Most anti-piracy tools take one of two paths: they either target the server that's sharing the files (pulling videos off YouTube or taking down sites like The Pirate Bay) or they make it harder to find (delisting offshore sites that share infringing content). But leaked documents reveal a frightening line of attack that's currently being considered by the MPAA: What if you simply erased any record that the site was there in the first place? To do that, the MPAA's lawyers would target the Domain Name System that directs traffic across the internet.

The tactic was first proposed as part of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2011, but three years after the law failed in Congress, the MPAA has been looking for legal justification for the practice in existing law and working with ISPs like Comcast to examine how a system might work technically. If a takedown notice could blacklist a site from every available DNS provider, the URL would be effectively erased from the internet. No one's ever tried to issue a takedown notice like that, but this latest memo suggests the MPAA is looking into it as a potentially powerful new tool in the fight against piracy.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/16/7401769/the-mpaa-wants-to-strike-at-dns-records-piracy-sopa-leaked-documents



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Hollywood a mortal danger to the internet? If they can break it, what then? Can they use those tools to erase websites that are deemed too critical to them then? When is this going to stop?

[This is more than just another of those moments that warily conservatives point to when President Barack Obama or his defenders insist that no administration has operated stricter border controls or pursued more deportations of illegal immigrants. This is criminal.]

This is more than just another of those moments that warily conservatives point to when President Barack Obama or his defenders insist that no administration has operated stricter border controls or pursued more deportations of illegal immigrants. This is criminal.

According to a damning report in The New York Times, the White House recently overturned a ban on allowing a wealthy Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats.

“The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids,” The Times reported. “But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration.”

That was not the only action the Obama administration has taken on the deeply suspect Isaías family’s behalf.


The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.

The Obama administration has allowed the family’s patriarchs, Roberto and William Isaías, to remain in the United States, refusing to extradite them to Ecuador. The two brothers were sentenced in absentia in 2012 to eight years in prison, accused of running their bank into the ground and then presenting false balance sheets to profit from bailout funds. In a highly politicized case, Ecuador says the fraud cost the country $400 million.


The most damning accusation implicates the Obama’s, Clinton and her closest confidants at State, Cheryl Mills, and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) in what became, according to The Times, a quid pro quo relationship; campaign donations for waiving a ban on U.S. entry.


Over the course of the next year, as various members of the Isaías family donated to Mr. Menendez’s re-election campaign, the senator and his staff repeatedly made calls, sent emails and wrote letters about Ms. Isaías’s case to Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mills, the consulate in Ecuador, and the departments of State and Homeland Security.

After months of resistance from State Department offices in Ecuador and Washington, the senator lobbied Ms. Mills himself, and the ban against Ms. Isaías was eventually overturned. Mr. Menendez’s office acknowledged going to bat for Ms. Isaías, but insisted that the advocacy was not motivated by money.



In 2012, the Isaías family donated about $100,000 to the Obama campaign’s Victory Fund. María Mercedes, Estefanía Isaías’s mother, donated $30,000 alone to Sen. Menendez’s 2012 campaign for reelection to the U.S. Senate. Menendez later authored another letter to State requesting that the ban on Isaías’s sister’s entry into the United States be lifted as well, despite the fact that she had been accused of smuggling illegal immigrants into America to serve as maids.

“As that letter went out, their mother gave $20,000 more to the Obama Victory Fund,” The Times reported.

That is an absolute bombshell, and one which implicates both the White House, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Clinton’s State Department in corruption. And we’re not merely talking about conservative media harping over this objectively unjust use of executive authority. The fact that this sordid tale is breaking in The Times indicates that it is a narrative the mainstream press will be unable to avoid. At least, after they get their gushing over Obama’s relaxation of America’s strict embargo of Cuba out of their systems.

The entire accounting of apparently disreputable practices from Democrats in the highest positions of authority in America, is positively explosive. It is worth a read; only a portion of this thorough report is reproduced here. It’s going to be a rough few weeks for Democrats while they attempt to avoid having to go on the record defending these allegations, but it would be malpractice for a mainstream press which did a stellar job uncovering these allegations to not pursue their ultimate and potentially career-ending implications.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/17/obama-overturns-ban-preventing-criminal-ecuadorean-democratic-donor-from-entering-u-s/



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Not even a smidgen of corruption..."

What if domestic animals — pets such as dogs and cats as well livestock like cows and chickens — were granted citizenship rights? That may sound like a crazy question, but Canadian philosopher Will Kymlicka thinks it’s a critically important one.

Kymlicka, a professor at Queen’s University, is a well-regarded figure in modern political philosophy. He’s also the author, along with writer Sue Donaldson, of Zoopolis, a book making the case for animal citizenship. Their basic premise is simple: animals are already part of our society, as pets and work animals, therefore we should formally recognize them as such.

That’s not just a head-in-the-clouds thought experiment. We already have basic laws forbidding animal abuse and regulating industrial slaughterhouses. But, as anyone who has visited an animal shelter or thought about the ethics of what they eat can attest, we as a society have not come anywhere close to solving the problem of animal mistreatment. If we really want to improve animals’ lives, Kymlicka and Donaldson argue, we need to stop thinking in terms of merely treating animals better. Rather, we need to acknowledge on a fundamental level that animals are a part of society and deserve to be treated as such. That leads you, however improbable it might sound, to citizenship.

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/16/7385269/animal-citizenship-kymlicka



-----------------------------------------------
And that is why, Ladies & Gents, I love the liberal mind... 

The end times are upon us. I find myself in agreement with not just Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

It’s not just me. Right Wing News’ John Hawkins — not exactly a cheerleader for bipartisan consensus — is publicly standing with Warren, Pelosi, and their liberal allies in the House and Senate. As have conservative Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), Townhall.com’s Amy Otto, and Tea Party Patriots, among many others.

And I’m not only opposed to the omnibus bill that squeaked through the House and may fail in the Senate. I’m flat-out agreeing with the principles upon which Pelosi and Warren are making their stand — specifically, their opposition to what Hawkins called “the GOP’s sop to the banks on derivatives along with their sleazy attempt to change campaign finance rules to benefit incumbents.”

It’s infuriating. In its first significant legislative effort since winning the Senate in a landslide last month, the Beltway’s GOP leadership has chosen to secure a special campaign-finance reform loophole for the election arms of both parties. Furthermore, it worked with the Democratic establishment to put taxpayers on the hook for risky investments by bankers.

And we haven’t even gotten to the fact that the bill offers only a few small improvements to the federal budget while still spending far too much. Likewise, the few mediocre — at best — pro-life efforts are offset by Republican support for slightly expanding the federal funding of abortion and continued funding for population control efforts.

This latest debacle is just more evidence that the wool is always going to be pulled over the heads of conservatives. Enough is enough, especially since the media has clearly decided that shutdowns are cool when Democrats do them.

On Friday, Noah warned the GOP leadership that “to dismiss this ire from conservatives as a mere fit of pique among conservatives…would be a foolish approach to this development.”

He’s right. Our country is in serious trouble, and none of the allegedly “reasonable” voices in Washington are doing much about it. As such, I’m proud to add my (small) voice to the growing cascade of conservatives and liberals that have decided it’s time to take the power back from both parties.


http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/13/elizabeth-warren-and-nancy-pelosi-are-right/

Google announced Thursday it will close Google News in Spain and block reports from Spanish publishers from more than 70 Google News international editions due to a new Spanish law requiring aggregators to pay to link content — a decision that will reverberate around the globe.

Google News in Spain will shut down on Dec. 16 — several weeks before a new Spanish intellectual property law takes effect Jan. 1 requiring news publishers to be paid.
That means people in Latin America, where Spanish news organizations have sought to boost their audiences, won't see news from Spain via Google News in Mexico or elsewhere. Also set to disappear are reports in English from Spanish publishers like Madrid's leading El Pais newspaper.

