Jonathan Emord Constitutional Remedies For Election Genome Change SCOTUS 2013 Decision

Thank you for tuning in to Chosen Generation. Chosen Generation. If your church or group would like to have Pastor Greg come and share his passion to raise up a chosen generation, he is available to bring that same life-changing message and anointing to your event.

Again, that number is 830-446-3624. Give us a call and keep on listening because you are God's chosen generation. Welcome to Chosen Generation with your host, Pastor Greg Young. And welcome back to Chosen Generation Radio where no topic is off limits and everything is filtered through biblical glasses. Thanks so much for being with me today. I greatly appreciate it.

I know you have a choice on where you can listen each and every day and I thank you for keeping it tuned here to Chosen Generation Radio. Well, I am very pleased to have my next guest with us. He is a constitutional law attorney, author of The Authoritarians, their assault on individual liberty, the Constitution and free enterprise. And he is also, obviously, he is a practicing attorney representing a lot of different clientele and I am grateful that he could join us today to talk about some constitutional issues. Jonathan Emore. Jonathan, welcome. Good to have you. Thank you so much.

Good to be with you, Pastor Greg. Well, sir, I wanted to get your thoughts specifically with regards to some election issues and on the basis of what if, because more and more states are now looking at what happened in their elections, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. And there are several more that are considering beginning investigations. What happens if those investigations, this is the question, what happens if those investigations provide significant and substantial evidence that the vote counts that were turned in were inaccurate? And the results would then be, I don't know, would they be nullified?

How would that work? Well, on the federal level, for the presidential election, the votes were certified by Congress. And so it would be very, very, very hard indeed to overturn the election, particularly because the Supreme Court has weighed in on all prior instances of alleged voter fraud and has ruled that those, that the evidence was insufficient to support the cases by affirming decisions to that same effect in the lower courts. So as a legal matter, it's rather difficult to use it to overturn an election. However, the information is pertinent, of course, to election law. And that is to say that individual instances of provable fraud feed into both bases for prosecution of those who are responsible for that, and also for a reform of the electoral process. Now, that's good and bad, depending on what state you're talking about, because of which party is in control. In instances where you have a red state, that information can aid responsible legislators in ensuring greater integrity.

For example, voter ID laws that can have some teeth to them in the sense that it can give greater assurance that people who are purporting to be someone when they vote are actually that person. Unfortunately, in blue states, they use the same information to argue that there has been inadequate care taken to assure minority representation in voting, and they prefer to use such things as mail-in ballots, which are notoriously prone to fraud. That's because they have largely generated a lot of this fraudulent voting by having groups like in California that will harvest mail-in ballots and largely influence people who are recipients of it or just steal them and fraudulently complete them.

It's very, very hard to prove when you have an open system like that. So it's important to do these things, these audits, and ascertain any evidence of fraud and prosecute against it and take it into account in ensuring greater integrity in the voting process. But unfortunately, that greater integrity is ordinarily a byproduct of legislation, and in states where Democrats predominate and have suddenly a national agenda from the legislation that we've recently seen on the federal level, which would have been another disaster had it passed. The party is committed, as a practical matter, to mail-in ballots and to loosening restrictions that would otherwise ensure integrity. For example, they would allow illegal aliens to vote and would allow people who are in prison to vote. They advocate that overtly to pass legislation around the country to enable people who have been convicted of felonies to nonetheless vote against the precedent that has existed for over 100 years, denying felons the right to vote. It's a scary process to think about the federalization of the elections, which, yes, that is exactly what that bill would have done, is taken the constitutional responsibility of the states to run elections in the state away, as I understand it, and give that power to the federal government.

That would be an incredibly dangerous thing. Fairly interpreted, what they proposed on the federal level, if it were to have passed, would have been unconstitutional, precisely for the reasons we're talking about. The Constitution does have the power to conduct elections in the states, and so it would have usurped a power that is expressly given the states in the Constitution. As we know, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have very little respect for the Constitution.

