Friday, August 16, 2019

Have you gotten your Burn... Bern Notice?

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Democrats / Espionage / Marketing

Did you receive this note in your inbox:

Then you may want to know the definition of a Burn Notice.
a notice issued by intelligence agencies that dismisses an agent because they've been considered unreliable or dangerous.
So what is the Bernie Sanders campaign telling us?

Source: Bernie Sanders Campaign 

Monday, August 12, 2019

Is Gender Ideology Lewd and Lascivious Behavior?

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Gender Fluidity / Obscenity Laws

In today's electric climate of biology and gender, a sociological theory on how and what people are is a controversial one. Are you nature or nurture? Biology or psychology? Are we a product of our genetics or are we at the mercy of our own illusion? 

Is there male and female? Or, is the human race bound by gender ideology: I am what I feel?

Social justice advocates, activists, and warriors will yell and scream about exploring our own sexuality even in the classroom. However, is this discussion of our sexual identities considered in the realm of the legal definition of obscenity?
1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" in imitation or mimicking of religious services. Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, c. CV, § 8 (1712), Mass.Bay Colony Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offenses.
In light of this history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. This phrasing did not prevent this Court from concluding that libelous utterances are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, obscenity law was not as fully developed as libel law, but there is sufficiently contemporaneous evidence to show that obscenity, too, was outside the protection intended for speech and press.
So when does teaching about biology and psychology step into obscenity?
See also Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 U.S. 230, 242, where this Court said as to motion pictures:

. . . They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. . . .

(Emphasis added.)

We perceive no significant difference between the meaning of obscenity developed in the case law and the definition of the A.L.I., Model Penal Code, § 207.10(2) (Tent.Draft No. 6, 1957), viz.:

. . . A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters. . . .
Hasn't Gender Ideology gone from wholesome to the appeal to the morbid interest in nudity and sex?

We have children being taught that their bodies do not conform to their personalities. Children are being placed on harmful drugs, their minds twisted into delusion, and their sexual identities, nude construction used as political fodder all for the prurient interest for excitement and appeal to adults. Children are being taught sexuality beyond the customary limits of candor.

Meanwhile in Arizona:
Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1402 states that indecent exposure is committed whenever a person exposes recklessly either genitals or their anal region or in the case of women – areolas and nipples in front of another individual without considerations about a witness getting either alarmed or offended by the act.

Breast-feeding is, needless to say, excluded from the statute.

As far as the seriousness of the offense is concerned, people who commit indecent exposure in front of individuals aged 15 or younger should expect more serious penalties. Typically, indecent exposure is classified as a misdemeanor but if there are aggravating circumstances, a person may eventually be charged with a Class 3 felony.

On top of the state-wide regulations, Arizona cities may have individual local indecent exposure laws to target such behavior. Downtown Scottsdale, for example, has fines imposed on individuals found guilty of urinating in public. In Bullhead City, a person found guilty of solicitation by indecent exposure faces Class 3 misdemeanor charges.

Keep in mind that indecent exposure is different from engaging in a public sex act. Public sexual indecency is defined in Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1403 and the severity of the sanctions will once again depend on previous offenses and whether the act took place in front of a minor.
So what would be considered indecent exposure? When a grown man walks into a Target woman's bathroom and exposes his genitalia to a minor female child? 

What would be considered indecent exposure? A grown man going into a woman's gym shower and changing area, getting naked in front of women, and then going for a workout?

There are serious concerns and legal questions about the limits of Gender Ideology when it comes to Indecent Exposure and Obscenity, not to mention Women's Rights and sexual privacy rights of other individuals.

In recent court cases, judges have dismissed the legitimate concerns over sexual privacy and the rights of other individuals to push Gender Ideology. These same courts and judges illegitimately place people's "feelings" over established laws pertaining to obscenity, lewd conduct, and indecent exposure. These social justice judges should be investigated for their unethical standards when laws are ignored for political correctness. 

Should belief be used instead of established biological science? Should judges be allowed to redefine the sexes based on psychology, which goes against Title IX?

What are people teaching your children at school when you are at work?

Source: Cornell LawAZ Criminal Defense Group  

Friday, August 9, 2019

Movie Night: Leave the Suicide Cult! Scientific Optimism vs. Green New Deal

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Big Tech / Social Justice

Dennis Speed and Jason Ross contrast the two paths mankind must choose between in this historical juncture. Will the people around the world fall for the hoax of the Green New Deal that ensures mass genocide? Or will we choose to follow the lessons of Lyndon LaRouche and the historical tradition he is a part of to further the endless potential for growth and development? 

