Google Spying On You

Click on the Picture to see source article

Google has been recruited by US intelligence agencies to help them better process and share information they gather about suspects.

Agencies such as the National Security Agency have bought servers on which Google-supplied search technology is used to process information gathered by networks of spies around the world.

Google is also providing the search features for a Wikipedia-style site, called Intellipedia, on which agents post information about their targets that can be accessed and appended by colleagues, according to the San Fransisco Chronicle.

The contracts are just a number that have been entered into by Google's 'federal government sales team', that aims to expand the company's reach beyond its core consumer and enterprise operations.

In the most innovative service, for which Google equipment provides the core search technology, agents are encouraged to post intelligence information on a secure forum, which other spies are free to read, edit, and tag - like the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Depending on their clearance, agents can log on to Intellipedia and gain access to three levels of info - top secret, secret and sensitive, and sensitive but unclassified. So far 37,000 users have established accounts on the service, and the database now extends to 35,000 articles, according to Sean Dennehy, chief of Intellipedia development for the CIA.

"Each analyst, for lack of a better term, has a shoe box with their knowledge," Mr Dennehy was quoted as saying. "They maintained it in a shared drive or Word document, but we're encouraging them to move those platforms so that everyone can benefit."

The collection of articles is hosted by the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and is available only to the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, and other intelligence agencies.

Federal Reserve Power Grab

The Federal Reserve is devaluing our dollar by bailing out rich bankers co-horts, giving up control of our economy to small groups of international bankers, and taking over our entire economic system though the other sectors are not what caused the crisis. Now the Federal Reserve (a private company) wants the power to not only regulate other banks and control credit but they want the power to take over the competition. See for yourself... go to these links...


US & UK set up joint group to monitor and regulate the banking system.

Federal Reserve uses crisis they created as excuse to assume economic regulatory control over areas that have no problems and had nothing to do with this crisis.

The Federal Reserve want the power to seize and nationalize private banks.

This entire crisis was created to scare people into giving the men who caused it more power, money and control. And America is too stupid to see it. They are too busy worrying about who was kicked off American Idol this week to realize their country is being taken from them and sold to global bankers.

WE WARNED YOU THIS WAS COMING!

FEDERAL RESERVE ASKS FOR MORE POWER.

They create a crisis with their unchecked power and control and then after they destroy the value of the dollar they ask for more power so they can "fix" it? This is madness! Are Americans that dumb? It's all part of their plan. In order to gain more power without limit they must create a crisis so that we will like dumb sheep give them more power over our money. It's all part of their evil plan.

Giving the Federal Reserve more power to fix our economic problems would have been like giving Hitler more gas chambers so he could fix the Holocaust problem. No! Hitler and his gas chambers were the problem.... Hitler caused the Holcaust and the Federal Reserve caused this crisis by lowering the value of the dollar.

The problem with our economy is the unchecked overreaching power of wielded by the Federal Reserve for its own interests not the interests of the American people.

NEWS FLASH TO AMERICA: The Federal Reserve is a private company owned by an undisclosed group of billionaires who don't have to give any kind of report to congress. We don't even know if they have the gold reserves left. They answer to no one.

Everyone thinks the price of Gold is up. It’s not. It’s just the value of the dollar is down. Everyone thinks the price of oil is at record high. It’s not. It’s just the value of the dollar is at record lows. Other nations are dropping the dollar and hurting our economy even further because every time the Federal Reserve makes more money with nothing to back it up in order to drop our interest rate the value of the dollar sinks lower and lower.

Wake up AMERICA! The only one telling you the truth is RON PAUL. Go to youtube.com and type in Ron Paul Federal Reserve and listen to the man for your children and grandchildren’s sake.

Federal Reserve Gains Even More Power In Crisis

In the past two weeks, the Federal Reserve, long the guardian of the nation's banks, has redefined its role to also become protector and overseer of Wall Street.

Congress didn't pass any law. The president didn't authorize it. No government agency gave oversight. They acted on their own and assumed even more power over the U.S. ecconomy. They are above the law. They rule us with no oversight. They devalue our money on a whim and control our future without being elected.

