Hi Brad, Thanks so much.

Different sites have speculated whether all this spying among other things was for profit to frontrun the stock market. And the following Legal Schnauzer article makes me think that elections are also able to be frontrun ( the e-voting, scanning, tabulating computers which strip out evidence of physical paper ballots, look to be built/managed by the right for that exact purpose). A commenter suggests the company has connections with the Bushs. How would it benefit the Bushs' for Obama and not Romney (nor McCain) to be in office? Does this help who will run next? Does this legitimize the computerized voting and buy time?

http://legalschnauzer.bl...-journalist-michael.html

Was The Fiery Death Of Journalist Michael Hastings Connected To Atlanta Security Firm Called Endgame?

snip

But a report last week from Alabama attorney Jill Simpson and election-integrity specialist Jim March presents perhaps the most disturbing revelations yet about Endgame and similar private security firms. The report, dated June 24, 2013, is titled "Black Hat Versus White Hat: The Other Side of the Snowden/Hastings/Barrett Brown Cases."

Here is how March summarizes the report in a piece at OpEd News:

This is a look into the world of the private contractors that work in alliance with the official US intelligence community and appear to be state-sanctioned to commit crimes. We focus on one of these shady contractors, Endgame--an Atlanta GA corporation that both Barrett Brown and Michael Hastings were looking at.

snip

Simpson is best known as a former Republican operative who became a whistleblower in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. March is on the board of directors of blackboxvoting.org and is a former board member for the Southern Arizona chapter of the ACLU.

...................

Reading statistician Richard Charnin http://richardcharnin.com/
http://richardcharnin.wo...hould-ignore-exit-polls/ , you realized that Obama won by more votes than reported in both general elections.

But, I remember when Dennis Kucinich was way ahead of all the Democratic Presidential candidates during the primaries in 2008 for talking, but more importantly, introducing law to improve/regulate privacy rights, and economic justice based on Debt-Free, Interest-Free Public/Government money as has happened in our past with brave politicians like Washington, Lincoln and Kennedy provided-- see the current attempt at:
http://www.monetary.org/
http://www.monetary.org/2013-conference
http://www.monetary.org/...r-6550-solves-it/2011/06
http://www.monetary.org/...5-august-16-2009/2009/08
http://www.monetary.org/...ChicagoPlanRevisited.pdf

And, Kucinich was quickly "shut down." I also remember when Obama and Clinton primaried and caucused in Texas for a week (of songs, promises, blackmail...what? in front of whom?) and the one crowned was the eventual winner.

.....................

Also, posted at:

http://www.truthdig.com/...nsa_revelation_20130702/

Greenwald Promises Another Bombshell NSA Revelation

Glenn Greenwald told Fox News during an interview Tuesday that “the world will be shocked” by his next big story about the National Security Agency.

“You’re going to have to wait along with everybody else,” the Guardian columnist coyly responded to Eric Bolling when pressed about the information he was planning to detail. “I will say that there are vast programs, both domestic and international spying, that the world will be shocked to learn about, that the NSA is engaged in with no democratic accountability and that’s what driving our reporting.”

Greenwald also ripped President Obama for the U.S.’ pursuit of NSA leaker Edward Snowden, claiming the administration was trying to “intimidate future whistle-blowers from coming forward.”

“I think what the Obama administration wants and has been trying to establish for almost five years now with the unprecedented war on whistle-blowers that it is waging is to make it so that everybody is petrified of coming forward with information about what our political officials are doing in the dark that is deceitful, illegal or corrupt,” he said. “They don’t care about Edward Snowden at this point. He can no longer do anything that he hasn’t already done.”

Pardon me...

BRAD
I need a proofreader or an editor.

Pardon me.

James Clapper, the retired Air Force General and former Booz Allen exec, who now serves as the Director of National Intelligence, has now moved from his claim that he responded with the "least untruthful manner" to a claim that he "misunderstood" the question posed by Sen. Wyden ( "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?").

Tom Calazza, a member of Wyden's staff, said that, shortly after Clapper testified, their office contacted Clapper's office (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence "ONDI") and that:

It took Snowden's revelations to bring about that correction, first with the chiseling "least untruthful manner" followed now by the ridiculous claim that he didn't understand a direct and unambiguous question.

Just what portion of "any type of data at all" did the Director not understand?

There can be little doubt but that this was perjury. Also, given today's two-tiered system of justice, with its harsh criminal code for most citizens and near complete impunity for political and economic elites, there can be little doubt but that Clapper will never face formal perjury chanrges.

Consider how this spying can be used for blackmailing officials, judges, and or reporters? Consider how the spying could be used for insider trading and market manipulation?

The NSA collects ALL digital data. Or should I say Booz Allen Hamilton/Carlyle Group collects all data. And they can collect it in live time.

There is NO transparency, NO oversight and it IS illegal and dangerous to all of our freedoms.

I'm sure there is even more and worse revelations to come.

Thanks Ernie. So at whose discretion is it to prosecute someone who perjures themselves before congress? Before a court of law that's of course up to a prosecutor. But before congress whose decision is it? Can any member of the body or panel that was lied to decide to pursue charges? I can already imagine the political difficulties of a lone senator fighting the good fight like Wyden trying to have the NSA head prosecuted for perjury; taking on the NSA would involve such enormous political capital as to make such a herculean effort impractical. Just curious as to what that process is.

Arias @5 asks:

So at whose discretion is it to prosecute someone who perjures themselves before congress?

As Prof. Jonathan Turley, who decries the failure of even a single member of the U.S. Senate to call for Clapper’s prosecution, notes, the U.S. Attorney General can and has tried past cases of perjury before Congress.

Turley makes no bones about it. He described Clapper’s testimony as "a lie."

One would think that, as a bare minimum, Senator Ron Wyden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren would openly call upon Eric Holder to initiate a criminal prosecution against Clapper. So far, that hasn't happened.

It seems the only transparency promised by the administration is for individuals and their private data. Who knew the promise of transparency was of people and not their government. There have been more cover ups this term than any prior. Makes Nixon look like honest abe.
The Angell Law Firm

Spread this from a full spectrum:

http://firedoglake.com/2...reclaiming-our-libert-e/

Come Saturday Morning: Reclaiming Our LIBERT-E

By: Phoenix Woman Saturday July 6, 2013

Democratic United States Representative John Conyers and his Republican colleague Justin Amash don’t agree on a lot of things. But they are, like most of us, united in being aghast at all the government snooping being done to us, for us, against us, and on everyone else in the world. Unlike most of us, they’re in a position to do something about it — or at the very least shame those Beltway officials who would perpetuate this snooping.

To that end, they’ve introduced H.R. 2399, the “Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email Act,” or the LIBERT-E Act for short.

Here’s how it would work:

The first reform, in Section 2 of the LIBERT-E Act, modifies access to certain records for foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations. Specifically, Section 2 would amend Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to prevent the mass collection of records that are not explicitly relevant to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation, terrorism investigation, or covert intelligence activities.

Presently, to obtain a court order under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the government only needs to show that the records are “relevant” to an investigation. News reports suggest, however, that the government’s view of what is “relevant” includes the records of every telephone call. Section 2 of the LIBERT-E Act would raise the relevancy standard for the government to one requiring “specific and articulable” facts on a given investigation. In addition, Section 2 mandates that for any records to be collected they must be material to the investigation and pertain only to the individual under investigation.

Simply put, the government should be required to show that the records it seeks are in fact material to a particular concern.

The second set of reforms that the LIBERT-E Act puts into place deals with transparency. For too long, a secretive FISA court has essentially rubber-stamped all of the NSA’s surveillance requests. Section 3 of the LIBERT-E Act requires the Attorney General to make available to the public unclassified summaries of significant decisions by the FISA court, within 180 days of Congress receiving them. At the Congressional level, Section 3 also mandates that the Attorney General makes all information provided to the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees available to every Member of Congress. Both of these measures will take the entirety of the decision-making process out of the backroom and provide needed public, as well as Congressional, oversight.

Sounds good to me. Of course, that’s probably why you’re only hearing about this now, from this blog post — because it’s such a good idea that no TV news program would touch it.

Let’s see if we can spread the word and do an end run around the censorship.

Who's watching the watchers? Don't question the power structure therein, they have a lot vested and the comments revealed in emails from Private security specialists involved in the NSA program reveal that they are not humanely responsible, suggesting offing the released/ill Lockerbie bomber whilst they had their chance in Libya, how much more than, our own lives in their hands a trifle.

It would serve all politicians' own interest to do a very good job on blanket surveillance of themselves and of us by government, private contractors and corporations:

From:
http://dandelionsalad.wo...-nsa-blackmailing-obama/

Whistleblower Russ Tice: NSA Blackmailing Obama?

Posted on July 10, 2013 by dandelionsalad
breakingtheset on Jul 9, 2013

Abby Martin talks to Russell Tice, former intelligence analyst and original NSA whistleblower, about how the recent NSA scandal only scratches the surface of a massive surveillance apparatus, citing specific targets that he saw spying orders for including former senators Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.
.........

More from NSA whistleblower Russel Tice via:

http://www.washingtonsbl...d-military-officers.html

NSA Whistleblower: NSA Spying On – and Blackmailing – Top Government Officials and Military Officers
WashingtonsBlog

Whistleblower Says Spy Agency Targeting Top American Leaders

NSA whistleblower Russel Tice – a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew the lid off the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping – told Peter B. Collins on Boiling Frogs Post (the website of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds):

Tice: Okay. They went after–and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things–they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the–and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of–heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House–their own people. They went after antiwar groups. They went after U.S. international–U.S. companies that that do international business, you know, business around the world. They went after U.S. banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs that–like the Red Cross, people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few antiwar civil rights groups. So, you know, don’t tell me that there’s no abuse, because I’ve had this stuff in my hand and looked at it. And in some cases, I literally was involved in the technology that was going after this stuff.

Patriot Act was the beginning of a new erea... PRISM is also a new beginning of international surveillance by all modern way. This is leading to an engagement of a communication war, this is focused on new technologies mainly.... future will show the fast evolution since 2001!