Does Website Reveal Obama’s True Birthplace By Accident?

Advertisement

Advertisement

A recent story by Yahoo! News about the Obama’s trip to Africa, noted “he won’t be stopping at the country of his birth”. Before they had time to change the story, pictures of this news article spread.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen claims of the President being born in Kenya. New “evidence” seems to be popping up more frequently that may prove Barack was not born in Hawaii.

Despite all that has recently surfaced about where he may actually have been born, he has yet to provide documents that proves otherwise.

If he has nothing to hide, why would he provide a  phony version of “his” birth certificate?

I think we all know this answer to this…

Justin Amash Afraid Obama Is ‘Setting the Stage for Something Very Dangerous in the Future’

Dec. 22, 2013 8:42am Oliver Darcy

• Related:

• Barack Obama

President Barack Obama’s strengthening of the executive branch may jeopardize America’s future, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) told an online conservative news outlet.

“I think it’s scary the direction the government is going, regardless of whether you have a Republican President or a Democratic President,” Amash told The Daily Caller. “We have an executive branch that is getting way too powerful, and President Obama is setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future.”

In this July 24, 2103 file photo, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. Business thinks tea partyers have overstayed their welcome in Washington and wants to show them the door in next year’s congressional elections. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

The libertarian firebrand added that it is the responsibility of Congress to put a check on the executive branch’s power.

“I think as a Congress we need to step up and point out and take charge and point out when the President is going beyond his constitutional powers, which is frequent, and we have got to do something about it and we haven’t done that as a Congress,” he reportedly said.

It was not clear when Amash made the comments to The Daily Caller.

Federal Court: Obama’s Partnership With Mexican Drug Cartels Goes Far Beyond Guns

Last Friday, an opinion by Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen opened a window onto the sheer lawlessness of the Obama administration–in particular, the Department of Homeland Security. The case was United States of America v. Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez. You can download the opinion here.

Judge Andrew Hanen

Judge Hanen is located in the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, and the Nava-Martinez case involved smuggling a child from El Salvador into the United States, illegally. The child’s mother, an illegal alien, paid a smuggler $8,500 to bring the girl from El Salvador to Virginia, but the smuggler was caught by DHS agents at a border checkpoint near Brownsville, Texas. Good, you might think: the Obama administration says it wants secure borders, so the human trafficker was turned back. Right? Wrong. Let’s give the floor to Judge Hanen to explain what the record in the case showed:

The criminal conspiracy instigated by Salmeron Santos [the mother in Virginia] was temporarily interrupted when Nava-Martinez [the professional human trafficker] was arrested. Despite this setback, the goal of the conspiracy was successfully completed thanks to the actions of the United States Government. The Court is quite concerned with the apparent policy of the Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter “HHS”) of completing the criminal missions of individuals who are violating the border security of the United States. Customs and Border Protection agents stopped the Defendant at the border inspection point. She was arrested, and the child was taken into custody. The DHS officials were notified that Salmeron Santos instigated this illegal conduct. Yet, instead of arresting Salmeron Santos for instigating the conspiracy to violate our border security laws, the DHS delivered the child to her–thus successfully completing the mission of the criminal conspiracy. It did not arrest her. It did not prosecute her. It did not even initiate deportation proceedings for her. This DHS policy is a dangerous course of action.

Janet Napolitano

The DHS, instead of enforcing our border security laws, actually assisted the criminal conspiracy in achieving its illegal goals. The Government’s actions were not done in connection with a sting operation or a controlled delivery situation. Rather, the actions it took were directly in furtherance of Y.P.S.’s [the little girl's] illegal presence in the United States. … In summary, instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, the Government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it. A private citizen would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct.

We see that a lot with the Obama administration. If they were in the private sector, they would go to jail. Judge Hanen’s anger was prompted, in part, by the fact that the case before him was not unprecedented, or even unusual:

This is the fourth case with the same factual situation this Court has had in as many weeks. In all of the cases, human traffickers who smuggled minor children were apprehended short of delivering the children to their ultimate destination. In all cases, a parent, if not both parents, of the children was in this country illegally. That parent initiated the conspiracy to smuggle the minors into the country illegally. He or she also funded the conspiracy. In each case, the DHS completed the criminal conspiracy, instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, by delivering the minors to the custody of the parent illegally living in the United States….
[T]here is no explanation. The DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the United States’ border security laws.

The Obama administration has tried to come up with explanations for why it is helping felons to break our laws at taxpayer expense, but its efforts, the Court says, are pathetic:

The Government also implies by its response to the Court that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 somehow authorizes its participation in this conspiracy. Again, there is nothing in this Act that directs and authorizes the DHS to turn a blind eye to criminal conduct, and certainly nothing that compels it to participate in and complete the mission of a criminal conspiracy or to encourage parents to put their minor children in perilous situations subject to the whims of evil individuals. These actions are both dangerous and unconscionable.

So, who pays for the DHS’s magnanimous efforts to partner with the Mexican cartels to violate U.S. law? What a silly question! You do:

In each of these cases, the Government also incurred significant expense to help complete the conspiracy. In all cases when the Government apprehended some of the traffickers, the Government transported the children across the country to unite them with a parent (or parents) who was in the country illegally. In one situation, the Government flew a child to multiple locations in different parts of the United States. The taxpayers of the United States suffer the expense of delivering these minors.

The Court goes on to explain why the cost of assisting the Mexican cartels in achieving their criminal goals is large. Further, this whole corrupt and illegal operation is putting the lives of children at risk:

The DHS is rewarding criminal conduct instead of enforcing the current laws. More troubling,the DHS is encouraging parents to seriously jeopardize the safety of their children. While Y.P.S. was transported in a car, others are made to swim the Rio Grande River or other bodies of water in remote areas. This concern for the safety of these individuals is not fanciful or theoretical; it is a real and immediate concern. As this Court waited for the judgment to be prepared before it released this opinion, two illegal aliens drowned, two more are missing, and a three-year-old El Salvadorean toddler was found abandoned by smugglers–an event occurring just outside of Brownsville.

After all of this, Judge Hanen still wasn’t done. The Obama administration’s failure to obey the law concerns the Court, he said, for three “unassailable reasons.”

First, and most importantly, these illegal activities help fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico.

Mexican cartels control most of the human smuggling and human trafficking routes and networks in Texas. The nature of the cartels’ command and control of human smuggling and human trafficking networks along the border is varied, including cartel members having direct organizational involvement and responsibility over human smuggling and human trafficking operations.

So the Obama administration is partnering with Mexican drug cartels to violate U.S. laws. But it gets worse:

This Court need not list the dangers involved for minors, or even adults, who are being smuggled into the United States. In the last year, this Court has seen instances where aliens being smuggled were assaulted, raped, kidnapped and/or killed.

This is what the Obama administration is facilitating and encouraging. Judge Hanen goes on to cite empirical studies of the evils done by Obama’s partners, the drug cartels, in the course of their highly-profitable child-smuggling operations:

Smugglers also regularly use violence, extortion, and unlawful restraint against illegal aliens. In some cases, they are forced to perform labor, and females–including minors–may be sexually assaulted.

These headless corpses are victims of Obama’s partners, the drug gangs

These are the violent criminals with whom the Obama administration collaborates to achieve illegal goals, rather than arresting them.
Judge Hanen points out that when the Obama administration helps drug cartels to violate our laws successfully, and get paid for doing so, it can only encourage more evil:

Time and again this Court has been told by representatives of the Government and the defense that the cartels control the entire smuggling process. These entities are not known for their concern for human life. They do not hire bonded childcare providers to smuggle children. By fostering an atmosphere whereby illegal aliens are encouraged to pay human smugglers for further services, the Government is not only allowing them to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so. The big economic losers in this scenario are the citizens of the United States who, by virtue of this DHS policy, are helping fund these evil ventures with their tax dollars.

There is more; follow the link to read it. The shocking reality is that the Obama administration–specifically, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security–has entered into partnership with the Mexican drug cartels to assist in the smuggling of illegal aliens into the United States, thus assuring, among other things, that the cartels get paid and will want to do it again. Judge Hanen concludes with this:

The DHS should enforce the laws of the United States–not break them.

It seems like little enough to ask, but lawbreaking rather than law enforcement will be the order of the day until we have a new president.
I don’t think Barack Obama is as evil as the vicious killers who head the Mexican drug cartels. The cartels have horrified the world with their mass murders, their torturing of innocent people, their hanging of decapitated bodies from highway overpasses and stacking of cut-off heads next to roadways. But one wonders: why does Obama want to partner with these inhuman mass murderers? Why did he ship them thousands of lethal weapons through the Fast and Furious program? Why has he ordered his Department of Homeland Security not to arrest the cartel members who traffic in small children, but rather, to partner with those criminals to achieve the goals of their illegal conspiracies, and to assure that the cartels will be paid, even though countless U.S. laws are broken along the way? Why has Obama transformed DHS, which was supposed to be a law enforcement agency, into a collaborator with the world’s most homicidal gangs? Maybe there is an innocent explanation for Barack Obama’s conduct, but I can’t think what it might be. We may need to reassess our charitable judgment of Obama’s character.

Recommend this Power Line article to your Facebook friends.

Dogecoin Prices Crashed This Weekend

Rob Wile

Dec. 22, 2013, 9:34 PM 3,704 2

On Thursday, we told you the story of Dogecoin, the most 2013 thing of 2013.
It combines the meme of the year — doge, which are images of Comic Sans thought bubbles written in the imagined syntax of a devastatingly cute Shiba Inu puppy — with a digital currency.
At the time, it's popularity was exploding thanks to its increasing use in "tipping" people on the Internet for having performed a good deed.
That Thursday, the average price "surged" to more than $0.000003, and briefly became the 7th-largest altcoin by market cap.
But starting around Friday, Dogecoin prices began to plummet.
As of Sunday night, prices now stand at  $0.00000045 — an approximately 80% drop-off from Thursday highs.
We just got an email from Billy Markus, Dogecoin's co-creator explaining what happened. He said that the currency basically experienced an unsustainable explosion in popularity over the past 72 hours, as it became the most profitable altcoin to mine. That meant it required very little computing power to mine large amounts of Dogecoin. Large mining pools instantly seized on this phenomenon, and then sold out of their positions to everyone trying to get their hands on it.
"Basically multipools (and probably people too) sold a lot and ate up all the bids," he wrote.
Still, 14th place ain't nothin', and it remains the most popular altcoin for tipping. 
Here's the chart:

Coinwarz.com

And in terms of market cap — it's now back to 14th place, behind "Zetacoin" (with our embellishments), having fallen about 70%:

