at a nearby park. A Connecticut mother was arrested after her 7-year-old, who wasn’t wearing a helmet, fell off his scooter and allegedly injured himself. Patricia Juarez was arrested after letting her 7-year-old son play at a Legoland store in the mall while she did her shopping. Tammy Cooper was arrested, jailed overnight and charged with child endangerment for letting her kids ride their scooters alone in the cul-de-sac outside her suburban home.

Jeffrey Williamson was arrested after his 8-year-old son skipped church to play with neighborhood children. The experience left scars on the household. “Every time that we leave in our car or drive down the street or something like that, every time they see a cop in Blanchester, they freak out and say, ‘Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, are they going to arrest you?’” Williamson said.

Then there was the father who was arrested, charged with child cruelty, and banished from his family home after he spanked his 3-year-old daughter once for talking back to her mother, pushing the screen out of her window, refusing to pick up her toys and throwing a belt at him. The father was also ordered to undergo 52 weeks of parenting classes and two monitored visits with his daughter each week.

Parents in Florida can be charged with a second-degree misdemeanor and face up to two months in jail if their kids have 15 or more unexcused absences from school over the course of three months. Truancy laws in Alabama, Texas, and North Carolina, among other states, have also resulted in parents doing jail time for their kids’ absenteeism.

This doesn’t even touch on what happens to your kids when they’re at school—especially the public schools—where parents have little to no control over what their kids are taught, how they are taught, how and why they are disciplined, and the extent to which they are being indoctrinated into marching in lockstep with the government’s authoritarian playbook.

The harm caused by attitudes and policies that treat America’s young people as government property is not merely a short-term deprivation of individual rights. It is also a long-term effort to brainwash our young people into believing that civil liberties are luxuries that can and will be discarded at the whim and caprice of government officials if they deem doing so is for the so-called “greater good” (in other words, that which perpetuates the aims and goals of the police state).

Clearly, the schools should be educating children about their duties as citizens and how to protect their constitutional rights. Instead, government officials are molding our young people into compliant citizens with no rights and subjecting them to invasive questioning, searches of their persons and property, and random drug testing, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

What we’re dealing with is a draconian mindset that sees young people as wards of the state—and the source of potential income—to do with as they will in defiance of the children’s constitutional rights and those of their parents. However, this is in keeping with the government’s approach towards individual freedoms in general.

Surveillance cameras, government agents listening in on your phone calls, reading your emails and text messages and monitoring your spending, mandatory health care, sugary soda bans, anti-bullying laws, zero tolerance policies, political correctness: these are all outward signs of a government—i.e., a monied elite—that believes it knows what is best for you and can do a better job of managing your life than you can.

This is tyranny disguised as “the better good.”

Indeed, this is the tyranny of the Nanny State: marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and inflicted on all those who do not belong to the elite ruling class that gets to call the shots. This is what the world looks like when bureaucrats not only think they know better than the average citizen but are empowered to inflict their viewpoints on the rest of the populace on penalty of fines, arrest or death.

Unfortunately, even in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us—whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster, how or what we eat or even keeping our children safe.

We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests. Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that could care less about our freedoms or our happiness.

The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to remain in control and in power.

Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.

We have suspended our moral consciences in favor of the police state. As Chris Hedges told me years ago, “Not having to make moral choice frees you from a great deal of anxiety. It frees you from responsibility. And it assures that you will always be wrapped in the embrace of the powerful as long as, of course, you will do or dance to the tune the powers play… when you do what is right, you often have to understand that you are not going to be lauded and praised for it. Making a moral decision always entails risks, certainly to one’s career and to one’s standing in the community.”

The choice before us is clear, and it is a moral choice.

It is the choice between tyranny and freedom, dictatorship and autonomy, peaceful slavery and dangerous freedom, and manufactured pipedreams of what America used to be versus the gritty reality of what she is today.

Most of all, perhaps, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the choice before us is that of blindly obeying, never questioning, and marching in lockstep with the police state OR asking hard questions, challenging injustice, standing up to tyranny, and owning up to our responsibilities as citizens, no matter how painful, risky or uncomfortable.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt observed, “We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future.”


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at http://www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at http://www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission: John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

10 13 11 flagbar


Freedom Rights and the Common Law

09/20/2016

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/

 

John-Henry Hill, M.D.

U.S. Attorneys’ AFFIDAVITS: IRS is NOT a U.S. government Agency

United States Government Attorneys CONFIRM in sworn affidavits that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is NOT an agency of United States Government.

 “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.” —  Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President, in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.

Source: http://www.usavsus.info/IRSnotAgencyOfUS.htm

The following images are scanned copies of pleadings (affidavits certified by NARA) wherein a United States Attorney and a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax Division, deny that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government.

See specifically page 2 of pleadings, item no. 4.

The allegation by Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff, for item number 4 reads as follows:

“Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the United States government which has presented to Plaintiff a lien against monies to which Defendant Steve Morgan, or presumably [sic] Defendant T-Bow Company Trust for him, may be entitled.” 

 1.)  United States Government Attorneys’ AFFADAVITS  stating that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is NOT an agency of United States Government.

Source: http://www.usavsus.info/IRSnotAgencyOfUS.htm

The following images are scanned copies of pleadings (certified by NARA) wherein a United States Attorney and a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax Division, deny that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government.

See specifically page 2 of pleadings, item no. 4.

The allegation by Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff, for item number 4 reads as follows: (See specifically page 2 of pleadings, item no. 4.)

     “Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the United States government
which has presented to Plaintiff a lien against monies to which Defendant Steve Morgan,
or presumably [sic] Defendant T-Bow Company Trust for him, may be entitled.” 

AND

 2.)  United States Government Attorneys DENY that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government. (page 2 of pleadings, item no. 4.)

 Source: http://nontaxpayer.net/irsnara0.html

The following images are scanned copies of pleadings (certified by NARA) wherein a United States Attorney and a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax Division, DENY that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government.

A Comment

The United States Government was created by the Constitution to conduct certain affairs of the People of the several States.  To conduct these affairs, Congress created various offices, departments, and agencies pursuant to its constitutional authority at Article 1 § 8(18).  Where the laying and collecting of Article 1 § 8 taxes were concerned, Congress created the Treasury Department with various offices with one of those offices being collector of internal revenue.  Collectors were officers of the United States, who were appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.  One collector was to be appointed to each internal revenue district, which was designated by the President.  The office of collector of internal revenue was a public office.  Collectors exercised the sovereign authority of the United States in the enforcement of the internal revenue laws and the collection of taxes.  They could sue or be sued in the name of the United States.  In order for Congress to collect taxes pursuant to Article 1 § 8, collectors of internal revenue are required within internal revenue districts within the several States.  All collectors of internal revenue were fired by the President in 1952 and their duties were assigned to personnel with the Bureau of Internal Revenue.  The details of these actions are set out in Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952.

What few Americans know or understand is that Congress has an implied constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes that has nothing to do with Article 1 § 8(1).  That constitutional authority is Article 4 § 3(2).

Congress exercises its legislative jurisdiction over large areas of land (federal territories – a “territory”) within the United States (Washington, D.C., various military installations, State land ceded as parks, Post Offices, federal buildings, etc. which the various States have been expressly permanently ceded to the United States government and also over a number insular possessions, e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.  – collectively called the “Federal Zone”.

In short, the “Federal Zone” ONLY  is called the “United States” (a municipal corporation); and  Congress can legislate “federal statutes” solely for the “Federal Zone” – called the “United States”) , which includes ONLY  Washington, D.C., various military installations, State land ceded as parks, Post Offices, federal buildings, etc. which the various States have been expressly permanently ceded to the United States (the municipal corporation); plus insular possessions, e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.  —  NOT the various States or the people in those States which, as sovereigns in relation to the United States, exercise “exclusive jurisdiction over themselves their own States. Therefore, the statutes (acts or “laws”) enacted by Congress apply ONLY to the “Federal Zone” called the “United States” –  NOT to the sovereign people within the various States or to the sovereign States themselves.

Within these areas, Congress can act in the capacity of a state legislature as well as a national legislature.  Congress can lay and collect taxes within these areas under its legislative jurisdiction just as States do in areas under their legislative jurisdictions.  Taxes laid pursuant to Article 4 § 3(2) are not required to be collected pursuant to the demands of Article 1 § 8(18).  Congress is not required to use collectors of internal revenue for those taxes.  As a matter of fact, Congress can use any organization it desires to collect taxes laid pursuant to its constitutional authority at Article 4 § 3(2).  The Bureau of Internal Revenue/Internal Revenue Service was never created by Congress.  Congress empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to collect taxes laid pursuant to Article 4 § 3(2) and the Secretary created the BIR/IRS.  The Secretary of the Treasury can even use private collection agencies to collect internal revenue taxes laid pursuant to Article 4 § 3(2) if he so chooses.  The Constitution empowers Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for its territory (the “Federal Zone”) and other property and is otherwise silent as to how Congress conducts its business within these areas.  The Internal Revenue Service has been defined by statute to be a Federal agency and is administering the internal revenue laws that have been passed pursuant to Congress’ Art. 4 § 3(2) authority over its territory and other property over which Congress has “exclusive jurisdiction” (which does NOT include the various States).  The Federal income tax, Social Security, and all other taxes administered by the Internal Revenue Service are being laid and collected under Congress’ Article 4 § 3(2) authority.  This is the great secret and fraud underlying the Federal income tax.

Why the Citizens of the Several States Are Not Generally Liable for the Federal Income Tax

is required reading.

See Image eight (8) images below for the U.S. Government’s Official Response to the Court

Why the Citizens of the Several States Are Not Generally Liable for the Federal Income Tax

is required reading.

 See Image eight (8) images below

9-20-2016-10-24-30-am

9-20-2016-10-25-40-am

9-20-2016-10-26-44-am

9-20-2016-10-27-42-am

9-20-2016-10-28-20-am

10 13 11 flagbar


TOP SECRET AMERICA

09/19/2016

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/methodology/

9-18-2016-9-45-08-pm‘Angel’ in beams of light at World Trade Center 9/11 memorial

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

It occurred to me that this article was a good place to display the above Photo, so my readers could see a first hand demonstration of our governments incredible guile. A more cunning, deceitful, treacherous government has never existed. As you investigate this website you will be astounded by the number of deceitful people working for it.

Methodology and credits

The Top Secret America database was put together by compiling hundreds of thousands of public records of government organizations and private-sector companies over the past two years.

