FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
How Donald Trumped the New World Order
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 37, 38, 39  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 649

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump is like a contractor who came in to fix a building which was about to fall down,
the husband and wife seem to be both arguing about where to put the kitchen, how many
bedrooms they need etc etc. little does Trump know, husband and wife just want to demolish.

Meanwhile whats going on in south America most likely happened without Trumps prior
knowledge, deep-state agencies do what they want.

But on the Bolivia coup recently, I'm swaying more towards the idea that Evo Morales was
the puppet pseudo dictator all along and that the people have been trying to put an end to it.

_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2375

PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Deep State" = military Intel stooges who execute the orders of the usury banking satanists who own the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Annual budget for these stooges(USA division), also known as the Military Industrial Complex, is at least 1 trillion dollars.

Your tax dollars at work!
(ahh) (ahh)


Last edited by MichaelC on Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 649

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MichaelC wrote:
"Deep State" = military Intel stooges who execute the orders of the usury banking satanists who own the New York Federal Reserve Bank.


Kind of sounds about maybe right i suppose ?

_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8475

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote




FULL BANNON INTERVIEW: http://bit.ly/2PvQ1mX

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 649

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2375

PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John needs to be taken with a large grain of salt, as the expression goes.

Does anyone else get an "Alex Jones" feeling when listening to John?

The things that John 'omits' are perhaps as interesting as what he includes/


Last edited by MichaelC on Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 649

PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MichaelC wrote:
John needs to be taken with a large grain of salt, as the expression goes.

Does anyone else get an "Alex Jones" feeling when listening to John?


Alex Jones is of that breed that barks -'documented proof' at everything he reads in the papers. The kind of stuff Mcafee is talking about is an analysis that could go beyond that. We'll see.

_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8475

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Brennan and Comey Were ‘Coup Leaders’ (VIDEO)

Cristina Laila by Cristina Laila January 1, 2020

Former US Attorney Joe diGenova blasted the corrupt Obama administration and its ‘coup leaders’ who were involved in Spygate.

DiGenova told OAN’s John Hines that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan led the coup attempt to oust President Trump from office.

The former US Attorney said Obama knew exactly what Comey, Brennan and other “corrupt” officials were doing during the 2016 election.

“And you’ll never forget, I’m sure, that famous Susan Rice email on inauguration day of Donald Trump, where she sends an email to the file memorializing that there had been a meeting on January 5th with the president of the United States, all senior law enforcement and intelligence officials, where they reviewed the status of Crossfire Hurricane and the president announced, President Obama — that he was sure that everything had been done by the book,” DiGenova said referring to the Susan Rice email that Senator Grassley uncovered.

I want to thank Susan Rice for being so stupid and so arrogant to write that email on January 20th because that’s exhibit A for Barack Obama who knew all about this from start to finish, and was more than happy to have the civil rights of a massive number of Americans violated so he could get Donald Trump,” he added.

DiGenova brought up all the abuse stemming from the Flynn case to the Papadopoulos case brought by Mueller and the DOJ, saying they were “framed.”

“All of these people who watched [Comey’s] news conference and didn’t think that was a disgrace for the FBI…. and couldn’t see that the corrupt investigative process of the FBI and DOJ was being used to basically conduct a coup d’état– I mean you have to be an idiot.”

To what extent is the CIA involved in this?” John Hines asked.

“Well there’s no doubt that John Brennan was the primogenitor of the entire counterintelligence investigation. It was John Brennan who went to James Comey and basically pummeled him into starting a counterintelligence investigation against Trump. Brennan’s at the heart of this. He went around the world. He enlisted the help of foreign intelligence services. He’s responsible for Joseph Mifsud and other people,” DiGenova said.


“People do not have even the beginning of an understanding of the role that John Brennan played in this. He is a monstrously important person, and I underscore monstrously important person. He has done more damage to the Central Intelligence Agency – it’s equal to what James Comey has done to the FBI. It’s pretty clear that James Comey will go down in history as the single worst FBI Director in history, regardless of how Mr. Durham treats him — because he precipitated it, he caused it, he encouraged it.”

“[Comey] and John Brennan are the coup leaders,” he added.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/joe-digenova-blasts-corrupt-obama-officials-brennan-and-comey-were-coup-leaders-video/

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8475

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Quote:
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

Issued on: May 28, 2020

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indication of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2375

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2020 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's about time, thanks Mr.President.

Google and Amazon are MIC contractors receiving zillions in taxpayer dollars for their role in global robbing and killing.
If you look at the original 'investors' in FB and Google you find NSA/CIA/dept of defense and other sorts of satanists all over it.

I have been banned from many sites(including Twitter but i have more than one account so no problem) due, I suppose - although no explanation was ever given - to my 'political incorrectness'.

The criminals are truly desperate in their efforts to overturn in advance the 2020 election!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8475

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Premiered 3 hours ago


_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2375

PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perfect and true response!

"Joe is not all there" Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Joe's VP choice:
Michelle "The girl with something extra" Obama
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 37, 38, 39  Next
Page 38 of 39

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.