Cryptocoincharts

SEE ALSO:  What Is Dogecoin

Disabled Military Retirees Betrayed By Gutless Republicans

December 21, 2013 by Jim Emerson 36 Comments

This week, the Senate voted across party lines to pass a bill that would reduce the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for military retirees, including disabled retirees and survivors. The Washington Free Beacon reported that a provision in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement no longer exempts disabled retirees and survivors. The original agreement stated that “This would not affect service members who retired because of disability or injury.” After the bill passed the House, the new summary removed the exemption granted to disabled retirees and survivors. It would be too easy to accuse just one party of this chicanery; for remember, this was a bipartisan effort endorsed by Mr. Obama.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has been desperately trying to prevent the cut in COLA for military retirees by advocating the halting of entitlements and tax refunds for illegal immigrants. Sen. Sessions pointed out to his colleagues that “It’s not correct, and it should not happen.” For the Democrats, vets and spouses are easy targets, like stealing candy from a baby on Christmas morning. Instead of cutting welfare benefits and tax emptions to illegal immigrants and other entitlement abusers, the GOP establishment and Democrats will gladly take the money from the vets and families. They need the money to pay for the new budget while leaving civilian employees’ and other (intentional) deadbeats’ COLAs intact.
Technical Error?
Sen. Murray said “I want to make absolutely sure today that they know that a provision included in this deal that mistakenly included disabled retirees and survivors for changes in the pension growth will be addressed in short order following passage of this bill.”  Her only mistake was that the bill wasn’t written in cursive, so the low information voter wouldn’t be able to read it. The omission had to be deliberate. It is too big a blunder to be a “technical error.” All amendments proposed to eliminate cuts were blocked by Democrats. Sen. Murray argued that any attempt to amend the deal was an effort by Republicans to kill the entire bill. The lying Murray knew all along.
Cowards
Spineless Republicans of both houses quickly caved in fear of another shutdown. They would rather screw the vets, like the ones who tore down the barriers during the Obama-orchestrated shutdown. The Democrats were only doing what they do best–retaliating against anyone who stands up to them. And the establishment GOP was too ready to join them. Instead of saying no, Congressman Ryan caved to well-known Osama bin Laden supporter Sen. Patty Murray.
News analysts have been debating that either the Republicans are too shell-shocked from negative press, or they may actually agree with the Democrats on cutting military retirement benefits to fund Obamacare for the deadbeats. I tend to think the later; to quote Sen. John McCain, “We cannot have continued increases in costs and benefits forever because of our inability to fund our national security.” This will be the man who will write the bill eliminating medical benefits for retirees, spouses, and VA patients.

Ron Paul predicts "major crash of the dollar" ... here's how to protect your savings

Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven't already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism

Transparency Report: More government removal requests than ever before

Official Blog

Insights from Googlers into our products, technology, and the Google culture

Transparency Report: More government removal requests than ever before

Posted: Thursday, April 25, 2013

Tweet

Three years ago when we launched the Transparency Report, we said we hoped it would shine some light on the scale and scope of government requests for censorship and data around the globe. Today, for the seventh time, we’re releasing new numbers showing requests from governments to remove content from our services. From July to December 2012, we received 2,285 government requests to remove 24,179 pieces of content—an increase from the 1,811 requests to remove 18,070 pieces of content that we received during the first half of 2012.

As we’ve gathered and released more data over time, it’s become increasingly clear that the scope of government attempts to censor content on Google services has grown. In more places than ever, we’ve been asked by governments to remove political content that people post on our services. In this particular time period, we received court orders in several countries to remove blog posts criticizing government officials or their associates.

You can read more about these requests by looking at the annotations section of the Transparency Report. Of particular note were three occurrences that took place in the second half of 2012:

• There was a sharp increase in requests from Brazil, where we received 697 requests to remove content from our platforms (of which 640 were court orders—meaning we received an average of 3.5 court orders per day during this time period), up from 191 during the first half of the year. The big reason for the spike was the municipal elections, which took place last fall. Nearly half of the total requests—316 to be exact—called for the removal of 756 pieces of content related to alleged violations of the Brazilian Electoral Code, which forbids defamation and commentary that offends candidates. We’re appealing many of these cases, on the basis that the content is protected by freedom of expression under the Brazilian Constitution.
  
• Another place where we saw an increase was from Russia, where a new law took effect last fall. In the first half of 2012, we received six requests, the most we had ever received in any given six-month period from Russia. But in the second half of the year, we received 114 requests to remove content—107 of them citing this new law.
  
• During this period, we received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos containing clips of the movie “Innocence of Muslims.” While the videos were within our Community Guidelines, we restricted videos from view in several countries in accordance with local law after receiving formal legal complaints. We also temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya due to the particularly difficult circumstances there.

We’ve also made a couple of improvements to the Transparency Report since our last update:

• We’re now breaking down government requests about YouTube videos to clarify whether we removed videos in response to government requests for violating Community Guidelines, or whether we restricted videos from view due to local laws. You can see the details by scrolling to the bottom of each country-specific page.
  
• We’ve also refreshed the look of the Traffic section, making it easier to see where and when disruptions have occurred to Google services. You can see a map where our services are currently disrupted; you can see a map of all known disruptions since 2009; and you can more easily navigate between time periods and regions.

The information we share on the Transparency Report is just a sliver of what happens on the Internet. But as we disclose more data and continue to expand it over time, we hope it helps draw attention to the laws around the world that govern the free flow of information online.

Posted by Susan Infantino, Legal Director

Loading...

Google+ Followers

Archive

Labels

• Subscribe by email

Give us feedback in our Product Forums.

Transparency Report

Transparency Report

• Home
• Traffic
• Requests to Remove Content
  • Introduction
  • From governments
  • Due to copyright
• User Data Requests
• Safe Browsing

• Overview
• Countries
• Notes
• FAQ
• Download Data
• Visible Changes

Like other technology and communications companies, Google regularly receives requests from government agencies and courts around the world to remove content from our services or to review such content to determine if it should be removed for inconsistency with a product's community policies. In this report, we disclose the number of requests we receive from each government in six-month periods with certain limitations.
Governments ask companies to remove or review content for many different reasons. For example, some content removals are requested due to allegations of defamation, while others are due to allegations that the content violates local laws prohibiting hate speech or adult content. Laws surrounding these issues vary by country, and the requests reflect the legal context of a given jurisdiction. We hope this tool will be helpful in discussions about the appropriate scope and authority of government requests.

Summary of All Requests

• By Requests
• By Items
• By Compliance Rate

By Reporting Period

  All Requests

  Court Orders

  Executive, Police, etc.

By Reason (since July 2010)

  Court Orders

  Executive, Police, etc.

Notable Observations – July to December 2012

Afghanistan

• A Google product or service was disrupted during this time period:
  • YouTube, September 13, 2012 – January 4, 2013

Argentina

• We received a request to remove a YouTube video that allegedly defames the President by depicting her in a compromising position. We age-restricted the video in accordance with YouTube's Community Guidelines.

Australia

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya. We received a request from a local transportation agency to remove 119 YouTube videos for using a protected trademark without permission. We removed the videos.

Austria

• We received a court order from an individual that was addressed to a third party. We removed 124 search results from the google.at domain that we determined to fall within the scope of the order.

Bangladesh

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.
• A Google product or service was disrupted during this time period:
  • YouTube, September 17, 2012 – June 5, 2013

Brazil

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya. We received 316 requests for the removal of 756 distinct pieces of content related to alleged violations of the Brazilian Electoral Code during the 2012 Brazilian Elections. Google removed content in response to 35 final court decisions. Google is exercising its right of appeal provided under Brazilian law in the other cases, on the basis that the content is protected by freedom of expression under the Brazilian Constitution.
  We received a request from a federal prosecutor to remove five blog posts and four search results linking to blog posts that allegedly defame him by accusing him of incompetence and corruption. We did not remove content in response to this request.
  We received a request from a city attorney to remove a blog that allegedly defames him by accusing him of corruption. We did not remove the blog.
  We received a request from one judge to remove a blog that allegedly defamed him by referencing or linking to accusations of corruption, and a similar request from a different judge to remove a search result. We did not remove the blog or the search result.
  We received a court order signed by a judge that ordered us to remove two blog posts, one of which was critical of the judge that signed the order. We appealed the order and the case is still pending.
• The number of content removal requests we received increased by 265% compared to the previous reporting period.

Brunei

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Canada

• We received a court order from a company that was directed at a third party to remove 242 search results and an AdWords ad that linked to websites advertising goods that were allegedly made using the company's trade secrets. We removed 242 search results and the ad, which we determined to fall within the scope of the order.

