The intelligence and security committee's questioning made Sir David Frost's gentle sofa technique look like Klaus Barbie

Another historic milestone in the battle for parliamentary oversight was passed when Britain's spy chiefs summoned a committee of MPs and peers to justify their behaviour and reassure the public they are not a threat to national security.

To the average Ukip voter watching on almost-live TV, the nine members of the intelligence and security committee (ISC) must have looked a shifty bunch. The chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, is a Scot, so he must be some kind of traitor. Labour's George Howarth sports a beard (communist?). Tory Mark Field was born in Germany (Hun?).

As for that Hazel Blears ("His and Hers" as Sir Malcolm called her in his rough Edinburgh accent), she rides a motorbike. Yes, there is plenty there for the spook community to get their digital teeth into.

Obviously it would have been more appropriate if the committee had been kitted out in orange jump suits and taken to M16 HQ at Vauxhall Cross or to GCHQ in Cheltenham for their interrogation. But constitutional niceties must be respected, so the three intelligence chiefs came to Westminster's Boothroyd Room and pretended to be grilled by the ISC. Even then they insisted on a two-minute TV pause button in case anyone blurted out a SECRET.

A Weatherford, Texas resident is facing a $3 million defamation lawsuit by Ft. Worth fracking company Range Resources. In 2011, Steve Lipsky exposed the company for contaminating his water supply with methane and benzene, DeSmog Blog reports.

In 2010, Lipsky discovered that he could light his well water on fire after the company that drilled the well came to determine why it wasn't working properly. Peck's Well Service found gas building up inside the well and lit Lipsky's water on fire to demonstrate the problem. At that time, the company installed a vent to allow some of the gas to escape.

Lipsky checked the Texas Railroad Commission's website and found that two natural gas wells run practically beneath his home. He hired an environmental consultant to test his water, along with an investigator from the Railroad Commission. Lipsky's water "effervesced like Alka-Seltzer," according to the Dallas Observer. Test results found the water had been polluted by nearby fracking operations.

For months prior, Lipsky had felt as if something wasn't right. He often felt nauseated and fatigued. At times he feared he had cancer. He testified that his submersible pump would sputter and cough and struggled to fill their 5,000-gallon holding tank. Lipsky first showed local Fire Marshall Shawn Scott that his water was flammable. Scott and his assistant fire marshall decided to measure the amount of gas coming from the well.

"We got within 20 feet of that well and the hydrocarbon detector was going bonkers, full indication," Scott told the Observer. "I couldn't get any closer because you risk burning up the sensors. This is open air. It's not like we were in a house."

Scott used another monitor to gauge the gas concentration and found that it measured 12 to 14 percent instantly - within the explosive range. "Anything above 5 percent, we start getting nervous," Scott said.

Worried for the safety of his family, Lipsky ultimately shut off the well and began trucking in water at an average cost of $1,000 a month. He sued Range Resources after an extremely rare order was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Water Drinking Act, determining that Range Resources' nearby fracking operations had contaminated Lipsky's well and engendered the health of his family.Summary

Europe and the US are in negotiations which they hope will result in a much needed boost to their cash flows. They're sitting down to hammer out the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which would remove a number of regulations that currently create barriers to trade. The successful adoption of the agreement promises both parties substantial gains.

According to new national polling data from Pew Research, the American people have revolted against President Barack Obama's and the GOP establishment's efforts to grant amnesty to America's at least 11 million illegal immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform.

"Only about a third of the public (32%) approves of the job Obama is doing on immigration policy; 60% disapprove," Pew wrote. "Obama's ratings for this issue among Democrats are mixed: About half (53%) approve of his handling of the issue while 42% disapprove."

Obama's 60 percent disapproval rating on immigration from the American people is an all-time high for him on the issue and puts him on par with former President George W. Bush's immigration polling numbers. Obama's immigration disapproval rating has skyrocketed as he has ramped up his efforts to lobby Congress for the passage of an amnesty - particularly the Senate's "Gang of Eight" immigration bill.

As the American people have learned more and more about the Gang of Eight bill and the effects which amnesty and a drastic influx of millions of new workers would have on the hurting economy, they have grown more and more outraged with what Washington, D.C., is doing regarding immigration reform. In February - before Obama and lawmakers like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and DIck Durbin (D-IL) began their push for immigration reform - the President's immigration policy approval rating among the American people, according to Pew, was higher than his disapproval rating. His approval rating on immigration then was 44 percent, whereas his disapproval rating was 43 percent.

A draft deal with Iran on its nuclear program that Israel asserted would imperil its very existence is the latest sign that Israel and longtime ally the United States are as far apart as ever on how to deal with growing threats in the Middle East.

Analysts say the Obama administration needs to take Israel's fears seriously, while the White House insists it is doing what is best for the security of Israel, the United States and the Middle East.

Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator who has advised Democratic and Republican secretaries of State, said the rift may cause problems for the United States on multiple fronts, including a risk of dragging the United States into war with Iran.

"How this will play out is not clear," Miller said. "I find it almost unimaginable this administration would conclude even an interim agreement with (Iranian President Hassan) Rouhani that left Israel angry and aggrieved and the relationship in even worse shape."

Iran's foreign minister said on Sunday that the first deal in a decade over its nuclear programme could have been reached if one negotiating member - a clear reference to France - had not blocked it.

"There was a possibility to reach an agreement with the majority of 5+1 but there was a need to have the consent of all and as you have heard . . . one of the delegations had some problems," Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a Facebook post referring to the six nations involved in the talks - the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Iran.

Three days of intense negotiations in Geneva, which went into early Sunday morning, failed to produce an interim agreement over Iran's nuclear programme despite earlier optimistic predictions.

France appeared to be concerned that the proposal, which involved Tehran halting key parts of its nuclear programme in return for modest relief from tough international sanctions, did not apply the brakes hard enough on the country's agenda.

Statistically speaking, Americans should be more fearful of the local cops than "terrorists."

Though Americans commonly believe law enforcement's role in society is to protect them and ensure peace and stability within the community, the sad reality is that police departments are often more focused on enforcing laws, making arrests and issuing citations. As a result of this as well as an increase in militarized policing techniques, Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist, estimates a Washington's Blog report based on official statistical data.

Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it's estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year. Since 9/11, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers, which is almost equivalent to the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

Because individual police departments are not required to submit information regarding the use of deadly force by its officers, some bloggers have taken it upon themselves to aggregate that data. Wikipedia also has a list of "justifiable homicides" in the U.S., which was created by documenting publicized deaths.

Mike Prysner, one of the local directors of the Los Angeles chapter for ANSWER - an advocacy group that asks the public to Act Now to Stop War and End Racism - told Mint Press News earlier this year that the "epidemic" of police harassment and violence is a nationwide issue.

A range of conspiracy theories have arisen over the past year alleging that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is taking steps to hire a new squad of law enforcement officers and acquire an arsenal of riot gear, pepper spray-spewing guns and as many as 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, as part of a specific plan to quash dissent, monitor public events, and infiltrate peaceful protest groups.

But the DHS denies such claims, saying it has indeed posted solicitations for security and gear contractors but only as part of normal operations or to augment existing programs, and that the conspiracies being floated by certain reporters and bloggers are baseless.

The department's Federal Protective Service posted an Oct. 10 solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website seeking a company to fulfill an $75 million to $80 million contract to provide qualified people to serve about 400,000 hours as Protective Service Officers (PSOs) in upstate New York.

65% Disapprove of his Handling of Economy

Barack Obama has had a difficult year since his reelection victory. His overall job rating stands at 41%, down 14 points since last December. A majority (53%) now disapproves of the way he is handling his job as president.

The latest national poll by the Pew Research Center, conducted Oct. 30-Nov. 6 among 2,003 adults, finds that Obama's second-term job ratings have followed a similar downward trajectory as those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. A year after his reelection, 36% approved of Bush's job performance, down from 48% in December 2004.

In contrast, the two prior presidents who won reelection - Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan - enjoyed positive ratings over the course of the next year. At comparable points in their fifth year in office, 58% approved of Clinton's job performance while Reagan's job rating stood at 62%.

The new survey finds that majorities disapprove of the way Obama is handling four of five issues tested, with terrorism the lone exception (51% approve, 44% disapprove). For every issue, including terrorism, his ratings are lower than they were earlier this year.

Fifty years later, a complicit media still covers up for the security state. We need to reclaim our history.

We'll never know, we'll never know, we'll never know. That's the mocking-bird media refrain this season as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of America's greatest mystery - the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson hijacked a large chunk of her paper's Sunday Book Review to ponder the Kennedy mystery. And after deliberating for page after page on the subject, she could only conclude that there was some "kind of void" at the center of the Kennedy story. Adam Gopnik was even more vaporousin the Nov. 4 issue of the New Yorker, turning the JFK milestone into an occasion for a windy cogitation on regicide as cultural phenomenon. Of course, constantly proclaiming "we'll never know" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy for the American press. It lets the watchdogs off the hook, and excuses their unforgivable failure to actually, you know, investigate the epic crime. When it comes to this deeply troubling American trauma, the highly refined writers of the New Yorker and the elite press would rather muse about the meta-issues than get at the meat.