Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Trump's Last Stand?


Here is a Link that Reports SCOTUS Actions

22 February 2021 UPDATE:  Election Cases denied Certiorari with Justice Thomas writing dissenting opinions.


On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court will consider granting Certiorari (accept the cases onto its docket) for several of the pending presidential election fraud cases, including the cases brought by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood.  These include the Georgia and Pennsylvania cases.  If 4 of the 9 justices agree to accept the cases then the Court must hear them.  If 5 of the 9 agree with the plaintiffs that massive election fraud occurred then the remaining question is what remedy will the Court impose. The Court can refuse to consider the cases (if no justice want to discuss the case, it is automatically dismissed under Rule 46), grant immediate Certiorari or request a BIO, a Brief in Opposition, and consider the request for Certiorari later.

There is a scenario in which D. J. Trump may still return to the White House in triumph.

But to understand how, we need to start in 2018 when Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion in the case of Abbott vs Perez. [1]  This was a Texas electoral fraud case in which, as we have also seen this year, the trial courts refused to hear any evidence of fraud. When the case got to the Supreme Court the Chief Justice wrote that the Court could determine whether there had been fraud, or not, even in the absence of evidence presented in the courts below, by taking judicial notice of the actual voting statistics which are part of the public record.  The court does not need to know the who or how of the fraud to determine whether or not there was fraud. In the Perez case the Court looked at the voting records and decided there had not been fraud.  

This means if the Court decides to take on the presidential election fraud cases, those cases can proceed rapidly to a decision based on the public record of anomalous shifts in the votes among the candidates in the "key states."

That there were anomalies is widely accepted:

"This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates…" [2]

However, it will be up to the Court to finally determine the outcome of the 2020 election.  Assume that 5 justices decide there had been fraud.  What is the proper remedy?

Will the Court simply say, try again better next time?  Or will the Court determine that the contested State electoral votes are invalid and no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes?

In that case there was no president after January 20th, and no vice president either.  That has two astounding results. 

First, the Speaker of the House would be Acting President. The Senate would be divided 50/50 with no presiding officer to cast any tie breaking vote.

Second, the choice of president falls to the House which under the Constitution has until March 4th to choose a president from among the top electoral vote getters.  Each state gets one vote. Since the Republicans have a majority of the state delegations to Congress, they can easily choose Trump.

The divided Senate gets to choose the new vice president from among the top two electoral vote getters.  I suspect the evenly divided Senate will not be able to choose a vice president before the March 4th deadline. 

After that date the office would be vacant and the new president would have authority under the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution to nominate a vice president, subject to Congressional approval..

And that is how Nancy Pelosi might end up as Acting President for a few weeks, succeeded by the once-and-future President Trump.


[1] I wrote about the Perez case here:


Thursday, February 11, 2021

Speaking the Unspeakable: The First Amendment & Violent Overthrow

Is it Lawful to Advocate Violent Overthrow of the Government?

The legal system of the American Federal Republic, arising from the libertarian principles of the Declaration of Independence, has a number of unique features, not widely shared in practice in other large nation states.

These include, preeminently, the First and Second clauses of the Bill of Rights -- the guarantees that the government will be strictly limited regarding our most important personal liberties.

The Founders of the Federation were gentlemen who were among nearly the last generation to receive a classical education, including literacy in Latin and Greek, with an emphasis on the history of the Roman Republic and its convoluted legal system.  They intended that the American Republic was to be established on a stronger tradition of law, the English Common Law, than had been possible for the Romans.  The Romans did not keep their republic -- rather, they lost their republican liberties, becoming mere subjects of an imperial system -- also a clear and present danger for Americans.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked, at the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, what type of government was being planned, he is reported to have said, "A republic, if you can keep it."

The Founders knew history and determined the new American Republic would not make the mistakes of the earlier republics.  Here, we were promised, the rule of law would restrain the power of politicians.

Thus the Bill of Rights, with its First Clause asserting the individual's right to free speech and communication, religion, association and petition and its Second Clause recognizing the individual's right to keep and bear arms (which is what guarantees the First) were imposed on the new government through general popular support as amendments to the original Constitution of 1787.

The American legal system developed based on a fundamental law in which the Legislative Power is told it "shall make no law" regarding certain subjects:  the subjects listed in the First and Second clauses. These have, as the Supreme Court earlier remarked about the First, a "preferred position" in our legal system.

This introduction leads me to the purpose of this blog entry.  These strong Constitutional Protections have actual application in the case law.  For example, regarding (IMHO) one of the most difficult areas of First Amendment jurisprudence -- the area of extreme political speech.  

Specifically, the question is, when is it  lawful, under American jurisprudence,  for an individual to engage in speech actually calling for the violent overthrowing of the government.  

The events of 6 January 2021, when large numbers of citizens visited the Capitol to "speak truth to power" and Congress reacted with fear and loathing, abandoning the Capitol, show this is not just an academic question.

Yes, the courts have considered this question.  Given the history of the revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th Centuries, there is well developed law regarding this question.

That law was aptly reviewed by President Trump's lawyers in their Brief against the Second Trump Impeachment.  

The full Brief is here:

Below are several pages from the Brief which review the cases on Advocating for the Overthrow of the Government [emphasis added]. Based on the case law, my conclusion is that it is lawful to advocate even the "necessity" of the use of violence to overthrow the government.  A speaker may even "incite" violence against government, so long as incitement to immediate violence does not occur. 

"The fatal flaw ... is that it seeks to mete out governmental punishment ... based on political speech that falls squarely within broad protections of the First Amendment. Speech and association for political purposes is the kind of activity to which the First Amendment offers its strongest protection.125 Restrictions placed on freedom of speech are evaluated “against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”126 

Thus, “[o]ur First Amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech” in which “[c]ore political speech occupies the highest, most protected position.”127 The Supreme Court has further acknowledged that “[t]he language of the political arena . . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”128 A rule of law permitting criminal or civil liability to be imposed upon those who speak or write on public issues and their superintendence would lead to “self-censorship” by all which would not be relieved by permitting a defense of truth. “Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so . . . . The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”129 In only a few well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech may the government punish an individual for his or her words.130

Even political speech that may incite unlawful conduct is protected from the reach of governmental punishment. Indeed, “[e]very idea is an incitement,’ and if speech may be suppressed whenever it might inspire someone to act unlawfully, then there is no limit to the State’s censorial power.”131 The government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed “at some indefinite future time.”132 Rather, the government may only suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law if “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”133

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court formed a test that placed even speech inciting illegal conduct within the protection of the First Amendment.134 In that case, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan was convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law.135 Evidence of his incitement was a film of the events at a Klan rally, which included racist and anti-Semitic speech, the burning of a large wooden cross, and several items that appeared in the film, including a number of firearms.136 The leader of the protest proclaimed that “[w]e’re not a revengent [sic] organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might be some revenge taken. We are marching on Congress July the Fourth, four hundred thousand strong.”137 

The Court held that, “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit [the government] to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”138 The Court explained that “the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.139

Thus, under Brandenburg and its progeny, government actors may not “forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”140 Absent an imminent threat, therefore, it is expressly within the First Amendment to advocate for the use of force; similarly, it is protected speech to advocate for violating the law..."


125 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1964)(The First Amendment “’was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’” (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)).

126 Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)).

127 R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 422 (1992( Stevens, J., concurring); see also Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 787 (2000)(Kennedy, J., dissenting)(“Laws punishing speech which protests the lawfulness or morality of the government’s own policy are the essence of the tyrannical power the First Amendment guards against.”); Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 588 U.S. 310, 349 (2010)(“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”)

128 Watts, 394 U.S. at 708 (distinguishing between “political hyperbole” and “true threats”) (citing Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S. 53, 58, (1966)).

129 New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279.

130 Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521-22 (1972). 

131 Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 580, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2435, 150 L.Ed.2d 532 (2001)(emphasis added)(quoting Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925)(Holmes, J., dissenting)).

132 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 253–54 (2002)(quoting Hess v. Indiana, 414

U.S. 105, 108 (1973)(per curiam)).

133 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (emphasis added) (per curiam).

134 395 U.S. at 447.

135 Id. at 445.

136 Id. at 445-46.

137 Id. at 446.

138 Id.

139 Id. at 448.

140 Id.

Thursday, February 4, 2021

Is the End of the USA Unthinkable?

A Texas State Rep wants Texas to leave the Union again [1] and become an independent nation again. [2]

Maybe the second time's the charm...

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- United States Declaration of Independence

For the first time in a century and two thirds we face the real prospect of irreparable differences among large geographic areas of the United States of America. Many fear that we are on an irreversible path toward a civil war between the over-populated coastal urban centers and the food and fuel producing interior regions they depend upon.  

This civil war would be a struggle for control by the urban elites or autonomy for the interior regions. The electorate appears nearly evenly divided, with no clear majority, although the Regime Party currently looks like it holds all the levers of power...

This time it must not be like what happened in 1860/65 when the Federal Government destroyed dozens of American cities and about a million and a half Americans died in the war and subsequent famine (mostly, BTW, former slaves) during a failed attempt to split the Federation.

Would people support an Institute for Peaceful Secession which would study how peaceful secession and dismantling of the Union could occur?

The Institute could study relatively peaceful examples from history, like the Czechoslovak "Velvet Revolution" and the break-up of the USSR or British Empire.

What would we actually have to do to peacefully replace the United States of America and its authoritarian legislative, judicial, executive/military bureaucracy with true guardians for our liberties? 

Maybe that new structure could be called the American States' Common Market or the New American Confederation.

Americans would most likely need a free trade treaty among the States. This could include joint international border controls, but free internal travel and trade for citizens of the States.

That was the original concept of the Confederation that existed before the Constitution and is within the purview of the Declaration of Independence which reserves to the people the "...right, [the] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

But the first step toward making a New American Republic a reality would be studying and publicizing how to do it peacefully.

A bit over twenty-five years ago the largest government on earth, that of the USSR, disappeared nearly without warning. 

Many areas, like Ukraine, which had been part of the empire since the 1700s, became independent nations again.  

Just a few years before that the head of the Red Army bragged that the "correlation of forces" had shifted decisively to the USSR and against the West.  We all know what happened and the suffering of millions as the old regime collapsed without any planning.  

While the peoples of the former USSR are now much better off than before, it took a quarter century for them to be able to enjoy the freedoms they had at least partially regained.

We could face similar horrific hardship unless we plan for the devolution of the Third Republic (the First was under the Continental Congress, the Second was under the Articles of Confederation and the Third is under the often violated Constitution of 1787).

There is already a private body known as the Uniform Law Commission which can serve as a model. It developed the Uniform Commercial Code among other model state laws. [3] 

Another approach would be for those States, like Texas, that are distressed by the CCP-backed Coup of 6 January, when Congress was panicked into approving the stolen election, to demand the convening of the Convention of the States to revise the Constitution of 1787, as provided in that document. [4]  That body could reform the Federal System and perhaps preserve the Union.



[2] Texas Declaration of Independence, 1836

[3] "The Uniform Law Commission, also called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, is a non-profit, American unincorporated association. Established in 1892, the ULC aims to provide U.S. states with well-researched and drafted legislation to bring clarity and stability to critical areas of statutory law across jurisdictions"

Thursday, January 28, 2021

Free Douglass Mackey

 Blogger Known as "Ricky Vaughn" 
Arrested by Feds for 2016 Thought Crime

[Douglass Mackey] A Florida Man Arrested 
Over 2016 Election Memes Designed To "Trick" Hillary Voters  

Beware of "Speaking Your Mind" in the Banana Republic formerly known as the United States of America.

 Apparently the Regime Department of Justice believes this is a crime. Note carefully the words used.  Emphasis added to show that the Regime seeks to criminalize speech and association in violation of the (former?) Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, which the Supreme Court during an earlier political era had held to have a "favored" position in the legal system of the aforesaid Republic:
  "Starting in at least 2015, MACKEY participated in numerous Group DMs. These groups, which at times included dozens of individuals, and at times had overlapping membership, served as forums for the participants to share, among other things, their views concerning how best to influence the Election. Among other things, MACKEY and the members of these groups used the Group DMs to create, refine and share memes and hashtags that members of the groups would subsequently post and distribute."

Thursday, January 7, 2021

Rubicon or Reichstag at the Capitol?

"The Revolution Will Be Televised."

What happened at the Capitol yesterday was likely triggered by False Flag agents.  

Zero Hedge has identified that with photos. [1] To all our sorrow, an unarmed veteran, Ashley Babbitt, was killed by government agents in the Capitol.

What happened was, unfortunately, a False Flag which fooled the patriots there.  It may have been exhilarating while it happened, and second guessing it won't bring back Moment, the result is that the Demoncrats and RINOS are gloating; they think they have their Reichstag Fire.

When President Trump told the crowd on the morning of January 6th that he would, as I took his words, walk with them to the Capitol, and then did not, he made two mistakes.  

First, he should have known that there would be agents provocateur waiting to mislead his supporters. There was no significant security at the Capitol.  While the White House was surrounded with crowd control barriers, nothing much but yellow ribbons blocked the  way to the Capitol.

The patriots should have kept away from a Congress that was looking for any excuse to crack-down on the Deplorables.  

Second, having said what he said, he should have been like "Yeltsin on the barricades" and done as he said.  I don't think his motives were wrong, just that he didn't think it through to see how the Left would use what happened. 

Nonetheless a Rubicon has been crossed. Not by Trump who will now be (?) welcomed into the Retired Presidents Club, but by the patriot movement. 

False flag or not.  

It might be time to re-read Yeats poem on the failed Easter 1916 Irish rebellion against the British. That was followed by the successful rebellion of 1919-21.

Yes, "A terrible beauty is born."  [2]



Why did they take the building? 
Because they were patriots and had enough.  
Why did they evacuate the building? 
Because they are patriots and law-abiders.  
What was their mistake?


After the patriots failed to keep control of the Capitol, after Trump threw the Liberty Movement under the bus, I re-read Yeats' poem Easter 1916 -- it's worth reading in the context of the past few days: Then I wrote a blog entry entitled: Rubicon or Reichstag? I believe the events of January 6th, now being used by the Deep State like the Reichstag Fire was used in 1933, will prove to be a real turning-point for the Liberty Movement. A Rubicon has been crossed. Electoral politics or reliance on the Courts will not save American Liberty and the Constitutional Republic. There is no legitimacy remaining in the Federal System. It is over. All we have left, in the words of Walt Whitman, is to "Obey little; resist much." The Stars and Bars paraded through the Capitol is not unlike the raising of the Old Russian Flag over the Kremlin in '91. No turning back now. The coming forced vaccination with the barely tested, gene-altering Agenda 2030 "COVID" vaccine will be the next test of the Liberty Movement's resolve. It is likely to be, as the illegitimate "President Elect" promised, a "dark winter."

Sunday, December 27, 2020

Was the 2020 Election Legitimate?

How can we trust the 2020 election results?  The Supreme Court, in 2018, showed us the legal process. 

In 2018 Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision in the Texas redistricting case of Abbott vs Perez, holding that the Supreme Court could take judicial notice of official voting results statistics to determine whether or not fraud had occurred.  In that case the statistics showed no fraud.  The same principle could be applied to the current situation, if any of the pending cases are accepted by the Court, confirming massive vote fraud and invalidating certain key state electoral votes.

Whether we can trust the vote will depend on the courage of at least 5 members of the Court.

On a personal note, I voted for the Libertarian Party (candidate: Dr. Jo Jorgensen) as I have for the past 40+ years, nonetheless, it is clear to me that the claimed outcome of 2020 election, unless Congress or the Supreme Court intervene, is not legitimate due to massive fraud.

Ralph Fucetola JD

  The following is from an unverified source, posted on social media.

The Dominion vote counting tabulators have been forensically analyzed, pursuant to Court Order and state legislative investigators. Not surprisingly, just as alleged by Trump’s Legal Team, Sidney Powell and forensic experts, experts have confirmed the Dominion vote counting tabulators are connected to internet (illegal) manipulatable (illegal), designed to allow programmed cheating for the voting algorithm and vote switching to favor a designated candidate. (illegal)

In addition to hundreds of thousands of falsified vote dump ballots for Biden in the wee hours in the swing states, election officials counting truckloads and suitcases of secret ballots for Biden, the Dominion vote tabulators were programmed to give an approx. 26-30% advantage to Biden. Each Biden vote counted 1.26 and each Trump vote counted .74, they thought that was enough to swing the vote in Biden‘s favor it was not...

Here’s a couple other huge statistical red flag anomalies that just don’t add up. Biden allegedly received 80M votes, more than any candidate in US history, but only won 17%, 523 of the counties in the country. In 2012, Obama won 873 counties and received 63M votes? See 2020 color precinct map, the blue guy won? Trump has nearly 90 million followers on Twitter but only got 73 million votes. Biden has 19 million followers on Twitter but got 80 million votes

In the 20 bellwether counties in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that typically forecast a presidential election, Trump won 19 of them across these states, yet Biden still won?

In the swing states, Trump was up on election night 5-10%, hundreds of thousands of votes in each of those states. Then we went to bed believing Trump had won reelection. However, in the early morning hours, between 3-3:30am, on the day after the election, Nov. 4, when election counting centers were supposed to be closed, there were inexplicable, coordinated, sharp vote dumps/spikes on the counting graphs in amounts seemingly calculated to catch Biden up. In Michigan, the vote spiked 141,258 for Biden, 5,968 for Trump, in Wisconsin 143,379 for Biden, 25,163 for Trump, in Georgia 136,155 for Biden, 29,115 for Trump, same in Michigan and Pennsylvania. See Navarro vote change chart and vote spike graph, clear evidence of fraud.

One more interesting fact, in these same states, voters elected republican senators, house members and other down ballot candidates, but not the leader of the Republican party, President Trump?

The swing state Legislatures and now congress are hearing compelling, overwhelming evidence of election fraud and security failures, Congress, or SCOTUS must decide this election.

Trump has Three primary pathways to reclaim this election that he actually won by a landslide...

1. When the electoral votes go to Congress one member of the house and one member of the senate must object to the swing state votes. That is followed by a debate/discussion on the house floor and then a vote regarding which set of electors votes get counted democrat or republican, or not counted. Each state delegation has one vote in the house; there are 26 clearly red states, five purple states in 19 blue states. Trump wins;

2. There are numerous cases making their way to SCOTUS, or in the house themselves that could result in a determination that the swing state votes should be disqualified. If no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the vote for President of the United States is decided by the House of Representatives. Again, each state delegation has one vote in the house, there are 26 clearly red states and five purple states in 19 blue states. Trump wins;

3. It is likely in the DNI investigation into foreign election fraud and the various FBI investigations into the Biden family, that there is evidence of financial, influence peddling, treason, voting fraud and other criminal wrongdoing and compromised to China, by the Bidens. I suspect Trump and others know this. Biden’s transition and security briefings have been halted. Kamala has still not resigned her Senate seat. Biden may likely be confronted with the choice to concede the election, or be criminally prosecuted. Joe will fold like the house of cards that he is to save his family. 

Trump is elected.

Truth will out...God Bless the USA  πŸ™πŸ»  πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

Friday, October 23, 2020

The Great Facebook Purge of 2020

The “Silencing” Of America?…

How I Learned to Live in American Political Apartheid as a Banned Unperson In a Virtual Internment Camp…

I am one of the thousands of freedom advocates banned by Facebook last week.

After about ten years as a loyal Facebook user, as Admin for a half-dozen groups and enjoying the social connections it offered to my wide-spread family, a couple of days ago I was expelled from Facebook suddenly — along with my nephew, Jeff. #FacebookPurge

Communications with relatives and friends were stricken – all of them. And, suddenly, I had become a banned unperson.

All of my groups and pages were abolished, including pages for recognized exempt organizations, including churches!  When they reach out to make contact with me, or share something with me, my friends and family are learning I am been turned into a Facebook Unperson.  Photos, videos, shared memories, planned events, gone. I imagine it might feel like this to be violated. I imagine it might feel like this to be a freedom advocate in apartheid  South Africa or the happily-gone Soviet Union — singled out as a Banned Unperson.

Sometime that afternoon, I visited Facebook  I was astonished to learn that I had been terminated.

There was a link to appeal.  I immediately did so, sending a copy of my passport as requested.  Within seconds a message popped on the screen: no appeal was allowed. No review was possible. Obviously preset, the social violation dictate was final. I was terminated with extreme prejudice.

Here is that arbitrary, capricious, fully automatic, act of ultimate censorship:

Why? What had I done to be singled out?  In the Kafkaesque landscape of arbitrary social media violation, all you can do is try to piece hints and clues together – and never really know the answer.

Could it be because, along with my nephew Jeff, I was an Admin of a group with over 200,000 members called “Red Pill Crusaders”?  Perhaps my “Free Speech Crime” is that I am a strong advocate for the Right of Informed Consent, health freedom and vaccine freedom of choice?

Or was the sin that I was recently sharing the facts about  how the Americans with Disabilities Act allows people to refuse to be masked and silenced —

Of course, it might have been my use of the hashtag #BillionBribeBiden. So while the exact crime(s) are unclear, the class of crime seems obvious: exercising my First Amendment rights.

My guess is that I was purged, at least in part…

…because I have forthrightly asserted that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the like, while “private companies” at least in name,  are not really private actors at all,  but are crony corporations favored and supported by taxpayer dollars and resources, acting under color of law, making commercial and political use of our Internet Commons while censoring political and other opinion speech as well as scientific discourse for their own self-interest, and no other reason.

Perhaps it is because I have asserted numerous times that the Telecommunications Act (“the Act”) does not allow these deep state companies to censor the speech of users of the Internet Commons.  I believe, as a libertarian and retired lawyer that the Common Law is binding on all and clearly forbids such behavior.  The Act includes infamous Section 230 which supposedly “protects” free speech while really giving the crony companies the excuse to violate free speech.

The language of the statute says that the service providers are not responsible for the content their users post…

…if they do not monitor or moderate that content, but merely act as a public utility transmitting same.  Then the law goes on to allow the companies to remove, without penalty, “pornography or other objectionable materials.”

It’s the last phrase, “other objectionable materials” that the companies choose to act as if they are allowed  to ban people, opinions, facts, science and ideas.  However, to reach that irrational conclusion they must ignore the normal rules of statutory construction.

Clearly “other objectionable materials” must be read in the context of “pornography.”  Our jurisprudence distinguishes between pornography – which is not protected speech – and political and opinion speech and scientific discourse which is protected from government censorship.  That means that it is protected from government censorship even when apparently “private” agents of state power (in this case, Facebook) engage in the censorship.  Those companies are legally “creatures of the state” operating under the corporate franchise provided by the government with powers, such as limited liability, not available to corporations that truly are private actors.  The phrase “other objectionable materials” must be read to only include non-speech such as pornography.

The Big Media corporations are instruments of, and serve, entrenched deep state power and need to be held accountable.

They must be held to respect freedom of speech or all government support and funding, advantages and protection must be withdrawn from them immediately

Remember, the First Amendment does not create the right to freedom of speech.  It merely recognizes the pre-existing natural right and forbids Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, the States and all creatures of the state acting under color of law) from “abridging the freedom of speech.”

Just a few weeks ago I pointed that out to the Federal Communications Commission, as one of the first to comment in support of President Trump’s formal Petition to the FCC asking the agency to review Section 230 and refine its enforcement to stop the censorship.  My comments are posted at the FCC web site here:

Could that have provoked the FBV? Once I start to think that way, the chilling effect something like a FBV has (and is intended to have) on legitimate discourse is evident.

There is a bill pending before Congress that would change the operative words of Section 230 from “otherwise objectionable” to “otherwise unlawful” – a huge and very important difference.  You can support that change by signing the White House Petition, here: 

Do you think that my advocacy for free speech might have played a role in my banning?

Is sharing a considered opinion on a government forum punishable by FBV? Is that what the First Amendment means now? For the sake of our Republic, I sincerely hope not.

What to do next? Boycott Big Fascist Tech.  Use alternatives to it that do not censor.  I am moving my social media activities to — the blockchain-friendly, completely uncensored social media — my user name is RalphFucetolaJD.

There my advocacy, my social and family contacts and the exempt organizations and churches with which I work can find refuge and freedom of speech. See you there.

The Great Facebook Purge of 2020 has freed me from… Facebook!

About that here:

This article also posted here:

PS — The latest news:  the FCC has just announced it will take up the issue of enforcing Section 230.  Will that be too late for the election? Will it be too late for me and thousands of other Banned Unpersons?  We shall see…

Friday, September 25, 2020

Petitions to Protect Free Speech Online

      In addition to the Petition pending before the Federal Trade Commission (see my comments to that agency here: The Vitamin Consultancy is pleased to present this guest blog entry regarding the also-pending White House Petition.  rf...

Sign White House Petition here:


How to win back our Freedom in today’s Digital Battlefield

By John Hammell, President, International Advocates for Health Freedom 1-800-333-2553 Follow on Twitter: @IAHFUSA


ave you ever wondered why Twitter removes and/or restricts legal political content from Conservatives like President Trump or General Michael T. Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell with brazen impunity? Or why Google’s YouTube[1] and Square Space can swiftly de-platform any site like the American Frontline Doctors’ Summit[2] Press Conference that challenged the COVID-19 agenda despite having received over 2 million views? Or why Twitter[3], Facebook, Google[4], Apple and other internet computer service providers routinely win lawsuits[5] for 1st Amendment violations for censoring conservatives like Laura Loomer & Freedom Watch[6]?

All of these are examples of censorship. Censorship is a threat to free speech, and by extension, an existential threat to free and fair elections! The free-flow exchange of ideas is the bedrock of any thriving and free society. Hence the reason why our Founding Fathers acknowledged and enshrined that freedom of speech as our God-given unalienable right in the First Amendment.

Today our public town square is now Digital. But as General Michael T. Flynn astutely described in his Open Letter to America, we are in an information warfare and a battle for the soul of America where the “2% vocal minority control the 98% silent majority[7].” With less than 40 days before this historic Presidential Election, is there even enough time to win back our freedom? Are we now the SILENCED majority?

A brief history 

Back in 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to protect this nascent internet computer service industry.

Inside Section 230(c)(2), the Good Samaritan Clause granted immunity from liability unique only to interactive computer service providers who act in “good faith” when they censor content that THEY deem as “otherwise objectionable.” This liability is broad and unconditional and more recently has been used to censor lawful conservative political content and for distributing unlawful third-party content. An extensive review of legal cases reveals that these two words “otherwise objectionable” have been at the heart of BigTech’s enduring immunity protection at both State and Federal courts. (see the footnotes after the first paragraph of page 1) Also see footnoted article.[8]

That’s right, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and their PLATFORM ALLIES are legally SHREDDING the First Amendment rights guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT due to just those two words! They can legally consider anything they want to be “otherwise objectionable. And the argument of “publisher vs. platform” does not appear to negatively impact Big Tech’s immunity so that the Courts continue to garner wins for these companies.

In short, no other industry enjoys this immunity from limited liability. Not even its distinct cousin the newspaper or printed media. Who could have foreseen how businesses and government would embrace this technology and intertwine it in our daily way of life and how we communicate with each other or express ourselves?

The internet today is considered by many experts as a “new” public utility like the telephone or power grid was in the 20th century. In fact, these platforms function as the new DIGITAL Public Square when people dynamically exchange flow of ideas. That idea was foremost in the minds of the lawmakers when they crafted that statute. In theory, yes. In practice, the tolerance only goes as far as you share the vocal 2% minority liberal ideas or concepts.

And if you happen to disagree, be surprised by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms that digitally “rip out your tongue” and deny your right to free speech. On Twitter, it is called “Twitmo” and thousands of us are parolees. Repeat offenders get harsher sentences like restrictions, removal of followers, Ghost or Shadow Banned or Reply De-boosted, and the anti-person tactic of all, outright Suspension or being permanently banned! YouTube and Instagram also deploy their AI algorithms and hide content unless users use a string of certain key words in order to find content or else, they will disappear that content.

When these platforms act in concert, then you have tyranny of the minority and we become the SILENCED majority.

What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away

We have no chance in court unless we get CONGRESS to pass legislation that REFORMS section 230 of the CDA[9]  by removing those two words “Otherwise Objectionable[10]”. Of the three co-equal branches of government, only Congress has the authority to reform that complex statute.

There are several Senate bills attempting to amend Section 230:

·        Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced S. 3983 “Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritan Act” ;

·        Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) introduced S.4062 “Stopping Big Tech’s Censorship Act; and more recently,

·        Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Chairman of the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee introduced S. 4534 “Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act”.

After careful review, we noticed all three Senate bills contained language that appear to have heavy influence from Big Tech lobbyists.

As we speak, Sen. Hawley’s attempt to get his S. 3983 bill to reform 230 by unanimous consent was just blocked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Sen. Wyden was one of the sponsors of Section 230 and believes Section 230 immunity protects the (supposedly)  little guys like Antifa and BLM[11].  (I say “supposedly” because that’s the perception WE’RE supposed to have, but the REALITY is that they’re ASTROTURF (FAKE grass roots) with GIGANTIC corporate funding, that we’re not supposed to see![12]

H.R. 7808 Stop the Censorship Act of 2020

Last July 28, 2020, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) introduced HR 7808 (Stop the Censorship Act of 2020) that amends Section 230 and incorporates many of the DOJ (Department of Justice) recommendations for Section 230 Reform[13] last June 17, 2020[14].

But time is of the essence.


Since 2018, BigTech has been aware of the bi-partisan Congressional attempt to reform Section 230[15]. Proactively, they succeeded in codifying Section 230 language in the USMCA (US Mexico Canada) Trade Agreement, thereby creating a de facto global standard and ultimately protecting their immunity in the USA. And the initial draft of the US-Japan Trade Deal also contains Section 230 language and expands that immunity.

Section 230 is not a trade issue and does not belong in ANY trade agreements. Baking Section 230 language in treaties or trade agreements obstructs Congress from reforming Section 230 without jeopardizing trade agreements[16].

Fightback for FREEDOM

Upon final analysis, H.R. 7808 is the strongest bill to stop online censorship & protect our free and fair elections! But we all need to work together and help push this bill by combining the passage of this bill with this election cycle.

pass this bill has the most co-sponsors at (16).

Here is WHAT TO DO:

(1) Sign this Petition on the White House Petition Site, and urge EVERYONE YOU KNOW, everyone within your sphere of influence who SHARES your OUTRAGE at “Big Tech’s” effort to RIG our Election by using Algorithms to CENSOR, SHADOW BAN, BLOCK, and DESTROY our ability to communicate in this modern Town Square. 

We need to reach 100,000 signatures by October 18, 2020 in order for the White House to act on it within 60 days.

Stop Social Media Censorship and Protect FREE & FAIR elections!

Created September 18, 2020

Sign This Petition

We The People urge President Trump to support the passage of H.R. 7808 “Stop the Censorship Act of 2020[17]by encouraging a companion Senate bill that mirrors it, and signing to law once it passes because Censorship threatens FREE & FAIR Elections.

H.R. 7808 amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230) by granting immunity to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other Social Media platforms for the removal of UNLAWFUL MATERIAL instead of “otherwise objectionable,” and provides users with options to filter.

Section 230 is also NOT a trade issue and does not belong in any trade agreements. Baking Section 230 language in trade deals will hinder Congress’ ability to reform the law without jeopardizing the agreements.

2. It is very important that a Senator sponsors a companion Senate bill to H.R. 7808 that mirrors that language. Otherwise the bill will not change the CDA (Communications Decency Act) sufficiently for our side to be able to prevail in court! (any language that WATERS DOWN the removal of the words “otherwise objectionable” defeats our efforts which is why we can’t trust the existing Senate bills on this issue, we MUST get a Senate Companion bill that directly mirrors HR 7808.

Use the passage of H.R. 7808 as a way to get more co-sponsors for H.R. 7808 by alerting all candidates and embattled incumbents in tight 2020 races[18] to embrace this as a campaign issue by co-sponsoring it. 

Help us reach out to first time candidates in Battleground House and Senate races[19] to consider acknowledging the NEED for this bill during their campaigns and if they get elected, they will PLEDGE TO COSPONSOR the bill when it is reintroduced in the next Congress, possibly with a new bill number!

You can reach your Congressmen and Senators through the Capital Switchboard at 1-877 SOB- USOB (1-877-762-8762), but to talk to a live person call their District Office via a Member search on (If you get their machine, give your name, address, phone number, and tell them you expect a call back and you want the name of the staffer handling free speech issues! Also, it really helps to write an actual letter to them!

3. Listen either Live, or as archived podcast that I’ll be doing from 6pm-7pm Pacific on "Immunize Wizely" on Republic Broadcasting Network on Saturday, September 26, 2020. This show is hosted by Ingri Cassel of and has commercial breaks, so if you hear an ad when you tune in, please be patient! (If you can’t listen live, you can always listen to the archived audio file at any time! Please forward the link when you do and everyone within your sphere of influence to help! We need 100,000 Signatures on our petition by October 18th in order to get a formal response from Trump.

 4. Email me at if you can either put me on your radio show or podcast, or if you have a connection who can put me on their radio show or archive. Encourage more people to read this article in my archived newsletters at  (To subscribe to the IAHF list, please go to and use the sign up menu.) This article isn’t yet on that site but it will be the most recent one (at the top of the list) after I post it, and you will then be able to get a more precise url to give to people! If you know of any way to reach out to Dustin Nemos, or to Gary Prager of Prager U, I really need to reach them both before they get burned attempting lawsuits on this that they can’t win unless we first change the law! )

5. Get copies of this article out to everyone within your sphere of influence, email it to them and encourage them to sign our White House online petition and by taking action! Need to talk directly with me with a lead to help me get on a podcast or radio show? Call me at 1-800-333-2553 and leave a message for me to call back, I can’t always answer the phone.

6. Share this Article to any Republican in a tight race, especially in the Battle Ground States and local races, and urge them to pledge support for HR 7808 in the next Congress when it is reintroduced, possibly under a new bill number. Get this article to anyone running for Federal Office so they can become familiar with this issue and use it in their campaign! Urge them to pledge support for HR 7808 in the next Congress, (and if they get elected to the Senate, to sponsor a mirroring Companion bill to HR 7808. 

7. Support my Health Freedom work by buying sulfur and other detox products at  .I am disabled due to a serious injury, and drinking sulfur water three times a day really helps alleviate pain because all pain is some cell’s cry for oxygen! It also gives me energy needed to compensate for lost sleep caused by extreme pain and is much safer than caffeine which hammers our adrenal glands. If you appreciate my efforts to defend America, and want to just make a donation but not buy sulfur, please use this link

Remember…the most powerful weapon in the world is a Patriotic American! In this battle for the very soul of our Republic, will you stand up to be heard? Please forward this urgent message to everyone within your sphere of influence. America is literally dangling by a thread right now, but all is not lost if we use this freedom of speech issue to full advantage! Please ACT as if everything depended on YOU while praying as if everything depended on GOD! 

[8]  List of lawsuits we’ve lost in this article

[18] Contact me at for Current list of key Congressional Races we need to help or ask Steve Sargent at Digital Warriors at if you can’t reach me when you try, and if you can’t reach him, try me again, we’re all snowed but doing our best. Please also check my most recent newsletter at archived newsletters, the one on top is most recent: