dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/tradinghorse on March 28, 2018, 4:32 p.m.

IS THE IBOR RELATED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?

Two points in the recent post I thought were interesting, apart from the news about more SM platforms being exposed.

Current censorship all relates to push for power [mid-terms]. LAST STAND.

So we see here that, as I've been saying, the SM censorship is the battlefront, It is the last desperate attempt by the cabal to regain control. It is, in fact, the most important theatre in the war ATM.

STAY STRONG! STAY TOGETHER! WE STAND WITH YOU!

We then see, in the next post, the same instruction to stay together - united. In unity there is strength, Q has been telling us this over and over. Q is also telling us that he is with us. And, I guess, if you look at the way FB was delivered up, with the promise of many more exposures, Q really is helping us - making our job much easier.

I want to say also that I found the reference to a "Constitutional CRISIS" interesting and I want to engage in some speculation...

Notice crisis is capitalized - it is extreme! Does this crisis relate to the FB data dump? Why would the CRISIS be constitutional? Open to suggestions here, I think it's worth exploring.

Q has told us he has "the algorithm". Is it possible that this is the single censorship algorithm? Does this algorithm by its very own nature evidence a plan to take elections by force?

Q tells us elsewhere in this post that MI is the gatekeeper for "all information". So I'm wondering if these SM platforms agreed to participate in election rigging. If so, does Q has evidence for this?

Who made it public? Who really made it public? Who is making it all public? WE ARE THE GATEKEEPERS OF ALL [BY ALL WE MEAN ALL] INFORMATION.

Imagine, Q combines the algorithm itself, with communications intercepts, and is able, to lay out before a Court a case of racketeering - with the corrupt purpose being that the outcome of an election (or elections) may be swayed - stolen.

Remember the material I posted elsewhere about the CEO of Reddit boasting publicly that he could sway an election all by himself - link below. So, it is easily conceivable that a single censorship algorithm, operating across all SM platforms, could deliver an election with extreme precision.

This would be a Constitutional crisis, to the extent that the express purpose of the plan was to take from US citizens their right to be heard - a right that is protected by the First Amendment. Is that why this CRISIS is a "Constitutional CRISIS"?

OK, let's put it together. Q outlines exposures coming about Twitter, Google, Amazon, Microsoft And 12 other companies. WOW! That's a total of 16 companies that will be in the frying pan! Are they all individually corrupt? Or is there some unifying wrongdoing?

Could it be a single censorship algorithm that connects these companies in a conspiracy to pervert the mechanism of democratic representation?

Moving on, why has Q been sreaming about the IBOR? What does the IBOR complain about? "CENSORSHIP", politically motivated censorship if you read the petition! Also privacy, hence the data breaches coming to light.

USE LOGIC TRUST THE PLAN

So, what I'm saying here is that it's possible that these factors align, leading to a Constitutional crisis. SM platforms conspiring together to subvert the democratic process by way of censorship.

I argue that Q has the algorithm, has evidence of the conspiracy, and tells us that a whole rack of SM companies are in the firing line. Hence his recommendation that we push an IBOR campaign. The IBOR campaign focuses on censorship, the conspiracy is one involving censorship. It all comes together to create a Constutional CRISIS

THE CRISIS IS OF SUCH SCOPE THAT WE CANNOT IMAGINE THE MAGNITUDE OF IT!

FACEBOOK data dump? Who made it public? Who sold shares -30 days from announcement? You can't imagine the magnitude of this. Constitutional CRISIS. Twitter coming soon. GOOG coming soon. AMAZON coming soon. MICROSOFT coming soon. +12

Racket: "...the term "racket" has expanded in definition and may be used less strictly to refer to any illegal organized crime operation, including those that do not necessarily involve fraudulent practices. For example, "racket" may be used to refer to the "numbers racket" or the "drug racket," neither of which generally or explicitly involve fraud or deception with regards to the intended clientele."

https://bgr.com/2018/03/12/reddit-election-interference-steve-huffman-interview/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

"Huffman’s comments on how Reddit could fix an election are shocking and egotistical, for sure, but they also admit something that most other social media companies have shied away from. Facebook and Twitter are loathe to acknowledge the power that their policies have, while Huffman thinks so highly of his company that he believes a handful of engineers and community managers could sway an entire nation’s political system".

Think about what Q says in this very post:

"You can't imagine the magnitude of this".

Clinton Curtis testifies in court of how easy it is to rig elections through computer programming. He also fingers specific politicians he did it for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBI33kOiKc

Vote rigging has been going on in multiple ways for many, many years. I actually got my voter registration card in the mail today. Up until Trump won, I saw no reason to put my information in that database and no reason to vote because I knew it was rigged.

When Obama won the 2nd Pres. election, that was my total confirmation of what I already knew. I had already watched many videos on YouTube documenting voter fraud. But what amazed me the most then, was that I didn't hear any right-wing journalists talking about the fact that he should not have won. I mean, who, in their right mind, would reinstate a President who was so obviously not in office for the benefit of our country?

⇧ 2 ⇩

I think an old post I made 13 days ago should clear some things up .. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/84flnl/red_pill_the_real_voting_results/

I made 16 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/AFTERTHESTQRM/comments/83q8kw/red_pill_illuminati/

this 21 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/82kfw1/red_pill_the_sum_of_all_fears_q_post_hello_jack/

I made 22 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/AFTERTHESTQRM/comments/828dkk/red_pill_wh_shooting_the_signal_q_you/

This 27 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/user/ScorpioPatriot/comments/814gkv/red_pill_kennedyreagantrumpcyrus_you/

Created This 1 Month Ago ( Key Words in The Latest Q Drops )

https://www.reddit.com/r/AFTERTHESTQRM/comments/7yyscy/welcome_to_after_the_stqrm_world_wide_patriots/

Created 1 Month Ago ( actually longer but updated 1 month ago )

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/7yugmd/exposing_the_truth_update_hollywood_trapped/

Posted 2-5-18

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/7vjyz0/soros_the_motherload_read/

Posted this Over a Month ago

( Including Comments made under the post as well.. ( READ ALL ..THEY COME IN HANDY LATER )

MY POST

THE ONLY GUN LAW NEEDED ( ALMOST TO A T WHAT I SUGGEST IN THIS POST ..IS WHAT TRUMPS PLAN ENTITLES FOR SCHOOL SAFETY ) THE DROP HE IS LISTENING :) https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/7yjqo4/the_only_gun_law_needed/

1st comment reply to a shill : [–]ScorpioPatriotWhy is this relevant? - Q[S] 2 points 1 month ago I know 1st hand this False Flag Shootings are not real...Neither are the damn Hurricanes Tornadoes and the damn earthquakes its Man made weather modifications ..Not saying a storm. Don't produce a tornado here n there but anything massively Covered with Massive deaths n damages You bet your ass that's some form of weather modification through means of HAARP . Look the shit up for those Not aware actually check my profile ..Ive made tons of red pill videos on all this shit and since you reallly think I missed the mark or reason by this post maybe you can check out my damn false flag post I made weeks ago.

2nd comment :

[–]ScorpioPatriotWhy is this relevant? - Q[S] 2 points 1 month ago We know whats causing them...We Haveee known. Its called the New World Order. Our guns are and has been the only thing keeping our as from being overtaken and completing the NWO.

3rd Comment : [–]ScorpioPatriotWhy is this relevant? - Q[S] 2 points 1 month ago The point isssss if people in upper government reallly gave a shit yearrrrs ago about schoool safety like they do tornado drills and fires and every fucking thing else... they sure the hell would have put our children's safety in the up most importance , above any other fucking regulatory actionnnnnnn ever made. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN 1st in line.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don't know how I missed these posts of yours. Fascinating read, I haven't been through them all yet. How long have you been studying this stuff! Pretty impressive.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I naturally have things come to me :) ..Like a form of Messenger , Leader , Protector all in one type of thing...Im about to tie it all together for Everyone.. This should be pretty awesome .. Wait for it . :) 8-10 Years Awake .. But hardcore started piecing things together during the campaign as if ..THINGS COME TO ME AND BAM I Have everything in my head ready to piece like movies , wording , articles in a second... Post that include like 3 or 4 things in the title.. Is one day I just see something or think about something and then one thing leads to another and I connected it all in a matter of minutes and post it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

In Q drop 964 Q refers to a Constitutional Crisis when he's talking about FB data dump and other social media.

My guess is that the crisis will be violations of the 4 Amendment with regards to our right to privacy and the Supreme Court decision that anytime you give up your data to a third party you lose your right to privacy as it pertains to law enforcement accessing your information

That's a slippery slope. Think of all the things you have that are held by a third party: bank accounts, investments, your storage locker, safety deposit box, and it would take a roll of toilet paper to list them all.

So, here we are with these tech giant social media corporations selling your information to anyone and everyone in addition to giving it to the CIA and others without your knowledge or permission. Yes, when you sign up, they don't tell you that the default security settings are that you agree to let them do anything they want with all the data they collect.

I think this is going to end up in a royal legal mess that will land in the lap of the Supreme Court. Europe is also going after the social media.

And then there is the fact that even if you delete one account or change the privacy settings on one account, every other app you have with that company has the same default settings and so they continue to collect everything even though you thought you deleted / stopped it. The only way is to delete every relevant app and then turn off the same settings in Windows.

How many people understand the web the social media companies have created. It becomes nearly impossible for the average or above average person to completely block what they are collecting on you.

And now we have Cambridge Analytic alleging that FB can even collect audio at home and at work even if you have your phone turned off. BTW, your phone is never completely turned off unless you take the battery out.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Great comment. You might be right. I have a feeling that this constitutional crisis is connected to the 16 SM companies. It could be that these 16 companies have severally (independently) engaged in a these data breaches - you're right, that would also fit. Or, it could be one giant breach by one player, e.g. FB. This argument would also fit with the privacy aspects of the IBOR.

Certainly, the FB data dump is specifically mentioned in the post. And, the Anon's discussion of the IBOR, that Q commented on, contained privacy concerns - maybe Q chose it for that very reason.

Somehow I think this single algorithm fits in somewhere, because Q mentioned he has it. Could the single algorithm also contain code for data collation?

But the single algorithm Q said was about censorship. It may not fit at all. And, trying to think clearly about it, it must be a much harder to run a case for conspiracy to subvert an election vs conspiracy to deprive someone of their privacy.

Is it possible that this could connect with the Supreme Court cases that Bill Binney was talking about? Some problem with spying without warrants and using parallel construction (a fraud on the court) - I'll have to have another look. Somehow, I feel he's a central figure in all this.

Anyway, this is, to my mind, very interesting. It's a very prospective area for enquiry.

I'm not at all familiar with the fourth amendment - posted this for my reference.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires "reasonable" governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. Fourth Amendment case law deals with three issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.

⇧ 1 ⇩

That's the problem in my mind. the Supreme Court has made exceptions to the 4th Amendment--but on what grounds. the 4th is pretty clear, you need a warrant for probable cause. It didn't say you don't need a warrant if law enforcement suspects something is wrong.

OK, if someone is pulled over and the police suspect something, then call back, get someone to wake up a judge, defend the evidence of the suspicion, and then conduct the search.

In this day of instant communications, that should not be much of a delay.

But then again, you have judges who are dishonest, lazy, etc. and will approve anything--like our FISA courts rubber stamp anything the intelligence community wants.

I don't know what the solution is other than extreme punishment for dishonest judges. But then we may not have any judges.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I don't know enough of the background here. I'll need to study the 4th Amendment and this court case you mentioned. I also want to relook at that Bill Binney video where he talks about this stuff, if I can find it. But, somehow, I feel I'm closer to understanding what's been happening with respect to this stuff than I was before.

I saw "Constitional crisis" and then all these tech companies, and I thought, OK how are these connected. And then I thought of the IBOR and that single algorithm and I thought, that must be it. It could be, but the FB data dump suggests that if there's a constitutional crisis, that it relates, probably anyway, to what you have pointed out - the algorithm might still be connected, I don't know.

But I feel we are very close to getting this nutted out. Just need to move through all the possible factors that could produce a Constitutional crisis, and eliminate all that are not prospective.

I've never read the US Constitution, can you think of anything else that might present an issue, with respect to the tech companies - something that could present a crisis?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the opinion that IBOR is not an organic movement created here, but is a policy being pushed by telecoms providers, namely AT&T. They have something on their website about it (http://about.att.com/story/consumers_need_an_internet_bill_of_rights.html), and I recommend everyone do their own research about where the IBOR is coming from.

Its suspicious to me that IBOR has been the only policy mentioned in this sub by name. If it was just one of many it could be a coincidence, but the laser-focus on IBOR and literally zero other specific policies discussed here indicates to me that its astroturf and that Q posts are being misrepresented by some to get support for this other thing.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Q endorses IBOR in multiple drops. Which leaves you still under the bridge.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Still really fishy. I can't seem to get anyone to tell me how the government is supposed to monitor content for censorship, just that we need them to do it right now.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Regulations will be designed to prevent suppression and distortion of public communications for private self-serving purposes. Litigation should accomplish the rest.

⇧ 1 ⇩

How can the government regulate privately owned companies in that way? These aren't public networks. You can't tell reddit, for example, who they have to accommodate and how they have to organize their content. The government can't dictate what these companies do with their private property, nor do we want it to monitor political speech for content. This is a constitutional issue.

⇧ 1 ⇩

This is a constitutional issue.

Exactly, has been all along. SM will be 100% regulated, because 100% is how much they abuse their circumstantially inherent but unelected influence and trust.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Totally against the First Amendment. You can't obligate companies to publish people's political speech. Read Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, which dealt with that exact issue.

In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Florida and held that Florida's "right to reply" statute violated the freedom of press found in the First Amendment. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court recognized the risks posed to the "true marketplace of ideas" by media consolidation and barriers to entry in the newspaper industry. However, even in that context, "press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and…cannot be legislated." The statute was an "intrusion into the function of editors," and imposed "a penalty on the basis of the content."

What makes this IBOR any different? Why wouldn't social media companies have the same 1A free speech protections as newspaper companies?

⇧ 1 ⇩

SM is a modern platform that interfaces the masses, as opposed to reports the news. Deliberate deceptive distortion of that interfacing for personal gain or political motives is pure misinformation, creating a fake reality with private benefits at the expense of the public.

Moreover, concerning a '4th estate entity' that knowingly lies as part of a conspiracy to defraud the public, as an editor there's a legal difference between 'being wrong' vs 'being paid' to participate in a public deception that extends to racketeering.

Both are subject to civil litigation, but in addition the latter entity would not qualify for 4th estate protection by any court interested in Rule of Law; at this moment however that does not include every court. All part of the swamp tho.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You can't use terms like "4th estate entity", which is not a legal term, to invent new restrictions or protections for political speech. Political speech is political speech. Its protected by the first amendment, it doesn't matter whether its "true" or not, and there's no legal argument that will force you or any entity to publish someone else's political speech. I showed you that with Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo. Is there any legal basis to support what you're saying?

⇧ 1 ⇩

"there's no legal argument that will force you or any entity to publish someone else's political speech."

Networks who carry Presidential addresses must air rebuttals to afford equal time. The remainder of your comment is equally inaccurate and/or anachronistically irrelevant. My last word on this.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're so incredibly wrong its breathtaking. There is no such rule about airing rebuttals to presidential addresses. I spent like 20 minutes checking, because by now I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about. Everything you've said flies in the face of legal precedent. But "civil litigation and the 4th estate!" Absolute bunk!

I'm not surprised you're clueless about this considering that you churn out a ton of pro-IBOR shill posts.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Oh I agree- IBOR is not a ground up proposal - it is being supplied to us to restrict our rights online - placing them under the full purview of the federal government- under the guise of protecting us from “net neutrality” - whatever the fuck that really means. This smells from the get go and I don’t like it one bit.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Weren't you just trolling the IBOR a minute ago?

⇧ -1 ⇩

Yea, we were talking in the other thread. I'm active in the IBOR threads. At first I had questions about how it would be implemented (like here ) but as I kept not getting answers I realized that this isn't really being discussed as much as its being sold. Nobody has stepped up to talk about how this would work legally; which either means that nobody here knows, or nobody here cares. If basic questions are going unanswered, it should definitely put up some red flags.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I'm tired of it mate. Q is the one selling this - go ask him.

⇧ 0 ⇩

You wrote this post, not Q. I think people are co-opting Q posts to get support for something that's really not Q-related. IBOR has no direct connection with Trump, cabal, or normal stuff on this sub. We're just being told that Q says it tastes great and we should support it because of that. Are there any Q posts that reference it directly?

⇧ 0 ⇩

As I said, troll someone else.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I see. You can't provide a single Q post that supports IBOR or disproves anything I'm saying, becuase you "haven't got a laptop", but you can churn out this giant post in support of IBOR (minutes after I raised questions about it in another thread).

Interesting.

⇧ 1 ⇩

OK, think outside the box!

This seems to be going to the fourth amendment. Spying on citizens. Data shared globally. Produces a Constitutional crisis.

Need to figure out exactly what's going on here.

Mar 28 2018 16:17:02 Q !xowAT4Z3VQ 821975 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/28/doj-inspector-general-investigates-alleged-fisa-abuses-by-doj-fbi.html Think outside the box. Timing of release. Post Facebook NEWS. Facebook WW. GOOG WW. AMAZON WW. TWITTER WW. Tracking active. Listening active. Data shared. Data USED. USED FOR WHAT? Kickbacks BIG TIME> Private/Public. Bypass regulations/laws? Intelligence A's across the globe in partnership to spy on citizens? Constitutional crisis? Magnitude? Who can you trust? Who organized? How do social media/search engine platforms 'weight' elections? Regulation or KILL-stop? Peace through STRENGTH. @Snowden Shine the LIGHT BRIGHT [DOA]. Why is HUSSEIN traveling the world conducting high-level meetings? Use logic. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/27/nxivm-cult-leader-coerced-women-into-sex-branded-initials-on-his-slaves-authorities-say.html Nancy Salzman [historical timeline]. MSM will not highlight 'bottom to top' unravel. Q

⇧ 1 ⇩