BBC Censors Video Showing Syrian Rebels Forcing Prisoner to Become Suicide Bomber

Broadcaster attempts to hide clear evidence of war crimes by Syrian ‘Rebels’

By Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com

The BBC has sensationally censored a news story and a video showing Syrian rebels forcing a prisoner to become a suicide bomber, a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, presumably because it reflected badly on establishment media efforts to portray the FSA as glorious freedom fighters.

The video, a copy of which can be viewed above (the original BBC version was deleted), shows Free Syrian Army rebels preparing a bomb that is loaded onto the back of a truck to be detonated at a government checkpoint in the city of Aleppo.

Continue reading

Obama’s Lawyers Move to Censor Videos of New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing, Rewrite History

According to multiple reports, a series of videos from a New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing are so damning to Obama that his lawyers are actively trying to get them removed from the internet.

By Alex Thomas, The Intel Hub

The videos document the recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing in regards to Barack Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and his possible ineligibility to appear on the New Jersey presidential ballot.

A report from Conservative News and Views confirmed that attorney Mario Apuzzo has been threatened by Obama’s lawyers for supposedly filming the court hearing. The lawyers went on to claim that they would have it scrubbed from the public domain. (rewriting history)

Jerome R. Corsi made the latest Obama eligibility issue famous with this story about the hearing. Then, on Tuesday afternoon, Alexandra Hill’s boss called Mario Apuzzo directly. CNAV heard first from Nick Purpura and then directly from Apuzzo.

Apuzzo received a call from a man identifying himself as Angelo Genova, the lead partner of Genova, Burns, Giantomasi and Webster. Genova was agitated and almost overwrought. He demanded to know why Apuzzo had videotaped the proceedings (a thing Apuzzo did not do), and then said that he would “move to strike the video from the record.”

Genova also said that:
Alexandra M. Hill is not working on the case of Purpura and Moran v. Obama any longer. Angelo Genova has taken that case over and is handling it personally.

Death threats have come to the firm. Apuzzo told CNAV that Ms. Hill was the main target of these threats. Billy Baer also talked to Apuzzo, after CNAV called Dan Haggerty for comment. Apuzzo apparently told Baer that Genova never made clear whether the threatening person was threatening Ms. Hill alone or “the firm in general,” whatever that might mean.

Apuzzo offered to Genova to condemn the threats for the record, on his blog. Genova hastily declined. He then dwelt at length on the making of the video or videos and accused Apuzzo of making them without the court’s permission.
To top it off, Obama’s lawyers have accused Apuzzo of having CNAV illegally record the hearing when in reality all public court hearings are allowed to be filmed.

The New Jersey Administrative Code says that anyone may record a public hearing. The judge may restrict such recording so that it does not disrupt the hearing. On April 10, before the hearing began, Judge Masin summoned Apuzzo and Hill to his chambers. There, as Apuzzo said later, the judge asked about persons wanting to record the hearings on video. Apuzzo knew that CNAV and Dan Haggerty had brought cameras. He had also given an interview to Station WHYY-TV (Channel 12, Philadelphia, PA), who told him they would come to the hearing. Judge Masin said that he would allow video cameras, so long as their operators mounted them on fixed tripod stands. Haggerty and CNAV agreed to this. (See also Commander Kerchner’s blog entry.)

The lawyers representing Obama are clearly attempting to re write history by claiming that the videos of the hearing have caused their employees and firm to be threatened and, because of this, should be removed.

You can watch all three videos below:

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA: ACTA

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight

Paul Joseph Watson
Source: Infowars.com
Thursday, January 26, 2012

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.


The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject ofdemonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.

The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.

“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.

In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, a method questioned by Senator Wyden.

“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”.

26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.

Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.

‘Zionist Bicom behind UK Press TV ban’

The Zionist Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre (Bicom) has collaborated with the state-controlled British Office of Communications (Ofcom) to ban the alternative English-language channel Press TV in the UK, a political analyst says.

“With anti-Iran sabotage activities high on its agenda, Bicom has worked closely with Ofcom towards eliminating a critical voice: Press TV,” Ismail Salami, Iranian author and Middle East expert, wrote in an article published on Press TV on Sunday.

Ofcom revoked Press TV’s license and removed the channel from the Sky platform on January 20 for what it claimed to be the news network’s breach of the Communications Act. The British media regulator also served Press TV’s London office with an order to pay a 100,000-pound fine.

“An office with intimate ties to the [British] Royal Family, Ofcom has issued the verdict under the sway of some influential parties in the government and the Bicom firm to boot,” Salami added.

He went on to explain the activities and objectives of the Israeli-sponsored company, pointing out that as a “London-based” organization “tasked with inseminating the Zionist political ideology, Bicom also funds those who are in one way or another involved with anti-Iran activities.”

“Apart from garnering support for the Zionist regime among Britons, the office also serves as a bridge between the Mossad and MI6,” with its current head, Lorna Fitzsimons, a member of the parliamentary lobby group Labor Friends of Israel (LFI), Salami elucidated.

The Iranian author also pointed to the October 2011 scandal over Adam Werritty — an “influential member” of Bicom and “an unofficial chief of staff” to the former British Defense Minister Liam Fox — and his efforts to subvert the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Werritty was financially backed by murky sources such as Bicom. And he was considered an influential member of the organization and a highly regarded agent for Mossad,” he noted.

“Reports also suggest that Werritty had regularly met Iranian anti-government groups, Israeli agents and right-wing US groups with a long-standing interest in subverting [Iranian] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and overthrowing the Islamic government,” Salami elaborated.

The British media regulator Ofcom is also said to have close ties to Britain’s royal family. The cables released by the whistleblower website Wikileaks show that Press TV’s programs on the royal wedding, which many in the country described as extravagant, angered the royal family.

The Middle East expert noted that, “With the closure of Press TV’s office in London and the removal of the channel from the Sky platform, Britain is now deluded into believing that her efforts have resulted in splendid fruits and that she has been able to gratify the whims of the Zionists.”

“Alas! Poor Ms. Britain! There is never an impediment to the free flow of truth!” Salami concluded.

Source: PressTV

BiGBROTHER IN THE UK: PRESS TV BANNED FROM AIRWAVES

Make no mistake, in these times of war drums with Iran fueled by all the Western Presstitutes, the decision to ban PressTV from UK audience, is clearly a move from western warmongers to silence the opposition, the voice of freedom, the AntiWar partisans, and to brainwash UK citizens to the idea that a full scale war with Iran is inevitable.
To justify their move to shut down PressTV: The bigger the Lie, The Better.

We believe that PressTV, along with RussiaTV(RT), are among the few channels which deliver a bit of Truth, simply because they are not controlled by Corporations Interests but by States. PressTV has demonstrated its fair and balance attitude by giving the audience, opportunity to listen to independent authors and researchers like Webster Griffin Tarpley and Stephen Lendman to name a few.

If you are in the UK, to counter this censorship, we encourage you to follow PressTV on internet, IphoneApp.

Britain bans Iran’s Press TV from airwaves

20120122-113435.jpg

By David Blair The Telegraph

Britain took a key communications arm of the Iranian state off the airwaves on Friday when Press TV, a satellite news channel, lost its broadcasting licence.

Ofcom, the UK regulator, took this decision after Press TV repeatedly broke the broadcasting code.

In 2009, the channel showed an interview with Maziar Bahari, a “Newsweek” journalist, who had been jailed in Tehran while covering mass protests against a disputed presidential election.

Mr Bahari said this interview had been conducted under duress and his captors had threatened him with execution unless he gave the answers he wanted. Last year, Ofcom imposed a fine of £100,000 on Press TV, reversing an earlier decision to revoke the channel’s licence.

As part of the investigation into this incident, Ofcom found that editorial decisions governing the channel were taken in Tehran. It wanted Press TV to be under the editorial control of the same company in London that held the broadcasting licence. Alternatively, the licence could have been transferred to Tehran.

An Ofcom spokesman said that Press TV failed to agree to these proposals, and that consequently its licence had been revoked. This decision was “not taken lightly,” he added, and only a handful of licences had been taken away in the eight-year history of Ofcom.

So far, Press TV has also failed to pay the fine of £100,000, ignoring a deadline of 5 January, although Ofcom said this was not the reason for the withdrawal of its licence. BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster, has been ordered to drop Press TV from its network in the UK.

Press TV said the decision amounted to a “clear instance of censorship”.

NATO TRIED TO CENSOR MATHABA ?

20110917-021753.jpg

Our systems are secure and up and running

A wide-spread coordinated Distributed Denial of Service (DDos) attack took place against Mathaba.Net today and resulted in the site being offline for around 8 hours while we slept peacefully.

Required action has been taken and no damage has been done. A DDoS is the type of attack used to silence a web site when they are unable to hack in. The strategy is to keep the site too busy to function.

The attack used around 200 IP addresses to launch the attack, meaning that several hundred computers were used. It is well known that NATO and the western terrorist intelligence agencies support censorship.

Mathaba has continued to bring the truth about Libya in its news reports, while all Jamahiriya web sites have long been taken off air by attackers, Mathaba remains strong and as the sole source of information.

Mathaba is subjected to almost daily attacks of varying levels, in attempts to close down the world’s leading independent news agency, however the attack today was perhaps the largest ever seen.

The attacker computers were all posting data to server using POST to post random data in order to keep the server busy and also some different DDoS attacks.

We apologize to readers for key persons being asleep during the first hours of the attack.

(source Mathaba)

thomasmantell