glad to hear and looking forward to the site
I'm about done with my piece on the daca precedent but theres a legal thing I'm still trying to understand
I wish I could participate more in the chat, its hard to get an article together and give my family attention too. I should probably pick easier topics.
Nice!
I'm pretty sure almost all of the traffic on cripplechan after 2018 was qresearch. Am I off the mark?
I think we'll see a revival when big names start getting arrested. Until then people are fatigued and nothing is happening, anyway not publicly. Theyre STILL working on the Flynn case, ok I get why, but there's not much to see and talking about the other side of the curtain and being wrong about it over and over (remember JFK Jr coming back in October) is unrewarding. Not trying to be negative but that's what I think is happening, it's not really negative IMO because I think they;'ll be back.
>I always asked the same question.
Thank you. I've never asked this question because it feels like we're so far gone. How can we pursue life, LIBERTY and happiness if the NSA is balls deep in everything we search, read etc and the other agencies are literally putting us on watch lists for being patriotic.
The constitution is the law of the land, but Agencies are trampling the Fourth Amendment. This is unlawful.
>How much can we take back?
I appreciate everything you do here but this isn't good enough.
>CC BY-SA: This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms.
Does "build upon the material" mean they can quote it and write an article around it, or does it give editing permission?
>CC BY-ND: This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
>No derivatives or adaptations of the work are permitted
Does this only prevent editing, or does it prevent block quotes, interpretations and opinions on my article?
>What would you like us to do instead
I don't have the answers to this, but anything less than full restoration of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is unacceptable to me.
Perhaps NSA could track searches and other data anonymously and only zero in on who is doing them with legit probable cause, and not bullshit reasons to appease certain groups (agency capture) or be abusive.
>Agencies are trampling the Fourth Amendment.
Actually they're trampling the first and second too, but putting patriots on watch lists for exercising free speech or researching gun-related, and you could argue they are violating the third by installing themselves into your home via your devices to surveil.
That helps but what I don't understand is the "ND" provision.
Can they put words in my mouth if I don't select it, or otherwise edit?
If I do select ND, would that prevent other writers from putting me in block quotes or writing interpretations and opinions on my article?
Here;s what I found
https://tldrlegal.com/license/creative-commons-attribution-noderivs-(cc-nd)
>Quick Summary
>The no derivatives creative commons license is straightforward; you can take a work released under this license and re-distribute it but you can’t change it.
I don't think this prevents partial-redistribution (block quoting) or analysis.
I pasted "This work is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0" with hyperlink. Search on bing for biden is a rapest, I didn't link because their politics are more mainstream-right and I don't want them thinking I'm raiding them.
With the license, I don't want people editing or rewriting me, but I do want them to let them block quote, etc. I'm still a little unclear on what ND allows and doesn't.
I'll write this up tonight if no one wants to.
I may do a larger article on this later. Trying to get this one together now.
>who ordered it
https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/08/16/there-is-a-big-cya-footnote-in-the-mueller-report-that-attempts-to-put-distance-between-clinesmith-and-special-counsel-prosecutors/
>Clinesmith was first tasked by a Senior Supervisory Agent (SSA) to clarify Page’s status with the CIA
>But the Mueller Report wants everyone to believe that while Clinesmith was assigned to the SCO, he was not “supervised” by the SCO — at all times he remained under the “FBI legal supervision” according to the Report. What is noticeably missing is any explanation as to how that was possible since the SCO operated independent of DOJ.
The writer repeats what Sundance from CTH pointed out, that the Special Counsel blamed the FBI for Clinesmith (attorney 2) ahead of time.
Interesting IM's from Clinesmith:
>“As I have initiated the destruction of the republic…. Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?”
>Viva le resistance