Source: Youtube 

How to Find a Nazi, Look No Further than Big Tech

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Big Tech / Social Justice
A real Facebook advertisement that was discovered by the editor.

Here is what the editor had to write in the comments section.

hurry! turn in your neighbor!!! b/c Trump is the Nazi, but the mega monopoly corporations are the ones stealing your freedoms, rights like expression and speech. shadow banning. banning. censorship. deplatforming. ghettos. gulags. just like real Nazis do! next, Americans will be required to get fingerprinted and searched for owning a gun... oh, wait! the only ones Americans need to worry about are the people pointing their fingers and yelling: racist, Nazi, white slur anything, and turn in your neighbor, esp for a reward. my Jewish grandmother would be ashamed...

What are you doing to set the course of society back into the right direction?

Source: Facebook Ads/Sponsored

Monday, April 15, 2019

Gender Ideology and Intellectual Book Burning for Political Correctness

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Transgender / Social Justice

In recent Twitter and Facebook posts, the transgender phenomenon has taken on a whole new level of exclusion. Americans should rename gender ideology: gender idealogy. People who believe you do not need societal rules of boy and girl like to hide behind the arbitrary rules of hate speech when someone does not conform to their political correctness. 

The comment that was so awful that people actually reported it for hate has been published here for your consideration:
Transgender is a mental disorder; it is called Gender Dysphoria. For doctors, politicians, and the public to use this small population to run over other people and harm said population is disgusting. I don't support using mental illness to take away the rights of other people. I also do not support using mental illness as a political pawn. I have done research into this phenomenon. That is what it is; it's abuse of the mentally ill. Do some independent research by people who are against abusing people for political and financial gain. I do not support the unprofessional behavior of the medical community to make money on a mental disorder that in most cases would resolve itself over time in a person's life with only a small portion of individuals needing psychiatric support. Transgender individuals are being abused by people supporting a delusion that sets up those individuals to take harmful, carcinogenic chemicals and hormones as well as destructive and unnecessary cosmetic surgeries that will never change the sex of the patient. Do your homework. Do not regurgitate social justice warrior or political correctness. It's mean. It's hateful. It should not be supported by anyone who really cares about individuals with Gender Dysphoria. Stand up to the crowd and save someone's life.
Where was the hate speech? Hateful conduct? Hateful content? 


People with mental health issues have taken a benign comment and catapulted the statement into the stratosphere of fiction because they were offended by nothing. The paragraph is someone's researched opinion. That cannot be allowed by the gender idealogists. 

For that fact any opinion that counters the gender idealogists' narrative cannot be allowed to exist. That is a problem for our society. That radical, exclusionary stance cripples people's ability to make informed decisions and create educated opinions because the pubic discourse has been parsed down by intellectual book burning. 

In a recent article, 21st Century is the Age of Intellectual Dishonesty, the Editor of the VDP Gazette wrote about how Americans are more interested in believing the lie instead of discovering the reality of the world they live in. 

If you are offended by the above statement, believe it is some form of hate speech/content/conduct, or what have you, then seek some professional help.

You need counseling.


Sunday, April 14, 2019

21st Century is the Age of Intellectual Dishonesty

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Education / Society

People want to hear the lie. The lie that makes their existence validated and meaningful. Lies have gone from the social nicety to save someone from embarrassment to the social, political, and psychological corruption of the entire world. 

This essay is not about religion. That is another lie we tell ourselves. If we are good, do good, and then we can go to heaven. If we don't have a god or dogmatic tomes, then humans cannot be moral, ethical people. That is a conservative group think misstatement.

Liberals are no better. Virtue signaling has taken the place of prayerful piety. If you do not support this or that, then you cannot be socially accepted. If you will not allow certain ideologies to become political dogma, then you are a bigot!

What we have not asked ourselves is: are we being intellectually honest? 

The 21st Century has turned into a mudslinging free-for-all. We have 12 years to live as a species because of Climate Change! The President is a Russian Agent and 17 Intelligence Agencies agree! The only way to save our culture is to put GOD back in the classroom! The Polar Ice Caps are going to melt and we'll never see snow again if we don't get rid of cars! Anyone who doesn't believe in GOD is an evil devil worshiper! Osama bin Laden masterminded 9/11.

The list of dishonest remarks is endless.  

Right, left. Liberal, conservative. Aren't all of you being intellectually dishonest? 

The fervor is so intense that if you state a researched opinion you are open for disparaging commentary about your moral fiber and personage. For example, people with MAGA hats are assaulted wherever they go based on a Mainstream Media narrative. The person is never asked what s/he believes. The apparel causes instantaneous violence on the excuse the person is a "Nazi," "White Nationalist," or "White Supremacist," even if that person wearing said item is black. 

