THE STATE OF FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “The Intersection of National Sovereignty and Free Speech”. I should state now that we are going to spend a fair amount of time on points of contextualisation, so that we are able to adequately adjudicate the related issues in the status quo. And to begin with, we ought to take stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US. Now, first and foremost, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the fundamental rights of persons to express themselves, to gather with other people, and to protest their government, among other rights. The text of the First Amendment itself is quite short but emphatic; it states that (quote): “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.”

Now, since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, this short paragraph has acted as the basis of the right to free speech in the US. People across the US have sacrificed, litigated, legislated, and organised to ensure that the rights conferred by this amendment are upheld. In light of this, here is what the overall jurisprudence and progressively litigated precedent concerning the First Amendment looks like today:

To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits government agencies from censoring, discriminating against, or applying rules inconsistently to private speech based on its viewpoint. This principle is called “viewpoint neutrality,” and it means that local and federal government agencies can NOT allow expression on a given subject from Viewpoint A – but not from Viewpoint B. For example, the government can NOT approve a permit for an pro-abortion rally, while blocking a permit for an anti-abortion rally. Not only this, but viewpoint neutrality is not even limited to political issues. For example, panhandling – or asking passersby for money in public places – is actually also constitutionally protected under viewpoint neutrality. And the idea is that governments cannot ban people from asking for money for themselves in public places, while at the same time allowing people to ask for money for something like the Girl Scouts or political campaigns.

Secondly, the First Amendment protects a person’s right to express him/herself and to testify before, petition, and protest the many branches and agencies of the local and federal government. If, for example, a person in the US wants to picket his/her local police station to protest an issue of misconduct, or wants to protest a law that council members passed, the First Amendment protects the right to do so. Furthermore, the First Amendment also prohibits all local government agencies, including public schools, from discriminating against speech based on its viewpoint. Which is why it was jarring that a Massachusetts middle school suspended a student for wearing a “There are only two genders” t-shirt – because this is protected expression.

And Liam Morrison actually asked a crucial question, and it is unfortunate the courts in the US might have missed it or deliberately ignored it, and this is the point on what is a protected class, and why are their feelings more important than his rights. Now, this question that he asks is incredibly important because it exposes the fact that in undermining first amendment protections, the federal government and activist judges and courts are arbitrarily creating a “protected class” of beings not based on objective necessity or a decent legal argument, but rather based on their feelings?! This is UNACCEPTABLE!

DISHONEST AND HATEFUL SPEECH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Then still taking stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, here is where this amendment and the progressive precedent surrounding it got more deliberate in its protections of not just free speech, but ABSOLUTE free speech. Irrespective of whether speech is a lie, it ought not to be limited! Make no mistake: lies are a problem. In fact, one can persuasively argue that lies are one of the biggest problems in society, especially when looking at the deception that came during the COVID era, or the climate change hoax, or feminism and its insistence in vilifying men, and so many phenomena in society. I’d even go a step further to state that few behaviours are as corrosive to a nation’s social fabric or as foundational to societal divisions as lies. And this is primarily because lies severely hobble the ability to communicate effectively, the capacity to understand reality, and attempts at securing social and moral progress. HOWEVER, in recognising the gravity of the ramifications emanating from lies, a number of individuals, as a result, conclude that using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is justified – you’d even recall the Welsh government’s 2024  decision to criminalise lies from parliament members.

However, using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is a dangerous idea, and one that is contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence. More specifically, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends.

This principle was expressed beautifully by Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1972 Supreme Court case of the Police Department of Chicago v Mosley, which questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance banning non-union picketing outside of a school building. In the majority opinion, Justice Marshall wrote that (quote): “the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” So, in observing the precedent that came from this decision, this therefore tells us that the First Amendment almost universally prohibits content-based regulations of speech. In other words, because content-based regulations of speech target the substance of speech and are easily used to suppress disfavoured ideas, content-based laws or regulations are presumed unconstitutional, and the government must meet a very heavy burden to justify them.

Now, this heavy burden imposed on the government is understood as strict scrutiny — and is supposed to be the highest standard in First Amendment law, and it essentially requires the government to prove that the content-based regulation it wants to implement “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,” as outlined in the case of Reed v Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. The explanation of this burden is that: interests are “compelling,” when they are regarding “regulation vital to the protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity, and respect for fundamental rights.” And the key here is that any regulations must not only advance a “compelling” interest, but must also not restrict people’s ability to speak freely (and dishonestly) beyond what is necessary to further that interest pursued by the government. BUT THEN, there was the case of United States v Robert J. Stevens, which offered an important challenge to this thinking.

Essentially, based on the issues that were just outlined in the excerpt we watched, in the case of the United States v Robert J. Stevens, the Court emphatically rejected as “startling and dangerous” the idea of a “free-floating test for First Amendment coverage” that requires speech to survive an ad hoc balancing of its costs and benefits by the government – because, as we stated, this was a burden on the government. As such, the development in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case is that: The “First Amendment itself reflects a judgement by the American people that the benefits of the restrictions imposed on the government through the first amendment outweigh the costs”. And so, from the precedent established in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case, it primarily means that American citizens were the ones who reserved judgement on the cost of restrictions to free speech, and not the government – which is a triumph and testament of the protectionist nature of the first amendment.

Then finally, on the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, it is worth noting that First Amendment protections also extend to speech that might be deemed as hateful. And, honestly, in a world where “hate speech” is either arbitrarily defined OR is a highly weaponised and politicised definition, I would argue that speech that is supposedly hateful is especially crucial to protect if any meaningful institutionalisation of free speech is to be claimed.

So, all that we’ve just discussed is the broad contextualisation of today’s discussion, and it will factor into how we adjudicate cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech. And to start us off, let’s address the Jimmy Kimmel free speech debate, because many are building on that occurrence to claim that the Trump administration is violating the first amendment, especially in light of the recent visa suspension announcement – and in addressing the cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech, we get to understand where the first amendment also ceases to protect speech.

ADDRESSING THE JIMMY KIMMEL FREE SPEECH DEBATE

So, regarding the Jimmy Kimmel case, what essentially transpired is that after the assasination of Charlie Kirk, late night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended following the concerning remarks he made about the assassination, and claims about president Trump’s supporters trying to capitalise on the assasination for political gain. For the most part, this was an incredibly important and interesting niche in free speech discourse, and I think it had a profound impact in how Americans view comedians (who function as political commentators for the left). However, there does also appear to be a gap in an understanding of the responsibilities and powers of media broadcasters, in light of the protections of free speech. But, before we proceed, here is how Jimmy Kimmel (and frankly a lot of people on the left) viewed his remarks:

So, yes, in the aftermath of the suspension, Jimmy Kimmel painted his suspension as being based on the malicious mischaracterisation of his words; and even told his audience that he was “silenced” by Trump (because apparently Trump cannot take a joke) and even warned about comedians being censored – and yet he did say that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is a product of MAGA indoctrination, and that Trump supporters were trying to capitalise on the assassination for political gain – and so, that was just a weird attempt at averting direct accountability for the distasteful remarks he made, and somehow try to make Trump the focus of the discussion.

Nevertheless, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, Jimmy Kimmel is entitled to say what he wants, however horrendous and distasteful the remarks; and the Trump administration is also mandated by the First Amendment NOT to censor Jimmy Kimmel, even if his speech is deemed a lie or paints president Trump poorly.

WAS JIMMY KIMMEL CENSORED, & DOES THIS AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Therefore, we then have to ask ourselves this question: In being suspended following the remarks he made about the Charlie Kirk assassination, was Jimmy Kimmel censored and does this amount to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration?

The first response to this is that the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel was not based on efforts at demanding the censorship of videos that paint President Trump in a bad light – seeing that Trump himself makes jokes about Trump. BUT, even if it was about censoring videos that paint Trump in a bad light (which it was not), Jimmy Kimmel has the backing of US law to protect his free speech, meaning that he has every right and opportunity to hold Trump accountable if he thinks his speech was censored. For instance, in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court explained that “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the Court declared that with few exceptions, “the First Amendment means [that] the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” And in the second case, which is the case of United States v Alvarez (in 2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that even “false statements” may not be censored, writing that “some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views…”.