China

• 3 Google products or services were disrupted during this time period:
  • Google Sites, October 11, 2009–Present
  • YouTube, March 23, 2009–Present
  • Picasa Web Albums, July 16, 2009–Present

Denmark

• We received a request from local law enforcement to remove two YouTube videos for criticizing a foreign ambassador. A legal basis for removal was not provided. We did not remove the videos.

Djibouti

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Egypt

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

France

• We received a request from the leader of a regional government entity to remove a blog post that criticized aspects of his judicial career. We did not remove content in response to this request.

Germany

• We received a request from a law enforcement agency to remove a YouTube video that allegedly depicts state symbols in a disparaging way. We did not remove the video. We received a request from the youth protection agency Jugendschutz.net to remove 135 YouTube videos for allegedly violating the German Children and Young Persons Act as well as other local laws. We restricted 34 of the videos from view in Germany in accordance with local laws and removed one of the videos for violating our Community Guidelines.

Greece

• In response to a court order, we removed a blog post from the blogspot.gr domain that allegedly defamed a retired millitary officer accused of business gain through political ties, including ties to a former Prime Minister of Greece.

Hungary

• We received a request from a political party to remove a YouTube video that allegedly infringed their copyrights. The video was of a speech given by a member of another party, protesting a recommendation from the complaining party to single out Jewish members of Parliament. We did not remove the video.

India

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya. During the period of disturbance in the North-East region, we received five requests from the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team to remove content from Google+, a Blogger blog, 64 YouTube videos, and 1759 comments associated with some YouTube videos, that cited laws covering disruption of public order or ethnic offence laws. The Google+ URLs were only links to search results that did not identify specific posts that violated applicable law. In response to these requests, we removed one video for violating our YouTube Community Guidelines. We also restricted 47 Youtube Videos from local view, in addition to removing 12 YouTube comments and disabling local access to 3 Blogger blog posts that violated local laws.
  We received a court order addressed to a third party to remove 247 search results for linking to websites that allegedly violated an individual's privacy. We did not remove the search results because we were unable to determine their relationship to the court order. We requested clarification but did not receive a reply.
  We received a request from a city Cyber Crime Investigation Cell to remove current depictions of disputed borders of Jammu and Kashmir in five Google Maps domains other than maps.google.co.in. We did not change our depiction of the borders in response to this request.
• The number of content removal requests we received increased by 90% compared to the previous reporting period.

Indonesia

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Iran

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.
• 3 Google products or services were disrupted during this time period:
  • Gmail, September 24 – 28, 2012
  • YouTube, June 13, 2009–Present
  • Google Videos, January 29, 2011 – August 20, 2012

Israel

• We received a request from legal representatives of a member of the executive branch to remove two YouTube videos for alleged defamation. We did not remove the videos. We received a request from a member of the judicial administration to remove search results that allegedly violate section 255 of the Israeli Penal Law that deals with contempt of the court by linking to content that is critical of Israeli judges, as well as results which allegedly violate section 70(f) of the Courts Law and section 24(a)1 of the Minors' Protection and Treatment Law by linking to content which allegedly infringes statutory gag orders. We requested additional information but did not receive a reply.

Italy

• We received a request from member of a city government to remove a YouTube video that allegedly violates his privacy because it includes an image of his face on a campaign poster. We did not remove the video. In response to a court order, we removed a blog post from the blogspot.it domain that allegedly defamed an individual by speculating that he was making a profit from charging the government fees for housing officials and was able to do so because of his association with certain politicians.

Japan

• We received a request from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to remove duplicate reviews of Japanese embassy listings in Google+ that related to the government's position on a political issue. We removed 2,558 reviews for violating our product policies.

Jordan

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Kosovo

• We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove five YouTube videos that allegedly violated the privacy of politicians by disclosing recorded conversations. We did not remove the videos.

