Net Neutrality - The End is the Beginning

[TheMastersSon]

Beginning to seem more and more like A Brave New World, only, instead of Soma, it's methadone and prozac.

IMO it's symptom #12,492 of a failed federal government. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Iran-Contra Affair but the proceedings turned my stomach. Intentional violation of our law facilitated by intentional forgetfulness by a ubiquitously popular traitor president.

Edited December 25, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

IMO it's symptom #12,492 of a failed federal government. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Iran-Contra Affair but the proceedings turned my stomach. Intentional violation of our law facilitated by intentional forgetfulness by a ubiquitously popular traitor president.

But its NOT a recent development. Our federal government failed us a LONG time ago. It quite literally leapt off the ledge with the invasion of Iraq in 03. (and they were already gone even before that.)

 

Trouble is, it's too much work to stage a revolution, and then rebuild the government from scratch. Or even simply replacing everyone in D.C........

[twowolves80]

I highly recommend the book, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire At the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert. Granted, it's a bit dated, but the information and bibliography alone makes the book a treasure house of interesting facts about things like this.

 

For example, it talks about how the entire Clinton administration was involved in the Iran-Contra affair at varying levels, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice...It's like a who's-who. I may have been too young to know about it at the time, but I have since come to learn about ol' Ollie North and how he was being managed by the CIA. Or how Sarah McLendon questioned Bill Clinton about how the Iran-Contras were being allowed to bring dope into our country to sell to fund their weapons buying.

 

If this video shouldn't angry every American citizen in existence regardless of party lines, then those persons (since they've ceased to be people anymore--see below)are traitors and should be turned into the Department of Homeland Security for investigation. They want to set up these huge bureaucracies under the premise of protecting us? Fine. Let's give them something to do.

Because what Bill Clinton just did was commit TREASON.

His wife, therefore, was INELLEGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE--MORE TREASON. Now do you see why she wanted in so badly? It wasn't to cover up the servers and email bullcrap--that's small potatoes. It was to cover up ol' Bunglin' Slick Willie for the mess he left in office.

To whit:

 

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Now, notice something about this. You shall face death, or five years. Wtf is that? Bit of odd disparity there, wouldn't you say? And look! Down below--the law changed in 1994. Under the reign of Slick Willie himself! What a coincidence! *Bill Clinton's voice* "Nobody will sentence a President to death, but hmm...I don't like that lifetime imprisonment--let's knock it down to five years!"

We need more journalists like Sarah McLendon. Desperately. We need to see justice done--If Trump is so high on investigating the Clintons, why doesn't he start there? Then, maybe he'd be useful for something. Because if Hillary goes down, you'd better believe she's taking everyone with her, and that's why she had the pale, sickly face at Trump's inauguration. She was praying he doesn't go back that far. Now, I bet she's praying he stays mired in the Russia bulls*** so he doesn't sick Mueller on her once he's vindicated, if he's vindicated--if he's guilty, I say string him up from a tree on Pennsylvania Ave. after he is given due process and properly indicted, tried before a jury of his peers, and sentenced. If he's not, then keep unraveling, please. Because Russia's collusion goes back a very long time with the Clintons and many members of the Senate and House, like John Kerry. That is why they are fighting so hard right now--the people who have been there 20 or 30 years need a smoke screen so they play at passing or blocking laws to create a smoke screen as they pray Mueller stops before much longer--Mueller is on it, though. If he really starts digging more, he's going to unearth the whole thing, and then...then you will see the US Government implode.

Also, for those traitors who aren't pissed off by that video:

Person. n. a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

If your name is spelled on your birth cert as THIS, and you don't know why, guess what? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin

Edited December 25, 2017 by twowolves80

[TheMastersSon]

Please don't get me started on this subject. To give one example of just how bad things have gotten in our federal government, Pentagon budget papers have confirmed the claim that Dick Cheney chose military targets in Iraq, not on their strategic importance, but on his own company's (Halliburton's) potential profit margins for reconstruction of the targets. Think about that one for a while. It's good to be king and it's our own tax dollars hard at work. And he did it while collecting $170,000 a year in "deferred income" from Halliburton. The punchline to this obscene joke is that, as far as anyone knows he did nothing whatsoever illegal. The man managed to redefine despotism for our entire planet without breaking a single U.S. law. We have lots of laws banning financial gain from crime, not a single one that bans financial gain from mass murder (or treason in the current case of internet protection, and China etc) by despots. If nothing else the GWB administration were master opportunists. Edited December 26, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[twowolves80]

Opportunists is putting it lightly. Funny how the investigation paperwork for the SEC investigation into not only Halliburton, but Kellogg, Brown and Root (are you f*king kidding me?!), and some of the activities of the Clintons who were also under investigation at the time, were in the Twin Towers in the SEC office there, and there were reports of the workers in the financial offices there saying that moments before the plane hit, the computer screens went blank and switched to live trading where there were suddenly thousands put options (betting a stock would go down) on UAL and AA being rammed through.

 

Reuters, December 17, 2001: Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert hired to retrieve data from damaged computer systems left in the rubble of the World Trade Center, found that there was a deluge of electronic trading just minutes before the first plane struck, estimating that there was more than $100 million in illegal transactions being rushed through the WTC computers before and during the disaster.

 

CBS News, September 26, 2001: A jump in UAL put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6th and September 10th, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks. No similar trading occurred on any other airline.

 

Morgan Stanley saw between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares.