People who use Google's standard search in Spain and anywhere else around the world will still be able to find articles on their own from Spanish publications, because the law applies only to aggregators and not to individuals who do their own searches outside of Google News.

The decision by Google Inc. is the first shutdown since Google News debuted as an experimental project in 2002.
Richard Gingras, head of Google News, said the decision was made "with real sadness" because Google News is "a service that hundreds of millions of users love and trust, including many here in Spain."

Spain's AEDE association, which represents large news publishers, had lobbied for the law nicknamed the "Google Tax." It declined comment Thursday. A spokesman for El Pais said the newspaper did not plan to comment on Google's action and the publishers of three other large Spanish newspaper groups also declined to comment or did not respond to messages.
But Spain's Culture Ministry characterized Google's move as a legitimate business decision. The ministry also said the law doesn't apply to individuals and will protect the intellectual property of publications that spend money to create content without hindering freedom of information.


[...]
Alejandro Tourino, a Madrid-based lawyer who specializes in media issues and has worked for The Associated Press on several legal cases, said Spanish news publishers may "have shot themselves out of the market. Time will tell."


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141211/eu--google-spain-460415ef18.html

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

With all the recent race clanging on MSNBC and other cable news networks, now’s probably a good time to remind everyone that America is among the least racist countries in the world.

I know this statement will be shocking news to regular viewers of “PoliticsNation,” but it also has the quality of being true.

From 2010 to 2014, the World Values Survey asked residents in over 50 countries who they would not want as neighbors. Just over five percent of respondents in the United States said “people of a difference race.” That’s far more tolerant a response than citizens of most European, African and Asian countries gave. As a comparison, 15 percent of Germans, 41 percent of Indians and 22 percent of Japanese said they wouldn’t want to live next to “people of a different race.” The Washington Post depicted the results in a useful chart.

The survey is probably not a perfect indicator of how pervasive racism is in a given society, but the results do correlate with what we know anecdotally. Take, for instance, the fact that America elected and then re-elected a black man for president.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/09/america-is-among-least-racist-countries-in-the-world/

[...]
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

Published on Dec 2, 2014

Liberal UCLA Student: “I’m talking about your race, the color of your skin…” the student said. “You’re a black man! You will never reach the same pinnacle as a white man in this system because you are black!”



Officer who grew up under segregation pestered by female student - A black police officer was confronted by a white UCLA student during a Ferguson-inspired protest last week and lectured on racism. The officer, who grew up in the South during segregation, was repeatedly told that he did not understand the complexities of racism by an irate female protester. “I grew up in Jackson, Mississippi, OK? Where the restrooms had ‘colored only’ and ‘whites only,’” the officer explained. “I couldn’t ride in the front of the bus. My mom had to sit in the back with all of us. So, I grew up in the Deep South when I was 16-years-old, so I know racism, OK? I can spot it.”

Despite the officer’s personal and historical experience with real hatred, the female protester continued to refute his understanding, arguing that the officer was wrong for claiming that all races could be racist.

“I think everyone is capable of discrimination. Racism is different. Racism is a structure of power… to keep you down!” the student shouted. “You are a black man! You are kept down by your race even if you won’t accept it! It is a fact of your life!”

Although the political left has attempted to change the definition of racism to fit their politically correct worldview, the actual definition remains the same: “Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”

Ironically, as the officer pointed out the protester’s hypocrisy in labeling all cops as violent, the female student quickly changed the subject.

“I’m talking about your race, the color of your skin…” the student said. “You’re a black man! You will never reach the same pinnacle as a white man in this system because you are black!”

Not to be outdone, the student continued her tolerant tirade by verbally attacking the officer for helping young students of all races in his spare time.

“So, I should go to a school and volunteer and tell all the African-American students, ‘I want to help you out,’ but all the others, the Asians, the Hispanic kids, not help them out?” The officer asked. “That’s wrong! C’mon!”

These are America’s “progressives.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWqMYqFI2tg

[Libertarian philanthropists say cronyism is bad, even when they benefit from it]

Libertarian philanthropists say cronyism is bad, even when they benefit from it


Conservative groups frequently derided as tools of powerful business interests are lobbying hard against a package of tax breaks for American businesses.

The company owned by billionaire philanthropists Charles and David Koch, as well as groups frequently associated with the fraternal libertarians, are pushing Congress to let 55 tax breaks expire, including several that provide billions in tax relief for corporations such as Koch Industries.

The various tax breaks are theoretically temporary, but have been consistently renewed. Together, they provide roughly $45 billion in tax relief to individuals and businesses each year.

House leaders expect the full package of tax extenders to pass despite opposition from conservative groups that either oppose tax preferences for specific industries or hope to see the various provisions considered individually.

“We oppose ALL subsidies, whether existing or proposed, including programs that benefit us, which are principally those that are embedded in our economy, such as mandates,” wrote Philip Ellender, president Koch’s government affairs division, in a Wednesday letter to members of Congress.

Ellender singled out the wind production tax credit as particularly deleterious. But unlike that provision, some of the tax breaks included in the House package benefit activities in which Koch and its subsidiaries are heavily invested.

Koch subsidiary George Pacific, for instance, qualifies for a tax break for the production of cellulosic biofuels. Another subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, operates biofuel production facilities that could benefit from another of the provisions.

Those tax breaks could improve Koch’s bottom line, but the company sees federal tax preferences in general as economically harmful.

“Koch doesn’t view these as ‘benefits’ even if they are in industries we’re in,” explained a source familiar with the company’s public affairs strategy. “They are wasteful and market distorting, and allow other firms to run businesses that aren’t making money any other way.”

Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative group with ties to the Kochs, suggested that the wind PTC is just such a provision.

“We just have a particular dislike for wind subsidies, since that sector has so little to show for the massive subsidies received over the past few decades,” Levi Russell, a spokesman for AFP, said in an email.

But like Koch Industries, he said, “we oppose corporate cronyism of all forms.” AFP is encouraging lawmakers to vote against the full package of tax extenders.

While Democratic lawmakers and members of the media insist that the Republican Party marches in lockstep with Koch Industries, whose owners are Republican donors, the tax extender package appears headed for passage despite opposition from Koch Industries, and that of groups with which it is associated.

The House likely will not split the package into stand-alone provisions that can be voted on individually, a position supported by Heritage Action for America, another prominent conservative group.

“Each provision should be allowed stand or fall on its own merit, and the vast majority of these provisions would not survive such scrutiny,” said Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler in an emailed statement.

Pro-business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support the package of tax extenders. Americans for Tax Reform, a group that works to minimize the American tax burden generally, also supports it.


http://freebeacon.com/issues/kochs-lobby-against-tax-breaks-for-koch-industries/

Even in the entertainment industry, "comedian" Russell Brand is known for his outspoken socialist beliefs.  Which is why it was so entertaining to see Brand confronted at his latest liberal cause by a gutsy reporter willing to challenge Brand on the hypocrisy of his beliefs by asking him a simple question.

According to the Huffington Post UK:

Activist Russell Brand clashed with a Channel 4 News interviewer on Monday when the journalist asked him about the price of his own house.

The comedian had earlier joined hundreds of residents from an east London estate to march on Downing Street protesting against the threat of eviction.

Tenants in the New Era estate in Hoxton, which was originally built as affordable housing for workers, say they could face homelessness after US investment firm Westbrook Partners bought it out.


http://www.mrctv.org/blog/liberal-blowhard-russell-brand-throws-hissy-fit-after-being-confronted-price-his-home-0




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how the rich man has been saved from the claws of the evil press by the poor woman... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauche_caviar

It’s common to see someone walking down the street with their hands in their pockets– especially when it’s cold outside. But the cold wasn't enough to convince one “nervous” resident who called 911 after spotting a man trying to keep his hands warm.

A police officer in Pontiac, Michigan responded to a call around 4:30 p.m. Thursday. The officer captured the encounter on video using a smartphone.

“You were walking by,” the officer said to the man just before pausing to respond to a radio call.

“Walking by and doing what?” the man asked.

