"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    "Strange days, indeed, when America’s free press opposes free speech.

    'Free speech is killing us,' headlined a New York Times op-ed. Its author, New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz, argued that 'hate speech' leads to violence. Worse, he claims it can cause totalitarianism and even genocide.

    To avoid this fate, Marantz says we must rethink the First Amendment, which would include government and private companies striving to limit 'hate speech.' He agrees with a former American Civil Liberties Union official that one day in the not-so-distant future, legal 'protection of hate speech' will 'seem ridiculous in retrospect.'

    Some governments have already tried to outlaw “hate speech.” The United Kingdom, for example, criminalizes it. Nevertheless, violent anti-Semitic hate crimes are 13 times more likely to occur there than in the U.S. France also criminalizes anti-Semitic speech. And yet violent anti-Semitic hate crimes are four times more likely to occur in France than in the U.S.

    Even Human Rights Watch admits that 'a careful review of the experience of many other countries … has made clear that there is little connection in practice between draconian hate speech laws and the lessoning of ethnic and racial violence or tension.' By asserting that hate speech leads to mass violence, the left hopes to persuade Americans to relinquish their right to free speech. To make that more palatable, they insist that freedom of speech is merely a “value,” instead of a right. A value is something perishable: today we hold one value, but as the times change, we may hold another one. For instance, nearly all of America valued traditional marriage just 10 years ago, yet today many value same-sex marriage. Values are determined by public opinion—or, perhaps more precisely, by elites who inform, not to say manipulate, it.

   Rights, to the contrary, are non-negotiable; they belong to each individual by nature; societies are created for their protection. Speech is an inalienable right because it is the expression of thought, and our minds belong to us by nature. Rights, in other words, should determine the horizon of public opinion, not the other way around. But, Marantz tells us, freedom of speech is merely a value, and 'like all values, it must be held in tension with others, such as equality, safety, and robust democratic participation.'

    Note the other “values” identified here. This is no random wish list. It’s a short, cryptic summary of the genuine aims that many restriction advocates seek to achieve, of which “equality” is the key. Equality once meant that all human beings have the same rights as all other citizens—like voting rights, property rights, or speech rights. Today, by contrast, many restriction advocates understand equality to mean psychological equality or equal self-respect. Since the so-called dominant groups in American society already have enough self-respect or “white privilege,” the allegedly oppressed minority groups must be enabled to liberate themselves from oppression, find their identities, and assert their self-respect.

   Censorship advocates believe that free speech inhibits their liberation, both preventing these identities from coming into being, and harming them once they do. This is what it means to equate speech with violence. Society, in the censors’ view, must be devoted to preventing oppressed groups from feelings of contempt—even if such feelings arise from rational, fact-based criticism. Only the celebration of these groups can guarantee full inclusion. But this new speech paradigm is a one-way street: allegedly oppressed groups not only should be able to speak freely and critically about the dominant group; their liberation depends on such antagonistic speech.

    As censorship advocate Mari Matsuda has written, 'Expressions of hatred, revulsion, and anger directed against historically dominant-group members by subordinate-group members' should not be banned. In fact, “hate speech that comes from an experience of oppression” should be tolerated. Outlawing hate speech, in effect, creates more hate speech—just of the right kind.

    Of course, we should be civil with our fellow citizens. But taking away fundamental rights from free people cannot be done without consequences. Speech criminalization has not worked well in Europe: there, “hate speech” laws not only fail to achieve their explicit goals, but they have helped bring about the rule of petty, bureaucratic tyrants who chill speech, on the one hand, and have ushered in explosive, rebellious politics, on the other.

   Why would the Times lend its pages to the cause of suppressing free speech? Perhaps it feels that in a nation where the dominant group rejects its progressive views on topics like immigration, criminality, and the health of the family, the Times would be in a better position to rule public discussions and set society’s tone.

     The sad thing is that most Americans do not understand that the United States Constitution is the SUPREME law of our country. No law, order, decree, or ordinance, can be made by any person or public official that contradicts, attempts to supersede or prohibit the rights stated in the Constitution. In fact, most Americans do not know that it is illegal for any public official or someone claiming to be in a position of civil authority to violate our Constitutional rights. No president, governor, mayor, police officer, sheriff, federal agent, health official, judge, senator, congressman, or member of the United States military are allowed to deprive any of us of our rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States: 


     "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."


   The Constitution aka the Supreme Law of the United States of America declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." it also clearly states that we have the rights to freedom of speech (even if it offends liberals), and freedom of the press (not just the mainstream media). We also have the right to peaceably assemble and we have the right to protest our government (with or without bearing's our choice). And Americans are to NEVER be deprived of these rights by anyone regardless of the crisis or upheaval that our nation may be going through. The U.S. Supreme Court made that very clear:

     "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.”

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120–21 (1866).

  Furthermore, according to Cornell Law School, "The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."


    "The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] 


    The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggests that free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2]


    The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons.  In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3] 

    Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:

    'If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion. In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.'[4]

    Historically, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in dealing with this problem. At various times, the Court has either applied a broad or narrow application of the clause. 

    When the First Amendment was drafted, it applied only to the U.S. Congress. As such, state and local governments could abridge the Free Exercise Clause as long as there was no similar provision in the state constitution. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments (this act of using the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle through which the Court applies the Bill of Rights to the states is also known as the Incorporation Doctrine)."


[1] Michael McConnell, Religion and the Constitution (2002), pg. 105.
[2] Id. at 107.
[3] Richard Posner and Michael McConnell, "An Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom," 56 University of Chicago Law Review 1 (1989).
[4] McConnell, note 1 above, at 102.

      Yet, despite all of these guarantees of our Constitutional rights and freedoms (even in times of crisis) many state governors, lieutenant governors, mayors, police officers, sheriffs, federal agents, and government health officials imposed, or encouraged or mandated laws and ordinances (punishable by fines and arrests) prohibiting such things as churches, synagogues, and mosques freedom to assemble and worship freely due to the alleged Covid-19 "pandemic." Pastors were arrested in Florida and Louisiana. Church attenders were fined in Mississippi and Kentucky (some even if they went to a drive-in service and remained in their vehicle). Even the Republican (so-called conservative "Christian") Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama made these unlawful orders. However, she actually caved into the pressure to shutdown the state with her unconstitutional and business-killing orders by the Republican conservative Christian Lt. Governor Will Ainsworth. 

      Of course Democrat governors and mayors have been far worse during this Covid-19 deception. They are truly exaggerating and milking this crisis to push their communist/socialist/United Nations agenda. They want to radically reshape America and steal our freedoms through fear of a hyped virus. People like Governor Gretchen Whitmore of Michigan, Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, Governor Gavin Newsom of California, Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago (who talked about pledging allegiance to the New World Order) have threatened people with jail and have violated the Constitutional rights of their states and cities. (Something I address in much more detail in the New World Order and Covid-19 articles).

   Liberty Counsel now has federal lawsuits filed against five tyrannical governors who apparently don't believe the First Amendment right to religious liberty applies to the citizens of their states. Each of these cases, (against the governors of Maine, Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, and California), represent a fight for religious freedom that applies to all Americans.

    The actions of these governors reflect a troubling trend of elected leaders ignoring the U.S. Constitution and defying the rights of Christians and all people of faith. But just as politicians are rolling over "We the People," the people are beginning to push back against the illegal and unconstitutional orders of the tyrannical governors.

    Of Liberty Council's five current federal cases, the situations in California and Illinois represent some of the most egregious religious freedom violations this country has ever seen.

    In Illinois, as you may recall, state and local officials illegally ordered all churches to allow no more than 10 people to worship – no matter the size of the sanctuary. When our clients at Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries resisted those tyrannical orders and exercised their constitutional right to hold church, Illinois officials unleashed their bully tactics.

Private church parking lots were blocked by police, and neighbors for nine blocks around one of the churches had their cars towed and impounded, even though the church did not use street parking. When the church continued to meet, city officials threatened to take possession of and demolish the church buildings through a "Summary Abatement" notice.

    In Illinois, you can go to a recreational marijuana store or an abortion clinic to kill your baby, but if you go to church, the state might just bulldoze the building.

    In California, the governor restricted churches and even banned singing and chanting – an important facet of worship. When Californians refused to give up their worship and moved it into their own homes to escape the governor's illegal orders, government officials hatched a new scheme to restrict them.

    As of mid-July, all home-based small group Bible studies and private worship among friends and family are illegal for 80% of the California population. The same order that bans religious gatherings in private homes allows and even encourages the insane Marxist riots blocking highways and destroying city blocks.

    In California, you can stand shoulder to shoulder with Marxists singing about killing cops, but you cannot worship with friends in your own home.


     Nevertheless, it is important that we realize that the United States of America with her beautiful Constitution and free people have serious enemies both foreign and domestic. And we must once again regain the spirit of our Founding Fathers who said things like, "Give me liberty or give me death." That means in the face of invading blue helmets or the enemies in our own government institutions who have used fear tactics and false information from Deep State "experts" to deceive and manipulate governors, mayors, and most of the world. 


         We must rise up and elect a different kind of leadership. We must elect patriots who will defend their states from all enemies, foreign and domestic, even if that means picking up a rifle and meeting them at the state line. We must elect leaders who are ready to protect Alabama from even our own Federal government if they so choose to disregard the United States Constitution. And we are just one bad national election away from having the anti-Constitution, fear mongering, race-baiting socialists from seizing power in Washington DC.


    Alabamians can no longer afford to elect weak or fake conservatives who will cave into the pressure from these socialists, left-wing, United Nations globalists. We can no longer afford to elect leaders who are clueless about the Deep State/New World Order traitors that have infiltrated every government institution in the world. We have to elect people who understand the nature of the battle, who the enemies and traitors are, and what is coming in the days ahead. That is why I am running for Governor of Alabama. I have spent over three decades studying, researching, learning, and warning thousands about these enemies and their plans. Together, we must do whatever is necessary to KEEP ALABAMA FREE.




Freedom of Speech pic.png
Color of Law.png