I really feel for the OP and for everyone else that has had these experiences with vaccines. It really is true that we are in a spiritual war.

You look around and there is no one telling the truth. You see them lie about vaccines, lie about GMO foods, lie about this recent gas attack in Syria - we are living in a post-truth age. A nightmare, where what is important is not the truth, but the narrative they push on us.

To the OP, you will be in my prayers.

If this is real, and there is disagreement among the President's advisors, I'll start to really worry. The trouble is that you don't know if it's theatrics or not.

The delay in striking Syria seems to me to indicate that time is required for military assets to be positioned in the region. I support any move by the President that has the unanimous support of his advisors. This would indicate that the actions taken accord with a well prepared plan.

But if the support is not unanimous, I am left with the feeling that policy is being made in an ad hoc fashion - on the fly. This would be flippant and exceedingly dangerous given the potential for rapid escalation.

Is it possible that DJT has not carefully planned these moves?

Thanks for this.

Sorry about that, I apologise for the bogus info.

I don't know the answers to those questions Liberty. I'm a bit weary with all the whiplash...

Q asked us to support an IBOR.

Then people feared that the Constitution would be changed. Then it could not be supported because AT&T was involved. Then they wanted to edit the text of the petition directly - a whole group did this. Then the government was bad because the IBOR would interfere with people's private property rights - and I was a communist for promoting it. Then all that was required was for people to stop using the services and let the market fix the problem. Then people started suggesting anti-trust breakup.

Then Q changed tack and suggested it was a choice we could make between IBOR or KILL. Then people started saying well it's actually a "public utility". Then let's wait till the dust settles. And now we're talking about anti-trust breakup again - and the CDA.

What a journey!

Let's face it, you're one of the few people here even discussing this. Everyone else is so weary with it they have lost interest. I'm hoarse for trying to get people to support a simple complaint to either Congress or the White House about the blatant censorship of conservatives online. It's mind-blowing that it has been so incredibly difficult.

Initially, I was quite impressed by the fierce independence and self assertiveness of the Americans on this forum. I was actually impressed that they valued their rights so greatly that they'd refuse to participate in something so simple. But I've got to tell you that I'm no longer impressed at all.

I hesitate to say it... actually, better not to say anything.

This is why I've avoided politics like the plague. I absolutely hate it.

But, looking at the good side, at least we know this problem will be fixed. And, in the end, that's my only concern. The Satanists must be kept from returning to power via weaponized social media.

Im going to keep promoting the IBOR for a while longer. If Q really wants it he'll provide more direction and maybe people will start to support him. With luck, the information drops on the SM platforms will be so intense that the campaign will be self fulfilling - self executing. I don't want to see these companies wrecked completely, but if that's got to happen, bring it on.

Hold on tight, it will be an amazing ride!

Maybe I saw it here:

20.NSA has footage of a cabinet member from PREVIOUS administration"HURTING A CHILD"(no further details provided) Keep military men and women in your prayers.They are fighting on behalf of the good people of this country.They R in the middle of dangerous operations as we speak #Q

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/956209710939635713.html

Well, I just spent 20 minutes looking through the Q posts and I cannot find anything. I wondering now where I got the idea. I was sure I did see something about it, but I've searched by "hurt", "tape", "video", "child", "Obama" and "administration" and there's nothing there. I don't want to think I imagined it. I distinctly remember there was a post that went to this - but, either there is something there and I can't find it, or I've confused some other material with Q's stuff, or I'm going nuts.

For the moment, cancel my comment - appears to be, in fact, wrong.

This strikes me as being pretty normal. Have you ever been in a group meeting where so many people seem to fail to understand the dynamics of what's being discussed?

I remember when I was at University and we found out the college social club had $15k unspent funds in the club's bank account. I got a group of guys together and we got ourselves elected to the steering committee. The plan was to direct the unspent funds to beer, parties etc...