From these records, The Washington Post identified 45 government organizations (for example, the FBI) engaged in top-secret work and determined that those 45 organizations could be broken down into 1,271 sub-units (for example, the Terrorist Screening Center of the FBI). One of the 45 organizations is represented as “unknown”; this category was created as a catchall for companies doing work for a government organization that could not be determined.

At the private-sector level, The Post identified 1,931 companies engaged in top-secret work for the government. Private-sector companies were grouped together and listed by a parent company’s name (for example, General Dynamics), even though one company might contain multiple sub-units (for example, General Dynamics Information Technology).

In a case where a large corporation (for example, Boeing) has a distinctly named sub-unit engaged in top-secret work (for example, Boeing’s Digital Receiver Technology), the name of the sub-unit was used. In the case of large corporations not primarily in the defense industry (for example, AT&T) that have similarly named sub-units that focus on top-secret work (for example, AT&T Government Solutions), the name of the parent company is used and the name of the sub-unit is noted. For every company listed, revenue and employee data and the date of establishment were drawn from public filings, Dun & Bradstreet data and original reporting.

State and local government organizations generally do not work at the top-secret level; that type of clearance is rarely granted to state officials. But the organizations are all part of a secretive domestic intelligence and homeland security world. The Post examined nearly 1,000 threat documents marked “For Official Use Only” and collected information from government Web sites, reports and other documents to identify 4,058 government organizations involved in domestic counterterrorism and homeland security. Of the total, 2,880 are federal organizations that work at the state level, such as the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). There are also 818 state and 360 local organizations. Many of these listed themselves in documents as participants in either Joint Terrorism Task Forces, fusion centers or Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils in 2009 or 2010.

9-19-2016-10-09-17-am

More than 20 journalists worked on the investigation, including investigative reporters, cartography experts, database reporters, video journalists, researchers, interactive graphic designers, digital designers, graphic designers, and graphics editors at The Washington Post:

Stephanie Clark, Ben de la Cruz, Kat Downs, Dan Drinkard, Anne Ferguson-Rohrer, Justin Ferrell, David Finkel, Jennifer Jenkins, Robert Kaiser, Laris Karklis, Jacqueline Kazil, Lauren Keane, Todd Lindeman, Greg Manifold, Jennifer Morehead, Bonnie Jo Mount, Larry Nista, Ryan O’Neil, Sarah Sampsel, Whitney Shefte, Laura Stanton, Julie Tate, Doris Truong, Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso, Michael Williamson, Karen Yourish, Amanda Zamora

One researcher was funded in part by the Center on Law and Security at New York University Law School.

Department of Defense HQ (DOD HQ)

Headquartered in Arlington, Va.

| Official Web site

The Department of Defense (DOD) was first established as the National Military Establishment by the National Security Act of 1947 and redesignated as a department by the amendments of 1949. It is an executive department (10 U.S.C. 111) headed by the secretary of defense. The DOD is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of the United States. The major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, consisting of about 1.3 million men and women on active duty. They are backed, in case of emergency, by the 825,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard. In addition, there are about 600,000 civilian employees in the DOD.

Read full description »

Source: Adapted from U.S. government regulations, “U.S. Government Manual”, and “An Overview of the U.S. Intelligence Community”
Learn more about our sourcing and methodology »

Top Secret Work
Number of Work Locations 80
Number of Contracting Clients 291
Types of Work (15)

Information technology

The backbone infrastructure of communications and computing, including common user information and communications networks, computer hardware and software, and data processing and preservation (i.e. data warehousing).

837 results for Information technology

46 government organizations | 791 companies

Showing page of 0 page

Government Organization HQ Location Number of Locations Number of Contracting Companies
Africa Command Stuttgart-Moehringen, AE 2 19
Air Force Arlington, VA 99 392
Air Force Intelligence Arlington, VA 113 153
Army Arlington, VA 106 353
Army Intelligence Fort Belvoir, VA 93 120
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington, DC 182 28
Central Command Tampa, FL 6 64
Central Intelligence Agency McLean, VA 36 114
Coast Guard Washington, DC 15 44
Congress Washington, DC 1 0
Customs and Border Protection Washington, DC 56 56
Defense agencies Arlington, VA 78 332
Defense Intelligence Agency Arlington, VA 22 317
Department of Defense HQ Arlington, VA 80 291
Department of Energy Washington, DC 18 87
Department of Homeland Security HQ Washington, DC 270 318
Department of Justice Washington, DC 52 89
Director of National Intelligence McLean, VA 11 140
Drug Enforcement Administration Arlington, VA 92 36
European Command Stuttgart-Vaihingen, AE 2 11
Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, DC 448 173
Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 21 40
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Washington, DC 45 12
Joint Chiefs of Staff Arlington, VA 6 45
Joint Forces Command Norfolk, VA 8 45
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Org. Arlington, VA 4 68
Marine Corps Arlington, VA 24 82
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Bethesda, MD 8 121
National Reconnaissance Office Chantilly, VA 6 124
National Security Agency Ft. Meade, MD 19 484
Navy Arlington, VA 56 385
Navy Intelligence Arlington, VA 31 104
Northern Command Colorado Springs, CO 13 56
Other civil departments and agencies Washington, DC 31 4
Pacific Command Camp H.M. Smith, HI 6 27
Secret Service Washington, DC 117 17
Southern Command Miami, FL 9 29
Special Operations Command Tampa, FL 12 125
State Department Washington, DC 9 146
States and National Guard Washington, DC 3 3
Strategic Command Omaha, NE 14 99
Transportation Command Scott AFB, IL 1 11
Transportation Security Administration Arlington, VA 11 49
Treasury Department Washington, DC 6 90
Unknown   0 455
White House Washington, DC 2 26
Company Name HQ Location Year Est. Employees Revenue Locations Govt. Clients
10dB Gain, LLC Warner Robins, Georgia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
1FORCE Herndon, Virginia 2007 Unknown Unknown 2 1
1 Source Consulting, Inc. Washington, District of Columbia 1999 Unknown Unknown 3 3
21st Century Systems, Inc. Omaha, Nebraska 1996 101-500 Under $100 million 3 5
22nd Century Technologies, Inc Somerset, New Jersey 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 3 1
3Di Technologies Annapolis, Maryland 2004 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
3S Group Incorporated Vienna, Virginia 1996 <25 Under $100 million 1 4
AASKI Technology, Inc. Asbury Park, New Jersey 1997 <25 Under $100 million 5 2
Abacus Solutions Group, LLC San Antonio, Texas 1983 <25 Under $100 million 2 1
Abacus Technology Corporation Lexington, Maryland 1983 Unknown Unknown 2 6
AccessData Lindon, Utah 1988 101-500 Under $100 million 2 2
Access Systems Reston, Virginia 1992 101-500 Unknown 2 8
AC Technology Dulles, Virginia 1991 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
ActioNet, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1998 101-500 Under $100 million 2 4
Activu Denville, New Jersey 1983 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Adapx Seattle, Washington 2007 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Adobe San Jose, California 1982 5,000-10,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 2 1
Advanced Information Services Peoria, Illinois 1986 26-100 Unknown 1 2
Advanced Programs Group LLC Reston, Virginia 2003 <25 Unknown 2 3
Advanced Programs Inc. Columbia, Maryland 1969 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Advanced Resource Technologies, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia 1986 101-500 Under $100 million 5 7
Advanced Systems Development, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1979 101-500 Under $100 million 4 7
Adwaiy Tech LLC Chantilly, Virginia Unknown <25 Under $100 million 3 1
AESEC Global Services, Inc. Pacific Grove, California 2003 <25 Unknown 1 3
Agency Consulting Group, Inc. Columbia, Maryland 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 11 5
AgilePath Corporation Newburyport, Massachusetts 2003 <25 Under $100 million 3 1
Agilex Technologies Chantilly, Virginia 2007 101-500 Under $100 million 6 3
AINS, Inc. Gaithersburg, Maryland 1988 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
Akima Corporation Charlotte, North Carolina 1990 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 4 1
Akimeka LLC Kihei, Hawaii 1997 Unknown Unknown 4 1
Akshay Princeton, New Jersey 1993 <25 Under $100 million 2 1
Alamo City Engineering Services Inc. San Antonio, Texas 2002 <25 Under $100 million 1 5
Alcosys Arlington, Virginia 1989 <25 Unknown 3 2
Allied Technology Group, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1986 101-500 Under $100 million 31 14
Altera Corporation SAN JOSE, California 1983 2,001-5,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 3 1
Amdex Silver Spring, Maryland 1987 101-500 Under $100 million 2 6
American Cybersystems, Inc Tucker, Georgia 1998 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 11 1
American Systems Corporation Chantilly, Virginia 1975 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 25 13
Americom Government Services Princeton, New Jersey 2001 26-100 Unknown 2 5
Amyx, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
Analysts International Corporation Minneapolis, Minnesota 1966 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 2 1
Analytical Graphics, Inc Exton, Pennsylvania 1989 101-500 Under $100 million 3 4
Anonymizer, Inc San Diego, California 1997 Unknown Unknown 1 1
ANSYA Enterprise Solutions Pittsford, New York 2003 <25 Unknown 2 3
AnviCom Command Federal Alexandria, Virginia 1987 101-500 Under $100 million 2 4
Apollo Information Systems Los Gatos, California 2002 <25 Unknown 1 1
Appistry Saint Louis, Missouri 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Applied Computing Technologies, Inc. Springfield, Virginia 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Applied Engineering and Technical Solutions, Inc. Colorado Springs, Colorado 2007 Unknown Unknown 1 1
Applied Information Sciences Reston, Virginia 1982 101-500 Under $100 million 4 4
Applied Innovation Alliance, LLC West Bloomfield, Michigan 2002 <25 Unknown 1 1
Applied Quality Communications, Inc. Oxon Hill, Maryland 1990 101-500 Under $100 million 1 2
Applied Solutions, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 2 4
Appscio Freedom, California 2006 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Apptis Inc. Chantilly, Virginia 2003 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 9 9
AQIWO Arlington, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 7
ArcSight Cupertino, California 2000 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 3 3
Argus Systems Group Savoy, Illinois 2003 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Armedia Atlanta, Georgia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Artel, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1986 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 4 5
ASAAW Group Ashburn, Virginia 1997 Unknown Unknown 1 1
ASD, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1979 101-500 Under $100 million 3 3
ASEG, Inc. San Diego, California 1993 <25 Under $100 million 2 2
ASM Research, Inc Fairfax, Virginia 1986 101-500 Under $100 million 1 4
Aspera Emeryville, California 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Aspex, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
Aspiration Software Front Royal, Virginia 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
ASRC Federal Holding Company, an Arctic Slope Regional Corporation company Greenbelt, Maryland 2003 501-2,000 Unknown 2 1
A-TEK, Inc. Leesburg, Virginia 1996 101-500 Under $100 million 6 9
ATS Corporation McLean, Virginia 1978 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 2 6
A&T Systems Inc. Silver Spring, Maryland 1984 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
AT&T Corporation Vienna, Virginia 2000 2,001-5,000 $10 billion to $50 billion 44 18
Attensity Corporation Palo Alto, California 2000 26-100 Unknown 1 4
Audio-Video Systems Chantilly, Virginia 1992 26-100 Under $100 million 1 12
Automation Technologies, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 6 3
Autonomy San Francisco, California 1996 Unknown Unknown 1 1
Auto-Trol Westminster, Colorado 1962 101-500 Unknown 1 2
Avaya Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 2000 10,000+ $1 billion to $10 billion 7 12
Avesta Computer Services Jersey City, New Jersey 1994 26-100 Unknown 2 1
Avocent Corporation Huntsville, Alabama 1981 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 1 2
Axom Technologies Inc. Pasadena, Maryland 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 4 2
Axxum Technologies Gainesville, Virginia 2006 <25 Unknown 2 1
Azimuth Inc. Morgantown, West Virginia 1988 26-100 Unknown 1 2
B&A-DSI, Inc. McLean, Virginia 1992 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Base One Technologies New Rochelle, New York 1994 <25 Unknown 4 3
Base Technologies, Inc. McLean, Virginia 1987 101-500 Under $100 million 3 2
Basis Technology Corporation Cambridge, Massachusetts 1988 26-100 Unknown 2 3
Bay State Computers Inc. Bowie, Maryland 1992 26-100 Unknown 4 7
Beacon Systems Coral Springs, Florida 2005 <25 Under $100 million 6 2
Betis Group Arlington, Virginia 1995 26-100 Unknown 1 4
BIAS Corporation Atlanta, Georgia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
Binary Consulting Arlington, Virginia 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Blackstone Technology Group San Francisco, California 1998 101-500 Unknown 7 5
Blue Canopy Federal Practice Reston, Virginia 2001 101-500 Under $100 million 6 7
Bluemont Technology and Research Bluemont, Virginia 2007 <25 Unknown 2 1
Blue Tech San Diego, California 1985 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
BMC Software Houston, Texas 1980 5,000-10,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 3 2
Bomgar Ridgeland, Mississippi 2003 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Bowhead Information Technology Services King George, Virginia 2003 101-500 Unknown 9 7
Bridgeborn Virginia Beach, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
BriteVision Technologies Inc. San Antonio, Texas 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Brocade Communications Systems San Jose, California 1995 2,001-5,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 4 4
Buchanan & Edwards Arlington, Virginia 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Business Integra Greenbelt, Maryland 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Buxton Consulting Pleasanton, California 1981 26-100 Under $100 million 3 1
By Light Professional IT Services Arlington, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 1 7
C2 Technologies, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 5 11
Cape Fox Professional Service Manassas, Virginia 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 6 1
Capgemini Government Solutions Herndon, Virginia 2002 Unknown Unknown 1 2
CapRock Government Solutions Houston, Texas 1983 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 10 9
Capstone Corporation Alexandria, Virginia 1986 101-500 Under $100 million 4 5
Carpathia Hosting, Inc. Ashburn, Virginia 2003 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Carson Solutions LLC Clinton, Maryland 2000 <25 Unknown 2 3
Catapult Technology Ltd Bethesda, Maryland 1996 501-2,000 Under $100 million 7 4
CC Intelligent Solutions Raleigh, North Carolina 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
CDO Technologies, Inc. Dayton, Ohio 1995 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Celerity IT LLC McLean, Virginia 2002 101-500 Under $100 million 15 5
CenGen Columbia, Maryland 2000 26-100 Unknown 1 3
Centech Group, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1988 Unknown Unknown 1 3
CentreTEK Solutions, LLC Ellicott City, Maryland 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Centurum, Inc. Marlton, New Jersey 1969 101-500 Under $100 million 5 16
CGI Fairfax, Virginia 1976 10,000+ $1 billion to $10 billion 2 3
Chaotic Vienna, Virginia 1984 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Cherokee Information Services Arlington, Virginia 1990 101-500 Under $100 million 1 12
CherryRoad Technologies Morris Plains, New Jersey 2007 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
Chickasaw Nation Industries Norman, Oklahoma 1996 Unknown Unknown 9 2
CIBER, Inc. Greenwood Village, Colorado 1974 5,000-10,000 $750 million to $1 billion 9 4
Cisco Systems San Jose, California 1984 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 4 1
Citizant Chantilly, Virginia 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 2 2
Clearcube Technology Austin, Texas 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 1 6
CNSI, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1994 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 1 5
Coact, Inc. Columbia, Maryland 1990 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Colding Technologies, LLC Landover, Maryland 1999 <25 Under $100 million 2 6
Coleman Technologies, Inc. Orlando, Florida 1995 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 1 2
CollabraSpace Annapolis, Maryland 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 4 3
CommIT Enterprises, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
Communication Technologies, Inc. Chantilly, Virginia 1990 501-2,000 Under $100 million 1 5
