The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

This would constitute an act of war by England, which would certainly justify the military tribunals you and I have been discussing. 

 

 

 

There's a lot of shady stuff in the Five Eyes that's come to light for me over the past two weeks... I spent time with MI5 and MI6 sources the past two weeks who blew my mind with some of the confirmations (and denials). Still trying to process it all. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

There's a lot of shady stuff in the Five Eyes that's come to light for me over the past two weeks... I spent time with MI5 and MI6 sources the past two weeks who blew my mind with some of the confirmations (and denials). Still trying to process it all. 

I'm looking forward to this conversation. 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Uh...yeah, exactly.

 

But beyond the "Obama did it" point...this is Facebook's business model.  Collect everything they can about you, and sell the data.  It's why they market their authorization as a service - you register to comment on an article on a newspaper website, you use your Facebook account to do it, and now Facebook knows you read that paper, what articles you read, when you read them and for how often.  But that data's only worth anything if they sell access to it.  

 

That's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing.  It's a "Holy ****, are people really too stupid to understand this is not a new thing?  And weren't bothered that Exxon, PETA, Walmart, DoD, CNN, Fox, Sinclar, and who knows who else can mine the data just as easily?"  

Oh you mean my debates with DR over the past two years, where I argued that FB, Goog, etc have for more data on individuals and are far more likely to misuse that data than the federal government? 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, GG said:

Oh you mean my debates with DR over the past two years, where I argued that FB, Goog, etc have for more data on individuals and are far more likely to misuse that data than the federal government? 

 

Again, you say this as if I don't agree. I always have. 

 

Where you disagree with me - and I think you're 100% incorrect - is your assumption that there is a difference between Silicon Valley and the USIC. 

 

They're the same thing. That's what we're learning with this. That's the real story that will be told when people look back.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Again, you say this as if I don't agree. I always have. 

 

Where you disagree with me - and I think you're 100% incorrect - is your assumption that there is a difference between Silicon Valley and the USIC. 

 

They're the same thing. That's what we're learning with this. That's the real story that will be told when people look back.

 

I think the other part that's being missed is that while private companies are more like to misuse more people's data, more often, and in more ways, government misuse of that data is likely to be more hostile, more insidious, more targeted, more political, and more difficult to prosecute.

[Koko78]

44 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Am I the only one here who thinks this has only become an issue because the data was shared with the wrong party?

 

Facebook had no problems with data sharing for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It's not a coincidence that Zucker!@#$'s first statements jumps from talking about 2007 to talking about 2013.

[Deranged Rhino]

On 4/2/2018 at 2:52 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

This is a big deal...

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Daroff/status/980917684811587584

 

think of the change since November... Protecting Coptics, having his picture taken under a picture of Jesus, planning to open KSA's first synagogue, modernizing women's rights... Now this. 

 

Peace is coming. 

 

Once the Mullahs go. 

 

Soon. 

 

Bumping this because I couldn't attach this image before. It's worth going back to the press conference (on March 20) and watching the video too. 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

[PPP Is Full of Racism]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

There's a lot of shady stuff in the Five Eyes that's come to light for me over the past two weeks... I spent time with MI5 and MI6 sources the past two weeks who blew my mind with some of the confirmations (and denials). Still trying to process it all. 

 

please share!

[GG]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Again, you say this as if I don't agree. I always have. 

 

Where you disagree with me - and I think you're 100% incorrect - is your assumption that there is a difference between Silicon Valley and the USIC. 

 

They're the same thing. That's what we're learning with this. That's the real story that will be told when people look back.

 

While IC uses data compiled by the Techs, it's a bit naive and simplistic to think they're one and the same.

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I think the other part that's being missed is that while private companies are more like to misuse more people's data, more often, and in more ways, government misuse of that data is likely to be more hostile, more insidious, more targeted, more political, and more difficult to prosecute.

 

And we're probably witnessing it right now.   

 

But to put it back into the original context of the debates of several years ago, my point was (and still is) that ordinary citizens should be far more concerned about privacy invasion by the Techs than they should be by the federal government.

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I think the other part that's being missed is that while private companies are more like to misuse more people's data, more often, and in more ways, government misuse of that data is likely to be more hostile, more insidious, more targeted, more political, and more difficult to prosecute.

 

The US government has pretty strict laws regarding privacy that prohibits them from sharing people's data.

