Author Topic: 1st Amendment Attack: Psyops controlling SCOTUS fake "free speech" docket  (Read 7062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
So the CIA has been running psychological operations within the United States for decades now. This is in absolute violation of their charter and some may even say this is absolute treason. That is pretty f-d up, but what is even more f-d up is that the US Supreme Court has now filled their docket of cases to rule on with these overtly obvious Bilderberg/CIA psychological operations.

Here is the first of these CIA controlled operations:

#1: The CIA controlled fake reverend Phelps and his ability to psychologically abuse the families of our fallen soldiers with his team of CIA funded mind controlled Jonestown provocateurs. Anywhere in the country, if you openly psychologically harrass people, you are subject to an inquiry. But because this guy is a CIA operative, all inquiries are dropped and no one is allowed to question him because he serves a purpose. He is the one who is able to get another slash at the first amendment through this highly intricate CIA/Bilderberg operation. One family who suffered from his psychological abuse sued him and the CIA stepped in and actually made the father of the fallen solier pay Phelps for court costs. HOW IS THIS NOT A CIA OPERATION? HOW IS THE ENTIRE MOCKINGBIRD MSM UNABLE TO SIMPLY SAY THIS? Because the MSM wants an end to free speech, free speech is killing their control over the narrative of the day. Free speech does not allow them to lie to our faces anymore. So there you go, the number one fake Supreme Court Case is actually a CIA/Bilderberg operation. But because Bilderberg sits on top of the Supreme COurt, the Supreme Court is not allowed to investigate or even mention the compelling evidence pointing to a Pentagon funded operation involving the fake reverend phelps and his attack on the 1st amendment for the global elite.

#2: The video game industry and its use of violence...GIVE ME AN F-ING BREAK! Billions of dollars in funding from the taxpayer to the Pentagon to the video game industry on record. The video game industry through mergers and aquisitions now sits even higher than the Pentagon, it also sits at the level of Bilderberg. Why doesn't the Supreme Court simply say that any video game manufacturer recieving federal funding (overtly or covertly) is not allowed to have more than 1,000 people getting slaughtered per game and no more than 500 gallons of blood poured out per game. Theat would easily take care of this additionally CIA/Pentagon/Bilderberg provoked issue.

#3: Religion issues like burning the Quron. Again we have a complete CIA operation with the pastor who finally figured out how insane his part of this plan was. But it was a 100% controlled CIA/Mockingbird/Rockefeller operation including the Pagan GAIA fake Mosque that Rockefeller is building at ground zero for more insane provocations.

These are all agent provocations to attack the first amendment. If the CIA/Pentagon/Bilderberg were not getting money to provoke insane crapola, the American people would never be using the 1st amendment in such counter productive ways. The god given right to have the ability to free speech is 1,000x better maintained with the local populous than with a bunch or incestuous psychopathic genocidal maniacs in Bilderberg who want to tell us what we can and can't do.

Free humanity does not need Bilderberg control to tell it what it can and can't say. This attack on the very essence of self determination and free thinking man is a programme, an operation by a "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" using our Supreme Court to do their bidding. We are standing to protect our constitutional government with our justices free from the extortion, intimidation, and manipulation by enemies foreign and domestic to the constitution. We stand for investigating why our Supreme Court was sent poison cookies*, an obvious act of insane terror by those wishing to manipulate them and their decisions. We all can read the constitution, it is written at an eigth grade level. Any ruling like the insane ones on corporations having the god given rights of man (actually more) and the unanimous decision that government controlled corporations own your privacy if they can capture it with their products are instantly exposed as not constitutional SCOTUS decisions, but plausible manipulation, extortion, intimidation by radical fundamentalist terrorist entities that warrants investigation.

The Trilateral Terrorists and their plan to end the first amendment in this country are completely exposed. They continue to just act like no one notices, but their attacks on the United States government is being seen by all. As George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America so clearly announced to the world who exactly the terrorists were...

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

-- George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001



* A discussion of recent threats to judges’ safety, at a bar association conference in suburban Dallas last week, became startlingly specific when Sandra Day O’Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice, recounted that each justice had received in the mail “a wonderful package of home-baked cookies” that contained “enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.” http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2744559
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Supreme Court to hear Fred Phelps' military funeral protests case
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/09/90042/supreme-court-to-hear-fred-phelps.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Disbarment

A formal complaint was filed against Phelps on November 8, 1977, by the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for Phelps on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which Phelps had requested the transcript, Phelps still requested $22,000 in damages from her.[citation needed] In the ensuing trial, Phelps called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut", tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom Phelps wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand.[15] Phelps lost the case; according to the Kansas Supreme Court:

The trial became an exhibition of a personal vendetta by Phelps against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant. The jury verdict didn't stop the onslaught of Phelps. He was not satisfied with the hurt, pain, and damage he had visited on Carolene Brady.[15]

In an appeal, Phelps prepared affidavits swearing to the court that he had eight witnesses whose testimony would convince the court to rule in his favor. Brady, in turn, obtained sworn, signed affidavits from the eight people in question, all of whom said that Phelps had never contacted them and that they had no reason to testify against Brady. Phelps had committed perjury.[15]

On July 20, 1979, Phelps was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of Kansas,[15] though he continued to practice in Federal courts.

In 1985, nine Federal judges filed a disciplinary complaint against Phelps and five of his children, alleging false accusations against the judges. In 1989, the complaint was settled; Phelps agreed to stop practicing law in Federal court permanently, and two of his children were suspended for periods of six months and one year.[16]



Anti-Swedish

Phelps and the Westboro church run the website godhatessweden.com. Phelps has declared that the heavy Swedish losses in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, initially overestimated to be near 20,000, were God's punishment of Sweden for the promotion of homosexuality. In particular, Phelps criticized Sweden's prosecution of Åke Green, a Swedish Pentecostal Christian pastor who was prosecuted, but acquitted, under Sweden's law against hate speech because of critical opinions on homosexuality in his sermons. Phelps' website depicted a granite monument designed by himself that says that Green is a Christian martyr and Phelps announced plans to erect copies of the monument throughout the United States.[19]

In response, Green said "I think it is appalling that people say things like that, it is extremely unpleasant,"[20] which led to Phelps taking down the monument.



Support for Al Gore

Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election.[25] In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm".[26] Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments.[27] According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser at his home in Topeka and was a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention.[8] Gore spokesman Dag Vega declined to comment, saying "We are not dignifying those stories with a response."[28]


Saddam Hussein

In 2003, before the fall of Saddam Hussein during the Iraq War, Phelps wrote Saddam a letter praising his regime for being, in his opinion, "the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets."[29]



Any issue that the NWO wants to provoke...send in special operations psycho...Phelps
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=8566&st=0


Snyder v. Phelps is currently before the US Supreme Court as a test case for the 1st Amendment. This links to the court information as well as videos of an interview with estranged son Nate Phelps and a BBC Documentary on the Westboro Church and Phelps.

Phelps son says his dad is a sociopath, a Democrat, a former lawyer (disbarred) in the Civil Rights movement and involved with the NAACP.


THIS LOOKS LIKE YET ANOTHER SET UP BY THE ELITE TO ADVANCE THEIR AGENDA! AMAZING!

I BET THE COURT RULES ON THIS CASE SIMILAR TO THE RECENT 2ND AMENDMENT CASE (DC GUN BAN) - "YOU HAVE IT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT BECAUSE WE CAN PUT LIMITATIONS ON IT." IT'S CALLED INCREMENTAL ERADICATION OF OUR RIGHTS, IMO.

 >:(
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
First Amendment Ruling Destined to Kill Internet Free Speech
http://www.infowars.com/first-amendment-ruling-destined-to-kill-internet-free-speech/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 6, 2010

It now appears certain the Supreme Court will rule against the First Amendment. “The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks. The First Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it also shields speakers from private lawsuits,” reports the Los Angeles Times this afternoon.

Jefferson, Madison and other framers considered free speech a cornerstone of the republic.

If the Court rules against the First Amendment, it will not only effect demonstrations and public displays, but also curtail freedom of speech on the internet, as one Justice pointed out today.

The case now before the Court concerns the Phelps family from Topeka, Kansas, who have picketed military funerals and proclaimed that God is punishing America and its soldiers for its tolerance of homosexuality. The case reached the Court after a Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq sued the Phelps family for holding up signs near his funeral that said “Thank God for IEDs” and also for posting remarks on their website that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son “to defy the Creator” and “serve the devil.” A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was subsequently thrown out on the grounds it violates the First Amendment.

The Los Angeles Times may claim that the First Amendment is unclear, but as former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black noted in in Rosenblatt v. Baer, the wording of the First Amendment makes it perfectly clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. It does not say freedom of speech shall be denied and held unlawful if it is distasteful and produces an emotional response.

“An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment,” Black opined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other framers were products of the Age of Enlightenment and as such believed in the power of reason and the search for truth. They considered freedom of expression and inquiry essential to the process of debate and discovery required for the maintenance of liberty and a republic.

In the American Colonies, people were convicted of seditious libel for speaking or writing against the King of England and his agents. In response, the Founders created the First Amendment and made it the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. In the not too distant past, the Court ruled that political speech was what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

According to one libertarian thinker of the period, a citizen had the right to “say everything which his passions suggest; he may employ all his time, and all his talents… to do so, in speaking against the government matters that are false, scandalous and malicious,” and yet he should be “safe within the sanctuary of the press.” Speech was considered beyond the reach of criminal sanctions. Only “overt acts” were punishable.

Snyder v. Phelps does not concern overt acts. It focuses on “outrageous” speech that is claimed to have caused “severe emotional distress.”

In 1964 in the New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that civil liability for speech may violate the First Amendment due to the fact the threat of massive damages tends to dampen the exercise of free speech. From 1880 onward, state courts have treated constitutional free expression guarantees as constraining civil liability. No longer.

Congress provided the enemies of free speech and the First Amendment an ally when it confirmed Elena Kagan to sit on the bench. In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (Emphasis added.)

As noted by the Los Angeles Times, the Supremes earlier today “sounded sympathetic” to rolling back the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

Moreover, Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that the court’s ruling will have an impact on the internet, since it tests whether vicious personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.

If the Supremes rule that First Amendment no longer protects controversial and even emotionally hurtful speech, the internet will no longer be an open forum for the free expression of opinions and ideas.

How many bloggers and journalists in the alternative media have pockets deep enough to defend against politicians and public figures who may claim “severe emotional distress” in response to criticism?



Kurt Nimmo edits Infowars.com. He is the author of Another Day in the Empire: Life In Neoconservative America.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Microsoft Proposes Government Licensing Internet Access
State should have power to block individual computers from connecting to world wide web, claims Charney
http://www.infowars.com/microsoft-proposes-government-licensing-internet-access/
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, October 7, 2010

A new proposal by a top Microsoft executive would open the door for government licensing to access the Internet, with authorities being empowered to block individual computers from connecting to the world wide web under the pretext of preventing malware attacks.

Speaking to the ISSE 2010 computer security conference in Berlin yesterday, Scott Charney, Microsoft vice president of Trustworthy Computing, said that cybersecurity should mirror public health safety laws, with infected PC’s being “quarantined” by government decree and prevented from accessing the Internet.

“If a device is known to be a danger to the internet, the user should be notified and the device should be cleaned before it is allowed unfettered access to the internet, minimizing the risk of the infected device contaminating other devices,” Charney said.

Charney said the system would be a “global collective defense” run by corporations and government and would “track and control” people’s computers similar to how government health bodies track diseases.

Invoking the threat of malware attacks as a means of dissuading or blocking people from using the Internet is becoming a common theme – but it’s one tainted with political overtones.

At the launch of the Obama administration’s cybersecurity agenda earlier this year, Democrats attempted to claim that the independent news website The Drudge Report was serving malware, an incident Senator Jim Inhofe described as a deliberate ploy “to discourage people from using Drudge”.

Under the new proposals, not only would the government cite the threat of malware to prevent people from visiting Drudge, they would be blocked from the entire world wide web, creating a dangerous precedent by giving government the power to dictate whether people can use the Internet and effectively opening the door for a licensing system to be introduced.

Similar to how vehicle inspections are mandatory for cars in some states before they can be driven, are we entering a phase where you will have to obtain a PC health check before a government IP czar will issue you with a license, or an Internet ID card, allowing you to access the web?

Of course, the only way companies or the government could know when your system becomes infected with malware is to have some kind of mandatory software or firewall installed on every PC which sends data to a centralized hub, greasing the skids for warrantless surveillance and other invasions of privacy.

Microsoft has been at the forefront of a bid to introduce Internet licensing as a means of controlling how people access and use the world wide web, an effort that has intensified over the course of the past year.

During this year’s Economic Summit in Davos, Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, said that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in other words government permission to use the web.

“We need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet,” he said, mirroring Charney’s rhetoric about controlling cyberspace in a public health context.

“If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.”

“Don’t be surprised if it becomes reality in the near future,” wrote ZD Net’s Doug Hanchard on the introduction of Internet licensing . “Every device connected to the Internet will have a permanent license plate and without it, the network won’t allow you to log in.”

Just days after Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, Time Magazine jumped on the bandwagon, publishing an article by Barbara Kiviat, one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the elitist confab, in which she wrote that the Internet was too lawless and needed “the people in charge” to start policing it with licensing measures.

Shortly after Time Magazine started peddling the proposal, the New York Times soon followed suit with a blog entitled Driver’s Licenses for the Internet?, which merely parroted Kiviat’s talking points.

Of course there’s a very good reason for Time Magazine and the New York Times to be pushing for measures that would undoubtedly lead to a chilling effect on free speech which would in turn eviscerate the blogosphere.

Like the rest of the mainstream print dinosaurs, physical sales of Time Magazine have been plummeting, partly as a result of more people getting their news for free on the web from independent sources. Ad sales for the New York Times sunk by no less than 28 per cent last year with subscriptions and street sales also falling.

As we have documented, the entire cybersecurity agenda is couched in fearsome rhetoric about virus attacks, but its ultimate goal is to hand the Obama administration similar powers over the Internet to those enjoyed by Communist China, which are routinely exercised not for genuine security concerns, but to oppress political adversaries, locate dissidents, and crush free speech.

Indeed, Internet licensing was considered by the Chinese last year and rejected for being too authoritarian, concerns apparently not shared by Microsoft.

Any proposal which allows the government to get a foot in the door on dictating who can and can’t use the Internet should be vigorously opposed because such a system would be wide open for abuse and pave the way for full licensing and top down control of the world wide web.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061


Listen to what Nate Phelps says about his dad Fred Phelps. He is estranged from his sociopath father. interesting interview from his home in BC Canada.

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: 1st Amendment Attack: Psyops controlling SCOTUS fake "free speech" docket
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2010, 01:31:40 pm »
Kan. Church Plans To Picket Child Funerals
Westboro Baptist Church Cheers Child Deaths
POSTED: 9:38 pm CST November 17, 2010
UPDATED: 9:58 am CST November 18, 2010

TOPEKA, Kan. -- A controversial Kansas church is changing its protest plan after an incident in Oklahoma last week.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church said they want revenge after someone slashed the tires on their van during visit to protest a military funeral in McAlester. The group said it plans to now target funerals for Oklahoma children.

The group said it planned to picket the funeral of an 8-year-old Burneyville girl who died in an accident at the Love County Fairgrounds last week, although no protesters were seen near the services. The group said it would be in Owasso on Thursday to protest the funeral of a girl who died in a car crash.

The Westboro Baptist Church's website now reads "God Hates Oklahoma" and "The Lord curses them by killing Oklahoma's children and casting them into hell. Thank God for more dead children in Oklahoma."

FULL ARTICLE