They have a great deal of respect for their own power and wealth and allies who assist them in gaining more power and wealth, but they have very little respect for the Constitution unless they can use it to their advantage in helping themselves and advancing the far-left agenda that is now predominant in the Democratic Party. That also brings up an interesting question, speculative question, but Nancy Pelosi is giving signals that she might be going to step down. That would be a cause for a national holiday. The dethroning of Queen Pelosi is an event that should be celebrated with greater vigor than the beheading of Charles I. It's a curiosity, though, in my mind as well, in light of some of these other questions that are popping up around things that she's done, obviously mask mandates and her kind of Gestapo-type behavior. But I also have to wonder if in the back rooms that we don't see, they know that they had or played a role in skewing this last election and that some of the chickens may be coming home to roost. Well, as we know from even overt examples of corruption with the president and Hunter Biden, the information from Hunter Biden's laptop showing that not only did Hunter Biden engage in influence peddling that resulted in the netting of tens of millions of dollars in his bank account, but that that money from that bank account was actually used to pay Daddy Joe Biden's debts of various kinds. So and that Joe Biden was aware of these influence peddling efforts and was privy to these actions, even in the presence of that sort of direct corruption. We have known law enforcement.

We have correct rules for the but not for me. If you're a Democrat and you're Hillary Clinton, you don't get convicted of the espionage act violations, even though they're absolutely transparent on the face of the evidence. The Comey had he elected not to prosecutor. If you're if you are Donald Trump, then you end up suffering for over three years of a federal FBI investigation that was based on nothing but entire political rot generated from that from Hillary Clinton's campaign in the steel dossier.

Right. Understood by the FBI to be total bunk. So in other words, it doesn't matter that they Nancy Pelosi had no significant fear that any action will ever be taken against her for any of the things she's done that has been complicit in wrongful actions or that have resulted in injury to people.

She she she thinks she's going to be scot free and that she'll never have to account for anything that she's done. And and the collusion that you're talking about with the Bidens is, you know, Russia, China and the Ukraine, basically in all three of those countries, they were involved in in provable issues that that, you know, that took place there. Let's talk about vaccines for a minute, because I know you're involved with regards to, you know, those kinds of issues. They're talking mandatory vaccines. I was reading something on on an OSHA site today that indicated that employers that mandate some an employee to take the vaccine mandate must take it. Then could also bear responsibility if there's an adverse reaction under a workers compensation claim.

Absolutely. It is it is it is very much the case that a unilateral mandates from the mayor of the city of New York without any vote by the city council or by the executive branch of the government without any vote by the Congress of the United States is a violation of the separation of powers. Article one, section one, because all laws are created by Congress under the Constitution and for the president to usurp the lawmaking power and create a national law in effect that compels everyone vaccinated. That would fundamentally violate the separation of powers and would be unconstitutional. So I don't think that the president has a leg to stand on when he argues that he's going to be able to reinstate that a national mandate for vaccination when it comes to the government employees.

It's a little bit more of a dicey question. However, any adoption for an agency or department of a mandatory vaccine initiative would have to come as a result of a notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. So, again, if the president just unilaterally orders everybody in the Department of Defense and military to be vaccinated, he's exceeding his power under the law by violating the Administrative Procedure Act. It's really rather, you know, these are these are some rather scary concerns, I think, for all of us. You know, again, the the idea that we can be mandated to take this objection when we come back. I've got another case to throw out there, folks, that is just crazy. When you start thinking about it, we'll talk about it a little bit in the green room and then we'll bring it out to you when we come back on our on our next segment.

I'm your host, Pastor Greg. You're listening to Chodin Generation Radio. Now is a critical time to be vigilant in the defense of our freedom. There's no better way to do so than by joining the Association of Mature American Citizens, AMAC. AMAC is one of the fastest growing conservative organizations in America. Well over two million people have joined and now carry the AMAC membership card. AMAC was built by regular folks to feel the same way you do.

You're not alone. AMAC believes in and stands up for the values that made America so great. We're fighting the good fight against reckless government spending and the ever expanding scope of federal government.

We believe in the sanctity of our Constitution. So if you're 50 or over and hold to traditional American values, you no longer have to feel alone. Call the Association for Mature American Citizens, AMAC, and get great discounts and support your values. Call today. 855-696-7930. 855-696-7930. Use the code PastorGreg.

Get your first year absolutely free. This is Adam Mundahl with State Air and we are sponsors of Chosen Generation and Pastor Greg. Sponsoring this program has been a real blessing to our business and I want to encourage you to join me in sponsoring Chosen Generation and Pastor Greg. Call him today at 830-446-3624. Once again, that's 830-446-3624.

I know your business will be blessed as ours is and I challenge you to this blessing. Thank you. The healthcare open enrollment period has ended.

Did you miss it? Don't worry, you can still get a healthcare program by signing up at Liberty Health Share. As a Christian healthcare sharing ministry, we are not insurance, so you can still sign up. You can pick your program, choose your own doctors and hospitals.

We have programs for singles, couples, and families, all with no contract, starting at only $349 per month. Go to LibertyHealthShare.org forward slash Pastor Greg. LibertyHealthShare.org forward slash Pastor Greg. LibertyHealthShare.org forward slash Pastor Greg. Hello, I'm Mike Lindell and I'm coming to you with the most important commercial that I've ever done. All of you know what MyPillow and myself have gone through in the last five months in my efforts to bring the truth forward.

Well, it's all come down to this. I'm having a cyber symposium on August 10th, 11th, and 12th. This historical event will be live streamed 72 hours straight on my new platform, FrankSpeech.com. You can help by getting everybody you know to go to FrankSpeech.com now.

To help support this cyber symposium event, I am offering some of the best prices ever on MyPillow products. But they're only offered at FrankSpeech.com. Go to FrankSpeech.com, use the promo code PastorGreg. That's Pastor Greg. Or call 800-662-9236 to receive these exclusive MyPillow offers.

Thank you and God bless. I'm hungry. What's this? Okay, beans again. Did somebody say hungry? Pistol Peach Jerky at PistolPeachJerky.com. A herd of delicious flavors.

Break bronco-busting hunger. Lasso up your order at PistolPeachJerky.com. Thanks Pistol Pete.

I made it myself. PistolPeachJerky.com. Tell them Pete sent you. Now back to Chosen Generation with your host Pastor Greg. And don't forget you can get more Chosen Generation at www.ChosenGenerationRadio.com.

And welcome back to Chosen Generation Radio. I'm your host Pastor Greg. Alright folks, I want you to be listening very closely as we discuss this. Because you're going to hear something in this that you have been possibly as a Christian conditioned to react to.

And so I'm going to try and walk us through this. This is a case, it's called Pathology vs. Myriad Genetics Inc. from 2013.

It's a true case. The United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it's a product of nature. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by RNA vaccines, the kind that are currently being used, then the altered genome can be patented.

Jonathan, what does that mean to us? That means that they own something that's inside of us then potentially, correct? Well that's an argument that could be made. And what it means is that if someone were to assert a right of ownership to a substance that was wedded to your own DNA and altered it, that there would be an immediate legal issue as to whether or not the rights of the purported owner of the property trump the rights of the individual potentially. And that would be if such an issue could be squarely placed before the court, then the defense for the individual would arise out of a right of privacy or an argument that again reverts back to the idea that you cannot own someone's DNA. I mean one argument would be that the human genome is evolutionary in the sense that throughout life it's altered. That if you put in a property of one kind or another that is then melded into the human genome and is altered by life's occurrences and is not impervious to that, that you no longer have your property. That is to say, you knowingly place your property into an environment in which it would be subject to change, therefore you cannot claim any right of ownership. Furthermore, it offends the personal autonomy of an individual, their right of privacy and their right to life and potentially their right to liberty to the extent that you would say that someone would lose their personhood in some respect or their autonomy or their right of self-control in some respect because they had been given a treatment.

That would have been of course an unwitting circumstance. No one would take a treatment if they thought that they would become a slave or would in some way lose their personal autonomy, privacy, liberty, rights or life. That of course has to do with informed consent which they are supposed to offer you before they give you this injection.

However, if you have received that informed consent and somewhere in there in the small print this exists and you took it anyway, now you become what is classified as transhuman and it is questionable then whether or not you have those rights or those human rights as it were. I am just going to throw this last piece out and Jonathan and I were talking about this in the green room and I have thought about this for a lot of years. Roe v. Wade and I know everybody bristles at Roe v. Wade but Roe v. Wade is the only thing right now then that would stand between us and them having a right to our bodies. Think about that.

Now Jonathan was explaining to me there is a very thin and very small portion of Roe v. Wade that would just simply acknowledge that life begins at conception and that part be overturned and still the protections of Roe v. Wade to protect all of us from the government owning our bodies still would exist. Jonathan, thanks for being with us today and explaining these very, very... I'm hungry.

What's this? Beans again. Did somebody say hungry? Pistol Pete's Jerky at PistolPete's Jerky.com. A herd of delicious flavors.

Break bronco-busting hunger. Lasso up your order at PistolPete's Jerky.com. Thanks Pistol Pete. I made it myself. PistolPete's Jerky.com.

Tell them Pete sent you. PistolPete's Jerky.com is the official beef jerky of the Children's Generation Radio Show. When you place your order you'll receive two free U.S. constitutions and a U.S. flag sticker. One constitution for you to read, cover to cover and the second to pass on to your friends, family or loved ones. Go to PistolPete's Jerky.com and use discount code CGR to get an additional 10% off PistolPete's Jerky.com and place your order today.