Is Truth More Important Than Convenient Lies?

MSM Misinformation... a.k.a. MSM Lies

You’ve all heard the age-old axiom, “Courage is contagious.” It’s true. Very true. It’s inspiring to see someone stand up for something they believe in, or for someone who cannot fend for themselves. You watch a person put themselves on the line for others, and you admire them, you respect them, and you think, “I want to help. I want to DO something too!” That’s courage. And it is infectious.

Another axiom, perhaps less well known, is “Truth is contagious.” When honest people stand up and tell the truth, they become powerful. This is important to understand, folks, because the way truth works, it’s exponential… The more you stand up and tell truth, the stronger you become. It’s almost spiritual. It’s definitely empowering.

So in today’s world of half-truths and opinion-driven, activist, “reporting” by mainstream media (“MSM”), the question becomes, is actual truth more important than convenient lies?

My answer to that is a resounding, “Yes!” Here’s why…

Discernment and choice are the driving forces of elected government. The public’s ability to choose what to believe or what not to believe drives public opinion and determines how we vote… which drives the direction of our society, indeed our country as a whole. And yet, when is the last time you heard actual debate in the MSM about crucial societal topics such as civil liberties, corporate power, war, natural resources? I cannot recall the last time. Very sad indeed. But it’s even more dangerous than it is sad.

This begs the question, who decides what is truth, and what are lies (or as MSM calls it, “misinformation”)? Well, it’s supposed to be you and me (i.e. members of the public). But in the United States today, that’s not who decides. Not anymore. Today it’s the MSM, in collusion with their special interest supporters/advertisers/donors/sponsors, who are deciding. They are feeding you only one side of the story. If the other side of the story gets out somehow, they immediately jump to calling it “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories,” and they will cancel anyone who is promoting or trying to encourage an open debate on a topic.

Are they doing this because they are criminals with mal intent? Is it because they are bought and paid for by special interest groups? Is it because they are lazy and just do not want to do the leg work necessary to produce a truthful story or report? I know not the answer to those questions, and in reality, the answers don’t truly matter, because the end result is the same… the public is only ever hearing half of the story. We are getting redacted information. In some cases people are being lied to, and we all end up in the same dangerous place which is, we are unable to make educated decisions. Sometimes crucial, life-altering decisions.

I hope you all remember the days of true journalism. The days when reporters didn’t advocate for their personal beliefs, but instead researched and then shared the information in a non-biased manner. Journalists are always accountable to someone. If it’s not to the public, then who is it to?

I’m going to give a couple of real-life examples to flesh out my point of the dangers of MSM “misinformation.”

There was an article written by the Buffalo News last week regarding my quarantine lawsuit that I won against Governor Hochul and her DOH on behalf of Senator George Borrello, Assemblyman Chris Tague, Congressman Mike Lawler, and a citizens’ group called Uniting NYS. (FYI, Hochul is now shamefully appealing our victory… she wants that totalitarian power back! More on that here).

So that article was entitled, “Politifact: ‘Quarantine Camps’ claim takes NY public health rule too far”… Now, when you read that, you think, “Oh, ‘Politifact’ - this reporter must have done some actual research and ‘fact-checked’ Bobbie Anne’s lawsuit and then written an article about it.” Logical conclusion to draw there. Yet, that is not at all what this reporter did. Seems to me she instead skipped the research part of journalism, and apparently based her article off of a FACEBOOK post! Yes folks, unbelievable but true. Question: if there is a lawsuit being duked out in the courts on a topic you want to write about, why on earth wouldn’t you actually read the case and then report facts about it to the public?! Or at least read the regulation that’s the subject of the lawsuit, for goodness sake! I was at first baffled by this. Then I thought, well, perhaps, could it be that the reporter doesn’t want to deal with this pesky little thing called the truth? Was she purposely trying to spread misinformation about my lawsuit and the dystopian regulation we got struck down last year? You be the judge.

But first, let me lay some background. Note that we’ve had a law on the books for 70 years that provides for quarantining a person who is sick and is a public health threat. That’s one of the main points of our lawsuit - we already have a quarantine law and it has a plethora of due process protections built-in so as to protect the citizen from government abuse! This regulation that I got struck down, was created by Hochul and her DOH, and it totally conflicts with our longstanding law, and in fact gives the DOH a power the legislature never intended it to have. So, if you say that the DOH regulation is permissible, then you are saying that unelected agency bureaucrats should be allowed to make rules that conflict with, or circumvent, our existing, longstanding laws. And if you believe that, then you are in favor of tyranny.

Against that backdrop, here are some of the facts, or rather pseudo-facts in that Buffalo article. The reporter wrote:

Under the disputed rule, the setting for quarantine and isolation can include a temporary housing location chosen by a public health authority, though in most cases people would voluntarily isolate in their homes. 

What? Pray tell, where on earth in that regulation does it say “in most cases people would voluntarily isolate in their homes”?! I’m serious. Read the reg, and let me know where it says that. Because it doesn’t. What it says is that you will isolate or quarantine wherever the Commissioner of Health tells you to. You get no say. No choice. No nothing.

Next, she proclaims:

The rule calls for coordination with law enforcement to ensure people comply with isolation or quarantine orders when necessary. The state has not operated camps for people infected with Covid-19, and experts have said it won’t start. 

Wow. Ok so to be very clear, nowhere in the over 1,200 pages of my lawsuit do we say the state is operating camps. The lawsuit isn’t about operating camps, which reporters would know if they spent even just 20 minutes reading the case. It’s about the Governor and DOH, in contravention to existing state law and the Constitution, giving themselves the shocking power to lock people up, in whatever kind of facility they want, with no proof of illness, for however long they want, with no way for you to get out once you’re locked up… unless you hire a lawyer and sue them… (their words, not mine). And by the way, if you read the FB post, it doesn’t say the state is operating camps either. So where did she get that from?

Let’s deep dive into the reporter’s aversion to the word “camps” for a minute here. Is that word too draconian for proponents of this illegal DOH rule? It sure does make it that much harder for them to defend the reg if the despotic word “camps” is used, don’t you think? Well, “free” countries such as Canada and Australia have quarantine camps. And yes, they use the word “camp” in the name. Do you recall my article earlier this year, “Inside an Australian Quarantine Camp!” where I interviewed an Australian woman who spent two weeks in the Darwin Camp in northern Australia? Check out that article, for it was replete with details on the totalitarian nature of the fully fenced-in, you-cannot-just-leave-when-you-want camp: its 24/7 police patroling and enforcing their endless rules; the outdoor “rounds” you had to walk, single-file, no talking; the limited amount of human interaction you could have with others - don’t laugh and play in the pool, that’s forbidden! Just swim your laps and get out. I even have her photos of the camp, her shoebox room, a sample meal… posted in there.

The idea of Americans getting separated from their families, being forced into facilities where they are not allowed to leave, are told what they can and cannot do whilst they are there, and in order to try to earn their freedom again they need to hire a lawyer and sue the state, seems so offensive, so utterly shocking (or against the reporter’s media company’s political stance)… we better not talk about this. Just ignore it! Sweep it under the rug. And if anyone mentions it, let’s say for example on FB, let’s call them a “Liar liar pants of fire,” as she does at the end of her article. Well folks, you’re hearing it from the lawyer who’s spent countless hours, some full of sweat and tears, fighting this reg, and I’m telling you, that is precisely what that DOH rule says the state can do to you! With NO PROOF you are sick or harboring a disease. You can call it whatever you want, a quarantine facility, building, location, detention center, hall, and yes, even a camp - pick your noun, it’s all the same. The left loves to use word salad to make their despotic policies sound good, so they’d likely prefer the name “wellness spa,” but even if you dress it up, and put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

As to the supposed “expert” from Georgetown law school, that the writer says tells us the State won’t start using quarantine camps, I have a stupid question for you: if the State doesn’t intend to use this unconstitutional reg, then why on earth did they fight me so hard last year, and now that they’ve lost, why are they appealing to try to get the rule reinstated?

Ok, I’m done with this example. I think you see my point. Giving people the wrong information, or half-truths, or only one side of the story is not just disengenuous, it’s dangerous.

---

Here’s the other example I’ll share. NPR News wrote a story about the recent Covid Litigation Conference that took place in Altanta, GA. A bit of background on this… I was there at that conference, not just as an attendee, but I was a speaker. Actually, I spoke and I also ran a panel on Civil Rights. So I was involved in the prep leading up to the conference itself, and thus have an insider’s understanding of what it was all about.

The NPR article is called, “As the pandemic winds down, anti-vaccine activists are building a legal network,” and in it, NPR casts the conference as an “anti-vax” group of lawyers looking to prolong the Covid19 drama. What?! Unbelievably twisted factual analysis of what that conference was all about. The reporter was sure to talk about lawsuits against hospitals, school boards, Big Pharma, etc that were discussed at the 2 day conference, yet she conveniently left out any reference whatsoever about my quarantine lawsuit - where We the People sued the totalitarian executive branch in New York to stop an unconstitutional power grab that would have allowed pure tyranny to ensue. Hmmmm. I wonder why she wouldn’t cover such a noble and non-partisan legal endeavor such as mine. Is it perhaps because it would derail her propogandized article? My lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with vaccines, Big Pharma, COVID19 shots, school boards, hospitals, etc… Nothing. Well, I guess I just answered my own question.

I won’t cover a blow by blow of the article, Steve Kirsch (one of the conference hosts and main organizers) wrote an article about it that you can check out here. But I will note one part of his article which parrots my point here:

I used to really respect NPR. But now I know what was said and what appears in the article and my opinion has changed.

If NPR was really interested in the truth, they’d host a panel discussion between experts on both sides of the debate.

They will never do that because they don’t want anyone in America to hear both sides of the debate. It’s not that they are afraid of losing the debate; they are confident they are right. It’s that they truly think they would be legitimizing the anti-vaxxers by hosting a debate.

News is about reporting what happened and not making judgements. NPR has really lost it. NPR, like the other media companies, is putting out propaganda and not news. They need to take a hard look at themselves in the mirror.

---

Inspirational Quote: