2022 Campaign Statements on The First Amendment

CENSORSHIP

  • DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE GUIDING INTENT: THE PEOPLE FORMED SOVEREIGN STATES TO SECURE THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND THE SOVEREIGN STATES FORMED AN INDEPENDENT UNION TO ENSURE THE CONTINUATION OF THEIR STATE'S SOVEREIGNTY.
  • DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE GUIDING INTENT:  THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVES JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, THAT IS THROUGH VOTING.
  • CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH: THE FIRST AMENDMENT AFFIRMS AND SECURES THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, AND THE FREEDOM TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. OUR NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE CONSTITUTION ALSO PROTECTS THIS RIGHT.
  • CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS ON THE CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE VI SECTION 2 STATES THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS MADE PURSUANT THERETO ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
  • FACTS ON THE COMMUNICATION DECENCY ACT: UNDER SECTION 230 THE ACT GAVE LIABILITY PROTECTION TO TECH COMPANIES FOR ALLOWING THE FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND OPINIONS IN ORDER TO INCENTIVIZE INNOVATION. THE ACT ALSO GAVE TECH COMPANIES PROTECTION IN REMOVING CLEARLY OBSCENE CONTENT.

THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY IN DE FACTO PUBLIC SPACES IS ESSENTIAL

POLICY POSITION ON CENSORSHIP BY BIG TECH COMPANIES:  THE CENSORSHIP IS UNLAWFUL, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR SECTION 230 PROTECTIONS RESCINDED. ADDITIONALLY, THE CENSORSHIP NEEDS TO BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT TRULY IS, WHICH IS AN AIDING OF THE ASSAULT ON OUR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND FOUNDING PRINCIPLES ARTICULATED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; NAMELY FREEDOM. ADDITIONALLY, OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE NOT FORFEITED IN PRIVATE MATTERS. FINALLY, PRIVATE COMPANIES AND GOVERNMENT ARE APPARENTLY THE COORDINATED HANDS OF OPPRESSION.  EXAMPLE:  BIG TECH, I.E. SOCIAL MEDIA, HAS BEEN CENSORING MATERIAL THAT CONTRASTS THE PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITARIANISM AND THE ACCOMPANYING COUNTER MEASURES. BIG TECH HAS BEEN HELPING TO COVER UP THAT THE FORCED VACCINES ARE NEITHER SAFE NOR EFFECTIVE, AND HAVE BEEN CAUSING INJURY AND DEATH. THIS IS OPPRESSIVE AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED; AND CERTAINLY NOT UNDER THE PROTECTION OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT.

POLICY POSITION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY:  THE LOSS OF ELECTION INTEGRITY IS A TYPE OF CENSORSHIP BECAUSE IT CHILLS THE PEOPLE'S TRUST IN THEIR ABILITY TO VOICE THIER OPINION AT THE POLLS, I.E. VOTING.  EXAMPLE:  WE MUST REJECT THE "INSURRECTION" NARRATIVE AROUND JANUARY 6, 2021, WHICH THE POLITICIANS USED AS AN EXCUSE TO REMAIN SILENT ON ELECTION INTEGRITY BECAUSE OF A FEW HUNDRED PEOPLE.

Without condoning any unlawful, illegal, or violent act that may have taken place on January 6th, we must acknowledge that the people who went to the capitol on J6 were our people. People who want a government by Americans and for Americans! Our People want election integrity!  The same thing Democrats cried for following the 2016 election.

The relatively few people who allegedly acted criminally (most of which instances looked petty, particularly in comparison to Ashli Babbitt being shot dead by a Capitol Police Officer); these individuals still retain their constitutional Rights including the presumption of innocence, Right to due process, Right to a trial by jury, and the Right to be free from cruel, unusual (e.g. disproportionate), and extra-judicial punishments. [IF WE DO NOT INSURE THESE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR RIGHTS HONORED, POLITICAL IMPRISONMENT AND MISTREATMENT WILL BECOME THE NORM; THIS WILL CERTAINLY CHILL FREE SPEECH AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY.]

THERE MUST BE AUDITS OF THE 2020 PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTIONS, TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE'S CONFIDENCE IN OUR POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, TO PROTECT THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH... IMMEDIATELY!