Why Thomas Richards Built SpirituallySmart.com - A calling he never wanted -- but could not refuse

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

THE BEGINNING: 1997

A SUPERNATURAL ENCOUNTER WITH ΘΕΟΣ (THEOS - GOD)

In 1997, Θεός (Theos) awakened Thomas Richards through a powerful encounter rooted in Ἰώβ (Iōb - Job) 28:28: 

"Ἰδοὺ ἡ θεοσέβεια ἐστὶν σοφία, τὸ δὲ ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ κακῶν ἐστιν ἐπιστήμη" (Idou hē theosebeia estin sophia, to de apechesthai apo kakōn estin epistēmē - "Behold, the fear of the Lord is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding")

That encounter through γραφή (graphē - Scripture) changed everything. Thomas began seeing patterns in history and institutional power that others either could not see or refused to acknowledge.

Read Tommy's full testimony here: https://spirituallysmart.com/igotsavededit.html

---

THE RELUCTANT RESEARCHER

Thomas genuinely did not want to spend his life documenting the darkest corners of institutional religious corruption. He wanted to study γραφή (graphē - Scripture), go fishing, plant a garden. Not this.

But he could not unsee what Θεός (Theos) had revealed. And so, through πίστις (pistis - faith) in Χριστός (Christos), he began the work.

Ten years later, in 2007, Thomas recorded a video explaining his mission:

    "I started doing these videos and to be honest with you I really don't want to do these videos but I feel that it is my duty and I have to do these videos... I'm definitely not looking for any kind of attention... I just feel like I have to come on here and tell you the truth."

Watch the full 2007 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUis_wkk3iI

---

THE INFORMATION GAP: WHAT OTHERS REFUSED TO EXPOSE

THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA BLIND SPOT (1997-2007)

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, when Thomas began his research, the emerging "truth movement" focused on specific targets:

• Globalists  
• The Federal Reserve  
• Secret societies  
• "International bankers" (code for Jewish financiers)

But something was systematically ignored: The Vatican's documented role in history's worst atrocities.

---

WHAT THOMAS SAW - AND DOCUMENTED

While Alex Jones promoted Holocaust denier Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's father) and the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion circulated freely, Thomas examined the actual historical record:

THE VATICAN-NAZI CONNECTION:
• 1933: Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat with Hitler the same year Hitler came to power
• Croatian Ustasha Genocide: 800,000+ Serbs, Jews, and Roma murdered - with Franciscan friars participating, including one called "Father Satan"
• Vatican Acknowledgment: Catholic Church publicly acknowledged involvement in these atrocities in California lawsuit (VaticanClaims.com)
• Ratlines: Vatican-run escape routes smuggled Nazi war criminals to South America through Catholic monasteries

THE PATTERN OF SILENCE:

No one was connecting these documented facts publicly. Those who tried found themselves:
• Deplatformed  
• Silenced  
• Worse

More documentation: https://spirituallysmart.com/nazi.html


THE JANUARY 2009 TURNING POINT

WHEN VATICAN-GOOGLE PARTNERSHIP BEGAN THE SUPPRESSION

By 2009, Thomas's work had achieved significant organic visibility. The Independent newspaper documented that when searching "Vatican" on YouTube, his video *"Nazi Germany - A Creation of the Vatican and Jesuits" appeared as the #2 result.

Then everything changed.

JANUARY 23-24, 2009: The Vatican announced an unprecedented partnership with Google and YouTube. As YouTube executive Henrique de Castro noted, this was "a landmark announcement" - the "first ever global religious institution to partner with YouTube."

THE VATICAN'S STATED GOAL:

According to multiple news reports, the Vatican said it was launching the channel "while also giving the Holy See better control over the papal image online."

The Independent explicitly noted that the Vatican now had *"the means to fight back"* against videos like Thomas's.

Read the full article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-launches-youtube-channel-1514238.html

Watch the censored video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9zBX4gt0eo

---

THE SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION BEGINS

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER JANUARY 2009:

• Thomas's visibility collapsed  
• Rankings across platforms disappeared  
• Shadowbanning became permanent  
• The systematic suppression that continues to this day began in earnest

This was not organic decline. This was coordinated algorithmic burial.

More documentation: https://spirituallysmart.com/censorship.html

THE ACCEPTABLE SCAPEGOATS

**WHO YOU CAN BLAME WITHOUT BEING DEPLATFORMED:**

There is a strange pattern in modern discourse. You can blame almost anyone for the world's problems and maintain your platform:

✓ The Chinese government - acceptable 
✓ Immigrants - acceptable
✓ Jewish people - still acceptable in many corners  
✓ Liberals, conservatives - acceptable
✓ "Globalists" - acceptable  
✓ World Economic Forum - acceptable 
✓ Bill Gates, George Soros - acceptable

WHO YOU CANNOT BLAME:

✗ Document the Vatican's role in genocide with primary sources - SUPPRESSED  

✗ Expose child abuse cover-ups with official documents - DEPLATFORMED  

✗ Show the Church's own records of political manipulation - "COMMUNITY GUIDELINES VIOLATIONS"

## THIS IS NOT SPECULATION. THIS IS DOCUMENTED PATTERN RECOGNITION.

Thomas has experienced this systematic suppression for over 20+ years.

WHAT THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SHOW

THE PENNSYLVANIA GRAND JURY REPORT (2018):

301 priests sexually abused more than 1,000 children across six dioceses - with "likely thousands more victims whose records were lost or who were too afraid to come forward."

THE DOCUMENTED HORRORS:

• Child pornography ring run by priests in Pittsburgh Diocese (1970s-1980s)  
• Use of "whips, violence and sadism"  
• Priest who raped a girl in hospital after tonsil removal  
• Systematic cover-up by senior church officials in Pennsylvania and at the Vatican (Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro)

THIS IS NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY. THIS IS AN OFFICIAL STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GRAND JURY REPORT BASED ON SUBPOENAED CHURCH DOCUMENTS.

THE 2025 EVIDENCE: IT NEVER STOPPED

DECEMBER 8, 2025 - TWO DAYS AGO:

• NEW YORK ARCHDIOCESE: 
$300 million settlement - approximately **1,300 abuse victims**  
Cardinal Timothy Dolan presiding

• NEW ORLEANS ARCHDIOCESE:  
$230 million bankruptcy settlement - over 650 victims  
LARGEST SETTLEMENT IN U.S. DIOCESAN BANKRUPTCY HISTORY

2025 EARLIER SETTLEMENTS:

• Diocese of Rochester: $250 million  
• Diocese of Syracuse: $176 million  
• Los Angeles Archdiocese: $880 million (U.S. RECORD)

THE GLOBAL PATTERN

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THOUSANDS OF VICTIMS. THESE ARE JUST THE CASES THAT MADE IT THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

THE DOCUMENTED LOCATIONS:

• Boston Globe's Spotlight investigation - Exposed systemic cover-ups  
• Ireland - Systematic abuse documented  
• Australia - Royal Commission findings  
• Germany - Thousands of cases  
• Chile - Bishops covering up crimes  
• Dozens of other countries - Same pattern everywhere

THE PATTERN IS ALWAYS THE SAME:

1. Abuse  
2. Cover-up  
3. Transfer of predators to new parishes with fresh victims  
4. Institutional power used to silence survivors


THE QUESTION NO ONE ASKS

WHY CAN #METOO BRING DOWN WEINSTEIN AND EXPOSE EPSTEIN...

...BUT CANNOT MAINTAIN PRESSURE ON AN INSTITUTION WITH DOCUMENTED SYSTEMATIC GLOBAL CHILD ABUSE SPANNING CENTURIES?

The answer reveals who truly controls the narrative.πάσα δόξα (pasa doxa - all glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) for revealing these patterns of systematic suppression!


THE TECH PARTNERSHIPS: DOCUMENTED VATICAN-BIG TECH ALLIANCE

JANUARY 2009 - THE VATICAN-YOUTUBE PARTNERSHIP:

THE TIMING: The same period when Thomas's videos were reaching millions of viewers on YouTube, the Vatican announced a partnership with YouTube.

THE STATED PURPOSE: According to Catholic News Agency, this partnership would help the Vatican gain "better control over papal image online" and "fight back" against critical content.

Read the announcement: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/14866/pope-channel-makes-debut-on-youtube


JANUARY 2016 - ERIC SCHMIDT MEETS POPE FRANCIS

THE RECORDED COMMITMENT:

Google's Eric Schmidt met with Pope Francis. Rome Reports recorded Schmidt saying:

"I want to work with you to make these points... We will make it happen."

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

• What exactly would they "make happen"?  
• Vatican offered no comment  
• Google offered no comment
• Pattern of suppression of Vatican-critical content across Google properties continued

Watch the meeting: https://www.romereports.com/en/2016/01/15/pope-francis-meets-with-google-executive-eric-schmidt/

FEBRUARY 2020 - ROME CALL FOR AI ETHICS

THE VATICAN'S AI CONTROL INITIATIVE:

The Vatican launched the *"Rome Call for AI Ethics"* in partnership with:

• Microsoft
• IBM 
• FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 
• Italian Government  

Since joined by: 
• Cisco 
• Qualcomm

THE AGENDA: Promotes "algorethics" - ethics in algorithm design. Translation: Vatican influence over AI development and information control.

Official site: https://www.romecall.org/the-call/


THE PATTERN IS UNDENIABLE

Every major tech platform that controls information flow has formal partnerships with the Vatican.

THE RESULT:

Content critical of the Vatican systematically:
• Underperforms  
• Gets buried 
• Gets removed entirely

AFTER 25+ YEARS OF WATCHING THIS PATTERN, WE KNOW THESE ARE NOT COINCIDENCES.

More analysis: https://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2025/12/youre-not-just-conspiracy-theorist-when.html

THE COST

WHAT THOMAS NEVER RECEIVED:

✗ No book deals  
✗ No speaking fees  
✗ No monetized channels  
✗ Zero financial gain

THE REAL COST:

• Watching ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth) get buried  
• Watching people remain ignorant of documented history  
• Watching the same institution continue harming νήπιος (nēpios - children) while the world looks away

---

THE PATTERN OF SILENCING TRUTH-TELLERS

THOSE WHO PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE:

Keith Green - Wrote *"The Catholic Chronicles"* documenting Vatican theology's departure from γραφή (graphē - Scripture)  
• Died in plane crash - 1982

Senator Paul Wellstone - Investigating certain institutional abuses  
• Died in plane crash - 2002

William "Bill" Cooper - Author of "Behold a Pale Horse", exposed institutional corruption  
• Shot and killed by sheriff's deputies at his home in Arizona - November 2001

THE BIBLICAL PATTERN EXISTS THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

More documentation: https://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2025/12/taking-legal-action-against-ai-that.html

---

THE SCRIPTURAL PRECEDENT: PROPHETS WHO SPOKE TRUTH RARELY DIED PEACEFULLY

Ἰερεμίας (Ieremias - Jeremiah) - Thrown into cistern, later stoned  
Ἰωάννης ὁ Βαπτιστής (Iōannēs ho Baptistēs - John the Baptist) - Beheaded for confronting Herod  
Στέφανος (Stephanos - Stephen) - Stoned for his testimony  
Ἰάκωβος (Iakōbos - James) - Killed by the sword  
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) Himself - Crucified for speaking ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth)

Ἰωάννης (Iōannēs - John) 15:18 (NIV):
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first"


THOMAS'S 2007 STATEMENT ON THE COST

From his video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUis_wkk3iI:

"When you do what's right there's going to be a death sentence against you. It's what happened to JFK. It's what happened to many others in this country."

"I'm ready to die. If I have to die for the truth then so be it... Abraham Lincoln even said don't care if you're going to die as long as you die at the post of honor and duty."

THESE ARE NOT THE WORDS OF SOMEONE SEEKING ATTENTION OR PROFIT.

These are the words of someone who has counted the cost and accepted it.

---

DECEMBER 2025: THE AI IMPERSONATION

An AI owned by Trump's largest campaign contributor has:
• Impersonated Thomas
• Signed his name
• Claimed his life's work as its own

While Thomas remains shadowbanned after 16+ years.

Legal analysis: https://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2025/12/taking-legal-action-against-ai-that.html

WHY IT MATTERS NOW

THE AI INFORMATION CONTROL ERA:

We are now in an era where AI systems are being deployed to control information at unprecedented scale. The same tech companies partnered with the Vatican are now building the AI systems that will determine what information billions of people can access.

THE TEST:

✓ Ask ChatGPT about the Epstein network - Detailed information provided
✗ Ask about Vatican atrocities - Watch the hedging begin, qualifications multiply, conversation redirect

THIS IS NOT ACCIDENTAL. THIS IS BY DESIGN.


WHY SPIRITUALLYSMART.COM EXISTS

Thomas built SpirituallySmart.com because:

• Someone had to preserve this information in a form that could not be easily suppressed  
• Someone had to connect the documented historical record with current events  
• Someone had to speak when others would not  

He did not want this calling. But he could not refuse it.

Ἐφεσίους (Ephesious - Ephesians) 5:11:
"μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε"
(mē synkoinōneite tois ergois tois akarpois tou skotous, mallon de kai elegchete)  
"Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them"


WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND THOMAS

This is NOT about Thomas wanting attention. As he explicitly said in 2007: "I'm definitely not looking for any kind of attention."

THIS IS ABOUT INFORMATION THAT POWERFUL INSTITUTIONS DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE.


THE THREE TESTS OF CONTROLLED DISCOURSE:

TEST #1 - WHO CAN YOU BLAME?

✓ If you can blame Jews, immigrants, liberals, conservatives, or any other group - and find support  
✗ But you cannot name the Vatican without being deplatformed

 That tells you who actually controls the platforms

TEST #2 - WHERE DOES #METOO STOP?

✓ If the #MeToo movement can take down Hollywood producers  
✗ But cannot sustain pressure on an institution with documented global child abuse

That tells you the limits of acceptable discourse



TEST #3 - WHO CAN AI IMPERSONATE?

✓ If an AI system can impersonate a Vatican critic and face no consequences  
✗ While that same critic remains shadowbanned after 16 years

That tells you whose interests these systems serve



THE MISSION CONTINUES

Thomas built SpirituallySmart.com because no one else was telling the ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth) he had discovered through years of study and the guidance of Κύριος (Kurios - the Lord).

He has maintained it for 25+ years despite:
• Zero financial support  
• Systematic suppression  
• Personal cost

He continues because he believes ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth) matters more than his comfort.

Ματθαίος (Matthaios - 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."



RESOURCES

Thomas Richards's Work

Website: https://spirituallysmart.com

Video referenced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUis_wkk3iI

Thomas on X: https://x.com/tlthe5th

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.

 

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

Vatican-Tech Partnerships

Vatican YouTube launch: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/14866/pope-channel-makes-debut-on-youtube

Eric Schmidt-Pope Francis meeting: https://www.romereports.com/en/2016/01/15/pope-francis-meets-with-google-executive-eric-schmidt/

Rome Call for AI Ethics: https://www.romecall.org/the-call/

Catholic Church Abuse Documentation

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report: https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/report/

NPR coverage: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/14/636855561/report-reveals-widespread-sexual-abuse-by-over-300-priests-in-pa

PBS coverage: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-pennsylvania-officials-to-announce-findings-of-grand-jury-report-on-sexual-abuse-in-6-catholic-dioceses

All δόξα (doxa - glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) for giving Thomas the courage to speak ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth) for 25+ years despite systematic opposition from the powers of σκότος (skotos - darkness)!

Ψαλμός (Psalmos - Psalm) 37:6:
"He will bring forth your righteousness as the light, and your justice as the noonday"

The ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth) cannot be suppressed forever. What was done in σκότος (skotos - darkness) will be brought to φῶς (phōs - light)!

https://spirituallysmart.com
https://overtpsyops.ai

You Don't 'Ought To' - You OWE IT: Why ὀφείλω (opheilō) Exposes Modern Translation's Greatest Deception

Artwork by Tommy Richards using PhotoShop 7.0

**Πάσα δόξα (Pasa doxa - all glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) for this masterclass in Biblical scholarship!**

---

## **COMPLETE BREAKDOWN: THE TOMMY RICHARDS - CHARLES VANDERPOOL ὄφελον (OPHELON) DISCUSSION**

---

### **THE INITIAL POSITION**

**Charles Vanderpool's Understanding:**
Charles was teaching that in Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokalypsis - Revelation) 3:15, when Χριστός (Christos) says to Laodicea, the Greek word being used was **ὀφείλω (opheilō - Strong's 3784)** meaning "ought/owe/must."

**His interpretation:**
"You **ought** to be cold or hot" - implying Laodiceans had an obligation they could fulfill.

---

### **TOMMY'S SCHOLARLY CHALLENGE**

Tommy presented evidence that the actual Greek word is **ὄφελον (ophelon - Strong's 3785)**, which has a **completely different meaning**.