Compusult Reston, Virginia 2007 <25 Unknown 1 1
Computech Resources Inernational Inc. Shrewsbury, New Jersey 1991 26-100 Unknown 2 3
Computer Enterprises, Inc. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1992 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Computer Integration & Programming Solutions Corp. Bethesda, Maryland 1992 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
Computer Sciences Corporation Falls Church, Virginia 1959 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 77 24
Computer Systems Center, Inc. Springfield, Virginia 1987 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Computer Technologies Consultants Seabrook, Maryland 1992 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Computer Technology Services, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1983 101-500 Under $100 million 1 4
Computing Technologies, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1992 101-500 Under $100 million 1 2
COMSO, Inc. Greenbelt, Maryland 1988 26-100 Under $100 million 3 5
Comtech LLC Vienna, Virginia 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Comter Systems, Inc. Government Solutions Fairfax, Virginia 1995 <25 Under $100 million 3 4
Concept Solutions LLC Reston, Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Concurrent EDA, LLC Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2006 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Confluent Corporation Arlington, Virginia 1996 <25 Unknown 2 4
Connected Workplace Solutions Chantilly, Virginia 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
Convera Vienna, Virginia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 6
Convergent Technologies, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland 1997 <25 Under $100 million 4 4
Convergenz, LLC McLean, Virginia 2000 101-500 Under $100 million 11 5
Cooper Photonics, Inc. Upper Marlboro, Maryland 2000 <25 Under $100 million 3 3
CraftLogic Software Frisco, Texas 2001 <25 Unknown 2 1
Craig Technologies Cape Canaveral, Florida 1999 Unknown Unknown 3 8
Creative Computing Solutions, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1992 101-500 Under $100 million 4 5
Creative Information Technology, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1996 Unknown Unknown 1 5
Credant Technologies Addison, Texas 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Criterion Systems Vienna, Virginia 2005 101-500 Under $100 million 1 8
Cs2 Pasadena, Maryland 2005 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
CSP Technologies Montville, New Jersey 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
CSSi Washington, District of Columbia 1990 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
CTAC Fairfax, Virginia 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
CTA Solutions Alexandria, Virginia 2004 <25 Unknown 2 2
CTG, Inc. Oakton, Virginia 1987 101-500 Under $100 million 3 9
Cutting Edge Communications, LLC Huntington Beach, California 1998 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
CyberCore Technologies Elkridge, Maryland 2000 101-500 Unknown 4 2
CYIOS Corporation Washington, District of Columbia 1997 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Data-Core Systems, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1988 101-500 Unknown 2 2
Data Fusion Corporation Denver, Colorado 1992 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
Data Intelligence LLC Marlton, New Jersey 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
Dataline LLC Norfolk, Virginia 1990 101-500 Unknown 10 11
Data Networks Corporation Reston, Virginia 1984 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
DataSync Manassas, Virginia 2003 <25 Unknown 2 1
Data Systems Analysts, Inc Feasterville Trevos, Pennsylvania 1963 101-500 Under $100 million 8 6
Data Systems and Technology, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1990 26-100 Under $100 million 2 7
Data Tactics Alexandria, Virginia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 11 3
DataVise ITS Austin, Texas 1988 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
David Hale Associates, Inc. Owings, Maryland 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 3 1
Davidson Technologies Huntsville, Alabama 1996 101-500 Under $100 million 2 1
DCS Newbury Park, California 1994 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Decision Software Systems, Inc. Doylestown, Pennsylvania 1985 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Definitive Logic Arlington, Virginia 1999 Unknown Unknown 1 5
Dell, Inc. / Dell Perot Systems Round Rock, Texas 1984 Unknown Above $50 billion 20 4
DestinE Research Group LLC Niceville, Florida 2006 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Devine Consulting Union City, California 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
Dexisive Reston, Virginia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
DHA Inc Owings, Maryland 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 3 1
DHPC, Inc. Westwood, New Jersey 1992 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Dichroma Alexandria, Virginia 1984 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Digicon Corporation Herndon, Virginia 1985 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Digital Receiver Technology, Inc., a Boeing Company Germantown, Maryland 1997 101-500 Unknown 1 1
Diligent Consulting San Antonio, Texas 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
Distributed Systems Services Reading, Pennsylvania 1995 101-500 Unknown 2 1
Disys Chantilly, Virginia 1994 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 7 3
Diverse Technologies Corporation Upper Marlboro, Maryland 1988 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
DKW Communications, Inc. Washington, District of Columbia 2000 101-500 Under $100 million 3 3
Dowless and Associates Herndon, Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Dreamhammer Santa Monica, California 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
DSCI Eatontown, New Jersey 1992 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 5 1
DS Information Systems Corporation Aiea, Hawaii 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
DSoft Technology Colorado Springs, Colorado 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
DSPcon, Inc. Bridgewater, New Jersey 1991 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
DTECH LABS Sterling, Virginia 2001 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Duer Advanced Technology and Aerospace, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 3 1
Dynamic Analytics & Test Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1999 <25 Unknown 1 5
Dynamic Technology Systems Alexandria, Virginia 1987 101-500 Under $100 million 1 2
Dynamis Arlington, Virginia 2008 Unknown Unknown 2 1
EADS NA Defense Security and Systems Solutions, Inc. San Antonio, Texas 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 5 2
Eagan, McCallister Associates, Inc., an SAIC Company Lexington Park, Maryland 1984 501-2,000 Unknown 2 10
EAGLE Enterprise Joint Venture Vienna, Virginia 2005 501-2,000 Unknown 2 2
EchoStorm Worldwide Suffolk, Virginia 2003 26-100 Unknown 2 1
EDAptive Computing, Inc. Dayton, Ohio 1997 <25 Under $100 million 1 4
EDC Consulting Services Washington, District of Columbia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Edgesource Corporation Alexandria, Virginia 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Edge Technologies, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1993 26-100 Unknown 2 2
Edgewater Federal Solutions Urbana, Maryland 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Eiden Systems Corporation Charlottesville, Virginia 1981 26-100 Unknown 2 7
eklypse2 Littleton, Colorado 1999 <25 Unknown 1 1
Elicitek Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1999 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Elite Consulting Group New York, New York 1997 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
e-Management Silver Spring, Maryland 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
EMC Corporation McLean, Virginia 1979 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 9 1
E.M. Norton Enterprises, Inc. San Diego, California 2003 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
EMSolutions Arlington, Virginia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
E & M Technologies, Inc. Severn, Maryland 2005 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
EMW, Inc. Herndon, Virginia 1991 101-500 Under $100 million 1 6
Endeavor Systems McLean, Virginia 1999 26-100 Unknown 4 3
Endeca Technologies, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts 1999 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 1 1
Enerdyne Technologies Inc., a Viasat Company El Cajon, California 2006 26-100 Unknown 1 2
Energy Enterprise Solutions, LLC Germantown, Maryland 2004 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 5 2
Engineering Documentation Systems, Inc. Corona, California 1988 101-500 Unknown 3 3
Engineering Services Network, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1994 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Engineering, Software and Network Services Alexandria, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 5 2
Engineering Solutions and Products Eatontown, New Jersey 2000 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 1 2
Engineering Systems Solutions, Inc. Frederick, Maryland 1994 101-500 Under $100 million 10 5
Enterprise and Portal Software Systems Columbia, Maryland 2003 <25 Unknown 1 2
Enterprise Business Solutions Burke, Virginia 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Enterprise Information Services, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1994 101-500 Under $100 million 1 8
Epoch Software Systems Inc. Gulf Breeze, Florida 1989 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
E*Pro Technologies Woodbridge, New Jersey 2005 <25 Unknown 1 1
Ericsson Federal, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1990 101-500 Unknown 2 2
ESG Consulting Santa Clara, California 1986 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Espy Corporation Austin, Texas 1999 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
ESRI Redlands, California 1969 2,001-5,000 $750 million to $1 billion 3 3
Evolver, Inc. Reston, Virginia 2000 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
E-volve Technology Systems, Inc. Fort Washington, Maryland 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
Excell Data, a Compucom Company Bellevue, Washington 2001 101-500 Unknown 1 1
Excel Management Systems, Inc. Columbus, Ohio 1989 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Exceptional Software Strategies, Inc. Linthicum Heights, Maryland 1996 101-500 Unknown 3 2
ExecuTech Strategic Consulting Woodbridge, Virginia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Executive Systems West Aurora, Colorado 1983 <25 Unknown 1 1
eXMeritus Software Federal Systems, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 2002 Unknown Unknown 1 1
Expert Consultants, Inc. Frederick, Maryland 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Ezenia!, Inc. Nashua, New Hampshire 1991 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Facchina Global Services, LLC La Plata, Maryland 2004 101-500 Unknown 3 2
Fairfield Technologies Washington, District of Columbia 1990 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Fcaps Inc. Upper Marlboro, Maryland 2000 <25 Unknown 2 1
FCN IT Rockville, Maryland 1990 Unknown Under $100 million 2 1
Federal IT Consulting Rockville, Maryland 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Federated IT Washington, District of Columbia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 3 4
FGM, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1987 101-500 Under $100 million 3 8
FiberTechnologies Moneta, Virginia 1990 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
Flash Technology Group LLC Sykesville, Maryland 2007 <25 Unknown 1 5
FlatIron Solutions Boulder, Colorado 2001 101-500 Under $100 million 1 4
Flatter & Associates Stafford, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
FlexPoint Technology Reston, Virginia 2007 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
FMS Secure Solutions LLC Linthicum Heights, Maryland 2000 <25 Under $100 million 2 2
Forbes Analytic Software, Inc. Leesburg, Virginia 1989 <25 Under $100 million 2 1
Force 3, Inc. Crofton, Maryland 1991 101-500 Under $100 million 9 1
Foxhole Technology Fairfax, Virginia 2007 <25 Under $100 million 3 8
Frontier Technologies, Inc. Edgewater, Maryland 1984 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
Frontline Systems, Inc. San Antonio, Texas 1992 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Fulcrum IT Services Manassas, Virginia 1985 101-500 Under $100 million 19 10
G3 Technologies, Inc. Columbia, Maryland 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
GAITS Alexandria, Virginia 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Gartner Stamford, Connecticut 1979 2,001-5,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 2 1
G & B Solutions, Inc. Reston, Virginia 2001 101-500 Under $100 million 1 2
Genova Technologies Cedar Rapids, Iowa 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Geomatrix Software Services Bound Brook, New Jersey 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Get-U-Started w/NT Solutions, LLC Charlotte, North Carolina 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
GH Engineering, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1999 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Global CI Windsor Mill, Maryland 1992 26-100 Under $100 million 4 6
Global Infotek Inc. Reston, Virginia 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Global Management Systems Inc. Washington, District of Columbia 1988 101-500 Under $100 million 1 8
