An Exclusive interview, Alex Jones speaks with Sen. Rand Paul on NDAA, TSA undercover on Houston busses, Obama’s overall neglect of the Constitution, his possible impeachment and much more. This is a must see video.

Hawaii’s legislature is weighing an unprecedented proposal to curb the privacy of Aloha State residents: requiring Internet providers to keep track of every Web site their customers visit.

Its House of Representatives has scheduled a hearing this morning on a new bill (PDF) requiring the creation of virtual dossiers on state residents. The measure, H.B. 2288, says “Internet destination history information” and “subscriber’s information” such as name and address must be saved for two years.

H.B. 2288, which was introduced Friday, says the dossiers must include a list of Internet Protocol addresses and domain names visited. DemocraticRep. John Mizuno of Oahu is the lead sponsor; Mizuno also introduced H.B. 2287, a computer crime bill, at the same time last week.

Last summer, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)managed to persuade a divided committee in the U.S. House of Representatives to approve his data retention proposal, which doesn’t go nearly as far as Hawaii’s. (Smith, currently Hollywood’s favorite Republican, has become better known as the author of the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.)

Democrat Jill Tokuda, the Hawaii Senate’s majority whip, who introduced a companion bill, S.B. 2530, in the Senate, told CNET that her legislation was intended to address concerns raised by Rep. Kymberly Pine, the first Republican elected to her Oahu district since statehood and the House minority floor leader.

“I was asked to introduce the Senate companions on these Internet security related bills by Representative Kymberly Marcos Pine after her own personal experience in this area,” Tokuda said. “I would defer to her on the origins of these bills as she has done the research and outreach, and been the main champion of this effort.”

Pine, who did not immediately respond to queries, has been targeted by a disgruntled Web designer, Eric Ryan, who launched KymPineIsACrook.com and claims she owes him money, according to an article last summer in the Hawaii Reporter. Her e-mail account was also reportedly hacked around the same time. The article said Pine would advocate for “tougher cyber laws at the Hawaii State Capitol” as a result.

“We must do everything we can to protect the people of Hawaii from these attacks and give prosecutors the tools to ensure justice is served for victims,” Pine said at the time.

Whatever its sponsors’ motivations, the bill isn’t exactly being welcomed by Hawaiian Internet companies.

“This bill represents a radical violation of privacy and opens the door to rampant Fourth Amendment violations,” says Daniel Leuck, chief executive of Honolulu-based software design boutique Ikayzo, who submitted testimony opposing the bill. He adds: “Even forcing telephone companies to record everyone’s conversations, which is unthinkable, would be less of an intrusion.”

Mizuno’s proposal currently specifies no privacy protections, such as placing restrictions on what Internet providers can do with this information (like selling user profiles to advertisers) or requiring that police obtain a court order before perusing the virtual dossiers of Hawaiian citizens. Also absent are security requirements such as mandating the use of encryption.

Because the wording is so broad and applies to any company that “provides access to the Internet,” Mizuno’s legislation could sweep in far more than AT&T, Verizon, and Hawaii’s local Internet providers. It could also impose sweeping new requirements on coffee shops, bookstores, and hotels frequented by the over 6 million tourists who visit the islands each year.

“H.B. 2288 raises all of the traditional concerns associated with data retention, and then some,” Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C., which counts Verizon and AT&T as members, told CNET. “And this may be the broadest mandate we’ve seen.”

Even the Justice Department has only lobbied the U.S. Congress to record Internet Protocol addresses assigned to individuals–users’ origin IP address, in other words. It hasn’t publicly demanded that companies record the destination IP addresses as well.

In Washington, D.C., the fight over data retention requirements has been simmering since the Justice Department pushed the topic in 2005, a development that was first reported by CNET. Proposals publicly surfaced in the U.S. Congress the following year, and President Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said it’s an issue that “must be addressed.” So, eventually,did FBI director Robert Mueller.

Source: cNet.

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

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 Anonymousattacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations 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, amethod 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.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Source: Prison Planet.

Many of us breathed a sigh of relief when an overwhelming amount of Americans banned together and voiced their opposition to Congress over both the Stop Online Piracy Act, and Protect Intellectual Property Act.

Sites that dimmed the screen for a day or two have gone back to normal — Facebook users have swapped their anti-SOPA images for their previous profile pictures.

We may have even believed that the postponement of the vote originally scheduled for January 24th was some sort of white flag of capitulation. But that is certainly not the MO of most lawmakers.

While the outcry did get the attention of Congress, they are simply returning unflinchingly back to the drawing board to wait out our attention spans. Articles whirled that SOPA was dead and the bill was pulled when the bill’s sponsor Lamar Smith said in a statement that there would be no further action “until there is wider agreement on a solution.”