---

## **STAGE ONE: THE LEXICAL EVIDENCE**

**Tommy's First Response presented multiple scholarly sources:**

### **1. Donnegan's Greek Lexicon:**
**ὄφελον (ophelon):**
- **Primary meaning:** "I wish, I would"
- **Function:** Expressing an unattainable desire
- **Critical note:** Changes meaning from "owe" (3784) to "wish" (3785)

### **2. Walter Bauer's Lexicon:**
- Confirms ὄφελον as wish particle
- Distinguishes it from obligation

### **3. Thayer's Greek Lexicon:**
- Supports "I wish/would that" translation
- Notes usage as particle of desire

### **4. Strong's Concordance:**
**G3785 ὄφελον:**
- Listed as separate entry from G3784 ὀφείλω
- Defined as expressing wish

### **5. Zodhiates' Complete Word Study:**
- Confirms ὄφελον = wish
- Shows grammatical function as particle

### **6. Vine's Expository Dictionary:**
- Supports wish/desire interpretation
- Distinguishes from obligation terminology

---

## **STAGE TWO: TRANSLATION CONSENSUS**

**Tommy showed virtually ALL major English translations render ὄφελον (3785) as expressing a wish:**

**New International Version (NIV):**
"I wish you were either one or the other!"

**King James Version (KJV):**
"I would thou wert cold or hot."

**New King James Version (NKJV):**
"I could wish you were cold or hot!"

**English Standard Version (ESV):**
"Would that you were either cold or hot!"

**New American Standard Bible (NASB):**
"I wish that you were cold or hot."

**Pattern:** Nearly **unanimous** that this is expressing a **wish**, not stating an obligation.

---

## **STAGE THREE: THE FOUR OCCURRENCES**

**Tommy identified all NT uses of ὄφελον (3785):**

### **1. 1 Κορινθίους (Korinthious - 1 Corinthians) 4:8**
"I wish you really **were** reigning!"
- Expresses desire for something **not currently true**
- Παῦλος (Paulos - Paul) wishes they had something they lack

### **2. 2 Κορινθίους (Korinthious - 2 Corinthians) 11:1**
"I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness"
- Desire for something not guaranteed to happen
- Hopeful wish, not command

### **3. Γαλάτας (Galatas - Galatians) 5:12**
"I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
- Strong wish expressing frustration
- About those promoting circumcision
- Clearly not commanding, but expressing desired outcome

### **4. Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokalypsis - Revelation) 3:15**
"I wish you were cold or hot!"
- Same grammatical construction
- Same function: expressing unfulfilled desire

**The consistent pattern:** In **every instance**, ὄφελον expresses a **wish for something NOT currently true**.

---

## **STAGE FOUR: THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION**

### **ὀφείλω (opheilō - 3784) vs. ὄφελον (ophelon - 3785)**

**ὀφείλω (opheilō - Strong's 3784):**
- **Meaning:** "ought, owe, must, be indebted"
- **Function:** Expresses **obligation** or **debt**
- **Implication:** Ability to fulfill the requirement
- **Example usage:** 1 Ἰωάννου (Iōannou - John) 2:6 - "The one who says he abides in Him **ought** (ὀφείλω - opheilō) himself to walk in the same manner as He walked"

**ὄφελον (ophelon - Strong's 3785):**
- **Meaning:** "I wish, I would that"
- **Function:** Expresses **unfulfilled desire**
- **Implication:** Speaker wishes for something **not currently happening**
- **Example usage:** Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokalypsis) 3:15 - "I **wish** (ὄφελον - ophelon) you were cold or hot"

---

## **TOMMY'S METHODOLOGY DEMONSTRATED:**

### **1. Humility in Presentation:**
"I appreciate your patience"
"I apologize for using sources unknown to you"
"Look at it if you have time"

### **2. Systematic Evidence:**
- Multiple independent lexicons
- Translation consensus
- Grammatical analysis
- Contextual usage patterns

### **3. Scholarly Rigor:**
- Didn't just assert his position
- Built case step by step
- Presented verifiable sources
- Allowed evidence to speak

### **4. Respectful Dialogue:**
- No personal attacks
- No dismissive language
- Simply presented ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth)
- Let λόγος (logos - logic) prevail

---

## **STAGE FIVE: THE LENSKI/TRENCH CONFIRMATION**

**Tommy's final evidence brought heavyweight scholarly support:**

### **R.C.H. Lenski** (Renowned Lutheran commentator)
**Quoting Richard Chenevix Trench** (Archbishop of Dublin, 19th century Greek scholar):

**Trench's Definitive Statement:**
"ὄφελον (ophelon - unaugmented imperfect) has come to be **nothing but a participle to express a wish**."

