Oct 9, 2025 3-5pm ET
Thursday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
Special Guest: Jonathan Emord
For the past 37 years, Jonathan W. Emord has litigated against the federal bureaucracy, winning over and over again. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “an expert in constitutional theory and history” and “an expert litigator with a long string of legal victories over the federal bureaucracy.” George Noory calls him “a Knight in Shining Armor” and “a warrior out to save our rights.” Congressmen Dan Burton and John Doolittle describe him as “an intellectual warrior for the rights and freedoms of people in America.” Jonathan has a unique, detailed knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, the deep state. He knows how to defeat it. Jonathan graduated from the University of Illinois (BA, political science and history, 1982) and DePaul University College of Law (JD, 1985). He served as an attorney in the Federal Communications Commission during the Reagan administration. A leading constitutional law and litigation expert, he is the author of five critically acclaimed books. He has won more cases against the Food and Drug Administration in federal court than any other attorney in American history, earning him the nickname “FDA Dragon Slayer.” He is a columnist for Townhall.com, PJ Media.com, Americangreatness.com, and the U.S.A. Today Magazine. He frequently appears on national radio and television programs. He is married to Sheryl Emord, and they have two children, twins Justice and Angelica. They reside in Clifton, Virginia.
In this week’s Sacred Fire of Liberty with Jonathan Emord, we dive deep into the ongoing battle for health freedom and free speech. Jonathan shares major updates on his work with the Alliance for Natural Health,including a motion for summary judgment against the FDA over its revocation of CPG 400.400—a move that wrongly targeted homeopathy based on faulty logic and misrepresentation. He also details a forthcoming petition to open up the market to truthful structure and function claims, so Americans can finally access scientifically valid information about nutrients that impact their health. It’s a fight not just for supplements—but for speech itself.
We also unpack the dramatic shift occurring within federal agencies under the MAHA agenda, with new leadership at HHS and FDA bringing more transparency, skepticism toward Big Pharma, and a willingness to let truth back into the public square. Jonathan outlines how this administration’s push for reform could finally end decades of corporate capture and censorship, setting the stage for 118 new nutrient-disease relationship claims to be recognized. Together, we discuss how restoring access to accurate health information empowers Americans to make informed choices, strengthens public health, and reduces dependency on the drug cartel model that’s dominated for far too long.
In the second half, the conversation turns to defending parental rights and pushing back against the government’s overreach in medical kidnapping cases, the moral decay behind woke ideology, and the restoration of strength and principle in America’s institutions—from the church to the military. It’s a powerful discussion that spans liberty, law, and leadership—reminding us that freedom is not self-sustaining; it must be defended every generation. Watch the full episode on Rumble and reignite your own Sacred Fire of Liberty.
Trump Slams “Deranged Jack Smith” After Bombshell Memo Exposes Biden FBI Spying On GOP Senators A recently disclosed FBI document, obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, reveals that the agency under President Biden surveilled the cell phone “tolling data” of eight Republican senators during the period surrounding January 6, 2021, as part of the “Arctic Frost” election-conspiracy probe. The document, labeled “CAST Assistance” and tied to election-law matters, implicates then-FBI Director Christopher Wray and Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose office later oversaw Trump’s federal cases. Grassley claims the surveillance was politically motivated and unconstitutional, calling the actions “worse than Watergate” and demanding accountability from Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Patel. The FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation, initiated in April 2022 and reassigned to Smith in November 2022, allegedly also obtained data on 92 Republican-aligned groups and persons, and at times accessed federal phones belonging to Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Senate Republicans and Trump condemned the revelations, labeling the effort as weaponization of law enforcement and demanding investigations and prosecutions.
Trump Says He May Invoke The Insurrection Act President Trump stated that he may invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 if necessary to restore order in U.S. cities facing violent unrest and to overcome court or local government resistance. He framed it as a lawful constitutional measure reserved for extreme conditions in which lives are endangered, saying he would not hesitate to use it if “people were being killed” and if state or local leaders or courts attempted to obstruct federal action. Trump emphasized that while the act has not yet been required, it remains a critical option, particularly in cities like Chicago and Portland where he claims judicial rulings have limited federal intervention. Legal and political reactions were immediate and polarized: supporters described the statement as a strong reaffirmation of executive authority, while critics warned that invoking the act could represent executive overreach and threaten civil liberties. Commentators pointed to historical precedent, noting the Insurrection Act has been used roughly thirty times since its creation, most recently during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Analysts agree that any future invocation would mark a serious expansion of presidential power and ignite a major constitutional and political debate over the limits of federal authority.
CDC Says COVID-19 Vaccination Now Up To Each Individual CDC’s updated policy frames COVID-19 vaccination as a matter of “shared clinical decision-making,” meaning individuals should weigh personal risk factors and consult physicians instead of following a broad universal mandate. Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill stated that this change restores informed consent, criticizing prior blanket booster recommendations for discouraging individualized risk-benefit discussions. The vaccine advisory panel unanimously recommended shifting from universal guidance to this more individualized approach, citing weak evidence for the effectiveness of seasonal boosters and lingering concerns over side effects such as myocarditis. Under the new posture, vaccinations are still recommended for specific groups—those over 65 and people with risk factors—but are no longer broadly endorsed for everyone. Historical CDC practice had long held that nearly all citizens six months and older receive COVID-19 vaccines annually; now the agency acknowledges this framework no longer reflects current data. Reported uptake data show roughly 44 percent of those 65 or older, but much lower rates among younger adults, children, and health care workers. The article notes that the FDA has withdrawn emergency authorizations for the vaccines and now restricts approvals to higher-risk groups under the revised CDC policy.
Canada Has Gone 100% Communist—Obey or Be Disconnected | Daily Pulse The article describes growing concern over new Canadian government powers that allegedly enable authorities to restrict or terminate individuals’ access to the internet, telecommunications, and financial systems under the justification of “national security.” It frames this as the emergence of a centralized digital control structure, often referred to by critics as an “internet kill switch.” The report states that the legislation allows the federal government to order service providers to cut off access for anyone deemed a potential threat, without court warrants or transparent oversight. Civil liberties advocates argue that this could criminalize dissent, silence opposition voices, and make online participation conditional on political conformity. Supporters within the government claim the measure is designed to protect digital infrastructure from cyberattacks, but opponents warn that it mirrors authoritarian models in China, where state control extends to information flow and financial access. The article suggests that Canada is serving as a test case for broader Western adoption of similar systems tied to digital IDs and programmable currency networks. Analysts quoted in the piece say that such control mechanisms, once implemented, are rarely rolled back, representing a significant erosion of free speech, privacy, and personal autonomy under the guise of safety and modernization.
White House Blames Dems for Potential WIC Lapse, Announces ‘Creative Solution’ to Keep Program Running The White House announced that President Trump has authorized tapping into Section 232 tariff revenue to maintain funding for the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) nutrition program during the government shutdown, blaming Democrats for precipitating a funding shortfall. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused Democrats of “cruelly voting to shut down the government,” stating their actions forced the program to nearly exhaust its funds. The administration described the tariff-funding move as a short-term “creative solution” orchestrated via the Office of Management and Budget, though the exact amount of revenue to be diverted and the duration of this workaround remain undefined. WIC, which provides food vouchers, breastfeeding support, and nutritional education to over six million low-income mothers and children, was projected to run out of funds imminently. White House officials say the infusion of tariff funds will cover the program “for the foreseeable future,” preventing an abrupt lapse in benefits. Critics and legal analysts warn that diverting tariff revenue without explicit congressional authorization could trigger constitutional or oversight challenges. While the White House frames this as a humanitarian and tactical response, the move raises broader questions about executive authority in funding critical social safety-net programs during periods of legislative impasse.
Bondi to Durbin: ‘I Wish You Loved Chicago as Much as You Hate President Trump.’ Attorney General Pam Bondi clashed sharply with Sen. Dick Durbin during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, using the exchange to defend the Trump administration’s decision to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago amid a surge in violent crime. When Durbin questioned the legal rationale behind the deployment, Bondi immediately countered that he had “voted to shut the government down” and accused him of ignoring Chicago’s public safety crisis. She cited hundreds of homicides and argued that the federal intervention was necessary because local law enforcement had failed to contain escalating violence. Bondi asserted that Trump’s decision was both lawful and morally justified, emphasizing that her deputy Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel were already on the ground in Chicago coordinating with local officials. Her pointed remark—“I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump”—quickly became the focal point of the hearing, underscoring the deep partisan tension surrounding the administration’s use of federal power. Durbin responded that his inquiry was procedural, not political, saying it was his duty to ask about the legal authority for military deployment in domestic affairs. The heated exchange set the tone for a combative hearing that reflected broader divisions over the balance between federal intervention and state sovereignty.
Hour 2
Sean Davis: The Drive To Censor Political Speech Always Ends With Murder At a Senate hearing on social media censorship, The Federalist co-founder and CEO Sean Davis warned that government-backed suppression of political expression inevitably escalates into physical violence. In his testimony, Davis described censorship as the first step in a broader authoritarian process that “moves to the destruction of statues and monuments, and ends with the murder of people.” He cited the recent assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, whom he said was murdered by a “left-wing transgender ideologue” radicalized by anti-speech hatred, as evidence that silencing dissent fosters violence. Davis further condemned the response of public figures who he claimed justified or celebrated the killing, arguing that the normalization of such rhetoric reveals the moral collapse of American politics. He also pointed to another case in Virginia where a Democratic attorney general candidate allegedly called for his opponent’s death, saying such behavior underscores how ideological extremism has infected positions of power. Shifting to his personal experience, Davis recounted how The Federalist and its editors were censored and demonetized by Google and targeted by the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which he said illegally colluded with social media firms to blacklist conservative media. He concluded by asserting that censorship and violence are inseparable outcomes of a totalitarian impulse that must be stopped before it destroys civil society.
Ex-Surgeons General Latest to Join RFK Jr. Smear Campaign Six former U.S. Surgeons General — Jerome Adams, Richard Carmona, Joycelyn Elders, Vivek Murthy, Antonia Novello, and David Satcher — published an op-ed accusing Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of “endangering the health of the nation” through policies that, they argue, undermine scientific consensus and de-emphasize vaccines. They cite the recent measles outbreak and an August shooting at CDC headquarters as consequences of what they frame as reckless leadership. The article points out that Murthy is named in a censorship lawsuit filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which alleges that he and others colluded with social media platforms to suppress protected speech. The ex-Surgeons General contend that Kennedy’s actions have contributed to misinformation, vaccine hesitancy, and erosion of public trust in public health institutions. In response, CHD and its commentators argue that the op-ed is part of a coordinated campaign to damage Kennedy’s reputation using narrative warfare rather than substantive critique. They further reference a purported internal memo from BIO (a pharmaceutical industry lobbying group) planning a multimillion-dollar communications campaign to lobby Congress and influencers to discredit Kennedy. CHD editorialists label the criticism as politically motivated, accusing its authors of protecting entrenched bureaucratic interests rather than objective science. The article frames this conflict as emblematic of a broader struggle over health policy, censorship, and institutional control.
Former FDA Vaccine Regulator Peter Marks Joins Eli Lilly Peter Marks, former director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), has joined Eli Lilly as senior vice president of molecule discovery and head of infectious disease research, marking one of the most high-profile regulatory-to-industry transitions in recent years. Marks resigned from the FDA in April 2025 following public clashes with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine safety oversight and the future of mRNA technology in the U.S. medical market. At Eli Lilly, Marks will oversee early-stage discovery, infectious disease therapeutics, and vaccine-related research initiatives, which analysts say signals the company’s intent to expand its biologics and antiviral portfolio. During his nearly decade-long tenure at the FDA, Marks spearheaded the agency’s accelerated approval pathways for rare diseases, cell and gene therapies, and served as a leading figure in Operation Warp Speed’s vaccine rollout. His move to Lilly has reignited debate over the so-called “revolving door” between federal regulators and pharmaceutical firms, with watchdog groups warning that such transitions blur the line between public oversight and private profit. Eli Lilly praised Marks as an “extraordinary scientific leader,” while critics contend the appointment underscores systemic conflicts of interest within biomedical governance.
Inhalers Produce as Much Carbon Emissions as Over 500,000 Cars Each Year, Study Finds A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that inhalers prescribed for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) generated roughly 24.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in the U.S. over the period from 2014 to 2024, equating to the annual emissions of about 530,000 gasoline-powered cars. Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) accounted for 98 percent of that environmental burden, primarily due to their use of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellants—pressurized gases that have a high greenhouse gas impact. The study argued that these emissions contribute to climate change, potentially worsening respiratory illnesses and creating a harmful feedback loop. Researchers contrasted MDIs with lower-emission alternatives like dry powder inhalers and soft mist inhalers, which deliver medication without propellant and thus incur far smaller carbon footprints. With tens of millions of Americans relying on inhalers, the authors and accompanying editorial suggest substantial opportunity to reduce emissions while preserving patient care by shifting toward greener inhaler technologies, improving prescribing practices, and encouraging investment in sustainable pharmaceutical delivery.
Bill Would Require Grocers, Restaurants To Label Lab-Grown Meat A bill proposed in Wisconsin would mandate that any meat or seafood cultivated in a laboratory be labeled “lab-grown meat” when sold by restaurants or in grocery stores. The legislation, driven by State Rep. Clint Moses and Sen. Romaine Quinn, is framed as a “truth-in-labeling” measure intended to inform consumers whether their food is synthetically manufactured rather than conventionally produced. Although lab-grown meat is not yet widely available commercially, supporters say the law would prepare for its introduction as biomanufactured proteins gain regulatory approval. The proposal echoes Wisconsin’s existing rules that require clear labeling of margarine, and co-sponsors argue similar transparency should apply to novel food technologies. The bill includes enforcement penalties: first violations would carry fines between $100 and $500 or up to three months in jail, while repeated offenses could result in fines between $500 and $1,000 or six to twelve months of incarceration. Agricultural groups such as the Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association, Pork Association, and Dairy Business Association have backed past versions of the labeling requirement, citing protection of the conventional livestock industry. However, the Wisconsin Grocers Association and Restaurant Association have warned that compliance could impose burdens on businesses. The proposal also raises legal questions about interstate commerce and how to regulate lab-grown meat produced outside Wisconsin but sold within the state.
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
