Mongoose: Omidyar as a Threat to National Security — the Open Government Partnership as a Fifth Column Subverting the Constitution and the Republic

Corruption, Government, Non-Governmental

An investigative report from a Citizen.

Dear Mr. Steele:

You are ABSOLUTELY on target!  I discovered you last fall and have devoured your interviews and much of your writing. Your comprehensive approach to problems and solutions is, unfortunately, a rarity these days.  We need more of you!

Your challenge to Bannon during yesterday’s Hagmann interview was gutsy. We’ll see what happens. I like Bannon, but he MUST follow your recommendation for electoral reform.  Hopefully, this email will help you convince him.  I am curious about your facial expressions when Hagmann mentioned Democracy Fund and Omidyar.  Omidyar rivals, if not surpasses, Soros as a danger to this country, and no one is talking about it.

My “nightmare of knowledge” started a year ago when, due to reports of unauthorized voter registrations, I wanted to verify mine.  I now realize this goes WAY beyond voter registration databases; U.S. citizens (and likely an ignorant chunk of the government) have NO idea how U.S. independence has been compromised by the Open Government Partnership (OGP) agreement Obama signed in 2011.

The OGP was preceded by “Open the Government” and gained traction in 2009 when Obama issued the open-government directive written by Peter Orszag, Director, Open Government, Omidyar Group.   Today, the OGP is a Civil Society (CS) organization (largely funded by Omidyar Network) with 75 member countries (five new members in the past few months) who are leading themselves to the slaughterhouse of global governance.  Each member country must work with Civil Society to develop and implement a “National Plan.”  (Is it coincidence that USAid, funded by Omidyar, entered the Ukraine when Ukraine wasn’t adhering to the plan?  Is it coincidence that Syria, Libya, and Russia – all non-members – are being targeted by many in our government?)   The mid-term assessment for the 2015 -2017 US National Plan was released in September of 2016  http://www.opengov  and is a good “eye-opener.”  Like Soros’ Open Society Foundation, CS is making inroads at the local and state levels.  I won’t go into that here, except to say that, until the local/state OS and CS operations are “under control,” the federal government should use extreme caution in transferring issues back to the states.

Some CS recommendations have merit, but they could be accomplished without the “assistance” of an outside party, particularly one supported by an individual who procured the Snowden documents, funds USAid, uses Paypal as a censorship tool, engages in vulturistic micro-financing, sponsors a dizzying array of 501’s, and seeds a maze of tech start-ups, many of which obtain government contracts/grants.

Via the OGP, CS is in EVERY government agency and likely has access to EVERYTHING.  They are the gatekeeper of our government’s web sites.  They are the “WeThePeople” petition.  They are the Congressional Research Service.  I suspect they are the FBI Office of Integrity and Compliance   They govern the FOIA process.  They know every detail of our terrain, our transportation systems, our natural resources, our food and water supplies – down to the locations of fuel pumps.  If they are involved to the extent I think they are, we are essentially hostages – How do we rid ourselves of a group who can take our IT infrastructure with them?

CS knows Clinton and Obama support their agenda and went to great lengths to get/keep their supporters in office.  They paved the way in 2009 when Schumer introduced the MOVE Act that allowed new voting technology under the auspices of serving military voters overseas. A month later, Joe Goldman (future President, Democracy Fund,) presented “Strengthening Our Nation’s Democracy.” The plan? “Support and promote a comprehensive electoral reform agenda through both executive action (executive orders, agency coordination and Department of Justice [DOJ] enforcement) and active support for federal electoral reform legislation.”   And that’s exactly what they did.

Shortly after the Move Act was passed, a private work group,  VSSC/Project 1622, had its first meeting.  Their goal was to develop new voting technologies, particularly a common-data-format for electronic generation of blank ballots.

In 2011, the Omidyar Group, created Democracy Fund (DF)  and Democracy Fund Voice (DFV).  The web site states “Democracy Fund DOES NOT (their emphasis) accept unsolicited proposals. We proactively seek new grants based on strategic priorities and typically identify new grantee partners from within our network of allies and contacts. We work closely with grantee partners to help them achieve their goals.”  While DF created the “nut and bolts,” DFV “greased the machine” through “bipartisan” initiatives that included ad hoc conferences with Congressional Members.

In 2011, DF began funding Pew’s Election Initiatives program to develop a voter registration database, the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC.)  Was this choice related to Tamera Luzzatto, a Pew Senior VP and former COS to Sen, Clinton and David Rockefeller? and

ERIC was released in 2012.  In June of 2012, Hillary Clinton had a one-hour closed-press/off-the-record meeting with the Pew Foundation Board of Directors.  Interestingly, this is her only meeting with Pew found in the Wikileaks releases.

ERIC had 21 member states at the time of the 2016 general election.  In comparison to other voter registration systems, ERIC incorporates a wider range of data, including SSA, DMV and Human Services.  ERIC includes not only registered voters but also those who are eligible to vote but not registered – a cornucopia of demographic data.  ERIC also has access to the Social Security Death Index which is interesting because some of the earliest ERIC states had the highest incidence of deceased “voters.”  In some states the SOS has authority to purchase voting equipment, while other states require legislative approval.  Incumbents who promoted ERIC received campaign contributions.  For example, WV SOS Natalie Tennant, who was instrumental in obtaining ERIC, received more than 300 contributions from CA, funds from out-of-state Pew employees,and more than $200,000 from Emily’s list.

