Government Orders You Tube To Censor Protest Videos

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com - May 20, 2011


In a frightening example of how the state is tightening its grip around the free Internet, it has emerged that You Tube is complying with thousands of requests from governments to censor and remove videos that show protests and other examples of citizens simply asserting their rights, while also deleting search terms by government mandate.


The latest example is You Tube’s compliance with a request from the British government to censor footage of the British Constitution Group’s Lawful Rebellion protest, during which they attempted to civilly arrest Judge Michael Peake at Birkenhead county court.


Peake was ruling on a case involving Roger Hayes, former member of UKIP, who has refused to pay council tax, both as a protest against the government’s treasonous activities in sacrificing Britain to globalist interests and as a result of Hayes clearly proving that council tax is illegal.


Hayes has embarked on an effort to legally prove that the enforced collection of council tax by government is unlawful because no contract has been agreed between the individual and the state. His argument is based on the sound legal principle that just like the council, Hayes can represent himself as a third party in court and that “Roger Hayes” is a corporation and must be treated as one in the eyes of the law.


The British government doesn’t want this kind of information going viral in the public domain because it is scared stiff of a repeat of the infamous poll tax riots of 1990, a massive tax revolt in the UK that forced the Thatcher government to scrap the poll tax altogether because of mass civil disobedience and refusal to pay.


When viewers in the UK attempt to watch videos of the protest, they are met with the message, “This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request.”


We then click through to learn that, “YouTube occasionally receives requests from governments around the world to remove content from our site, and as a result, YouTube may block specific content in order to comply with local laws in certain countries.”


You can also search by country to discover that Google, the owner of You Tube, has complied with the majority of requests from governments, particularly in the United States and the UK, not only to remove You Tube videos, but also specific web search terms and thousands of “data requests,” meaning demands for information that would reveal the true identity of a You Tube user. Google claims that the information sent to governments is “needed for legitimate criminal investigations,” but whether these “data requests” have been backed up by warrants is not divulged by the company.


“Between July 1 and Dec. 31 (2009), Google received 3,580 requests for user data from U.S. government agencies, slightly less than the 3,663 originating from Brazil,” reports PC World. “The United Kingdom and India sent more than 1,000 requests each, and smaller numbers originated from various other countries.”


Read More: http://www.infowars.com/government-orders-you-tube-to-censor-protest-videos/

__________

Related:
EU ‘cyber snoops’ sue Sweden for fighting Big Brother

FBI’s Carnivore: “vacuum cleaner” approach to tracking your data

Every Six Hours, the NSA Gathers as Much Data as Is Stored in the Entire Library of Congress.

Tutorial: How To Get Around Government Censorship Of YouTube Videos

Domestic Spying Exposed as Patriot Act Extension Looms (Video)

