↓ Freedom Centers


Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – Dec. 23, 2022

George Landrith, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, Tom Donelson, and Dr. Larry Fedewa discuss the big issues:

(1) The Twitter Files — Each successive release of documents is more damning than the last.  We learned that the FBI was actually paying millions of dollars to Twitter (in the pre-Elon Musk era) and that the FBI played an active role in helping determine what speech was silenced.  Simply stated, the FBI is a major source of mis-information. It is clear that the Deep State has been interfering in our American elections since at least 2016 — maybe earlier. 

(2) The massive, bloated, Omnibus — Why did Mitch McConnell betray Conservatives all across the nation and why did so many GOP Senator help him? Given that the House will switch control in January, the Republicans in the Senate should have demanded a very short term extension of the current budget so that the new House Republican majority would be in a position to have a major voice in the long term budget going forward. But Mitch McConnell just gave away the first year of the GOP House. 

(3)  Ukraine — Can two things be true at the same time?  Can one oppose Russia’s invasion and at the same time oppose the continuous flow of billions of American taxpayer dollars. And how do we help Ukraine repel Russia and defeat Putin  —  without breaking the bank and without making it the sole responsibility of the American taxpayer?  Shouldn’t Europe and the international community be more involved?  

(4)  Christmas — Let’s talk about our favorite Christmas movies, Christmas carols, and our favorite Christmas traditions. 

Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – Dec. 16, 2022


Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – Dec. 16, 2022

George Landrith, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, Tom Donelson, and Dr. Larry Fedewa discuss the big issues:

(1) The Twitter Files — Elon Musk has released literally thousands of internal emails and documents that show how Twitter’s censorship didn’t even follow its own policies and that it was politically motivated and that government agencies were working with Twitter to silence conservatives. What does this tell you about the Left? The Biden Administration? The FBI? The intelligence community? 

(2) What should the Republican leadership in the House be investigating in the coming Congress? The politicalization of the DOJ, FBI, IRS and their work to censor America? Joe Biden’s grotesque corruption in which he’s sold access to the White House to our foreign adversaries for millions? Anthony Fauci’s lies under oath and why his net worth skyrocketed during the pandemic? The insanely dangerous border policy that has seen millions illegally cross our border, seen enough fentanyl to kill millions of Americans, and crime increases? The the Afghanistan debacle? 

(3)  Will Joe Biden will run for a second term? Or will it be Gavin Newsome?  Also who will the Republicans select to be their champion in the ideological battle that will take place in 2024? Donald Trump has said he will run again.  But there are also other possible candidates who have proven track records promoting conservative solutions and an America First approach. We the GOP selects another candidate for 2024, it won’t be a rejection of MAGA or America First policies. It would be a decision based on which candidate going forward can aggressively promote conservative polices and a pro-Constitution and America First agenda and can win over pivotal independent American voters and have coat tails to help elect a supportive team in the House and the Senate as well as in the states. 

(4)  Sam Brinton, the LGBTQ activist, who was the Deputy Assistant Security at the Energy Department and has been arrested twice for stealing women’s luggage, apparently was fired. The Biden administration has one of the least impressive cabinets and under secretaries in modern history. Basic competency doesn’t appear to have been part of the selection process. Pete Buttigieg is a prime example. With more than 100 ships backed up in harbors off the California creating serious supply chain problems he was taking time off. And as the train strike was looming, he was vacation in Europe. But if the President and Vice President are without basic competency, why should the cabinet be any different?

Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – Dec. 9, 2022

Frontiers of Freedom President, George Landrith, and Frontiers of Freedom Senior Fellows, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, Tom Donelson, and Dr. Larry Fedewa, discuss the big issues:

(1) The Georgia Run Off Election — What explains the results?  Flawed Candidate?  Weak party leadership?  Trump?  Why does the Left continue to claim voter suppression despite record voter turnout?  What should GOP do differently to stop losing winnable elections? 

(2) Will Kevin McCarthy be the next Speaker?  Steve Scalise?  Someone else?  How does GOP become and remain unified?  Will the new Speaker be able to satisfy our desire for change and reform?  Will the new Congress accomplish anything important?  What is a rational or reasonable expectation for the next two years? 

(3) A. What’s going on with Elon Musk & Twitter? Is the clear corruption at Twitter before Musk and at the FBI and DOJ and CDC going to stop?

B. What is the impact of the Brittney Griner prison swap for Viktor Bout, the “merchant of death” which left retired Marine Paul Whelan rotting in a Russian prison. 

C. Nominations for Man and/or Woman of the year.

(4) A. China is a manufacturing powerhouse, but has proven to be an unreliable and even a dangerous trading partner, so will the world decouple from China or continue to empower the communist regime?  Is Biden too compromised by his and his families corrupt business dealings to lead a manufacturing resurgence in America?

B. Each of the panel will also discuss a “one more thing” news item. 

Coalition Letter Opposing the Guard VA Benefits Act

Because it Endangers and Limits Our Veterans Ability to Get Help in Engaging the Complex and Challenging Bureaucracy

December 6, 2022

Dear Member of Congress:

We want to begin by thanking you for your tireless efforts on behalf of our veterans. These men and women have sacrificed much for our country, and we owe them the highest levels of care and support upon returning to civilian life. In this vein, we write to you regarding the GUARD VA Benefits Act. While we believe the best of intentions are at the heart of this legislation, as written, it will unintentionally deprive many veterans of private assistance in preparing disability benefits claims, overall hindering their ability to receive that which they are owed. 

While the Veterans Administration (VA) strives to provide the best possible care, it is widely acknowledged that they are plagued by a six-figure backlog that is actively endangering our veterans. Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) offer free VA claims preparation assistance, but many veterans have expressed difficulty navigating the system even with their help. While the intention of these VSOs is noble, it is clear that other pathways of assistance must be provided to our veterans. 

A number of reputable private companies have stepped in to fill a gap in the marketplace, wherein veterans are simply not equipped to secure the benefits they deserve on their own or with the help of volunteer VSO representatives. Some private companies offer a full suite of support, including screenings, benefit eligibility counseling, and assistance in compiling all necessary information for the disability claims submission. It is our belief that the best actors in this space are those who charge a fee only when they succeed in securing or increasing a veteran’s VA rating and only a portion of the veteran’s increase.

We understand that at the heart of the GUARD VA Benefits Act is a desire to protect veterans and ensure they receive the help they need. Unfortunately, your bill appears to criminalize reputable private companies, who are helping disabled veterans navigate a highly complex and challenging government bureaucracy, just as companies like TurboTax who are helping taxpayers with IRS and tax code complexities and challenges. Veterans deserve the same level of outside support, should they choose to use it.

We urge you to reexamine and correct these troubling aspects of the GUARD VA Benefits Act and to work in a holistic manner in the 118th Congress, including with private businesses, to have hearings and roundtables with stakeholders focused on reforming the accreditation process and increasing access to services for veterans. We must increase the VA’s capability to enforce laws against exploitation and punish truly bad actors. But we cannot label all for-profit companies “exploitative,” especially when many veterans can attest to the great support they have received when using their services.

Our veterans have given up so much to ensure the safety of our country and the protection of democratic ideals around the world. We, and the world, are better for their work and sacrifice. The least we can do is make sure they have timely, effective access to health care and support, which can be achieved by increasing the breadth of this legislation and bringing reputable companies into the fold.  Please reconsider this legislation, which runs counter to our shared, longstanding goal of fighting for our men and women in uniform.


George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom 

Morton Blackwell, President, The Leadership Institute 

James L. Martin, Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association 

The Honorable George K Rasley Jr, Managing Editor, ConservativeHQ.com

Horace Cooper, Director, Project 21 

Paul Caprio, Director, Patriotic Veterans

David Williams, President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance 

Steve Pociask, President / CEO, American Consumer Institute

C. Preston Noell III, President, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Andrew Langer, President, Institute for Liberty 

Bob Carlstrom, President, AMAC Action

Seton Motely, Founder & President, Less Government 

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President, 60 Plus Association 

Ryan Ellis, President, Center for a Free Economy

Governor Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas, President of HUCK PAC

David Wallace, Founder, Restore America’s Mission 

Charles Sauer, President Market Institute

Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Judson Phillips, Founder, Tea Party Nation

Martha Boneta Fain, President, Vote America First 

Susan Taylor, President, Strengthening America for All

John Cooper, President, Defending America Foundation

Scott Vanatter, President, The Last Best Hope on Earth Institute

Mark Thomas, Founder, Freedom & Prosperity Caucus

Nicholas Willis, President, Americans for Liberty & Security

Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – Dec. 2, 2022



George Landrith, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, Tom Donelson, and Dr. Larry Fedewa discuss the big issues:

(1) China’s vicious and brutal totalitarianism has been on display this week. Despite the intimidation, surveillance and censorship, brave Chinese citizens are out in the streets protesting their government’s abuses and their continued COVID lockdowns. Sadly, on display is also the shameful complicity of Joe Biden and Tim Cook, and there’s the hypocrisy of the Democrats supporting riots (not merely protests, but violent, destructive riots) by Antifa and BLM, but refusing to support the brave Chinese citizens who are standing up to a brutal, communist totalitarian regime.

(2) In totalitarian regimes, there is no freedom of speech. The government decides what information is safe for you to hear. There are Lefties in America who want this same program here. They claim — like one lunatic on CNN did — that free speech is “non-sense.” We have an administration that is “keeping an eye” on Elon Musk and Twitter; that has worked with social media and the press to silence dissenting views; that tried to start a government program to control information under the guise of reducing misinformation. That tells you pretty much all you need to know about the Biden Administration — they have evil, totalitarian instincts.

(3) The Biden Administration isn’t just anti-free speech, they are extremists to their core. We were told that Joe Biden was the moderate choice. But there is absolutely nothing moderate about this administration. It is widely extreme. They are avidly opposed to our constitutional rights as found in the Bill of Rights. They want taxpayers to pay for sex change operations for children. Biden’s nuclear waste guru is a non-binary, luggage stealing, whack-job. They want to force us into poverty and dependence. They deny elections whenever they lose, but if you question their attempts to stuff ballot boxes with illegal votes, you’re dangerous. They ramp up crime and murder wherever they are in charge. And they’ve created a national border that allows terrorists, criminals and poisonous fentanyl to flood across our border.

(4) We discuss a wide range of issues: (a) Sam Bankman-Fried and the FTX Ponzi scheme; (b) Dr. Fauci who is making numerous “Last Press” Appearances — the man will not go away; (c) how Biden’s agenda is putting America’s financial future at risk; (d) small businesses continue to struggle and it isn’t the pandemic, it is the Biden administration; (e) there is the hope that a slim Republican majority in the US House of Representatives could at least slow down some of the insanity and temper a bit some of the Democrat’s extremism.

(5) And each of our panelists will provide a “one more thing” topic.

Sen. Paul’s Amendment to the NDAA Is Both Necessary and Needed

It Promotes Justice and a Strong & Ready Military


CONTACT: George Landrith                                      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PHONE:  (703) 246-0110, Ext. 1302                               November 30, 2022


Fairfax, VA  –  Frontiers of Freedom released the following statement by its president, George Landrith, regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Senator Rand Paul’s proposed amendment to prohibit discharges from the Armed Forces solely on grounds of their vaccination status and to reinstate those service members who have already been discharged based on their vaccination status: 

While national security spending is critically important, Sen. Rand Paul is 100% correct to oppose the NDAA unless the Senate votes to prohibit discharges from the Armed Forces solely because of vaccination status and reinstates service members already discharged. The reason for this is quite simple. Ever since the military mandated the COVID vaccine, recruitment has been cratering. Our military cannot be ready to defend the nation if it’s numbers are at historic lows. 

Likewise, if the morale of our war fighters is low, that also harms readiness and our ability to defend ourselves. So Sen. Paul is dead-on right to fix this problem to strengthen our military. It is also the just and right thing to do because kicking patriotic Americans out of the military for not taking a vaccine that provided very limited, if any discernible, benefit to the age and health demographics of the typical warfighter makes zero sense and lacks a rational and reasonable basis. Simply stated, it was the wrong thing to do and our current recruitment shortfalls are proof positive of that fact. 

It is time to correct this injustice, and it will also greatly benefit our ability to defend ourselves and recruit a serious force to deter our adversaries. This is pro-defense and pro-military and it is needed and necessary. 

 #   #   # 

Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – November 25, 2022


George Landrith, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, and Tom Donelson discuss the leading issues of the week: (1) World Economic Forum Foundation Chair Klaus Schwab says China is a role model; (2) Dr. Fauci admits he’s a bureaucrat, not a scientist or even a physician; (3) Alaska’s Ranked Choice Voting helps losers win and turns representative democracy on its head; (4) the lame stream media lies once again about acts of violence and tries to pin hate crimes on conservatives — it turns out that the Colorado club shooter was not a Conservaitve and instead is a non-binary guy who uses they/them pronouns; (5) inflation is surging despite Biden’s claim that it is under control and he’s fixed the problem the vast majority of Americas have had to cut back for Thanksgiving and Christmas. And we will each have a “one more thing” story to discuss!

Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – Nov. 18, 2022

George Landrith, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, Tom Donelson, and Dr. Larry Fedewa discuss the leading issues of the week: (1) the FTX cryptocurrency scandal that has Ukraine, Democrats and Sam Bankman-Fried at its epicenter. (2) the U.S. House of Representatives will flip and Nancy Pelosi will lose control of the gavel. It looks like Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnel will lead in the House and Senate respectively. (3) Russia’s war of conquest in Ukraine took an interesting turn — with missiles landing in Poland. What’s really going on?  And should the US continue to send pallets of cash to Ukraine or should we focus on actually helping them repel Putin’s forces? (4) What’s up with the Georgia run-off election? Will Biden’s automatic vote in incumbent Warnock win a full term to the US Senate or will Georgia decide it would like someone to represent Georgia — like Herschel Walker. And we will each have a “one more thing” story to discuss!

With Orbán, Against Orbán!

How Orbán’s Fundamental Law Can be Confronted with Orbán’s Authoritarianism

By János Palotás

It was indeed a unique solution proposed by the legal advisors who turned their backs on their profession and served the authoritarian rule of Orbán, that by abusing the two-thirds mandate, Orbán created the first dual (hybrid) Fundamental Law with the fourth amendment to the original Fundamental Law (March 25, 2013).  This amendment made it possible for the Fundamental Law to include both the fundamental values of the rule of law (a prerequisite for EU membership) and the indispensable autocratic powers granted to Orbán. Orbán then deprived the Constitutional Court of the right to examine the contents of the new amendments he proposed, to preserve the integrity of the Fundamental Law and its compatibility with human rights.

It is indicative of Orbán’s deliberate move that in the years to come, Orbán will repeatedly and without a second thought, take advantage of this opportunity. Orbán, in parallel with the enactment of laws satisfying his despotism, is also regularly adding amendments to the Fundamental Law that preclude their sustainability and even their amendability in the event of a change of power. Thus, Orbán’s legislation did not abolish the obstructive elements of the Fundamental Law, because upon its detection the EU would have immediately initiated proceedings against the Orbán Government, but it added new articles to the Fundamental Law, keeping the ones approved, as necessary for his nefarious purposes, knowing that the Constitutional Court cannot carry out a substantive examination.

Orbán therefore regularly invokes his right under a hybrid (dual) structure of the Fundamental Law. The real question is: why only Orbán? So why can’t we see that the clauses protecting our rights are still there today. Why don’t we, or even the European Union, make use of the legal options, most of which are still available in the Fundamental Law to protect the rule of law!

After Orbán’s landslide victory in the 3 April elections, he was confronted with the need to negotiate with the European Union to finance his authoritarian regime (I prefer to call it his criminal cabal). As a result, a number of Orbán’s laws are being amended by Parliament today. These amendments are considered by me to be unlikely to restore the rule of law, as I pointed out in a recent interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (one of the world’s most influential newspapers). The obvious thing would have been for the EU, and the opposition parties here at home, to demand that we join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, that we change our electoral and media regulations so that voters can recognize and assert their own interests and vote again in a much more proportional system of electoral mandate allocation.   It should be upheld as an expectation that the Government should withdraw the amendments to the Fundamental Law, from the Fourth to the Eleventh, which, without exception, ensure the sustainability of Orbán’s authoritarianism.

It should be pointed out that within the dual Hungarian Fundamental Law, all of its authoritarian interventions are in conflict with EU law, which is an integral part of the Hungarian legal system. It is important to know that EU law takes precedence over national law. This is also true for proceedings before national courts, which unfortunately most courts do not seem to understand, and this seems to be the case for many chambers of the Curia.

Throughout my presentations, my conversations with friends, my writings, I have always maintained that laws do not take precedence over truth. Our rights and obligations are determined by social justice appropriate to the times, even if quite often, as in Hungary today, those who exercise power abuse the legislative process in an attempt to secure exclusive power for themselves, including thez exclusive right to decide on people’s rights and obligations.

It also follows from my understanding that, in my capacity as an expert, inquiries submitted to me which, after a preliminary review, lead me to the conclusion that my potential client is in the wrong are not accepted. My self-contained expert reasoning would then always hit an invisible wall, according to which the act under challenge violated not only the law, but also the rights of others. 

The situation is different when a first review of an inquiry or request makes it likely to me that the person seeking assistance needs to assert the truth against a particular piece of legislation. The person who approaches me in such cases usually complains of his helplessness and that he has been dismissed from countless qualified law firms and lawyers’ offices, saying that although the law should, according to the principle of justice, uphold his right, but “unfortunately this is often not the case”, and that the decisions of the courts are determined by the law and not by justice, and that there is nothing to be done. I am sad to say that I too have encountered this very common argument many times in my conversations with otherwise excellent lawyers and judges, and in assessing legal situations. But this is not the case!

I will try to illustrate the clarity of my understanding of the law with an example that is very relevant today, known and followed by readers of the “Szép Szó (A Beautiful Word)” addendum of Népszava.

  • On September 30, 2022, Beatrix Marosi, the head of the competent school district, in voluntary service of Orbán’s arrogant authority, personally delivered the immediate dismissal of five teachers to the Kölcsey Ferenc High School in Budapest on the grounds that they had participated in so-called civil disobedience.
  • The five teachers filed a class action suit, and on October 28, with the support of eminent lawyers from the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, they filed an employment action at the Metropolitan Court of Budapest. 

According to the statements of Dr. Balázs Tóth, the attorney of the international advocacy organization representing the teachers, the reception of the action in court cannot be predicted in advance, precisely because of its unprecedented nature, but more than ten arguments are presented in the action, which, in their opinion, justify the disproportionate assessment of the teachers’ actions in the sanctions applied.

Despite my infinite respect and appreciation, this legal argument would either be left out of my line of reasoning altogether, or at most would be included in my legal argument. In the petition, I would only ask for a ruling that the conduct of the teachers concerned was lawful and therefore did not give rise to any sanction.

Although the so-called Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms does not include the right to strike (the right to walkout) as a specific clause, it would be a mistake to conclude that the right to strike cannot be derived from its rules. Under Article 4 of the Convention,  for example no one can be required to perform compulsory labor. In other words, no teacher could be obliged to teach any class at any school for which he or she is not qualified or contracted. Namely, this violates the cited legal text as well as the rights of parents and children and the obligations of the State under Article 2 of the First Additional Protocol. In my professional opinion, it is also a violation of the Convention if a teacher receives instructions that violate the human rights of the child he or she is teaching or of the parent representing the child.

Article 9 of the Convention on freedom of conscience specifically states that everyone has the right to express his or her convictions, individually and collectively, in public and in education. The obligation to observe and uphold the rights and obligations contained in the Convention, both in the national legal system and in national court proceedings, is recurrent in the principal treaties of the Union.

Article XVII of the Fundamental Law provides for the right of workers to walkouts. According to paragraphs 2 and 3, all employees have the right to working conditions which respect their health, safety and dignity. One only has to wonder whether the central regulations that govern teachers’ daily lives today ensure their personal dignity. Whether their remuneration guarantees their livelihood and their health and safety, etc.

The right to walkouts in the Fundamental Law is nothing other than the right to freedom of expression under Article IX of the Fundamental Law and the protection of one’s legitimate interests under Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law in the world of work.

Article I(2) of the Fundamental Law also states that it expects these rights to be enshrined in law. Paragraph 3 also requires the substantive elements of such laws to comply with the requirement that “A fundamental right may be restricted to the extent strictly necessary to ensure the exercise of another fundamental right or to protect a constitutional interest, in proportion to the aim pursued and with due regard for the essential substance of the fundamental right”.

When designing a tactical approach to litigation, it is crucial what we consider to be the starting point and from where we build up the process. We will arrive at a different conclusion if we accept as a starting point the Emergency Government Decree issued by Orbán on February 11, 2022, which is in force today, as the rules for teachers’ protests through a walkout, or if we reject it and take into account as a starting legal principle the Human Rights, the law of the European Union, and certain provisions of the Fundamental Law that give us rights when filing the petition for a legal action.

Orbán’s Decree is only in force until the legality of its substance is overturned. For in the case that I envisage, if at the end of a lengthy procedure it is established that Orbán’s restrictive decree is unlawful, i.e. null and void, because it has deprived civil disobedience participants of rights (for example, the right to express their opinions through a walkout) that they could not have been deprived of, then we can certainly no longer talk about the alleged infringement. But the same proportionality is expected of those involved in civil disobedience. So it is still open to scrutiny whether an announced absence from a class was a disproportionately broader expression of opinion by those affected than they would have had if they had been given the right to strike, had they not been unlawfully restricted by Orbán. I think that this is certainly not the case, so the voluntary expression of teachers’ opinions is lawful, and the sanctioning of them can be declared a serious infringement, even in the Hungarian courts, I think, but most definitely in the European Court of Justice.

The result and social significance of such a procedure goes far beyond the protection of the rights of five teachers to teach, which is of course a priority in itself. It is often argued that the legal work in the proceedings I consult on runs the risk that, due to gaps in national law, many claims cannot be directly assigned a legal rule, which would simplify the legal argument. But this should not scare us. Thousands of years of law, dating back to the 3rd century BC, can now give us a solid basis for never giving up on what is right. Nor is it an inescapable obstacle if national law does not explicitly enshrine the right of civil resistance and disobedience. These rights are existing even without the knowledge of the Minister of the Interior, and can be enforced by the long-known and often forgotten rules of analogy in courtrooms. If we learn to apply the law more comprehensively, we can also get legal answers on how to resist the traps of the legal environment created by Orbán’s continuous infringing legislation.

In September, the EU Parliament declared by a large majority, with my agreement, that Orbán’s regime has now become an authoritarian hybrid regime. However, the duality also means that the system does not only serve Orbán, but also retains the constitutional elements that can be used as a weapon against him.

Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – November 11, 2022

George Landrith, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, Tom Donelson, and Dr. Larry Fedewa discuss the leading issues of the week: (1) the massive red wave didn’t quite materialize the way many thought it would, but it appears that the GOP will control the House and may also control the Senate — depending upon the outcomes of three seats — Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona. But why was the red wave not a big as expected?  (2) Election night was a good night for Florida Ron DeSantis — why was that?  (3) Some claim that Trump was a loser on election night despite the fact that he wasn’t on the ballot. While some of his endorsed candidates lost, some of the won too. So why is he being called a loser?  (4) What can we learn from New York where the GOP unseated some unexpected Democrats?  (5) What can we learn from Florida where the GOP did have an impressive red wave?  (6) With extremists like John Fetterman elected to the Senate, will the Democrats be able to moderate? Or will they continue to be the socialist party and the party of extremism?  (7) How can Biden hope to moderate and work with Republicans when he spent the last six months fomenting violence against conservatives and calling them fascists and existential threats to our republic. And we will each have a “one more thing” story to discuss!



WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com