-@TH3WH17ERABB17-Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings- PART 3

a reply to: carewemust

MATT Lauer?

a reply to: Jusvistn
Maybe. But he didn't get in trouble until the middle of 2017. That rant from Hillary was in 2016. Maybe Laurer was one of her bed-mates. She could see his world unraveling a year before it actually did.

a reply to: carewemust

Sessions is on Fox with Shannon Bream at 11pm et tonight. Taped in advance usually.

insider.foxnews.com...

a reply to: carewemust

They could have known by the circles they keep exactly who the first ones would be that called out on the whole sexual harassment claims. If i remember correctly, it seems that stone or someone said that they knew this was part of their playbook to point a finger at Trump knowing it would take down some big names with it. But it backfired on them. They knew and were willing to sacrifice their own to get the win.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: surfinguru


You are correct... Post #877 at qanonmap.github.io... confirms, Internet Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
a reply to: carewemust

Sessions is on Fox with Shannon Bream at 11pm et tonight. Taped in advance usually.
insider.foxnews.com...

Thanks for letting me know that it was taped. If Sessions said anything newsworthy, it should already be in the REAL news media online. Gonna go check it out right now. Thanks again!

Are you kidding me???

WH shooter:

Burgess worked as a clinical case manager at the University of Florida's Child Protection Team, a unit that responds to child abuse over a wide area of central Florida.

MiamiHerald

Very informative article.

a reply to: Jusvistn

I wish it was easy to put a photo up here. But there's one with an angry Bill Clinton telling Obama (on a golf course) that if Hillary doesn't win, they're all going to hang. (Lip readers interpreted it). I think Bill was trying to get Barack to campaign for Hillary. Shortly after that, he did. Didn't help much though.

Re: Steel, Red October

VOLGOGRAD STEEL WORKS "RED OCTOBER"

www.steelorbis.com...
www.vmzko.ru...

Russia: Steel Billionaire Arrested for Embezzlement in Cyprus

Dmitry Gerasimenko is accused of funneling a $65 million loan from VTB Bank meant for his steel company at the time, Red October Volgograd Steel Works, through the accounts of several other businesses between 2007 and 2009.

Gerasimenko was initially arrested after fleeing to Cyprus in November on embezzlement charges, but was quickly released on bail.

www.occrp.org...

2003

Midland buys Red October works in Volgograd Midland

Resources Holding Ltd, the Guernsey-registered steel trader and mill owner, announced on October 27 that it has acquired 100 percent of a long products plant in Russia, Volgograd Steel Works (Red October).

www.metalbulletin.com...

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

The WhiteHouse Suicide ties in somehow to Q post #832 on March 3rd @ qanonmap.github.io...

So, what is the Internet Bill of Rights?

Where can I gat an advance copy?

Mar 7 2018 15:21:12
Q
!UW.yye1fxo
ID: 969386
579914
@Snowden
We are going LIVE -24 [comb your hair].
Re: IBOR
This scares them more than anything.
Loss of control.
Use logic.
Nothing to do w/ AT&T.
Must be regulated to prevent censorship & narrative push.
Q

I want to believe in my heart of hearts that this is a good thing, but what is it, exactly?

Words matter. Word order matters. Thought matters. Action matters.

But right now, WRT this concept of an IBOR, we know nothing.

Q says specifically, "Nothing to do w/ AT&T".

Well that's nice. Every search I can find directly references the AT&T proposal.

So if it's not that, then what is it. I'm not going to rally around a string of four words that sound nice.

Spread the word? #Hashtagit!

No.

Q says to "'think", be "logical"...about...?

Lay it out, or get out. I will not rally to a blind ideal. Give me something to be logical about.

#whatistheIBOR

a reply to: CoramDeo

There is an older proposal from Italy dating back to at least 2015. It sounds much more like what we'd be talking about.

In the final version, that sentence was removed, leaving the phrase: "The right to neutral access to the internet in its entirety is a necessary condition for the effectiveness of an individual's fundamental rights".

The bill's wording is not a matter of chance; while not mentioning Facebook's Internet.org directly, for instance, it's clear that the world "entirety" could refer to such platforms. Internet.org claims to offer internet access for users in developing countries, but instead only provides access to sites of its choosing. Such a service, according to the principles of the bill, is not acceptable.

Isn't this what they're doing? Censoring sites and directing searches away from undesirable results?

Italy's ambitions, however, go way beyond that: the goal is to promote the Declaration globally as a model for defining web users' rights and obligations, with the help of the World Wide Web Foundation.

A document centered on the users' rights. It needs to basically be like the regular Bill of Rights -- a charter of negative liberties -- not what the telecoms must do but what they can't, much like the COTUS restrains government.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

#876

The FATHER is who?
Q

Snowden's girlfriend is Lindsay Mills. Her father is Jonathan Mills. He lives in Laurel, Maryland.

I haven't been able to find out what the deal with him is, but Maryland is prime Deep State country.

People on the Qanon Twitter thread are reporting that the father is a senior software engineer for Oracle.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you for directing me to the article, Ket.

The article led me to the draft proposal (which I'm unsure if t has been adopted in whole or in part) here:

Italy Draft IBOR

I hear what you are saying...

It needs to basically be like the regular Bill of Rights -- a charter of negative liberties -- not what the telecoms must do but what they can't, much like the COTUS restrains government.

I think that is an excellent Idea, but the draft propsal at the link is far from being that. It stikes me as a bill that froces the government to convey rights as much as lay out a list of consumer protections and corporate responsibilies.

I think there is a huge issue with the way that people regard what a search engine or a social media platform is and is not. A search engine like google doesn't give a hoot about how it presents search results and what you want to see. Google only cares about puting advertising in front of you. That's it. It's sole purpose is as an advertising platform.

The same is true with social media platforms like FB. Again, the only reason they would care about showing you something that a friend posted is to hold your attention so that they can put advertisments in front of your eyeballs. And I'm 100% in favor of then running their business the way they want to run it.

I don't want to sound facetious, but I want to ask honestly, when has the government ever done a good job in protecting your fundamental freedoms?

We're all on here looking at Q Posts and the apparent web of deciet carried out by our overlords, and now we want them to put together something that protects our freedoms? Um, I'll pass.

Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings...Every time a law is made, a freedom goes away.

I'd be interested to hear from people on here, using the draft as a refernce point, what they think should be adopted, and how they are not already addressed through existing law, institutions, and our constitution. Be careful to differentiate betwen rights and wants.

I didnt prrooffreed this either, I'm eating dinner.

a reply to: CoramDeo

No, I understand.

You can't trust government at all.

As for advertising, I honestly don't care about ads too much. Generally I can ignore them unless they're auto-vids with sound I can't turn off. Then I leave that place and never return.

But attempting to police speech like they are? Any attempts to police speech one sees should be in the hands of the individual. If I want to never see certain things like porn, I should be able to use the tools to manage the search parameters myself. They should be doing it all for me at Alphabet Central Hive HQ in the name of policing hatred.

Just noting this today.

Maryland FBI Special Agent and wife dead in apparent murder-suicide.

www.washingtonpost.com... e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.4f0ad20bfb61

www.capitalgazette.com...

a reply to: CoramDeo

I think one "project" at a time is prudent and prevents the reputation ruining "cry wolf" label. Continue to focus on the big ReleaseTheHillaryVideo project, before moving on to the next thing Q brings up?

a reply to: queenofswords


FBI is catching hell this week.

FBI ignored the hack to Hillary's home server.
FBI ignored warnings in Parkland School massacre. NEW Today- www.foxnews.com...
And the FBI Murder/Suicide you reference.

a reply to: ketsuko

But attempting to police speech like they are? Any attempts to police speech one sees should be in the hands of the individual.

I agreee with that, but when you go to a socal media platform or a search engine, you're in their house. It's their rules, just like this platorm. The nice thing is that anyone who wanted to and has the drive and ambition could make something to fill the void left by what is currently available.

What coud change the dynamic? I'd be willing to bet that people would be willing to pay for a social media platform on a subscription basis if they were really bothered by the current offerings. Would you pay $5 or $10 a month for a search engine/social media platform that was Ad free, no search restrictions, no data gathered, etc. I mean, the idea is out there for anyone to grab on to, and the government doesn't need to put rules in place to make it happen, it comes down to us.

In Post 875, Q asks:

Mar 7 2018 15:58:56
Q
!UW.yye1fxo
ID: 4776ee
580366
Who controls social media?
Who performs in a circus?
...

I know it's not in context, but we 'control social media'. With our attention and acceptance of the terms and conditions of service, we 'perform in a circus' by participating on social media. (not me, but other people). There is no right to privacy enshined in the constitution, only fourth amendment protections. But, fourth amendment protections don't apply when we give information to a third party. This was settled in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).

The issue settled in this case is wether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a third party service, in this case, a phone company. Since the phone company keeps a record of the numbers dialed as part of a service, there was no expectation of privacy, and the police were able to obtain those records as part of a case they were building against the defendant. The broad context extabished with this case and others is that the expectation of privacy ends when you announce, or give out the information in the course of using a service. If anyone wants to poop on me for this over-simplified explaination, have mercy, I'm not a lawyer.

The point is, we have the ability to control the narrative, but we allow others to dictate what we see and how we see it. We blindly agree to terms of service without question. Heck, without even reading the terms we cick away. We're slaves to our own complacency.

We don't need government intervention, we need creative minds to challenge the status quo and meet the demands of the consmer. The problem I see in introducing an IBOR, is that it artificially adds regulations and standards to every new venture that would challenge the status quo. Those terms and conditions might shrink, but the costs of ensureing compliance could stop a startup in its tracks to cover the legal side.

As you can probably tell, I'm a much bgger fan of personal responsibility than I am of making new laws.

AND, it grinds me to see someone post 780 times aout the corruption in goverment, then serve up more goverment as an anwer.

a reply to: carewemust

Continue to focus on the big ReleaseTheHillaryVideo project, before moving on to the next thing Q brings up?

I'm OK with that.

I'm only making points as I see them related to the big picture.