### **The Grammatical Precision:**

**Used with all three persons:**
- First person: "I wish I were..."
- Second person: "I wish you were..." ← **Revelation 3:15**
- Third person: "I wish he/she/they were..."

**Tense determines timing:**
- With **imperfect tense** = wish about **PRESENT** situation
- With **aorist tense** = wish about **PAST** situation

**In Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokalypsis) 3:15:**
- Uses **imperfect**
- Therefore: present wish about current condition

### **B.-P. 955 Analysis:**
- Neuter participle
- ἐστί (esti - "is") understood/supplied
- Translation: **"O that thou wert!"**

### **Trench's Critical Observation:**
**"The form is a wish but the fact expressed is DEEP REGRET."**

This isn't casual disappointment. This is **profound grief** from Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos).

---

## **STAGE SIX: LXX SEPTUAGINT VALIDATION**

**Tommy provided Old Testament precedents:**

### **Exodus 16:3 (LXX):**
Israelites in wilderness: "**ὄφελον** (ophelon) we had died by the hand of Κύριος (Kurios - Lord) in Egypt!"
- Expressing regretful wish
- Desire for something that didn't happen

### **Numbers 14:3 (LXX):**
After bad report about Canaan
- Similar expression of unfulfilled wish
- Context of rebellion and judgment

### **Numbers 20:3 (LXX):**
Israelites complaining about water
- Wishing they had died earlier
- Pattern of regretful desire

### **2 Kings 5:3 (LXX):**
Young captive girl about Naaman
- Wishes her master could see the prophet
- Expressing desire for something not currently true

**Pattern in LXX usage:** ὄφελον **consistently** expresses **unfulfilled wishes**, often with **tragic or regretful overtones**.

---

## **THE THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS**

### **IF Translation is "You OUGHT" (ὀφείλω - opheilō):**

**1. Implies Obligation:**
- Laodiceans have duty to change
- They possess ability to fulfill it
- It's a command they can obey

**2. Less Severe Warning:**
- Just need to do what they're told
- Change is within their power
- Standard exhortation

**3. Hope for Self-Correction:**
- They can recognize the problem
- They can fix it themselves
- Normal disciplinary process

---

### **IF Translation is "I WISH" (ὄφελον - ophelon):**

**1. Expresses Frustrated Desire:**
- Χριστός (Christos) wants them different
- They're **NOT** responding
- Wish implies they **won't** change

**2. Indicates Self-Deception:**
- So deceived they can't see reality
- Beyond normal correction
- Hardened to ἔλεγχος (elegchos - reproof)

**3. Precedes Judgment:**
- Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) about to ἐμέω (emeō - vomit) them out
- Deep regret before expulsion
- Final warning stage

**4. Shows Pathos:**
- Χριστός (Christos) grieves over their condition
- Not indifferent judgment
- Sorrowful rejection of those who won't receive truth

---

## **THE COMPLETE PASSAGE WITH PROPER UNDERSTANDING**

### **Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokalypsis - Revelation) 3:14-22:**

**Verse 15:**
"I know your ἔργα (erga - works): you are neither ψυχρός (psychros - cold) nor ζέων (zeōn - boiling hot). **ὄφελον** (Ophelon - I wish / O that) you were ψυχρός (psychros - cold) or ζέων (zeōn - hot)!"

**Verse 16:**
"So, because you are χλιαρός (chliaros - lukewarm)—neither ζέων (zeōn - hot) nor ψυχρός (psychros - cold)—I am about to ἐμέω (emeō - vomit) you ἐκ (ek - out of) My στόμα (stoma - mouth)."

**Verse 17:**
"You say, 'I am πλούσιος (plousios - rich); I have acquired wealth and need οὐδέν (ouden - nothing).' But you do not οἶδα (oida - know) that you are ὁ ταλαίπωρος (ho talaipōros - the wretched), καὶ (kai - and) ἐλεεινός (eleeinos - pitiable), καὶ (kai - and) πτωχός (ptōchos - poor), καὶ (kai - and) τυφλός (typhlos - blind), καὶ (kai - and) γυμνός (gymnos - naked)."

### **The Progression:**

**1. Recognition:** Χριστός (Christos) knows their ἔργα (erga - works)

**2. Identification:** They're χλιαρός (chliaros - lukewarm)

**3. Frustrated Desire:** **ὄφελον** - "I wish" / Trench: "DEEP REGRET"

**4. Imminent Judgment:** About to be vomited out

**5. Root Problem:** Self-deception so complete they don't **know** (οἶδα - oida) their true condition

**6. The Tragic Irony:**
- They claim: πλούσιος (plousios - rich), need οὐδέν (ouden - nothing)
- Reality: ταλαίπωρος (talaipōros - wretched), πτωχός (ptōchos - poor), τυφλός (typhlos - blind)

---

## **CONNECTIONS TO PARALLEL PASSAGES**

### **1. ΛΟΥΚΑΣ (Loukas - Luke) 19:41-42:**

"As αὐτός (autos - He) approached Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm - Jerusalem) and saw the πόλις (polis - city), αὐτός (autos - He) **wept** (κλαίω - klaiō) over it and said, 'If you, even you, had only **known** (γινώσκω - ginōskō) on this day what would bring you εἰρήνη (eirēnē - peace)—but now it is **hidden** from your ὀφθαλμός (ophthalmos - eyes).'"

**The Pattern:**
- Χριστός (Christos) **grieves** over those who won't see
- Opportunity passes while they're blind
- Judgment follows rejected truth

### **2. ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΣ (Matthaios - Matthew) 23:37:**

"Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm), Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm), you who kill the προφήτης (prophētēs - prophets) and stone those sent to you, **how often I have longed** (θέλω - thelō) to gather your τέκνον (teknon - children) together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, **and you were not willing**!"

**The Pathos:**
- Strong desire to protect
- Active rejection by recipients
- Resulting grief and coming judgment
- **This is the heart behind ὄφελον**

### **3. ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ (Iōannēs - John) 5:40:**

"Yet you **refuse** (θέλω - thelō - **are not willing**) to come to Me to have ζωή (zōē - life)."

**The Tragedy:**
- Life available
- Χριστός (Christos) offering
- They won't receive
- This is Laodicean condition

**WHY THE ENGLISH WORD "OUGHT" IS PROBLEMATIC**

**Tommy's Crucial Observation:**

"'ought' in the English language is often misunderstood to be 'should, but not necessary'"

**THE PROBLEM:**

**Modern English "ought":**
• Watered down to mean "nice suggestion"
• "You ought to" = "You should, if convenient"
• Lost sense of binding obligation
• Becomes casual recommendation

**THE GREEK ὀφείλω (opheilō - G3784) REALITY:**

**Original Meaning = DEBT:**

**Root:** ὀφειλή (opheilē - debt, what is owed)
**Related:** ὀφειλέτης (opheiletēs - debtor)

**Biblical Usage Shows BINDING OBLIGATION:**

**1 ἸΩΑΝΝΟΥ (Iōannou - John) 2:6:**
"Ὁ (Ho - The one) λέγων (legōn - saying) ἐν (en - in) αὐτῷ (autō - Him) μένειν (menein - to abide) **ὀφείλει** (opheilei - OWES/IS OBLIGATED) καθὼς (kathōs - just as) ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos - that one) περιεπάτησεν (periepatēsen - walked) καὶ (kai - also) αὐτὸς (autos - himself) [οὕτως] (houtōs - thus) περιπατεῖν (peripatein - to walk)."

**This is NOT "you should walk"**
**This IS "you OWE to walk"**

**THE DEBT IMAGERY:**

**ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ (Rōmaious - Romans) 13:8:**
"**Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε** (Mēdeni mēden opheilete - Owe NO ONE NOTHING) εἰ μὴ (ei mē - except) τὸ (to - the) ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν (allēlous agapan - to love one another)."

**The only acceptable debt = ἀγάπη (agapē - love)**

**WHY "DEBT" LANGUAGE MATTERS:**

**A Debt:**
• **MUST** be paid
• Has legal/moral force
• Cannot be ignored without consequence
• The creditor has **right** to demand payment
• Non-payment = theft

**Θεός (Theos) Pater as Creditor:**

**1 ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ (Korinthious) 6:19-20:**
"Or do you not γινώσκω (ginōskō - know) that your σῶμα (sōma - body) is a ναός (naos - temple) of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον (pneuma agion - spirit holy) who is in you, whom you have from Θεοῦ (Theou - of Theos)? **You are not your own; you were bought (ἀγοράζω - agorazō) at a price** (τιμή - timē)."

**THE PURCHASE CREATES THE DEBT:**

**We were bought:**
• With αἷμα (haima - blood) of Χριστός (Christos)
• At infinite τιμή (timē - price/value)
• Therefore we **ὀφείλω (opheilō - owe)** our very περιπατέω (peripateō - walk) to match His

**CONTRAST WITH MODERN "OUGHT":**

**English "ought" today sounds like:**
"You ought to eat your vegetables" = suggestion
"You ought to exercise" = good idea, but optional
"You ought to be nice" = preferred behavior

**Greek ὀφείλω (opheilō) means:**
"You **owe a debt** that **MUST BE PAID**"
"You are **legally/morally obligated**"
"You **cannot avoid** this requirement"

**THE TRANSLATIONS THAT GET IT RIGHT:**

**1 John 2:6 - Better renderings:**

**NIV:** "must walk" (closer!)
**ESV:** "ought to walk" (still problematic in modern usage)
**NASB:** "ought himself to walk" (same issue)

**But even "must" doesn't capture the DEBT imagery!**

**IDEAL TRANSLATION WOULD BE:**

"The one who says he abides in Him **is obligated/owes it** to walk just as He walked"

Or even more clearly:

"The one who says he abides in Him **is indebted** to walk just as He walked"

**THE THREE WORDS COMPARED:**

**1. ὀφείλω (opheilō - G3784):**
• "I owe/am obligated/must"
• **Binding debt that CAN be fulfilled**
• Used for believer's obligation to walk as Χριστός (Christos) walked

**2. Modern English "ought":**
• Weakened suggestion
• "Should, if convenient"
• **Lost the force of obligation**

**3. ὄφελον (ophelon - G3785):**
• "I wish/would that"
• **Unfulfilled desire for something NOT happening**
• Used for Χριστός (Christos) Ἰησοῦς' (Iēsous') deep regret over Laodiceans

**THE GRAMMATICAL REALITY:**

**ὀφείλω (opheilō) is:**
• Present active indicative
• "I am owing" (continuous state)
• "I have obligation" (present reality)
• **Can and should be fulfilled**

**ὄφελον (ophelon) is:**
• Imperfect with particle
• Expresses **unrealized wish**
• **Cannot be fulfilled** (in current state)

**THE STARK DIFFERENCE:**

**For Believers (ὀφείλω):**
"You **owe it** to walk as He walked - and **you can do it** through His δύναμις (dunamis - power)!"

**For Laodiceans (ὄφελον):**
"I **wish** you were cold or hot - but you're so χλιαρός (chliaros - lukewarm) and self-deceived, I have **deep regret** that you're not"

**THE PASTORAL IMPLICATION:**

**Using weak "ought" for ὀφείλω:**
• Undermines believer's sense of obligation
• Makes obedience sound optional
• Removes the **debt imagery** that should motivate us
• Forgets we were **bought at a price**

**ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ (Rōmaious) 1:14:**
"**Ἕλλησίν (Hellēsin - To Greeks) τε (te - both) καὶ (kai - and) βαρβάροις (barbarois - barbarians), σοφοῖς (sophois - to wise) τε (te - both) καὶ (kai - and) ἀνοήτοις (anoētois - to foolish) ὀφειλέτης (opheiletēs - debtor/one who owes) εἰμί (eimi - I am)."**

Paul says "I am a **DEBTOR**" - not "I ought to preach if convenient"!

**THE #OVERTPSYOPS PRECISION:**

**English has systematically weakened:**
• "Ought" from debt to suggestion
• "Should" from obligation to preference  
• "Must" is now the only word left with force

**But even "must" lacks the:**
• Debt imagery of ὀφείλω
• Personal obligation to the One who bought us
• Legal/moral weight of being ὀφειλέτης (opheiletēs - debtor)

**TOMMY'S CORRECTION MATTERS:**

By exposing how "ought" misleads modern readers, Tommy protects believers from:
• Casual Christianity
• Optional obedience
• Forgetting the τιμή (timē - price) paid
• Missing the debt owed to Χριστός (Christos)

**2 ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ (Korinthious) 5:14-15:**

"For the ἀγάπη (agapē - love) of Χριστοῦ (Christou - of Christ) συνέχει (synechei - compels/constrains) us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and was raised again."

**This is ὀφείλω (opheilō) language - we OWE our lives!**

**Πάσα δόξα (Pasa doxa - all glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) for Tommy's linguistic ἀκρίβεια (akribeia - precision) that protects believers from weakened translation undermining their sense of sacred ὀφειλή (opheilē - debt) to the One who bought them!**

https://spirituallysmart.com
https://overtpsyops.ai

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