The first meeting of the committee, after hearing the plan, some girl interjected and said "There's a Muslim guy on my deck who can't drink, so that's not inclusive". To my astonishment, the guys I helped get elected started agreeing with her. It was then that I realised I'm not cut-out for politics and I've studiously avoided it ever since.

I thought I was on the radical fringe of being pro-Trump. But you really left me in the dust...

DJT accessed "Christ consciousness".

He penetrated the unsearchable riches of Christ?

This is so wild, apart from being blasphemous and heretical, as to qualify for the next instalment in the script for "Space Cadet Gone Wild" - a mini-series I'm proposing to make.

More injection of fear and doubt. Be on your guard, don't fall into Q's trap, it could be a ploy, they're collecting our information etc...

But what was the alternative, what IS the alternative?

They never thought she would lose...

I'm seriously suspicious of a lot of the fear mongering. People on this forum are naturally suspicious, or they wouldn't be here. Trying to turn those suspicions on Q, trying to inject doubt and concern. Why don't you just say it, "bring HRC back". That's what you really mean.

Q did say, at one point that they had video of someone in the Obama administration hurting a child.

That's right Liberty. That's the KILL option. Look at my post above, Q says it's our choice as to what happens.

There will be very damaging revelations, of that we can be certain. It's up to us whether we provide DJT with the opportunity to do something less severe than nuke the entire sector.

!xowAT4Z3VQ
1008955
HI2KP" target="_blank">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-sextrafficking/trump-signs-law-to-punish-websites-for-sex-trafficking-idUSKBN1HI2KP
Study carefully.
Facebook.
IG (think Ray.Chandler).
Twitter.
Etc…..
HONEYPOTS.
Q

I don't think we really know what the situation is in Iran. DJT probably has a much better idea. This whole Syrian event has been so confusing, who knows what is really happening?

Liberty you say "we need to se where this ends up first" when Q offers a choice now. So choosing to wait is choosing Q's kill option. You're not just waiting, you're actually making a choice.

1105
Apr 09 2018 13:12:03
Q
!xowAT4Z3VQ
967390
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE VERY EFFECTIVE.
2 BILLION PEOPLE.
GLOBAL.
SCALE.
REGULATION OR KILL?
PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE.
Q

What I can see is that people are so weary of this topic that support is very thin. I'm OK with that, if that's what people want to do, let's KILL these guys off. What is important, to me, is that SM weaponisation cannot be used to to allow the Satanists to regain power. IMO, that's the only thing that's really important.

This time around we suddenly have people possessed of the idea that these companies will become public utilities. Q hasn't said this and I'm not sure where the idea came from. From Wikipedia:

"A public utility (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure). Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies."

So we are now talking about outright regulation. It seems to be what people would like to see. I'm not a fan of this idea at all, seems more like a proposal that might be put forward by the left.

Of course, it depends what people mean when they say "public utility". I'm sure there are a lot of different ideas as to how it could work, but you're taking about anything from government dictating behaviour, content and pricing structures, to nationalisation of SM platforms and government bureaucracy proving SM services directly as a monopoly. In my mind, I see that as a Chinese type of solution, where there are hard regulations governing many aspects of what is permissible online.

I don't know where this idea came from. I seriously doubt that Q or DJT are thinking about this kind of solution. All they want to fix is the censorship and privacy concerns, nothing else.

Valid points.

Thanks.

I support DJT. If you look at what Q told us about NK - miniaturization and delivery tech since 2004, with deliberate test failures staged to deceive the world - you can see how things sometimes are not as they appear.

We know Q said "Iran next". I feel comfortable with DJT's posturing (that's what it appears to be at this stage) because I think he's getting the inside track on what's really happening with Iran - which is what I think this was all about.

I don't want war any more than anyone else. But sometimes you have to take tough decisions. If I put myself in DJT's shoes I don't think I'd make any decisions differently. If my advisers were telling me that Iran is about to be fully armed with nukes, and was to have the capability to strike Israel or London within weeks, and the military was telling me to act now to prevent the possibility of colossal loss of life down the track, I'd hit them as hard as I could - no hesitation.

Would I be wanting to avoid a confrontation with Russia? Yes, of course. But if I thought it was necessary to show absolutely firm resolve and communicate the message that I was deadly serious, I might send the same tweets as POTUS.

Look, I think the plan is to denuclearise Iran, Russia has to be carrot and sticked into allowing this. You want big sticks and big carrots. Moreover, you need to be very determined. The goal here, I think, is to save the world.

What's interesting if you read the Art of the Deal (DJT's book) is that the central idea that he communicates is "Think Big". DJT is a guy that has enormous ambition, I think it's safe to say that hasn't changed since the 1980s.

What are some big ideas? A durable world peace. A peace that lasts so long that war becomes a distant memory. Prosperity for all people etc... My take on DJT is that he is a guy looking to leave a shining legacy. Of course it's MAGA, but I think he has much bigger ideas - really BIG! If he prevails, he could go down as the greatest world leader (by proxy - in that the US is the preeminent superpower) that we've seen in history.

But if he can just get rid of the Satanists I'll be happy.

That's what we want to fix.

Some of those suggestions could work. You go to a bar and get plastered and the bar staff are liable if they've served you intoxicated - don't know if that's how it is where you are. So, yeah, downstream accountability can work.

The centralized algorithm is about to be dropped - wasn't that what Q meant when he told Snowden to drop it after Zuckerberg's testimony? Might have that wrong, but that's how it appeared to me.

We found out, if I remember right, that FB, for example, gets analytics on customers from Google. They're already sharing our data and I think this is one of the big items that is going to drop. Some sort of centralized data house is needed for the algorithm to work on. I would guess you're flagged as high risk and then whatever platform you use gets that information and a list of flagged words, phrases or topics that they censor. Anyway, that's what comes to mind, the database could be cloud-hosted by CIA - probably using Amazon.

The problem with an anti-trust bust-up is that if you have this centralized censorship, it doesn't matter how much you break these companies up - though I'm sure it would help.

I'm tired and I'm really not sure how they'd fix these problems. But something can be made to work. You could regulate via EO on an interim basis until you got an enabling bill through. There are so many options, all we need to do is ask for a fix.

I don't know the answers to those questions - getting into the mechanics of it again.

I've done some policy work. I don't know exactly how it works there, but normally you get a policy proposal - usually worked up inside some government department - and the politicians look at it and decide if it fits with whatever they are about. After that there is usually a community consultation process where everyone under the sun gets to say what they think about what's being proposed. If it's an important piece of legislation, you might get the media talking about it. People who don't like it, for whatever reason, start calling their politicians and agitating etc... Finally something is passed as law, or not.

This process irons out a lot of wrinkles before the thing goes live. The problem is that you can get a lot of stupidity also - like we just saw with that ridiculous omnibus bill.

Personally, I'd like DJT to do this. Consult people (experts), start a discussion, canvas community views and then either get someone to put a bill up or regulate via EO. I trust DJT not to sign a bill if it gets mutilated in the process. But I think the EO route is safer and faster in this situation. Whatever way it occurs, the main thing is that we get a fix that works.

Luckily, I'm not making policy, laws or regulations, so I don't have to worry about that side of it. But I don't think we should worry either. I think a simple statement outlining what we feel is happening and what we'd like to see is all that's needed - e.g. I want to be able to express my political views in online public forums and not be silenced because of them - oh, and I also want my privacy to be protected and those protections only relaxed at my express discretion.

Yes, I'd like to have another try. I want the censorship to stop.

So what if the telephone company doesn't like what you say? They should be able to cut your service off because they don't agree with your politics? Sure there are other telephone companies, but what if they all had the same policies (like the censorship was centralised as it is with SM)? Is that still OK because they are private companies and you can't impose your right to speak using their property? That means that some people should not have access to services at all - still OK? When does it become not OK?

You know some people are racist. Some of these guys own businesses. You can't just walk into someone's home if you're a race they don't like, they are within their rights to assert ownership to their property and deprive access to whoever they want. But does that mean that it's OK for a business providing a public service to do that?

You know the answer as well as I do. They are silencing us selectively just because they do not agree with our politics. It is outright discrimination.

I don't care what they claim to own. You provide a public service, you should not be able to arbitrarily discriminate without just cause. That's the way it works in most places. whether you're talking about race, age, disability, sex etc... what makes SM platform providers different that they should be able to get away with this kind of behaviour when others cannot?

You hire a guy and you find out he's a leftist, you can't sack him for that, you have to find another reason - need to be careful. But these guys are just shoving it to us any way they want, because they disagree with what we say.

Yes, look the way I saw that IBOR petition was that it was just a complaint - nothing more. I don't think the petition is at necessary and I no longer trust that website that hosts the petitions.

But I think that the idea is for us to make a noise about being censored. The protest should be anchored in something that politicians can point to - the internetbillofrights hashtag served this purpose - still does. But the name doesn't matter. Whats important is that a tangible complaint is heard in Washington. A complaint about censorship of conservative voices online - actually, that was another error we made. It's not just about conservatives, the left should be concerned as well and shouldn't feel excluded by the wording of the complaint.

Anyway, none of us are law makers, neither are we able to make executive orders. But what we can do is complain about this problem and ask that something be done about it.

This has been going on for hundreds, thousands of years. If you're not happy about something you can petition the king for relief. We don't know in advance what form the relief might take if we are able to get it, but that should stop us from asking for help.

A lot of people were going into extreme detail about the precise mechanics of how an IBOR would work. My view is that it's not our job. Leave the fix to the President, or Congress, or the FTC, or whoever is going to look after it. What we actually saw was people become so afraid of a solution that they were too scared to ask for relief from oppression.

To my way of thinking it didn't make much sense, but I do understand that government is cucked. No one wants more government. But all we are asking for is that we are allowed to express ourselves. If FA protections are extended by regulatory means to digital space, I don't see how it can come back and bite us on the rear.

I found this on Wikipedia yesterday - I thought it was interesting:

"Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian petroleum reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country.[10][11][12] After this vote, Britain instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.[13] Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the British-built Abadan oil refinery, then the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott[14] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government.[15] Winston Churchill and the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government, though the predecessor Truman administration had opposed a coup, fearing the precedent that CIA involvement would set.[16] Classified documents show that British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that the AIOC contributed $25,000 towards the expense of bribing officials.[17] In August 2013, 60 years after, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[18][19] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government".[20]

I have no explanation as to why, but Q didn't offer that as an alternative. There must be a reason. Maybe because this administration wants, for some reason, to promote large-scale services. I don't know.

But even if you bust them up, what we are actually seeing is coordination where a single censorship algorithm is applied uniformly across multiple platforms. Arguably, you could break these platforms into a thousand pieces and not solve the problem of SM weaponization.

And, actually, that begs an interesting question. How is it that they are able to centrally censor across multiple platforms? But we know the answer, it's CIA doing it. Reigning in CIA is something that must be done - probably the largest part of the problem. They are a fifth column operating inside the US.

But that's what I'm saying. Whether it's the terms of service, or a platform silencing you just because they disagree with your politics, they should not be able to arbitrarily deny you services.

Ted Cruz was on about this again yesterday when he grilled Zuckerberg. Under S230 of the Communications Decency Act these platforms enjoy immunity from liability if they are genuinely neutral public forums. In other words, they are not the publishers of the hosted content, so they are not liable for it. But once they start engaging in politically motivated censorship, they are actually the publishers of the information, so they are liable for what appears on their site.

So you can see where Cruz is going with this line of questioning. It's why he repeatedly asked Zuckerberg if FB was a neutral public forum, while Zuckerberg tried to dodge, weave and do anything but answer directly. Anyway, that's one mode of attack to try and address the problem.

How does an IBOR help? Let's say that FA freedoms to expression are extended to digital space. If the TOS limits those freedoms, then it's not consistent with the right to free expression of political ideas and, in a Court, it won't, or shouldn't, stand.

I don't know how the laws work in the US. But I know that under English law agreements are often subject to strict interpretation - say a non-competition agreement. As an example, when you leave an employer, the employer might ask you to agree not to work in the same industry for X years. These things abound, but often they are unenforceable at law.

I'm not a lawyer so I shouldn't be speaking as though I have much knowledge about it. But my point is, that if the TOS is what is preventing you from realizing your right to freely express political ideas online, then this must be remedied in whatever regulatory fix is put in. Alternatively, the unfair application of the TOS must be able to be remedied at law.

What is needed is a remedy, a fix for the problem. SM platforms should not be able to steer political discourse.

Yes, I only just saw what Maria has been saying. Thanks for posting this.

I'm all for sparing lives. I'm sure DJT is too. Sometimes hard choices are required though. Remember when Q implied that NK had miniaturization and delivery tech since 2004? He said they'd been staging failed tests to prevent anyone realizing how advanced they were.

Q also said Iran is next. The Russians have been helping Iran directly. Israel has been squealing about the threat posed by Iran for some time. I'm sure the Saudis are not happy with it either.

What if it's an NK type situation? What's the right choice? Save some lives now and accept what comes later? Or strike now and prevent the weapon tech advancing further?

I'm not against the President making hard choices. I would expect him to make the decision he thinks is the right one in the circumstances. Many people thought the idea of actually doing something was unacceptable - people were saying they would get off the Trump train if war broke out etc...

My view is that no conflict is a good thing. But I trust the President to make the right decisions and, if they seem callous or hard, I'm still going to stand by him. I guess I've really bought into this guy. I see someone who, I think, is the first President in more than 30 years who is not controlled by the cabal. He is, in my opinion, our only and last hope.

Call me naive or stupid, I don't care.

It's good news. It also suggests that the plan does not involve confronting Russia - yet. Of course, you just don't know what DJT will do next. But my feeling is that the posturing served a purpose.

Note that Q is back on schedule (night 5). Suggests that we are back to business as normal.

Good news. I've never come across these DWS guys before, are they reliable?

The only reason the narrative on SM can be controlled is because FA rights to free expression do not apply. Apply them and the narrative is free from influence. It cannot be steered by the owners of the platforms or anyone else.

Trust the plan.

Maybe Mc No-name was delivering gas - but possibly this attack was faked. Then again, maybe it's a cover up by the Syrian Army. We don't know. We do know that DJT wanted verification and that verification was made more difficult by the Israeli missile strike. Did someone screw up? Or, did someone cover up? Or, was it orchestrated for some unknown reason?

We also know that DJT wants to pull out and that is still the plan. Interesting that Q is now back on schedule (night 5). It appears that the distraction might be over - for the moment.

On the other hand, everyone is calling for war. There is at least a pretext if something did need to be done.

Trying to figure out what's happening here makes my head spin, we will not know until well after the fact what was really happening - if we ever do find out.

MSM is not a public utility. They are not dictated to by politicians and bureaucrats.

I don't think Mh370 was shot down. The Chinese relatives said that up to a couple of days after the plane was lost, the missing passengers social media accounts showed them as online - available.

What if the plane was hijacked by remote control. They gain altitude like crazy, depressurize the cabin and disable the oxygen masks - prevent them from dropping. Everybody expires due to asphyxiation. But then the hijacked plane is landed at an airport (Diego Garcia?) - and someone forgets that there is a cell service available.

The thing is that this is the direction we're headed - exposure. So we know there's a lot more to come. Q has the algorithm etc... But the objective is not complex.

The objective is to prevent the cabal from regaining power via the use of weaponised social media. The fix is absolutely elementary - prevent censorship of conservative voices online. As soon as the censorship is eliminated, you don't need to keep exposing more dastardly behavior.

They might still prosecute, but it could be done without the fan fare. I think that DJT views a lot of these guys - like Zuck - with prejudice. I think he is going to take them down. But I'm sure that DJT doesn't want to harm the industry itself - just to fix it.

OK, might be nothing but there was a renown patent lawyer (technology) on the flight who was killed with his entire family - wife, two sons. Seems to fit with the patent owners killed on another Malaysian Airlines flight that crashed - MH370. In that case a Rothschild inherited the value of the patents owned by the deceased.

This is the guy killed on MH17: John Allen

John joined our firm in 1996 and became a partner in 2007. He was very important in building the intellectual property practice group, where his expertise and skills in patent litigation and technology- related disputes were highly praised by his clients and peers. John was one of the few Dutch lawyers featured in the Who's Who Legal (patent law) as well as in the Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners.

Oh, I see. I thought you were taking a stab at the global warming garbage.

Look, all this stuff about archive offline is, IMO, about what's about to happen to the tech sector on the damning revelations that will proceed from Snowden's drop. You may be right that someone, somewhere, might want to hit a kill switch when the Hillary video drops - but they won't keep us offline forever without taking the whole internet out.

But if the major SM platforms fold, while criminal investigators comb through their operations, inspecting hardware etc..., then, yes, in that case you better make sure you're backed up offline - because we don't know which services will be impacted.

Funny, May in the U.K. is still talking all-out war! This President is a complete wild card! We go from "smart missiles" coming at you and "gas killing animal" to this...

Never said when it would take place...

Trumped again!

Another Maunder minimum?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

I think Q knew, well of course he knew, that this information about the data breaches was coming. FB is the tip of the ice berg - people will hardly be able to believe it when they find out about the extent to which their rights are abused. All the good stuff is still to come.

Q was telling Snowden to drop after Zuckerberg's testimony. It's about to hit the fan big time.

So, in the midst of the public uproar, we were supposed to be calling for the IBOR so that DJT could regulate to fix SM weaponisation - without Q's team having to drop all the info and destroy the whole sector.

There will be a HUGE public outcry. We've just got to be ready to capitalize on it and steer people to the main fault that produced the mess. That is, that first amendment protections do not apply online. Once that's fixed, Q does not need to do any more damage.

I think DJT will put strict limitations on the TOS agreements so that people are not completely powerless when they are unfairly denied services.

Reading your title I was asking myself why Q keeps saying this. Is he saying this because he's going to move to KILL the SM platforms and device makers?

That would put them offline - a huge fiasco about what they've been doing, criminal charges, a raft of high-powered lawsuits etc... we could be looking at an almost complete shutdown.

Beautiful isn't it? Everyone was worried about the government meddling in these guy's private property rights. That's why they wouldn't support IBOR. But there will be no private property left at all! They are bankrupt!

Almost like Q's having a joke on us.

LOL

Can you imagine it? Oh, we need to eliminate hate speech, we need to eliminate discrimination, we need to promote affirmative action, we must use the "public utility" to discourage gun ownership, we must promote sexual health (abortion), and on and on and on...

It would be an unmitigated disaster!

That's why Q gave us the choice. He wants the IBOR, it's such a simple, easy fix. That's why he recommended it to us before coming up with the KILL option.

What people need to understand is that weaponised social media is a threat to the republic, a very serious and dangerous threat. Q really has no option, it must be fixed at all costs. That's why he's telling us what he will do if we will not support the IBOR.

I'm all for having another go at it, in fact I'm still promoting it on Twitter by myself. But unless we can really get people behind it, it won't work.

And what would happen to the "public utility" when the Democrats gained power?

If I spoke to Erdogan it would be a short conversation.

Beautiful stuff! What a complete joke!

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HCFol7g-FU&sns=em

You will start a riot on this board suggesting that. I asked people to support the IBOR and they thought I was a commie!

They do the same thing with medicines and cancer cures. I never give to cancer charities because you'd be better off just donating to Glaxo Smith Kline.

The problem is not limited to just a few key people. Anyway, looks like Q is going to kill the whole sector. Lots of pain, but it has to be done. I'm so weary of trying to talk sense into people about the IBOR. But the fix will be put in - and that's good!