Freedom

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” – Thomas Jefferson

It is critical to the survival of our nation that ALL Americans understand what makes us special. It is two documents, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Those two documents enumerate what made America stand out, a Shining City on a Hill. What is spelled out there, and which is different from every other nation on earth, is the declaration that all men are created equal. While men and women are, in actual fact, not equal in all ways, the stipulation of equality in the DOI, which was written 250 years ago, addresses our rights, which are not gender specific. The author, Thomas Jefferson stipulated that we are not made equal by the DOI; we were made equal by our Creator. What is also spelled out is that said Creator, and not the government, is the source of our unalienable rights. In every other country on earth, your rights are allowed you by the government, and can be abridged or arrogated by said government at will. In the United States of America, your rights are sacred… or at least they were.

The First Amendment to our Constitution makes an absolute statement, that the government cannot forbid you to speak. By law, in America, there are no forbidden words. Or at least there weren’t until very recently. For those not clear, let’s revisit the US Supreme Court’s decision in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). This is the case where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes allegedly decreed that “you cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” But Holmes never said that; that phrase was offered by others as a simplification of the actual ruling. Schenck was convicted, not of inflammatory speech, but of violating the Espionage Act by interfering with the military draft, an act much later determined to be legal. If we’re honest, Schenck’s conviction was not upheld because he violated the Act by distributing pamphlets urging draftees to resist on the basis that military conscription amounted to involuntary servitude, but because he was chairman of the American Socialist Party. The decision was thus legally flawed.

That the Schenck decision was flawed was demonstrated by the revised standards established only a few months later in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). Although Abrams was similarly convicted of impeding the war effort, a violation of the same Espionage Act, the court made the mistake of claiming that first amendment rights needed to be viewed differently during wartime. However, in a dissenting minority opinion, Justice Holmes declared that the first amendment was absolute, and that only speech presenting “a clear and present danger,” should be held to be illegal. Shouting fire when there is no fire might be so construed but is irrelevant to these rulings. Both Justice Holmes and the eminent Justice Brandeis went on to campaign against the idea that freedom of speech had limitations, even during extreme times like a war (or a pandemic).

In actual fact, the first amendment is absolute. Although neither the Schenck nor Abrams decisions were revisited, they were essentially neutered after the arrest of the famous Dr. Benjamin Spock for aiding and abetting draft resistors and encouraging the burning of draft cards. Dr. Spock was convicted, but the decision was reversed on appeal, and sadly did not need to be reviewed by SCOTUS, which would have then reversed both Schenck and Abrams, which were effectively, if not legally, nullified in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the case which ruled that burning the American Flag was an act of protected speech. If you can burn our flag, you can burn your draft card and you should be able to implore your fellow citizens to resist conscription.

In a literal interpretation of all of this jurisprudence, we are left with the singular fact that the first amendment is absolute. In all of the cited cases, it was not the words that violated the law, but the incitement for others to violate laws surrounding conscription into military service. While said conscription may or may not amount to involuntary servitude in violation of the thirteenth amendment, speaking against it is not, in and of itself, a violation of the Espionage Act, nor of any other laws.

Words can never be illegal. Although words can be rude, insulting, improper in polite company and/or offensive, they can never be illegal. The incitement to violations of proper laws, the incitement to violence, or the collusion (conspiracy) to violate legitimate laws or encourage others to do so is illegal under other statutes. Simply put, it can never be your words that land you in jail, but the immediate and foreseeable actions that are likely to occur as the direct result of your words. So the wild west entreaty to “string him up,” was not protected speech. But according to the first amendment, “hate speech,” is protected, regardless of how distasteful it may be. It is distasteful and ignorant to display nooses or swastikas, but it is not illegal.

According to the letter of our laws, words such as ni**er, sp*c, r*gh**d, fa**ot, tr*nny, f*ck, and many more, which can certainly offend, cannot be prohibited. While an educated and honorable person should avoid their use, unless said usage has a legitimate purpose, no government authority has the right to prevent you from using them, only your common sense and decency should prevail. If such words were illegal, the prosecuting attorneys would have to be locked up for reading the charges against someone using them! During the murder trial of OJ Simpson, a key prosecution witness, Mark Fuhrman, we questioned because he admitted to reading the offensive “N word” aloud from a  proposed TV script.

The government, at least in the United States, cannot dictate which pronouns I use when speaking of you. While you can request that I use specific pronouns, it is highly unlikely that I will comply, unless you request the ones I would have chosen on my own. Professor Jordan Peterson perfectly underscored the necessity of rejecting this type of censorship when he said that if he complied, they would next attempt to dictate which adjectives he was allowed to use. The act of censorship, at even the most basic and seemingly most logical level, simply opens the door to the next level of censorship, something we must never allow. A people are not free if their freedoms can be restricted or conditional.

What we must defend today, is the spirit of the first amendment, which has been under massive and unprecedented attack since the beginning of the covid pandemic. To speak freely on any and all matters is a cornerstone of freedom. While the courts have thus far held, by issuing an injunction in Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), that the government’s collusion with both social and conventional media was illegal and ordered that such interference with citizen’s rights must stop, virtually all of the affected agencies, including social, print and broadcast media, have continued to carry water for the government under the fiction that they themselves are not a part nor are they agents of government, and therefore have not only the right, but the moral responsibility, to censor anything they consider to be potentially dangerous. What these media moguls, these “small elite,” have effectively said is that the free people of the United States are just too tragically stupid to figure these things out for themselves. And yet 100% of available evidence shows that the government and the media were wrong, Every. Single. Time.

As some of you know, I was banned on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, the only social media that I use, for making statements that were not only true, but were backed up by facts in the articles and statements that were censored. Now, these are allegedly private companies and therefore not encumbered by the same restrictions placed on government. However, in our modern, connected world, any censorship in these venues amounts to a restriction of the free exchange of ideas that is essential to a free country. I’ll make it simple:

I claimed that the SARS viruses, both 1.0 and 2.0 were created in laboratories run by Dr. Ralph Baric. While I may have initially been incorrect in saying that this happened at UNCCH, although it is possible that they were, they may have been created at the BLS lab at Fort Detrick, a distinction without a difference because that lab was also run by Dr. Baric. What is now widely understood, and not in any way controversial, is that these viruses did not emerge from nature and registered patents point the accusing finger at only one person, Dr. Baric. And yet my postings on the subject were deleted and my access to these venues was restricted for stating true facts.

I claimed that the recommendations of Drs. Fauci and Birx to “stay home until you can’t breathe,” were incredibly stupid, dangerous, and potentially criminal. This too is now widely known to have been correct. I further stated that the “warp speed” creation of the so-called “vaccines” was reckless and demented, as the process of creating a safe new drug requires a minimum of fifteen years and even then, many new drugs that went through the full process have been later recalled or given “black box” warning labels. Again, I was censored and again I was proven to be correct.

I also spoke out about social distancing and masks with similar results. I have pointed out, and feel that it bears repeating, that the demands for these were unconstitutional as were any mandates that anyone, whether in government employ or not, receive the shots in order to simply go on with their lives or employment. It was never legal for public venues to demand to see your medical (vaccination) records. In fact it is a crime to demand this information at any time by anyone who is not a licensed medical professional and who has need of it for the purposes of your treatment. Remarkably, with the covid emergency declared over by HHS as of May 11, 2023, all of the emergency use authorized edicts, for masks, social distancing, vaccines, and Remdesivir, have expired and it is therefore illegal to continue any of these practices. They were illegal on their face, because they violate the US Constitution. And let’s be clear about something. Our constitutional rights exist, even during emergencies, barring a declaration of martial law, which did not take place.

While the theory of a free nation states that we have the power to simply boycott those who intolerantly and arrogantly censor us, the truth is that vast segments of our population are addicted to news reports and social media sites, where they are induced to believe many things that are untrue, simply because the counterbalancing information is not permitted to be shared. 80% of Americans are said to have taken at least the first two covid shots, which we now know, or at least those of us who have examined the evidence know, was a tragic and deadly mistake. Had social media allowed me, and thousands more like me, to speak freely, more than a million of our fellow citizens would still be alive, and thousand more would not be experiencing significant disabilities like myocarditis, Guillain Barre, turbo cancers, and neurological disorders, to name only a few of the more than 1300 potential adverse effects caused by the shots that we now know were actually less than useless. In the event that you share this missive with friends who still get all their opinions from the errant sources of which I speak, it has been undeniably proven that, not only do the jabs not prevent the spread of covid, they have caused significant early mutations of the virus and those who took the shots are at far greater risk of infection than those who did not.

The devastating Spanish Flu of 2018 was ultimately resolved by herd immunity, and became a footnote in history, in less than three years. We are now in year four of covid, with no end in sight. That should tell you all you need to know.

Truth has no need to be protected by censors. Improper and untrue statements, like the “safe and effective” pronouncement regarding the mRNA injections and the FDA’s campaign against Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, need to be protected because a robust public debate, which was prevented, would have saved millions of lives in the US alone. But more importantly, the conspirators in these matters would have been thwarted in their attainment of billions of dollars and untold acquisitions of power. As I wrote recently, doctors using these two remedies outperformed those following the diktats of government by a margin that is nearly immeasurable. The censorship, under the prompting of government, was undeniably criminal and caused immeasurable death and misery.

The media and government continue to claim, without a scintilla of legitimate evidence, that carbon dioxide is a threat to humanity, an existential threat they say. This is a deliberate lie. They also claim that we can power America with solar panels and windmills. This is provably false. While installing enough solar and wind generation to power the nation would undeniably require confiscation of close to two-thirds of all American real estate, even this would fail because our existing grid could not possibly handle the immense increase in demand that would result from the proposed banning of fossil fuel as a means of generating electricity, powering vehicles, cooking our food, and heating our water. I will have more to say about this in an upcoming article about the green movement, which is built on the foundation of these lies.

Science has progressed, for centuries, simply by intelligent minds challenging the status quo with suggestions for better methods for all walks of life. But in 2024, scientists are muzzled and marginalized if they dare to contradict simpletons like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Greta Thunberg, or Birx and Fauci.

I pose this problem to you, because there is a major national election coming in just a few months. Will you vote to send or return to Washington, representatives who failed to protect us from this lunacy? In many districts, there is no choice to vote for representatives who have demonstrated the willingness to do what is right, but if you write to both your current representatives and those asking for your vote in November it is highly likely that they will listen and at least employ a modicum of introspection in the future. I’ll be sharing another problem with which “science” has saddled us in my next article, but this one has gone long enough.