Outrageous ... how bad does it have to get ?
https://www.politicalears.com/blog/g...acebook-posts/
PS: Sorry about the infomercial contained within this page ....
Printable View
Outrageous ... how bad does it have to get ?
https://www.politicalears.com/blog/g...acebook-posts/
PS: Sorry about the infomercial contained within this page ....
Most disturbing. Wonder if ACLU and other Government watchdog and legal action groups are on this?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
The article was posted on the site Political Ears today; however the story is 2 years old if you google it. Not current at all. I would prefer much more current info on a story as disturbing as this before disseminating on Wacco to avoid ringing the alarm bell prematurely.
In digging deeper I went to the Rutherford Institute site founded by John Whitehead the marine's attorney. The site gives case updates and the latest is March 2014. So the marine's lawsuit is active and can be found here.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati..._dismissal_rei
Whitehead's organization is dedicated to some worthy civil liberty causes. I would suggest checking out the Rutherford Institute website to better understand their mission/principles and cases.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Thank you for the update Gary ...
Has anyone heard of this story before now ? ... I'm just wondering if we all missed it or if it's been supressed in some way ... with most of our media owned by a handful of corporations it might just take 2 years for a story like this to finally circulate ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Gary Abreim:
The headline of the post suggests a broad policy of government suppression of any Web dissent. The article cites one instance, and says nothing about what was in the post, other than "lyrics." So did the lyrics say "I hate Obama" or "Kill the President"? Legally, there's a difference, I believe.
Everyone paints with a very broad brush — Republicans, Democrats, and definitely Libertarians — but I think it discredits anyone's cause to generalize without very specific facts. And then to justify that lack with "Well, the facts have been suppressed."
I'm no great friend of the Established Powers, but I think a great deal of the revealed-conspiracy stuff only subverts its own stated intention. Clearly, for zealots, these words are but a fart in the wind.
Cheers--
Conrad
Conrad,
If this was just an isolated incident I would agree with you, but it seems like a trend ...
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati..._american_past
https://aldf.org/blog/landmark-ag-ga...dom-of-speech/
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-johns-hopkins
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/o...=fb-share&_r=0
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
There are other ways to silence people ....this is an interview with journalist and author Janet Phelan who fled the country due to chemical attacks ... the chemicals they use are neurotoxins meant to destroy the CNS and brain ... they are not harmless ...
https://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/we...68045&cmd=apop