Lamar isn’t really listening. “It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”

Actually, SOPA is set to be reformulated in February. PIPA will be revisited with possible amendments in the coming weeks. Case in point, all is still open and possible — nothing is dead, pulled, or cancelled. If that wasn’t enough to keep us on our toes, a new, similar bill has surfaced.

Déjà Vu in the form of OPEN — The New Anti-Piracy Bill

As an alternative to SOPA-PIPA, Representative Darrell Issa (CA-R), and 24 co-sponsors introduced the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) H.R. 3782 on Wednesday, during the Internet blackout.

From PCWorld:

OPEN would give oversight to the International Trade Commission (ITC) instead of the Justice Department, focuses on foreign-based websites, includes an appeals process, and would apply only to websites that “willfully” promote copyright violation.

The bill pretends to only target foreign websites, while keeping Americans free to surf and post, but the bill’s wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing aninfringing site, it starts with those “that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name,” but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that “conducts business directed to residents of the United States.”

Also, none of these bills had been decided before the U.S. Government took down New Zealand owned Megaupload.com during the commotion. To which, Anonymous responded by shutting down the websites of the U.S. Department of Justice, Universal Music, Recording Industry Association of America, the U.S. Copyright Office, Broadcast Music Inc. and the Motion Picture Association of America.

“The [DOJ's] action ‘demonstrates why we don’t need SOPA in the first place,’ points out PCWorld’s Tony Bradley.” The government was enforcing a previous anti-piracy law called PRO-IPsigned by Bush in 2008.

OPEN is gaining support from groups like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Consumer Electronics Association and more.

While it seems admirable that the bill is transparent and open for public comment, most laws of this nature are broad and allow for bigger, no-common sense crackdowns later. Plus, there might only be a couple concessions and the pacifying effects of “being heard.”

One commenter of the bill aptly noted:

‘Reasonable belief’ and ‘credible evidence’ are too vague and have the appearance of inviting highly subjective interpretation with the option for the commission and/or the provider to exercise sweeping powers with impunity.

Whenever any group is appeased after a battle, it cannot be emphasized enough — the lawmakers’ modus operandi will be: aim high, brace for the outcry, make a couple alterations and sneak the bill back in when no one’s looking. Keep it going and going. Call it by a different name. Haggle. It appears there is compromise and reasoning now, but once the bill passes into law, reason goes out the window, and we are the only ones compromised.

Theft is a reality — although not one that has seriously damaged the growing entertainment industry, or caused massive death and devastation. If Hollywood, pitching the biggest fit, were actually going down, why should we go down with it?

It is more unfortunate that Americans must be so tirelessly vigilant to protect their online activities from the same lawmakers who are tanking the country in so many other truly devastating ways.

The dismantling of Internet freedom will not stop here. Let’s borrow an MO and not let up.

To SOPA — Say NOPA!

To PIPA — Pipe down!

To OPEN — Shut it!

Additional Sources:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/sopa-and-pipa-postponed-but-not-cancelled/
http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/pipa-postponed/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/nternet-spoke-and-finally-congress-listened
http://www.webpronews.com/lamar-smith-to-delay-sopa-until-wider-agreement-on-solution-2012-01

Source: Activist Post.

At Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich painted himself as a friend of a free and open Internet, but in the past he’s talked up pretty radical proposals to curtail free speech online.

The question Thursday was about the Stop Online Piracy Act, legislation that has the support of the entertainment industry and powerful members of the House and Senate, but is now on life support after running into a firestorm of criticism from Internet users, tech companies like Google, and activists who shut down websites in protest earlier this week.

“You have virtually everybody who’s technologically advanced, including, you know, Googleand YouTube and Facebook and all the folks, who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet, and the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable. Well, I favor freedom,” Gingrich said. “The idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations’ economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.”

But back in 2006, Gingrich argued censoring the Internet would be the right thing to do when it comes to Islamic radicals who use the web to organize jihad against the U.S.

“We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we’re unfortunate,” Mr. Gingrich said during a speech in New Hampshire, according to a story I wrote at the time for The New York Sun. “We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of the threat.”

Gingrich’s aides posted the audio on the web at the time, but the file seems to be gone now. My recollection is that the former House speaker didn’t go into great detail, but suggested that a group of retired judges or other respected individuals should be empowered to shut down websites that foment anti-American violence. He did not explain how the U.S. would take down sites on servers beyond the reach of U.S. law.

At the time, Gingrich conceded that the kinds of controls he was proposing for the web would trigger “a serious debate about the First Amendment,” but he said the intrusion was needed because of the apocalyptic nature of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists.

“This is a serious, long-term war,” Gingrich said. “Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people.”

Obviously, terrorists pose a more significant threat than intellectual property pirates. So, Gingrich could distinguish his positions on those grounds. But both proposals raise serious questions about their practical effectiveness and the degree to which they’d block speech that’s lawful right now.

In any event, Gingrich’s 2006 statements show that he’s not entirely averse to “preemptivelyhav[ing] the government start censoring the Internet” for some reasons and that he’s far from being a champion of unfettered free speech on the Web.

Source: Politico.

SOPA and PIPA may be in zombie mode, having burned up in the fire of SOPA “Blackout Day” protests and the largest attack by Anonymous on record, but activists who opposed the legislation understand that the Internet wars have only just begun.

Barrett Brown, often recognized as a public face of Anonymous, announced that his own group, Project PM, will be keeping an eye on Democratic congressmen who hope to “quietly support” the legislation.

“Yesterday my ProjectPM group began preparations for a campaign to go after any Democratic congressmen who hope to quietly support SOPA without drawing any negative attention that might damage their cred among liberals,” Brown told the Daily Caller in an email.

While Republicans evacuated their support of SOPA and PIPA — the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and the Protect IP Act in the Senate — en masse Wednesday and Thursday after constituents flooded their offices with calls and emails, only a few Democrats did the same.

The bills were promoted as bipartisan legislation, but the top five beneficiaries of campaign donations from supporters of SOPA and PIPA — amounting to a sum of over $1 million — were all Democrats.

The Daily Caller previously reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who until Friday had planned on introducing PIPA to the Senate floor as a “jobs bill,” received over $3.5 million dollars in campaign donations.

“OpDonkeyPunch is currently in information-gathering phase, ” Brown told The Daily Caller, “we had intended to begin work tonight, but the change in situation now needs to be assessed. This will give us time to decide who is most vulnerable to a series of targeted propaganda campaigns of the sort that will bring attention to themselves and their donors, among other things.”

CONTINUED at The Daily Caller.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Here we are again in South Carolina with the last debate in the state before they hold their primary election. This version of the ongoing shit show was put on by CNN. Unfortunately they brought back the throat gurgling champion of Dorchester, MA Mr. John King himself. Unlike last time however, we weren’t subjected to Mr. King’s guttural throat interruptions and in all honesty, he was pleasant to watch this time around.

Now be forewarned, the majority of this debate consisted of pointless bickering and while I did enjoy the bloodshed, the Santorum-Romney-Gingrich ménage à trois was more annoying than entertaining and for the most part it pushed Ron Paul out of the debate several times. I wish John King had been a bit more pro-active in squashing some of these squabbles, as it created an atmosphere of elitist shitcocks stealing the spotlight from the only sane man on stage. However, even with this issue, Ron Paul was not stopped from pulling off on of his best performances to date. When the man had time, he fucking shined. His smack downs to Rick Santorum were also the best jabs of the night and proved that Paul can battle it out with the establishment Neanderthals when need be.

It was a good night for Ron Paul, in fact he got the loudest ovation during the introductions which was refreshing considering how the South Carolinians treated him during the last debate. I’d like to say that the crowd was great and they really won over my support for South Carolina, as I was about ready to hire a witchdoctor to curse the everliving shit out of that state just a few days ago – following the last shit show. I guess it was just the people of Myrtle Beach that sucked because the Charleston crowd was a beast when it came to cheering for liberty and sanity.

The first question went to Newt Gingrich and it was about his ex-wife, who came out earlier in the day saying that he was a monster that ended their marriage because she wouldn’t give him permission to cheat. Without even answering or addressing the concerns brought up by John King, Newt brushed it off to a loud ovation. Gingrich said that he was “appalled” at the media for promoting this scandal and extremely upset that the subject kicked off the debate. As he continued to bash CNN and John King for their “despicable” actions, the crowd shot up to their feet! Honey Badger don’t give a shit! Newt finally addressed the issue after a long-winded smack down and said that the story was false and claims that he offered real witnesses to ABC that would debunk the story but apparently they weren’t interested. He went on to say that companies like ABC are just out to bash the GOP and protect Obama as he tries to get re-elected.

Now I understand Newt’s frustration and do agree with his feelings about the media but he was really just acting like a cornered dog – snapping at anything he deemed a threat. Whether the incident happened or not, it was well over a decade ago and the fact that the media and his ex-wife are bringing this story out now just shows that they are only out to hurt him. Frankly, as I’ve said before, I don’t care what a politicians dick does; I just care about how they lead and the decisions they make.

In an effort to save himself from looking like an ass, John King asks the other candidates their thoughts on the issue. Santorum skirts around giving a real answer and just mumbles about morals, leadership and Jesus. Romney says “Let’s get to the real issues.” Ron Paul warns about the corporate run media and how they can shape public opinion.

