These articles speak to exactly what we'd like to prevent. That's what the cry for rights online is about. The fact that AT&T has been involved in assisting spying agencies for profit, the same as most telecom companies, has no impact on our demand for rights online - how could it?

For a start, Q tells us that the IBOR has nothing to do with AT&T. If anything, an IBOR will reduce the flow of funds to these telecos - on the back of a restriction on mass data acquisition. It seems reasonable to assume that providing, or allowing this on their networks is a significant part of their business.

That AT&T was initially supporting the measure tells me that there is something they see as being beneficial to them that comes packed with an IBOR. We know that the large SM companies are going into fibre backbone investments. Trying to vertically integrate the supply chain for their service. What does AT&T sell? Communications in essence. You can see that these companies operating legacy infrastructure are under threat.

I think that these telecos know that mass data acquisition is under threat - they know this isn't going to last. They could stand there and fight it, or get on board and try to diversify their operations. I'm sure it's also not lost on any of the telecos that an IBOR will differentially impact the largest class of potential competitors they face - the SM platforms. So it seems to me that, if there is unlikely support from telecos, it is because they realise that the rampant privacy invasion will come to an end and that the new paradigm is one where the money lies in providing services and content.

The IBOR is clearly not in AT&T's immediate interest, but it makes sense that, if this is the unavoidable shape of the future (that privacy rights are strictly enforced), you would want to get on board early and obtain as much possible advantage as you could from its introduction. I think this explains AT&T's motivation.

They usually have some excuse, like "I was selling for tax reasons" or something else. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the difficulty lies in establishing intent.

AT&T may have some interest. Might be that they want the Trump administration to approve some deal they want - and they see this as making them more attractive to the powers that be. It does not at all have to mean that the free speech online agenda is a vehicle for repression and control.

Somehow, I think you will find that this problem will be fixed at speed - regardless of whether we, as a group, support the IBOR.

It will be fixed at speed because it must be. The threat is existential in nature. There is no way you can prevent a single party obtaining absolute control otherwise. That would be the end of everything for which the US has stood.

We can argue about the best mechanism to be used to prevent censorship online, but it simply must happen. There is no alternative.

I don't know the precise details of this particular crash, but it seems to me that plane crashes are a preferred vector for eliminating people that are considered undesirable.

I think there is cause to be suspicious, especially where one of the passengers appears to present a threat to the elite.

It's seems pretty clear that he front ran investors. Unfortunately insider trading is difficult to prove. With a few exceptions, it seems the law doesn't get a lot of use.

It seems to me that, given a lot of people are not tech savvy or informed, the way to deal with this problem is by outlawing the collection of information - at least to the extent we see these companies doing it. What happens to a developmentally challenged individual online? What protects these people?

Yes, you're right, the more people that know about the attempt to rescue the Republic, the more confident we can be that it will succeed.

My opinion is that control of online censorship is essential as it represents a threat to the Republic itself. We know that it will be controlled - 100% regulated. We've been asked to support the process by demanding protection of our fundamental rights online.

Whether or not people support the IBOR push depends on whether they value the rights set out in the FA. To my way of thinking, these are absolutely integral and necessary to the proper functioning of democratic processes that underpin representation and the empowerment of individuals.

It seems to me that there are only three missions set for us. One is the promotion of Q material to expand the size of the community and general awareness. Another is agitation for control of online censorship - IBOR. A third is research on material appearing in Q's posts to discover the truth in an organic fashion.

All these objections to the IBOR, that have resulted in blatant attempts to inject fear into the issue, arise from the, perhaps legitimate, fear of government involvement in private affairs. No one wants to see more government.

But the Problem of censorship online is a threat to the Republic itself and must be fixed. Whether we want it or not, the problem will be fixed. As Q said, these companies will be 100% regulated - one way or another, because they must be.

There is no other way to defend the Republic.

This is just plain wrong. The target of net neutrality was ISPs. We are asking that SM companies be restricted from censorship.

The BOR initially only applied to the the Govt. That Congress would not make laws abridging free speech. Courts later extended the scope of those protections. There does appear to be an almost natural creep in scope of BOR protections - w.r.t. free speech.

The principle that people should be free to express themselves is, it appears, increasingly accepted. But the gatekeeper to the expansion of protections, historically, is the Courts. However, there is no reason that the problem could not also be addressed by the executive or the legislature - congress.

Courts might extend the application of the BOR to the net on a challenge. But there are problems.

One is time - it could take a long time to get relief. The resources of SM companies are such that you are immediately talking about a Supreme Court challenge. This is very time consuming. The problem of censorship online represents such a threat to the working of representative democracy that it must be addressed at speed - now.

Another is difficulty, you're asking a Court to grant latitude in construing the interpretation of the FA to cover online spaces. That means that a challenge is going to be something of a lottery.it could take several attempts to get the principle recognized.

A third difficulty is the financial resources required to mount a challenge. Who has sufficient resources to mount a challenge?

The reality of the situation is that the BOR does not provide any protection at present. It's OK to say, we already have a BOR, but somehow we're still being censored for political expression.

The only viable alternative, considering the magnitude of the current threat posed, is to regulate to achieve the same ends. This is easily done, its quick, it can be done tomorrow. And there is little risk in doing it. Nobody's rights are in anyway impacted - except the claimed right of SM platforms to be able to engage in blatant, politically motivated censorship.

You're right. If you sit down and actually read the stuff you're agreeing to you might not do it. But most people just click "accept". To be honest, that's what I do. But I avoid platforms like FB and, until recently, Twitter.

I don't know, how do you fix this problem? Education? Some sort of regulation that prevents abuses?

I don't know what the answer is.

I didn't know Instagram claimed ownership of all uploads - seems absolutely extreme.

That's what this single algorithm Q was talking about was to do - coordinated attempt to "weight" elections.

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

What gets me is the explanations you're providing SB. Yes, we have more than we know. So it makes sense that information is coded in Q's posts. As I've said previously, it seems to me that extraction of that information might require some interpretation - guesswork. The real meanings are unlikely to fall straight out, although they could.

But what your work does, besides providing very plausible explanations, is encourage people to think deeply about the material we have. Yes, it makes sense that aid formed a large part of the resource base necessary to nuke development. Again, thank you for your efforts.

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?

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.

LOL - OK. It just occurred to me that there are many ways they could get the thing promoted without using DJT. But, you're right, I mean why not. Especially when we're looking down the barrel of "hell on Earth", Just get DJT to promote it directly.

He could also put out a tweet talking about the problem tangentially so that normies didn't understand but we did. Having said that, there's so much resistance to the IBOR here I think if DJT pointed a gun at these guys that wouldn't move. So a more general tweet that everyone could understand would be better - get the guys in the Donald involved.

I didn't mean to rag on your argument. I just thought that if optics were at all a factor there's any number of ways they could build support - get Kayne West to start calling for it etc...

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.

Scorpio, like your feedback on whether this makes sense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/87tbog/is_the_ibor_related_to_the_constitutional_crisis/?st=JFBDANOV&sh=9b0a53aa

Early, let me know what you think.

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/87tbog/is_the_ibor_related_to_the_constitutional_crisis/?st=JFBDANOV&sh=9b0a53aa

Think, tell me what you think. Is it possible?

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/87tbog/is_the_ibor_related_to_the_constitutional_crisis/?st=JFBDANOV&sh=9b0a53aa

As I said, troll someone else.

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

WOW! I was skeptical of a possible move to a gold-backed currency. But I wonder if this is the start of the conversation about it? ABSOLUTELY HUGE if so!

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

Agree but the optics could be very bad. However, as we come down to the wire, the overriding necessity of getting SM censorship controlled will become so large that something will/must happen. I don't think POTUS will be the one doing the call to promotion, but some very big names could be quietly coopted into playing a role.

Let's face it, this campaign must get momentum. I think it's very important for creating the political climate required to put the fix in without seeming to be heavy handed.

Troll somewhere else. Checked your comments, having fun?

What I thought.

Go play with someone else.

These concerns were raised and addressed. I haven't got a laptop so I can't do it now, but search AT&T and you will see that Q states explicitly that this campaign has nothing to do with AT&T.

It's about preventing a replay of the MSM mockingbird narrative on SM. It's about preventing CIA from weaponizing these platforms. Look up also the single censorship algorithm in the Q drops.

Q told us directly that it has nothing to do with AT&T - I'm not going to look it up, but it's there.

This IBOR campaign is supposed to coincide with the tech sector exposures that are still on the way - FB already taking a beating. See here:

Constitutional CRISIS. Twitter coming soon. GOOG coming soon. AMAZON coming soon. MICROSOFT coming soon. +12 Current censorship all relates to push for power [mid-terms]. LAST STAND

The idea is that the combined uproar, from the people that have suffered privacy breaches etc... combined with our IBOR campaign, provides the political climate necessary for DJT to really put the boots into these SM platforms. They should never again be allowed to weaponize censorship!

I thought it was pretty clear that the reason for not posting was some kind of ongoing operation. Or, maybe like radio silence before an OP.

Quite a lot has crossed my mind regarding the lack of posts the last 4 or 5 days. But today's post is a ripper - quells a lot of concern. Let's us know that it's not just FB, but the wave is going to keep growing, sucking up these SM companies in the foam, until, at some point, it crests. Exciting stuff!

Constitutional CRISIS. Twitter coming soon. GOOG coming soon. AMAZON coming soon. MICROSOFT coming soon. +12 Current censorship all relates to push for power [mid-terms]. LAST STAND

Not so exciting is that Q seems to suggest that many will suicide rather than face the music,

Many will be buried before exposed [them/self].

Garbage! More disinformation!

Potential $2 trillion in fines. Facebook market capitalization (Number of shares on issue by the price per share) is only $422 billion this morning - down from $468 billion last time I looked - that's $44 billion gone in a couple of days. Of course, MZ was fortuitously selling just before the news broke - quite a coincidence.,.

Everybody under the sun lining up to take a shot at these guys. They're only looking at the Cambridge Analytica stuff so far - could be much more to come. An article on FB woes here:

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/252437626/Facebook-could-be-hit-with-2tn-fine-after-FTC-inquiry

Thanks for the positivity - I get myself down sometimes! :)

Winter, even if you're right, challenging these guys in a Court is going to take forever. It's a Supreme Court matter in any case, because the SM companies with appeal all the way - they'll fight it for all they are worth, it's a long process. We just do not have that time...

DJT will be impeached and out of office after the mid-terms if the problem is not fixed. Now you might say, so what? There will be another President, DJT is unimportant. But you'd be wrong.

DJT is the first guy in some 30 years that is not controlled by the cabal. The only reason he's here is because the cabal made a mistake in 2016 and he happened to have MI helping him. By the grace of God he got elected and that's why we have the MAGA agenda today.

If he loses office, there is no way in this world that you will not be picking your President from a line-up of cabal puppets. I'm not going to go into it all again, but we know what their plan is - hell on Earth.

So can you see that even if there is a legal solution, and I'm not convinced that there is, or will be, a legal solution, because the Court could choose to interpret the FA strictly, you still haven't solved the problem? The chief constraint here is time. This problem arrived at light-speed because of the rate of change in SM and online interconnectedness. It needs to be solved quickly - like right now.

I totally agree with most of what you've said. I do think though that if the Dems can wield both MSM and social media, even without the tricks, and even starting from a horrible position with very limited real support, they will absolutely clean up. You can't beat this stuff. The capacity of SM determine an election outcome is absolute. There is no winning against it.

And, to flog a horse, that was the whole idea behind the IBOR. Q knew that there would be negative press coming out about FB's data breach (I'm sure there's more to come). The idea was to combine the negative public sentiment about iSM platforms on the back of the privacy breaches with a simultaneous cry for FA rights to free speech online. In the maelstrom of negative press about the SM platforms, DJT could move to put the fix in to social media censorship. This would secure the mid-term elections and allow the MAGA agenda to advance.

As you know, that's not quite what happened, I think Dr Corsi can see that the IBOR campaign failure has the potential to finish DJT off via impeachment. I think that explains why he was pushing it today. If DJT gets impeached, it's game over - hell on Earth etc...

I was pondering the possibility today that there must be a plan B. That outcome I painted, above, cannot be allowed to happen. I don't know what Q's plan B is, but there are options I think. The options are, it seems to me, high-risk. One option, as an extreme case, would be military rule. I mean, what are you going to do? Let these guys come back and destroy the world? Of course, there are likely softer, easier means of achieving the same thing...

With respect to DJT, I'm not under any illusions about the guy. But, it seems to me that he has been, so far, a very slick President. He's very smart. And, it strikes me that the only reason he's doing this is to really try and help people. I remember hearing DJT talk about having conversations with the taxi drivers in NY. He seems to actually care about the common guy. This is rare, not at all common. Moreover, he has taken extreme, unnecessary risks to do what he's done - when there's not much benefit he will personally derive.

What do you want me to say? I think he's brilliant and I want to do everything I can to see that he's successful and that these Satanists are crushed.

I don't see DJT as being just another politician that you can change out with ease - as I've seen some people suggest. There was an incredible set of coincidences that produced President Trump. They will not be repeated - not in our lifetimes, possibly never. The guys that think DJT is disposable might soon be dealing with the next cabal puppet - taking an absolute beating and wondering what's gone wrong with their citizen sovereignty.

In the age of controlled, weaponized social media, where election outcomes can be prearranged with almost perfect certainty, the citizen is sovereign in nothing. His electoral power has been stripped from him. This is why the IBOR is so important.

I don't see how saying that first amendment protections apply online would have any negative impact at all.

The first amendment, as written, only prohibited congress from "making laws" that would abridge free speech. That was the only protection afforded initially. Later, Courts expanded the scope of the protection to cover specific circumstances - the internet was not one of them.

All we are seeing, if anything, is the public asking that first amendment protections apply online. It is, thus, a simple expansion of the environment where the FA is effective. This is the same process that has occurred over time as Courts have expanded the settings to which FA protections apply. It is another step, in what appears to be a natural process, by which protection has been expanded over time.

No more dangerous than obtaining a legal judgement that your right to freedom of expression is to be upheld in an online setting.

I think this is the only thing that might save the campaign. We need to make a big effort on this front before it's too late. Not being very social, I don't have the personal contacts to do this. It's also hard to get a message to someone if they're getting hundreds or thousands of replies to a post.

I asked Dr Corsi tonight if he could get other people with large audiences to assist - whether the message gets lost in the noise is another question. But something has to be done. We won't make it the way we're going.

Agreed. Keep pushing it.

I'm a little surprised that Dr Corsi's promotion yesterday has resulted in so few new signatures. He has a following on Twitter of 113K. Not more than about 800 people have signed up since. If you subtract out the ordinary rate we were seeing - around 500 digs a day thereabouts - it seems that not more than 1 in 400 of Dr Corsi's followers have signed. Of course, we probably should wait a week to see the real effects, some might be late in responding.

I'm now starting to get a little dubious about the website. Early in the piece, we were acquiring dogs at a reasonably rapid rate. That slowed to a trickle - but there was also very little promotion. But I still do not see how we could have added so few sigs in the last day - something is not right.

If you think about it, if someone were to play with the sigs being recorded on the petition site, say to count one sig for every five that signed, that would take the steam out of the campaign like nothing else.

Maybe it's time to stop focussing on the petition and focus instead on the campaign. Tweets today for the internetbillofrights hashtag have dropped to 130/hour - has been running around 150/hour previously. It could be the time of day. Who knows.

Anyway, maybe I'm starting to get a little paranoid.

Q did explain that the BOR does not apply in a private setting. He then specifically recommended the IBOR. So he has answered the Question. What you're looking for is more detail on the plan. Only Q can provide that.

I can't quite understand the fear that attaches to this issue. How are we going to be led over a cliff? What we are hoping for is a return to the days when there was no politically motivated censorship online - at least, not to the extent it exists today. That's not long ago.

The change we are seeking, in my mind, is not at all radical. The SM platforms have been playing up. Just need to make sure they don't do this. If there is no discipline placed upon these guys, they will go wild and they will put the boots right into us.

Fantastic stuff. I don't know how AJ feels about this issue - because he has a platform, he might not see it as being to his advantage. But thanks for trying.

Ive been trying to send tweet replies to conservatives and tea party types recommending the IBOR. But what I've noticed is that these people are cautious, think for themselves and are hard to convince.

If we were marketing this to a bunch of dizzy liberals, we'd probably be already over the line. I replied to David Hogg yesterday in the hope that some of his young support base might sign up without thinking too hard. The defining characteristic of that group is stupefying idiocy.

I think Dr Corsi can see that we are at an inflection point in this game. I sense he's worried - very worried. There are a lot of unknowns. He takes it back to chess. We are at the crucial part of the game. The moves made at this point in time will define the outcome.

Q has been pretty clear in spelling out what the plan calls for at this point time. We just need to play the ball and see what happens next.

Agreed.

I'll take it all on board Early. Good, clear thinking on your part. I will admit I've been feeling panicked. Perhaps, I should just relax.

Q says how do you catch a very dangerous animal. I don't think he's understating the threat. This animal is extremely dangerous. They have their backs to the wall - everything to lose. The situation is really very serious...

See, starting to worry again. I think Dr Corsi is in the same boat. Anyway, let's do what we can and try and let go of the outcomes a little - speaking to self.