“You were making people nervous.”

“By walking by?” the man asked again.

“Yeah, they said you had your hands in your pockets,” the officer said.

“Walking by having your hands in your pockets makes people nervous and call the police when it’s snowing outside?” the man asked in a surprised tone. The officer then asked the man what he was “up to” and whether it was an “inconvenience” to talk to the officer.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/01/the-baffling-reason-neighbors-reported-a-man-walking-outside-to-the-police-and-what-he-told-the-cops-who-stopped-him-this-is-outrageous/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3916105041001/atheists-block-schools-thanksgiving-donations/#sp=show-clips

[Often government agencies conduct investigations of online businesses or other sites (and even individuals) using adults posing as minors. The FDA did not respond to an email inquiry why this particular investigation requires the involvement of actual minors.]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently solicited quotes from contractors to recruit minors ages sixteen and seventeen to purchase "regulated tobacco products" on the Internet. The purchase attempts must be made from a facility located in Virginia and shipped to a P.O. Box provided by the FDA for purposes of this probe. The FDA is careful to note that the contractor must "debrief minors on the dangers of tobacco use" and that the minors "[agree] NOT to attempt to purchase tobacco products" outside of the FDA investigation.

All minors recruited as part of this program must have written approval from their parents or legal guardians. Once the contractor has obtained immunity for the jurisdiction in which the purchase is to be made, the minor is to make the purchase over the Internet under the supervision of the contractor. Generally, a debit card or prepaid credit card designated for the project is to be used to establish the date, amount and location of the purchase. Although the identities of the minors are to be kept confidential, the documents warn that "in the event of possible enforcement or judicial action, however, the minor’s identity may be revealed, and the minor may need to provide a declaration and/or give oral testimony in a hearing."

[...]
Contractors are to attempt single purchases at no more than twenty-five different online tobacco vendors. The FDA anticipates that 80 percent of purchases attempted in this effort will be successful, although the agency concedes this is just an estimate.

Often government agencies conduct investigations of online businesses or other sites (and even individuals) using adults posing as minors. The FDA did not respond to an email inquiry why this particular investigation requires the involvement of actual minors. However, the documents accompanying the solicitation state that "minors are an integral part of conducting purchases of regulated tobacco products to ensure compliance" with applicable laws and related FDA regulations. In 2012, the FDA used minors while conducting inspections of retail tobacco establishments.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fda-recruits-minors-online-cigarettes-purchases_820288.html

[!!!!!!!!HAPPY THANKSGIVING 2014!!!!!!!!]

!!!!!!!!HAPPY THANKSGIVING 2014!!!!!!!!

[New Black Panthers Plotted To Bomb Gateway Arch, Assassinate St. Louis Prosecutor, Ferguson Police Chief… Foiled By EBT Card…]

New Black Panthers Plotted To Bomb Gateway Arch, Assassinate St. Louis Prosecutor, Ferguson Police Chief… Foiled By EBT Card…


Two men indicted last week on federal weapons charges allegedly had plans to bomb the Gateway Arch — and to kill St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch and Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson — the Post-Dispatch has learned.

Sources close to the investigation were uncertain whether the men had the capability to carry out the plans, although the two allegedly did buy what they thought was a pipe bomb in an undercover law enforcement sting.

The men wanted to acquire two more bombs, the sources said, but could not afford to do it until one suspect’s girlfriend’s Electronic Benefit Transfer card was replenished. […]

One of the defendants’ plans, the sources said, included planting a bomb inside the observation deck at the top of the Arch. It was not clear how they could have gotten a bomb past airport-style security screening for rides up.

It also wasn’t clear, the sources said, whether the men intended to use bombs as the means to kill McCulloch and Jackson. Both officials became targets of national criticism and protests after Brown’s killing.