Ron Paul is then asked about whether or not we need the federal government to set up specific plans to help solve the unemployment problem. Paul says that we need sound currency and for the federal government to get out of the way. He calls for a near zero percent income tax and for regulation to be reduced in order to help create more jobs. He explains that we need to get rid of our excessive debt and malinvestments. He adds that the government shouldn’t be bailing people out and that they need to just stay out of everything. He says that they should focus on enforcing contract laws and bankruptcy. On the same subject, Newt says that we have to eliminate Dodd-Frank. He also talks about tapping into offshore natural gas, as that industry could create tons of jobs. He adds that we should look at overhauling the Corps of Engineers.

King switches the discussion over to Romney and Bain Capital. I’m so tired of this damn subject. Newt claims that Bain’s business model destroyed companies. Romney, like a fucking coward, diverts the whole issue and goes back to talking about job creation. Mittens blames Obama for using crony capitalism which is just a soulless attempt at getting cheap pops from the crowd. He then rambles about unimportant nonsense but throws “capitalism” around for even more cheap pops. It gets to the point where all I hear is “Capitalism!” “Capitalism!” “Capitalism!” “Capitalism!” and applause. Santorum jumps in and says that he “..still believes in capitalism.” Man, this guy is funny! He then tells stories about Iowa just so he can make an Iowa connection and brag about how it came out earlier in the day that he actually won Iowa and not Romney.

Ron Paul is asked if the federal government should help veterans get jobs, as statistically the unemployment problem hits vets the hardest. Paul says that he is concerned about soldiers coming home and trying to adjust to regular life again. He says that the vets do need help especially in regards to health. He talks about how veterans traditionally get shortchanged. He also talks about helping them with their mental health, as the suicide rate for veterans is very high.

Santorum is asked the same question as Paul. He feels that there should be special preferences for veterans. He then turns that into a rant about Obama wanting to cut the military and says that it is “disgusting”. On the same subject, Romney says that while he was governor of Massachusetts he helped vets with college and job training. This isn’t about you asshole. He then spins it into typical Romney rhetoric and finishes by saying he will build a military so strong, no one will dare test us. What about people who like challenges Mr Romney? Someone will always test it. Gingrich then talks some smack about Ron Paul which turns into him calling for a transition program for veterans, which is essentially the same thing Paul was suggesting.

On Obamacare, Mitt Romney says that an executive order won’t kill the bill. He says that we have to go after a complete repeal. He adds to his point that the American people need to stand strong and united in order to influence Democrats to help end Obamacare. Mitt then says that he will replace Obamacare with his own program. Huh? Wait.. what? Mitt claims that he will protect people and give them insurance options. He then says that he’ll help save health care with “free market principles”. Oddly, none of this sounds like “free market principles”. All Romney proposes to fix government intervention into health care is a different form of government intervention into health care. Government intervention is the opposite of free market.

Continuing on with the health care portion of the debate, Newt Gingrich tells parents to vote for the GOP candidate because they’ll create an environment that’ll get kids out of the house and off of their insurance plans. Santorum disses Romney and starts a Romneycare rant. Ricky Boy then starts dissing Gingrich for being in favor of individual mandates. Rick then talks about how he was the author and architect of a private health reform project that no one but him was interested in. Romney responds to Santorum saying that Romneycare wasn’t a government run system. He then points out that people in Massachusetts still approve of Romneycare 3-to-1. Mitt also claims that insurance rates dropped under his plan. Ricky Boy jumps back in and says Mitt’s facts are wrong and then reveals that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare! Dude, that’s like really old fucking news. Romney and Santorum then go back and forth for what seems like forever on Medicare and Medicaid.

Gingrich then jumps in, making it a three man dick-wagging contest. He calls Santorum “mildly lazy”. He then says that he led the charge against Hillarycare and that he was the guy that helped Rick Santorum try to gain traction with his private health reform project. He then challenges Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, which causes Santorum to make fun of him for suggesting that without having yet earned the GOP nomination. They then go back and forth as John King tries to bring Paul, the only doctor on stage, into the health care debate.

Ron Paul admits that the likelihood of repealing Obamacare isn’t good. He then talks about how he practiced medicine before government got involved and describes how well it worked back then. Paul points out that Santorum, regardless of his claims, expanded government control over health care based off of his policies. Paul then gets into the massive spending on the military and talks about how if we can bring that down, we’d have more to use elsewhere, even though he plans to attack the budget on every front.

