Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Florida GOP Declares War On The First Amendment to ‘Combat Anti-Semitism’
Source: Information Liberation
URL Source: ... dment-to-combat-anti-semitism/
Published: Mar 6, 2023
Author: Chris Menahan
Post Date: 2023-03-06 09:53:22 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 47
Comments: 6

If Gov. Ron DeSantis signs the bill into law, Florida will have worse hate crime laws than California, New York, Connecticut and every other state in the Union.

“The Free State of Florida” is set to have the most oppressive hate crime laws in America in order to “combat anti-Semitism.”

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0)

Apparently Florida is being invaded by New Yorkers. Imagine that.

"Call Me Ishmael" -Ishmael, A character from the book "Moby Dick" 1851. "Call Me Fishmeal" -Osama Bin Laden, A character created by the CIA, and the world's Hide And Seek Champion 2001-2011. -Tommythemadartist

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2023-03-06   10:12:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#2. To: Ada (#0)

What ever you say it is your right under the US Constitution. But if you are a white straight male you go to prison. FL has gone total frelled up

Darkwing  posted on  2023-03-06   11:28:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#3. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#1)

What is a jooish woman's favorite wine?


“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left Alone.
TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy…
but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the Men who just wanted to be left alone.”

Esso  posted on  2023-03-06   11:51:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#4. To: Ada (#0)

Once again, we can thank George Washington and his Floundering Fathers from taking this country dedicated to Jesus Christ ( / ), and handing it over to the anti-Christs:

George Washington's Lasting Gift to Generations of Jews

As the saying goes, we will be ruled by God (Jesus Christ/ ) or we will be ruled by tyrants.

Food for Thought

"... The Freedom of Religion

Real Christianity is never tolerated when all religions are tolerated for it is too rigid. True Christians cannot have any other God before them, and they will be judged for endorsing a supposed equality of other gods with the true God. Thus Christians who believe in the freedom of all religions believe in their own termination.13

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) was a compromise by late 18th-century Christians. In order to keep the government out of their churches (so they believed), they allowed the government to authorize any and all religions. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” was one of the principal proponents of the “unalienable right” to religious expression, regardless whether such expression was Christian, non-Christian, or even anti-Christian:

…all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion….14

Federalist James Madison’s sentiment was the same:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.15

…the door of this part [the House of Representatives] of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth or to any particular profession of religious faith.16

George Washington, true to his Masonic tenets, told the Virginia Baptists:

If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.17

While serving as President of the United States, Washington declared the United States “government protects all in their religious rights.”18 This does not sound all that different from what President Barack Obama wrote after declaring that America is no longer an exclusively Christian nation:

…when we’re formulating policies from state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.19

Christian Constitutionalists claim the word “religion” in the Establishment Clause was exclusive to Christian denominations. At best, this is wishful thinking, the result of exploiting the historical record. The framers, while perhaps not rejecting Christianity (and in some instances even seeming to prefer it), rejected a Christian state in favor of a polytheistic one. In reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, enacted one year before the federal Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Where the preamble [of the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word [sic] “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.20

Jefferson employed the word “denomination,” not for the various Christian denominations, but for any religion or non-religion. United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger declared, “our system encourages pluralism, both political and religious.”21 In Zorach v. Clausen (1952), Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote, “We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary.”22 Christians laud such seditious decisions because they are under the spell of the Constitution and their antinomian preachers. Although modern courts sometimes abuse certain aspects of the original intent of the constitutional framers (as documented in David Barton’s Original Intent23), the statements of Justices Burger and Douglas are in perfect accord with the framers’ intent.

Today’s secularism is not simply the product of Chief Justice Earl Warren and his court…. It was implicit from 1788. It was made official in February, 1860, when the House of Representatives invited the first rabbi [Dr. Morris J. Raphall of New York City] to give the invocation….24

Constitutionalists and Christians alike often quote Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer as one of their favorite witnesses to the allegations that the Constitution was a Christian document, which produced a Christian government:

This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that court … added … “a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”25

What immediately follows Brewer’s often quoted opinion is rarely cited:

But in what sense can America be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion…. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders.26

How can the United States of America be a Christian nation when “all religions have free scope within our borders,” in violation of the First Commandment?

Many Christians were outraged with President Obama’s endorsement of a mosque proposed to be built mere blocks from where the Twin Towers stood. On August 13, 2010, Obama celebrated the Muslim holiday Ramadan with a White House dinner, at which he declared that “as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan….”27 Christians should not be angry with Obama for telling the truth. Instead, they ought to be angered at the origin of Obama’s statements – Amendment 1 of the Constitution. ..."


" long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech /

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2023-03-07   3:39:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#5. To: Ada (#4)

more from the above...

" Authorizing Religion

Although the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion over another, by eliminating Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice (achieved by Article 6’s interdiction against Christian test oaths), Amendment 1 authorized equality for all non-Christian and even antichristian religions. When the Constitution failed to recognize Christian monotheism, it allowed Amendment 1 to fill the void by authorizing pagan polytheism.