Obama’s Secret Service Interrogates at 7th Grader for Blog Political Speech

The fear that Obama has grown a spine is greatly exaggerated

By David Samel

Mondoweiss , May 21, 2011 Israeli PM Netanyahu has expressed dismay about President Obama’s Middle East speech. Bibi supposedly was outraged that Obama mentioned the pre-1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations. Netanyahu has complained that Mr. Obama has pushed Israel too far - a point driven home during a furious phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday morning, just hours before Mr. Obama's speech, during which the prime minister reacted angrily to the president's plan to endorse Israel's pre-1967 borders for a future Palestinian state. Mr. Obama did not back down. Another Times article notes Obama’s sharp break from past approaches. Mr. Obama declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war - adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank - should be the basis of a deal. While the 1967 borders have long been viewed as the foundation for a peace agreement, Mr. Obama's formula of land swaps to compensate for disputed territory created a new benchmark for a diplomatic solution. By the way, was there any communication between these reporters and the Times editorial staff, who more sensibly noted: There was much hand-wringing in Israel over the president's call for a two-state solution based on "the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." The language was new, but it was not a major change in American policy. It must not become another excuse for inaction. Bibi’s point man in the US, Alan Dershowitz, decried that Obama "insisted that Israel must surrender all of the areas captured in its defensive war of 1967, subject only to land swaps." Dershowitz added for good measure that in 1967, a unanimous Security Council passed Resolution 242 with the explicit understanding that parts of Jerusalem, including "the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the access roads to Hebrew University," would be retained by Israel "without the need for any land swaps." He would know, you see, because he "played a very small role in helping to draft" the resolution, and that was at least his understanding even if this provision was somehow omitted from the final text. Relax, guys. Nothing’s changed. The old formula is still in place. Of course the 1967 lines have always been the starting point for discussion – they were in Barak’s "generous" 2000 offer at Camp David, the more promising Taba negotiations in 2001 that were cut short due to the impending Israeli election of the rejectionist Sharon, and in Olmert’s 2008 "even more generous" offer. Why the uproar now? What was Obama supposed to say - that the starting point was complete Israeli control from the river to the sea, and that Israel could expect concessions for each square kilometer that it graciously yielded? Even in our poisoned political atmosphere, that would never fly. The 1967 lines are the only logical starting point. The devil has always been in the details, and Obama explicitly included those devilish details in his speech. First, there’s the "mutually agreed swaps" of land to determine permanent borders. By definition, such swaps require negotiations, which would be between the elected legitimate government of the only democracy in the Middle East and, and... Uh oh. The Palestinians have reached a unity agreement in which Hamas will be part of any negotiations. The Palestinians themselves and most of the international community applaud this reconciliation as a necessary step to meaningful progress, but to the US and Israel, it spells "DQ". Obama: "the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel - how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist." So negotiations are required to determine the "mutually agreed swaps," and negotiations are impossible with Hamas included in the decision-making process. When Palestinians insist on their right to choose their own leaders and to have a more inclusive group represent them, guess whose fault it is when these land swaps cannot be agreed upon for lack of a legitimate negotiating partner? And what about Jerusalem and right of return that Obama postpones for future consideration? We don’t even have to get there. The "peace process" will enter its 45th year of hopelessness, with those issues remaining trump cards to be called upon only in the unlikely event that there appears to be real progress toward a settlement. It used to be that Israel could not negotiate while the threat of Iranian nuclear annihilation was hanging over its head. Before that, Ariel Sharon could not negotiate in the midst of terrorist attacks, and when such attacks were curtailed, he had forgotten about his promise to do so. Now the problem is the inclusion of Hamas in the Palestinian "government." In September, it will be the confusion and uncertainty brought on by possible UN recognition of a Palestinian State. That’s another future obstacle already identified by Obama as a potential deal-breaker. The certainty of unresolvable conflict, blamed on the Palestinians, is built in to Obama’s plan. The status quo has served the Israelis well over the past 44 years. Sure, they’ve had to endure various rounds of "terrorism," that is, a small fraction of the violence they have visited upon the Palestinians and Lebanese. But the land has been theirs to play with. They get to rule over millions of stateless, powerless people, making extrajudicial decisions over every facet of their lives and even whether they have lives at all, and still get to call themselves a "democracy"; only a few people, and none who count, snicker in disgust. The occupation may be intolerable, but only for its victims. Israel can continue for another 44 years, creating new "facts on the ground." Such opinions presently are expressed only by its more outspoken politicians (e.g., Avigdor Lieberman, who dismissed peace with the Palestinians as being "decades away"), but they are shared by much of the government and the country as a whole. Netanyahu doesn’t really care where the starting point is. He just wants to make sure there’s no realistic possibility of an end point. The fear that Obama has grown a spine is greatly exaggerated, though Netanyahu’s pretend "furious" reaction surely is designed to make Obama look and maybe feel tougher than he is. This doesn’t even address the underlying problem of the illegal settlements which make the two-state solution impossible. Obama’s criticism of the settlements was limited to the fact that they are "continuing," and of course the Palestinians were to blame because they "walked away from talks." So Obama has endorsed a blueprint for no progress toward an unachievable outcome, and we are supposed to believe Netanyahu’s howls of outrage over a single reference to the long-standing "starting point" for the road to nowhere. How transparent is this? Even Jeffrey Goldberg doesn’t buy it! ________ Related: John Mearsheimer: "Israel is pursuing a policy that is not in the American interest. American politicians have no backbone. They are unwilling to stand up for the American national interest because they are fearful of the Israel Lobby." Obama's Speech Fumbles Elite Themes OBAMA’S EMPTY RHETORIC Subjugation Indefinite Shakedowns of American Citizenry Israel approves nearly 300 settlements Palestine: One State Obama Speech Mired In Zionist Rhetoric Memory Hole Video: Bibi Netanyahu 2001 “America is something that can easily be moved.” Four More Years O? USA “PATRIOT” ACT EXTENDED

Greg Palast: Strauss-Kahn Screws Africa

By Greg Palast
The Eurasia Review
May 20, 2011

Now that I've dispensed with the obvious and obnoxious teaser headline, let's drop the towel and expose Dominique Strauss-Kahn's history of arrogant abuse. The truth is, the grandee of the IMF has molested Africans for years.

On Wednesday, the New York Times ran five – count'em, FIVE – stories on Strauss-Kahn, Director-General of the International Monetary Fund. According to the Paper of Record, the charges against "DSK," as he's known in France, are in "contradiction" to his "charm" and "accomplishments" at the IMF.

Au contraire, mes chers lecteurs.

Director-General DSK's cruelty, arrogance and impunity toward African and other nations as generalissimo of the IMF is right in line with the story told by the poor, African hotel housekeeper in New York City.

Let's consider how the housekeeper from Guinea ended up here in New York. In 2002, this single mother was granted asylum. What drove her here?

It began with the IMF rape of Guinea.

In 2002, the International Monetary Fund cut off capital inflows to this West African nation. Without the blessing of the International Monetary Fund, Guinea, which has up to half the world's raw material for aluminum, plus oil, uranium, diamonds and gold, could not borrow a dime to develop these resources.

The IMF's cut-off was, in effect, a foreclosure, and the nation choked and starved while sitting on its astonishing mineral wealth. As in the sub-prime mortgage foreclosures we see today, the IMF moved quickly to seize Guinea's property.

But the IMF did not seize this nation's riches for itself. Rather, it forced Guinea to sell off its resources to foreign corporations at prices much like the sale of furniture on the lawn of a foreclosed house.

The French, Americans, Canadians, Swiss (and lately, the Chinese) came in with spoons out and napkins tucked in under their chins, swallowing the nation's bauxite, gold and more. In the meantime, the IMF ordered the end of trade barriers and thereby ruined local small holders.

As a result of the IMF attack, Guineans who could, fled for freedom and food. This week, then, marked the second time this poor African was molested by the IMF.

Now we have the context of how these two, the randy geezer of globalization and the refugee ended up, in quite different positions, in that New York hotel room.

Since taking over the IMF in 2007, erstwhile "Socialist" Strauss-Kahn has tightened the screws in an attempt to maintain the free-market finance mania that ruined this planet in the first place. [That's worth a story in itself – and that's coming. Our team has a stack of inside documents from the IMF that we will be releasing in my new book in the Fall.]

DSK's lawyers say the relationship with the housekeeper was "consensual." But DSK says that about all IMF agreements with nations over whom it holds life and death powers. That's like saying a bank robbery is consensual so long as you don't consider the gun.

Whether it was agreed-upon sex or brutal rape, it could only have been "consensual" in the same way that the people of Guinea consented to IMF-ordered financial rapine.

The Times article quotes an IMF crony of Strauss-Kahn saying DSK gets his way by "persuasion" not "bullying." Tell that to the Greeks.

It was DSK who, last year, personally insisted on brutal terms for the so-called bail-out of Greece. "Strong conditionality" is the IMF term. Strauss-Kahn demanded not just a devastating cut in pensions and a deliberate increase in unemployment to 14%, but also the sell-off of 4,000 of 6,000 state-owned services. The DSK IMF plan allowed the financiers who set the financial fires of Greece to pick up the nation's assets at a fire-sale price.

The Strauss-Kahn demands were not "tough love" for Greece: The love was reserved solely for the vulture bankers who received the IMF funds but were not required to accept one euro in lost profit in return. DSK, despite the advice of many, refused to ask the banks and speculators to reduce their usurious interest charges that were the root of Greece's woes.

Requiring Greece to sell assets, drop trade barriers, and even end the rule that Greek ships use Greek sailors has nothing to do with saving Greece, but everything to do with DSK's commitment to protect every banker's balance sheet from unwanted violations.

I do not consider it a stretch to say that a predator in the bank boardroom suite assumes his impunity applies to the hotel suite.


This article first appeared in the Guardian and is reprinted with the author's permission
_________


Related:
Strauss-Kahn, IMF Scam Fails, the Debt Crisis Crescendo 

Peter Schiff on the IMF – ‘They don’t help the countries, they should be abolished.’

Why No Mention of Six-Figure Pensions at Age 50 at the IMF?