Rick Santorum is asked about Newt Gingrich’s recent comments that called for Santorum to drop out of the race. Ricky Boy looks kind of hurt by the question, poorly shrugs it off and says that grandiosity is Newt’s style. He then points out again that he won Iowa and had twice as many votes as Newt so Newt should STFU and GTFO. Ricky Boy then claims that he was 2-0 going into South Carolina, which is a blatant lie. Then, comparing himself to Gingrich, says that he is steady and solid and even if he isn’t charismatic and doesn’t have good soundbites he is still a top tier candidate. Santorum basically said, “Hey, if you didn’t know my faults, here they are! Vote for me! Lulz!”

Gingrich then immediately gives us a Reagan name drop, as well as a Jack Kemp name drop. He goes on to describe his record versus Santorum’s and says that Rick isn’t qualified to be president. He adds that we need real leadership that can take on big projects and makes it known that Santorum can’t carry the ball at that level. Ricky Boy snaps back, getting personal, saying that under Newt, the House of Representatives was “undisciplined”. He then says that Newt doesn’t have the courage to stand up against rival leadership. Newt then lists off all the shit he did that he feels is bad ass, in an effort to prove that he is a rebel.

Continuing with the pot-stiriing bullshit, John King asks Romney about him calling Gingrich an unreliable leader. Mitt diverts the question in typical Mitt fashion and instead, talks about how the spat between Newt and Rick is why we need “a guy that’s lived in the streets to run this country.” By streets he means inside of the gated community. Romney filibusters for so long he pauses, looks at Newt and literally asks him “where are we at?” because he can’t even remember the original question and apparently can’t follow his own train of thoughts. Mitt comes back though and takes a shot at Newt saying that if he and Reagan were so tight, why is he only mentioned once in his diary.. oh snap! Gingrich doesn’t even flinch, he just name drops Reagan again, ignoring Mitt’s comment about them not being homies. Suddenly everything starts to fall apart on stage and we are stuck in another long-winded three man dick-wagging contest. There was almost some full-on full frontal fencing between the three swashbucklers.

The issue of releasing tax returns is brought up. Ron Paul says that he is afraid to release his as he’d feel embarrassed to have his income compared to those of the other men on stage. Paul jokingly points out that he isn’t a fat cat like the dick-wagging three amigos who are ballin’ outta control. Romney says he will release his taxes in April when he is done with them. Hasn’t this motherfucker heard of Turbo Tax? It’s January and I’ve got my taxes done already. That shit only took twenty minutes! Romney then wastes everyone’s time to ramble about Obama playing golf while Americans are out of work. He then bitches about the pipeline and Obamacare and doesn’t seem to realize that other people need to answer the tax question. Gingrich says that if there is nothing to hide, then Mitt should release his tax info. Newt adds that he released his earlier in the evening. Santorum says that his taxes are on his computer at home and that he hasn’t done them yet, as he’s been campaigning. When asked exactly when and how he will release his tax info, Mitt says that he doesn’t know and gets greeted with a chorus of incredibly loud boos. However, South Carolinians are apparently gullible as Mitt quickly adds that he “..won’t apologize for being successful”, which causes them all to cheer. I think these people have serious ADD.

Santorum and Paul then get into a spat. Ricky Boy starts by saying he would cut corporate taxes in order to allow us to compete with our foreign rivals. Paul comes in and says that you have to create the right conditions to bring companies back to America. He explains how free trade with China actually helps the American economy, contrary to modern conservative bullshit. Paul then points out that Santorum has damaged the economy by not supporting “right to work”. Santorum snaps back saying that he would support it as president. Sure you would now dicknose because you’re pandering to the people!

The hot button issue of the week, SOPA and PIPA, come up. Just the mention of SOPA gets the crowd fired up to where they boo loudly and uncontrollably. Gingrich is questioned about it first and he responds to King saying, “You’re asking a conservative about the intellectual interest of Hollywood?” In typical fashion, Newt’s clever one-liner got a lot of applause and cheers, however it is just a clever one-liner and pretty soulless as it offers no substance and doesn’t answer anything. Truth be told, whether he’s a conservative and Hollywood is liberal doesn’t matter. Artists have a right to own their own property and not have it infringed upon. Newt doesn’t care about the rights of who he perceives as his enemy however. Now I am not saying this in support of SOPA and PIPA, I vehemently oppose those laws; I am just pointing out how empty Newt’s one-liners are. After his big soundbite, he looks a little befuddled, like he has no idea what all this SOPA and PIPA talk is. He does finally add that laws already exist that allow companies to sue those who infringe on them.

Romney says that Gingrich is right and adds that the SOPA and PIPA laws are too intrusive and too expansive. He feels that these laws would have a “depressing impact” on the Internet and all of the industries attached to it. Romney wants more effective laws to bring the digital pirates to justice and says that these laws aren’t going to do that.