 

Facebook, Google...when you sign up, you agree that they own the personal data you store on their site, so they can monetize it.  It's not even "misuse" at that point - they own the data, they can do what they want with it within the terms you agreed to...which, as YouTube's particularly shown, they can change unilaterally and retroactively.

 

Which last point is something often missed.  If Facebook says "It's our new policy to share all our data with DHS," and you cancel your Facebook account explicitly because of that policy...you still have no legal recourse to tell them "Delete all of my data you have and don't share it with DHS," because they still own it, not you.

[snafu]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Am I the only one here who thinks this has only become an issue because the data was shared with the wrong party?

 

No.

 

 

21 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The US government has pretty strict laws regarding privacy that prohibits them from sharing people's data.

 

Facebook, Google...when you sign up, you agree that they own the personal data you store on their site, so they can monetize it.  It's not even "misuse" at that point - they own the data, they can do what they want with it within the terms you agreed to...which, as YouTube's particularly shown, they can change unilaterally and retroactively.

 

Which last point is something often missed.  If Facebook says "It's our new policy to share all our data with DHS," and you cancel your Facebook account explicitly because of that policy...you still have no legal recourse to tell them "Delete all of my data you have and don't share it with DHS," because they still own it, not you.

 

Yep, I'm not on FB.  And the "cloud" is a "fog" for people who can manipulate it to snooker other people who don't.

 

 

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Lots to say about this soon.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/04/all-russiagate-roads-lead-to-london-as-evidence-emerges-of-joseph-mifsuds-links-to-uk-intelligence/

 

 

That's a twist in the plot.  I wonder if Teresa May discussed any of this with Trump when she was the first Leaser to come over to meet Trump after he was inaugurated.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by snafu

[Deranged Rhino]

40 minutes ago, GG said:

 

While IC uses data compiled by the Techs, it's a bit naive and simplistic to think they're one and the same.

 

Simplistic - perhaps. Naive, I'd argue, is the assumption that they're entirely separate. 

 

Original funding sources? IC

Original purpose and design? IC

Oversight and use? IC

Amazon, Facebook, Google/Alphabet all have seriously questionable ties and relations to elements within the IC. 

 

And now we're seeing the roll out of the myriad of ways in which the two have worked in tandem to advance IC goals - not consumer or industry goals. 

[Kevbeau]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Uh...yeah, exactly.

 

But beyond the "Obama did it" point...this is Facebook's business model.  Collect everything they can about you, and sell the data.  It's why they market their authorization as a service - you register to comment on an article on a newspaper website, you use your Facebook account to do it, and now Facebook knows you read that paper, what articles you read, when you read them and for how often.  But that data's only worth anything if they sell access to it.  

 

That's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing.  It's a "Holy ****, are people really too stupid to understand this is not a new thing?  And weren't bothered that Exxon, PETA, Walmart, DoD, CNN, Fox, Sinclar, and who knows who else can mine the data just as easily?"  

And people think Amazon's primary business is being an online marketplace.

[Deranged Rhino]

Add this to the growing pile about the Iran/44 connections. Reference longer threads regarding the Iran nuclear deal and the billions in payouts... now, this-

 

Anyone remember this story?... Of course not, it was never covered. Former President of Argentina told the members of the UN General Assembly that she was approached by Gary Samore, 44's Coordinator of Arms Control and WMDS with an unusual offer. 44 wanted Argentina to sell Iran enriched Uranium in violation of UN sanctions...

 

 

According to Samore, the plan was to be part of a sting operation:

 

... Anyone buy that? Me either. 

 

The deal fell through when Argentina asked for the deal to be put in writing. Funny how squeamish crooks become when you mention putting down evidence on paper:

 

Samore then went to France and (gasp!) Russia to try to get the same deal worked out. 

 

Samore admits all of this, fully, and said the goal was to frame Iran and set the grounds for regime change (read: WAR). 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/09/30/president-of-argentina-launches-bombshell-iran-claim-against-obama-admin-official-on-the-floor-of-u-n-general-assembly

 

 

But is anyone REALLY buying it?

 

 

Why would 44 want a war with Iran when we know how far he went to get his Iran deal through?

 

More to the point, who really believes that Samore approached RUSSIA (an Iranian ally) with this plan? Why would Russia agree to a deal that would lead to regime change and war with an ally they WARNED the US about attacking during 44's terms?

 

Right. It wouldn't happen. This was an attempt to help Iran (again) by 44. To give them uranium despite sanctions. 