Local and federal authorities have served search warrants at two buildings, one in the 2500 block of Hampton Avenue in St. Louis and the other in the 1500 block of Reale Avenue in north St. Louis County, but the associated documents were sealed.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/alleged-plot-included-bombing-gateway-arch-killing-prosecutor/article_69ddd938-e763-55c1-9c1c-3306725f941e.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&mobile_touch=true

Smirking St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch took his robes off long enough on Monday to announce to the world that the killer of Mike Brown would face no criminal charges. In lieu of the usual grand jury process wherein the prosecutor says it wants an indictment and then the grand jury automatically gives it to them, McCulloch clearly did everything he could to make sure officer Darren Wilson would never face a trial. In the wake of such transparent rigging, Ferguson quite naturally exploded into fiery riots.

The media reaction to the rioting has thus far been uniformly ridiculous. As much as we all love AutoZone and Doritos, hysterically sobbing at the sight of the former being burned and the latter being looted is a tad over the top. A clip of bullets was unloaded into an unarmed black boy and then his killer was ushered through some sort of cop-loving kangaroo court, after all. Some charred car refreshers are hardly something to get worked up about in moments like these.

Even coverage that didn't exhibit Don Lemon levels of absurdity still endlessly bleated on about how the riots are obviously regrettable. Big time news outlets that generally abstain from telling you directly what to think have decided to make an exception for the rioting. They have discarded their usual straight face of objectivity to tell you that riots are definitely bad and that all right-thinking people should definitely be against them.

But is this really so? There is, of course, the historical case to be made for rioting: the past is replete with examples where rioting gets the goods. But there is also, I'd submit, an even more straightforward case for rioting: at the right levels, rioting is economically efficient.


http://gawker.com/actually-riots-are-good-the-economic-case-for-riots-i-1663629918










---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They would disagree with that...

Ferguson Business Owner Goes Off On Gov. Nixon For Mass Looting & Destruction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx_prro_1V8


Looting at the Dollar Tree located at 10752 West Florissant
https://vine.co/v/O1XnPZtLJPe


AWFUL. Black-Owned Juanita’s Fashion R Boutique Burns While Rioters Giggle (VIDEO)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/awful-black-owned-juanitas-fashion-r-boutique-burns-while-rioters-giggle-video/

[I just took an action to change the law, so that's point No. 1]

Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:


“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.

“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”

Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.

“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.


http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/26/obama-i-just-took-an-action-to-change-the-law/


"You have been deporting families," a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.

"What you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that's point No. 1," Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. "Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we're reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/225363-obama-fires-back-at-hecklers-get-the-facts


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the comment section:
Obama 2012: I can't change the law
Obama last week: I'm not changing the law
Obama now: I just changed the law

The Department of Homeland Security is poised to ditch all records from a controversial network monitoring system called Einstein that are at least three years old, but not for security reasons.

DHS reasons the files -- which include data about traffic to government websites, agency network intrusions and general vulnerabilities -- have no research significance.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/11/dhs-set-destroy-governmentwide-network-surveillance-records/99737/



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judicial Watch reports that the Obama administration has turned over about 42,000 pages of documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal. The administration was forced to turn the documents over to Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Judicial Watch is posting them on its web site. The administration turned them over on November 18, 2014.

One of the documents provides smoking gun proof that the Obama White House and the Eric Holder Justice Department colluded to get CBS News to block reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was one of the few mainstream media reporters who paid any attention to the deadly gun-running scandal.

In an email dated October 4, 2011, Attorney General Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, called Attkisson “out of control.” Schmaler told White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz that he intended to call CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer to get the network to stop Attkisson.

Schultz replied, “Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

Schultz also told Schmaler that he was working with reporter Susan Davis, then at the National Journal, to target Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA). Issa led the House investigation into Fast and Furious. Davis now works at USA Today. In the email chain, Schultz tells Schmaler that he would provide Davis with “leaks.”

Davis wrote a critical piece on Issa a few weeks later.

Attkisson was later subjected to hacking of her computer by people who remain unknown, but who likely belong to a government agency. She and CBS parted ways earlier in 2014, and Attkisson has since said that the network blocked her reports from airing.


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/20/bombshell-email-proves-that-white-house-doj-targeted-reporter-sharyl-attkisson/


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure. Unaltered. Corruption.