Global Network Systems Rockville, Maryland 1998 <25 Under $100 million 2 4
Global Technical Systems Virginia Beach, Virginia 1997 26-100 Unknown 1 7
Global Technology Resources, Inc. Denver, Colorado 1998 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 3 2
Globecomm Services Maryland LLC Savage, Maryland 1994 Unknown Unknown 3 1
Glotech Rockville, Maryland 1995 26-100 Unknown 3 1
Google Mountain View, California 1998 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 2 1
Government Systems, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia 2001 <25 Under $100 million 2 6
Graham Technologies Upper Marlboro, Maryland 2007 <25 Unknown 2 1
Green Hills Software Santa Barbara, California 1982 101-500 Unknown 1 1
GRSi Frederick, Maryland 2000 101-500 Under $100 million 5 4
GTI Federal Frederick, Maryland 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
GTRas Chantilly, Virginia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 4 1
GTSI Corp. Herndon, Virginia 1983 501-2,000 $750 million to $1 billion 2 2
Guidance Software Pasadena, California 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Halcyon Solutions Inc. Dublin, Ohio 1992 26-100 Unknown 2 1
Harris Corporation Melbourne, Florida 1987 10,000+ $1 billion to $10 billion 29 17
Hatha Systems Washington, District of Columbia 2006 <25 Unknown 1 1
Heritage Global Solutions Glendale, California 2003 <25 Under $100 million 3 1
HETRA Secure Solutions Palm Bay, Florida 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Hewlett Packard Palo Alto, California 1939 10,000+ Above $50 billion 25 18
High Performance Technologies, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1991 101-500 Under $100 million 3 3
Hitachi, Ltd. Santa Clara, California 1989 10,000+ Above $50 billion 1 1
Hittite Microwave Corporation Chelmsford, Massachusetts 1985 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 1 1
Honeywell, Inc. Morristown, New Jersey 1885 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 7 9
Horizon Technology Partners Palatine, Illinois 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
HTA Technology Security Consulting Chicago, Illinois 2001 26-100 Unknown 7 2
HT Innovations Chesterfield, Virginia 2002 <25 Under $100 million 2 3
Hughes Communications, Inc. Germantown, Maryland 2005 2,001-5,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 1 1
Ian Evin Alexanders Oxon Hill, Maryland 1999 <25 Under $100 million 1 4
IBM Armonk, New York 1924 10,000+ Above $50 billion 17 9
IceWEB Sterling, Virginia 2004 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
ICF Jacob and Sundstrom Baltimore, Maryland 1981 26-100 Unknown 2 4
ICS Nett Inc. Vienna, Virginia 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 3 3
iDirect Technologies, a VT Systems company Herndon, Virginia 1994 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 2 4
iGov McLean, Virginia 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
IMC Sterling, Virginia 1989 26-100 Unknown 2 6
immixGroup McLean, Virginia 1997 101-500 $750 million to $1 billion 2 4
Impact Technologies Rochester, New York 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Imperva Redwood City, California 2002 26-100 Unknown 1 1
IMRG, Inc. Lanham, Maryland 1997 Unknown Under $100 million 2 1
IMRI Laguna Hills, California 1992 26-100 Unknown 3 6
I.M. Systems Group, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1986 101-500 Unknown 2 5
IMTAS Chantilly, Virginia 1994 26-100 Unknown 3 1
IndegoCTC, Inc. Chantilly, Virginia 1995 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Indotronix International Corp. Poughkeepsie, New York 1986 501-2,000 Under $100 million 1 1
IndraSoft, Inc. Herndon, Virginia 2002 Unknown Unknown 1 1
INDUS Corporation Vienna, Virginia 1991 501-2,000 Unknown 9 9
INDUS Technology San Diego, California 1991 101-500 Under $100 million 2 4
Industrial Medium McLean, Virginia 2004 <25 Under $100 million 3 5
iNEK Techologies Overland Park, Kansas 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
InferX Corporation Sterling, Virginia 1992 <25 Unknown 1 1
Infinite Group, Inc. Pittsford, New York 1986 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Infinity Systems Engineering Colorado Springs, Colorado 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Infobionics Eden Prairie, Minnesota 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
InfoPro, Incorporated McLean, Virginia 1989 101-500 Unknown 2 5
Informatica Redwood City, California 1993 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 2 5
Information Innovators, Inc. Springfield, Virginia 2001 101-500 Under $100 million 1 4
Information Management Group, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1987 26-100 Under $100 million 20 7
Information Manufacturing LLC Fairfax, Virginia 1999 <25 Unknown 1 2
Information Systems Security Solutions, Inc. Sterling, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Information Systems Solutions, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 5 7
Information Technology Company LLC Falls Church, Virginia 1978 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
Information Technology Management Inc. Springfield, Virginia 1996 <25 Unknown 1 1
Infostructures Rockville, Maryland 1988 26-100 Unknown 1 2
Initiate Systems Chicago, Illinois 1994 26-100 Unknown 1 2
Innoface Systems Crofton, Maryland 2005 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Innovative Information Solutions Leesburg, Virginia 2004 <25 Under $100 million 7 3
Innovative Management and Technology Services Fairmont, West Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 1 9
InovaTech Government Solutions Fayetteville, North Carolina 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
Inscope Solutions Reston, Virginia 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 7 10
Instrumental Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota 1991 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Insys, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1994 <25 Unknown 1 2
Intact Technology, Inc. Washington, District of Columbia 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
INTECON Centennial, Colorado 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 3 5
Integral Systems Columbia, Maryland 1982 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 1 1
Integrated Communication Solutions, Inc. Frederick, Maryland 1989 101-500 Under $100 million 3 15
Integrated Security Technologies Herndon, Virginia 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Integrits San Diego, California 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
IntelliDyne LLC Falls Church, Virginia 1999 101-500 Unknown 1 3
Intelligence Consulting Enterprise Solutions Leesburg, Virginia 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Intelligent Decisions, Inc. Ashburn, Virginia 1988 101-500 Unknown 6 5
Intelligent Solutions, Inc. Boulder, Colorado 1992 Unknown Unknown 7 2
Intelligent Technologies, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 2002 <25 Under $100 million 2 1
Intelligent Waves LLC Herndon, Virginia 2006 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Intelligenxia Jacksonville, Florida 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Intellitactics Reston, Virginia 2003 26-100 Unknown 1 3
Intelliware Systems Fredericksburg, Virginia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
Intercom Consulting and Federal Systems, Inc. Leesburg, Virginia 1990 26-100 Unknown 1 1
InterImage, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Intervise Consultants Rockville, Maryland 1991 101-500 Under $100 million 2 4
Invizeon Missoula, Montana 1996 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Inxight Software Sunnyvale, California 2003 <25 Unknown 1 1
INX Inc. Houston, Texas 1984 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 1 4
IOMAX Information Services LLC Springfield, Virginia 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
IonIdea Fairfax, Virginia 1991 26-100 Unknown 1 1
IP Network Solutions Inc. Herndon, Virginia 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 3 1
Ironclad Technology Group Virginia Beach, Virginia 2008 <25 Under $100 million 2 1
ISC Oak Park, Illinois 1989 <25 Unknown 1 4
iSoftech Chantilly, Virginia 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
ISPA, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia 1983 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
ISYS Technologies Littleton, Colorado 1990 101-500 Under $100 million 21 7
IT Catalyst Group Rockville, Maryland 2008 <25 Unknown 2 1
IT-CNP, Inc. Columbia, Maryland 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
ITEQ Silver Spring, Maryland 1991 Unknown Under $100 million 1 1
ITI Solutions San Antonio, Texas 2002 <25 Unknown 1 2
ITSolutions, LLC Silver Spring, Maryland 2001 101-500 Under $100 million 2 1
IT Solutions Partners LLC Suffolk, Virginia 1989 <25 Unknown 1 1
ITT Corporation McLean, Virginia 1995 501-2,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 52 17
IT Tech Inc. Fremont, California Unknown <25 Under $100 million 1 2
IxReveal, Inc. Jacksonville, Florida 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
IZ Technologies Ashburn, Virginia 2006 <25 Under $100 million 5 3
JAB Innovative Solutions Bristow, Virginia 2007 <25 Unknown 1 1
Jade Falcon IT Glendale, Arizona 2007 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Janus Associates Stamford, Connecticut 1988 Unknown Under $100 million 1 1
JBI Technologies Annapolis, Maryland 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Jive Software Portland, Oregon 2001 101-500 Under $100 million 1 2
JTSI, Inc. Kailua, Hawaii 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
Juniper Networks Sunnyvale, California 1996 5,000-10,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 2 1
Jupiter Systems Hayward, California 1981 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
K2 Share LLC COLLEGE STATION, Texas 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
K4 Solutions Falls Church, Virginia 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Kadix Systems Arlington, Virginia 2001 101-500 Under $100 million 4 12
Keane Federal Systems, Inc. McLean, Virginia 1965 10,000+ Unknown 7 11
Kestrel Enterprises, Inc. Springfield, Virginia 2001 <25 Unknown 2 1
Key Logic Systems, Inc. Morgantown, West Virginia 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 5 4
Key Solutions, Inc. Upper Marlboro, Maryland 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Keystone Computer Associates, Inc. Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 1965 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Kiowa Technology McLean, Virginia 2008 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Kitware, Inc. Clifton Park, New York 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
K-Mar Industries Biloxi, Mississippi 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 1 2
KMM Technologies, Inc Reston, Virginia 2003 <25 Unknown 3 1
Knight Point Systems Dulles, Virginia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Knowledge Based Systems, Inc. College Station, Texas 1988 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Kodak Rochester, New York 1888 10,000+ $1 billion to $10 billion 1 4
Koniag Services Inc. Chantilly, Virginia 1994 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Kortex Software Alexandria, Virginia 2003 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Kratos Defense and Security Solutions San Diego, California 1995 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 30 10
L-3 Communications New York, New York 1997 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 96 29
Language Computer Corporation Richardson, Texas 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Layer 7 Technologies Washington, District of Columbia 1995 <25 Unknown 1 7
Leader Communications, Inc. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 1 7
Leading Edge Systems Colorado Springs, Colorado 2002 <25 Unknown 1 3
Lighthouse Computer Services Lincoln, Rhode Island 1995 101-500 Under $100 million 2 1
Link Solutions, Inc. Reston, Virginia 2006 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
LinQuest Corporation Los Angeles, California 2003 101-500 Unknown 4 2
LMN Solutions Reston, Virginia 2005 <25 Under $100 million 3 1
LogiCore Huntsville, Alabama 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
LOGIXtech Solutions Edison, New Jersey 2001 26-100 Unknown 2 1
Log.sec Corporation Falls Church, Virginia 2000 101-500 Unknown 3 1
Long Wave, Inc. Fort Worth, Texas 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Lucent Global Solutions, an Alcatel-Lucent Company Herndon, Virginia 2007 101-500 Unknown 3 4
Lumark Technologies, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1999 <25 Unknown 1 2
Lumen Research LLC Licking, Missouri 2007 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Lunarline Arlington, Virginia 2004 <25 Under $100 million 1 9
Macfadden Systems Integration Group Silver Spring, Maryland 1986 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Macro Solutions, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Maden Technologies Consulting, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1985 26-100 Under $100 million 4 6
Management Analysis, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1976 26-100 Unknown 1 10
Management Technology, Inc. Oxon Hill, Maryland 1985 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Mandex, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Mark Logic San Carlos, California 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 4 2
MartinFederal Consulting Dadeville, Alabama 2006 <25 Unknown 1 2
Master Solutions LLC Colorado Springs, Colorado 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
MBR Computer Consultants, Inc. Vienna, Virginia 2000 26-100 Unknown 1 2
