Judge Tommy Frederick’s Plantation

   

British statesman, Winston Churchill, once wrote “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” That this quote comes from the man who nearly single-handedly defeated Germany’s National Socialist (Nazi) Party should not be lost on the reader. This is especially true today when it’s commonplace for the historically ignorant to hurl “Fascist” or “Nazi” insults toward their opponents without even knowing what either term means. That’s because definitions aren’t important so long as using a misnomer as a debate shortcut is such an effective tactic.

In a more general sense, though, we all tend look back on history and think, “I would have stood up to them.” It doesn’t much matter whether we’re talking about the Nazi genocide or slavery. The fact is most people today (maybe including you) have no idea what they would or would not have done when facing pivotal moments of the past. Even prominent figures from history wondered if they’d be able to withstand the real stresses of battle, or if their fear would send them running. There was no sure way to know, they decided, until the moment struck and they stood face to face with death.

What would you have done about slavery?

Everyone today explains how wrong slavey was. In fact, today’s members of the party that ended up on “wrong side of history” have found a unique way to atone for their sins. They pretend to re-fight the bloody war of a hundred and sixty years ago, but on the other side and without any danger of being killed or wounded. Since they’re taking up their opponents’ position (and abandoning their own – albeit for appearances), who are they fighting against? The shadows of their own history. What weapon will they use? Revisionism: to replace what they actually did with what they should have done.

Among other things, they demand the removal of the “Jim Crow statues” that members of their own team had erected! They rally, they protest, or they file lawsuits; all to “fix a wrong” that no longer exists – at least not in the same way it did in 1857, when the United States Supreme Court threw out the Dred Scott v. Stanford case. They excel at straw man arguments; except the new boogeyman is nothing more than a bit of stone, marble, or bronze. Its presence or removal has no real impact on the real world around them. However, it’s their way of virtue signaling that the slavery (that hasn’t existed in this country for a hundred and sixty years) will no longer be tolerated.

But slavery still exists. So, what are they doing about it?

The first point is slavery does exist in other countries in much the same way that it existed in ours all those many years ago. In China, for example, the average factory worker earns about $1.52 per hour. Another source puts those jobs at about $12,820 per year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that annual income would put an individual in the “working poor” category. A family of four earning a total of $25,701 also fits the “working poor” category in the United States. Yet many of these anti-slavery protestors wear Nike and other goods manufactured almost exclusively in China. They’re denouncing slavery with their mouths while funding slavery with their wallet.

A new and different form of slavery also exists in the United States. Not so surprisingly, the same political group that supported the slavery of centuries past and is financially supporting Chinese slavery in the present is also supporting slavery’s latest manifestations here. While we could talk about the forms of overtaxation, over regulation, over enforcement, emergency proclamations, and other execute overreach or judicial acquiescence, we’ll save those for another day. The slavery we’ll talk about today is the kind where men, women, and children are owned by other human beings.

On what side of slavery is Judge Tommy Frederick standing?

It was Thursday, September 23rd, 2021, when Judge Tommy Frederick made a shocking ruling that you are not your own. He insists that the constitutional protections we’ve enjoyed for the last few hundred years no longer apply. That’s because, he says, private corporations can violate your constitutional rights with impunity. Specifically, he is permitting employers to thrust unwanted medical procedures on their employees. That these procedures use experimental substances (legal only because of temporary, emergency authorizations) was not broached.

Being denied a job, housing, or a loan because of your gender, race, or age is a constitutional violation that our court systems hear on a fairly regular basis. However, from the bench, Judge Frederick’s ruling throws out decades of precedent: judgements against businesses who violated a person’s constitutionally protected rights. This particular decision goes even further: suggesting that employers may demand anything they please of their employees’ bodies. The effect of this ruling means anyone who refuses medical treatment (their right under the Louisiana Constitution) may have their employment terminated without the possibility of redress or recourse in the courts. Judge Frederick even made this decision without reviewing any of the evidence presented; an admission he made in open court.

This is exactly the kind of hysteria driven decision that today’s keyboard warriors denounce. They demand that slavery would never have happened under their watch. Yet, this same group stands idle while the courts say a business owns someone. Although dressed up as public safety, slavery once again stares our court system squarely in the face, just as it did in 1857.

Where will this slippery slope lead?

It seems to me that such a ruling could include other medical procedures. Would it be uncalled for if employees were mandated to donate a pint of blood per quarter or lose their job? Could Judge Frederick have unwittingly ruled that employees must undergo surgery, or donate a superfluous kidney or marrow if their employer deems it necessary for public health?

Before scoffing at the absurdity of this likelihood, reflect on where we are right now. That is, if an employee refuses an injections into their own body (for any reason or no reason), they will be fired. Add to this, if the employee is damaged by a medical procedure they are compelled to undergo, neither the hospital nor the pharmaceutical company can be held liable.

Does your employer own your body, like the plantation owners of yesteryear owned the bodies of their workers? It would appear that Tommy Frederick thinks so.

###

Don’t just sit there, join the fight to save Louisiana!

Citizens for a New Louisiana is the only organization in Louisiana dedicated to reforming local government. With the help of numerous volunteers we are making some progress. However, there’s much more work we could be doing. Making a difference will take a little more than reading and sharing an article. Your community doesn’t need another spectator. They need someone willing to step onto the field and become a real part of the solution. Will you join us?

Level Price  
Patron $25.00 per Month. Select
Friend $50.00 per Month. Select
Leader $100.00 per Month. Select
Champion $250.00 per Month. Select
Subscriber Free. Select
Subscriber + $10.00 per Month. Select

← Return to Home

or make a one-time donation

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This