Portugal getting DSK’d

Strauss-Kahn: new claims of sexual misconduct add to pressure on former IMF chief

Weep Not for Strauss-Kahn

Strauss-Kahn + Connexions + CIA

From I Understand and I wish to Continue

The Saga of the EX IMF Chief, who has now been granted bail and is now under 24hr surviellance seems to have an interesting twist.
We Know, that "Strauss-Kahn is a member of elite groups who meet behind closed doors.
He belongs to the Bildebergers.
HE IS ONE of THEM.

BUT, at the same time he is the fall guy.

His "mistake" was to threaten the Washington-Wall Street Faction and push for reforms within the IMF,  Which then threatened America's STATUS QUO within the IMF.

Quoted from Here 


"Last week, the International Monetary Fund urged the United States to "urgently" address its problems, saying the country stands out as the only large advanced economy with a fiscal deficit that will increase in 2011 from 2010, despite the ongoing economic recovery."(end snip)

"In recent years, a major shift has occurred in Europe's political landscape. Pro-American governments have been elected in both France and Germany. Social Democracy has been weakened.

Franco-American relations have been redefined, with Washington playing a significant role in grooming a new generation of European politicians." (From Here)

There are two main factors with the "SET UP" of DSK.

The first is obviously about the regime change at the IMF, the second to DSK being a candidate and possible winner in France's  presidential elections.


We see that Strauss Kahn was a strong contender in the French Elections against Nicolas Sarkozy.

France in many regards, has become a de facto US "client state regime", broadly supportive of US interests in the EU and US foreign policy.

The response to Lybia is a clasic example.


We know that just before and during this time he has been incarcerated, Greece has been in negotiaition for new terms of their "bailout" and also considered "DUMPING" the Euro. See Here:

Which would have HUGE ramifications.

And we saw how U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, pimped for the replacement of DSK "suggesting he can no longer perform his duties" as IMF Managing director.

But they were apparently "Good Mates"? Fickle? or just self serving?

But what we didn't know, according to Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research is that:

"Strauss-Kahn was refused bail by Judge Melissa Jackson, an appointee and protégé of Michael Bloomberg, who in addition to his role as Mayor is a powerful figure on Wall Street.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. charged (using scanty evidence) Strauss-Kahn "with seven crimes, including attempted rape, sexual abuse, forcible touching and unlawful imprisonment".

Who is Cyrus Vance Jr.? 

He is the son of the late Cyrus Vance who served as Secretary of State in the Carter administration.

But there is more than meets the eye.

Nicolas Sarkozy's step father Frank G. Wisner II, a prominent CIA official who married his step mother Christine de Ganay in 1977 served as Deputy Executive Secretary of State under the helm of Cyrus Vance Senior, father of District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior. 

Is it relevant?

The Vance and Wisner families had close personal ties. 

In turn Nicolas Sarkozy had close family ties with his step father Frank Wisner (and his half brothers and sisters in the US and one member of the Wisner family was involved in Sarkozy's election campaign). 

It is also worth noting that Frank G. Wisner II was the son of one of America's most notorious spies, the late Frank Gardiner Wisner (1909- 1965), the mastermind behind the CIA sponsored coup which toppled the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953.

Wisner Jr. is also trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Trust. 

While these various personal ties do not prove that Strauss-Kahn was the object of a set-up, the matter of Sarkozy's ties to the CIA via his step father, not to mention the ties of Frank G. Wisner II to the Cyrus Vance family are certainly worth investigating.

Frank G, Wisner also played a key role as Obama's special intelligence envoy to Egypt at the height of the January 2011 protest movement. 

Did the CIA play a role? 

Was Strauss-Kahn framed by people in his immediate political entourage including President Obama and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner?  (end snips)

So, Perhaps this is  a Rothschild Vs Rockefeller scenario? Two oppossing Big Money factions?

We also see that Asia and developing Nations want to be "involved" in the IMF Management process.

Vying over the "restructuring" of one of it's "Fronts".
A big and very important front, but NOW we understand that the IMF is just a TOOL.

"The IMF is not the main architect of these devastating economic reforms which have served to impoverish millions of people, while creating a "favorable environment" for foreign investors in Third World  low wage economies.

The creditor banks call the shots. The IMF is a bureaucratic entity. Its role is to implement and enforce those economic policies on behalf of dominant economic interests."

Like any criminal enterprise, and "gang", which is what the IMF bascically is and what these people belong to, sometimes it's better if there is a scapegoat to take the "FALL", so to speak, then the restructure can take place behind the veneer of respectability..

Or maybe something more sinister..Time and certain outcomes will tell.
and so will those left "standing".

The restructuring not only of the IMF, But how it operates and that of the whole World Financial and Monetary System.

MORE : http://thirteenthmonkey.blogspot.com/2011/05/decapitation-x-2.html

http://thirteenthmonkey.blogspot.com/2011/05/honey-trap.html

http://thirteenthmonkey.blogspot.com/2011/05/europe-vs-asia-for-top-imf-post.html

and PLEASE see James' Blog over at Winter Patriot for MORE  http://winterpatriot.com/node/613
A13

__________-

Related:

Alleged New Details in Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case

The sordid sexual history of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Likely IMF Chief Lagarde Makes Comments On Greece That Are The Definition Of Insane

[Audio] The Boiling Frogs Presents Pepe Escobar

From Boiling Frogs, Saturday, 21. May 2011

Pepe Escobar returns to our show to discuss the ever-changing, constantly-shifting, and holes-filled script in the US raid that allegedly killed Osama bin Laden. He reports on the news accounts on the Arab uprising in Egypt and the rarely reported realities of the Libya War, the conflicted responses of the United States to the uprising in Egypt and Libya versus those in other places such as Bahrain and Tunisia, and the hypocritical stand on Saudi Arabia. Mr. Escobar talks about the US assembly line of Boogiemen used as catalysts for conflicts and wars, the conflicting accounts on the Bin Laden Death Operation that have been completely censored by the US media and the official narrative as an elaborate PSYOP, the critical turning point in US-Pakistan relations and the China factor in the region, the Central and South Asia geopolitics factor, and more!

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil is the roving correspondent for Asia Times and an analyst for The Real News Network. He is an investigative journalist with three decades of experience in covering politics and conflicts around the globe. He’s been a foreign correspondent since 1985, based in London, Milan, Los Angeles, Paris, Singapore, and Bangkok. Since the late 1990s, he has specialized in covering stories and cases from the Middle East to Central Asia, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was in Afghanistan and interviewed the military leader of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Masoud, a couple of weeks before his assassination. Mr. Escobar has made frequent visits to Iran and is the author of three must-read books: Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War, Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad During the Surge, and Obama Does Globalistan.

Here is our guest Pepe Escobar unplugged!

  Interview with Pepe Escobar [68:58m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

Daniel Estulin ARRESTED at Madrid Airport and prevented from travelling to Ireland

From Infowars Ireland May 20, 2011 :

UPDATE: Interpol False “Tip-off” to Spanish Airport Security Staff Regarding Estulin False Passport Allegation

Daniel Estulin

Dave Derby – The Sovereign Independent
Thursday afternoon, around mid-day, Daniel Estulin arrives at Madrid airport in time for his flight to Ireland to accompany Ian R. Crane on his “Beyond Treason” tour to expose the Irish Bilderbergers and other globalists. On arrival at the airport, Daniel was taken into custody by Spanish police. After a time, he was informed that the “reason” he was detained was because the authorites believed he may be in possession of a fake passport.
After some questioning and quizzing, which established that his passport was indeed genuine, he was released, but was told he cannot leave the country and certainly cannot travel to Ireland on account of the fact Queen Elizabeth was on her state visit to the country. The authorites, of course, retained Daniel’s passport so as to prevent him leaving the country for that period of time.
It would appear they may have been waiting for him at the airport, and the passport fiasco was simply the pretext to prevent him from travelling to Ireland to help educate the Irish people. And the fact that the Queen was on her state visit offered the perfect excuse to restrict his travel for a number of days.
It is probably no coincidence that this arrest comes in the wake of the huge demonstrations that have been taking place in Spain by its citizens. Thousands of people took to the streets to protest against the political and banking corruption within the country.
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=20299
At this moment in time, this is all the information we have, as it is fresh news. However, we will keep you updated as soon as we have more details of what exactly happened.
In the meantime, the CORK and DUBLIN events will still go ahead with Ian R Crane exposing the Inner Cabal of Irish globalists determined to eradicate the last vestiges of Irish Sovereignty.
REDUCED ENTRANCE: Cork 8 Euro – Dublin 10 Euro
Tickets Available Here