 

Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks.

"This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire life...It's absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan to the United States to North America to Europe." --Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg News, ABC World News Tonight, September 20, 2001

 

Germany's Bundesbank Chief, Ernst Weltke: the transactions "could not have been planned and carried out without a certain knowledge," particularly citing heavy trading in gold and oil futures. --ABC News Consultant Jonathan Winer, World News Tonight, September 20, 2001

 

Even better, a single $2.5 million dollar put option trade on United Airlines went unclaimed after the attacks is appallingly clear evidence of criminal insider trading.

Edited December 25, 2017 by twowolves80

[TheMastersSon]

"It's absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan to the United States to North America to Europe."

 

Yup, it's also absolutely unprecedented for the federal governments of free market capitalist and free market socialist countries (Ratigan's same list, the United States, North America, Europe and Japan etc) to not only expose their labor forces to artificial competition with totalitarian Communism, but legitimize this so-called competition. None is possible since private ownership is disallowed (in actuality and despite contrary claims; even their new claimed private companies are owned and controlled by the PRC etc) in these countries. What our federal government has been forcing us to wake up and go to work to compete against for the last half century is a single monolithic government-business alliance consisting of well over a billion people who have no recognized individual civil or human rights. This is in fact the Grand Funk that has plagued our country for this same half century and that never, ever seems to go away, regardless of who resides in our federal government. Not that our numbers have improved at all since 1971 (with regard to trade imbalance, debts and deficits etc), but the few times they did improve, it was only because the PRC wished them to improve (via concessions in trade agreements that prior to Nixon were illegal for decades in our country etc). And as long as this fake competition is allowed, only one eventuality is possible. Did you know that 85% of our country's food is now produced by four companies? Etc. The only way to pretend fair trade with totalitarian Communism is possible is to become a totalitarian Communist. Our private sector continues to simply evaporate as a direct result of this forced competition.

Edited December 25, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[TheMastersSon]

twowolves80, have you read our government's official 911 Commission Report?

 

Also, you seem a bit fixated on the Clintons. Blll Clinton has already been our president and hopefully his wife has finally figured out after two failed attempts that America likes her, but not as a presidential candidate. So I'm having trouble understanding the point of Trump's and the R's rabidity. Trump is replacing truly great people in our FBI, simply because HE believes the agency is not replacing those who HE claims wrongfully failed to prosecute Hillary for her email habits. Our Fuhrer in all of his exposed arrogance. Meanwhile the simple reality is exactly what James Comey said, which is yes she did violate policies and that no, none of these offenses rose to the level of a prosecutable crime, because the exact same things she did are (or at least were) done by virtually everyone in this same government. According to the Hitler analogy this is simply Trump's excuse to remove from our own law enforcement agencies the last vestiges of defense of and loyalty to our Constitution and country, to be replaced by the same politically partisan shill lapdogs and yesmen as his current illegitimate FCC and the rest of his administration. Only time will tell if that's true, according to everything else Trump has done and is still doing I can't see it being anything else.

Edited December 26, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

twowolves80, have you read our government's official 911 Commission Report?

 

Also, you seem a bit fixated on the Clintons. Blll Clinton has already been our president and hopefully his wife has finally figured out after two failed attempts that America likes her, but not as a presidential candidate. So I'm having trouble understanding the point of Trump's and the R's rabidity. Trump is replacing truly great people in our FBI, simply because HE believes the agency is not replacing those who HE claims wrongfully failed to prosecute Hillary for her email habits. Our Fuhrer in all of his exposed arrogance. Meanwhile the simple reality is exactly what James Comey said, which is yes she did violate policies and that no, none of these offenses rose to the level of a prosecutable crime, because the exact same things she did are (or at least were) done by virtually everyone in this same government. According to the Hitler analogy this is simply Trump's excuse to remove from our own law enforcement agencies the last vestiges of defense of and loyalty to our Constitution and country, to be replaced by the same politically partisan shill lapdogs and yesmen as his current illegitimate FCC and the rest of his administration. Only time will tell if that's true, according to everything else Trump has done and is still doing I can't see it being anything else.

Trump isn't doing anything that every president before him hasn't done.

 

Comey later admitted that Hilary should have been prosecuted.

[TheMastersSon]

No he didn't. Read the back and forth between Comey and our Senate committee on this issue:

 

http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/were-mystified-and-confused-by-your-decision/

 

Here's a portion of the transcript:

 

---

Comey was summoned to Capitol Hill to explain why he recommended the Justice Department not press charges against Clinton in her email scandal.

 

The major revelation that Congress will seek to have Clinton investigated for perjury during her Congressional testimony came in the opening moments of the hearing.

 

"Did Hillary Clinton lie?", bluntly asked House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

 

"To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.", replied Comey.

 

As the dramatic back and forth continued, Chaffetz asked whether the FBI had investigated key statements Clinton made to Congress while under oath, including when she asserted,"There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received."

 

"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress.", said Comey.

 

"Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?" asked the chairman.

 

"We sure do.", said the director.

 

"You'll have one", promised Chaffetz, smiling and shaking his head for emphasis.

 

"You'll have one in the next few hours."

 

---

Edited December 26, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

Read here. A somewhat later article.

 

And from the FBI wesite:

 

 

n looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

So, basically, if someone else had done it, charges would have been filed, but, since it was Hilary, they did not recommend charges.

Edited December 26, 2017 by HeyYou