5 Articles About the State Taking Parent’s Rights


Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 24, 2017

The state is deciding who is fit to be parents, keeping parents from treating their sick kids, and arresting parents if their kids skip school. Oh but don’t worry about that smart device in the home. All that info it’s collecting on your kids could never fall into the wrong hands.

1. State Decides If You Are Smart Enough to Keep Your Kids

Parents in Oregon have had two of their children taken away by the state. There is no evidence, or even accusation, of abuse or neglect. But the parents have low IQs. So the state can take your kids if they decide you are too dumb.

2. Charlie Gaurd’s Parents Still Fighting– U.S. Dad Speaks Out

The psychopaths in the British government are still trying to prevent a baby with a rare disease from getting treatment in America. The U.S. Congress has granted the child citizenship in order to circumvent British authorities. Now an American dad of a child recovering from a similar condition speaks out.

3. California Court Makes it Easy for State to Take Kids

If your child faces a “substantial risk” of injury or illness, the state of California can take them away to protect them. So that just about covers everyone. Of course the all knowing state has a perfect record of keeping children safe… right?

4. Parents of Truant Children Told to Turn Themselves in to Police

The Mobile County Sheriff’s website alerts the public to an elderly home invasion, a body found in the trash, and a murder suspect on the loose. On another page, they list with pictures the parents of “truant” children. Parents are being told to turn themselves in for their crime of failing to send their kids to school. The Sheriff’s Office posted on Facebook to shame and intimidate parents.

5. Media Selling Smart Speaker as  Perfect for Entertaining Kids

So with all the risks, the state poses to parents, why on earth would anyone introduce a smart speaker into their home? Already a smart speaker has called police during a domestic disturbance. Is it an innocent play thing that makes parenting easier or a spy device that could be used to assess your parenting?

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Think You Are a “Free American” with Constitutional Protections? Read This

TruthFact
Source: Rutherford.org
John W. Whitehead
July 22, 2017

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

We have entered a new regime and it’s called the American police state.

As the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez makes clear, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Continuing its disturbing trend of siding with police in cases of excessive use of force, a unanimous Court declared that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple—Angel and Jennifer Mendez—was sleeping.

Understandably, the Mendezes were startled by the intruders, so much so that Angel was holding his BB gun, which he used to shoot rats, in defense. Despite the fact that police barged into the Mendez’s backyard shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence and fired 15 shots at the couple, who suffered significant injuries (Angel Mendez suffered numerous gunshot wounds, one of which required the amputation of his right leg below the knee, and his wife Jennifer was shot in the back), the Court once again gave the police a “get out of jail free” card.

Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.

In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.

A review of critical court rulings over the past decade or so, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police a green light to embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.

In a blistering dissent in Utah v. Strieff, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court for holding “that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.” Sotomayor continued:

This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction—even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.

The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand “helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised.” If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then “frisk” you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may “‘feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.’”

If you still can’t read the writing on the wall, Sotomayor breaks it down further: “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong… So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer’s incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases…”

Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. More recently, in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling, coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police—for such “suspicious” behavior as having acne scars, driving with a stiff upright posture, having car windows that are too heavily tinted, driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, leaving a parked car door open for too long, avoiding a traffic light by driving through a parking lot, driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), or displaying pro-police bumper stickers—renders one’s car a Constitution-free zone.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police can “steal” from Americans who are innocent of any wrongdoing. In refusing to hear a challenge to Texas’ asset forfeiture law, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas police to keep $201,000 in ill-gotten cash primarily on the basis that the seized cash—the proceeds of a home sale—was being transported on a highway associated with illegal drug trade, despite any proof of illegal activity by the owner. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.

Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz).

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses. While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident…

Continue Reading At: Rutherford.org

Tear Gas, Guns and Riot Squads: The Police State’s Answer to Free Speech Is Brute Force

TruthFact
Source: Rutherford.org
John W. Whitehead
July 11, 2017

“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)

Forget everything you’ve ever been taught about free speech in America.

It’s all a lie.

There can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.

What is this language of force?

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

This is not the language of freedom.

This is not even the language of law and order.

This is the language of force.

Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo.

This police overkill isn’t just happening in troubled hot spots such as Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md., where police brutality gave rise to civil unrest, which was met with a militarized show of force that caused the whole stew of discontent to bubble over into violence.

A decade earlier, the NYPD engaged in mass arrests of peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers and journalists who had gathered for the 2004 Republican National Convention. The protesters were subjected to blanket fingerprinting and detained for more than 24 hours at a “filthy, toxic pier that had been a bus depot.” That particular exercise in police intimidation tactics cost New York City taxpayers nearly $18 million for what would become the largest protest settlement in history.

Demonstrators, journalists and legal observers who had gathered in North Dakota to peacefully protest the Dakota Access Pipeline reported being pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip searched by police.

More recently, this militarized exercise in intimidation reared its ugly head in the college town of Charlottesville, Va., where protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their disapproval of a planned KKK rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police. Only after a motley crew of Klansmen had been safely escorted to and from the rally by black-garbed police did the assembled army of city, county and state police declare the public gathering unlawful and proceed to unleash canisters of tear gas on the few remaining protesters to force them to disperse.

To be clear, this is the treatment being meted out to protesters across the political spectrum.

The police state does not discriminate.

As a USA Today article notes, “Federally arming police with weapons of war silences protesters across all justice movements… People demanding justice, demanding accountability or demanding basic human rights without resorting to violence, should not be greeted with machine guns and tanks. Peaceful protest is democracy in action. It is a forum for those who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Protesters should not have to face intimidation by weapons of war.”

A militarized police response to protesters poses a danger to all those involved, protesters and police alike. In fact, militarization makes police more likely to turn to violence to solve problems.

As a recent study by researchers at Stanford University makes clear, “When law enforcement receives more military materials — weapons, vehicles and tools — it becomes … more likely to jump into high-risk situations. Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.”

Even the color of a police officer’s uniform adds to the tension. As the Department of Justice reports…

Continue Reading At: Rutherford.org

Domestic Abuse: A Smart Device Called the Police


Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 14, 2017

This article is not about fear. This article is about common sense.

Last week, we discussed the internet of things, and how smart devices could be used to literally know more about us than we know about ourselves.

This is not some distant future dystopia we are talking about. It is already happening.

A smart device in a home called the police during a domestic violence incident.

It appears to have been a reaction by the device to the abuser yelling at his girlfriend, “Did you call the sheriffs?” The device heard “Call the sheriffs,” and did so.

A SWAT team arrived at the home and after negotiating for hours, they were able to take Barros into custody. Police tell ABC News that the man’s girlfriend was injured but did not need to visit a hospital. The couple’s daughter was safe and unharmed.

“The unexpected use of this new technology to contact emergency services has possibly helped save a life,” Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales III said in a statement.

It’s hard to look at this as big brother ruining lives; after all, the guy was abusing his girlfriend in front of their daughter. Constant spying has entered the mainstream media as a good thing. Look at all the benefits of having nowhere to hide; the scum of the earth who abuse their girlfriends will be caught and locked up.

But there are a lot of crimes out there, and not all of them harm others. In fact, chances are we all break multiple laws on a daily basis. So if the government knows about every law you break, they could certainly choose to overlook them. If they also know however that you legally reduced your taxes to almost nothing, or that you have a legal foreign bank account, well then maybe they have some incentive to snag you.

Al Capone was never arrested for murder, racketeering, or selling alcohol. He was arrested for tax evasion. If they want you, they can find a way to get you. They have been doing it since Capone’s time.

What if it had been another illicit activity that was recorded by the smart device? What if it had been a victimless crime? Would the police have come if they heard people talking about growing 25 marijuana plants in the basement?

The media will point to the “success stories” of locking up the bad guys with this technology. They will not highlight the people who are nabbed for code violations, renting out a room illegally, or hate speech.

In some ways, this problem has an easy solution; simply do not use devices that will spy on you.

But in another sense, that is not so simple. Even most cell phones these days are constantly recording your conversations. Is the only solution becoming hermits?

Are we willing and able as consumers to demand that type of privacy? Comment with your thoughts on how you have dealt with this problem in your own life.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Wash. police shot student wielding pen, not gun

Source:  RT
July 6, 2017

King’s County Sheriff’s deputies tased, then shot 20-year-old student Tommy Le after they responded to a call about a man holding a “sharp object,” in a suburb of Seattle, Washington. Now, it turns out Le was just holding a pen. RT America’s Brigida Santos has the latest in the case.

The Danger of Obedience: Fake Police Crime Spree

Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 3, 2017

The police do not care about keeping you safe. If they did, they wouldn’t put innocent people in danger every day by driving unmarked cars, behaving unprofessionally, and performing no-knock raids. All these things make it quite easy to impersonate an officer in order to commit a crime.

People know their lives are literally in jeopardy if they disobey even the most minor order from a police officer. Innocent people are no exception, and simply questioning an officer, or asserting one’s rights has gotten people beaten, arrested, and even killed.

Because of this environment created by an overbearing oppressive police state, a perfect opportunity has opened up for criminals to easily exploit their victim’s fear of police. Criminals simply need to pose as police, and any resistance on the part of their victims melts away.

Posing as Cops to Commit Crimes

It’s not just for big heists like in the movie The Town that criminals dress as police to commit crimes. It actually happens terrifyingly often.

The practice is so common in Miami-Dade that the police have a special task force to investigate instances of criminals impersonating officers. A family in Miami-Dade earlier this year suffered a home invasion after they opened their door to three men in police uniforms.

Last year in Tampa a 28-year old woman was pulled over by a fake officer and raped.

In April thieves in Tuscon dressed as police to invade a home. In May three suspects still on the loose did the same in Honolulu.

A Los Angeles man was convicted last week of fondling two women while posing as an officer and attempting to force another to take her clothes off while pretending to be a detective investigating counterfeit money.

In early June a man and a woman were arrested for dressing as federal agents and attempting to break into an apartment in Fresno California.

In Cleveland Ohio, a man was recently arrested and charged for handcuffing children on many different occasions in what appears to be a fake “scared straight” operation. The man was not a police officer, but wearing a gun and vest convinced school and court officials that he was an officer.

Even police have been fooled by fake officers, including a 14-year-old boy who simply walked into a Chicago police station and showed up for roll call.

Officers handed him a radio and told him to ride along with a female officer. The teenager even helped make an arrest.

“After four or five hours, she asks, ‘Who is this guy?’ ” recalled Jody P. Weis, who was the Chicago police superintendent at the time. “He’s in a uniform, he has a goofy badge, he doesn’t have a weapon and he’s a high school kid. It was so embarrassing.” (The embarrassment did not end there for Mr. Weis, who said he had recommended against punishing the teenager in juvenile court because no harm had been done. Three months later, the boy was arrested and charged with stealing a car.

Impersonating officers is not uncommon as you can see. This blind obedience to officers has caused women to be sexually assaulted, and homes to be invaded. But it is not just the fake cops you have to worry about.

Actual Police Commit Crimes Too

Real police commit crimes too, which is all the more reason not to place some members of society above fellow citizens.

If a police officer engages an innocent person, that person must essentially ask permission to walk away from the encounter. The fact that police demand unquestioning obedience, and act violently enraged if their authority is challenged only helps criminals get away with their crimes while posing as police officers.

But this same bullying extralegal behavior is used by police to commit crimes. Last year a Texas officer sexually assaulted a female driver, and a Honolulu officer was accused of raping a 14-year-old girl.

Unfortunately, rape and sexual assault by police officers appear to be extremely common. And even when the case is “resolved” with a conviction of the officer, the sentence is a miscarriage of justice.

One woman was offered a ride home by an officer after an incident had been resolved without any arrests.

She said she didn’t consent, but didn’t resist or say no because she was scared for her life.

“If I would’ve fought him back, yes, he would’ve murdered me. He would’ve took my life and I have kids,” she said.

The officer ended up being convicted and sentenced to one year in prison.

61% of all victims of police crimes are women. In San Diego, patrol officers working alone at night committed a number of sexual assaults against women they pulled over.

…of all the officers arrested, for offenses ranging from murder to drunken driving, only 54 percent were fired, and 37.5 percent arrested for domestic violence lost their jobs.
The study also found that roughly two-thirds of all the arrests were made by an agency that didn’t employ the officer…

Police also invade homes. An 80-year-old-man was shot to death by police after they broke into his home in a no-knock raid. They had obtained a search warrant with the only evidence being that they smelled chemicals associated with making meth. Hearing a home invasion, the elderly man picked up a pistol and was shot to death in his bed without firing a shot. No meth was found. The officers were not charged with the murder and were found to have acted appropriately.

This highlights how the drug war, no knock raids, and militarized police also contribute to the problems faced when trying to protect your life from thugs in real or fake uniforms.

But sometimes cops don’t even get a trumped up warrant before murdering innocent civilians.

One man was murdered by police when he took his legally owned firearm with him to open the door after a loud knock late at night. The officer did not identify himself, but seeing a gun, shot the man to death. For some reason, the officer was not charged, and the court prevented the man’s family from suing him, citing qualified immunity. They said it was not clear that the officer had committed any crime in murdering the homeowner.

The problem with police committing crimes is so voluminous that we can only scratch the surface here. But one thing is for sure, you have almost as much reason to fear becoming the victim of a crime from a real uniformed officer as from someone posing as an officer.

Solution

Indiana passed a law in 2012 that allows citizens to shoot an officer who illegally enters their home. It is unclear why this law was needed since it is illegal for anyone to invade a home, whether they are a cop or not. Having to codify something so obvious shows just how far the government will go to protect their criminal officers. Still, at least Indiana offered some legal cover to citizens forced to protect themselves from police.

Of course, most government solutions simply double down on the divide; prosecute impersonating an officer harder, and simply make it illegal to buy a badge or police uniform. Maybe while they are at it, they should ban Dodge Chargers for civilians, and prohibit civilians from wearing matching shirt and pants in any blues, blacks, or tans.

As usual, the solution from the government is to make more things illegal and punish pre-crimes like owning objects that might someday be used in a crime. Never does the problem come from the government’s end! It is always the damn civilians getting in the way of our brave heroes!

But the reality of the situation is that it doesn’t matter how many police-like tools and clothing they make illegal, or how hard they punish people who dress up as cops for Halloween. There is a divide between the police and the average citizen, and only by holding police accountable for their actions will the dangers of fake police be mitigated.

The only reason criminals have such success with this tactic is the population’s blind unquestioning obedience to police, beat into them over the course of years by bullies in blue who ignore the law to assert their will. It’s not the uniform, it is that we cannot tell the difference between the behavior of cops and criminals because they act in strikingly similar ways.

The solution is to stop giving police extra rights and privileges. It doesn’t make any sense that they are held to a lower standard for criminal activity than the rest of the population when they have more responsibility than most to behave appropriately. Any crime committed by an officer should be punished two-fold based on his position of trust and power over civilians, yet all too often they are not punished for their crimes.

A criminal is a criminal, whether his uniform and badge are fake or real. Civilians shouldn’t have to wait to find out if the officer is real, and they shouldn’t have to lay down and allow a real officer to have their way with them, with the only redress being later court action if they are alive to pursue it. This especially because people can be legally barred from pursuing civil action. Also, many police will not be charged or convicted of their crimes, or will receive ridiculously lenient sentences.

The two reasons people should not have to fear using such deadly force against home-invading cops is because A) if they are real police they are behaving criminally and everyone has the right to defend themselves from a criminal, and B) they might not be real cops at all, and everyone has the right to defend themselves from a criminal.

Not having to stop and wonder if this is a real police officer and wonder if you will be going to prison for decades simply for defending yourself makes you much safer and able to defend yourself and your loved ones.

If police are not given extra rights, there will be no reason to impersonate them.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Nazism 2.0: Germany Moves To Ban Free Speech Online


Source: TheDuran.com
Adam Garrie
June 30, 2017

The German Bundestag (parliament) has voted to implement a law which would impose a fine of €50million to social media companies who failed to remove so-called “hate speech” and so-called “fake news”.

According to the law, social media companies would have just 24 hours to comply with the German government’s edict before the monumental fine would be issued.

This legislation is not only poorly conceived, almost impossible to enforce and excessive in its punitive stance towards private enterprise, but it is just plain wrong.

Laws which predate the invention of the internet make it so that issuing a criminal threat is illegal. This goes for threats written on poster-board, graffiti, obscene art exhibitions, digital statements or oral pronouncements.

This is as far as any such law needs to go. Hate is not a threat, it is merely the expression of a feeling or viewpoint. It is legal to dislike things, it is legal to hate things, it is legal to feel such hatred without having to intellectually justify it.

But these basic principles of modern law in the civilised world seem to be lost on an increasingly tyrannical German regime.

Even if one felt that expressing hatred or ‘fake news’ was a some sort of crime, the law does not define such things. Is it acceptable to hate Russia but not hate the EU? Would a pro-Russian Brexit supporter living in Germany (and yes, there are many such people) therefore be engaged in ‘hate speech’?

Is it acceptable to hate Palestine but not Israel? Is it acceptable to hate veterinarian food but not hate ham sandwiches? Is it acceptable to hate ugly people but not to hate people who have had plastic surgery?

Are Donald Trump’s statements which infuriate liberals now hate speech for which Twitter can be fined millions of Euros?

What about people who find it hateful that images of heterodox sexual propaganda are spread by major western corporations and governments to corrupt the minds of the young? Will their definition of hate speech be taken into account?

None of these questions are answered by the Germany lawmakers.

Also in respect of ‘fake news’ covered by the law, whose fake news? Should social media owners be fined when people post CNN stories about ‘Russiagate’ because this is by CNN workers own admission fake news?

When state-run British broadcaster BBC posts bogus stories about the Syrian government, will this incur a fake news fine?

While Facebook has condemned Germany’s move, this is merely a matter of Facebook’s self-interest in knowing that they could be fined for failing to censor something which goes against the wishes of Germany’s political narrative. Facebook already takes it upon itself to censor people whose sense of humour does not correspond with Facebook’s own ultra-liberal narrative.

As with most things in life, one man’s fake news is another man’s truth, one man’s idea of hate is another one’s idea of joy. If the German regime is to be the final arbiter of truth and taste, social media won’t really be social media at all, it will simply be statements that the German regime deems to be good and healthy according to its own very narrow narrative, one that the majority of the planet finds both hateful and fake.

Read More At: TheDuran.com