MCP Computer Corporation San Marcos, California 1998 <25 Unknown 1 7
MCS Tampa, Florida 1988 101-500 Under $100 million 1 4
MDA   1969 2,001-5,000 $750 million to $1 billion 2 3
mediaEdge, a Division of Exceptional Software Linthicum Heights, Maryland 1996 101-500 Unknown 1 10
Mercury Computer Systems Chelmsford, Massachusetts 1981 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 3 2
MeriTec Services, Inc. San Antonio, Texas 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Merlin International Englewood, Colorado 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
Metron, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1984 Unknown Unknown 4 1
MicroLink, LLC Vienna, Virginia 1998 101-500 Under $100 million 1 4
MicroSat Systems, Inc. Littleton, Colorado 2001 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Microsoft Corporation Redmond, Washington 1975 10,000+ Above $50 billion 9 2
MicroSys Manassas, Virginia 2002 <25 Under $100 million 4 6
MicroTech, LLC Vienna, Virginia 2004 101-500 Under $100 million 3 1
Miklos Systems, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Millennium Engineering and Integration Corporation Arlington, Virginia 1995 101-500 Unknown 3 6
Missing Link Security Springfield, Virginia 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Mission Solutions Colorado Springs, Colorado 2005 <25 Under $100 million 1 4
Mnemonics Inc. Melbourne, Florida 1976 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Modis, Inc., an Adecco company Jacksonville, Florida 1986 5,000-10,000 Unknown 14 4
MOJA, Incorporated Manassas, Virginia 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 5 12
Mosaic Inc. Herndon, Virginia 2001 <25 Under $100 million 3 6
Motorola, Inc. Schaumburg, Illinois 1928 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 2 2
NAID Upper Marlboro, Maryland 1983 26-100 Under $100 million 1 6
Narus, Inc. Sunnyvale, California 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Nathan Kunes Inc. Coronado, California 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
Nationwide IT Services Alexandria, Virginia 2006 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Navstar, Inc. Falls Church, Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 12 8
NBS Enterprises Leesburg, Virginia 2003 <25 Under $100 million 7 1
NC4 El Segundo, California 2005 101-500 Unknown 1 1
NCI Information Systems, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1989 2,001-5,000 $100 million to $750 million 25 9
NCS Technologies, Inc. Piscataway, New Jersey 1984 101-500 Under $100 million 2 1
Net2Net Solutions, Inc. Great Falls, Virginia 2001 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
NetApp Inc. Sunnyvale, California 1992 5,000-10,000 $100 million to $750 million 2 1
Netcentrics Corp. Vienna, Virginia 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Netconn Solutions Hagerstown, Maryland 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 5 3
NetScout Systems Westford, Massachusetts 1984 501-2,000 Under $100 million 2 6
NetStar-1 Rockville, Maryland 2002 501-2,000 Under $100 million 2 5
NetStar Systems Inc. Vienna, Virginia 1998 26-100 Unknown 1 5
NetWitness Herndon, Virginia 2006 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Network Integrity Systems Inc. Marriottsville, Maryland 2002 <25 Unknown 1 1
Network Security Systems Plus, Inc. Falls Church, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 4
Newberry Group, The Saint Charles, Missouri 1996 101-500 Under $100 million 3 5
Newgen Technologies, Inc. Clarksville, Maryland 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
New River Systems Ashburn, Virginia 2007 <25 Unknown 3 2
NexOne Company Bountiful, Utah 2000 101-500 Under $100 million 3 6
Nicor Global Washington, District of Columbia 2007 <25 Unknown 1 6
NIS Solutions Sterling, Virginia 1997 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
NJVC, LLC Vienna, Virginia 2000 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 13 6
NMR Consulting Annapolis, Maryland 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 6
Northstrat Purcellville, Virginia 2006 <25 Under $100 million 2 1
Nova Corp. Window Rock, Arizona 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
NovaDatacom Chantilly, Virginia 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Nova Management, Inc. Monterey, California 1992 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Novell Waltham, Massachusetts 1983 2,001-5,000 $750 million to $1 billion 2 1
Novii Design Columbia, Maryland 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
Novodynamics Ann Arbor, Michigan 2001 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
NSR Solutions, Inc. ROCKVILLE, Maryland 1990 <25 Unknown 1 2
Nytor Technologies Chantilly, Virginia 2004 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Oak Grove Technologies Raleigh, North Carolina 1998 101-500 Under $100 million 3 13
Object Data Inc. Manalapan, New Jersey 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
ObjectFX Minneapolis, Minnesota 1993 26-100 Unknown 1 1
ObjectWin Houston, Texas 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. Wakefield, Massachusetts 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 4 3
OG Systems Herndon, Virginia 1997 Unknown Under $100 million 5 4
Ohm Systems, Inc. Horsham, Pennsylvania 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Omega Systems Phoenix, Arizona 1998 <25 Under $100 million 3 4
Omega Technologies, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 1 8
OMNITEC Solutions, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 3 3
Omniture Visual Sciences, an Adobe Company Orem, Utah 1996 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 1 1
OnPoint LLC Arlington, Virginia 1995 101-500 Under $100 million 1 5
Opal Soft, Inc. Sunnyvale, California 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
OPNET Technologies, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland 1986 501-2,000 Under $100 million 6 2
Optimal Enterprise Solutions Manassas, Virginia 2004 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Optimos Incorporated Chantilly, Virginia 1993 101-500 Unknown 1 4
Oracle USA Redwood City, California 1977 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 6 16
Orizon, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Outline Systems Somerset, New Jersey 1997 <25 Under $100 million 5 1
P3I, Inc. Hopkinton, Massachusetts 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Pailen-Johnson Associates, Inc. Frederick, Maryland 1979 <25 Unknown 1 1
Palantir Technologies Palo Alto, California 2004 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Palomar Products Inc. Rancho Santa Margar, California 1997 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Paradigm Solutions Dallas, Texas 1995 <25 Under $100 million 7 7
Paragon Dynamics, Inc. Aurora, Colorado 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Paragon Systems Herndon, Virginia 2003 <25 Under $100 million 2 3
PAR Government Solutions Rome, New York 1986 <25 Unknown 2 1
Patriot LLC Columbia, Maryland 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Patriot Technologies Frederick, Maryland 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Peak Computer Solutions Virginia Beach, Virginia 1995 Unknown Under $100 million 5 4
Peerless Technologies Fairborn, Ohio 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Perceptronics Sherman Oaks, California 2002 <25 Unknown 1 1
Permuta Technologies Alexandria, Virginia 2000 <25 Unknown 1 1
PE Systems Fairfax, Virginia 1995 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Pilar Services, Inc. Laurel, Maryland 2003 <25 Under $100 million 1 5
piXlogic Los Altos, California 1999 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Planet Works Pasadena, Maryland 1996 <25 Unknown 1 1
Platinum Solutions, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 6 5
PLEXSYS Interface Products, Inc. Camas, Washington 1986 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Plexus Com/Group Baltimore, Maryland 1995 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Point One Arlington, Virginia 1998 <25 Unknown 1 1
Polycom Inc. Boulder, Colorado 1998 Unknown Under $100 million 1 1
Portal Dynamics Alexandria, Virginia 2000 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Pragmatics McLean, Virginia 1980 501-2,000 Under $100 million 5 5
Precise Systems, Inc. Lexington Park, Maryland 1989 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Premier Analysis Springfield, Virginia 1992 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Premier Management Corporation Columbia, Maryland 2004 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Premier Technical Services Luray, Virginia 1989 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Prime Solutions Sykesville, Maryland 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Professional Solutions Alexandria, Virginia 2002 101-500 Under $100 million 4 11
Progeny Systems Corporation Manassas, Virginia 1995 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 1 2
Progressive Network Solutions Reston, Virginia 1999 <25 Unknown 1 1
ProObject Hanover, Maryland 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
ProSoft Services Virginia Beach, Virginia 1984 101-500 Under $100 million 3 4
ProTegus Ashburn, Virginia 2001 <25 Unknown 1 4
PRO-telligent, LLC Arlington, Virginia 2000 501-2,000 Under $100 million 2 4
PSI Pax Calif., Maryland 2006 101-500 Under $100 million 2 2
Purdy Group LLC Malone, New York 2007 <25 Unknown 1 1
QA Technologies Omaha, Nebraska 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 5 2
QSSI Gaithersburg, Maryland 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Quadrint Saint Louis, Missouri 2000 <25 Under $100 million 3 1
Qualcomm Incorporated San Diego, California 1985 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 2 1
Quality Technology, Inc. Largo, Maryland 1989 101-500 Unknown 1 1
Quantrum LLC Dayton, Ohio 1998 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Quantum San Jose, California 1980 501-2,000 $750 million to $1 billion 3 1
Quantum Research International Huntsville, Alabama 1987 101-500 Unknown 2 4
Quest Software Aliso Viejo, California 1987 2,001-5,000 $100 million to $750 million 3 1
Quintron Systems, Inc. Santa Maria, California 1970 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Qwaltec Tempe, Arizona 2001 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Qwest Communications International Inc. Denver, Colorado 1997 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 2 1
Radian Inc.   1986 Unknown Under $100 million 1 1
Raytheon BBN, a Raytheon company Cambridge, Massachusetts 2004 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 5 5
RDR, Inc. Centreville, Virginia 1986 101-500 Unknown 3 8
Realm Consulting, Inc. Reston, Virginia 2004 <25 Under $100 million 3 1
RedBlack Communications Hollywood, Maryland 2007 <25 Unknown 1 3
Red Buffalo, Inc. Sarasota, Florida 2005 <25 Unknown 2 1
Red Hat, Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina 1993 2,001-5,000 $100 million to $750 million 2 1
Redhorse Corporation San Diego, California 2007 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Red Rapids, Inc. Richardson, Texas 1996 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
redShoe Technologies, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 2008 <25 Unknown 1 1
Referentia Systems Honolulu, Hawaii 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Riverbed Technology San Francisco, California 2002 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 2 1
RiverGlass Champaign, Illinois 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
RNB Technologies Arlington, Virginia 1999 Unknown Unknown 2 1
Ross Group Inc. Dayton, Ohio 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
RTGX Columbia, Maryland 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 16 7
S4, Inc. Burlington, Massachusetts 1996 101-500 Unknown 10 12
Safe Harbor Systems Vienna, Virginia 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
Saffron Technology Cary, North Carolina 1999 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
Sage IT, Inc. Frisco, Texas 2003 26-100 Unknown 1 1
SAI Gaithersburg, Maryland 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
sapient Boston, Massachusetts 1991 Unknown Unknown 2 1
SAS Institute Cary, North Carolina 1976 5,000-10,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 2 1
Savvis Herndon, Virginia 1995 501-2,000 $750 million to $1 billion 1 1
SCCI Frederick, Maryland 2002 101-500 Unknown 1 2
SciComm Bethesda, Maryland 1989 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
SDV Solutions, Inc. Williamsburg, Virginia 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Seamless Technologies Morristown, New Jersey 1985 <25 Unknown 1 1
Secure Computing and Communications, Inc. Great Falls, Virginia 1993 <25 Unknown 1 5
SecureInfo Corporation San Antonio, Texas 1992 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Secure IT Solutions McLean, Virginia 2004 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Securicon LLC Alexandria, Virginia 2002 <25 Under $100 million 3 3
Segue Technologies Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1997 <25 Under $100 million 4 4
Seidcon Bethesda, Maryland 1983 Unknown Unknown 1 4
Select Innovation LLC Yorktown, Virginia 2003 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Senet Technology Burnsville, Minnesota 2007 <25 Unknown 1 1
Sensor Technologies, Inc. Red Bank, New Jersey 1991 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 3 3
SGI Fremont, California 2002 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 3 1
SGS Technologies Jacksonville, Florida 2003 26-100 Unknown 2 1
Shim Enterprise, Inc. West Chester, Ohio 1984 26-100 Under $100 million 6 5
SilkSpeed, Inc. Reston, Virginia 2000 <25 Unknown 1 1
Simulyze Reston, Virginia 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
SimVentions Fredericksburg, Virginia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
SI Tec Consulting CAMBRIDGE, Maryland 2002 <25 Unknown 3 1
Sky Computers, Inc. Chelmsford, Massachusetts 1980 <25 Unknown 1 1
SmartNet, Inc. Frederick, Maryland 1998 <25 Unknown 1 4
Smartronix, Inc. Hollywood, Maryland 1995 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 5 2
SMS Data Products Group, Inc. Mclean, Virginia 1976 101-500 Under $100 million 1 4
Snell Enterprises, Inc. Columbia, Maryland 1990 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
SNVC Fairfax, Virginia 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
SOCRATIQ McLean, Virginia 2005 <25 Unknown 1 4
Soft Concept, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1999 26-100 Unknown 1 6
Soft Tech Consulting Fairfax, Virginia 1996 <25 Unknown 1 2
Software Engineering Institute Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1984 Unknown Under $100 million 4 5
Software Engineering Services Bellevue, Nebraska 1991 26-100 Under $100 million 3 4
Solers, Inc. Arlington, Virginia 1998 101-500 Under $100 million 2 1
Solutions Made Simple, Inc. Reston, Virginia 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Solvern Innovations, a TeleCommunication Systems company Baltimore, Maryland 2003 101-500 Under $100 million 3 7
Spectrum Communications Inc. Hampton, Virginia 1999 101-500 Unknown 10 5
Spectrum Systems, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1986 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
Sphere of Influence McLean, Virginia 2001 <25 Under $100 million 4 1
SP Systems, Inc. Greenbelt, Maryland 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
SSA Inc. Alexandria, Virginia 1981 26-100 Under $100 million 2 5
SSB Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 1 6
Stanley Arlington, Virginia 1968 2,001-5,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 26 12
Sterling Computers, Inc. Norfolk, Nebraska 1996 26-100 $100 million to $750 million 7 3
STG, Inc. Reston, Virginia 1986 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 5 8
StillSecure Superior, Colorado 2000 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Storage Strategies Springfield, Virginia 2007 <25 Unknown 3 4
Stratech Systems, Inc. McLean, Virginia 1989 Unknown Unknown 1 1
Strategic Business Solutions Inc. Reston, Virginia 1994 26-100 Under $100 million 6 1
Strategic Business Systems Herndon, Virginia 2000 26-100 Unknown 2 3
Strategic Directions LLC Alexandria, Virginia 1996 <25 Unknown 1 2
Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland 1999 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
StrategyLincs Waldorf, Maryland 2007 <25 Unknown 1 1
StreamBase Lexington, Massachusetts 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Suh’dutsing Technologies, LLC Cedar City, Utah 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 2 10
Sumaria Systems Arlington, Virginia 1982 Unknown Unknown 2 1
Summit Solutions LLC Hanover, Maryland 2002 <25 Unknown 3 2
Summit Technologies West Hartford, Connecticut 1997 101-500 Unknown 11 6
Sun Microsystems McLean, Virginia 1984 101-500 Unknown 1 8
Superlative Technologies Ashburn, Virginia 1996 101-500 Under $100 million 4 7
SupremeSoft Vienna, Virginia 1995 101-500 Under $100 million 3 1
Surya Systems, Inc. Bristol, Pennsylvania 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Suss Consulting Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 1982 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Sybase, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland 1991 Unknown Under $100 million 1 4
Symantec Cupertino, California 1982 10,000+ $1 billion to $10 billion 8 1
Syntek Systems Corporation Gaithersburg, Maryland 1985 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
Synteras LLC Herndon, Virginia 1999 501-2,000 Under $100 million 2 15
Sysorex Federal, Inc. Mountain View, California 1971 <25 Unknown 1 1
System of Systems Analytics, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1998 26-100 Under $100 million 1 5
Systems Documentation Inc. South Plainfield, New Jersey 1978 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Systems Engineering, Inc. Dulles, Virginia 1987 <25 Under $100 million 2 5
Systems Made Simple Syracuse, New York 1990 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Systems Plus, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1991 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
Systems Technology Forum, Ltd. Fredericksburg, Virginia 2003 101-500 Under $100 million 3 3
Syzygy Technologies, Inc. San Diego, California 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Tanager Annapolis Junction, Maryland 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 5 2
Tandel Systems Clearwater, Florida 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 4 1
Tapestry Solutions San Diego, California 1993 101-500 Unknown 1 1
Tcoombs & Associates Springfield, Virginia 1998 501-2,000 Under $100 million 2 1
TeAM LLC San Antonio, Texas 2002 <25 Unknown 1 4
TechGuard Security Chesterfield, Missouri 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
Technatomy Corporation Fairfax, Virginia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
Technical and Management Resources Arlington, Virginia 1979 26-100 Under $100 million 4 7
Technical and Project Engineering McLean, Virginia 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Technical Software Services, Inc. Pensacola, Florida 1990 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Techni-Core Huntsville, Alabama 1978 <25 Under $100 million 3 3
Technology Advancement Group, Inc. Dulles, Virginia 1984 101-500 Under $100 million 3 3
Technology Associates International Corporation Carlsbad, California 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 4 8
Technology Consulting Inc. Louisville, Kentucky 1988 26-100 Unknown 4 2
Technology Development Group, Inc. Shawnee, Oklahoma 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 3 4
Technology Resource Support Huntsville, Alabama 2000 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
Technology Science Corporation Sterling, Virginia 1997 <25 Unknown 2 1
TechOp Solutions International Stafford, Virginia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 4 4
TechRadium Sugar Land, Texas 2000 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
TechTeam Government Solutions, a TechTeam Company Chantilly, Virginia 2003 101-500 Unknown 3 5
Tektron Micro Electronics, Inc. Pennsauken, New Jersey 1968 <25 $100 million to $750 million 2 5
Telcordia Technologies Piscataway, New Jersey 1983 2,001-5,000 Unknown 3 1
TeleCommunication Systems ANNAPOLIS, Maryland 1987 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 2 2
Telos Corporation Ashburn, Virginia 1993 101-500 Under $100 million 5 4
Tenable Network Security Columbia, Maryland 2002 26-100 Under $100 million 1 1
Tenacity Solutions Incorporated Reston, Virginia 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Terremark Worldwide, Inc. Miami, Florida 1982 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 3 3
TestPros Reston, Virginia 1988 26-100 Under $100 million 6 3
TEXCOM Inc. Portsmouth, Virginia 1982 26-100 Under $100 million 2 2
Thales USA Arlington, Virginia 1976 2,001-5,000 $1 billion to $10 billion 2 1
Thetus Portland, Oregon 2003 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Thomas & Herbert Consulting Arlington, Virginia 1996 26-100 Under $100 million 2 3
ThruPoint N.Y., New York 1993 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
Ticom, Inc. Austin, Texas 1982 26-100 Unknown 1 1
TISTA Science and Technology Corporation Bethesda, Maryland 2005 <25 Under $100 million 1 5
Tomorrow’s Solutions Today Rockville, Maryland 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 2 4
Total Systems Technology Corporation Tannersville, Virginia 2002 <25 Unknown 1 4
Transquest Federal Systems, Inc. Westlake Village, California 1993 26-100 Under $100 million 15 9
TranTech, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia 1989 101-500 Under $100 million 2 4
Trawick and Associates McLean, Virginia 1985 Unknown Under $100 million 1 2
T-Rex Corporation Reston, Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Tribalco Bethesda, Maryland 2004 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Trident Systems, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1985 101-500 Under $100 million 2 5
Trilogy Technical Services Rockville, Maryland 2004 <25 Under $100 million 5 2
Trinity Information Technology, LLC Southampton, Pennsylvania 2005 <25 Unknown 2 1
Tri Star Engineering Bedford, Indiana 1995 <25 Unknown 3 1
Triton Services Inc. Bowie, Maryland 1990 101-500 Unknown 1 5
Trofholz Technologies Rocklin, California 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 5 2
TRS Consulting Reston, Virginia 2001 26-100 Unknown 2 1
Truestone Herndon, Virginia 2003 501-2,000 Under $100 million 10 4
Trust Digital McLean, Virginia 1991 101-500 Under $100 million 1 2
Trusted Computer Solutions Herndon, Virginia 1994 101-500 Unknown 2 2
Trusted Mission Solutions McLean, Virginia 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 1 4
Tsource, LLC New Market, Maryland 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 8 5
TurningPoint Global Solutions Rockville, Maryland 2002 101-500 Under $100 million 1 1
TVAR Solutions McLean, Virginia 2006 <25 Under $100 million 5 3
TWD & Associates Arlington, Virginia 1986 101-500 Unknown 4 1
Tybrin Corporation, a Jacobs Engineering company Fort Walton Beach, Florida 1972 501-2,000 $100 million to $750 million 3 4
Tygart Technology Inc. Fairmont, West Virginia 1991 <25 Under $100 million 3 6
Ultra Electronics ProLogic, Inc. Fairmont, West Virginia 1995 101-500 Unknown 3 1
Ultra Electronics USSI Columbia City, Indiana 1998 101-500 Unknown 2 1
Unisys Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 1986 10,000+ $100 million to $750 million 10 8
Universal Hi-Tech Development, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 1982 101-500 Under $100 million 1 3
Upper Mohawk, Inc. Titusville, Florida 1994 Unknown Under $100 million 3 5
US Information Technologies Corporation Chantilly, Virginia 2006 <25 Unknown 1 1
USmax Corporation Gambrills, Maryland 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 3 4
USM Business Systems Chantilly, Virginia 1999 101-500 Under $100 million 3 1
VAE IT, Inc. Herndon, Virginia 1998 <25 Under $100 million 3 1
Valador, Inc. Herndon, Virginia 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 4 3
Van Dyke Technology Group Columbia, Maryland 2002 26-100 Unknown 7 5
Vector Planning & Services, Inc. San Diego, California 1997 101-500 Under $100 million 2 1
Ventura Technology Waipahu, Hawaii 1998 <25 Under $100 million 2 2
Vericept Denver, Colorado 1999 26-100 Unknown 1 1
Verint Systems, Inc. Melville, New York 1994 2,001-5,000 $100 million to $750 million 1 2
Verizon Ashburn, Virginia 1983 10,000+ Above $50 billion 18 12
Vets Inc. Vienna, Virginia 2005 26-100 Under $100 million 2 7
ViaSat, Inc. Carlsbad, California 1986 2,001-5,000 $100 million to $750 million 3 3
ViaTech Systems McLean, Virginia 1984 101-500 Under $100 million 4 5
Video Dynamics, Inc. Chantilly, Virginia 1982 <25 Under $100 million 1 1
Vightel Corporation Ellicott City, Maryland 2003 <25 Unknown 1 4
Vigilant Services Lorton, Virginia 1995 26-100 Under $100 million 1 2
ViON Corp. Washington, District of Columbia 1980 26-100 $100 million to $750 million 1 1
Visionary Integration Professionals Alexandria, Virginia 1996 Unknown Under $100 million 9 1
Vision Systems & Technology, Inc. (VSTI) Ellicott City, Maryland 1997 26-100 Under $100 million 3 11
Vistronix Reston, Virginia 1990 101-500 Under $100 million 2 4
Visual Purple San Luis Obispo, California 1998 <25 Under $100 million 1 5
Visual Soft, Inc. Herndon, Virginia 1998 <25 Unknown 4 2
Vitech Vienna, Virginia 1992 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
Vivisimo Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2000 26-100 Unknown 2 1
Vortalsoft Somerset, New Jersey 2000 26-100 Unknown 3 1
V-Tech Solutions Silver Spring, Maryland 2000 Unknown Under $100 million 2 4
Ward Solutions, Inc. Columbia, Maryland 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 6 2
WareOnEarth Communications Inc. North Charleston, South Carolina 2002 101-500 Unknown 6 6
Washington Technology Group Silver Spring, Maryland 1999 26-100 Unknown 2 5
WCIL Technology, Inc. Bowie, Maryland 2001 <25 Under $100 million 2 3
Wells Landers McLean, Virginia 2006 26-100 Unknown 1 2
Western DataCom Cleveland, Ohio 1990 <25 Unknown 1 3
Wheat International Communications Corporation Springfield, Virginia 1989 26-100 Under $100 million 3 2
Wilson Technologies, Inc. Washington, District of Columbia 1997 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
Wisetek Providers Inc. Fairfax, Virginia 1997 <25 Under $100 million 1 3
World IT Solutions, LLC Hyattsville, Maryland 2000 26-100 Unknown 10 1
Worldwide Information Network Systems Seabrook, Maryland 2000 Unknown Unknown 2 5
Xconnect Purcellville, Virginia 2005 <25 Under $100 million 3 1
Xeriom Technology Services Gilbert, Arizona 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 2 1
Xerox Norwalk, Connecticut 1906 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 2 1
X-Feds San Diego, California 2004 26-100 Under $100 million 1 3
York Telecom Eatontown, New Jersey 1985 101-500 Unknown 2 7
Zavda Technologies, LLC Glenn Dale, Maryland 2006 <25 Unknown 6 4
Zenetex Herndon, Virginia 1999 26-100 Under $100 million 2 4
Zeus Technology Systems, Inc. Linthicum Heights, Maryland 1991 <25 Unknown 2 2
Ziva Corporation San Diego, California 2002 <25 Under $100 million 1 2
ZolonTech Government Services Washington, District of Columbia 1998 101-500 $100 million to $750 million 2 2
Zot Inc. Columbia, Maryland 1998 <25 Under $100 million 1 1

 


WE ARE AT WAR FOR OUR CHILDREN’S MIND AND SOUL +

09/17/2016

 http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt129.htm?mc_cid=acd6333b01&mc_eid=c498c6235d

By Charlotte Iserbyt
NewsWithViews.com

Mind Warfare

“What is absolutely essential is that the full facts be given to all our people, for mind warfare is total war.” —Edward Hunter, Brainwashing: The Men Who Defied It, 1953

“MIND WARFARE” includes the Skinnerian brainwashing called for by leading Neo-Conservative organizations, including the Heartland Institute.

This is a war to destroy our constitutional rights, including our right to vote, and the destruction of our children’s minds, souls and consciences. After 12 years of Neo-Conservative supported Skinnerian animal training computer instruction, your children will no longer have a conscience, nor will they be able to take an unpopular stand, for fear of being punished. They will act only to get a reward or praise.

Did hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women give their lives in foreign wars to end up with our free constitutional republic being turned over to the globalist communists (the communist/ socialist/ corporate/ fascist/ libertarian Neo-Conservative wolves in sheep’s clothing) ? Without firing a shot? On a silver platter?

It is time to stop the 100% Neo-Conservative boycott of the truth regarding their communist agenda! Don’t forget that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution. Don’t forget the NeoConservative Heritage Foundation drafted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has robbed Americans of hundreds of thousands of good jobs. Don’t forget Karl Marx, who drafted the Communist Manifesto, was a strong supporter of Free Trade! And, lastly, don’t forget that Mind Warfare, referred to by Edward Hunter (above) is what the neoconservative Heartland Institute recently recommended for use on our children in America’s “new” schools/training laboratories!

The National Alliance of Business, in its newsletter Work/America… The Business Force on Workforce Development, Vol. 15 Issue 5, May 1998 carried the following article entitled “Knowledge Supply Chain: Managing K-Age 80 Learning.” Repeat Kindergarten through Age 80?! Workforce Training. Yes, Grandpa… that means YOU! And YOU, too, Grandma! This is what is called “Limited Learning for Lifelong Labor.” Using the Skinnerian Operant Conditioning method called for by Heartland Institute.

The following quotations from Edward Hunter, the man who coined the term “brainwashing” and author of Brainwashing: The Men Who Defied It, speak to what we as Americans can still do to reverse the process. When Hunter speaks of brainwashing he is referring primarily to the Skinnerian/Pavloviananimal training method supported by the neoconservative movement:

“Surely there can no longer be a trace of doubt that brainwashing is sheer evil. The fight against it is the culminating issue of all time, in which every human being is protagonist. There can be neither escape nor neutrality where such responsibilities lie. There can be neither front nor rear, for the great lesson that came from the brainwashing chambers was that while every man has a cracking point, every man’s cracking point can be immensely strengthened. That is the job of home, school, and church. The mother, teacher, and pastor are in the front lines in this ideological conflict, and every word they say to their sons and daughters is important to the struggle, for character more than anything else will determine the outcome.

“Truth is the most important serum and integrity the most devastating weapon that can be used against the totalitarian concept…. Nothing should be allowed to interfere with the task of getting those facts across to the people who need and can use them.”(Read the entire Hunter quotation on page 450 of my book)

Read on below for a perfect example of what Hunter is talking about, how the brainwashing is being carried out in the United States. In this case, it is a “choice” advertising campaign. This is a huge media blitz calling for tax-funded school choice (federally-controlled private education run by unelected boards). Hunter refers to this as “mind warfare is total war.” The “controlled” media is in a special position to conduct “mind warfare.” For example, see the following Philly School Choice media campaign to promote “choice” to the public.

“It was announced today that Choice Media has launched PhillySchoolChoice.com, a major media campaign involving a website, Facebook page, television commercials, YouTube videos, Twitter & Facebook ads, traditional newspaper ads and earned media coverage. The campaign will include eight separate 30-second television commercials that will air on the early and late evening news programs of all four broadcast local news stations (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliates), for five days/week, four weeks in a row. Two new television ads will be released each week during the four-week run. The commercials feature only Philadelphia parents talking about their experiences — no politicians or union officials will appear.

“Below you will find the first two spots produced by Choice Media. They feature Philadelphia area parents sharing stories about the positive impact that school choice has had on their lives and the lives of their children. These personal accounts are illuminating and heart warming. They manage to capture in thirty seconds exactly what is at stake in the great debate over expanding choice; ensuring every child in America has access to a top-notch education.” (Source)

See the following webpages for more information about this “choice” campaign and the “Philly School Choice” media campaign:

1- There is a Growing List of PARENTS, STUDENTS & Other Concerned Philadelphians Who Support School Choice
2- Fabulous New School Choice Ads to Air in Philadelphia
3- A new front against sexual violence – Civics education gets a push – Student poets hit the Library of Congress – Dissent in union ranks
4- Philly School Choice
5- Fabulous New School Choice Ads to Air in Philadelphia

Recently the Skinnerian/Pavlovian Cat jumped out of the 34-year denial bag. As was mentioned earlier on the blog, the book Rewards has just been published. Subtitled “How to use [SKINNERIAN/PAVLOVIAN, ed.] rewards to help children learn – and why teachers don’t use them well.” Paperback – October 1, 2014. The President of the Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast, who has written a book Rewards, with long-time educator Herbert Walberg, calling for the Skinnerian/Pavlovian method to train our children, like pigeons, dogs, etc., for the workforce rather than to teach them academics. See the blog post article one and article two.

The deliberate dumbing down has now become the excuse for complete social change, including the privatization of education (the handing over to the unelected multinational corporations the responsibility for education—actually training—of future citizens). Such a transfer of responsibility will be facilitated by the creation of charter/magnet schools and passage of legislation providing tuition tax credits/vouchers. The workforce development system will, of course, be international, as is indicated by many quotes in this book. Parents who may be enthusiastic about the various choice proposals may change their minds regarding “choice” when their child becomes part of the corporate fascist quota system, being tracked into a career chosen for him/her by unelected corporate managers who set labor force requirements. Such quotas will be a part of the global planned economy. Parents will have no say regarding their child’s placement since there will no longer be an elected body, such as a school board, to whom they can complain.

Only a dumbed-down, brainwashed, conditioned citizenry could willingly accept what is being offered Americans under the guise of “remaining competitive in an increasingly global economy,” and relinquishing our sovereignty in the name of “global understanding and peace.” (excerpted from page 450-51 of my book)

Good Americans are being lied to. What is going in now, supported by the highly-funded Neo-Conservative Trotskyites, and its controlled media, is described in my book the deliberatedumbing down of america, a free download, or available at amazon.com. Get informed! It isn’t too late!

For the original version of this article, complete with graphic images, see my blog and read the blogpost.

Charlotte T. Iserbyt – All Rights Reserved

Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa.

Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America’s Latest Education Fad which  covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.

Website: www.deliberatedumbingdown.com
Website: www.americandeception.com

E-Mail: dumbdown00@yahoo.com

What is Socialism and how did we get here?

Part 1 of 3

Too many Americans do not recognize socialism, even when it is in their backyard; others think it is a good idea.

Together, with a thoroughly dishonest media, these groups are annihilating the finest chance for hope and prosperity in recorded history.

Sustainable Freedom Lab’s groundbreaking online event, “Socialism in America” 

  • Shatters the myth that socialism beings social justice and equality in a way that strikes even the most ill-informed,
  • Exposes the false altruism our government uses to steal our freedoms.
  • Teaches innovative techniques proven to stop socialism’s spread, and
  • Provides action items you can use after the program series is completed.

Too many Americans have surrendered their bodies (Obamacare), their children (Common Core), and their property (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), yet still brag about being free.

All it took to strip away our freedoms was for uninformed Americans to accept the fiction that the State could better manage our healthcare, our children and our communities.

“Socialism in America” exposes that fiction using personal experiences that people can feel and understand. 

Every day, Americans are less free:

  •  HUD forces African Americans into communities where they do not want to live.
  •  The State commandeers corporations against their will, then sets caps on the owners’ salaries.
  • “Undesirable” businesses are choked off from life-sustaining funds, and
  • States are threatened with withholding of education money if parents exercise their right to pull their own children from damaging standardized testing.

Like human ‘sheep’ being sheared of their dignity, too many Americans willingly excavate the path to their own end.

The Internet, the once unconquerable information highway, now stands one executive order from State censorship because, under Net Neutrality, Americans bought into a non-existent communications barrier manufactured by the same government that wanted control.

It is time to stop the madness. For three consecutive Sunday evenings, SFL has assembled the most prominent pool of experts on socialism and communism to help people understand how a future socialist America will look and feel.

Americans hear an idealized portrait of a sustainable future where race bias ends, where global responsibility matters more than local needs, and where income inequality vanishes.

I talk with thousands of people about freedom and property rights. It is not that Americans do not care about these issues. They do not understand how important they are, or even what they are.

10 13 11 flagbar