And so, free speech and the freedom to criticise policies or even portray the president in a less pleasing light are very well protected in the US constitution and free speech jurisprudence! Ergo, president Trump is not running some comedian censorship industrial complex, that is enabled by the absence of laws that protect free speech. In fact, Trump himself has proven to understand and respect the ambits of the first amendment, especially in light of what powers are available to him. For instance, you’d recall that in late 2024, president Trump sued CBS News for $10 billion for “deceptively doctoring” Kamala Harris’ 60-Minutes interview. And the harm that was argued by Trump was that CBS engaged in election interference to try to help Kamala Harris; to which Paramount (the parent company of CBS) agreed to pay $16 million to Trump’s future library or other cause. Crucial to note here is that Trump did not launch a welfare campaign to try to get CBS off air, or orchestrate the censorship of the CBS anchor who conducted the interview: he simply used the same first amendment law to hold the CBS accountable for abusing the press freedom they enjoy through the first amendment.

Then, still answering the question of whether Jimmy Kimmel was censored and whether his suspension amounted to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration, the second response here is that the left does not appear to have a strong grasp on the intersection between free speech and the private corporations.

So, for some additional context: the First Amendment, like the US Constitution generally, affords rights that people can use to challenge the government. Local and federal governments have many agencies, all of which must abide by the First Amendment. But free speech and association rights do not BLANKETLY apply to private organisations or people, even if those organisations or people receive funding from the government. These private organisations are thus entitled to formulate private organisational policies that people can choose to opt in or out of.

Now, what this means is that a private company can suspend or fire an employee for something they say, or a social media platform can remove a user’s post without violating the First Amendment because they are not the government.

HOWEVER, the exception is that if you can prove a private company is working with government actors to suppress speech, then the First Amendment will apply – which is what the Murthy v Missouri case is doing in light of how the Biden-Harris administrations coerced social media companies to censor speech on their platforms.

Now, the left in decrying censorship from Trump as being the reason that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended, is ignoring this aspect of the first amendment, which allows private corporations to decide if they want to air certain content. And yet, this exclusion of private corporations in the scope of the first amendment is why, while ABC is the media corporation that powers Jimmy Kimmel’s show, a number of ABC affiliates suspended his show, ad have now refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show altogether. It is NOT censorship by Trump, RATHER, it is the first amendment allowing private corporations to decide what they will or will NOT air.

WHITE HOUSE REVOKES VISAS FOR ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENTS AFTER CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION

So, let’s bring in the factor of national sovereignty. As we alluded to earlier, on October 15th, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that US visas are a privilege revocable for foreign nationals expressing death wishes toward America, especially following the September 10th assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. The State Department has thus revoked visas for at least six individuals accused of celebrating Kirk’s death on social media, extending the policy to international students in pro-Hamas protests cited as national security threats. This move has drawn support from conservatives who see this as a defence of American values but, simultaneously, this has also drawn criticism from what are said to be civil liberties groups over free speech concerns. But before we proceed, here are the remarks from the Press Secretary.

Now, in addressing this development in the status quo, here we must ask: Is this policy by the Trump administration a weaponisation of national sovereignty against free speech?

Well, interestingly, this consideration is not at all new in US politics. In fact, in a case that considered whether lawfully present non-citizens in the United States have First Amendment rights, a federal district judge answered that question with a resounding “yes.” Judge William G Young, ruled that the Trump administration’s policy to detain and deport foreign scholars over their pro-Palestinian views violates the US constitution and was designed to “intentionally” chill free speech rights. Judge Young further stated that although no one’s freedom of speech is completely unlimited, the key is that whatever limits that exist “must be the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.” He even added that the Trump administration claimed the authority to deport non-citizens who have committed no crimes but whose presence it deems to pose a threat to US foreign policy. And so, after a 2-week trial, Judge Young ruled that this authority was being used to target people based on their constitutionally protected speech.

HOWEVER, I’d like to offer a practical rebuttal to this position. With ALL the extensive protections that the First Amendment offers to speech, it also draws the line on speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” – in other words, the First Amendment does not protect protesters who chant “death to America”, or make remarks about how they wish someone would kill Charlie Kirk. and all of this are things that have occurred in the US.

But, finally, for people concerned about censorship and even being offended, I’d also like to make the argument that free speech has a place in a functional society for 2 reasons. First, when people speak frankly about even hateful sentiments they hold, you have the privilege of an honest discussion, and an adequate measure of the moral inclinations of society. Furthermore, it is easier to challenge and debate (for instance) racist ideas with people who are openly racist than with people who form secret clubs and societies in which they share their racist inclinations among others who think the same. Therefore, there is less inspiration for change toward acceptable virtues, if those who do not yet possess them are not challenged to assess their thinking through open debate and free speech. In addition, when someone is frank with you about what they think, it is a manifestation of respect as opposed to that person telling you what they think you want to hear.

HOWEVER, also consider that in having the liberty to speak frankly, be prepared to be held accountable for what you say, where you abuse that speech- through litigation, and not laws that justify censorship.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case, and on July 31st (just this past month), the Ninth Circuit in the US issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al v Megan K. Reilly et al, vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical Freedom, and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is really an affront to all who value truth, justice, even the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Now, here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for mandating Covid injections for all employees. They argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. They contended that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which is a Supreme Court of the United States case from 1905, did not apply to their case because Jacobson was predicated both on (firstly) the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—as its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and (secondly) on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification. Although of course, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the science behind the smallpox vaccine was not only fallacious, but also became the basis for the rationale behind many of the vaccines today, which have a similar change of inefficacy and harm.

In any case, nearly a year later after the plaintiffs had sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, in September 2022, the district court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. And in June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favour of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit – and this is a process where an entire appellate court, rather than just a randomly selected panel of judges, reviews a case; ad is essentially a request for a broader panel of judges to reconsider a decision made by a smaller panel. Well, that petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. It was then on July 31st that the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case; resulting in an outcome where as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. But, before we proceed to unpack the details of the ruling, here’s a reflection from Leslie Manookian, who is on of the plaintiffs in the case.

UNPACKING THE COURT’S RULING: WHY THE JACOBSON CASE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUS QUO

Now, before we proceed, it bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has actually overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. And so, this case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such a discreditable reputation. Which then necessitates that we also break down the main issues in the case, and why the court’s ruling is so controversial – especially in light of its reliance on the precedent that was established in the Jacobson case.

Now, the first issue in the case pertains to the fact that the Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including the Mullins v Oregon case of 1995, in which the court held that (quote): “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Now, to be clear, nowhere does the American Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people.

Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since the Jacobson v Massachusetts case when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that American society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false. In fact, by this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. IN ACTUALITY, the Jacobson case did NOT allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. INSTEAD, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, and not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receiving an injection.

The second issue in the case concerns the fact that the Ninth Circuit not only claimed that the ruling in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case is binding but it also ignored ample and more recent jurisprudence from the SCOTUS that holds otherwise. In recent decades, the SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the clearly immoral and century-old Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Then, thirdly, perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Judge Bennett wrote that (quote): “The Jacobson v Massachusetts case holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” (end quote). But, now, this contention is false. The Jacobson v Massachusetts did actually hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease (even though we now know that to be false). But, the point is that clearly, absent that ability of public benefit, there is no public health rationale. And most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health!

Then finally, in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” – which essentially tried to justify the limitation of rights in a relative context, in the same way that lockdowns were presented as being a fair limitation of the freedom of movement during COVID. BUT, even then a number of people have argued that the Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox, because no comparison could be further from the truth. More specifically, evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

But, ultimately, this is all to double down on the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had a very generous application of the precedent found in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case. Whereas, in contrast, a number of people in the American society (and the world at large), and even Supreme Court Justices like Justice Alito, have constantly emphasised that it is dangerous to assume that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case gives broad justification for governments who wants to coerce medical interventions in society.

But, based on what we just outlined, two things standout: first, this case exposes that while the judiciary is one of the most crucial parts in a system of checks and balances in constitutional republics, by virtue of having people in this system as the judges who preside over cars, it means that the judiciary is susceptible to error or corruption, and can thus enable court-sanctioned authoritarianism – which is actually what the Ninth Circuit did is issuing a ruling that states that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works – because (again), a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. And so, we have a categorical imperative to pray without ceasing for the judiciary in all nations.

THE HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND CASE EXPOSES THE DANGER OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF A VACCINE

But, then secondly, this case also exposes the danger of the new definition of a vaccine. You’d recall that in 2018, the CDC’s website presented a definition of vaccines to connote the meaning that vaccines generate immunity from a disease. Of course, we have discussed here on LN24 International, including here on ‘The War Room’ how fallacious this underlying belief about vaccines has been, taking from the teachings of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, who has been at the forefront of exposing the vaccination agenda.

However, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine not only changed just before the planned COVID pandemic in 2020, but it also no longer reflects the claimed functionality of a vaccine to generate immunity against a disease – which is very complimentary to how the Ninth Circuit Court held that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works.

So, this change in definition explains a number of unfortunate ramifications in the status quo. First, it means an additional layer of immunity from liability for pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, pharmaceutical companies, when they are being called out for not protecting people with their vaccines, as they claim when promoting the material, can simply say that definitionally, vaccines do not inherently protect from disease. This is incredibly dangerous because ALREADY the pharmaceutical industry is granted immunity from liability, especially in the US! You’d recall that we had an abridged discussion about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.

So, what this means is that pharmaceutical products are so fundamentally likely to cause harm, that they simply cannot remain in business unless the government protects pharmaceutical companies from people demanding damage payments from them. Therefore, the change in definition of a vaccine adds to already existing laws that protects the pharmaceutical industry from liability.

However, the compounded issue when it comes to the Ninth Circuits ruling is that the court is making it appear acceptable for governments to coerce vaccine mandates on the public, for vaccines that do not have public benefit, and that the state would arbitrarily deem necessary. And so, the Ninth Circuit not only protects an income stream for pharmaceutical companies whose products could be mandated, but it also sanctions authoritarian conduct by protecting state officials who would wish to implement vaccine mandates! And it all comes down to the fact that the new definition of vaccines does not necessitate a public benefit of generating immunity against a disease.

MEANWHILE, COVID JABS ARE ALSO A DEFINITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON

Of course the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon – and this has had numerous ramifications for genetics among those who have taken the jab.

But, this occurs parallel to another concerning development, where according to a recent article in the BBC, a person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA, because apparently our DNA is insufficient. But, yes, this is from the same Wellcome Trust that “frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on so-called global health initiatives.” In fact, in their 2024 annual report, they wrote under “Strategic partnerships” that they have forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing their ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.

Of course, the immediate question is “WHY?”. And according to the collaborators, the scientists’ first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern the human body’s development, repair, and maintenance. They add that these can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate human bodies. In fact, Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome, even added that many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments. HOWEVER, they conveniently leave out how this can be manipulated for harm – much like how the COVID jab was developed to be a biological weapon of significant genetic disruption – and this is a fact that many scientists and medical professionals have testified concerning. And so, when a new invention is being devised, it is incumbent on us to always consider how it could be abused, and if the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

Now, speaking of whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits, the science is fairly settled on the fact that the COVID jab is not only a biological weapon of genetic disruption, but one whose harms far outweigh any claimed benefits. In actual fact, it has come to the fore that the COVID shots infiltrate every organ system, including the brain, heart, bone marrow. In addition, over 17 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been reported worldwide, with conservative US estimates at approximately 600,000 deaths. Meanwhile, there have also been reports of long-term genetic disruption, as thousands of critical genes regulating immunity and cancer suppression are dysregulated after mRNA injection; and spike DNA and mRNA fragments have been detected in the body years after injection — suggesting genomic integration! And so (once again) the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso