The Global Rise in Authoritarianism with Jonathan W. Emord

Jonathan W. Emord is an AV rated attorney who has practiced constitutional and administrative law for 37 years. He has defeated the FDA eight times in federal court—more times than any other attorney in American history.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on April 11, 2022. This presentation is also available on Rumble and on Odysee. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in the Newsroom. A transcript of this presentation can be found below.

Here’s what WCH members, staff, and coalition partners are saying about Jonathan’s presentation:

“Thank you for your voice Mr Emord.” -Christof Plothe DO

“It’s a natural spiritual right to have autonomy. The fact that governments think this is not show indicates they have no understanding of spiritual laws at all, and indicates their complete disconnection from their own spiritual nature.” -Kim

“Liberty is our birth right. We shall overcome.” -Shabnam Palesa Mohamed (South Africa)

“Thank you so much Jonathan. Illuminating, as always.” -Meleni Aldridge

“Thank you so much for your presentation and great words.” -Dr. Kat Lindley

“Thank you Mr. Emord for your words! 🙏🏻” -Marco Albertazzi

“Thank you Mr. Emord for your informative lecture.” -Keren

“Power to the People!” -Shabnam Palesa Mohamed (South Africa)

“Excellent presentation, Jonathan!” -Michael

“Brilliant talk. Such a key aspect of this is the manipulation of people’s belief systems and identities. Many people speak words that are not their own.” -David Charalambous

“That’s correct! In Costa Rica we have just made a political party disappear in the last elections… we voted them out!” -Marco Albertazzi

Interest Of Justice to Everyone (3:01 PM)
Such a pleasure to listen to the wisdom of Mr. Emord! We have full faith things will be fixed by defending human rights in courts!!!!

Transcript

[00:00:00] [00:00:30] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Well, I think we’re ready for our first presenter. I may have to be a little short because I don’t have the signal open at the moment, but our first presenter, I believe now is attorney Jonathan Emord from the United States. He’s a constitutional lawyer whose impressive history and resume include the historical record. So with no further ado Jonathan, you’d be so kind as to grace us and enlighten us on the global rise of authoritarianism. [00:00:58] Jonathan Emord: Oh, yes. Thank you so much, Dr. Trozzi I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today. And it’s an honor. I thank you very much for the chance. [00:01:07] My topic is the global rise of authoritarianism and we have witnessed within the last few years during the fog of COVID and the trials and tribulations associated with this horrific disease, a manipulation by those in power to violate individual rights to achieve what they perceive to be the correct social ends, so that the individual liberty has been sacrificed in exchange for achievement of public health goals and more than that to advance without dissent the messages of various nations in the west and to even co-opt media to achieve a near universal message without dissent, in favor of vaccination, in favor of a political regime that is actually quite far to the left and is founded on essentially Hegelian conceptions of collectivism, rather than on Lockean principles of individual liberty. [00:02:16] Just take a look across the map. We can see all examples of authoritarianism in the west and they’re striking. So for example, in France, we see Emmanuel Macron using executive power to insist upon mandatory vaccination, to push for the adoption of the French Pass, to ensure that those who work are vaccinated, those who basically live are vaccinated and to ignore in large measure all of the adverse effects associated with vaccination consistent with the rest of the nations of the west. [00:02:55] It is the case that any serious discussion of the adverse events associated with vaccination or alternatives to vaccination are suppressed. And we see that in France. We see that in Italy. We see that in Germany and we see that in Australia and we see that a lso, even in Spain where there’s a little more tolerance perhaps and in Austria and elsewhere throughout Europe, we see the same pattern. [00:03:26] There are particularly noteworthy instances of the authoritarian movement. We not only see the use of police force against protesters who are dissenting from vaccination, but we’ve also seen extraordinarily draconian measures akin to what has happened with those people who are not vaccinated in the communist countries, in China, particularly. And that is mandatory lockdowns. [00:03:53] So for example, in Austria, for a time, people were confined to their homes if they were not vaccinated. We see a routine efforts to deny people access to even grocery stores or other institutions. So what does this mean when you take into account that there is a deprivation, not only of individual freedom of travel, rights to communicate information and opinion but also really to make basic life effecting decisions such as whether your own family, whether you will have a drug injected into you or not. Coercion is really the order of the day. [00:04:35] So while we see these things happening, we also see that the disease itself because of the Omicron variance has largely resulted in a reduction in hospitalizations and deaths throughout the world. There’ve been slight up ticks here and there, but by and large, we’ve moved from the pandemic stage into the endemic stage. This, not as a consequence of vaccination but as a consequence of the normal evolution of the disease. We find that in nations where there have been lockdowns, where there have been restrictions on travel, where people have been denied access to locations, where they have been forced to be masked and so forth, there’s been virtually no difference in the degree of spread of the pandemic. [00:05:28] Then in instances where individuals like in Florida, for example, in the United States were largely left to their own devices and largely allowed to choose which methods they wish to reduce transmission. We also see that despite the fact that there are many treatments for COVID and early treatments, which have been highly successful worldwide, that there has been a virtual stranglehold by the pharmaceutical industry in favor of keeping out of the marketplace information about treatments as well as government efforts to ensure maximization of vaccination, to the exclusion of treatments. So much so that physicians worldwide are complaining in the west of restraints. Uh, some more than others. For example, there are serious restraints in the United States on access to ivermectin, hydroxy chloroquine, and Paxlovid as well as monoclonal antibodies, both through restricting their availability by not emphasizing treatment, but also as a result of medical board action and other direct action by public health authorities against physicians who make these substances available. [00:06:50] This in the end portends a shift in the nature of power between the states in the west and the individual, such that the individual is losing sovereignty, is losing the ability to protect his or her own interests and rights, and the state is acquiring even greater control over the individual – controls that may have been previously limited to commerce in most of the west largely limited to commerce have now been breached to the point of really restricting personal activity. And now we have the ability even of a nanny state being able to prescribe what is and what is not fair in the marketplace of ideas and information. [00:07:38] So fundamentally this spells a change in the nature of our governance from democracies in Europe and a Republic in the United States, to more authoritarian rule, largely in the bureaucracy, the extension of power coming through the bureaucracy, creating bureaucratic oligarchies that increasingly view themselves not as nationalistic, but as global and as having an integrated role to play in assuring that populations abide by a centralized edict or command. While there are differences and there are dissenting governments around the world to certain aspects of this, there is quite a bit now of more harmony and uniform interest in controlling populations worldwide. [00:08:32] And so, for example when you take the instance of Justin Trudeau in Canada, who was condemned recently by members of parliament from Germany and from Croatia and from other parts of Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, where they have more recently experienced the bite of authoritarianism from communism, you nevertheless have the United States and the president of the United States not mentioning a negative word, not a single negative word about Justin Trudeau and his activities to clamp down on the freedoms of the Canadians. [00:09:11] There’s an extreme contrast here and it tends to show us the extremes when we look at the neighbors, the United States and Canada. For example, in the United States, and I’ll explain the ultimate root principle that distinguishes United States from Canada on rights, but in the United States, when the president of the United States acted unilaterally to impose a employer mandate through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Supreme Court of the United States struck that down. Unfortunately, in inconsistent decisions in the federal courts in the United States, the Supreme Court, and also the lower federal courts have upheld the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services mandate that public health employees be vaccinated as well as the requirement that public employees be vaccinated. [00:10:08] This is inconsistent in logic and in law, and really begs an ultimate question that may have to be answered or will have to be answered down the line. And that is, how is it that when there is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as a result of the president acting unilaterally without a legislative foundation, when he imposes an unemployed mandate, how is it that that differs fundamentally from when the president acts against healthcare workers who are publicly employed or on the CMS payroll and public employees, when likewise, the president has acted without a statutory foundation, again with just raw executive power, how then is that not a violation of the separation of powers, when in the United States, under Article One of The Constitution, all laws must originate in the Congress. [00:11:09] Now if we look more fundamentally, we see that at least in this instance there was some movement to protect rights, but through the use of the separation of powers, the courts in the United States have not addressed the ultimate question which is, does a vaccine mandate violate individual rights? On that, we need to recur to more fundamental law and there, I would say, when you look at the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, you come back with a full understanding of those, in an understanding that we in the United States founded our country on the notion of pre political rights, which are variously, termed Natural Rights. [00:11:58] And that is to say that, as the declaration puts it in the second paragraph, ‘all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Well, what are the se rights conveyed by the creator? [00:12:19] They’re pre political. They exist and afford individuals sovereignty over their rights and we are further told in the declaration, the governments are instituted among men for the purpose of protecting the rights of the governed. That then is the very purpose of creating government. We’re further told, in The Declaration that ‘just governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed’. [00:12:47] These bedrock principles then define a nation that is based on the sovereignty of the individual. Not on collectivism, not on the notion that government is the source of rights and not on the notion that rights are alienable by government. But rather that rights are unalienable, pre political, exist with us from birth and are the proof and the foundation of our sovereignty as individuals. [00:13:18] Now when we proceed from that, it becomes impossible to maintain the argument that the state may take over the autonomy of a person and force them to be injected or otherwise abused, so as to achieve a public end. Again, there are no collective rights in a system of this sort, so there is no foundation for the argument that individual rights may be violated. The Bill of Rights to the United States constitution compliments this very notion in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence, that individuals are sovereign and that is because The Bill of Rights affords individuals rights against the state. [00:14:02] These are not affirmative rights of government. These are negative in the sense that government shall not, so for example the first amendment of the constitution prohibits the government of the United States from violating individual rights to speech and press. And the second amendment, as to private gun ownership for example and so on. [00:14:28] We have rights to a trial by jury, we have rights against a violation of due process, we have rights against the use of general warrants and so forth. Now these have not been honored in many respects, largely due to the development of the progressive era administrative state, which has through the food and drug administration and the federal trade commission and other agencies over 200 of them, have routinely violated the rights of individuals and have been able to get away with it due to a lessening in the degree of constitutional scrutiny afforded the actions of those agencies. [00:15:07] Now the comparison to Canada. So in Canada, like in Europe at large, rights are not deemed pre political, in the sense of the legal status of those rights. Rights are deemed to be subject to limitation by parliament, by government, in the event of an emergency, such as the emergencies act in Canada, such as the Charter of Rights in Canada, which in itself includes provisions that allow for the deprivation of right at the ruling of parliament, so the parliaments, typically our most powerful, parliaments have delegated authority over the determination of the existence of emergencies to the executives in Europe, efforts of comparable nature have happened in the United States, but are of dubious constitutionality here because again of the nature of the difference of rights. [00:16:06] In the two minutes that I believe I have left, before my time is up, I would like to mention that we, as a people of the world are vested, I believe, with rights at birth. Those rights include over our autonomy and individual integrity, the state may not violate our rights of autonomy and integrity and our persons. [00:16:32] We have a right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. We have a right to determine our own destiny. We have a right to, I believe a free market we have a right to take over property, such that we have rights to property. And as James Madison put it in his essay on property, we have a property in our thoughts and in our words, as well as in those things that we mix with labor to produce or innovate or create things. [00:17:02] And when the state becomes confiscatory, when it assumes control over the idea and information marketplace, when it assumes control over your body, such that it may dictate what life you may live based on the kinds of drugs that you must receive, or based on the relationships that you can have, or whether you may assemble or whether you may protest or whether you may worship in a location, these are tyrannical. And these are the greatest threat. If there is an existential threat in the world, it is not climate change, I would argue, it is rather authoritarianism. It is the deprivation of liberty. Our existential threat in the world is that very thing right now. And so what is what must be done? [00:17:55] We as a people have to fight against these instances of abuse of our rights, or we will lose them. Once lost, they’re very difficult to re acquire, as we know from the history of the world. Once nations fall into the abyss of socialism and communism, it is frequently very difficult for them to get out. [00:18:16] We need only look to instances in the United States of the administrative state in Europe of the actual acquisition of property by the state and of control over the individual by the state, to see just how profound those losses can be. The hope for the world lies in the, I think the fact that, the quest towards freedom is a natural quest for all people. [00:18:44] None of us wishes to be a slave. We don’t wish to be a slave to another person. We don’t wish to be a slave to the state. We want to have control over our lives. We don’t want an individual in government to be telling us how we must live. And we want to be able to raise our own children and live under our own jurisdiction, to the full extent necessary to achieve our life’s ambitions, to pursue that happiness. [00:19:15] There is a definition for liberty, which I’m going to give you from Thomas Jefferson. I think it is the ideal definition of liberty, and it is the thing that just governments should protect and any violation of it should raise alarm bells. And it goes this way. Thomas Jefferson wrote to the attorney, Isaac Tiffany on April 4th, 1819, the following definition of liberty, and it is really the heart and soul of American Liberty even when it’s not honored. It is, and I’ll quote; ‘Of liberty, in the whole plenitude of its extent is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual’. [00:20:23] And those precious, brilliant words of Thomas Jefferson, I think aptly describe what that liberty is that we all over the world want. [00:20:34] We want it for ourselves, we want it for our families and not ever be denied, particularly on the basis of some excuse that arises from an alleged emergency, such as the presence of a virus or the presence of a political circumstance of one kind or another. In the United States, there is no emergency exception to The Bill of R ights. There is no emergency exception to allow the government to take away rights, allegedly for the purpose of protecting us from ourselves. We are best left to protect ourselves and left fully informed, we can do that. The government today around the world denies us the information we need, as well as the freedom we have to have, in order to overcome this – and any other profound difficulty or problem. [00:21:31] And so I leave that with you and thank you for the opportunity to speak, [00:21:35] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Jonathan, thank you so much for sharing that and those insights. I’m sure others join me in each of our own unique ways and from our different cultures, praying, supporting meditating upon really great blessings for you and your work. We hope that we get to see more of you. We have a legal activism committee on which I sit as one of the scientific supporters, and we would similarly be enchanted both to have your support and to support you in whatever way we can. [00:22:04] I find the most fascinating that when you distill it all down, you come to the golden rule, you know, and that’s across all our cultures. So I’d be very grateful if my partner Karen could, not my personal partner, my partner within the steering committee, I don’t want to upset others. We’ve got some questions for you. I’m sure if there’s more then we’ll be able to get to right away, but please Karen. [00:22:25] Karen McKenna: The first question comes from Dr. Catlin Lee, she’s saying Mr. Emord as a physician, I hear a lot about the Nuremberg Code, but how does that apply to our laws and constitution? And she saying she’s a practicing physician in Texas. So she’s asking from a USA perspective. [00:22:41] Jonathan Emord: Well, there are references made to the Nuremberg Code and regulations inside the United States and I suspect elsewhere in the world, but fundamentally it’s not the Nuremberg Code, but the constitution of the United States that protects our rights. And when you’re talking about the United States and likewise in the rest of Europe, it is either your charters of rights or it is your statutory law, but sadly really, if there is no recognition of pre political rights of unalienable rights, it becomes increasingly difficult as a matter of law to prevail against the state, when the state argues that facts and circumstances justify an act of parliament or emergency measure by an executive. But I believe that the United States can join, if it were a leader in this area, could join in rather than blocking the dissemination of information and opinion and rather than standing back and not supporting individual rights all over the world, if it were instead a leader and were to open the channels of information to everyone in the world and defend the rights of individuals and condemn prime minister Trudeau for his authoritarianism and his tyranny, for example, then we could set an example that we should set and put our, might behind it and tell the west, the rest of the west, that if you wish to be in the brotherhood of nations with the United States, you should be respecting and defending the rights of your people. [00:24:26] So it’s a hard call because in the end when bad people are in office, good law is meaningless. So we need good people in elective office. [00:24:38] Karen McKenna: Yeah, thank you for sure. There’s a question from our newsroom. Mike Austin asked, ‘What part can common law or law of the land, natural law play in this situation and how can the general public they made aware of it?’ [00:24:53] Jonathan Emord: Well, Natural Law is really, as John Locke understood it to be, the state of us, when we are in a pre political condition and the degree to which, when we enter society, we are forced to accept limitations, are ones with regard to the extent of our rights only limited by the extent of others’ rights, such that we’re no longer capable of taking another’s property with a club, we cannot use a club because the other person has a right of self-defense, furthermore, they have a right to their own property. So, these natural rights define freedom to its maximum, really. And that should be the goal because the history of the world tells us that when people are free, they’re most productive and they’re also best able to innovate and improve the standard of living, not only of themselves, but of others. [00:25:54] And that redounds to our benefit across the board in every way. And conversely, the history of the world tells us that when natural rights are deprived, such as in North Korea or in China or in Russia, people are miserable because they’re slaves and slavery has never been popular with a slave, despite what Hegel said about slavery, he was an advocate of slavery. Collectivist like slavery, they consider that to be evidence that a superior race or population is dominating an inferior race or population, and they argue as did John C. Calhoun in the antebellum south, that slavery is a moral good because it enables an inferior culture to improve its standing and its understanding by being related to a superior culture, and serving that culture. This was barbarism, this is in humanity and it violates fundamentally the rights of people, and we should justly stand against it. And we should justly defend natural rights against violation from the state wherever we see it. [00:27:07] Karen McKenna: Yeah, definitely. Thank you very much for that. [00:27:09] We’ve got quite a few questions here. So the next one is from Dr. Christof Plothe. He’s saying thank you for your voice and he’s also saying ‘Vaccine producers are exempt from liability, but what if the publication of the Pfizer trial shows clear signs of fraud? As they have sponsored the vaccines, can this lead to criminal charges with compensation? Excellent question. [00:27:30] Yes. I think that that’s the way to look at it and I think that there’s hope there because, if exemptions were predicated upon the information that was underlying, was available publicly and not available to the legislatures, a vast amount of information showing adverse effects and injuries, then that would have necessarily been a material factor that was deprived of them and indeed it was an evidence of a fraud, right. So to the extent it can be proven that the drug companies withheld information from government sources and withheld information from say the Congress of the United States or parliaments around the world, that would be to me, strong evidence that there was fraud afoot, and I think it should be criminally investigated, but it also justifies a reconsideration of these laws, both by the legislative branches and by the courts as to whether someone in a category, where they were injured, but that information concerning that injury was then available to the pharmaceutical companies, but not given to Congress or the other decision-makers in government, why then should the exemption be said to reach those instances? So it’s a good question. And it should be put before a court. [00:28:55] Thank you for that. Dr. Tess Lawrie has a question for you. She’s saying she’s recently learned that the World Health Organization international health regulations may override and supersede the US Constitution and the amendments are to be agreed upon in May 2022, and they will hand over even more power to the World Health Organization. Are you aware of any actions to prevent these amendments being agreed on behalf of the US citizens? And then a secondary question, do you know who the individuals are that have the power to agree them on behalf of the citizens? [00:29:27] Jonathan Emord: So the treaty making power is a power that is most peculiar under the United States Constitution and it has been alleged variously by scholars that when the treaty making power is used, the president could effectively violate individual rights. For example, he could commit the United States to a global treaty of this sort and accept a international standard in lieu of standards that are applicable under American law. [00:29:57] While this is certainly the case in the European union with the European health agencies, European food safety administration agency, for member states, this is not the case in the United States, at least from an arguable constitutional position, which is that the treaty making power cannot amend the Constitution of the United States or violate the Bill of Rights. [00:30:24] There will be however, first moves by this administration, the Biden administration to achieve that end, by not only in their history, they have done end- runs around constitutional liberties through executive orders. For example, orders to eliminate border protection in the Southern border and as I mentioned, these mandates vaccine mandates and masking mandates, but they will also try to achieve the same ends, that is again, a government control over individual freedom of choice through the world health organization and through other international bodies and to do that allegedly in pursuance of the treaty making power. [00:31:08] But those things I suspect will be challenged. I know they will, if it is undertaken by the administration and causes individuals or companies to be forced to lose property or rights, it will be challenged. And I’m not confident at all that they will win. They have a poor track record on these fundamental shifts in power and a majority of the justice of the Supreme Court are in agreement with the construction of the constitution that I’ve given you, which is to defend individual rights against authoritarian measures through the executive branch. [00:31:44] Karen McKenna: Thank you so much. This is such an important conversation. I know I’m certainly learning a lot here. We’ve got a question from James Roguski, could you please comment on the difference between laws that are enacted and are referred to as legal, but are actually unconstitutional, due to the fact that they have not faced a challenge in the courts? [00:32:02] Once the laws passed by Congress, it is legal. There are two kinds of laws in the United States, essentially, well, we could say more, but the primary laws that exist in the United States are the civil and criminal laws, which are adopted by statute and the so-called civil laws, which are adopted by regulation. [00:32:27] Regulation comes from independent agencies that do not have elected individuals at the head of them. They are unelected and the regulatory state is really at root unconstitutional. It has survived, constitutional challenge, but it is wholly inconsistent with the constitution of the United States. [00:32:49] Laws have facial validity until they are challenged. And then the question arises, is the law constitutional. Under the constitution, there is a thing called federal judicial review, which arises from Marbury versus Madison, a primary case in the early 1800s, that gave the court the power to fulfill what was Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists wish for the court, that is the power to review legislation passed by Congress to determine its constitutionality. [00:33:25] When a law is passed, it has legal force and effect, but it is essentially until it is challenged, vulnerable and once challenged, a court, ultimately the Supreme court will determine whether it is legal or not, the Supreme court doesn’t presume to be infallible, in fact, justice Potter Stewart famously said, we are not final because we’re infallible, we are infallible because we are final. [00:33:53] Thank you so much for that. Okay. We’ve got a few more and we’re just learning, learning as we go along. what is your view on how we fight for our rights effectively without a legal system that does not appear keen to uphold these rights and our liberty? This is from Melanie in Aldridge. [00:34:10] Jonathan Emord: So the best way to fight for your rights is to be a member of an organization that is willing to put a number of people together to have a political impact on institutions that can affect your rights. So we see that with protests throughout Europe, we see that with Alliance for Natural Health International Alliance for Natural Health USA and numerous other organizations and groups, this group included, so that when you put people together and they recognize in the first instance that their rights are being violated and then they commit to action and then they act in ways that are lawful to impress upon those in government, their angst and dissatisfaction, that is the beginning of a movement then to correct the problems. We then advance beyond that. We change the composition of those who are in the government, in elected positions and in the parliaments and in the legislatures. [00:35:06] And we put people in who are reflective of our opinions and we advocate there a nomination election. We use the courts. These organizations can help finance efforts to sue the government in the courts and argue for rights. And while it may in one instance be ineffectual because it is first brought, there are numerous instances where repeat action against the government on specific legal issues, ultimately causes judicial action, which then limits or eliminates the rights violation. [00:35:40] And in short, we cannot be a silent majority. We have to be a vocal majority. We have to translate our thoughts into actions, and we have to insist relentlessly on defense of our liberties. And while I do not contemplate the need for revolution, certainly in the declaration of independence, our founding fathers in the United States understood there to be a right to revolution when they said in the declaration that if that the law is not respected, that is to say, if our rights are, are continuously violated, despite all efforts short of revolution, then in the end, if we’re going to be slaves, we have one option, which is to revolt. So in the end, we have to respect that we really are sovereigns and all power, regardless of whether the state recognizes it, is in the people. [00:36:40] And if we believe in our rights, we should be willing to fight for them and if we’re willing to fight for them and die for them, then we might be taken seriously. [00:36:52] Karen McKenna: That’s a great comment about, we need to be the vocal majority. Perfect. I think we could probably be asking you questions all day, but we’re going to finish with this last one. And that’s just from Emma and it’s; ‘What is being done in the US to restore the rights under the constitution?’ [00:37:08] Quite a bit. There is general revulsion over the Biden administration, not just in Europe, but of course at home and you would say, well, how is it that a majority of Americans could vote that buffoon into office? And the answer is, many people were deceived actually, because they were not told that Joe Biden would be an advocate of socialism and would advocate violating their rights and would force them to be vaccinated and all of this was not explained to them. So when they voted for Joe Biden, they voted for someone on the wish and the hope that he would be actually a moderate. And so what they got was a socialist well, surprise, surprise. And then they also got a man who is dead set on violating their rights, taking away their freedoms, forcing them to be vaccinated – mandates are extraordinarily unpopular here. [00:38:00] So the midterm elections are coming up in 2022, congressional elections House and Senate and we believe very strongly based on the polling data, that the House of Representatives is going to flip from Democrat control to Republican control. The Senate, likewise may well flip to strong Republican control too, with number of members, but the House is going to have a whole bunch of probably Republican members and these new members who are coming in are reflective of this desire for defensive individual liberty that I’m talking about. [00:38:35] And so, you will see an example in 2022 come November just around the corner, the world will see an example of what people, whose rights have been violated in a free country that has a constitution and respects unalienable rights, what happens. Are we going to embrace socialism and a headlong rush to become the new Venezuela? [00:39:02] Or are we going to reject it and reassert individual sovereignty and individual liberty. And I think we are going to reject it and assert individual Liberty and individual sovereignty again. And I have every reason to believe that. And I speak around the country in the United States and I get very strong reactions in favor of these opinions from audiences that are not just, comprised of Republicans. So I think we are going to see it happen. [00:39:30] Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much. That’s a very profound words. [00:39:34] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Thank you so much, Jonathan. Again, I hope we see lots more of you. You’ve reminded us of why we named our legal committee Law and Activism because of the important symbiotic relation between a knowledge of the law and doing something to ensure that it is our reality. [00:39:51] So, can’t thank you enough. We’d love to keep you here and ask you questions all day, so you have to come back. [00:39:56] Jonathan Emord: Well, thank you. I’d be glad to, and it’s an honor again. Thank you so much. [00:40:00] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Thank you, Jonathan. [00:40:01]  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.