Ron Paul tells us that he was the first Republican to come out and oppose the law. He then says that the bills will not pass but that everyone should be vigilant as similar laws will come back up in the future. Paul feels that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of the issue. He then says that freedom and the Constitution bring people together and this is a great example of it due to the strong opposition to these laws all over the Internet.

Santorum says that he doesn’t agree with the law but then goes on a tangent about how the Internet isn’t a free zone where people can just trample on the rights of others. What the fuck does he know? His computer is powered by musk turtles. Santorum, who is talking against SOPA and PIPA, as the crowd hates it, still thinks that there should be a law like it. He then asks, “Who on the Internet said ‘anything goes’?” Shut up fucktard.

The debate then shifts to illegal immigration and border security, which these fucking guys have talked to death every single debate. I honestly lose interest and find myself staring into an empty bottle of bourbon that was used to wash down the twelve pounds of sushi I ate just a couple of hours prior. I snap out of my sushi-bourbon coma and hear Newt talking about modernizing visas, Ron Paul talking about how taking care of the needs of illegals hurts our schools and hospitals and then I get distracted by porn on the other television.

Gingrich and Romney argue over pro-life shit for quite some time and then Santorum jumps in making it round three of the GOP dick fencing competition. John King steps in after this abortion debate has raged on forever and goes to Ron Paul in an effort to change the subject. The crowd immediately erupts with boos as they are not happy that, once again, the only doctor on the stage was left out of a medical portion of the debate.

Ron Paul, on abortion, says that laws won’t correct the morality of people. Santorum jumps on his shit and says that he only has a 50 percent “right to life” voting record, responding to what he thinks is an attack on him by Paul. Ron Paul laughs and tells Ricky Boy that he is “too sensitive” as he wasn’t referring to him in his comments. Paul then goes on to explain how bullshit his 50 percent “right to life” voting record is, as he follows the Constitution and his record with that is 100 percent. Paul further explains that these “right to life” laws should be handled at the state level and that is how he has always voted. Santorum just stands there like a dork dick with his bitch tail between his bitch knees.

The debate ends with a segment where the candidates are given time to beg the South Carolinians for their vote. They all say what they have all been known to say over the course of this primary adventure and I don’t feel like wasting time typing out the details. This was a pretty good debate, there have been better ones and worse ones. Ron Paul’s time was limited due to the gay three-way the other candidates were having but Paul utilized the time he had brilliantly and really pulled off one of his best performances. Paul was the real winner here and Gingirch, although I don’t like many of his answers, also did well after having a really shitty day due to his ex-wife. Santorum sucked per usual and Mitt just looked like a sack of crap. Mitt getting booed made me giddy inside.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade A-: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Rick Santorum
Grade D-: Mitt Romney

Following a wildly successful protest against SOPA and PIPA internet censorship legislation on Wednesday, the Department of Justice “conducted a major action” on Thursday and shuttered MegaUpload, a popular file-sharing site accused of trading in copyrighted movies and televisions shows.

Following action by a grand jury, the feds arrested four people and executed more than 20 search warrants in the United States and eight foreign countries. They seized 18 domain names and around $10 million in assets, including a number of servers.

The grand jury indictment accuses Megaupload of causing $500 million in damages to copyright owners and of making $175 million through selling ads and premium subscriptions, according to theNew York Times.

The conspicuously timed raid “on Megaupload Thursday proved that the feds don’t need SOPA or its sister legislation, PIPA, in order to pose a blow to the Web,” writes the AnonOps Communicationsblog.

As if to underscore the government’s determination to close down domains with or without legislation, the DOJ and the FBI released a statement Thursday characterizing the charges as “among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime.”

The technology site Gigaom has posted details of the indictment against Megaupload.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lXau4TDt7M

Fifteen minutes after Megaupload disappeared from the internet, the hacker group Anonymous launched denial of service attack on websites run by Universal Music, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Copyright Office, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America.

“Megaupload was taken down w/out SOPA being law. Now imagine what will happen if it passes. The Internet as we know it will end. FIGHT BACK,” Anonymous said in a tweet.

The Twitter account under the name @YourAnonNews identifies itself as the hacker collective and states: “We are Anonymous, We are legion, We never forgive, We never forget, Expect us.”

1. Hacker group Anonymous performs ‘vigilante’ attack on online child porn hub
2. Police arrest five over Anonymous WikiLeaks attacks
3. Denmark Police Propose Ban On Anonymous Internet Use
4. Rand Paul Vows To Block Internet Censorship Bills
5. Feds Ignore Due Process, First Amendment, Shut Down Thousands of Blogs
6. ‘Anonymous threat’ plot to undermine Wall Street protest?
7. Will the Justice Department Be Authorized to Shut Down Internet Sites?
8. Pentagon probes ‘Anonymous’ hacker threat
9. Anonymous Running Attacks on Anti-Wikileaks Sites with Low Orbit Ion Cannon
10. ‘Leaked’ FBI document calls Anonymous a national security threat
11. ‘Anonymous’ to Release Docs Proving Bank of America Fraud
12. Issa: Piracy bill would give Holder ‘broad new powers to police the Internet’

Source: Infowars. Written by Kurt Nimmo.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Today is a great day for liberty. As I write this it is January 18^th, 2012 and the Internet is ablaze with anger towards SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). Not only was The Swash down in protest of these dastardly bills but Internet giants Wikipedia and Reddit were down as well. Shit, even Google participated in this blackout with a unique graphic on their page that lead to information about these two horrible laws and what you can do to fight them.

I was more than ecstatic today when I signed into my Facebook account and was overwhelmed by all the people who blacked out their own photos and had status updates and links protesting SOPA and PIPA plastered all over the home page. The impact of this protest is literally reaching further than any other online protest I’ve ever witnessed or been a part of. In fact, in just a few short hours, the tide has turned and the pimps pushing this law are now starting to run like the two-faced pandering bastards they are. I guess when you shine a little light the cockroaches scatter.

One of my favorite punching bags, Marco Rubio – the Republican senator form my home state of Florida, was a co-sponsor on one of these evil bills but he has now come out against it. This is because Rubio is a dickbag, a panderer and a wolf in Tea Party clothing. This “noble” act doesn’t excuse the fact that he co-sponsored PIPA and was also a champion for the insanely tyrannical NDAA bill, which just passed recently. Don’t get excited and let Rubio fool you, when this dies down, he’ll help reintroduce the bill with a few modifications and continue on his fascist path.

Conservative darling Paul Ryan just wrote this status update on his Facebook:

The Internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.

While that sounds all fine and dandy, Mr. Ryan doesn’t fully oppose the idea of the bill and chances are, if it was tweaked and the opposition towards it died down, he may just very well vote for it.

Senators Jim DeMint, Robert Menendez and others have come out against this tyranny. Another co-sponsor, Arizona congressman Ben Quayle has withdrawn his support. Freedom fighter and libertarian leaning Michigan congressman Justin Amash continues to speak out against this, as does Kentucky senator Rand Paul and his father, Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The opposition to these bills has grown so quickly in the last several hours that six Republican senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The letter states:

We have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.

For those of you who have been in the dark, I’ll break down what these bills are. In a nutshell, what they are supposed to do is to protect copyrighted material and eliminate piracy. What they actually do is a different story.

Basically, these bills give the entertainment industry the power to censor the Internet and breed a whole new type of crony capitalism while forcing us into a digital police state. You see, private corporations want to be able to choose what can and cannot be censored on the Internet. These corporations are trying to protect their property, which is understandable, and since the Internet is a bastion for downloading music and movies, they want to be able to tighten their grip and control how the whole system works. Considering that many of the sources for this copyrighted material exists outside of United States jurisdiction, these laws are being put in place to give the government and their corporate buddies an easier way at stopping copyright infringement. Again, that is understandable but the methods about doing this are just awful.

The first thing that this does is it gives the power to United States based ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to have special access at blocking infringing domain names. This also gives companies the power to sue websites, bloggers or whoever until they remove links or information directing Internet users to anything that they deem as infringed upon property.

Secondly, the government and their corporate pals would also be given the power to cut off funds to any websites that they believe are infringing on copyrights. Essentially, they can forcibly cancel infringing websites accounts with financial services and advertisers.

Now even though this all may seem somewhat proactive, one has to look at what actually constitutes copyright infringement. The description that they provide is so broad that if you technically upload a video to YouTube and there happens to be a piece of a song playing in the background, even if it’s just on the radio while you’re talking to the camera unaware of it, you have just infringed on copyrighted material and could face some serious penalties. This is just a small example but think of all the things you come across on the Internet on a daily basis that could technically be considered as copyright infringement. Violations are pretty much fucking everywhere! Hell, the whole Internet is a violation!

Besides all that, if there is a will there is a way. These laws won’t stop Internet users from finding music and movies to download illegally. In fact, even if a URL is blocked, an Internet user can still access the site via its IP address. Hell, this might start a revolution in web browsing and millions of digital pirates will be navigating the Net with IPs as opposed to typical URLs.

Another thing to mention is that these laws are incredibly bad for business. Essentially, they will cripple and stifle startups as corporations will have the power to sue any company that they feel isn’t properly protecting their interests. In a classic case of crony capitalism or corporatism, this allows the giants to stay on top, where they can look down and crush any growing company that may become a viable competitor for their business. Basically, these bills will create and perpetuate monopolies. When large corporations have the power to bankrupt new search engines and social networking sites, there really isn’t room for growth or innovation. We might as well just go back to the days of dark dingy uninspiring chat rooms.

The scariest thing that these laws will do is tamper with the Internet as a whole from the backend. By messing around with the Internet’s vast registry of domain names we could very well end up with a World Wide Web that is less stable and less secure. At the end of the day, these laws won’t stop piracy, as they claim and they will just create an environment for a new type of corporatism while leaving the Internet less secure and less reliable than it has ever been.

The Internet has already become a playground for government and corporate meddling. Hell, they already have laws in place to protect copyright infringement yet they want to push the envelope as far as they can. As of right now, the government and corporations already have the power to block any site just off of one infringing link. Social media giants like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and others are now forced to censor their users because if they don’t, they become liable for the material their users upload and could be forced to shut down. On top of that, an ordinary Internet user could already be sentenced to prison for up to five years just for posting any copyrighted material – this includes someone like Tay Zonday who became an Internet sensation for singing pop song covers.

This situation is incredibly fucked up and it is just one more battle in a long line or tyrannous laws that the government is trying to impose on us. Just add this ingredient to the same bowl of tyranny punch that already consists of the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, indefinite detention, Homeland Security, the TSA, previous Internet censorship, FEMA, etc. The list goes on and on and hopefully people’s distrust in government has grown to the point that all future legislation the tyrants bring forth will be scrutinized and passionately opposed as much as SOPA and PIPA.

In the end, we’ve got to chain these bastards’ feet to the grill and turn up the fire until they do what we say because frankly, that’s their damn job.

It’s on — at least partially: Reddit has announced that it will be going dark for 12 hours to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said that he hopes to coordinate with the site so that Wikipedia does the same. Will other sites join in? Should we prepare for the Great Internet Strike of 2012?

Writing that it’s “not taking this action lightly,” Reddit announced on Tuesday that it will blackout its site on Wednesday, January 18 for 12 hours, starting at 8:00 a.m. Eastern time. During that period, the site’s content will be replaced with “a simple message about how the PIPA/SOPA legislation would shut down sites like reddit, link to resources to learn more, and suggest ways to take action.” The company will also run a live video stream of that day’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Internet security, intellectual property and economic growth.

On the site’s blog, the Reddit team admitted that “We’re as addicted to reddit as the rest of you,” but explained that “We wouldn’t do this if we didn’t believe this legislation and the forces behind it were a serious threat to reddit and the Internet as we know it. Blacking out reddit is a hard choice, but we feel focusing on a day of action is the best way we can amplify the voice of the community.” The company admits that support for a blackout isn’t unanimous among the Reddit community and it’s asking for the community’s input as it decides what to do next.

(MORE: At the Top of Congress’ New Year Agenda? Regulate the Net)

If support isn’t unanimous within Reddit’s community, it’ll be interesting to see how things go for Wikipedia if that site follows suit. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales writes ”it would be great if we could act quickly to coordinate with Reddit,” thought adding the community needs a “thumbs up/thumbs down vote” on whether or not to participate, and “we don’t have the luxury of time that we usually have, in terms of negotiating with each other for weeks about what’s exactly the best possible thing to do.” I suspect the ratio of those in favor of a blackout to those opposed would be greater for a more activist site like Reddit than one that’s more mainstream (and let’s be honest, passive) like Wikipedia.

Something I appreciate about Reddit’s announcement is that they’ve factored in the importance of educating would-be visitors to the site about why they’ve decided to go dark, what SOPA is and why it’s so important. I can only assume Wikipedia would do the same thing, should the site community decide to go dark on the same day. After all, protests only work when people understand why they’re happening.

That said, now that we have a date for a potential shutdown, the question becomes “Who else will join in?” Google, Twitter and Facebook have all been rumored as contenders, in part because of comments made by NetCoalition’s Markham Erickson (when I asked, Google and Twitter declined to comment on their support for an Internet blackout). But with a real strike looming and despite attempts to push the issue onto agendas, support for this kind of action may be shifting in favor of alternative methods. Finding other ways to protest may be ineluctable — after all, we’re talking about the Internet’s most popular sites going dark for 24 hours.

Sure, there may be some disappointment that we’re not days from Temporary Internet Apocalypse To Prove a Point, but I suspect there’s relief as well. The idea of a multi-pronged attack on pro-SOPA arguments — of different flavors of activism and discussion for different people — feels like the more mature response on behalf of tech companies (who after all may not agree on what’s wrong with SOPA as it stands). Let Wikipedia close for the day and generate headlines, while others like Google and Facebook pursue alternative forms of protest that engage their respective audiences. In the end, the more people paying attention, the better.

MORE: SOPA: What if Google, Facebook and Twitter Went Offline in Protest?
Source: Tech Land.