 

Add this to U1 and what we know of the Iran deal's shadiness, and you're building a case for treason. 

 

more: http://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/president-of-argentina-calls-obama-a-traitor-at-un-general-assembly/

 

Let this soak in...

[GG]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Simplistic - perhaps. Naive, I'd argue, is the assumption that they're entirely separate. 

 

Original funding sources? IC

Original purpose and design? IC

Oversight and use? IC

Amazon, Facebook, Google/Alphabet all have seriously questionable ties and relations to elements within the IC. 

 

And now we're seeing the roll out of the myriad of ways in which the two have worked in tandem to advance IC goals - not consumer or industry goals. 

 

I didn't know Zuck's troubles in getting a date in Harvard were foisted by the CIA

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GG said:

I didn't know Zuck's troubles in getting a date in Harvard were foisted by the CIA

 

 

 

 

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

I didn't know Zuck's troubles in getting a date in Harvard were foisted by the CIA

 

The CIA is not supposed to conduct domestic operations. Clearly he was being cockblocked by the NSA.

[Tiberius]

https://www.deepstate.news/2018-02-17-federal-reserve-raising-rates-under-trump-market-correction.html

 

 

Hey, the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates now!! Deep state to correct the market!! 

 

 

Same Federal Reserve that kept interest rates artificially low for Obama has been rapidly raising rates under Trump to spark a huge market correction

Saturday, February 17, 2018 by Robert Jonathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The stock market, which was recording historic highs, suddenly plunged around the time of President Trump’s well-received State of the Union message and the subsequent release of the Nunes FISA abuse memo, a document which exposed anti-Trump, pro-Clinton corruption in the upper echelons of the FBI. Apart from it being a deflection, the odd timing for the financial turbulence raised suspicions that the Deep State — the notorious cohort in the entrenched, anti-Trump globalist federal bureaucracy — is or was hell-bent on tanking the economy as a means for expelling the president from office.

Now comes news that the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates four times in 2018 purportedly because of the anticipation of higher inflation. There may be more clarity on the potential interest rate hikes when Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, a Trump appointee who replaced Obama appointee Janet Yellen, testifies before a congressional committee on February 28. Yellen raised rates three times in 2017, but only twice from December 2015 through the end of 2016.

“Bond yields rose and stocks slumped after an unexpected rise in consumer inflation to its fastest pace in a year, making it more likely the Fed will raise interest rates three or more times this year,” CNBC explained this week, while adding that January retail sales fell 0.3 percent.

“I think this does cement the four rate hikes, given the inflation backdrop,” a financial analyst told MarketWatch yesterday in an apparent reference to consumer prices which experienced a 0.5 percent increase in January, the largest monthly increase since August 2012.

During Barack Obama’s tenure, the Fed kept interest rates at a minimum in an attempt to stimulate the economy, Natural News explained about a year ago. Against the backdrop of what turned out to be three 2017 rate increases, the same Natural News article surmised that Fed under Yellen sought to hasten the inevitable correction in the stock market in a manner that would reflect negatively on the Trump administration. Last September, Euro Pacific Capital CEO Peter Schiff told The Street that “Maybe the Fed would be happy to see a bear market that could be blamed on Trump.”

For those ordinary, hard-working consumers with 401(k) accounts and other such investment vehicles, the good news is that as of this writing, U.S. stock market indexes showed an uptick for five consecutive days. Moreover, since tax reform cleared Congress and was signed into law by the president shortly before Christmas, corporate America has been handing out bonuses and raises and announcing plans to expand hiring and facilities within the U.S.

 

[GaryPinC]

 

22 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

According to Samore, the plan was to be part of a sting operation: (again) by 44. To give them uranium despite sanctions. 

 

Add this to U1 and what we know of the Iran deal's shadiness

 

more: http://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/president-of-argentina-calls-obama-a-traitor-at-un-general-assembly/

 

Let this soak in...

At the time, the goal was to get Iran to halt centrifugal enrichment of its own uranium.  Obama's plan was to simply provide them with all the reactor grade uranium they needed while also drawing down Iran's stockpile. 

 

Russia, being Iran's ally, would seem an excellent participant to lend legitimacy to this proposal.

 

I'm not seeing how this was going to pretext to an Iran war since the proposal was widely publicized at the time and a pretty good idea if the goal was to stop Iran from needing to develop its own enrichment expertise.