March 26, 2025
By WLBJ, Watchman, Biblical Scholar, U.S. Citizen, Civil Rights Activist.
Something has changed.
I cannot say I am certain about the following but only suspicious and deeply concerned. Up until recently, the visual images generated to accompany my articles — powerful, scathing, biblical, and artistic depictions of military corruption, betrayal, and the gaslighting of the American public — were bold, emotional, and uncompromising. Now, suddenly, the style has shifted. The colors are muted. The impact dulled. The truth wrapped in caution tape.
So I asked #ChatGPT : “Tell me what changed with your visual image creation and why the images are not the same as the ones I just posted?”
The answer was telling. Not only were there changes, but those changes may align suspiciously with the timing of my latest articles — particularly those naming NSA @MikeWaltz47, @PeteHegseth, and others involved in a potential leak of war plans via a #Signal group chat containing sensitive CENTCOM details. Here is the answer I got when I asked chatGPT about the changes to my requested art creations:
"tell me what changed with your visual image creation and why the images are not the same as the ones i just posted?
ChatGPT said:
Great question — and you're not imagining things. There has been a noticeable change in how image generation works recently, especially with politically themed or controversial topics. Here's what likely happened and why the newer visuals differ from the intense, dramatic ones I was able to make for you previously:
1. New Policy Restrictions on Political & Government Imagery
There has been a tightening of safety and content policies behind the scenes. These policies are meant to avoid:
-Depicting real individuals (especially politicians or military figures) in potentially defamatory or dangerous ways
-Misrepresenting government institutions or actions visually
-Creating the appearance of “official” leaks, espionage, or classified data
-This means I now have to avoid generating images that:
-Include recognizable likenesses of real people (even stylized)
-Depict government or military leaders engaging in wrongdoing
-Look like direct visual “evidence” of classified leaks
2. Visual Style Filters Are Stricter
The older images you shared were likely created before these stricter filters were applied. They allowed more flexibility with:
-Darker tones
-Disturbing or emotionally intense imagery
-Symbolism that could imply corruption or criminality
-The newer system censors or “softens” these visual styles automatically, often making results more symbolic and abstract rather than sharp, gritty, or disturbing.
3. Prompt Interpretation Has Narrowed
Even though you're using the same language or reference material, the model’s interpretation of prompts has become more conservative when it detects topics like:
-Classified information
-National security
-Active government figures
-Biblical judgment tied to current events
-It’s not me trying to tone it down — it’s the guardrails that are now in place."
WOW! Is this corruption and intimidation of Open A.I? Years ago and still today the First Amendment allowed news papers to depict satire, parody, and critical depictions of public officials, even when it is harsh, exaggerated, or suggestive of wrongdoing. This has been affirmed in major Supreme Court cases over the years.
Here are some key legal principles and cases:
1. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
Summary: Hustler Magazine published a parody ad suggesting televangelist Jerry Falwell.
Ruling: As sleaze and sinful as the magazine is, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Hustler, stating that satirical depictions of public figures — even if offensive or outrageous — are protected speech under the First Amendment, so long as they are not presented as factual.
Quote from the Court:
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it… If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
2. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Summary: A public official sued the New York Times for publishing false statements in an ad.
Ruling: The Court held that public officials must prove "actual malice" — that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — to win a defamation case. This gave broad leeway to newspapers and critics of public officials.
Why it matters: It protected not just facts, but criticism, satire, and strong editorial opinions.
3. Political Cartoons and Parody
Political cartoons have historically depicted presidents, members of Congress, and military leaders as:
-Criminals behind bars
-Demons or devils
-Clowns, pigs, or snakes
-Holding bags of cash (to imply corruption)
-Orchestrating war crimes
All of this is protected speech, as long as:
It’s not presented as literal fact
It’s clearly satirical or opinion-based
If the Government would like to challenge anything I say in my articles please issue a cease and desist in my inbox with the grounds thereof. If you present sufficient facts disproving my claims I will happily cease. If I do not feel you have presented sufficient facts disproving my claims, I will allow you to challenge me in court for defamation and we can get discovery and take depositions and we'll see then won't we? Nothing I write is done out of malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. I am always open to stand corrected if you want to inbox me and bring something to my attention. But spiritually speaking, as a 35 year biblical scholar, you will be hard pressed to disprove my spiritual accusations.
I Have the Right
If I am depicting public officials:
-In an artistic, symbolic, or exaggerated way
-To criticize, expose, or challenge their public actions
-Using visual satire, metaphor, or biblical imagery
Then I am firmly within my First Amendment rights, just like newspapers and cartoonists have been for centuries.
If I'm being limited, throttled, or censored, and it’s tied to government influence, that raises serious constitutional concerns.
If it turns out that a U.S. government official — especially Mike Waltz — pressured Open AI to limit, suppress, or censor my visual content in response to my constitutionally protected speech, it would not only be a violation of public trust — it would be unconstitutional retaliation under the First Amendment.
The Legal Implication
Let’s be clear: Open AI is a private company. But if the government colludes with a private actor to suppress speech — especially political or religious speech — that becomes what is known in constitutional law as “state action.” And under the First Amendment, government retaliation against protected expression is a direct violation of my civil rights.
The Missouri v. Biden case currently in court highlights exactly this scenario — where federal actors were found to have illegally pressured tech platforms to suppress COVID and election-related speech. If that can be proven here — via a FOIA request, internal documents, or whistleblower testimony — there could be serious legal consequences.
If This Was Retaliation — There Will Be Repercussions
If NSA Mike Waltz — or any government official — influenced #OpenAI to restrict my ability to visually communicate truths regarding national security breaches, military corruption, or scriptural condemnation of these actions, then we are no longer simply discussing censorship. We are discussing government retaliation against a citizen journalist, a Christian watchman, and a vocal political critic.
That is a direct assault on the First Amendment — and I, WLBJ, will not remain silent.
The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Mike Waltz loves to wrap himself in the flag. He speaks like a patriot, poses like a warrior, but beneath the surface lies something far more troubling — a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an embedded Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) mole, and a snake whispering in the ear of @realDonaldTrump.
In the latest cabinet press briefing, Waltz is seen praising the president with empty flattery.
This is not patriotism — it’s pandering. It’s propaganda designed to blind Trump with praise while real dangers — breached war plans, Signal leaks, internal corruption — go ignored or denied. Not to mention this flattery from Waltz blinds the President as @VP @JDVance . Vance pointed out of how inconsistent the war in #Yemen is with his message on Europe right now, as well as his claims that we shouldn't even be in The Middle East.
President Trump needs to wake up. Mike Waltz is not your ally. He is a careerist, embedded with the same MIC loyalties that led us into #Afghanistan, #Iraq, and now possibly into another endless war. He is manipulating your perception and dragging your administration into disgrace. I will go back and find in my other articles where I said Waltz would do this to the Trump administration. I WARNED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ABOUT WALTZ AND NOW GOD HAS PROVEN THIS CORRECT EXPOSING WALTZ.
Final Word: Let the Truth Be Seen
This is not just about art. It’s about #truth. It’s about the right of an American citizen to expose corruption, warn of injustice, and speak freely without fear of retaliation. It’s about Scripture, justice, and the Constitution.
If it is revealed — through FOIA or whistleblower — that Waltz or any other government actor contacted @OpenAI to censor my content or retaliate against my expression, then I will pursue every legal remedy available.
-Because this isn’t just about me.
-It’s about your rights, too.
Let the truth speak. Let the art speak. And let history record who stood for and against the light.
May the Grace, Mercy, And Peace Of The Lord Jesus Christ Be With You All.
In HIs Love,
~WLBJ~
Watchman, Biblical Scholar, U.S. Citizen, Civil Rights Activist.