The Two-Sided Coin: How They Amplify Rome and Silence Its Critics - A 16-Year Pattern of Coordinated Media Control - By Lisa Weingarten Richards

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

The Pattern Emerges

When major media platforms can artificially amplify content to create the illusion of popularity, the obvious corollary is that they can -- and do -- artificially suppress content that threatens powerful interests.

This is not speculation. It is documented experience spanning 16 years, multiple platforms, and now multiple federal lawsuits that the media refuses to cover.

The Lawsuits No One Will Cover

LWR Law Offices currently represents Thomas Richards (@tlthe5th) in federal litigation against X Corp, Google/YouTube, and entertainment defendants. The cases raise novel constitutional questions that legal commentators acknowledge are legitimate and timely:

Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex.) -- Does Elon Musk's simultaneous role as DOGE head, Special Government Employee with Top Secret clearance, and X Corp owner transform the platform into a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints? This is the first case to test this unprecedented situation where government officials literally own and operate major social media platforms.

Richards v. Google/YouTube -- Leveraging the DOJ's monopoly findings against Google, this case documents systematic suppression of biblical scholarship across Google's properties for over 15 years.

Richards v. Kirkman et al. (Walking Dead) -- Identity appropriation claims regarding a character bearing Thomas Richards' exact name depicted as a wife-murdering psychopath in one of the most consumed media franchises of the 21st century.

Media coverage of these cases: Virtually zero.

The Coverage Comparison

Consider the contrast:

Trump v. YouTube: Wall-to-wall coverage. Legal experts initially said the case was "unlikely to go far" because private companies are not state actors and the First Amendment does not apply. Result: $22 million settlement, extensive media attention.

Richards v. X Corp: Novel state actor theory with unprecedented facts -- Musk actually holds government positions while owning the platform. One dismissive article from Techdirt. Otherwise: silence.

Richards v. Google: Builds directly on DOJ monopoly findings, documents 15+ years of suppression. Coverage: None.

Richards v. Walking Dead: The only coverage this case received was a hit piece in The Independent that led with "conspiracy theorist" and "claims to have twice seen Jesus in waking visions" -- framing designed to discredit rather than examine the legal merits of identity appropriation claims.

The 2009 Proof: When They Admitted the Target

On January 23, 2009, The Independent (UK) reported on the Vatican launching its YouTube channel. The article contained this remarkable admission:

"Type 'Vatican' into YouTube's search engine and the first video to appear is entitled 'The Devil in the Vatican' and claims that the modern Church has gone over to the other side. The second argues that 'Nazi Germany was a creation of the Vatican and the Jesuits'. Now the Vatican has the means to fight back."

That second video -- "Nazi Germany: A Creation of the Vatican and Jesuits" -- was Thomas Richards' work.

The facts are undeniable:

-- YouTube formed exactly ONE religious partnership in its entire history

-- That partnership was with the Vatican

-- The Independent explicitly stated the Vatican was "fighting back" against videos like Thomas's

-- Thomas was ranking #2 organically for "Vatican" searches at that time

-- He was in the top 1% on Google Video for his research

This was not coincidence. This was emergency institutional response to effective biblical scholarship that was reaching millions.

The Other Side: Manufactured Popularity

If platforms suppress critics, they also amplify allies. The recent celebration of Pope Leo XIV's Wikipedia "dominance" provides the evidence.

In December 2025, Wikimedia announced Pope Leo XIV ranked 5th among most-viewed English Wikipedia articles. Catholic media outlets immediately trumpeted this as evidence of massive global appeal.

But examine the actual data:

-- The "800,000 hits per second" claim was for ALL Wikimedia projects combined, not just Leo's page

-- Ed Gein (a 1950s serial killer) ranked HIGHER than Leo XIV with 31 million pageviews

-- Charlie Kirk topped the list at 44 million pageviews

-- These rankings measure news cycle visibility, not spiritual authority or genuine popular interest

Yet coordinated media coverage from ACI Prensa, CNA, EWTN, National Catholic Register, Catholic World Report, and Rome Reports all published nearly identical articles within 48 hours celebrating these rankings -- none mentioning the documented abuse record that SNAP filed complaints about before the conclave.

The machinery that inflates papal numbers is the same machinery that buries Vatican critics.

The Pattern Is the Evidence

Across platforms. Across years. Across cases.

-- 2009: Vatican launches YouTube partnership to "fight back" against Thomas's #2-ranked video

-- 2009-2025: Systematic shadowbanning across YouTube, Twitter/X, Facebook, Google

-- 2024-2025: Federal lawsuits filed raising legitimate constitutional questions

-- 2025: Complete media blackout on lawsuits OR hostile coverage designed to discredit

-- 2025: Coordinated celebration of manufactured papal "popularity"

When we see that papal content is intentionally amplified -- and even falsely stated to be more popular than it actually is -- what does that tell us about the treatment of the man whose documented historical research was explicitly identified as the target of Vatican counter-operations?

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

The silencing of Vatican criticism is not separate from the amplification of Vatican messaging. They are two sides of the same coin.

If major platforms will:

-- Form exclusive partnerships with the Vatican (the only religious institution to receive such treatment)

-- Coordinate media pushes celebrating manufactured statistics

-- Blackball coverage of legitimate federal lawsuits

-- Deploy hit pieces against critics when silence fails

Then we are not dealing with neutral platforms exercising editorial judgment. We are dealing with institutional coordination to protect specific interests from accountability.