The social constructs of our society that determine moral fiber and ethical behavior are being lost for the instant gratification of an emotional outburst. A crumb to feed someone's ego. A profit made by pundits and political parties.

In America, if you disagree, then disagree that is your right. It is not your right to physically harm another person. It is not your right to defame someone's character because you disagree with their point of view. It is not your right to "dox" someone and make them a target. 

These scenarios have played out in American society, but that is not our inherent cultural norms and mores. So where are people getting the idea that having a temper tantrum is a legitimate form of discourse and debate? 

In high school our class had a debate session for history, no one threw a chair, yelled expletives, or cried needing a hug. So where is this intellectual dishonesty stemming from? Common Core? Colleges and University curriculum? Protest groups? Political parties?  Media bias?

No, this aberrant behavior was going on before President Trump took office. We had protesters during the Obama Administration lighting cars on fire and jumping up and down on other vehicles. We had groups of people stop traffic on freeways.

Do we lay the blame squarely on our educational system? Or do we confront the ideology head on? 

The laws in our Constitutional Republic are based on the rights and responsibilities of the individual against that of mob rule (democracy). The good of the one outweighs the good of the many. So our laws are not skewed toward the more socialistic arenas of our society, but are not also abusive toward others in reciprocation.

In addition, those laws are based on two distinct factors: the spirit and the letter of that law. So we could have a very stern law, but the circumstance for which it was written (spirit) lessens its intensity. Thus the spirit and letter of the law creates a liberal/conservative composition. Our laws are right and left brained simultaneously.  These sides are equal in measure. Equal in weight. Equal in application. 

Our liberal media wants to bias all context of law and etiquette toward only the emotional responses. Talk radio wants to prejudice their audience to only facts and figures. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Just like when someone omits information, data points, social parameters will always be incorrect.

It's called: intellectual dishonesty. 

The scientific theory of make a statement, test that statement, and come to a conclusion based on the outcomes is a good way to determine if a piece is being intellectually honest. As readers, the audience, and as voters, Americans have to weigh the pros and cons of every detail presented to them. 

But we have gatekeepers in media, technology platforms who skew data, bias algorithms, and omit details in order to further an agenda. That is intellectual dishonesty. 

How can we root out intellectually dishonest gatekeepers? We put our belief systems to the test because if we do not have all the facts, figures, and spirit of the discussion then are we not being intellectually dishonest with ourselves? If we are dishonest by choice or circumstance, then how do we ever hope to have an honest conversation about anything?

A few criticisms that has come this editor's way... let's test them. 

VDPG doesn't believe a woman can become a NavySeaL
  • Test: If you are a woman making this accusation: drop everything, enlist in the military, and become a candidate for the NavySeals. The qualifications have to be met as you would if you were a man. There cannot be any changing of the strength requirements, ability and skills sets, mental acuity, or any kind of watering down of the regulations. 
  • Outcome: Did you pass as a woman in equal mental and physical measure to your male counterpart? Yes or No?
VDPG is transphobic.
  • Test: Has the VDPG ever stopped a Transgender person from being Transgender? 
  • Outcome: No. 
  • Test: Has the VDPG stopped a man wearing woman's clothing? 
  • Outcome: No. Actually the VDPG has written about clothing history. Men used to wear the pumps, stockings, dresses, and attire women have come to emulate these many past centuries. If anyone knows about clothing history, then men wearing makeup and sequins is nothing new. It's really old. There is no news story here. 
  • Test: Has the VDPG ever stopped a woman from wearing mens clothing? 
  • Outcome. I am wearing mens clothing right now. 
  • Test: Has the VDPG contested men in women's bathrooms with woman and underaged girls? 
  • Outcome: Yes. A resounding YES! Men in skirts or suits have no business in the bathrooms or shower rooms of women and girls. We have sexually tailored bathrooms in our culture designed for the penis and the vagina. Since the males of the species are the sexual aggressors of the females it is not prudent or wise to invade the sexual privacy or security of the other. It is not warranted. That makes this issue a rape and molestation issue and about respecting women. 
  • Test:  Does VDPG contest biological males competing against biological females in sports? 
  • Outcome: Yes! Biological males are superior in size, speed, and strength to biological females. There would be no competition in sports, males would dominate over females that is why Title 9 exists to give equity and equality to women in all scholastic and sport arenas without fear or retribution.
VDPG is against immigration.
  • Test: VDPG hates refugees. 
  • Outcome: The editor's grandmother is a refugee from Belarus circa 1912-17. The Bolsheviks stole their family farm and ran them off their land and out of their home country for the cause of socialism and antisemitism. 
  • Test: VDPG hates people of Spanish descent.
  • Outcome: The editor is from Spanish descent as a descendant of Emperor Charlemagne through the Chisum and Gyrlyngton family lines.  
  • Test: VDPG hates all forms of immigration.
  • Outcome: Legal immigration that supports the American way of life is most welcome. Illegal immigration that brings in drug/human/sex trafficking is unwelcome.  
 VDPG is anti-vaccine.
  • Test: Has the editor ever had a vaccine?
  • Outcome: Yes. All necessary vaccines for a child born in 1972. 
  • Test: Has the editor ever had a reaction to a vaccine? 
  • Outcome: Yes. The editor had the DTap, Tetanus booster, around the age of 29 on the urging of her oral surgeon before getting her wisdom teeth extracted. Her small arm had a site reaction that ballooned up to the size of a half softball. She ran a fever for a week and had to be placed on an antibiotic. Recent testing reveals the DTap has glyphosate (Roundup) and the editor has been disabled with a collapsed immune system since 2007 (i.e., other factors and other vaccine reactions are also involved in the Editor's status at an Environmental Illness patient.)
  • Test: Is the editor anti-vaccine?
  • Outcome: The editor is against poisons and toxins in the medical supply. Vaccines have changed from ProImmunity to ProToxcity.  For over thirty years, vaccines have never been tested for efficacy or safety, so until the paradigm shifts back to safety all vaccines should be discontinued. 
  • Test: Does the editor believe anti-vaxxers are the cause of the measles outbreaks? 
  • Outcome. No. With the unmitigated flood of illegal immigration, the health, cleanliness, and nutrition of immigrants are not being tested or remedied before being set loose into our society, so unvaccinated children cannot be the cause of said outbreaks. They didn't have the disease to begin with so how could they spread it?
So are you intellectually honest? Put yourself to the test before accusing the Editor of the Villa de Paz Gazette of such atrocities. 

If you read every article and essay posited here on the Villa de Paz Gazette, readers will find that VDPG challenges the intellectual dishonesty in media, business, politics, culture, and entertainment. Americans have been emotionally blackmailed to believe over here, over there, up that way, and somewhere around the corner. VDPG breaks through the programming. 

There is a spirit and letter to the boundaries of our society. The individual in this Constitutional Republic is the minority. Yet with the rights of an individual, the individual also must uphold their responsibilities to the national discourse. Americans cannot spew emotions as facts, nor can we enumerate facts and figures as the sole means to resolve our differences. 

VDPG breaks convention and returns its readers back to a time where discourse was intellectually honest. 

Are you being intellectually honest? 

VDPG began by dispelling the lies of corrupt politicians, media, and developers. The Editor has never wavered. In the spirit of the old George Washington legend: VDPG cannot tell a lie. 

If you want lies, there are plenty of resources on the internet for you to quote and cite. 

The Villa de Paz Gazette is not one of them. 

We're not pretty. We're not popular, but our thesis statements with citations and quotations will stand the test of time.

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Hillary Clinton, Twitter Attack a Disabled Editor

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Tech Monopolies / Hillary Clinton

Earlier today, Hillary Clinton was on Twitter complaining that the current administration banned Transgendered individuals from serving our nation via the military. 

Yet Mrs. Clinton used Twitter's Terms of Service to attack a disabled person. She falsely accused this disabled editor of Hate Conduct/Speech for pointing out facts. 

Unless someone can enumerate the hate filled content in the below statement: 

So I lodged a complaint in my response to Twitter and will shortly see if there is a complaint I can file against this political retaliatory action through the FCC or other federal agency. My free speech was violated. I was respectful in my conveyance of the way Transgender people are abused by political figures like Hillary Clinton instead of receiving the mental health support that they so need.
Mrs. Clinton, this type of negative behavior is exactly why a good portion of the American electorate did not see you as worthy, professional, or capable of being President of the United States.

I would refrain from making such immature decisions in the future.

If you cannot conduct yourself in a manner befitting a public figure, then perhaps you should retired from public life altogether and let the adults handle our political, social, and economic challenges that face the United States of America.

You have displayed retaliatory behavior against a disabled woman and positioned yourself to harm people with mental disorders for political gain. 

That is shameful indeed. 

Twitter is no better enabling such conduct amongst a swath of celebrities and politicos at the cost of others free and protected speech. 

Isn't about time you all grew up?

Sources: Twitter, Hillary Clinton

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Assange Arrested in London

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
War on Journalism / Globalists

Julian Assange of Wikileaks has been arrested in London after the country of Ecuador withdrew their asylum protection.

Sunday, March 31, 2019

Hate Speech, the First Amendment, and Big Tech Monopolies over the Public Square

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Bill of Rights / Due Process

Hate speech. The made up terminology to create hysteria against certain groups in society. This phrase is leveled at objectionable people most individuals would disagree with so there is no one to stand up for the other people's rights. That is not very American of you. 

We are speaking of Big Tech monopolies who hire many foreign workers who do not know or care about Truth, Justice, and the American way. These foreign employees care about their paychecks, not their moral or ethical obligations to working in this country. 

So first they came for the NeoNazis, and we said nothing. Then they came for the White Nationalists, and we said nothing. Afterward, they came for the White Separatists, and we said nothing. 

All the while, the technological monopolies were going down their hit lists to censor people far and wide, and label them hate speakers. Laura Loomer. Owen Shroyer. Mike Cernovich. These journalists and commentators have felt the pinch. The biggest strike has been against Alex Jones. 

The Terms of Service states... Hate Speech to be banned and all those who spread it. 

One problem. There is no legal definition of Hate Speech because there is no Due Process of Law that covers the blatant disregard of the First Amendment and its protections of the Public Square, set forth by the Supreme Court. 

So where are the Big Tech monopolies getting their legal advice? Rice crispies treats?  

Terms of Service is a way for corporations to be your parent because to them you are too immature and untrustworthy to be free to express yourself. Is that really their call? Or is it an underlying negative attitude toward the public? Hate speech, shadow banning, and outright banning of people with ideological differences has no basis in legal precedent. None at all. 

So Terms of Service has become the gray area of corporate legalese to eradicate Due Process of Law. Someone threatens with the intent to harm or calls for violence against someone(s), legal action via due process can be initiated. Until someone crosses the line into criminal behavior there is little for corporations like Big Tech to do about free expression or speech on their platforms. 

These companies can offer unfriend, mute, and block. 

Anything else should be pursued by the individual, not the corporation until a legal judgement has been rendered. The legal way is not always the quickest, cleanest, or clearest way, but it is the path of our judicial system.

But, but Citizens United made corporations equal with their free speech, in addition, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is outdated law and Big Tech monopolies are not shopping malls. 

The internet is the new public square and we have got to set some rules. 

First, the internet was created with American tax payer money. So whatever happens on the internet should be subject to our Bill of Rights, especially since most of the technology being used on the internet today including insular platforms was created with American tax payer money. 

See, DARPA, and maybe some IARPA too. 

So the Big Tech monopolies do not really have much legal legs to stand on. The internet is the public square. Your platform is open to the public. Big Tech monopolies have stated in the past that their platforms were public forums. 

Big Tech cannot have it both ways. 

You are either a paid private platform you control, or you are a public forum where the Bill of Rights is enacted. 

No legal wrangling is going to give Big Tech free reign to abuse its already considerable power over the market shares. 

So what do Americans do? Call for the Ma' Bell Solution? Break up all the technology companies until free and fair competition can operate? That is probably the best option. 

Because Big Tech has become what they hate with the absolute power they wield: mean, useless bullies. 

The 1st Amendment protects someone's speech if we agree with it or not. Without adherence to the rule of law, we are virtue signalling permission for a corporation to be an information gatekeeper. As a gatekeeper, media, internet platforms, and politicians have allowed censorship into our public discourse. This censorship is a prime example why corporations especially media need to stop playing god. 

Instead of information and investigative journalism, mainstream media now promotes propaganda and conspiracy theories, yet media outlets feel it is their right to tell the public what they can and cannot read, do, or say... that is an eye opening illustration, is it not?

We have a huge problem in this country and it starts with the gatekeepers. Americans need to reject censorship in all forms. Hate speech isn't a legal term; it's a psychological and emotional trigger phrase to make people reactionary instead of thinking for themselves

Americans have to get back to the basics. The only way to censor is to take said offenders to court and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a criminal act. Corporations are not following due process of law. Internet platform monopolies believe they are the law. Big, huge, elephant in the room PROBLEM. 

Corporations have stepped over the line with the public. Corporations should never be in control of people's lives. Corporations should never parent the public. That is a breach of the public trust. 

In other words, take your supposed tolerance back to your safe space, it has no business in the adult room. The public square in a mall or internet forum is the adult room. The only ones acting like children are Big Tech monopolies hiding behind their Terms of Services to satisfy some immature need to control what the public says and thinks. 

That makes Big Tech censorship a form of hate speech. 

... and then they came for the technology monopolies, there was no one left to speak for them.

Get All the Latest News... Follow the VDP Gazette by Email