Home

Social Networking: An Undeclared Mission

3 Comments

Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In order to truly be aware of the mission of a social networking site, one needs to understand that privacy and loyalty to the user needs to be first and foremost. Filtering and censorship that is done by a few sites for the purpose of promoting a specific and biased agenda characterized by a certain political stance such as Marxism, or any another rogue ideology, places far reaching limits upon freedoms, nor, is it consistent with the Bill of Rights and becomes a strike at the very heart of America’s constitutional fabric and republic. With that said, America’s core values such as love and liberty that was endowed upon its people was no accident and it came with a cost, and to this day, that mission still requires that its people continue to seek that higher ground and strive for even more justice for all. However. even so, there is another mission that has showed its hand and has already become a clear and present danger, not only to America but also to the rest of the world. Case in point. Facebook’s recent blocking of a post of the Declaration of Independence as “hate speech” is quite over the top by any sense of the word. Suppressing viewpoints and important historical events is clearly an infringement of the First Amendment with regard to freedom of speech and of the press.

I may add that the Washington Times on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 brought to the reader’s attention that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that Silicon Valley is an “extremely left-leaning place” but said he tries to make sure his firm doesn’t “have bias in the work that we do.” So there was no bias in blocking the recent post of the Declaration of Independence, right? This is called “doublespeak” to the max. I find it very hard to even imagine that a social network site would go to these extremes, but then again when I was in my last year of college I was astounded that our Sociology Professor assigned the book Karl Marx. But that wasn’t my first encounter with far left professors during my 4 year college stint in the great late state of California.social networks

More

Advertisements

THE FORMULA FOR FREEDOM

Leave a comment


Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     History, in the year 1800 gave Americans the blueprint for “limited government” which was spearheaded at that time by none other than Thomas Jefferson who grabbed the Presidential election from Aaron Burr.  Yet, the backdrop of that Presidential contest serves as a reminder of what sadly transpires today in the present U.S. political climate and the contests between the “Progressive/Federalists” and those who favor a limited government which lends itself to more attention given to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and individual freedom across the board.

     California and New York are perfect examples of states that are likened to a federalist type of nation while bringing upon the populace, layer upon layer, thousands of laws and numerous fines, along with endless court proceedings, to where  individual freedoms are vanishing at light speed, along with Constitutional protections that were meant to protect the people with the Bill of Rights.

   Today, Federal and State agencies are sadly responsible for  a reign of power that fully oppresses the people, not only with regard to their basic individual freedoms but also their own livelihoods, families and their finances.  Looking through the window of history and President Thomas Jefferson, he had been very troubled by much that had occurred during John Adams’ presidency and was convinced that radicals within Adams’ Federalist Party were waging war against what he called the “spirit of 1776—goals that the American people had hoped to attain by the Revolution. He had earlier characterized Federalist rule as a “reign of witches,” insisting that the party was “adverse to liberty” and “calculated to undermine and demolish the republic.” More

1984 Doublespeak

Leave a comment

Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The definition of Doublespeak is language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth.  Merriam-Webster.  For decades, an example of doublespeak can be seen through political persuasion, educational propaganda, censorship or fake news.  Augustus and Tiberius were dedicated to Rome’s imperial doubled doublespeak,  paying lip service to the Republic while ruling as oppressive emperors.

Taking this discourse a bit further, where is the evidence for America using the charade of doublespeak? Besides concealing certain events though censorship or fabrication with the likes of the mainstream media, Facebook or Google tampering, all one must do is look at how many executive orders are used by a U.S. President. One example shows that President Obama used executive orders that surpassed the combined executive total of all of the past Presidents.

Is this the unpardonable sin? Consequently, the American “Republic” took the biggest, emperor hit ever, considering that the power of any Republic rests with the people and the Congressional representatives who are elected, “by the people.” Yet why had Congress looked the other way?

Furthermore, in this day and age, doublespeak takes on other maladies.  For instance, some have declared that those who were our Founders and went to war with Great Britain during the American Revolution were “terrorists”.  Yet, these same people who attack the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest, are presently attempting to rewrite history and steer our entire nation towards a secular, Marxist form of government that would eventually become part of an un-elected New World Order where nationalism withers away.

Is not the European Union one of the best examples of the coming oppression? More

Never, Never Land

9 Comments

Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NSA Operations Center

A national voter referendum has taken place in the Netherlands this week with regard to a vote in the Netherlands that has narrowly rejected online data collection powers for intelligence agencies.  With about 90% of the votes counted, 48.8% have rejected the spying powers, while 47.3% voted in favor.

Why is this so important? For some, it will be business as usual. For others it is a victory over the invasion of privacy and freedom. The Dutch process differs tremendously from the U.S. to where it would take an “act of Congress” to put the brakes on phone taps or e-mail gatherings.

With as much corruption going on within the halls of Congress and other agencies who’s swamp still needs to be drained, isn’t it about time that “we the people” had the same National Referendum opportunity as the Dutch in order that privacy is upheld per the people’s constitutional rights, while at the same time, requests for wire surveillance may only be used when a warrant from a judge is issued on “probable cause.”

Since government and eaves dropping agencies cannot totally be trusted when it comes to a police state, should not the American people, as with the Dutch, have a choice in the matter? And if not, we the people will surely be stuck with an Orwellian police state which has already exceeded 1984 expectations and taken us to never, never land. More

TS Radio: Foundation Aiding the Elderly {FATE} – Carole Herman-Founder & President

1 Comment

***JOIN US FRIDAY*** On March 9th, 2018 at 7:00 pm CST***

More

‘We the People’ Need to Circle the Wagons: The Government Is on the Warpath

7 Comments

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.

By John W. Whitehead
May 12, 2015

__________________________________________________________________

“The government is merely a servant―merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” ― Mark Twain

____________________________________________________________

How many Americans have actually bothered to read the Constitution, let alone the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (a quick read at 462 words)?

Take a few minutes and read those words for yourself—rather than having some court or politician translate them for you—and you will be under no illusion about where to draw the line when it comes to speaking your mind, criticizing your government, defending what is yours, doing whatever you want on your own property, and keeping the government’s nose out of your private affairs.

In an age of overcriminalization, where the average citizen unknowingly commits three crimes a day, and even the most mundane activities such as fishing and gardening are regulated, government officials are constantly telling Americans what not to do. Yet it was not always this way. It used to be “we the people” telling the government what it could and could not do. Indeed, the three words used most frequently throughout the Bill of Rights in regards to the government are “no,” “not” and “nor.”

Compare the following list of “don’ts” the government is prohibited from doing with the growing list of abuses to which “we the people” are subjected on a daily basis, and you will find that we have reached a state of crisis wherein the government is routinely breaking the law and violating its contractual obligations.

For instance, the government is NOT allowed to restrict free speech, press, assembly or the citizenry’s ability to protest and correct government wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the government continues to prosecute whistleblowers, persecute journalists, cage protesters, criminalize expressive activities, crack down on large gatherings of citizens mobilizing to voice their discontent with government policies, and insulate itself and its agents from any charges of wrongdoing (or what the courts refer to as “qualified immunity”).

The government may NOT infringe on a citizen’s right to defend himself. Nevertheless, in many states, it’s against the law to carry a concealed weapon (gun, knife or even pepper spray), and the average citizen is permitted little self-defense against militarized police officers who shoot first and ask questions later.

The government may NOT enter or occupy a citizen’s house without his consent (the quartering of soldiers). Nevertheless, government soldiers (i.e., militarized police) carry out more than 80,000 no-knock raids on private homes every year, while maiming children, killing dogs and shooting citizens.

The government may NOT carry out unreasonable searches and seizures on the citizenry or their possessions. NOR can government officials issue warrants without some evidence of wrongdoing (probable cause). Unfortunately, what is unreasonable to the average American is completely reasonable to a government agent, for whom the ends justify the means. In such a climate, we have no protection against roadside strip searches, blood draws, DNA collection, SWAT team raids, surveillance or any other privacy-stripping indignity to which the government chooses to subject us.

The government is NOT to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process. Nevertheless, the government continues to incarcerate tens of thousands of Americans whose greatest crime is being poor and brown-skinned. The same goes for those who are put to death, some erroneously, by a system weighted in favor of class and wealth.

The government may NOT take private property for public use without just compensation. Nevertheless, under the guise of the “greater public interest,” the government often hides behind eminent domain laws in order to allow megacorporations to tear down homes occupied by less prosperous citizens in order to build high-priced resorts and shopping malls.

Government agents may NOT force a citizen to testify against himself. Yet what is the government’s extensive surveillance network that spies on all of our communications but a thinly veiled attempt at using our own words against us?

The government is NOT allowed to impose excessive fines on the citizenry or inflict cruel and unusual punishments upon them. Nevertheless Americans are subjected to egregious fines and outrageous punishments for minor traffic violations, student tardiness and absence from school, and generally having the misfortune of being warm bodies capable of filling privatized, profit-driven jails.

The government is NOT permitted to claim any powers that are not expressly granted to them by the Constitution. This prohibition has become downright laughable as the government continues to claim for itself every authority that serves to swell its coffers, cement its dominion, and expand its reach.

Despite what some special interest groups have suggested to the contrary, the problems we’re experiencing today did not arise because the Constitution has outlived its usefulness or become irrelevant, nor will they be solved by a convention of states or a ratification of the Constitution.

More

The Illinois Jihad

1 Comment

new-logo25Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

__________________________________________________

“There is no dispute the elder cleansing is wrong. There is no dispute that a ‘cover up’ of corruption by a public official (such as Larkin) is wrong. It is an axiom that any jurist that tolerates such wrongful conduct as elder cleansing, directly or indirectly is corrupt”

__________________________________________

The concept that appears to be lacking in Illinois judicial circles is that any public office including that of a judicial official creates a public trust. Judges are elected to serve the public interest by resolving cases and controversy. The Administration of justice is a solemn responsibility and when perverted by corruption, including intellectual dishonesty, cannot be tolerated in a free society. Operation Greylord was the tip of the iceberg and the remnants today have surfaced not only in more overt corruption such as we are seeing in the Elder Cleansing cases arising in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Illinois, but in the assaults on the Federal and Illinois Constitution by the nadir of the legal profession.

The deliberate misrepresentation of the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States (such as the Sawyer[1] case) by the IARDC attorneys is a mere demonstration of the intellectual dishonesty that Mr. Larkin and his unprofessional hordes practice as they assault reason and the ‘Core Values’ of the republic in their prosecution and cover up of the serious felonies of elder cleansing. More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: