The problem with the acceptance and approval of any New World Order is that no government has ever offered, nor will it ever offer, real hope and peace for mankind. When a man turns to the government to provide worldwide peace and hope, he becomes disillusioned and enslaved by its false promises. History has proven time and again that no quasi-world empire has ever survived, simply because of its innate flaws of greed, corruption, and the quest for power.
Those who desire the ushering in of a New World Order, whether secular or religious, are in for a rude awakening. The truth is that false religious teachings cannot bring utopia into being, regardless of man’s creativity and ingenuity. Only heaven brings lasting peace and happiness. The Bible makes it very clear that all things associated with this life on earth with its sufferings, its decay, its discontent, and death will continue with this physical life (2 Corinthians 4:16; Hebrews 9:27). It is also clear that all these things are completely unknown in the heavenly city (Revelation 21:3-7 and Revelation 22). They will be done away with. Yes, hope is needed. But it is the hope of heaven we need, not the false hope of a New World Order. The one hope for all believers lies only in heaven (John 14:1-4). It is not here on this earth.
Free speech is one of the pinnacles of a free society. But it’s often the first thing to go when a free society is in decline. Certain forms of unsavory speech are deemed as “hate” speech, and speech that doesn’t conform to the status quo is regarded as potentially terroristic speech. It’s a very slippery slope, but it’s how fascism creeps in and topples a nation. The United States is blessed to still maintain some level of free speech, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But certain elements of this precious liberty are being eroded, as is the freedom to bring up certain topics without serious backlash or ridicule…..
Every year, nearly half the world’s population uses Google. According to Internet Live Stats, Google processes over 40,000 search queries every second. In that same second, internet users view over 76,000 YouTube videos, a streaming service designed by Google.
Across the globe, there are now over two billion active android devices, a mobile operating system designed by Google. Google uses these services to track users and collect information about them.
It’s now a reality: Google has monopoly power over the flow of information. Google has control over the dissemination and manipulation of information around the world. Google algorithms can either suppress information or promote it.
Because of this, Google Inc. is susceptible to political and ideological censorship, affecting billions of users who use Google services annually. With this power, Google interferes with elections, business, and people’s livelihoods.
Leaked Google Memo: ‘American Tradition’ Of Free Speech Must Be Abandoned
There are industries and political agendas that influence Google, industries that will do whatever it takes to shut down truthful speech and manipulate how people think.
Google is not a neutral platform, so search results are engineered to highlight the viewpoints that matter most to Google executives and their cult culture.
Rich and influential people, emboldened by their special interests, practically lobby Google to push their agendas while suppressing any dissent or competition on the web. While some ideologies are popularized by Google, others are pushed to the shadows, de-monetized and mocked.
Google is under fire for censoring the conservative website PragerU. Very few organizations have the legal firepower to fight back against Google, but PragerU has taken Google to court. Google’s true intentions are being exposed to.
In a statement filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Google argues that government regulation would have “disastrous practical consequences.”
In their statement, Google makes it clear they do not want to be held to the standard of the First Amendment.
Google refuses to change for its users; Google refuses to guarantee users an equal platform for freedom of speech. The anti-American behemoth refuses to enforce the First Amendment across their services because this “would undermine important content regulation.”
Google stated, “If they are bound by the same First Amendment rules that apply to the government, YouTube and other service providers would lose much of their ability to protect their users against offensive or objectionable content — including pornography, hate speech, personal attacks, and terrorist propaganda.”
The U.S. should appoint a third-party judicial commission to review censorship cases
Google should still remain in control over its own content regulation, but the United States should appoint a third party commission to review Google’s actions when complaints of political, business and ideological censorship are brought forth.
With so much power over information and with mounting complaints of censorship coming against Google, it is imperative that a judicial review committee hold Google accountable when they are violating the free speech rights of people on the internet.
According to their legal statement, Google still believes their company can discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints because they “can’t be forced to change.”
What Google does not understand is that, with the proper legal oversight, their monopoly can be forced to operate more fairly, without engaging in anti-competitive practices that benefit their own agendas and the goals of their highly influential friends.
People and organizations that are censored by Google deserve the right to bring forth their case and have their voice be heard. Google can be forced to respect people’s First Amendment rights and can be legally required to correct their algorithms when they are using their technology to abuse content creators, advertisers, and search engine users. The rule of law should be upheld.
Message from Alexander: The only way to take power away from Google, is to stop using its products and services. Use the Vivaldi browser to access the internet and use DuckDuckGo.com to search for stuff. Source
In 1789, the United States Congress ratified the Bill of Rights which made ten amendments to the Constitution. James Madison and many of the founding fathers proposed the amendments because they believed the original Constitution did not adequately protect human liberty. The first and most well-known amendment protects the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and the rights of assembly and petition. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Bill of Rights). Freedom of speech essentially means having the right to speak without governmental restriction or censorship.
The United States is very proud of the concept of freedom of speech because it makes it a unique nation in comparison to most nations throughout history. Under many other governments, people have been persecuted or punished for speaking freely if what they say does not align with the ideas of those in charge. In the United States, though, people have been encouraged to share their opinions and question the government when they feel change is necessary. However, recent debates over hate speech have caused Americans to question just how committed the nation is to the First Amendment and whether unlimited free speech is always a good thing.
Many of the founding fathers’ ideas were greatly influenced by Christianity. Yet is freedom of speech biblical? At the beginning of the Bible, in the book of Genesis, we learn from the story of Adam and Eve that God has given people free will. God tells Adam and Eve, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16–17). God warns them that their actions have consequences but still allows them to make a choice. Therefore, the Bible supports the idea that we have the freedom to say what we want to, but that what we say can have consequences.
- In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must, therefore, be shut down.
- Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.
- Except for the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.
- In contrast to the UN Global Migration Compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or another identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labeled “hate”.
- The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See, and the UN.
In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to“present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…“
After this degenerates nap, he starts pointing fingers at the American people threatening to shut down free speech, know this, to the ungodly, it’s hate speech, to a Christian, its a GOD given right…
How Vietnam Is Benefiting From the U.S.-China Trade War
Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.
“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”
Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.
In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must, therefore, be shut down. Not only that but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.
Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:
“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.
According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.
Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.
Except for the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.
Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.
In contrast to the UN Global Migration Compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:
“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.
The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values, and programs. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular, the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.
The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.
In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will, therefore, let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.
UN entities will also “implement human rights-centered measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counseling”.
Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:
“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.
The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”
The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.
The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See, and the UN.
According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.
“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador saidin her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other’”.
“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”
In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.
At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society, and social media companies to take action and stop social media users from being funneled into online sources of radicalization”. Source
Technology can’t fix what’s broken, because what’s broken is our entire system, Only GOD Can….. The ultimate heresy in today’s world isn’t religious or political: it’s refusing to believe that technology can not only solve all our problems, but it will also do so painlessly and without any sacrifice.
The results from Tuesday’s elections are in and it’s now obvious: The Democratic Left’s takeover of Virginia — once home to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — is now complete.
The party won control over both chambers of the Legislature, and with racist Democratic Gov. Ralph “Blackface Infanticide” Northam still in office as well, the Old Dominion is about to be completely transformed into an authoritarian, over-taxed, gun-regulated haven that would have made King George very proud.
Some political analysts say this transformation was a long time coming, that because northern Virginia has been an expanding suburb of Washington, D.C., where something like 90 percent of residents is Democrats, it was inevitable that the state would turn from purple to blue.
But others see a more sinister reason behind the transformation.
The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft claims that suburban voters in Virginia have been robbed of any and all conservative content because it’s been stripped from news feeds on the country’s biggest social media platforms.
Facebook, Google, and Twitter have also limited or completely banned scores of Right-leaning blogs and news sites.
We don’t know if his assessment is accurate, of course, because again, Virginia has been a purple state for years and trending blue anyway, long before the social media behemoths began censoring his publication and ours.
But overall, we can’t simply dismiss the assessment either. Given how much Americans rely on social media for interaction and information, limiting the political news content users see by punishing conservatives would certainly be a help to Democrats.
Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.
In fact, Hoft notes, “Democrats have a huge advantage over Republicans with their comrades in the news media, Hollywood, and academia. And, unlike 2016, on Tuesday the Democrats also have the tech giants to thank for their wins.”
We can’t argue with that.
Wealthy suburban voters and women helped drive Democrat Party wins in 2018, as well as the party’s takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives. If they are seeing less diversity in political content, wouldn’t that skew how they perceived Democrats and Republicans?
Wouldn’t it influence the way they vote?
One noted researcher who has specifically studied the effects of biased social media on election outcomes certainly thinks so. (Related: It’s true: Google stole the 2018 midterm elections FOR Democrats by targeting select voters with “Go Vote” icon.)
Republicans had better get in the game
Researcher Dr. Robert Epstein, a San Diego-based Harvard Ph.D. who founded the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, said in May his studies indicate that social media anti-conservative bias may have cost at least three Republicans their House seats in the 2018 election.
Breitbart noted further:
Epstein says that in the days leading up to the 2018 midterms, he was able to preserve “more than 47,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results linked.”
Analysis of this data showed a clear pro-Democrat bias in election-related Google search results as compared to competing for search engines. Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.
Epstein’s past studies have indicated that Google alone has the power to change a 50-50 split among divided voters into a 90-10 split in favor of Democrats, all without voters realizing they’ve been manipulated.
“I guarantee you that this past election was affected,” Epstein said of the 2018 races.
So again, it’s not clear how much anti-Republican social media bias had in completing Virginia’s transformation into a solid blue state.
But given what we know about the influence of social media, and how much younger voters in the region use it, we can safely deduce that it had some effect.
Republicans — and President Trump — had better find ways around the bias, especially now that platforms like Twitter are refusing political ads.
The Birth Pains Are Growing Stronger….
“Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of man and devils”…
My name is Steve Meyers and I need to share a vision and warning that the Lord showed me back in April 2007….
Many of you will ask why I waited so long to share the warning. I didn’t. I shared the story with everyone that would listen from pastors to friends to family to colleagues. Immediately following the initial vision, I called a close friend. I told him to sit down that I had something to tell him. I needed it documented as I knew this was supernatural and from God. As I witness events unfolding today, I need to share the vision again.
The risk of loss in trading futures and options on futures can be substantial. The author does not guarantee the accuracy of the above information, although it is believed that the sources are reliable and the information accurate. The author assumes no liability or responsibility for direct or indirect, special, consequential or incidental damages or for any other damages relating or arising out of any action taken as a result of any information or advice contained in this commentary. The author disclaims any express or implied liability or responsibility for any action taken, which is solely at the liability and responsibility of the user. Steve Meyers
The silencing of the American people before 2020?
“The human heart is an idol factory.”
The Un-Godly — Those That Suppress the Truth, the social media giants built multi-billion dollar empires by giving everyone a voice, but now that they have such a dominant position on the Internet they have decided that many prominent conservative voices should be completely silenced.
The Left, a broad term for Liberal Socialist Democrats that can only be explained fully by using the Bible explanation of the human race is as follows. A servant of Satan, because you are either saved or lost. This election has brought out the true nature of who you serve. Simply put, it’s Donald Trump, Conservatives, and Christians against the rest of the world. The Left’s Love applies only to those who believe as they do. They Love evil and commit Anarchy against those who love good. They are governed by lies and never tell the truth. On this Friday, Inaugural Day for the swearing-in of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States the Left wants to commit widespread Anarchy to shut down the swearing-in ceremony. Their goal of transforming America, which was founded in Judea Christian values into a Pagan Nation is almost complete. Their goal has always been the total removal of God from American society and the downfall of America. Donald Trump says he is a Presbyterian, but he left off the USA, an apostate church.
Everything done in dark will be brought to light, being biblically bankrupt will not exclude the elitist.
Tagged Under: Banks, hnewswire StevieRay Hansen, HNewsWire, antichrist,digital gulag, antichrists, Apple, Bible, Big Tech, bigotry, Christian baker, Christianity, Christians, Colorado, Colorado Civil Rights Commission, conservatives, deep state, demonic assault, end of days, end times, Facebook, First Amendment, free speech, Google, hate groups, Hate speech
Hunted by the Mob, Found by Christ
The gripping memoirs of the founder of HNewsWire. A binge-worthy afternoon read.
“Our courts oppose the righteous, and justice is nowhere to be found. Truth stumbles in the streets, and honesty has been outlawed” (Isa. 59:14, NLT)…We…Read More
When Any Nation Can No Longer Judge Between Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, and Light and Darkness, Its People Are Reprobates
The phrase “reprobate mind” is found in Romans 1:28 in reference to those whom God has rejected as godless and wicked. They “suppress the truth by their…Read More
Up-Date 3/28/2020 @ 12:12 AM CST… Suspending The Constitution: Police State Uses Crises To Expand Its Lockdown Powers… “That was when they suspended the Constitution.…Read More
I’m Guessing the New Orleans Mayor Has Not Heard the Truth About This “Pestilence” Death Angel on the Loose “Plagues Are One of the Last…Read More
If You Can Reprobates–The GOD Haters At The New York Times Blames Evangelical Christians for Coronavirus… The New York Times published an op-ed Friday that blamed evangelical…Read More
“Death Angel Virus” the death rate is currently pegged at 12 percent… The US has surpassed China and Italy in confirmed coronavirus cases, making the…Read More
You have been Mislead into thinking that God is an ever-merciful God and that He loves everyone. NO, not true. Society will be instructed to…Read More