Lux Lucet

To do this, Obama proposed attacking the problem from both the “supply side” and the “demand side.”

On the supply side, he wants more regulation of social media.  What this means, is he wants to make it harder for ordinary Americans to challenge elite opinions on a whole range of topics. Your job, peasant, is not to ask questions or offer criticism.  It’s to shut up and obey your masters. 

Obama was careful in the way he spoke about “misinformation,” but he left enough clues to make it clear where he was going with this.  Take the following quote for example,

And we’re seeing the results. Take Covid. The fact that scientists developed safe, effective vaccines in record time is an unbelievable achievement. And yet despite the fact that we’ve now, essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide, around 1 in 5 Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk rather than get vaccinated. People are dying because of misinformation.

One thing that struck me about this quote was that Obama admitted what many of the “conspiracy theorists” have said all along, that the mass distribution of the untested Covid gene therapy shots amounted to a clinical trial on the population of the world.  Said Obama, “And yet despite the fact that we’ve now, essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide.” 

Exactly.  The Covid vaccination program is probably the largest human drug trial in history.  People have been deplatformed from social media outlets for saying this or leveling other such criticism of the poison death shots.  But when Obama goes to Stanford University and says these words before an adoring crowd, it’s cause for applause. 

In short, Obama wants to solve the problem of “misinformation” by cutting off the supply.  And by this, he means ridding social media of critics who point out that the emperor has no clothes. 

Misinformation to Obama and his supporters are opinions with which they disagree.  And those opinions must be silenced.

On the demand side, Obama cites a study about how Fox News viewers were paid to watch CNN for a month – paying people to watch CNN seems to be the only way to get them to watch the propaganda service, as can be seen from the rapid collapse of CNN’s paid streaming service CNN+ which is shutting down after only a month in operation.  According to Obama, there was a noted shift in these viewers’ opinions on several subjects, proving, apparently in his mind, that even Republicans can be retrained if force-fed enough propaganda.

My point here is not to offer a blanket defense of Fox News, which is, at best, controlled opposition, and at worst, simply regime propaganda for Republicans as opposed to the regime propaganda for Democrats one can find on most every other news outlet.

Obama continued by saying, “we have to take it upon ourselves to become better consumers of news, looking at sources.”  Indeed, we do.  This is why it’s good practice to disbelieve anything you read, see, or hear from legacy new sources.  They are regime propaganda outlets designed to thought shape you.

Just think about some of the astounding absurdities you’re asked to believe on a daily basis: the Covid death shots are safe and effective, Ukraine is totally righteous and is winning the war, and diversity is our strength.  One could add many other examples, but these should suffice for the moment. 

Obama gives one example of choosing a poor source and it’s telling.  He said, “Does this person who’s typing in his mother’s basement in his underwear seem a credible authority on climate change?”  The answer is it depends on the person who’s doing the typing.  It’s actually quite possible that this person, whom Obama obviously intends to disparage, is more honest and more accurate in his views than what you’ll get from the CIA/Deep State mainstream media outlets such as the lying New York Times, the Washington Post, or NBC.

One big takeaway from Obama’s speech is that the establishment is clearly worried that they are losing control of the narrative.  In fact, they’re scared to death of it.  Some have referred to the rise of independent reporting on the web as the “Internet Reformation.”  If that’s the case, and I think it is, then this casts the establishment media in the role of the Roman Catholic Church-State seeking to crush dissent at all costs. 

Obama is, in many ways, the ultimate establishment liar.  This can be seen in his speech when he exposed the establishment’s horror at the thought of Elon Musk buying Twitter and turning it into a free speech platform.  Note well what he says here, “These companies [social media platforms] need to have some other North Star than just making money and increasing profit shares.” Twitter’s actions since Elon Musk’s offer to buy the company clearly demonstrate that profit is most certainly not the goal of Twitter’s board of directors.  Quite the opposite, the board is perfectly willing to destroy shareholder value, which is their fiduciary duty to protect and grow, in its attempt to keep Musk from buying the company.  As Jonathan Turley puts it,

Twitter’s board of directors gathered this week to sign what sounds like a suicide pact. It unanimously voted to swallow a “poison pill” to tank the value of the social media giant’s shares rather than allow billionaire Elon Musk to buy the company.

The move is one way to fend off hostile takeovers, but what is different in this case is the added source of the hostility: Twitter and many liberals are apoplectic over Musk’s call for free speech protections on the site.

Company boards have a fiduciary duty to do what is best for shareholders, which usually is measured in share values. Twitter has long done the opposite. It has virtually written off many conservatives — and a large portion of its prospective market — with years of arbitrary censorship of dissenting views on everything from gender identity to global warming, election fraud and the pandemic. Most recently, Twitter suspended a group, Libs of Tik Tok, for “hateful conduct.” The conduct? Reposting what liberals have said about themselves.

Censorship is not popular with the public. And by eliminating popular accounts that hold opinions the elite don’t like, social media platforms such as Twitter expose Obama’s charge of profit-seeking at the expense of the truth as nonsense.

But the question remains, is free speech a Biblical concept?  The short answer is, yes.

In Jeremiah 26, we read that the Lord called upon the prophet to, “Stand in the court of the LORD’ house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them.  Do not diminish a word.”

Jeremiah did just that.  He delivered the Lord’s message in the Lod’s house, one threatening destruction unless the people repented of their evil ways.  Now if you’re familiar with Jeremiah’s life, you’ll know that he was about as unpopular a man as you can imagine.  He was hated by seemingly all classes of people because he delivered a message of judgment and not of praise. 

The reaction to Jeremiah’s sermon was swift.  We read how he was seized by the priests, the prophets, and all the people and brought before the princes of Judah to be tried and executed.  “This man deserves to die!  For he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your ears,” they said.    

On this occasion, the princes of Judah were more fair-minded than the rest of the people.  After hearing Jeremiah’s defense, they responded, “This man does not deserve to die.  For he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God.”

We then read that certain of the elders defended Jeremiah by citing the precedent of Micah of Moresheth, who had prophesied during the reign of King Hezekiah, saying that “Zion shall be plowed like a field.”  The elders continued, “Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death?  Did he not fear the LORD and seek the LORD’s favor?  And the LORD relented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them.  But we are doing great evil against ourselves.” 

One can make the argument that a king’s view of free speech, especially free speech critical of his policies or actions, is a litmus test for whether that individual was a godly king or an evil one. 

David received withering criticism from Nathan the prophet for his adultery and subsequent murder of her husband Uriah.  But when confronted by Nathan, David’s response was, “I have sinned against the LORD.”  As awful as David’s behavior was, he never tried to silence Nathan or threaten him.  Rather, he repented on the spot.

Contrast this to the behavior of King Ahab.  Ahab is viewed by the Old Testament writers as the worst king of Israel.   This is saying quite a lot as the Northern Kingdom was cursed with a long line of evil rulers.  Unsurprisingly, Ahab was a notorious suppressor of free speech.  He had thrown the prophet Micaiah in jail because, as Ahab put it, “he [Micaiah] does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”

It is unsurprising that evil men hate truth tellers.  As Jesus said, “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:20). 

Our government – and many people consider Obama, not without reason, to be the current president, and this despite the fact that Biden formally holds the office title to the office – is obviously, openly hostile to those that would criticize it. They hate the light and show their hatred for it by attempting to shut down those who would expose their evil deeds.  In this, they prove themselves to be evil. 

Our right to free speech is not a gift from the government.  It is God-given and guaranteed in the Constitution.  Liars and con artists like Obama, Fauci, and others of their ilk despise free speech because like Ahab, their deeds are evil and they do not want them exposed. 

But Christians have the right, indeed the responsibility, to expose their unfruitful works of darkness. It is from this Christian duty that flows the principle of liberty of conscience.  And liberty of conscience as defined in the Westminster Confession is the basis for our First Amendment guaranteed right of free speech. 

Pages: 1 2