With its March 14 decision to make a special loan to Bear Stearns and a decision two days later to become an emergency lender to all of the major investment firms, the central bank abandoned 75 years of precedent under which it offered direct backing only to traditional banks.

Inside the Fed and out, there is a realization that those moves amounted to crossing the Rubicon, setting the stage for deeper involvement in the little-regulated markets for capital that have come to dominate the financial world.

Leaders of the central bank had no master plan when they took those actions, no long-term strategy for taking on a more assertive role regulating Wall Street. They were focused on the immediate crisis in world financial markets. But they now recognize that a broader role may be the result of the unprecedented intervention and are being forced to consider whether it makes sense to expand the scope of their formal powers over the investment industry.

"This will redefine the Fed's role," said Charles Geisst, a Manhattan College finance professor who wrote a history of Wall Street. "We have to realize that central banking now takes into its orbit everything in the financial system in one way or another. Whether we like it or not, they've recreated the financial universe."

The Fed has made a special lending facility -- essentially a bottomless pit of cash -- available to large investment banks for at least the next six months. Even if that program is allowed to expire this fall, the Fed's actions will have lasting impact, economists and Wall Street veterans said.

As they made a series of decisions over St. Patrick's Day weekend, Fed leaders knew that they were setting a precedent that would indelibly affect perceptions of how the central bank would act in a crisis. Now that the central bank has intervened in the workings of Wall Street banks, all sorts of players in the financial markets will assume that it could do so again.

Major investment banks might be willing to take on more risk, assuming that the Fed will be there to bail them out if the bets go wrong. But Fed leaders, during those crucial meetings two weeks ago, concluded that because the rescue caused huge losses for Bear Stearns shareholders, other banks would not want to risk that outcome.

More worrisome, in the view of top Fed officials: The parties that do business with investment banks might be less careful about monitoring whether the bank will be able to honor obscure financial contracts if they assume the Fed will back up those contracts. That would eliminate a key form of self-regulation for investment banks.

Fed leaders concluded that it was worth taking that chance if their action prevented an all-out, run-for-the-doors financial panic.

Those decisions were made in a series of conference calls, some in the middle of the night, against hard deadlines of financial markets' opening bells. Fed insiders are just beginning to collect their thoughts on what might make sense for the longer term.

"It has wrought changes far more significant than they were probably thinking about at the time," said Vincent Reinhart, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who was until last year a senior Fed staffer.

Whether there is a formal, legal change in the Fed's power over Wall Street or not, the recent measures, which were taken under a 1930s law that can only be exploited in "unusual and exigent circumstances," represent a massive departure from past practice.

The central bank was created in 1913 to prevent the banking crises that were commonplace in the 19th century. The idea was that the Fed would be a backstop, offering a limitless source of cash if people got the bright idea to pull all their money at once out of an otherwise sound bank.

In exchange for putting up with regulation from the Fed and requirements over how much capital they can hold, banks have access to the "discount window," at which they can borrow emergency cash in exchange for sound collateral. A bank might take deposits from individuals and make loans to people buying a house. Hedge funds do something similar: borrow money in the asset-backed commercial paper market and use it to buy mortgage-backed securities. But the bank has lots of regulation and access to the discount window; the hedge fund does not.

In recent decades, more of the borrowing and lending that was the sole province of banks has come to be done in more lightly regulated markets.

A decade ago, the nation's commercial banks had $4 trillion in credit-market assets, and a whole range of other entities -- mutual funds, investment banks, pensions, and insurance companies -- had about twice that much. Now, those other entities have about three times as many assets, based on Fed data.

Still, the Fed has resisted broadening its authority. On March 4, Fed Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn told the Senate Banking Committee that he "would be very cautious" about lending Fed money to institutions other than banks or, as he put it, "opening that window more generally." The Fed did exactly that 12 days later.

The New York Fed said yesterday that investment firms have borrowed an average of $33 billion each through that program in the past week.

The Fed has intervened in the doings of Wall Street in the past, but in limited ways. Most notably, in 1998, the New York Fed brought in heads of the major investment banks to cajole them into a coordinated purchase of the assets of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, to prevent a disorderly sell-off that could have sent ripples through the financial world.

"Long-Term Capital was the dress rehearsal for what happened with Bear Stearns," said David Shulman, a 20-year veteran of Wall Street who is now an economist at the UCLA Anderson Forecast.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said that if investment banks are given permanent access to the Fed's emergency funds, they should have the same kind of supervision that the Fed requires for conventional banks. "This latest episode has highlighted that the world has changed, as has the role of other non-bank financial institutions, and the interconnectedness among all financial institutions," he said in a speech Wednesday.

If Congress and the administration do broaden the formal powers of the Fed, it would be the latest in a long history of financial policy made out of a crisis. The Great Depression fueled an array of stock exchange regulation. The 1987 stock market crash led to curbs on stock trades. The 2002 corporate scandals led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

And after the panic of 1907, a National Monetary Commission was formed to figure out how to prevent such things from happening again. Its crowning achievement: The creation of the Federal Reserve.

See article by Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 28, 2008; A01

Hilary Caught Lying Again

A perfect example of Clinton's pathological lying... watch the video.

Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility Again On Another Topic

By John Nichols (click here for source)
Thu Mar 20, 1:59 PM ET

The Nation -- What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.

But that impression was a deliberate deception.

And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.

Why Is the Stock Market Crashing???

Tell a friend about this website today!!!

Watch this short but powerful video....

Big Brother is Watching....

Click here to see how each year, federal agents peek at the financial transactions of millions of Americans — without their knowledge. That means you.

Click here to see how recent evidence suggests that the NSA has been focusing on widespread monitoring of your e-mail messages and text messages, recording of Web browsing, and other forms of electronic data-mining, all done without court supervision.

THEY ARE WATCHING ALL YOU DO!!

Baby Steps to Tyranny.

Below are three news stories today about your loss of privacy and freedom. Click on them and see for yourself.

PLEASE EMAIL THIS BLOG TO A FRIEND!

1) FBI disregarded secret court order not to obtain private records twice and spys on people anyone.

2) GW Bush to veto new surveillance bill because it allows citizens the right to sue telecommunications firms when they let the government spy on use illegally.

3) Meanwhile, a new audit finds even more new FBI privacy abuses.

America is blind to the fact that we are losing our freedom. Americans are unread, uneducated, unknowingly going along like dumb sheep happily guided to their own slaughter.

WATCH THIS VIDEO IF YOU CARE ABOUT FREEDOM.

Facist Agenda: Stop the Press

Click here to see how a secret deal is being worked out to spy on you in a secret session of Congress.

Texas Sherrif says if reporters keep reporting on his son he will throw them in jail. Is that where GW learned it?

Ron Paul points out the dangers of unconstitutional "Hate Crimes" laws that would take away your freedom of speech.

McCain takes bribes, lies about the war, and wants to take your gun away.

John McCain's ethics are again in the spot light. Click Here To see. This is why the liberals wanted him the republican choice. He has all kinds of skeletons in his closet. He will be easy to beat.

John McCain lied about what the troops told him.

And is John McCain pro or anti 2nd amendment? No one knows. He keeps flip flopping on gun rights. He has been for over 8 years. Click Here

What Is Hilary Hiding?

Pressure Is High for Clinton to Release Her Tax Returns Since She Loaned Her Campaign $5 Million. She has said she would but never does. What is the hold up?
Click Here See

Read Here how Outspoken feminist Germaine Greer has rounded on US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, branding her as "cold," "bossy" and "manipulative" while questioning her credentials for the top job.

Even though there is no way she can win the most delegates or the popular vote, she not only didn't drop out... Hillary pushed the idea of Clinton, Obama ticket for third time in a week. Is she delusional or does she know something we don't know?

Did you know that Hilary Clinton was on the board of Wal Mart until 1992? Did you know that she used to be Anti-union when she worked there? Click here to see more evidence of her rank hypocrisy.

WHY DO YOU ALLOW THIS AMERICANS?

Watch these two videos. They are a must see.

Only Ron Paul will keep us free.

Now the Post Office is helping to spy on thousands of U.S. citizens.

The Wall Street Journal says that the NSA is quietly expanding its domestic spying program, even as Congress balks

Digital Dragnet just a click away. How federal data systems are compling a record on you.

privacy invasion

It's a brave new world. It didn't happen by 1984 but it is happening. The growing facist socialist state that robs people of all freedom, privacy and independance is on it's way. Only Ron Paul wants to go another direction. Please understand that you are about to lose your freedom if we don't follow the constitution.

There is a new camera that can see through your clothes to be used in public places.

The American public is being unknowingly druged by public drinking water.

They want to know excatly where each of you go on the net.

Why are you so angry John McCain?

"I mean it’s well known. Everybody knows. It’s been well chronicled a thousand times. John Kerry asked if I would consider being his running mate." - John McCain March 2008

Click Here to read how John McCain got mad at NYT reporter because she reminded the public that ultra-liberal John Kerry wanted John McCain for a running mate.

Mexico Invades the U.S.

Click here to see the video about Mexican soldiers crossing into the US and shooting at our boarder gaurds this week . Also click here for more video. And what will we do? NOTHING!

Tax System explained for drunks

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what abou t the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.

And so The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3(33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7(28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22%savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16%savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $ 20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a Dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, drunk UAW workers, college professors, Hilary and Obama, this is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Police State: FBI abuse of power under so called "patriot act"

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI acknowledged Wednesday it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from investigations aimed at tracking terrorists and spies.

The breach occurred before the FBI enacted broad new reforms in March 2007 to prevent future lapses, FBI Director Robert Mueller said. And it was caused, in part, by banks, telecommunication companies and other private businesses giving the FBI more personal client data than was requested.

Testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mueller raised the issue of the FBI's controversial use of so-called national security letters in reference to an upcoming report on the topic by the Justice Department's inspector general.

An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.

The new audit, which examines use of national security letters issued in 2006, "will identify issues similar to those in the report issued last March," Mueller told senators. The privacy abuse "predates the reforms we now have in place," he said.

"We are committed to ensuring that we not only get this right, but maintain the vital trust of the American people," Mueller said. He offered no additional details about the upcoming audit.

National security letters, as outlined in the USA Patriot Act, are administrative subpoenas used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases. They allow the FBI to require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers without a judge's approval.

Last year's audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, issued March 9, 2007, blamed agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct. Fine's latest report is expected to be released as early as next week.

Several Justice Department and FBI officials familiar with the upcoming 2006 findings have said privately the new audit will show national security letters were used incorrectly at a similar rate as during the previous three years.

The number of national security letters issued by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law in 2001, according to last year's report. Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration.

In 2005, for example, Fine's office found more than 1,000 violations within 19,000 FBI requests to obtain 47,000 records. Each letter issued may contain several requests.

In contrast to the strong concerns expressed by Congress and civil liberties groups after last year's inspector general's report was issued, Mueller's disclosure drew no criticism from senators during just over two hours of testimony Wednesday.

Speaking before the FBI chief, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urged Mueller to be more vigilant in correcting what he called "widespread illegal and improper use of national security letters."

"Everybody wants to stop terrorists. But we also, though, as Americans, we believe in our privacy rights and we want those protected," Leahy said. "There has to be a better chain of command for this. You cannot just have an FBI agent who decides he'd like to obtain Americans' records, bank records or anything else and do it just because they want to."

Following last year's audit, the Justice Department enacted guidelines that sternly reminded FBI agents to carefully follow the rules governing national security letters. The new rules caution agents to review all data before it is transferred into FBI databases to make sure that only the information specifically requested is used.

Fine's upcoming report also credits the FBI with putting the additional checks in place to make sure privacy rights aren't violated, according to a Justice official familiar with its findings.

Critics seized on Mueller's testimony as proof that a judge should sign off on the national security letters before they are issued.

"The credibility factor shows there needs to be outside oversight," said former FBI agent Michael German, now a national security adviser for the American Civil Liberties Union. He also cast doubt on the FBI's reforms.

"There were guidelines before, and there were laws before, and the FBI violated those laws," German said. "And the idea that new guidelines would make a difference, I think cuts against rationality."

Next They'll be reading our minds....... Click Here

Authorities to Gain Fast and Expansive Access to Records With New System

Obama Bought And Paid For

Ron Paul Schools The Chairman of the Federal Reserve

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming A Fraud

Weather Channel Founder Blasts The Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think' TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'

Click Here To See