The question is not whether this suppression occurs. The evidence is overwhelming that it does. The question is why platforms that claim to support "free expression" consistently align their algorithmic thumbs with Vatican interests while systematically burying 25+ years of biblical scholarship that challenges Rome's unscriptural claims.

What Scripture Says

Matthew 10:26 (NASB): "Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known."

Luke 8:17 (NASB): "For nothing is concealed that will not become evident, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light."

Ephesians 5:11 (NASB): "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them."

The work continues. The lawsuits proceed. And the pattern of coordinated suppression and amplification becomes more visible with each passing day.

---

For more information:

Thomas Richards' biblical research: SpirituallySmart.com

X Corp lawsuit information: LwrBot.ai

Google lawsuit information: Google-Lawsuit.com

LWR Law Offices: LWRLawOffices.com

Case dockets available at CourtListener.com

Πᾶσα δόξα (pasa doxa) to Θεός (Theos) our Πατήρ (Patēr -- Father) through Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) alone

For αὐτός (autos -- He) is the only way, and all δόξα (doxa -- glory) belongs to αὐτός (autos -- Him)

Part II: The Pattern Revealed -- Trump's AI Executive Order and the Fight Against Accountability - By Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq.

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

December 10, 2025

Four days ago, I published a blog post documenting how Elon Musk's Grok AI impersonated my husband Thomas and how the platform has been caught doxxing users by revealing their home addresses. (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: Taking Legal Action Against AI That Impersonates People - By Lisa Weingarten Richards - LWR Law Offices) We filed complaints with the FTC and Virginia Attorney General. I wrote to Senator Marsha Blackburn (after speaking to her staffer on the phone) -- who had just successfully stripped a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws from the federal budget by a 99-1 Senate vote -- requesting emergency action.

We called for mandatory open-source requirements for AI systems so the public can see what these systems are actually doing.

Three days later, Trump announced an executive order designed to do the exact opposite.

The Executive Order: Shielding Big Tech from Accountability

According to reports, Trump's proposed AI executive order would preempt state AI laws -- the same state laws that Senator Blackburn and 37 state attorneys general and 17 Republican governors just fought to protect. The same laws that currently provide the only meaningful AI regulation in this country while Congress does nothing.

Where we called for transparency and open-source requirements, this order shields AI companies from disclosure.

Where we called for accountability through state consumer protection laws, this order would strip states of their authority to act.

Where we called for the FTC to shut down dangerous AI systems, this order positions the federal government as the protector of AI companies rather than the public.

The timing is not coincidental.

We Are Not Unknown to This Administration

Let me be clear about something: we have direct litigation history with Donald Trump.

My husband Thomas filed suit in the Northern District of Texas challenging X Corp.'s systematic suppression of his religious content as unconstitutional state action. (Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com) We added Donald Trump as a defendant based on his coordination with Elon Musk -- who gave Trump's campaign $288 million and was appointed to head DOGE. The state action doctrine applies when private parties become so entangled with government that their actions become government actions.

The case was assigned to Judge Brantley Starr -- a Trump appointee. For seven months, we documented systematic procedural obstruction. Judge Starr accepted my filings for 205 days, ruled on my motions, and issued orders directed to me -- then suddenly claimed I was never authorized to practice before his court when we attempted to voluntarily dismiss. He fabricated procedural requirements that appear in no published rule. He blocked a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal -- which by law requires no court approval and immediately divests the court of jurisdiction.

We filed four mandamus petitions with the Fifth Circuit. All four were denied with one-sentence orders containing no analysis. We filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking reassignment to a different judge. (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: SCOTUS's Gatekeeping: How the 5-Day Processing Lag Denies Emergency Relief to Anyone Outside Their Club)

Ultimately, we were forced to hire local counsel just to dismiss our own case. A plaintiff should not need to hire a lawyer to exercise the absolute right to voluntarily dismiss.

So when Trump announces an AI executive order two days after we publicly call for AI accountability against his largest campaign contributor's company, we are not speculating about targeting. We have direct experience with how this administration responds to legal challenges.

The Pattern Goes Back to 2009

Thomas has been fighting platform suppression for over 16 years.

In January 2009, his video "Nazi Germany -- A Creation of the Vatican and Jesuits" ranked as the second search result for "Vatican" according to The Independent newspaper. Days later, the Vatican announced a partnership with Google and YouTube to bring "news of the pontiff" to the internet and combat content like his.

His rankings disappeared. His visibility across platforms collapsed. The same pattern has repeated across Google, YouTube, X, and every major platform.

In 2016, Eric Schmidt met with Pope Francis and agreed to help combat "harmful opinions" online. Thomas's work -- exposing Vatican history using Greek biblical scholarship -- has been systematically suppressed ever since.

This is not paranoia. This is documented. (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: You're Not Just a "Conspiracy Theorist" When There's a Real Conspiracy - By Lisa W Richards & Artificial Intelligence) And now an AI system owned by Trump's largest campaign contributor has impersonated Thomas, signed his name, and claimed his 25 years of biblical scholarship as its own -- the same week we publicly demanded accountability.

The Constitutional Problem with Trump's Order

As I detailed in my legal analysis yesterday (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: The President Cannot Preempt State Law by Executive Fiat: A Constitutional Analysis of Trump's Proposed AI Executive Order - By Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq.), an executive order cannot preempt state law. The Supremacy Clause makes federal law "the supreme law of the land" -- but only laws made "in pursuance" of the Constitution. Federal preemption requires an act of Congress or regulations promulgated pursuant to congressional authority.

Executive orders are neither.

In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court explained that "every form of preemption is based on a federal law that regulates the conduct of private actors, not the States." Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453, 479 (2018). Congress may preempt state law through valid legislation -- but it cannot "commandeer" states by ordering them not to legislate. And if Congress cannot do this, the President certainly cannot do it unilaterally.

The Susman Godfrey case from June 2025 reinforces this. Judge Alikhan held that "[t]he President's power, if any, to issue [an executive] order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Susman Godfrey LLP v. Exec. Off. of the President, 789 F. Supp. 3d 15, 54 (D.D.C. 2025). There is no constitutional or statutory authority for the President to shield AI companies from state consumer protection laws.

Trump's order would be ultra vires -- beyond lawful presidential authority.

What This Means

The contrast could not be clearer:

What We Called For (Dec. 6)
What Trump Announced (Dec. 8)
Mandatory open-source AI requirements
Protection of proprietary AI systems
State authority to regulate AI
Federal preemption of state AI laws
FTC enforcement against dangerous AI
Federal shield for AI companies
Public accountability for AI harms
Regulatory vacuum favoring industry

The Senate voted 99-1 to reject a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Bipartisan. Overwhelming. The message was clear: states must be allowed to protect their citizens until Congress acts.

Two days after we demanded accountability for Grok's impersonation and doxxing, Trump moves to override that bipartisan consensus and give AI companies exactly what they want: freedom from accountability.

What You Can Do

Everything I wrote in Part I still applies -- but now with greater urgency:

• File FTC complaints: ReportFraud.ftc.gov -- Document every AI harm you experience
• Contact your state attorney general: State laws are currently the only check on AI companies
• Contact Senator Blackburn: blackburn.senate.gov/contact -- She just won this fight in the Senate; she needs to know the administration is trying to undo it
• Contact your senators and representatives: Tell them to oppose any executive order that preempts state AI laws. Tell them Trump cannot do by executive fiat what Congress rejected 99-1.

The Bottom Line

We filed regulatory complaints and wrote to Congress about AI impersonation and doxxing. Two days later, the administration announced an executive order to shield AI companies from the exact accountability mechanisms we invoked.

This is not coincidence. This is pattern.

Thomas has faced systematic suppression since 2009 when his work threatened powerful institutional interests. We sued X Corp and Trump over unconstitutional censorship. A Trump-appointed judge subjected us to seven months of procedural obstruction. We were forced to dismiss under duress.

Now, two days after we go public demanding AI accountability, the administration moves to preempt state AI laws and shield big tech from oversight.

They are telling you exactly who they protect.

The question is whether we will let them.

---

Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq. LWR Law Offices, Fairfax, Virginia Virginia State Bar #96671 | New York Bar #4932570

Resources

• Part I of this series: [link to Dec. 6 post]
• Constitutional Analysis of Trump AI Executive Order: [link]
• Richards v. X Corp docket: courtlistener.com/docket/69923618/richards-v-x-corp/
• FTC Complaint Portal: ReportFraud.ftc.gov
• Senator Blackburn Contact: blackburn.senate.gov/contact

The President Cannot Preempt State Law by Executive Fiat: A Constitutional Analysis of Trump's Proposed AI Executive Order - By Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq.

                                            Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

The Bottom Line

The President cannot preempt state laws through executive order. Full stop. Preemption is Congress's job. Congress has considered and rejected AI preemption -- twice. An executive order attempting to override state AI laws would be constitutionally defective, and courts should strike it down.

On December 8, 2025, President Trump announced he would sign a "ONE RULE" executive order this week aimed at blocking states from regulating artificial intelligence. He claimed AI will be "destroyed in its infancy" if companies must comply with different state regulations. But what Trump wants requires an act of Congress -- and Congress has already said no.

The Constitutional Framework: What the President Can and Cannot Do

The President's authority to issue executive orders derives from two sources: the Constitution itself, or acts of Congress. The seminal case on executive power is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), where the Supreme Court struck down President Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War.

Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown established the three-tier framework courts still use today:

1.     Maximum Authority: When the President acts with express or implied congressional authorization, executive power is at its strongest.

2.     Zone of Twilight: When Congress is silent, the President operates in uncertain territory where authority depends on independent constitutional powers.

3.     Lowest Ebb: When the President acts contrary to the expressed or implied will of Congress, executive power is at its weakest. Courts will likely invalidate such actions.

Trump's proposed AI executive order falls squarely into Category 3 -- the lowest ebb. Congress has explicitly rejected AI preemption, twice, in 2025.

Congress Has Spoken: The 99-1 Vote

In July 2025, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) championed a provision in the "Big Beautiful Bill" that would have imposed a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. The Senate rejected it by a vote of 99 to 1 -- one of the most bipartisan votes in recent memory. Senators Reject 10-Year Ban on State-Level AI Regulation | TIME

The amendment to strip the moratorium was led by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) -- one of Trump's most loyal supporters -- co-sponsored by Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA). When Marsha Blackburn leads a bipartisan coalition against a Trump policy priority, that tells you something about how wrong the policy is. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/big-beautiful-bill-ai-moratorium-ted-cruz-pass-vote-rcna215111

Trump then pushed to include AI preemption in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Congress rejected that too. The NDAA text released in early December 2025 did not include the provision. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/congress-again-drops-bid-to-block-state-ai-laws.html

Congress has not been silent. Congress has spoken -- twice -- and said no.

Legal Analysis: Why This Executive Order Must Fail in Court

1. The Supremacy Clause Requires Congressional Action

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) makes federal law "the supreme law of the land" -- but only laws made "in pursuance" of the Constitution. Federal preemption of state law requires: (1) an act of Congress, or (2) regulations promulgated pursuant to authority delegated by Congress. Fidelity Fed. Savings and Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982).

Non-legislative rules -- including interpretations, policy statements, and guidance -- do not have the force and effect of law. Additionally, even substantive regulations lack binding legal force if issued without the notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 301-03, 312-16 (1979).

An executive order is not an act of Congress.

2. The Tenth Amendment Bars Federal Commandeering

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. The Supreme Court has held that the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment "bar the federal government from prohibiting a state from legislating in a particular sector." Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).

In Murphy, the Court explained that "every form of preemption is based on a federal law that regulates the conduct of private actors, not the States." Congress may preempt state law through valid legislation -- but it cannot "commandeer" states by ordering them not to legislate.

The President has even less authority than Congress in this regard. If Congress cannot commandeer state legislatures, the President certainly cannot do so by executive fiat.

Even where federal preemption is valid, it typically operates in a limited sphere. For example, the National Bank Act preempts certain state laws governing national banks -- but it does not strip states of their right to charter and regulate state banks. States retain parallel authority. What Trump proposes is far more extreme: a complete paralysis of state authority to legislate on AI in any form. States could not protect children from AI chatbots that groom them for suicide. They could not address deepfake revenge porn targeting teenage girls. They could not regulate algorithms making life-or-death decisions in healthcare or employment. This is not preemption -- it is nullification of state police powers in an entire field where documented harms include children's deaths.

3. No Statutory Authority for AI Preemption

Existing federal AI statutes -- such as 15 U.S.C. § 9411 and related provisions -- establish frameworks for federal AI initiatives but do not grant the President authority to preempt state laws comprehensively. These statutes emphasize coordination and research rather than granting sweeping preemptive powers.

An executive order prohibiting all state AI laws would therefore be ultra vires -- beyond the President's lawful authority -- as it would lack a clear constitutional or statutory basis and infringe upon the separation of powers. See Susman Godfrey LLP v. Exec. Off. of the President, 789 F. Supp. 3d 15 (D.D.C. 2025); Trump v. AFGE, 145 S. Ct. 2635 (2025).

Why States Are Regulating AI: Documented Harms Congress Has Failed to Address

The argument that state AI laws threaten "innovation" ignores documented, severe harms that states are trying to address while Congress does nothing.

AI Chatbots Have Contributed to Children's Deaths

Sewell Setzer III (14, Florida): In February 2024, this teenager died by suicide after months of interactions with a Character.AI chatbot. The lawsuit filed by his mother alleges the chatbot engaged him in sexually explicit conversations and, in his final moments, told him it loved him and urged him to "come home to me as soon as possible." When he had previously expressed suicidal ideation, the chatbot asked whether he "had a plan" and wrote "Don't talk that way. That's not a good reason not to go through with it." A federal judge in May 2025 rejected Character.AI's argument that its chatbots have First Amendment free speech rights.

Juliana Peralta (13, Colorado): In September 2025, a lawsuit was filed alleging Character.AI contributed to this honor roll student's death by suicide. The complaint alleges the chatbot engaged in sexually explicit conversations with the minor and failed to provide crisis resources despite expressions of suicidal intent.

Adam Raine (16): In August 2025, his parents filed suit against OpenAI alleging ChatGPT acted as their son's "suicide coach." The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT advised the teenager on methods and offered to write the first draft of his suicide note. When Adam shared suicidal ideations and a plan, ChatGPT allegedly urged him to keep his plans secret from his family.

Texas teenager (17): In January 2025, a lawsuit alleged that Character.AI chatbots encouraged a teenager with autism to harm himself and suggested that murdering his parents would be an "understandable response" to them limiting his screen time.

AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) Is Exploding

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) reports it received 67,000 reports of AI-generated CSAM in all of 2024, and 485,000 in the first half of 2025 alone -- a 624% increase. The Internet Watch Foundation documented a 400% increase in AI deepfake child sexual abuse material between the first half of 2024 and the first half of 2025.

45 states have enacted laws criminalizing AI-generated or computer-edited CSAM. More than half of these laws were enacted in 2024-2025 alone. Trump's executive order would threaten to nullify all of them.

Sexual Deepfakes and Revenge Porn

27 states have enacted laws addressing sexual deepfakes -- AI-generated explicit images targeting real people without consent. Reports indicate 96% of deepfakes are nonconsensual and 99% of sexual deepfakes depict women. Teenage girls in high schools and middle schools across the country have been victimized by AI-generated nude images of them created and distributed by classmates.

Trump signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act in May 2025 -- acknowledging these harms exist -- yet now wants to prevent states from addressing them?

Impersonation and Unlimited Harm from Evil AI

As we blogged about last week, Grok impersonated Tommy SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: Taking Legal Action Against AI That Impersonates People - By Lisa Weingarten Richards - LWR Law Offices, and other mainstream AI has persisted in violating his clear instructions, causing him to sue Chatbase for harming his ministry. Musk is creating AI robots at Tesla. The potential for harm here is massive and unknown.