In 2013, based on requests from various organizations (all funded by DF,) Obama signed an executive order creating the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA.)  Most of the PCEA members were connected to Pew or and/or to entities receiving grants from DF.  (Note: Support the Voter is a DF organization.)  In 2014, the PCEA released its final recommendations, identical to Goldman’s recommendations from 2009.

On advice from the “stacked” PCEA, Obama appointed three EAC commissioners, all tied to DF grantees.    The EAC Standards Board (SB) was reactivated in 2015, and within a month Project 1622’s common-data-format was approved.  Intentional or not, the EAC SB deactivation allowed Project 1622 to be developed without oversight, and the re-activation coincided with Project 1622’s completion – essentially blocking competition from other technology developers.

Meanwhile, DF funded Civic Designs’ development of a Remote Ballot Marking System (RBMS.)  Ohio (a recent ERIC join) indicated they were “testing” Random Ballot Marking Systems (RBMS) in the general election.  /66C4E49C7F2DBF95F210154B8463E04343B149CF  That proves RBMS was operable – probably in at least all of the ERIC states.  On September 27, 2016 the NCSL (yes, a DF grantee) released “Electronic Transmission of Ballots States.”   Clearly, access to voter databases, the ability to create blank electronic ballots for any precinct and remotely mark them, could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

In late 2015, Pew amplified its ERIC marketing, particularly in closed primary states.  David Becker, enjoined the PCEA, NCSL and other DF grantees, to market ERIC.  In late 2015, Pew began offering grants to states who joined ERIC and transferred all their voter information by May 31, 2016.  Why?  Pew also gave states funding to cover mailing costs of registration postcards to eligible voters. (I would love to see the data on whether these were mailed to all eligible voters or if they were filtered by demographics.)  States were joining ERIC as late as July of 2016.  After this flurry of activity, Pew surprisingly announced in August that they were “winding down” their election programs due to “funding cuts” (by DF?)  Within a month, Becker and Amy Cohen (Director, Pew’s Voting Information Project, a partnership with Google) formed “Election Innovations” which appears related to ITIF, an Omidyar organization.  Becker testified at the Science Committee Hearing on Cybersecurity in Elections in September.   ERIC had 21 member states at the time of the 2016 general election.

DF’s influence also extended to Vote By Mail (VBM.) Tammy Patrick, VBM National Coordinator, had ties to Pew, the PCEA, Bipartisan Policy Institute (a DFgrantee,) and Project1622.  Prior to the general election, Patrick sent a letter to USPS, explaining she did not want USPS to be burdened by the influx of ballots and would provide her own staff to handle the operation.  Interestingly, the USPS link for election mail resources leads to Election Center (a DF grantee) and  The Director of Election Center, Tim Mattice, is a Project1622 and TGDC member.

So, Mr. Steele, you are absolutely correct that Trump is an “accidental” President – Even without interference like fractionalized voting, the system was rigged against him.  It definitely needs an overhaul.  I have NO idea how you’ve maintained your sanity through the years, and I admit feeling a bit validated that you – with all your credentials, expertise and contacts – have had difficulty being heard.  As the primary progressed, I sent Sanders’ campaign attorney updates as one state after another enacted voting legislation and/or adopted ERIC.  Not a word!  I sent it to alternative media.  Nothing!  By late summer, I realized the greater connection between CS and DF.  Again, I reached out – to the alternative media, the Republican, Green and Libertarian national committees, “trusted” elected representatives, Trump’s campaign attorney, and numerous Trump campaign offices (where a few of my inquiries re: an alternative delivery method were met with the click of a receiver.)  NO ONE acknowledged receipt.  I was pleased when Hagmann mentioned DF, Omidyar and the Intercept during your interview – and wondered if he was finally seeing information I sent in early fall.  I realize these entities receive a high volume of mail and have to protect themselves from false data – but everything was documented, mostly from government sources.  All they had to do was verify it.  So much for the “importance” of citizen involvement.  I immensely admire your tenacity!

Please forgive the length (and possible redundancy) of this – I haven’t mastered your “three postcard” skill.  The bottom line is I share your commitment to restoring government integrity.  There are good people working in the government, and I’ve seen some of them destroyed for “doing the right thing.”  Our country is dangerously close to losing its sovereignty, and I want to help.  You seem to be making inroads in reaching Trump, and I pray that continues.  Trump is in the unique position to recreate this country, and, like you,  I want him to succeed.  Disbanding the EAC was a wise step in the right direction, but there is much more to do.  I have something to contribute but am increasingly frustrated by the inanity of online political forums.  If you believe my assessment of the OGP is in error, please enlighten me – I welcome the ability to sleep at night.  However, if you believe the OGP warrants further investigation, please work with me to get this information to a place it will do the most good.

With sincere appreciation,


Opt in for free daily update from this free blog. Separately The Steele Report ($11/mo) offers weekly text report and live webinar exclusive to paid subscribers, who can also ask questions of Robert. Or donate to ask questions directly of Robert.