September 2nd, 2024
Meta (Facebook) IS Subject To The First Amendment
For those of you who may not have heard, Mark Zuckerberg, founder (kind of), chairman, and CEO of Meta, the company that owns Facebook, admitted last week that his company bowed to pressure from the Biden administration to censor content on his platforms related to COVID-19. (See letter below):
What many people do not realize, is that with this admission, this has created a situation where US citizens who are users of Facebook, and possibly other platforms owned by Meta, are now protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution on said platforms under the “State Action Doctrine” (see link below).
Amdt1.7.2.4 State Action Doctrine and Free Speech
Under the “State Action Doctrine”:
The Supreme Court has stated that a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances, such as [1] when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function; [2] when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action; or [3] when the government acts jointly with the private entity. [emphasis mine]
Meta was clearly acting at the behest of the federal government, and as such, has become a “State Actor”, making Meta users now subject to First Amendment protections.
CAVEAT: I am not an attorney, nor is any of this legal advice. I’m just a Cass county loudmouth who sees how liberal courts and bar associations love to twist the law to suit their purposes and leave the rest of us to suffer due to their whims of “precedent”.
Meta (and thereby Facebook) is a State Actor, and as such, it’s US citizen users’ First Amendment rights should now be protected, but they won’t be, because we live in a corrupt banana republic with a two-tiered justice system that only works for rich liberals and their uniparty friends. I said what I said.
Elected Officials As Party Officers
Last week the question came up, “Why wouldn’t we want elected officials serving as officers in the party?” This is actually a good question, and I’ll bet there are others out there that have also wondered about this, so why not address it.
From my perspective, the desire to not have elected officials as officers in the party doesn't really have a bumper sticker answer, because it goes back to a key disagreement between the grassroots and the establishment in the party, particularly in Missouri. The root of the conflict around having elected officials in executive office positions within the party (or even on the Committee to begin with, if you ask me) is accountability within the party itself. Every organization has its own "checks and balances" to ensure that those individuals that are chosen to represent them actually do so according to a pattern established by that organization.
When someone decides to run for an elected office as a Republican in Missouri, they are, whether knowingly or unknowingly, agreeing to represent the party according to the principles declared in the Missouri Republican Party Platform. When a candidate or officeholder establishes a pattern of violating or ignoring the set of principles outlined in the party platform, many of us in the grassroots believe the party has the right and privilege to be that "check" on those individuals. What that "check" looks like can take a variety of forms, such as a simple public censure, say for an elected official voting for a law legalizing abortion. In extreme cases, if an elected official establishes a pattern of ignoring the party platform, and thumbs their nose at party censure, that "check" could involve entirely removing the individual from the party.
All that said, IF the party itself acts as that "check" on elected officials for the party (not the public at large), it is a conflict of interest for someone who would be subject to that authority to sit on the body that makes that determination. I believe the natural justice principle is "Nemo iudex in causa sua", or "no one should be a judge in their own cause".
Our Party. Our Representatives. Our Rules.
Cultural Impact Conference
This is your LAST reminder that this event is THIS weekend! With the vote on Amendment 3 in Missouri quickly approaching in November, this is a wonderful opportunity to help motivate and challenge the grassroots to work to protect life this fall. The purpose of the Cultural Impact Conference is below:
The Cultural Impact Conference is a call to the church to act decisively to protect the lives of the unborn in the state of Missouri as well as work to win back our culture through political engagement in our local, state, and national governments.
Listen to this brief message from Chris Williams, Senior Pastor of Fellowship Church and President of the Missouri Baptist Convention.
This event is FREE, but you must register here.
Register NOW!
As I noted in the August 8th newsletter, I have heard William Federer speak several times before, and it is worth it just to hear him speak, but there will also be several other dynamic speakers as well. Register and come to the event! You will be blessed!
Missourians Protecting Children & Families on Amendment 3
The mission at Missourians Protecting Children & Families is straight forward: “We must defeat Amendment 3 in the November General Election.”
Missourians Protecting Children and Families Website
You can find details on the website of why Amendment 3 is as evil and extreme as you can possibly get, as well as the full text of Amendment 3, a volunteer form you can fill out if you would like to help, and a resources page that currently has both black and white and color church bulletin inserts with information about Amendment 3. There will be additional resources soon, and We The People of Cass County MO will be working with them to get physical materials, like signs and palm cards ASAP. Stay tuned for more details!
Freedom Principle MO on Amendment 3
Freedom Principle Missouri is actively working on providing resources and talking points about A3 as well. You can find it on their website here:
There are several great resources on this page, including commentary on the various issues presented by the wording of A3, social media images for you do use to spread the word about how evil it is, and a downloadable set of talking a points about A3, which I have included a link directly to:
Jodi Grace on Amendment 3
Jodi Widhalm has a host of great resources available on her Jodi Grace Ministries website, and she is hosting a zoom meeting each Thursday at 8:00pm to discuss Amendment 3, and “What They Aren’t Telling You”. You can register for free on her site. There are also some great resources, including the text of A3, marked up with her notes, a statement of leaders opposed to A3, key definitions that are NOT in A3, as well as electronic copies of some great palm cards, post cards, and signs (you’ll have to print at your own expense though).
Full Text of Amendment 3
On of the unfortunate truths of our time is that lies, misrepresentations, hyperbole, misdirection, and censorship are standard procedure in politics. Our opponents are going to use all of these methods and more to try to convince as many people as possible to vote for this amendment. Because of that, I feel it is important to keep the actual amendment text in front of us all, so that we can review it, then review the notes from all of our dedicated friends in the various groups, over and over again periodically. The Lord willing, after enough of that, we will have the text and talking points down well enough that we can speak to it from memory as we step out in faith, courageously and confidently in our circles of influence to stop this threat long enough to get the Initiative Petition Ratification process reformed in the MO Legislature.
Amendment 3
NOTICE: The proposed amendment revised Article I of the Constitution by adopting one new Section to be known as Article I, Section 36.
Section 36. 1. This Section shall be known as "The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative."
2. The Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.
3. The right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed, or otherwise restricted unless the Government demonstrates that such action is justified by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Any denial, interference, delay, or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid. For purposes of this Section, a governmental interest is compelling only if it is for the limited purpose and has the limited effect of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking care, is consistent with widely accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that person's autonomous decision-making.
4. Notwithstanding subsection 3 of this Section, the general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortion after Fetal Viability provided that under no circumstance shall the Government deny, interfere with, delay, or otherwise restrict an abortion that in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional is needed to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.
5. No person shall be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. Nor shall any person assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person’s consent be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so.
6. The Government shall not discriminate against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care or assisting another person in doing so.
7. If any provision of this Section or the application thereof to anyone or to any circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of those provisions and the application of such provisions to others or other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
8. For purposes of this Section, the following terms mean:
(1) "Fetal Viability". the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.
(2) "Government",
a. the state of Missouri; or
b. any municipality, city, town, village, township, district, authority. public subdivision or public corporation having the power to tax or regulate, or any portion of two or more such entities within the state of Missouri.