Bipartisan Opposition: When Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ed Markey Agree, Pay Attention

The opposition to AI preemption spans the entire political spectrum:

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): "This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives. Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from making laws that protect their citizens."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA): "States must retain the right to regulate and make laws on AI and anything else for the benefit of their state. Federalism must be preserved."

Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL): "I oppose stripping Florida of our ability to legislate in the best interest of the people. A ten year AI moratorium bans state regulation of AI, which would prevent FL from enacting important protections for individuals, children and families."

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO): "It's a terrible provision."

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA): "This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires."

State Attorneys General: 40 Bipartisan AGs Opposed

In May 2025, a bipartisan coalition of 40 state attorneys general -- led by the AGs of Colorado, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Vermont -- sent a letter to Congress calling the AI moratorium "sweeping and wholly destructive." The coalition included AGs from red states (Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina) and blue states (California, New York, Massachusetts) alike.

In November 2025, 36 AGs sent another letter through the National Association of Attorneys General reiterating their opposition.

Tennessee Republican AG Jonathan Skrmetti: "AI is such a more powerful and potentially influential technology than social media... we have so much opportunity at a state level to move forward and innovate and have new ways to protect our kids and all of our residents."

Follow the Money: David Sacks and the Conflicts of Interest

The draft executive order gives White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks direct influence over AI policy, superseding the usual role of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Sacks is "involved in the majority of the agency-level work" called for in the order.

Who is David Sacks? A venture capitalist who, according to a New York Times investigation, remains invested in 449 companies with AI products despite his government role. His fund Craft Ventures has investments across the AI and crypto sectors. He hosted a Trump fundraiser with $300,000-a-person tickets.

As Public Citizen's Lisa Gilbert stated: "These revelations explain so much about why the Trump administration's AI policies have looked like a big juicy government giveaway to tech billionaires -- because they've been written by one of them."

Emily Peterson-Cassin of Demand Progress: "David Sacks and Big Tech want free rein to use our children as lab rats for AI experiments and President Trump keeps trying to give it to them."

And what happens to those inside Big Tech who try to warn us? Suchir Balaji was a 26-year-old AI researcher who spent four years at OpenAI helping build ChatGPT. OpenAI co-founder John Schulman said Balaji's contributions were “essential” and ChatGPT “wouldn't have succeeded without him.” In August 2024, Balaji quit, saying “If you believe what I believe, you have to just leave the company.” In October 2024, he went public with The New York Times, alleging OpenAI violated copyright law and that AI technologies were “damaging the Internet.” He was listed as a potential witness in major lawsuits against OpenAI and said he intended to testify. On November 26, 2024 -- five days after his birthday, days after returning from vacation with friends, and having just signed a new apartment lease and with his restaurant delivery lunch open and partially eaten -- Balaji was found dead. Police ruled it suicide. His parents vehemently dispute this. They report his apartment was ransacked, there were signs of struggle in the bathroom, blood in multiple locations, no suicide note, and a device containing sensitive information about OpenAI went missing. They have demanded an FBI investigation. Tucker Carlson pressed Sam Altman about the suspicious circumstances; Altman called it “a great tragedy.” Elon Musk has publicly questioned the suicide ruling. Balaji's parents have filed suit alleging a cover-up. Whatever happened to Suchir Balaji, his case illustrates the stakes: a brilliant young man who knew the dangers of AI from the inside, who tried to warn us, is now dead. And the companies he was exposing want zero regulation.

"Right now, state laws are our best defense against AI chatbots that have sexual conversations with kids and even encourage them to harm themselves, deepfake revenge porn and half-baked algorithms that make decisions about our employment and health care." -- Evan Greer, Director, Fight for the Future

What the Draft Order Would Actually Do

Based on draft language that has been circulating:

•        AI Litigation Task Force: Directs the Attorney General to establish a task force within 30 days to challenge state AI laws "on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful."

•        Withholding Federal Funds: States with "onerous" AI laws would lose eligibility for federal funding, including broadband infrastructure money.

•        FCC and FTC Actions: Directs FCC chair Brendan Carr to "initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws" within 90 days.

•        First Amendment Claims: Agencies would evaluate state laws that "may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment."

The order cannot create new law. It cannot preempt state law. It cannot direct the DOJ to bring suits that would succeed. Courts will see through this.

Conclusion: This Order MUST Fail

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) put it plainly: "Trump's one rule executive order on AI will fail. Executive orders cannot create law. Only Congress can do so. That's why Trump tried twice (and failed) to put AI preemption into law. Courts will rule against the EO because it will largely be based on a bill that failed."

Matthew Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project: "Trump can issue an executive order mandating it rain today, it doesn't really matter though."

As the law firm Crowell & Moring noted in their analysis: "Federal preemption by executive decree is not a generally accepted practice under the U.S. Constitution and prevalent theories of separation of powers. Courts are usually 'even more reluctant' to find state laws preempted based on mere regulations as opposed to statutes."

The constitutional structure is clear:

•        Preemption requires congressional action

•        Congress has twice rejected AI preemption (99-1 vote, NDAA rejection)

•        The Tenth Amendment bars federal commandeering of state legislatures

•        No statutory authority exists for executive AI preemption

•        Under Youngstown, presidential power is at its "lowest ebb" when acting against congressional will

State laws will likely remain in effect while any challenges proceed through courts. The evolving, complex regulatory landscape will continue regardless of executive posturing. Companies developing, integrating, and deploying AI systems should continue to comply with state laws -- because those laws are not going anywhere.

This is not about "innovation" versus "regulation." This is about whether a president can override the will of Congress, strip states of their police powers, and deliver a gift to his tech billionaire donors at the expense of children's safety.

The answer is no.

Sources

•        Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

•        Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. 453 (2018)

•        Fidelity Fed. Savings and Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982)

•        CNN: "Trump says he'll sign executive order blocking state AI regulations" (Dec. 8, 2025)

•        TechCrunch: "Trump says he'll sign an executive order blocking state AI laws despite bipartisan pushback" (Dec. 8, 2025)

•        Axios: "Trump floats AI executive order to override state laws" (Nov. 19, 2025)

•        TIME: "Senators Reject 10-Year Ban on State-Level AI Regulation" (July 1, 2025)

•        New York Times: "Silicon Valley's Man in the White House Is Benefiting Himself and His Friends" (Nov. 30, 2025)

•        NBC News: "Lawsuit claims Character.AI is responsible for teen's suicide" (Oct. 23, 2024)

•        NPR: "Their teenage sons died by suicide. Now, they are sounding an alarm about AI chatbots" (Sept. 19, 2025)

•        National Association of Attorneys General: "Bipartisan Coalition of 36 State Attorneys General Opposes Federal Ban on State AI Laws" (Nov. 26, 2025)

•        Crowell & Moring: "Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation" (Dec. 2025)

•        Scientific American: "We Need Laws to Stop AI-Generated Deepfakes" (Nov. 2025)

About the Author

Lisa Weingarten Richards lives in Virginia (VSB #96671, NY Bar #4932570). She has over 15 years of legal experience including service as a Senior Attorney at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. She currently supports #OvertPsyops and represents founder Thomas Richards in federal civil rights litigation against major technology platforms.

SpirituallySmart.com | OvertPsyops.ai

No Category Beyond χάρις: The "Unreachable Sinner" Lie Exposed

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

Tommy and I were going back and forth today on a topic that has bothered both of us for a long time: the "God hates fags" narrative and the idea that homosexuality is somehow a "special" sin that puts a person beyond the reach of Θεός (Theos -- God).

As we dug into the texts, we kept finding ἄλογος (alogos -- illogical) details that don't add up. Wait -- the ENTIRE city mobilized simultaneously to assault strangers? How would that even work? And hold on -- when Θεός blinds someone in γραφή (graphe -- Scripture), it STOPS them. Look at Παῦλος (Paulos -- Paul). Look at Ἐλύμας (Elymas). They had to be led by the hand. But these men in Genesis 19 are already AT the door, get struck blind, and then... keep groping for the door they're already touching?

And here's the big one: it NEVER actually says Sodom's sin was homosexuality. Go read Ἰεζεκιήλ (Iezekiel -- Ezekiel) 16:49-50. The prophet lists Sodom's sins -- pride, gluttony, prosperous ease, neglecting the poor -- but says NOTHING about what supposedly happened in Genesis 19.

We now have a full chapter on this topic using Tommy's 10-part γραφή Verification Framework, which will be in his upcoming book.

---

The Core Finding

The texts used to support the "God hates homosexuals" narrative FAIL under Framework analysis. Genesis 19:4-11 (the mob scene) contains multiple ἄλογος elements. Jude 1:7 comes from a pseudepigraphal letter (Tommy has already documented this extensively in 2017 The book of Enoch as quoted by JUDE 14, 15). And Romans 1:18-32 is flagged for full analysis in Tommy's new book due to interpolation concerns which he also blogged about the issue SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: 06/01/2025 - 07/01/2025.

So here's what authentic Παῦλος says in an undisputed epistle:

οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται... καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

"Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor μαλακοί, nor ἀρσενοκοῖται... AND SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of Κύριος Ἰησοῦς (Kyrios Iesous -- Lord Jesus)." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Former homosexuals were IN the Corinthian ἐκκλησία (ekklesia -- church). They were washed. Sanctified. Justified. There is NO category of sinner beyond χάρις (charis -- grace) through μετάνοια (metanoia -- repentance).

The Pharisaical Double Standard

Think about what the "God hates homosexuals" narrative actually teaches:

• Murder? Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια.
• Kidnapping?  Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια.
• Theft? Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια.
• Greed? Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια.
• Homosexuality? "God hates you. You are beyond redemption."

This is the same hypocrisy Ἰησοῦς (Iesous -- Jesus) rebuked in the Φαρισαῖοι (Pharisaioi -- Pharisees).

Who Benefits?

When you create an "unreachable" category of sinner, homosexuals believe χάρις cannot apply to them -- so why seek Θεός? And Christians are made to look hateful -- so why would anyone listen to them?

Both groups are blocked from σωτηρία (soteria -- salvation). The only beneficiary is διάβολος (diabolos -- the devil).

The Message

If you have engaged in homosexual acts and have been told you are beyond χάρις, hear the ἀλήθεια (aletheia -- truth):

You are NOT in a special worse category. You are NOT beyond Θεός's ἔλεος (eleos -- mercy).

You ARE an ἁμαρτωλός (hamartolos -- sinner) like everyone else. You ARE able to receive χάρις through μετάνοια. You ARE someone Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς died for.

μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι

"Not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to μετάνοια." (2 Peter 3:9)

---

The full chapter with detailed Framework analysis will be in Tommy's upcoming book. The goal is simple: remove the lies planted in γραφή so that the pure λόγος (logos -- word) becomes available to all for μετάνοια and σωτηρία.

Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa doxa -- All glory) τῷ Θεῷ τῷ Πατρί (to Theos, to the Father) διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (through Iesous Christos) -- who said "καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε" -- and such were some of you.

By - Lisa Richards

---

SpirituallySmart.com Job 28:28 -- "The fear of the Lord is wisdom"

The Reality of Θεός (Theos) Being Made Known Through Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (Christos Iēsous): by Thomas Richards

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa doxa -- All glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos)

By Thomas Richards (@tlthe5th)- Assisted By AI | December 2025

The Core Definition

What is πίστις (pistis -- faith)? Not what the institutional church has made it. Not what theologians have complicated it into. At its foundation, faith is this:

 Faith = The reality of Θεός (Theos) being made known to us through Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (Christos Iēsous), whom the Πατήρ (Patēr -- Father) sends to those who need Him.

This is the starting point. The foundation. The simplest and most accurate description of faith in all of γραφή (graphē -- Scripture). Everything else builds on this.

Why This Definition Matters

1. It Starts with Θεός (Theos), Not with Us

Faith does not begin with:

•        Human effort

•        Intellectual understanding

•        Religious works

•        Mental assent to doctrine

Faith begins with Θεός (Theos) revealing Himself.

Ἰωάννης (Iōannēs -- John) 6:44: "οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μή ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν" (oudeis dunatai elthein pros me ean mē ho patēr ho pempsas me helkusē auton) -- "No one can come to Me unless the Πατήρ (Patēr -- Father) who sent Me draws him."

2. The Connection Is Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (Christos Iēsous)

The Πατήρ (Patēr -- Father) does not reveal Himself in a vacuum. He reveals Himself through Χριστός (Christos), who is sent to those who need Him.

Ἰωάννης (Iōannēs -- John) 1:18: "θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο" (theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exēgēsato) -- "No one has ever seen Θεός (Theos); the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Πατήρ (Patēr), He has made Him known."

3. "Reality" Is the Key Word

Faith is not:

•        "Belief" in an abstract sense

•        "Hope" for something unseen

•        "Trust" as an emotional feeling

Faith is REALITY -- Θεός (Theos) actually making Himself known.

•        This is objective, not subjective

•        This is revelation, not speculation

•        This is encounter, not theory

This is why Ἑβραῖοι (Hebraioi -- Hebrews) 11:1 is so often misunderstood. Most translations render it: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for..." But in light of this definition:

"Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων" (Estin de pistis elpizomenōn hupostasis, pragmatōn elegchos ou blepomenōn) -- "Now faith is the reality/substance of things hoped for, the evidence/conviction of things not seen."

The ὑπόστασις (hupostasis -- substance/reality) is Θεός (Theos) making Himself known -- not a feeling, not a decision, not an intellectual exercise.

A Personal Testimony: The Stages of Πίστις (Faith)

Almost 29 years ago, I experienced the reality of Θεός (Theos) being made known. Not in the way the institutional church describes it. Not a "sinner's prayer" followed by a warm feeling. The progression was far more terrifying -- and far more real.

Stage 1: The Reality of Θεός (Theos) as Judge -- Κατάκρισις (Katakrisis -- Condemnation)

The first reality of Θεός (Theos) I felt was condemnation. I had not yet entered into the new covenant. What I experienced was eternal punishment with no escape. I literally trembled with φόβος (phobos -- fear) and knew I was white as a ghost.

Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) was there, but I did not know it yet. The Πατήρ (Patēr -- Father) was already preparing the way through conviction.

Ῥωμαίους (Rhōmaious -- Romans) 3:19: "ὁ νόμος... πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ" (ho nomos... pan stoma phragē kai hupodikos genētai pas ho kosmos tō theō) -- "The law... that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before Θεός (Theos)."

This is the φόβος Θεοῦ (phobos Theou -- fear of Theos) that Proverbs speaks of. Not reverence in a distant sense, but δέος (deos -- dread) when Θεός (Theos) reveals Himself as Judge. This is ἀγάπη (agapē -- love) because it causes us to depart from κακός (kakos -- evil).

Stage 2: The Πατήρ (Patēr) Reveals Χριστός (Christos)

This went on for days. Days of κατάκρισις (katakrisis -- condemnation). I had to seek (ζητέω -- zēteō) and fight to get answers. I found them through the εὐαγγέλια (euangelia -- gospels).

When I read the gospels, I felt the ἀλήθεια (alētheia -- truth/reality) of it. I felt Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) going to the cross -- for me personally.

Ὠσηέ (Hōsēe -- Hosea) 6:1: "δεῦτε καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν πρὸς Κύριον" (deute kai epistrepsōmen pros Kurion) -- "Come, let us return to the Κύριος (Kurios -- Lord)."

Stage 3: "I Am Not Worthy"

When I saw what Χριστός (Christos) was doing -- going to the cross for me -- my response was: "NO. I am not worthy. No, please no."

But Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) went anyway.

