#TrinityHealthFreedomExpo #NoMandtes #NaturalHealthSolutions #Freedom

Welcome to Chosen Generation with your host, Pastor Greg Young. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that you should shoe forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, which in time past were not a people but are now the people of God, which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

And now, Chosen Generation, where no topic is off limits and everything is filtered through biblical glasses. And now, here's your host, Pastor Greg. And welcome to the program. Great to have you with me.

Thanks so much for being here. Like I told you last night, we've got an absolutely awesome, awesome program lined up for you today. Very excited to have you with us. And to kick things off, I'm very excited to welcome here.

And this is the first time we get to do this live next to each other, looking each other in the eye, if you will. And it's my sincere pleasure to welcome Jonathan Emor to the program. Jonathan, welcome.

Thank you, Pastor Greg. Great to be with you. It is great to have you with me, sir. Great to have you with me.

Well, this is exciting. Trinity Health Freedom Expo. I mean, let's start off with this. How important do you think health freedom is in America today?

Oh, it's critical. We've got this vaccine mandate, for example, and big tech suppression of information about anything that calls into question vaccines or that calls and invites people to consider any alternative method of treatment. This is precisely the wrong kind of approach. It's an authoritarian approach that has proven time and again to be the wrong way to deal with a crisis, and particularly a health crisis. You know, we depend on, when there's a novel virus like this, we depend on innovation, of course, to steer our way through it. And one of the great benefits of living in a free country is a wide-open, robust debate in science with the population thoroughly versed in what's going on to come up with solutions. And when you have a one-size-fits-all approach that government mandates, and you have censorship of all other approaches and censorship of any criticism of the vaccine approach, you not only have a gross violation of the First Amendment, but you also have a terrible way of running the program, because you'd rather have independent scientists researching feverishly for methods to treat it, and full information coming out about those methods, and full debate about it, so that people could, doctors and patients, could integrate into their treatments the best methods. And the best methods will only come to the fore through a robust, wide-open debate and practice of medicine in attacking this. So the Health Freedom Expo is all about that.

Julie Klein has been a master of ensuring this. Her father was really quite wonderful in opening this whole idea that people need information, and they need to be able to freely choose what is in their own health interest. And so often, conventional medicine has failed, and there's been no alternative.

And so what we really do need is the opportunity for people to appreciate that there are alternatives, that there are innovations out there. And I'm not saying that, you know, hucksters or people presenting false information should be protected. To the contrary, I think they should be prosecuted. But when it comes to providing people with sound health information and alternatives reasonably communicated to them when they're not proven, that's good, and we should be all about it. And unfortunately, in this mandate vaccine environment, we have no opportunity to have that free flow of information, which the First Amendment was designed to protect and ensure in our great country. Jonathan, doesn't it also concern us, though? Because when you talk about, you know, the idea of curtailing those that are putting out false information, what about the government's putting out false information?

Well, that's right. You know, you've got the CDC. I mean, it clearly, Thomas Renz has a very viable lawsuit that he's filing that clearly indicates that the CDC has in fact, given us false information.

And they label I mean, every single person here at this Expo, that is saying there are God given natural means by which to stay healthy, and to overcome this. They're all considered to be propagandists. Well, the government creates misinformation.

Yes, that is communicates false information to people. Yes, because the government in the end is is a political operative. That is to say the Food and Drug Administration is not a scientific body.

It is run by politicians, political appointees, who make the ultimate determination. And as we know, for example, with the mandate and with the insistence on the boosters, for example, they lost two FDA employees who are critical, because they were objecting to the political mandate inside the government, forcing the booster issue when there wasn't enough sound scientific evidence to justify supporting that booster rollout. And so you've got this kind of tension where the government comes up with a political answer that that override science and becomes the new scientific mantra lysenkoism, if you will, use the Russian example. And it's forced upon the population, which you don't hear about is the debate underlying it and the criticism of it, which you should be given full access to the government's decision on on science is one position. Science doesn't operate that way.

Science is is an environment that is one of robust debate where criticism and cynicism exists and where people are skeptical, and where information is challenged. You don't have a one size fits all approach in perpetuity that's only made possible by government mandate by government censorship. So we have to get away from this censorship environment, we have to appreciate that under our constitution, the First Amendment has made the choice for us. And that is, each person is sovereign, each person gets to decide for him or herself what information he or she will place credence in, in determining what's best in their health interests. Likewise, each person gets to choose what medical advisor should be that person's advisor and what medical advisor should be.

And what that that person who's the advisor needs to be free to communicate his or her professional opinion as to what is the best approach. And if this were an environment that was open like that, you would see far more reliance on things that have been shown to have efficacy like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or monoclonal antibodies or other treatment approaches. Instead of that, just this knee jerk reliance on vaccine.

We've even got democratic politicians who are saying that those who are unvaccinated who end up in the hospital really shouldn't be given any treatment because they made the wrong choice. They should have followed the government's requirement or, you know, been in lockstep with what is required. That's fascism.

That's not the way this country is designed. We are designed to respect individual freedom of choice. You have a right to make what others might think is a mistake. You have a right to hold an opinion that others consider to be a wrong opinion. You have a right to espouse views that others think are erroneous. You have a right to believe for your family and yourself that you should say, for example, be Amish and live an Amish lifestyle which is contrary to those who would advocate full introduction into this woke environment. I mean, people have a right to conduct their own affairs so long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. If we don't preserve that Jeffersonian principle, which defined liberty at the founding, then we aren't Americans because that's at the root of what it means to be an American.

Doesn't that also because you bring up, you know, the drug issue and what is approved and what is acceptable and so on and so forth. Doesn't that also, Jonathan, speak to the issue of the administrative state that you talk about significantly in your book, how there's this rogue entity that is unmonitored by Congress, unmonitored by the American people, literally out there doing their own bidding. They have their own kangaroo courts. They disrespect the Constitution. They accept bribes.

We know that now because Mark Zuckerberg gave him $4.9 billion extra dollars so that they would look the other way at all of his violations that he's doing under the FTC. Jonathan, it's out of control. It is out of control. It's mushroomed since the New Deal.

This is not a... The direction towards authoritarianism is not something that is new with the administrative state. It actually was the reason for its creation, as I explained in the authoritarians. What happened was after the Civil War, when this ideology of Hegel's collectivism had taken root in defense of the institution of slavery, it was not abolished when the 13th Amendment was adopted. It lived on and it became the popular intellectual justification for overcoming the limits that the Constitution places on power and to replace a constitution of liberty with an authoritarian regime. And this is not an academic argument.

This is a historical fact. After the Civil War, the leading academics in all of the institutions, universities in this country just about flocked to Germany, to the historical schools in Germany where Hegel's philosophy was taught. And they were educated to believe, first, that John Locke's Second Treatise on Government was rubbish because it started with the presumption that individuals had rights from God, not from the state. And they argued that that was bunk, that rights were a creation of man, that collective rights were the only legitimate rights, that individual rights did not exist, that the state created rights and the state could take them away, and that the problem that we have was inefficiency in government and lack of power. And so what they argued was, and they taught this to these American academics, that the United States Constitution, that the Declaration of Independence were rubbish because they were based on false principles, that the only true principles were those of collective rights and those of service to the state, and that the state needed to be run by experts, and that if experts were allowed to run government and to dictate how people would run their lives, it would ensure that a common good was attained. And so they argued for this. These academics accepted the argument by and large, came back like, you know, Woodrow Wilson, for example, is the second generation after this, taught by those who were taught in Germany, who subscribed to this view, and was educated in this, and accepted it hook, line, and sinker, as did these academics by and large, so that they replaced in the university respect for classical liberalism and individual rights, and they replaced it with collectivism. And Woodrow Wilson drank deeply of this and actually made outrageous statements in his own private writings, but rejecting the Declaration of Independence principles, for example, the second paragraph of the Declaration. So, yeah, it's a real problem, and that's the origin of it. Well, and I want to take it a step further, because there's several people that are talking about that Locke kind of didn't take it far enough relative to understanding the amount of importance that should have been placed on God giving us those rights, the Creator, God giving us those rights, and the reason, therefore, why the Founding Fathers would lay down their lives, right, because they understood what it was, the liberty they were fighting for. Back with more after this.