Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I – United States Constitution

The framers of the U.S. Constitution placed the above at the top of the Bill of Rights because it was seen as essential to all the rest. Cornell University nicely sums up the essence of the law:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Like every part of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment has been subject to interpretation through the years. In recent years, the ‘abridging of freedom of speech’ has been subject to renewed arguments regarding its interpretation. The interpretation varies according to the political/ideological stripe. Can harsh words against the government now be considered ‘incitement to violence’…? Can that type of speech be considered ‘terrorist activity’…?

The 28 February 2019, Fearless Freedom entry, Juden Supremacism Is Declared The Law Of The Land discusses H.R.672 – the Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 – which was signed into law on 14 January 2019. This law specifically ties u.s. policy – both at home and abroad – exclusively to a single identifiable group – namely, juden.

The zionist’s newly appointed State Department thug – in charge of ‘monitoring and combating anti-semitism’ – is Elan Carr. Speaking to a gang of juden heaveyweights, he  boldly declared:

My office was created by law and designed to protect the Jewish people throughout the world…The world’s greatest power is focused, by law and design, on protecting the Jews.

According to the State department’s definition of ‘anti-semitism’, anything that the juden consider offensive is considered a breach of the law. For a list of examples, click the link for the FFP 28 Feb post above. Reading the list, anyone will notice that it is composed solely of examples of ‘speech’.

What seems almost astonishing, is that there is no discussion of this fact in any media conversation. In fact, there is no discussion of this commitment of u.s. government policy to an exclusive segment the world’s population at all – except in juden media itself…and there they are not reluctant to boast about this takeover of the u.s. ‘government’.

This is very relevant to what has been happening on a state level regarding the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. The BDS website describes it’s mission:

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality. BDS upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity.

Israel is occupying and colonising Palestinian land, discriminating against Palestinian citizens of Israel and denying Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes. Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS call urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law.

BDS is now a vibrant global movement made up of unions, academic associations, churches and grassroots movements across the world. Eleven years since its launch, BDS is having a major impact and is effectively challenging international support for Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism.

It’s a peaceful movement that seeks to use the ‘power of the purse’ to achieve its goals. And that’s a language the juden listen to loud and clear.

As noted in the mission statement, BDS has been having a growing and major impact in challenging the unconditional support of the zionist arguments of occupation. This peaceful movement has done what the military wing of resistance cannot: instead of being portrayed as violent terrorists, supporters of BDS have shown themselves to be reasonable and respectable entities, addressing an unreasonable and disrespectful regime.

While an appeal to the zionist government of the u.s. has no possibility of effect, citizens of the us., as well as a few major universities and other private entities, have committed themselves – by conscience – to the BDS principle.

On 18 December 2018, Rick Sanchez of RT News, anchored coverage of the wave of ‘anti-boycott’ laws being imposed on a state level in the u.s. – currently there are 27 states which have enacted legislation of this type, and 14 states which have pending bills on the table.

'anti-boycott' legislation by state
‘anti-boycott’ legislation by state. (Graphic via Palestine Legal)

Sanchez opens the RT coverage with a scathing critique of these laws, and references how this has affected a Texas special-ed teacher. U.S. citizen and children’s speech pathologist, Bahia Amawi, lost her contract with the state because she refused to sign what has now become known as the ‘pro-israel pledge’. It reads:

israel pledge

Sanchez’ outrage is justified:

Later in the program Sanchez is joined by two other commentators who give their input about the issue:

To all involved in this discussion it is clear: this is a First Amendment issue.

On 16 December 2018, Amawi filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court of Western Texas in defense of her First Amendment rights. Glen Greenwald’s, The Intercept, posted a related entry on 17 December. The commentary posts an expansion on a few important points that were echoed on RT:

This required certification about Israel was the only one in the contract sent to Amawi that pertained to political opinions and activism. There were no similar clauses relating to children (such as a vow not to advocate for pedophiles or child abusers), nor were there any required political oaths that pertained to the country of which she is a citizen and where she lives and works: the United States.

In order to obtain contracts in Texas, then, a citizen is free to denounce and work against the United States, to advocate for causes that directly harm American children, and even to support a boycott of particular U.S. states, such as was done in 2017 to North Carolina in protest of its anti-LGBT law. In order to continue to work, Amawi would be perfectly free to engage in any political activism against her own country, participate in an economic boycott of any state or city within the U.S., or work against the policies of any other government in the world — except Israel.

That’s one extraordinary aspect of this story: The sole political affirmation Texans like Amawi are required to sign in order to work with the school district’s children is one designed to protect not the United States or the children of Texas, but the economic interests of Israel. As Amawi put it to The Intercept: “It’s baffling that they can throw this down our throats and decide to protect another country’s economy versus protecting our constitutional rights.”

In an attempt to ‘balance’ the opinions on the issue, RT and Rick Sanchez invited liz berney, director of ‘special projects for the zionist organization of america’, to to present the occupier’s argument. The interview is remarkable – berney’s presumptuous arrogance is despicable, her disregard for the injustice done to Amawi – and all others who face the same – is simply hateful, and the main thrust of her ‘argument’ is saying more than most realize…including Sanchez. That will be discussed after the vid.

To berney, the legislation imposed by the states has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It’s about commerce…’economic activity’. And this is an important point.

This creature goes off the rails the first chance it gets:

This woman in Texas, she can go on her facebook page, she can spread all the lies about israel that she wants, anyplace that she wants to, but she cannot boycott israel and engage on economic activity…this is anti-semitic…

Note that it finds it so easy to infer that ‘this woman in Texas’ is ‘anti-semitic’, that she spreads ‘lies about israel’…and then declares what she absolutely cannot do. And remember the point about ‘economic activity’.

It then goes on to mention the origins of these anti-boycott laws in the 1970s. This refers to the Export Administration Act of 1979. And this is where it gets telling.

The Tokyo based non-profit and non-governmental organization, Center for Information on Security Trade Controls (CISTEC), nicely summed up the essence of the EAA in a report tracing its history:

The EAA of 1979 authorized the control of exports of commercial goods and technologies that would make a significant contribution to U.S. military adversaries. It also authorized the continuation of controls to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives and reaffirmed continuing concerns about the short supply of strategic materials.

In other words: The EAA of 1979 was designed – in theory – to protect and further United States’ concerns. But snuggled in the legislation can be found the ‘anti-boycott’ provisions:

Part 760 of the EAR implements the EAA’s anti-boycott provisions. U.S. persons are prohibited from taking certain actions with the intent to comply with, further, or support an unsolicited foreign boycott. Prohibitions include:

  • Refusing to do business with a boycotted or blacklisted entity
  • Discriminating against, or agreeing to discriminate against, any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin
  • Furnishing information about business relationships with a boycotted country or a blacklisted entity In addition, the EAR requires a U.S. person to notify the U.S. Department of Commerce if he or she receives a request to comply with an unsanctioned foreign boycotted country or a blacklisted entity.

In addition, the EAR requires a US person to notify the U.S. Department of Commerce if he or she receives a request to comply with an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

Those familiar with history will recall that at that point of time, the Arab League had adopted an economic boycott against israel. An astute person will clearly recognize that already at this time, washington had made the choice to tie its foreign policy to that occupying ‘state’.

Adding the ‘anti-boycott’ provision had nothing to do with the ‘control of exports of commercial goods and technologies that would make a significant contribution to U.S. military adversaries’. In fact, adding that provision put the u.s. into direct conflict with states that greatly affected American interests that persist to this day. There would never have been an ‘oil embargo’ that so heavily affected the average american in the 70s, had the u.s. not chose to side with the very cause of the Arab League’s boycott in the first place. Had the u.s. chosen instead to remain neutral, the Arab League would have had no interest in a conflict with the u.s. to begin with.

So let’s return to the BDS boycott issue today.

As noted at the start of this entry, Americans who chose to peacefully support the cause of human rights for those in the occupied territories do so as their ‘government’ is completely disinterested in their conscientious position. The zionist controlled u.s. government never considers taxpayers’ petitions ‘for a redress of grievances’ regarding its unconditional support of an oppressive and terrorist regime.

And as was also pointed out: the ‘power of the purse’ is one language the juden always listens to. So now these monsters have resorted to a tactic that once again shows where their real control lies: in ‘economics’.

This berney creature lays it out:

This woman in Texas, she can go on her facebook page, she can spread all the lies about israel that she wants, anyplace that she wants to, but she cannot boycott israel and engage on economic activity…this is anti-semitic…

It’s boldly saying: if you want a job and you want to participate in our economy, you cannot boycott israel.

And also consider this point: in conjunction with the zionist ‘governments’ H.R.672, soon you won’t even be able to go on your facebook page and write any comment or criticism of the entire assault on the anti-american zionist takeover – without the possibility of facing criminal penalties.

One can only wonder: does the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights even matter anymore?

When ‘laws’ can be written at random by an occupying and economically determinant minority, solely in the interests of that minority, can the u.s. even be considered a ‘democratic’ republic anymore?

Perhaps average americans don’t care. Perhaps nothing is this important so long as they have their tech toys, their 9-5, their $300.00 tax bonus, their cheap ‘pop’ culture.

But those who do should really wake up – your ‘country’ is no longer yours.