Amendment 1 did exactly what the framers proclaimed it could not do: it prohibited the exercise of monotheistic Christianity (except within the confines of its church buildings) and established polytheism in its place. This explains the government’s double standard regarding Christian and non-Christian religions. For example, court participants entering the United States District Court of Appeals for the Middle District of Alabama must walk by a statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of justice. And yet, on November 18, 2002, this very court ruled that Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments Monument violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Despite many Christians’ protests against this hypocrisy, it was in keeping with the inevitable repercussions of the First Amendment.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s verdict in Engle v. Vitale, which barred school-sponsored prayer, Dr. Billy Graham declared, “This is another step towards the secularization of the United States…. The framers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”29 Tragically, Graham’s latter statement has become a mantra. Christians hang their religious hat on Amendment 1, as if some great moral principle is carved therein. They have gotten so caught up in the battle over the misuse of the Establishment Clause – the freedom from religion – that they have overlooked the ungodliness intrinsic in the Free Exercise Clause – the freedom of religion. Nothing better depicts this paradoxical tendency than 19th-century Pastor Benjamin F. Morris’ claim:

By an act of the [Virginia] Assembly in 1705, it was declared, that if any person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God or the Trinity, or asserts that there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable, on the first offence by incapacity to hold office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military…. This law, opposed to the spirit of Christianity … was abolished in 1786 by the following – “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom: …all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”30

Morris’ (and the framers’) tolerance of religious freedom was not the spirit of Christianity. It was the spirit of pluralistic polytheism and, thus, the spirit of anti-Christianity. Morris’ assertion that Virginia’s Organic Charter’s intolerance toward non-Christians’ holding office was “opposed to the spirit of Christianity” is a classic case of calling “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Had America held to Virginia’s charter, the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood massacre (in which thirteen people were killed and thirty others wounded at the hands of Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan) would have never occurred. Amendment 1 was the origin of what occurred that fateful day. Had the farmers established a government based upon Yahweh’s law, Islam would not be tolerated and its proponents would not be in America’s military.

The true spirit of Christian monotheism is perhaps best depicted in the instructions to the delegates of Mecklenburg County on September 1, 1775, during the first session of the Provincial Congress of North Carolina:

You are instructed to assent and consent to the establishment of the Christian religion, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be the religion of the state, to the utter exclusion forever of all and every other (falsely so called) religion, whether pagan or papal … and that a confession and profession of the religion so established shall be necessary in qualifying any person for public trust in the state.31

It was this Christian monotheism that Article 6 and Amendment 1 terminated. What Amendment 1 is really saying is that the United States government is no respecter of religions or gods. Whereas Amendment 1 welcomes all religions and therefore all gods with open arms, Yahweh’s law demands that people who advocate violating His First and Second Commandments are to be put to death:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer … saying, Let us go after other gods … and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHWH32 your God proveth you, to know whether ye love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after YHWH your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from YHWH your God … to thrust thee out of the way which YHWH thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. If thy brother … thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife … or thy friend … entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods ... thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou shalt surely kill him…. (Deuteronomy 13:1-9)

In view of Yahweh’s zeal for Himself as depicted in this and many other passages, what do you suppose He thinks of the framers and their constitutional provision for polytheism? What does He think of anyone today who lauds and supports their actions? If you are inclined to protest that this was meant only for Old Covenant times, consider the following New Covenant directive:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)..."


If my people, which are called by my name,[[Christ]] shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

more food for thought...

The First Landing 1607 Project

The Re-Dedication of America Back to God

"...If they were to consecrate the land for God’s purposes, Hunt wanted the company to be contrite in heart.

Though the ships they sailed upon were very small, The Virginia Company leadership insisted that they carry one item with them from England for the purpose of giving glory to God in the endeavor – a rough- hewn wooden cross. After the three days had passed, Hunt led the party to the wind-swept shore where they erected the seven-foot oak cross in the sand.

The colonists and sailors gathered around the cross, holding the first formal prayer service in Virginia to give thanksgiving for God’s mercy and grace in bringing them safely to this new land.

As they knelt in the sand, Hunt reminded them of the admonition of the British Royal Council, taken from the Holy Scripture: “Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.”

Raising his hands to heaven, Rev. Robert Hunt claimed the land for country and king and consecrated the continent to the glory of God.

In covenantal language he declared, “...from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”..." [[see Micah 4:1-2]]

ruled by God, or ruled by tyrants

Ezekiel 20

33As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you: 34And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. 35And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. 36Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD. 37And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: 38And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD...

" long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech /

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2023-03-07   4:29:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#6. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#5)

Although the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion over another

"Congress shall not . . ." means no national church. Doesn't prevent the states from doing so.

Ada  posted on  2023-03-07   11:52:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest