Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
Last week, Tucker Carlson aired an interview with Mike Benz a man who has studied the creation of government operations for decades. Mr. Benz, is a former State Department official with responsibilities in formulating and negotiating US foreign policy on international communications and information technology matters which have been meant to sway public thinking through a variety of techniques including censorship.
Here in Georgia we are facing attacks just as serious and just as speedy, one of which is House Bill 986 sponsored by Brad Thomas and Todd Jones et al. We’ll come back to the nature of these two gentlemen in a moment.
Lets recall what the first amendment actually says:
Some would say that States may pass any law they deem appropriate. However, he U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.
HB 986 seeks to make certain types of “speech” a crime. We can go into the specifics of what a meme might be, whether it is offered in jest or with certainty. But speech includes all forms of communication, spoken or written. By definition then, Free Speech must also include all forms.
Mike Benz, in his session with Tucker, describes circumstances very much like what is being proposed in Georgia’s legislature, making certain forms and/or content of speech a crime.
So why are certain house members sponsoring a bill that proposes law that would be “repugnant” to the U.S. Constitution? We don’t know but they shouldn’t be doing so.
In his discussion with Tucker, Benz describes the steps the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and others have taken to insert monitoring, and censoring operations across many platforms on the internet today.
The full interview may be views below:
Are they trying to do the same thing in Georgia using our legislature? Is it because they are afraid of the truthful information which may be brought out by the work of the hundreds or thousands of activists now in Georgia who have become involved because of concerns from elections to healthcare to mental health?
Just a few days ago a similar bill sponsored by John Albers in the Senate met with such strong public outcry that is was quickly rebuffed as Senators received broad, direct, negative feedback from their constituents.
HB 986 is sponsored by Brad Thomas, Todd Jones et al.
Public opinion and trust on Brad Thomas took a significant hit according to Cherokee conservatives when he chose to try to debate Sen.Colton Moore, Mallory Staples and Rep. Charlise Byrd as they promoted a special session to look into the actions of DA Fani Willis.
Todd Jones is known for proposing HB 1013 which in its initial form called on Georgia to use World Health Organization (WHO) standards for certain health definitions. Since discoveries surrounding the origins of COVID, along with the vaccines and boosters the Who espoused, it is now seen as international meddling in Georgia affairs.
Jones has also been recognized as the Chairman of Talitrix, a company whose contract was recently cancelled by Fulton County when it was reported that certain funds were allocated to Talitrix without proper County authorization and that Sheriff Labat (as well as other Georgia Sheriffs) have received substantial monies from organizations apparently funded by Talitrix and in some cases Talitrix associates. Some other publications have labelled these moneies “pay to play” payments potentially meant to steer forthcoming decisions which could benefit Talitrix.
Earlier this year Jones sponsored HB 520, a bill widely opposed by the public. Numerous concerns were cited, one of which questioned why two anonymous affidavits would be sufficient to allow a person to be committed for mental evaluation (and perhaps treatment) against their will. Other concerns included how such a bill could be considered absent a pre-established definition of "Serious Mental Illness."
These reps and others like them will want to debate the details of HB 986 and its mechanisms which would allow free speech to be deemed a crime.
The question is not in the details in this case, it is in the U.S. Constitution: the supreme law of the land and the standard by which all laws must be measured. No definition which abridges the right of free speech can stand against the U.S. Constitution, nor should it.
Why don’t these guys know this? What if they do know it and are proceeding forward nonetheless, hoping you don’t know the Constitution and that you don't know the concept of supreme law of the land?
Perhaps they hope simply to sneak this one by the same way similar things were done in Europe.
To fully understand the similarities between this proposed bill and what Mr. Benz has uncovered and studied, we recommend you listen to the entire interview:
