The United Nations is Responsible for Censorship, Cancel Culture

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
United Nations / Cancel Culture / Censorship
_____________________________

Wonder where social justice, censorship, and cancel culture originated from since these inflammatory and civil rights violations are not original to America? 

Then look no further than the United Nations. On their site for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, anyone can read how the United Nations views human rights.

Article 29, Section 3

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Anyone who is tied into the United Nations take over of the world via our governments through treaties and accords, private corporations using censorship, banning, and deplatforming of people and businesses, and training the citizenry from elementary school to believe in social justice is apart of the New World Order, planetary government, one world government scheme. 

Did you vote in the United Nations? Did you vote in Smart Technology? Strong Cities Initiatives? Or, even CFL light bulbs? 

All these different types of fads are driven by the United Nations' Agenda 21, 2030, Megaregions 2050.

Your elected officials are pushing you into a one-way street straight into world government. Check out HR 1111. If you speak up, corporations and governments are using Article 29, Section 3 to delete you from your digital existence. 

In the case of Congressional Candidate Laura Loomer, these entities without due process of law have banned her from social media, fundraising, even Uber, Lyft, food ordering and more. 

Section 230 exists because internet providers and platforms are considered utilities and therefore not allowed to restrict access to people based on any type of political, religious, or other affiliation. 

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking

and screening of offensive material

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(b) Policy It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

So where is censorship based on political views legal again? Nowhere. Where is deplatforming based on political views legal again? Nowhere. 

The social media platforms Americans paid for through development with their tax monies have taken censorship on themselves to promote and protect the United Nations' one world government power grab.  

It appears through their own words that the United Nations believes their mission, vision, and goals are above any single national law. Anyone who sides with the United Nations appears to be able to be above the law as well (e.g., Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex of private contractors). 

Big Tech Censors

Alex Jones

Banned.video

Laura Loomer

Proud Boys

Roger Stone

Do we see a pattern here? 

Big Pharma Censors

Frontline Doctors

Dr. Simone Gold (fired from her job)

Anti-vaxxers

So anyone going against deceptive WHO recommendations is gone? 

And the Military Industrial Complex of private contractors are nothing more than mercenaries online as bots, spies, and bullies trying to keep the house of cards from falling down around them. Their no-bid contracts are gold. Taxpayer funded lottery for a small group of people feeding off Americans and people around the world like parasites. 

If you cross these terrorists, you end up arrested (Millie Weaver, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Julian Assange), or dead (Seth Rich, and anyone who has ever done business with the Clintons is seems like). 

The middle pyramid piece to total control and surveillance of the whole of humanity appears to be: the United Nations. Under the United Nations entities and corporations are allowed to lie under oath in front of Congress, cheat to create monopolies, and steal from the American people through information gathering, contracts, and tax breaks. 

As we know from the information sourced in the documentary Shadow Gate, by journalist Millie Weaver, that these private corporations steal our information and then create profiles in order to incite civil unrest. Private corporations, nonprofits, and others have also pushed their way into the classroom under Agenda 21's Common Core to indoctrinate generations of children into the cult of social justice that allows for this censorship and cancel culture to continue. 

If you do not agree with the United Nations, then you are control-alt-deleted from cyberspace, families, and friendships. 

This problem needs to be removed from our culture. American society is about free speech, freedom of expression, and fair play. The United Nations has reversed hundreds of years of the Enlightenment and taken humanity back to the Dark Ages. 

America needs to disengage itself from the United Nations. 

Stand up for freedom, the free market, and free ideas: Cancel our membership to the corrupt United Nations. 

Maybe then Americans can find the justice needed to combat these enemies foreign and domestic. 

Sources: Cornell Law, Shadow Gate, HR 1111, Regional Planning, 

Big Tech Hides Behind the First Amendment While Depriving You of Your Freedom of Speech

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Big Tech Censorship / 1st Amendment

 ___________________________________

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message...”

The stupidest line in a legal document Facebook could ever have written. 

Facebook will now owe its users for their data since Facebook steals and sells users' information without compensation. 

Worse, than stealing and turning a profit while lying to their users, Facebook is open to 6 USCS § 101:

Facebook has banned individuals under the corporate terminology of: dangerous individuals. Which without due process of law, Facebook has then committed defamation and other speech liabilities. Because of this terminology, Facebook has allowed threats and acts of violence in their community guidelines specifying "dangerous individuals," marking them as targets and placing their lives in danger. Facebook intimidates or coerces a civilian population not to speak certain names or uphold their beliefs in the Second Amendment. The label of "dangerous individuals" has deplatformed and depersoned several individuals from most social media as well as allowed banks, credit card companies, Uber/Lyft, Paypal, and Youtube to name a few to also discriminate against these individuals without cause or due process of law. Without the ability to make a living, that act endangers human life. Facebook has colluded with other social media in racketeering and possible RICO violations of criminal laws to ban people without due process of law as well as become an overall nuisance to our society. Facebook has perjured itself in front of Congress and influenced governmental policies through its censorship by meddling in elections. 

Facebook as well as the other Tech Giants have checked off most of the legal definition of terrorism:

According to 6 USCS § 101, the term terrorism is "any activity that--

(A) involves an act that--

(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and

(B) appears to be intended--

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gave Facebook some measure of protection if the corporation had adhered to the law, but instead Facebook wants to control, censor, and dominate speech and thought. 

Facebook wants the protection of the Bill of Rights while telling the rest of America and the world that their speech does not matter.

Laura Loomer has the tech company in a vice of its own making. Facebook defamed Ms. Loomer as well as countless others. Facebook has also placed her life and livelihood in danger with its policies and guidelines.

If others file suits of their own, Facebook's stocks will drop and the tech giant could see its monopoly be dissolved.

What are you waiting for?


Source: The Daily Coin, US Legal, RT, Laura Loomer 

Study Finds Fake News Isn't Significant

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Fake News / Study
________________________________

Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election states:

Conclusion

In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that fake news might have been pivotal in the election of President Trump. We do not provide an assessment of this claim one way or another. 

That said, the new evidence we present clarifies the level of overall exposure to fake news, and it can give some sense of how persuasive fake news would need to have been to have been pivotal. We estimate that the average US adult read and
remembered on the order of one or perhaps several fake news articles during the election period, with higher exposure to pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles. How much this affected the election results depends on the effectiveness of fake news exposure in changing the way people vote. As one benchmark, Spenkuch and Toniatti (2016) show that exposing voters to one additional television campaign ad changes vote hares by approximately 0.02 percentage points. This suggests that if one fake news article were about as persuasive as one TV campaign ad, the fake news in our database would have changed vote shares by an amount on the order of hundredths of a percentage point. This is much smaller than Trump’s margin of victory in the pivotal states on which the outcome depended. 

Of course there are many reasons why a single fake news story could have been more effective than a television commercial. If it were true that the Pope endorsed Donald Trump, this fact would be significantly more surprising—and probably move a rational voter’s beliefs by more as a result—than the information contained in a typical campaign ad. Moreover, as we emphasize above, there are many ways in which our estimates could understate true exposure. We only measure the number of stories read and remembered, and the excluded stories seen on news feeds but not read, or read but not remembered, could have had a large impact. Our fake news database is incomplete, and the effect of the stories it omits could also be significant. 

We also note that there are several ways in which this back-of-the-envelope calculation is conservative, in the sense that it could overstate the importance of fake news. We consider the number of stories voters read regardless of whether they believed them. We do not account for diminishing returns, which could reduce fake news’ effect to the extent that a small number of voters see a large number of stories. Also, this rough calculation does not explicitly take into account the fact
that a large share of pro-Trump fake news is seen by voters who are already predisposed to vote for Trump—the larger this selective exposure, the smaller the impact we would expect of fake news on vote shares.  

To the extent that fake news imposes social costs, what can and should be done? In theory, a social planner should want to address the market failures that lead to distortions, which would take the form of increasing information about the state of the world and increasing incentives for news consumers to infer the true state of the world. In practice, social media platforms and advertising networks have faced some pressure from consumers and civil society to reduce the prevalence of fake news on their systems. For example, both Facebook and Google are removing fake news sites Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow 233 from their advertising platforms on the grounds that they violate policies against misleading content (Wingfield, Isaac, and Benner 2016). Furthermore, Facebook has taken steps to identify fake news articles, flag false articles as “disputed by 3rd party fact-checkers,” show fewer potentially false articles in users’ news feeds, and  help users avoid accidentally sharing false articles by notifying them that a story is “disputed by 3rd parties” before they share it (Mosseri 2016). In our theoretical framework, these actions may increase social welfare, but identifying fake news sites and articles also raises important questions about who becomes the arbiter of truth.

Source: Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 31, Number 2—Spring 2017—Pages 211–236

Alternative Media Omits Info Like Mainstream Media for Profit and Politics

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Abortion ;/ Spiritual Tyranny

____________________________________

Many celebrity hosts and speakers in the alternative right media movement have become just as biased as the mainstream media itself by omitting facts and skewing information to fit a predetermined outcome.

The alternative right has a narrative to call into question anyone’s morality for opposing their pro religious, pro life stance. Margaret Sanger is a eugenicist! She and Hitler gave each other awards and honors and pixie dust! Yes, there have been bad people in the world but demonizing everyone for mistakes of a few does not make reality go away.

Religious rights and abortions top the list of misinformation and disinformation categories worshiped and maligned by said commentators who spin a narrative of human suffering and tribulation if the right does not get its way.

The right alternative news would have listeners and readers believe that Christianity is somehow being stifled and attacked because ministers are not allowed to politicize their sermons. What would be the need? Why do ministers of a faith need to patronize politics? Aren’t pastors supposed to be preaching the good word? Where did Jesus allow that type of vanity in his church?

Does this mean churches are now going to begin paying taxes like all other types of businesses? That would be the free market solution.   

The right believes that if ministers are allowed to preach about politics from the pulpit that that would be in accordance with their rights to freedom of speech, yet these proponents of a religious free for all fail to realize that the government cannot make any laws for the establishment of any religion.

So if one religion is allowed to preach politics from the pulpit… ALL religions including Islam and the Church of Satan will also be given the same allowance. Will the Christian right be able to handle the equality?

The right alternative media has to learn that their view of the world is a narrow plank for us to walk on. Jesus! God! Satan! are great dynamics to direct fear into the hearts of their listeners and create a low information voter fan base to hang on their every word, but that also makes the right alternative media as ridiculous as their “liberal” media counterparts they so love to criticize.  

Take for instance the topic of abortion. The way the right alternative media spins the medical procedure, women in the U.S. would have to be slutty murderers having three or four abortions each at the seventh month plus mark every year, which is silly and divisive. The solution of course, they offer, is that we need religion and a father figure to tell us how to run our lives.

That is the problem with religion. That is the problem when media outlets preach instead of bringing their listeners and readers factual information. Facts are more than mere statistics that can be misused and misrepresented. Information like that becomes a weapon instead of an agent of enlightenment.

Women have seen at the hands of religion, and especially Christianity in the West, the negative impact of blind obedience. The Salem Witch Trials and various offshoots of the command and control operation have caused so much harm that their religious atrocities are still felt even today. The trials saw 200 people accused and 20 killed. Innocent victims of hysteria to silence women, acquire their estate holdings, and discredit women herbalists and midwives as agents of the devil.

The witch hunt continues…

Politicians and the Church go hand in hand to commit such violent crimes in order to control every aspect of a woman’s life. The current witch hunt has been women’s reproductive health. Without proper medical procedures, many women would be dead from complications attributed from pregnancy. Oh wait… with increasing regulations to cut these vital medical services off from women… women are dying at embarrassing rates here in the United States.

WHO statistics on the matter are clear. The world has a maternal death problem faith cannot hope to solve:

In 2015, an estimated 303 000 women will die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, dozens more suffer injury, infection or disease.

The majority of maternal deaths are due to haemorrhage, infection, unsafe abortion, and eclampsia (very high blood pressure leading to seizures), or from health complications worsened in pregnancy. In all these cases, unavailable, inaccessible, unaffordable, or poor quality care is fundamentally responsible. Maternal deaths are detrimental to social development and wellbeing, as some 1 million children are left motherless each year. These children are more likely to die within 1-2 years of their mothers' death.

Women need not die in childbirth. We must give a young woman the information and support she needs to address her reproductive health needs, help her through a pregnancy, and care for her and her newborn well into childhood. The vast majority of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality family planning services; skilled care during pregnancy, childbirth and after delivery; or post-abortion care and where permissible, safe abortion services. Increased attention for women living in conflict situations, or under humanitarian crisis is needed because a working health system with skilled personnel is key to saving these women's lives.

In the United States, the numbers are logged by the CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. A stark reminder that even in a First World Nation, the U.S. is behind on maternal care. One death is one too many.

Read America's Baby Catastrophe for details on how America stands in maternal care versus the rest of the world as well as Maternal Deaths in Childbirth Rise in U.S. 

The right alternative media cries about the 11,000 late term abortions that the CDC lists in its statistics, but refuses to tell its readers why. Because if you omit vital information, then telling your version of the story becomes truth. An omission is a lie. The alternative right media has become an old hand at creating these false pretenses to justify spiritual tyranny.

If you would like to learn about what is and is not religion or politics about abortion, then please read a doctor’s point of view: Donald Trump Confuses Birth With Abortion. And No, There Are No Ninth Month Abortions.

A critical pro life argument is that women are having late term abortions because women are sluts and murderers and have no moral authority to guide them. Let’s deal with what the aforementioned doctor states instead of patriarchal superstition:

Some of the 0.3 percent of abortions after 21 weeks will be for personal reasons. Often these are called elective abortions, but I don’t like that term. Usually this happens when it took too long to find a clinic and raise the money. These abortions happen before 24 weeks. There is no ninth month action here either.

Late term abortions usually happen because of what Christian lawmakers have done to demonize and politicize abortions to the point where women are unable to find appropriate healthcare or to have the money to pay for one during the first trimester. You can thank religious politicians for making the 0.3 percent of abortions in this scenario possible by regulating clinics and women’s healthcare to the brink of extinction.

But no alternative right media host or celebrity will tell you that their pro life restrictions on abortion caused the problem they rail against in their op-eds or shows. It is too easy to blame women instead of their own short sidedness.

The Christian establishment and its media mouthpieces are again carrying on the age old tradition of witch trials. This round seeks to eliminate necessary health benefits to women’s reproductive care in order to control conception, pregnancy, and birth. Their continued hack job interference is leaving over 300,000 women dead and 1 million children motherless in this world.

Is that their god’s plan?

Controlling what is misunderstood by unqualified preachers and media celebrities has become big business for the right alternative media at the cost of women’s lives and children’s mothers.

Maybe the right alternative media movement should step away from their pedestals of self righteousness. The next time the alternative right press have the ear to a certain Republican Presidential Candidate they should do the smart and mature behavior and tell him to leave women’s health to the professionals.

The Christian right is killing women. That is not preserving life. That is not keeping the family together when the mother is dead and the babies die within a few years because of maternal death. Men of the cloth are not women’s health experts. They are not experts in anything but a dusty old tome.

And these religious men want political power too?

The extreme right, religious view is not sanity when it comes to women’s reproductive services. All this pro life arguing is for command and control of women's lives. Why else would radio hosts, celebrity speakers, and articles written to attack a medical procedure be this much fodder? Without proper women's health services that include contraception and abortions, the pro life brigade is actually killing women with an increasing amount of maternal deaths. 

It is not skewing the statistics for money, preaching to a fan base of like minded individuals, or writing articles for product placement. It is simply irresponsible to politicize women's health issues for religion and profit. That is why Christian pastors, ministers, and preachers have not earned the public's trust to receive blanket authority to politicize any topic from the pulpit. Religion and politics do not mix: women somehow always get burned at the stake. 

When is humanity going to put women and children first and finally say: men masquerading as god need not apply.

Sources: Huffington Post, WHO, CDC,  History of Mass, Breitbart Abortion Articles, Alt Right Media