Lebanon

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Malaysia

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Maldives

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Mexico

• We received two requests from two separate government officials to remove a blog and a YouTube video, respectively, that allegedly defame them by accusing them of corruption. We did not remove content in response to these requests.

Monaco

• We received a court order directed at a third party to remove five blogs that allegedly defame a member of the police. We did not remove the blogs because we were unable to determine their relationship to the court order. We requested clarification but did not receive a reply.

Morocco

• A Google product or service was disrupted during this time period:
  • Google Earth, August 3, 2009–Present

Pakistan

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.
• A Google product or service was disrupted during this time period:
  • YouTube, September 17, 2012–Present

Russia

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya. We received 107 requests from the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications to remove 107 items from several different products for allegedly violating the Federal Law on Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection, for containing content related to suicide and drugs. We restricted content from local view in response to about one-third of the requests and removed content globally for violating our product policies in response to more than half of the requests.

Saudi Arabia

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

Singapore

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

South Korea

• We received a request to remove a YouTube video that allegedly defamed a presidential candidate. We did not remove the video.
  We received several requests from the Korean Game Rating Board during this reporting period to remove 293 applications from Google Play according to Article 21 of the Act relating to the Promotion of the Game Industry. We removed 286 of the applications.

Spain

• In response to a court order issued by a judge in a provinicial court branch, we removed a blog post from the blogspot.es domain that allegedly defamed another judge in the same provincial court branch.

Syria

• 2 Google products or services were disrupted during this time period:
  • All Products, November 29 – December 1, 2012
  • All Products, July 19, 2012

Tajikistan

• A Google product or service was disrupted during this time period:
  • YouTube, July 27 – October 15, 2012

Turkey

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya. We received 17 requests from the Telecommunications Communication Presidency of the Information and Communications Technologies Authority to remove 63 YouTube videos and 22 Blogger blog posts, all due to alleged criticism of Atatürk, the government or national identity and values. We restricted Turkish users from accessing 52% of the YouTube videos. We did not remove content in response to the requests relating to Blogger blog posts.
  We received 16 requests based on a court order directed at a third party to remove 8,119 search results that linked to websites that allegedly contained copyright infringing material. We removed 6,851 search results, which we determined to fall within the scope of the order.
• A Google product or service was disrupted during this time period:
  • Google Sites, June 24, 2009–Present

United Arab Emirates

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya.

United Kingdom

• We received a request from a Member of Parliament to remove a blog post for suggesting that he advised businesses while serving in government. We were not in a position to adjudicate on the facts so, with the MP's consent, we passed the complaint on to the blogger. The content came down although we did not remove it. We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove a YouTube video that allegedly defamed them by artificially portraying a member of the agency in a racist uniform. We did not remove the video.
  We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove a YouTube video that was critical of police practices. We did not remove the video.

United States

• We received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims": Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Australia, Egypt, and the United States requested that we review the videos to determine if they violated our Community Guidelines, which they did not. The other 17 countries requested that we remove the videos. We restricted videos from view in Indonesia, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Turkey. Due to difficult circumstances, we temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya. We received a request from a local government agency to remove a YouTube video that allegedly defamed a school administrator. We did not remove the video.
  We received three separate requests from local law enforcement agencies to remove three YouTube videos that allegedly defamed police officers, public prosecutors or contained information about police investigations. We did not remove the videos.
  In response to three court orders, we removed 771 items from Google Groups relating to a case of continuous defamation against a man and his family.
  We received three different court orders from different individuals that were addressed to third parties, along with a request to remove 690 items from Google Groups, that allegedly contained defamatory statements. We asked for clarification but never received a reply.
  We received three court orders from different individuals that were addressed to third parties, along with requests to remove 452 search results that linked to websites that allegedly contain defamatory content. We removed 70 search results that we determined to fall within the scope of the orders.
  In response to a court order, we removed 119 search results that linked to websites allegedly hosting trademark infringing material.