

‘Prior to 2020, if you heard the term “lockdown” you might think of something that happens in a prison — not in a free society. This mechanism of control has since become commonplace — not among prisoners but among the free — with repercussions that are only beginning to be understood.
The film Planet Lockdown explores this unprecedented time in history, speaking with epidemiologists, scientists, doctors and other experts to uncover the real motives behind the increasing totalitarian control taking over the globe. Already banned by Facebook and YouTube, the film starts at the beginning of the pandemic, when we were told lockdowns were necessary to “flatten the curve.”
This was supposed to be a short-term, 15-day event in the U.S., but the narrative soon changed to ongoing restrictions. As Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, explained, people have historically quarantined the sick, but quarantining healthy people, as has occurred for the past two years, has no scientific backing or historic precedence.2
“Given this virus represents, at most, a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than seasonal influenza, and a less risk, a smaller risk, to almost everyone else who’s younger and fit,” Yeadon says, “it was never necessary for us to have done anything. We didn’t need to do anything — lockdowns, masks, testing, vaccines even.”3
Dr. Scott Jensen, a family doctor and former member of the Minnesota Senate, received an email from the Department of Health that seemed to be coaching him to use COVID-19 as a diagnosis in situations where he wouldn’t have previously used influenza or any other specific viral diagnosis without first testing for it. He said:4
“What struck me right away was I felt like I was being coached to go ahead and use COVID-19 without using the same standards of precision that I would for other things. If I’m going to make a diagnosis, I believe as a physician I have an obligation to use the tools available to me to nail it down with as much certainty as possible.
And it seemed to me that the Department of Health, and the link to this CDC document that said you could diagnose COVID-19 as a cause of death on a death certificate … those two documents, in tandem, went against everything that I had been taught or doing for the last 35 years.”
Even Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of the Illinois Department of Health, is featured in the film stating that even if you died of a clear alternate cause, if you had COVID-19 at the same time, it would still be listed as a COVID death. “Everyone who is listed as a COVID death, doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death,” she says.5
In January 2020, the PCR test for COVID-19 came out, which allowed health officials to define COVID-19 “cases.” If the test was positive, it counted as a case — it didn’t matter if you have symptoms or not. Reiner Fuellmich, global fraud attorney, founder of the Corona Investigative Committee, pointed out, “It’s never, in the history of mankind, in the history of medicine, there’s never been testing of healthy people.”6
Yeadon agrees that mass testing of people with no symptoms has no scientific basis. Rather, he says, “It’s just a way to frighten people.”7 The rising “cases,” based on PCR testing, is what built the crisis. But counting cases was only measuring the activity of testing; the more that testing occurred, the more cases that were found.
June 8, 2020, WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced that asymptomatic people could transmit COVID-19. That same day, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms “rarely” transmit the disease to others. In a dramatic about-face, WHO then backtracked on the statement just one day later.8
In the days that followed, media and health officials ramped up fear by claiming that you could be sickened by virtually anyone, even when they appeared to be healthy. “This idea that … you can be ill even though you have no symptoms and you can be a … virus threat to someone else even though you have no symptoms, that’s also invented in 2020,” Yeadon says.9
Alexandra Henrion-Caude, geneticist, former director of research with the French National Institute of Health, is among those who have noticed something off from the start. “I was very puzzled since the very beginning … I was alert to the fact that what we were living was not quite right.”10
She notes that the notion of asymptomatic spread is terrifying because it turns virtually anyone you meet or encounter on the street into the enemy, because they could be exposing you to SARS-CoV-2. “This is actually terrible because it denies the capacity of a person to be a healthy person. Because if asymptomatic [spread] exists, then who is healthy? No one.”
What’s more, the “proof” of asymptomatic spread is flawed and fraudulent. The New England Journal of Medicine published an article suggesting the transmission of COVID-19 is possible from an asymptomatic carrier in January 2020.11
It was based on a 33-year-old businessman who had met with his business partner from Shanghai, then developed a fever and productive cough. The next evening, he felt better and went back to work January 27.
The writers reported the partner had been “well with no signs or symptoms of infection, but had become ill on her flight back to China, where she tested positive for 2019-nCoV on January 26.” From this case study, they theorized the virus could be transmitted from asymptomatic carriers. An important point was left out, which is that the researchers did not speak with the partner from Shanghai before publication.
However, Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), did speak with the woman on the phone, and she reported she did have symptoms while in Germany.12 So she was not asymptomatic after all.
The pandemic has twisted reality, leaving the public in a mental fog. “You’re regularly pledging obedience to things which are not logical,” Catherine Austin-Fitts, assistant secretary, Bush Sr. administration and investment adviser with Solari, Inc., says.13 WHO has changed definitions of herd immunity and pandemic, literally altering reality, and this is just one example.
Censorship and campaigns to discredit those who speak out against the narrative are additional control mechanisms that distort the truth. Bishop Schneider of Kazakhstan says the pandemic measures are very similar to Soviet times where he lived, in that there was only one narrative, and if you said there was another meaning, you were declared an enemy.
“When you had another opinion, they said, ‘You are a conspiracy group. You have a conspiracy theory. You have hate speech. This expression, hate speech, came from the communists.”14 It’s psychological manipulation, based on fear, which makes people act totally irrational. The artificially imposed state of incoherence was even described by Austin-Fitts as a torture tactic, designed to get people to submit to vaccine passports and COVID-19 shots:15
“Human beings crave coherence. And so if you can put them in a state of incoherence they will literally do anything they can to get back to coherence. It’s a typical torture tactic. ‘If you just do what I want, I will allow you to go back to a state of coherence.’ So, if you just accept the [vaccine] passports, you’ll be free. Or if you get the vaccination, you’ll just be free.”
Further, by declaring small businesses as “nonessential” during lockdowns, they get shut down, while Amazon, Walmart and other big box stores can take over their market share. A major transfer of wealth occurred away from small family-owned businesses to very large, publicly owned businesses that benefited from the digital economy. In the meantime, Austin-Fitts explains:16
“The people on Main St. have to keep paying off their credit cards or their mortgage, so they’re in a debt trap and they’re desperate to get cashflow to cover their debts and expenses.
In the meantime, you have the Federal Reserve institute a form of quantitative easing where they’re buying corporate bonds, and the guys who are taking up the market share can basically finance — or their banks can — at 0% to 1%, when everyone on Main St. is paying 16% to 17% to their credit cards, without income.
So basically now you’ve got them over a barrel and you can take away their market share, and generally they can’t afford to do what they say because they’re too busy trying to find money to feed their kids.”
If a few people want to control many, how can you get the sheep into the slaughterhouse without them realizing and resisting? “The perfect thing,” Austin-Fitts says, is invisible enemies, like viruses.17 This ramps up fear so the public believes they need the government to protect them. Another effective tactic is “divide and conquer,” and the media plays an important role in this, dividing people over shots and masks, for instance.
“What COVID-19 is,” Austin-Fitts explains, “is the institution of controls necessary to convert the planet from the democratic process to technocracy. So what we’re watching is a change in control and an engineering of new control systems. So think of this as a coup d’état. It’s much more like a coup d’état than a virus.”18
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former public health official and member of German parliament, agrees, stating that pandemic responses have “nothing to do with hygiene. It has to do with criminology.”19 The global injection campaign is another form of control, one that’s forcing the public to receive experimental shots.
Many of the experts in the film bring up the Nuremberg Code, which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.
But in the current climate of extreme censorship, people are not being informed about the full risks of the shots — which are only beginning to be uncovered. People are being forced into the shots due to mandates and loss of jobs and personal freedoms, like the ability to travel freely and attend business and social events.
A revolution is occurring, and the experts are hopeful that people will awaken to common sense and resist the totalitarian control that is threatening to take over the globe. Instead, society can be regenerated if people come together and fight back against the encroachment on our liberties.
Civil disobedience, boycotting businesses that are requiring vaccine passports, participating in rallies and fighting illegal mandates in court are ways that everyone can get involved in protecting freedom. “If they want to make us a machine, if they want to make us slaves, we say no,” Wodarg says. “… We don’t need you anymore, we are many … we don’t have to be afraid of any pandemic.”20
Follow this link for the film: <a href="http://<iframe src="https://brandnewtube.com/embed/afGwhH344VFdP13" frameborder="0" width="700" height="400" allowfullscreen>http://<iframe src=”https://brandnewtube.com/embed/afGwhH344VFdP13″ frameborder=”0″ width=”700″ height=”400″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
at still love freedom!
‘The Online Safety Bill, the most far-reaching online censorship law to ever be proposed in the UK, has been presented to Parliament.
UK Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State Nadine Dorries, said her aim with the bill was to “make the internet, in the UK, the safest place in the world for children and vulnerable young people to go online.”
However, as with many bills that are positioned as a way to keep children safe, this Online Safety Bill contains sweeping speech restrictions that will affect all UK internet users.
The bill requires Big Tech companies to take action against “priority legal but harmful” content which will be decided by the government. The DCMS Secretary of State has the power to add more categories of priority legal but harmful content via secondary legislation in the future.
According to the Financial Times, this secondary legislation “requires less scrutiny from MPs [Members of Parliament] than the original bill.”
Companies are also required to report “emerging harms” to the UK’s communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
Additionally, the Online Safety Bill outlaws sending “knowingly false” communications that are sent “with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm,” requires large social media companies to introduce identity verification tools, gives Ofcom the power to force companies to use “better and more effective” proactive content moderation technology, tasks Big Tech with determining which of its advertisers are pushing scams, mandates that any website hosting pornography put “robust checks in place to ensure that users are 18 years old or over,” and more.
UK citizens who are found guilty of offenses under the Online Safety Bill can be imprisoned or fined.
Not only does the Online Safety Bill contain numerous provisions that can be used to silence UK citizens and punish them for their online speech but powerful “recognised media outlets” are exempt from any regulation in the bill. Some of the outlets that will be getting special carveouts under this bill have even been praised by politicians for pushing for stronger “online safety” laws.
Tech platforms already remove millions of “harmful” posts each quarter and if this bill becomes law, they’ll have an even stronger incentive to censor.
The punishments for companies that fail to censor enough under the Online Safety Bill include having their sites blocked and being hit with multi-billion dollar fines worth up to 10% of their annual turnover. Tech company executives can also be jailed if they fail to cooperate with Ofcom’s information requests.
Despite introducing strong punishments for tech companies that don’t remove enough harmful content, the Online Safety Bill has yet to reveal the categories of legal the harmful content that tech companies will have to target under this bill.
Earlier this week, Dorries said large platforms will be required to remove legal but harmful content “if it is already banned in their own terms and conditions.”
Yet today’s UK government press release for the Online Safety Bill says that the categories of legal but harmful content will be “set by the government and approved by Parliament.” The press release also lists “exposure to self-harm, harassment and eating disorders” as examples of harmful content that online platforms will be required to remove.
The introduction of the Online Safety Bill to Parliament is the first stage of its legislative journey.

Numerous UK rights groups have blasted the Online Safety Bill and warned that it will restrict free speech.
“The Online Safety Bill is set to rip up the rule book as far as traditional British free speech standards are concerned,” Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said. “This is a censor’s charter that will give state backing to big tech censorship on a scale that we have never seen before.”
Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned that the bill will have a “chilling effect on free speech.”
“We are particularly concerned that the government has said it will force social media platforms to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content, including ‘harassment,’” Young added. “That will enable political activists and interest groups claiming to speak on behalf of disadvantaged groups to silence their opponents by branding any views they disagree with as ‘harassment.’”
Matthew Lesh, Head of Public Policy at the think tank Institute of Economic Affairs said: “The UK threatening tech executives with jail time is eerily similar to how Russia and other authoritarian countries are currently behaving. It is an attack on free speech and entrepreneurialism.”
Before the bill was presented to Parliament, the UK’s main opposition party, the Labour Party, suggested that it would offer little obstruction to the Online Safety Bill and complained that it hadn’t been introduced fast enough.
Last October, Labour Leader Keir Starmer lamented that it has been “three years since the government promised an Online Safety Bill. Starmer also claimed that “the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever” and promised to support the bill if its second reading was brought forward to the end of 2021.
More recently, Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell said that Labour supports “the principles of the bill that is finally being published” and claimed that “delay up to this point has come with significant cost.”’https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-censorship-parliament/
‘Fast food chain Pizza Hut has produced a training program for teachers that claims to “promote awareness, respect, and empathy for different lived experiencing,” arguing that “everyone has as racial identity.”
In one pamphlet produced by the program, toddlers express racist views, arguing that “Children as young as three-years-old begin to show evidence of societal messages affecting how they feel about themselves or their group identity — this is the beginning of internalized superiority or internalized oppression.”
The program is similar to Coca Cola’s anti-white online training program that instructed its employees to “be less white,” which faced a massive public backlash on social media.
The program, developed by Pizza Hut and First Book, is a “series of resources designed to support educators in helping their students engage in effective, courageous conversations about race and social justice,” and boasts that it is “informed by leading anti-bias, antiracist (ABAR) experts.”
The guide aims to teach educators that “racism exists within and beyond schools and communities of learning,” arguing that “the myth of racial hierarchy remains a dominant part of America’s culture.”
“Acts of violence against black communities are often identified on social media by the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter,” the program suggests.
As detailed by Daily Wire, a pamphlet titled “Empowering Educators: A Guidebook on Race and Racism” claims that “The Empowering Educators Guidebook provides support for educators seeking to increase their personal awareness of race and racism, as well as direction on how to ground learning environments through inclusive curriculum and diverse, affirming literature.”
The Daily Wire reports:
The pamphlet refers to America’s history of systemic racism as it talks about the death of George Floyd: “Floyd’s murder, along with other acts of violence against Black men and women leading up to and after his death, spurred global protests as America continues to reckon with its history of police brutality and systemic racism.”
It continues by arguing, “Many antiracist experts note that racism in America is not perpetuated by ‘bad’ people. Rather, racism is maintained by laws, policies, and normalized practices that are upheld consciously and unconsciously by those who knowingly or unknowingly benefit from them,” adding, “Although many people don’t engage in individual acts of racism, they still benefit from racist policies, practices, and social norms.”
It champions the “reality” of intersectionality, writing, “A person who is Black and female, for example, experiences discrimination and disadvantage differently than a person who is White and female. This concept of intersectionality was coined in 1989 by Dr. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw. She describes how a person’s social identities such as race, class, and gender coincide to create overlapping systems of disadvantage. When developing your awareness, it is important to acknowledge this reality for students, families, and colleagues.”‘https://www.rebelnews.com/pizza_hut_urges_teachers_to_watch_out_for_racist_toddlers?utm_campaign=rb_03_08_2022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
With an Australian Federal election coming sometime in May the following is a must read. ‘Comrade Albo and his buddy Adam Bandt are two red peas in a pod, and their younger years as spotty faced commies are all the evidence one needs to be convinced.
As reported by James Morrow this week, a young Anthony Albanese participated in a forum with the official magazine of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) nearly 18 months after the Berlin Wall fell and the horrors of the Marxist political system were exposed.
The interview, which appeared in the April 3, 1991 edition of the Communist Party’s house organ Tribune, was part of a feature called “The changing Left – coherence, theory”.
Albanese was included as one of a number of figures who were asked by the paper to “respond to a series of propositions and to each other” and admitted it was easier to take potshots from opposition because “being in government confronts the labour movement as a whole, not just the Labor Party, with questions which the Left failed to consider … how Labor puts its principles into action, how we deal with questions of the internationalisation of capital.”
“It’s easier to construct a vision of an antinuclear society or an environmentally aware society or one based on equality,” he said.
As well as running the interview with Mr Albanese, the same edition of Tribune ran a classified ad promoting an upcoming “politics in the pub” talk involving the future Opposition Leader entitled, “Socialist Politics: Past Tense, Future Prospects.
Why did comrade Albo get so much attention in far-left circles back then?
Well in the early 1990s Mr Albanese led a faction known as the “Hard Left” which had close ties to communist organisations, and even his own buddies admit it. In a November 2000 article by future Labor frontbencher Andrew Leigh, the Hard Left was described as being “led by Anthony Albanese”.
“This group was more concerned than the Soft Left with international issues and maintained closer links with broader left-wing groups such as the Communist Party of Australia,” he wrote.
If you thought that was bad, Greens leader Adam Bandt’s earlier years are even more concerning.
In a two-page memo written back in 1995 while he was a student politician at Murdoch University, Bandt said he was “towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement”.
If that’s not a communist, what is?
Identifying himself as a member of the Left Alliance, Mr Bandt said, “the parliamentary road to socialism is non-existent”. He called the Greens a “bourgeois” party but said supporting them might be the most effective strategy.
“Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time,” he wrote in the 1995 memo.
Although we all said and did stupid things when we are younger, all this points to something far more sinister… For decades now, each-way Albo and Adam Bandt have been lingering around hardcore communist organisations even after the unspeakable horrors of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia were revealed in full colour to the world.’https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/comrades_albo_and_his_buddy_adam_bandt_two_red_peas_in_a_pod
The LNP may just be a little better than Labor or Greens but to give us our freedoms back put Labor, Greens and LNP last.
‘What started out at the beginning of the week as the ‘stuff of conspiracy theories’ was eventually confirmed by Police.
Australian Capital Territory Policing admitted that they did use a Long Range Acoustic Device (also known as a LRAD) during the Canberra Convoy Freedom rallies outside Parliament House.
A number of wild theories and have emerged online about how the LRAD device was used in Canberra and claims of injury, but the actual effects are well documented.
Reports are still coming in on various injuries at the protest – most relating to what looks like sunburn and heat stroke. There are also clear allergic reactions from what some speculate might be contact with chemicals.
The LRAD device has two modes. One setting turns it into a crowd control tool – also referred to as a ‘sound canon’, ‘acoustic hailing device’, or a ‘sonic weapon’ – and the other mode, which is what was used in Canberra, makes the LRAD a loudspeaker or amplification device to relay messages to the crowd.
A spokesperson for police released a statement to The Epoch Times confirming, “ACT Policing has deployed several types of loudspeakers and amplification devices to quickly and effectively convey voice messages to large, and often loud, crowds of people during the recent protest activity in Canberra.”
However, this confirmation came only after One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts and Liberal Senator Alex Antic brought up the issue in Senate estimates on February 14.
Malcolm Roberts’ office was inundated with complaints from protesters all week wanting to know what had happened during the rally – prompting him to pass on these public concerns.
“That would be something that is with our police methodology which we would have to look at some type of public interest immunity claim, Senator,” said the Australia Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw, when questioned by Senator Roberts.
“Surely it’s in the public interest to know whether or not they [LRADs] were there without delving too much into it?”
“I’d have to […] If I could take that on notice, I’d have to get advice.”
Senator Antic, who attended Senate estimates virtually, held up a photo of the LRAD device beside members of the police force. Despite the visual evidence in front of Kershaw, he still chose to defer the answer.
“With the benefit of having that photograph which tends to confirm it [the claims that there was an LRAD present], we still can’t confirm that that device was there on the day?” asked Senator Antic, still holding the photograph.
Kershaw insisted that the question had already been taken on notice.
The LRAD was used in Canberra only as a means of communicating with the crowd.
Its use has, however, alarmed many public observers as the LRAD is technically a sonic crowd control weapon that, if used in its other setting, projects extremely loud sounds over long distances to cripple a crowd. The ‘alert setting’ on the device is particularly dangerous and has been known to cause permanent hearing damage, dizziness, disorientation, and brain damage.
Essentially the device ‘chirps’ at the crowd causing pain and potentially permanent hearing damage. Its use on crowds remains highly controversial, with the NYPD ending up in federal court where it was recommended that their use against protesters on the alert setting be suspended.
LRADs have been employed in military settings, such as by the United States in 2004, as a form of non-lethal combat. An LRAD was used against crowds at the 2009 G20 summit in its weaponised mode, causing serious and permanent injuries. It was also reported to have been used against the Occupy Oakland crowd in 2011.
Like a water canon pushes the crowd back with the force of a liquid, sound canons use waves of noise to bombard people. These can be targeted onto specific parts of the crowd.
In the US, it is frequently used on crowds in its loudspeaker mode, as was done in Canberra. Many other countries also employ LRADs for crowd communication purposes.
The Australian Federal Police, Queensland Police, South Australian Police, Western Australian Police, and Australia Victorian Police have all confirmed that they have purchased one of these devices. The Northern Territory and New South Wales police forces did not comment.
LRADs are used in a wide range of settings and by various government departments, usually on its loudspeaker mode. It is also used at runways, solar and wind farms and agricultural operations to frighten animals away from equipment.
The ABC ran a report concerned about the purchase of these devices back in 2016.
‘They can break up protests with loud, piercing sound, but Long Range Acoustic Devices can also cause permanent hearing damage. Australian law enforcement agencies are now investing in the technology, but sound and law experts say their potential use is extremely concerning.’
At the time, Melbourne University expert James Parker told the ABC, “The secrecy of the state around the tools, the weapons that it has and is capable of using on its population is something to be really, really concerned about. It expands the nature of police/state/military authority in a certain kind of way. It makes sound itself part of the arsenal that police and military and state institutions use.”
While there is no evidence that LRADs were used in their alert capacity in Canberra, there is a genuine question about whether or not police would have done so if the crowd was not as well behaved as they were.
The Canberra Convoy – created in sympathy with the Canadian Freedom Convoy in Ottawa – turned into one of the largest protests in Canberra’s history, culminating in a huge gathering in front of Parliament House.
During the day’s events, livestreamers and members of the independent press reported that they had a lot of trouble with their feeds. Attendees also reported poor or no reception for large parts of the day.
This is considered highly unusual, as the area around Parliament House has additional infrastructure particularly to deal with increased loads caused by protests and other political operations – given that it is the heart of Australia’s political landscape.
There are as-yet unconfirmed reports that two Telstra towers went down during the day, explaining why the other towers ended up overloaded resulting in what became a black spot for phones.
At least the Police Commissioner agreed with Senator Antic that – with only three arrests for a very large crowd – the protesters in Canberra were well behaved.
‘Mostly peaceful’ Kershaw agreed, but added that he did not like their attitudes. “Pretty well behaved. A lot of poor attitudes though, but there’s no offence for that. So police did cop a fair bit of abuse, but again, it didn’t cross into the criminal threshold.”
Compared to Black Lives Matter protesters in previous years calling ‘all cops bastards’, displaying artwork featuring burning police cars with the word ‘pigs’ written across them, and demanding the complete dismantling of the police force – the Canberra Convoy was very well behaved during the weeks it spent gathering size in Canberra.
Still, it would be of significant public interest to have a definitive answer on whether or not police had been authorised to use the LRAD in its other capacity.’https://www.rebelnews.com/police_confirm_use_of_controversial_lrad_device_at_canberra_protest?utm_campaign=rb_02_18_2022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

Pastor Jordan Hall with his wife and five children.
A conservative pastor who is the publisher of Montana’s largest and most influential conservative news site is being sued for “libel” by a bizarre transgender lobbyist. The leftist judge assigned to the case is also threatening the pastor with fines and a gag order even before the trial takes place.
This assault on free speech and free press is buttressed by the state’s far-left legal establishment and appears to be funded by the wealthy LGBT and Planned Parenthood lobby. The aggressive legal action, including an invasive “discovery” process of the pastor’s media operation, is clearly aimed to put the conservative news site and its subsidiary voices out of business. The radicals would even like to dictate what the pastor may say in his own church.’ For the entire article go to https://newpatriotsblog.com/