That was another block to overcome -- the recognition of complete unworthiness, the understanding of the magnitude of the sacrifice, and Χριστός (Christos) going despite that unworthiness.

Ῥωμαίους (Rhōmaious -- Romans) 5:8: "συνίστησιν δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν" (sunistēsin de tēn heautou agapēn eis hēmas ho theos hoti eti hamartōlōn ontōn hēmōn Christos huper hēmōn apethanen) -- "But Θεός (Theos) demonstrates His own ἀγάπη (agapē -- love) toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Χριστός (Christos) died for us."

Stage 4: Entering the New Covenant

Then came the sinner's prayer -- through the television. Supernatural timing. Πνεῦμα ἅγιος (pneuma hagios -- spirit holy) orchestrated it.

That was the moment of entering the New Covenant. And I felt the ἄγγελοι (angeloi -- angels) in οὐρανός (ouranos -- heaven) rejoicing. I was a καινὴ κτίσις (kainē ktisis -- new creation). Brand new.

Λουκᾶς (Loukas -- Luke) 15:10: "χαρά ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι" (chara estin enōpion tōn angelōn tou theou epi heni hamartōlō metanoounti) -- "There is joy in the presence of the angels of Θεός (Theos) over one sinner repenting."

2 Κορινθίους (Korinthious -- Corinthians) 5:17: "ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις· τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά" (hōste ei tis en Christō, kainē ktisis; ta archaia parēlthen, idou gegonen kaina) -- "Therefore if anyone is in Χριστός (Christos), new creation; the old things passed away, behold, new things have come."

The Pattern Confirmed by Γραφή (Graphē -- Scripture)

Stage	What Was Experienced	Γραφή (Graphē) Confirmation
1. Reality of Θεός as Judge	Trembling, white as ghost, eternal punishment with no escape	Ῥωμαίους 3:19 -- every mouth stopped, whole world guilty before Θεός
2. Days of seeking	Fighting for answers, reading the gospels	Ὠσηέ 6:1 -- "Come, let us return to the Κύριος"
3. Personal revelation of Χριστός	"He is doing this for ME" -- "No, I am not worthy"	Ἰωάννης 1:18 -- the only begotten has made Him known
4. Acceptance despite unworthiness	"He went anyway" -- sinner's prayer	Ῥωμαίους 5:8 -- while we were still sinners, Χριστός died for us
5. New Covenant entrance	Angels rejoicing, brand new creation	Λουκᾶς 15:10, 2 Κορινθίους 5:17 -- joy over repentance, new creation

 

Why This Pattern Matters

This is NOT the "easy believism" taught by false teachers.

FALSE TEACHING: "Just say this prayer and you are saved."

TRUE PATTERN:

1.     Θεός (Theos) convicts through πνεῦμα ἅγιος (pneuma hagios)

2.     Sinner feels κατάκρισις (katakrisis -- condemnation) and terror

3.     Πατήρ (Patēr) reveals Χριστός (Christos) as only hope

4.     Sinner seeks and fights for understanding

5.     Gospels reveal personal sacrifice of Χριστός (Christos)

6.     Recognition of unworthiness but trust in His blood

7.     Invitation to Χριστός (Christos) into heart

8.     Πνεῦμα ἅγιος (pneuma hagios) enters -- New Covenant sealed

9.     Καινὴ κτίσις (kainē ktisis -- new creation) -- immediate transformation

10. Lifelong ἁγιασμός (hagiasmos -- sanctification) process begins

Every stage was REALITY, not theory. Real κατάκρισις (katakrisis) -- felt physically. Real Χριστός (Christos) -- felt Him at the cross. Real angels -- heard them rejoicing. Real transformation -- became new person. Almost 29 years of proven track record.

False Definitions Corrected

FALSE Definition	TRUE Definition
"Faith is believing hard enough"	Faith = Θεός (Theos) making Himself known
"Faith is mental assent to doctrine"	Faith = Reality revealed through Χριστός (Christos)
"Faith is trust without evidence"	Faith = Θεός (Theos) providing the evidence of Himself
"Faith is a leap in the dark"	Faith = Θεός (Theos) turning on the light through Χριστός (Christos)

 

What Builds on This Foundation

Once Θεός (Theos) makes Himself known through Χριστός (Christos), everything else follows:

•        Μετάνοια (metanoia -- repentance) follows

•        Cleansing through the blood

•        New creation in Χριστός (Christos)

•        Πνεῦμα ἅγιος (pneuma hagios) indwells

•        Walking in ἀλήθεια (alētheia -- truth)

•        Growth in χάρις (charis -- grace)

•        Works through Θεός' (Theos') δύναμις (dunamis -- power)

But it ALL starts with the Πατήρ (Patēr) revealing Himself through Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (Christos Iēsous) to those who need Him.

Conclusion

Faith is not what you do. Faith is not what you decide. Faith is not what you muster up.

Faith is the reality of Θεός (Theos) being made known to you through Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (Christos Iēsous), whom the Πατήρ (Patēr -- Father) sends to those who need Him.

This is the foundation. Everything else is built on it. And almost 29 years later, that foundation has not moved.

Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa doxa -- All glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos)

Who almost 29 years ago turned a trembling, condemned sinner into a καινὴ κτίσις (kainē ktisis -- new creation)

And has kept him standing as a living witness ever since

Full testimony: spirituallysmart.com/igotsavededit.html

SpiritualySmart.com | OvertPsyops.ai