The Constitution vs. Judicial Supremacy: Who Really Holds the “Supreme Law of the Land”?

Introduction

When people say, “the Supreme Court is the law of the land,” they’re echoing a slogan, It’s not a constitutional fact. 

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is clear: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Nowhere does it say, “the opinions of nine unelected justices are binding scripture.”

Yet in practice, the Court has become just that: the final word, the oracle, the referee in all constitutional disputes. This tension between constitutional supremacy and judicial supremacy has shaped American history from Jefferson to Lincoln to today.

1. The Supremacy Clause as Written

  • Article VI, Clause 2 (1787): Declares the Constitution itself, and laws made pursuant to it, as the highest law.
  • No mention of the judiciary. No elevation of judicial opinions above the other branches.
  • The founders designed a system of co-equal branches, each sworn to uphold the Constitution, not subordinate to one another.

2. Enter Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)

  • Chief Justice John Marshall invented judicial review by declaring a law void if it conflicted with the Constitution.
  • This was clever politics: the Court claimed a power not explicitly written down, but hard to deny in principle.
  • From that point, the Court began carving out a role as the ultimate interpreter, even though nothing in the Constitution gave them “final say.”

3. Jefferson’s Rejection of Judicial Supremacy

  • Jefferson feared judicial supremacy would turn into an “oligarchy.” He argued each branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—had the right to interpret the Constitution for itself.
  • In an 1820 letter, Jefferson warned: “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
  • Jefferson’s strict constructionist view clashed with Marshall’s expansive reading of implied powers, especially in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

4. Jackson and Lincoln Against Judicial Absolutism

  • Andrew Jackson ignored the Court in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), allegedly saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” The quote is apocryphal, but the point stands: Jackson didn’t treat the Court’s ruling as the last word.
  • Abraham Lincoln, in his First Inaugural (1861), said Court rulings should bind the parties in a case but not “irrevocably fix” national policy. He cited Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), where the Court ruled African Americans could not be citizens. Lincoln rejected the decision’s broader authority, treating it as a judicial mistake, not the supreme law of the land.

5. The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in the 20th Century

  • By the mid-20th century, especially post–World War II, judicial supremacy hardened into convention.
  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was enforced as binding constitutional law, reshaping civil rights. Whatever one’s view of the outcome, it cemented the Court as final arbiter.
  • Presidents and Congresses generally deferred, even when grumbling. The Court’s authority expanded by habit, not constitutional amendment.

6. The Problem of Unelected Power

  • The Court today wields immense influence: abortion (Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson), same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), gun rights (Heller and Bruen), campaign finance (Citizens United), and countless other policy-defining rulings.
  • None of these outcomes came from legislation directly. They came from judicial interpretation, binding on the whole nation.
  • This makes nine unelected judges—appointed for life—the effective authors of constitutional meaning. Critics see this as aristocracy in robes.

7. Modern Pushback and the “Departmentalism” Argument

  • Departmentalism: The idea that each branch interprets the Constitution for itself. Rooted in Jefferson, carried by Lincoln.
  • Example: States challenging federal power under “nullification” theories (though historically messy).
  • Today, some scholars and politicians argue Congress and the President are not bound to treat Court rulings as universal precedent, only as binding in specific cases.

8. Current Context: Polarization and Court Legitimacy

  • Trust in the Court is near historic lows. Decisions like Dobbs (2022) polarized the nation.
  • On the right, people complain the Court has been too activist in social policy.
  • On the left, critics say the Court is captured by special interests and out of step with popular will.
  • Both sides are rediscovering Jefferson’s warning: an unchecked judiciary risks becoming the most dangerous branch.

9. What the Constitution Actually Demands

  • The Constitution is supreme. The Court is not the Constitution.
  • The Court’s opinions carry weight because the other branches allow them to. The judiciary has no army, no purse—only institutional habit and the compliance of others.
  • If Congress or the President took Jefferson’s or Lincoln’s view, they could resist judicial supremacy while still respecting specific rulings in their limited scope.

10. Conclusion

The belief that the Supreme Court is the “supreme law of the land” is a historical and political invention, not a constitutional fact. The Constitution is supreme. The Court is an interpreter, not a sovereign. For most of American history, leaders from Jefferson to Lincoln resisted the idea that nine judges should dictate constitutional meaning for 330 million citizens.

Today, with polarization eroding faith in institutions, the time may be ripe to revisit that debate. Do we want constitutional supremacy, or judicial supremacy? If the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land, then Congress, the President, and the people cannot outsource their duty to nine unelected officials.


The Real “Supreme Law of the Land”

1. The Real “Supreme Law of the Land”

  • Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause): “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
  • Notice what’s missing? It doesn’t say “Supreme Court opinions are the supreme law.” It’s the Constitution itself, plus laws passed consistent with it.

2. Where the Court Comes In

  • Article III establishes the judiciary. It gives them jurisdiction, but nowhere does it say their interpretations are final and binding on everyone forever.
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803) is where Chief Justice John Marshall grabbed judicial review out of thin air. He basically said, “We, the Court, decide what the Constitution means, and our word is final.” That was political sleight-of-hand, not a line in the Constitution.

3. Jefferson’s Warning

Jefferson hated the idea of judicial supremacy. He wrote that allowing judges to be the final arbiters of the Constitution would make them “a despotic oligarchy.” He argued each branch had the right and duty to interpret the Constitution for itself.

Lincoln echoed that in his First Inaugural: the people don’t live under the Court, we live under the Constitution. He respected the Court’s rulings in specific cases, but rejected the idea that a single Court decision should “irrevocably fix” policy for the whole nation.

4. Political vs. Legal Reality

  • In theory: The Constitution is supreme. Court rulings are just opinions binding the parties in a specific case.
  • In practice: Judicial review and stare decisis (precedent) give Supreme Court rulings enormous gravitational pull. Presidents and Congresses, for the most part, go along because otherwise the system cracks.

5. The Gap Between “Is” and “Ought”

  • Is: The Court has made itself the referee. Through precedent, most of America treats its rulings as binding constitutional law.
  • Ought: If you’re strict about the text, the Court is not supreme law. Its opinions should be respected but not worshiped. Each branch has equal duty to uphold the Constitution as written, not just as interpreted.

So the fight I’m sniffing at is the same one Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln all raised: do we live under a Constitution, or under nine lawyers in robes?

Free Speech: Stop Letting Clowns Rewrite the Rules

Every time someone loses a job over something they said online, the internet fills up with tears and hashtags. Boo-hoo, the mob didn’t like your tweet. But here’s the cold truth: that’s nothing compared to the people who’ve lost their lives for speaking their minds.

What the First Amendment Actually Says

The First Amendment is not complicated. It says:

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.”

Key phrase: shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Abridging means reducing, cutting back, trimming down.

Freedom means just that—freedom. Not a privilege. Not a “civil liberty” that can be bartered away.

This isn’t up for debate. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not Congress. Not the President. Not even the Supreme Court with its robed referees.

Hate Speech? That’s a Scam

There is no such thing as “hate speech” in U.S. law. That’s just speech someone happens to hate. And the Constitution doesn’t give a damn about your feelings. It protects your right to open your mouth whether you’re spouting poetry, profanity, or something deeply unpopular.

The Game of Implied Consent

Here’s where the real danger lives. Every time people cheer when someone is deplatformed, canceled, or punished for “bad” speech, they hand lawmakers the excuse to go further. That’s implied consent. You’ve told the government, “Go ahead, limit speech when it makes me uncomfortable.”

But ask yourself: who gave you the authority to bargain away my rights? Who told you that your fragile ego outranks the supreme law of the land? Because it sure as hell wasn’t me.

The Slippery Slope Isn’t Imaginary

Losing your job for saying something unpopular is already bad enough. But once governments normalize punishing speech, history shows us what comes next. It’s not jobs that disappear. It’s lives.

Final Word

You don’t have to like what people say. You don’t even have to listen. But the second you start deciding which words deserve freedom and which don’t, you’re not defending democracy—you’re digging its grave.

For context the following was my original rant:

“First Amendment to the US Constitution—“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.”

{Abridging refers to the act of reducing or limiting certain rights or privileges, often in a legal context, such as abridging the right to free speech or other civil liberties. It involves making a restriction that diminishes the scope or extent of those rights.}

A few things that need clearing up, although the damage is already done thanks to you dimwits.

Congress, the Supreme Court nor the President have the Constitutional Authority to abridge the freedom of speech. Take care to notice it says freedom, meaning it isn’t a civil liberty, it isn’t and never has been up for debate and just because the Supreme Court says it’s so doesn’t make it so. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land, not the Supreme Court. 

There’s no such thing as “hate” speech only speech that you “hate”. It would not make a bit of difference if such a thing were in existence, the US Constitution states, in plan English, Congress shall make NO law ABRIDGING the FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

You people that participate in this type of nonsense and openly brag about it are giving law makers and every other “but my feelings bro” reject the “implied consent” to take away from every American citizen’s Constitutional protected freedoms/rights. Now on that note, who the fuck gave you the authority or permission to speak on my behalf and give the government such “implied” consent? I didn’t and I never will.”


The following is ChatGPT5 remarks:

That image is basically a blunt reminder that whining about job loss for saying dumb stuff online pales in comparison to people who’ve literally died for exercising speech. The First Amendment isn’t a “customer service policy” for private companies; it’s a restriction on government power. Congress can’t pass laws limiting speech. That’s the deal. But your boss firing you for mouthing off? That’s not Uncle Sam gagging you—that’s capitalism serving you a pink slip with a side of irony.

Here’s where people get tangled:

  • “Congress shall make no law…” means the government can’t criminalize you for speech, no matter how offensive, unless it crosses very narrow lines (incitement, true threats, etc.).
  • Abridging = shrinking. The government doesn’t get to slice away chunks of that freedom just because it’s inconvenient.
  • No such thing as “hate speech” in U.S. law. It’s just speech someone hates. The term is political, not constitutional.

Where the rant has teeth is in the “implied consent” bit. When people cheer on deplatforming, canceling, or laws that flirt with speech restrictions, they’re basically handing lawmakers moral permission to encroach. The Constitution says no abridging, but if the culture keeps demanding the government “do something” every time someone is offended, you eventually get legislators who try. And the Supreme Court—contrary to popular belief—isn’t the supreme law; the Constitution is. The Court interprets, but it doesn’t get to rewrite plain English.

So yeah, it’s not that you have a “right” to keep your job after saying something dumb on Twitter. You don’t. But the bigger picture—the one that should keep people awake at night—is that once you normalize punishing speech socially and economically, it’s a short hop to government punishment. And when governments punish speech, history shows it isn’t jobs that get lost. It’s lives.



FBI-Suppressed Data Shows Armed Citizens Stop Over 50% of Active Shooters, Not 3.7%

SEP 15, 2025 

Recent findings reveal that the FBI's claim that only 3.7 percent of active shooters are stopped by law-abiding gun owners is entirely false.

The FBI failed to properly record instances where law-abiding citizens stopped violent shooters, leading to false reports that "good guys with guns" have no effect on stopping violent criminals, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center.

The FBI's data, which claimed that only 14 of 374 active shooters were stopped by armed citizens between 2014 and 2024, undercounted shootings by a staggering 561 incidents. When those excluded cases are applied to the dataset, it reveals more than 202 instances where law-abiding gun owners stopped an active shooter.

This updated dataset takes the FBI's original statistic—which claims only 3.7 percent of active shooters were stopped by armed citizens—and raises the real number to 36 percent. If "gun-free zones," a misguided policy that assumes criminals will obey a metal sign, are excluded from the data, over 52 percent of active shooters are stopped by law-abiding gun owners.

"Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is not citizens stopping these attacks—it's the national news covering it," said Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott. 

Cooking the Books or Just Plain Old Incompetence?

The large disparity between the Crime Prevention Research Center's data and the FBI's statistics raises major concerns, as accurate information is essential for shaping policy and providing a true picture of gun ownership in America.

After all, gun control remains a central issue in many political races, and the policies implemented directly affect the Second Amendment rights of everyday Americans.

"The cascading effect is incredibly deleterious," said former U.S. Justice Department official Theo Wold. "When the Bureau gets it so systematically wrong, it shapes the entire national debate."

So why is there such a large disparity?

Alongside the 561 omitted incidents and the inclusion of "gun free" zones, the report found the FBI mislabeled numerous events, and in many cases, simply listed civilians as "security guards." 

For example, the FBI had classified the 2019 church shooting in White Settlement, Texas—where a parishioner shot and killed the gunman—as an incident where the shooter was apprehended by a security guard.

The Crime Prevention Research Center further noted that the FBI excluded some cases it labels "domestic disputes" or "retaliation murders" from its data about civilians stopping active shooters. The group also found that armed bystanders who thwarted attacks were not counted if the suspect fled the scene.

Shaping the Narrative with Bad Data

A simple Google search about active shooters being stopped by law-abiding gun owners brings up numerous studies claiming to “debunk” the idea that honest citizens can play a role in protecting society—but the real data shows they are completely wrong.

These studies, funded by "progressive" donorsand promoted by gun control groups, also ignore evidence showing that gun control has little to no effect on criminals. Instead, it creates an environment that restricts responsible citizens while giving violent criminals an easier playing field.

In recent years, the Left has weaponized fear about firearms to mobilize concerned voters. Regardless of the real data, it is imperative that they control the narrative while they push towards total disarmament—or as they tell everyone "gun violence' prevention.

GC-Google-result-1PNG

GC-Image-2PNG

Alongside "progressive" studies, mainstream media outlets continue to label the "good guy" as an uncommon occurrence.

Headlines show this framing: 

Only You Can Prevent Active Shooters

Policies such as "gun-free zones" assign blame to the firearm itself rather than the individual responsible for pulling the trigger. These policies create defenseless environments, allowing large groups of citizens to gather without any means of protection—and voters know this.

According to a 2022 Trafalgar Group poll42 percent of voters said that armed citizens were the best defense against mass shootings, while only 25 percent said it was local police. 

The Crime Prevention Research Center study confirms that such areas are prime targets for active shooters. Recall that excluding "gun-free zones" from the data raises successful defensive action by gun owners from 36 percent to 52 percent.

Other forms of gun control—such as purchasing restrictions, background checks, and magazine capacity limits—also place a heavier burden on law-abiding gun owners, as the FBI’s own data confirms that criminals do not obtain firearms legally.

A 2019 FBI study showed that only seven percent of crimes committed with a firearm involved legally purchased guns. Half of all offenders had stolen the firearm, while 43 percent had purchased it from underground or black-market vendors.

The results of gun control leave law-abiding citizens open to senseless violence, but they also turn our schools into major targets. Allowing teachers to carry firearms adds a layer of rapid protection that children deserve. 

The FBI reports that most active threat events—including mass shootings—are over within five minutes. Yet it takes law enforcement betweenfive and 10 minutes (at best) to respond to a shooting. 

The situation is even more dire for rural schoolsthat could be left stranded for over 20 minutes waiting for police response. 

Honorable, well-trained, law-abiding teachers can effectively fill that gap and save countless lives—but it's important that Americans know the true statistics if protective policies are going to be implemented.

Holding the FBI Accountable

The FBI should be a trusted source of information, but time and time again the data it presents to the public fails to reflect the reality of what is truly happening in the United States.

In 2024, Restoration News conducted a deep dive into crime across the country and found that the FBI had severely underreported the surging crime wave—even making it appear as though crime was trending downward. States like CaliforniaGeorgiaNorth CarolinaWisconsinPennsylvania, and Virginiasaw major increases in murder, violent assault, and human trafficking between 2019 and 2023—but the FBI said all was well.

As “gun violence” prevention and gun control rhetoric continue to dominate American politics, it is essential that the public knows the truth. Despite studies that claim to “debunk” defensive carry and numerous gun control groups that push for full disarmament, the evidence is clear. 


America is Owned and Controlled by Israel.

This is from an older piece that I am currently working on updating. It is and will be a work in progress.

--MK3

WHY DOES AMERICA SUCK ZIONIST DICK?

Confronting Israel Is Important –  The Jewish State Is No Friend

The problem with America’s so-called “special relationship” with Israel is the terrible national security and foreign policy choices that are sustained by pervasive political and media corruption, so any honest attempt to examine one inevitably leads to the other.

Related: The Occupation of the American Mind

Most talking heads in the media avoid that dilemma by choosing to completely ignore the dark side of Israel.

Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism.

It is also the single most significant threat to genuine national security as it and its powerful domestic lobby have been major advocates for the continuation of America’s interventionist warfare state.

The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion dollars when all the bills are paid.

That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.

And I can go on from there. According to the FBI, Israel runs the most aggressive spying operations against the U.S. among ostensibly “friendly” nations, frequently stealing our military technology for resale by its own arms merchants.

 Its notable successes in espionage have included the most devastating spy in U.S. history Jonathan Pollard, while it has also penetrated American communications systems and illegally obtained both the fuel and the triggers for its own secret nuclear weapons arsenal.

Israel cares little for American sovereignty. It’s prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu have both boasted how they control the United States. In 2001, Israel was running a massive secret spying operation directed against Arabs in the U.S.

 Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it had considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with Washington.

Related: Summary On 9/11 And Inconsistencies Regarding The Official Story

There was the spectacle of the “dancing Shlomos,” Israeli “movers” from a company in New Jersey who apparently had advanced knowledge of the terrorist attack and danced and celebrated as they watched the Twin Towers go down.

 Jewish power, both in terms of money and of access to people and mechanisms that really matter, is what allows Israel to act with impunity, making the United States both poorer and more insecure.

A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House without any objection from a controlled media.

 Israel has also obtained carte blanche political protection from the U.S. in fora like the United Nations, which is damaging to America’s reputation and its actual interests.

 This protection now extends to the basing of U.S. troops in Israel to serve as a tripwire, guaranteeing that Washington will become involved if Israel is ever attacked or even if Israel itself starts a war.

The current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley is little more than a shill for Israel while America’s Ambassador in Israel David Friedman is an open supporter of Israel’s illegal settlements, which the U.S. opposes, who spends much of his time defending Israeli war crimes.

 And here on the home front Israel is doing damage that might be viewed as even more grave in Senator Ben Cardin’s attempt to destroy First Amendment rights by making any criticism of Israel illegal.

The non-violent Israel Boycott movement (BDS) has already been sanctioned in many states, the result of intensive and successful lobbying by the Israeli government and its powerful friends.

So if there is a real enemy of the United States in terms of the actual damage being inflicted by a foreign power, it is Israel.

In the recent Russiagate investigations it was revealed that it was Israel, not Russia, that sought favors from Michael Flynn and the incoming Trump Administration yet Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidently not chosen to go down that road with his investigations, which should surprise no one.

Noam Chomsky, iconic progressive intellectual, has finally come around on the issue of Israel and what it means. He has always argued somewhat incoherently that Israeli misbehavior has been due to its role as a tool of American imperialism and capitalism.

At age 89, he has finally figured out that it is actually all about what a parasitic Israel wants without any regard for its American host, observing on “Democracy Now” that:


“Take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that’s almost a joke.

First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.

Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done…

I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.”

Politicians are terrified of crossing the Jewish lobby by saying anything negative about Israel, which means that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu always gets a pass from the American government, even when he starves civilians and bombs hospitals and schools.

 Netanyahu uses snipers to shoot dead scores of unarmed demonstrators and the snipers themselves joke about their kills without a peep from Washington, which styles itself the “leader of the free world.”

Related: Thousands Of Israeli Protesters Call For Benjamin Netanyahu To Step Down

Just recently, Israel has declared itself a Jewish State with all that implies.

To be sure, Israeli Christians and Muslims were already subject to a battery of laws and regulations that empowered Jews at their expense but now it is the guiding principle that Israel will be run for the benefit of Jews and Jews alone. And it still likes to call itself a “democracy.”

A recent television program illustrates just how far the subjugation of America’s elected leaders by Israel has gone. British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is featured on a new show called “Who is America?” in which he uses disguises and aliases to engage politicians and other luminaries in unscripted interviews that reveal just how ignorant or mendacious they actually are.

 Several recent episodes remind one of a February 2013 Saturday Night Live skit on the impending confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. A Senator asks Hagel. “It is vital to Israel’s security for you to go on national television and perform oral sex on a donkey… Would you do THAT for Israel?”

A “yes” answer was, of course, expected from Hagel. The skit was never aired after objections from the usual suspects.

Related: The True Cost Of Israel + The Reality Of Zionist Control

Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad, an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them.

Cohen, wearing an Israeli military uniform and calling himself a colonel, clearly displayed sergeant’s stripes. Hinting that he might actually be a Mossad agent, Cohen also sported a T-shirt on which the Hebrew text was printed backwards and he claimed that the Israeli spy agency’s motto was “if you want to win, show some skin.”

Cohen set up Dick Cheney by complimenting him on being the “the king of terrorist killers” before commenting that “my neighbor in Tel Aviv is in jail for murder, or, as we call it, enhanced tickling.”

Morad went on to tell Cheney that he once waterboarded his wife to check for infidelity and then convinced the former Vice President to sign a “waterboarding kit” that “already had” the signatures of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Demi Lovato.

Another more spectacular sketch included a Georgia state senator Jason Spencer who was convinced to shout out the n-word as part of an alleged video being made to fight terrorism.

After Cohen told Spencer that it was necessary to incite fear in homophobic jihadists, Spencer dropped his pants and underwear, before backing up with his exposed rear end while shouting “USA!” and “America!”

Spencer also spoke with a phony Asian accent while simulating using a selfie-stick to secretly insert a camera phone inside a Muslim woman’s burqa.

In another series of encounters, Cohen as Morad managed to convince current and ex-Republican members of Congress – to include former Senate majority leader Trent Lott – to endorse a fictional Israeli program to arm grade school children for self-defense.

Cohen’s footage included a former Illinois congressman and talk radio host named Joe Walsh saying: “The intensive three-week ‘Kinderguardian’ course introduces specially selected children from 12 to 4 years old to pistols, rifles, semiautomatics and a rudimentary knowledge of mortars. In less than a month – less than a month – a first-grader can become a first grenade-er.”

Related: Were Hitler & Nazism Zionist Creations?

Both controversial Alabama judge Roy Moore and Walsh were fooled into meeting Cohen to attend a non-existent pro-Israel conference to accept an award for “significant contributions to the state of Israel.”

Representative Dana Rohrabacher, meanwhile, also was interviewed and he commented that, “Maybe having young people trained and understand how to defend themselves and their school might actually make us safer here.”

And Congressman Joe Wilson observed that “A 3-year-old cannot defend itself from an assault rifle by throwing a ‘Hello Kitty’ pencil case at it.”

Cohen’s performance is instructive. A man shows up in Israeli uniform, claims to be a terrorism expert or even a Mossad agent, and he gains access to powerful Americans who are willing to do anything he says.

How Cohen did it says a lot about the reflexive and completely uncritical support for Israel that many American politicians – particularly Republicans – now embrace.

This, in a nutshell, is the damage that Israel and its Lobby have done to the United States.

Related: The Federal Reserve And The Bank Of England Financed The 3rd Reich + International Red Cross Report Confirms The Holocaust Of Six Million Jews Is A Hoax

 Israel is always right for many policymakers and even palpably phony Jews like Colonel Morad are instantly perceived as smarter than the rest of us so we’d better do what they say.

That kind of thinking has brought us Iraq, Libya, Syria and the possibility of something far worse with Iran.

 Israel routinely interferes in American politics and corrupts our institutions without any cost to itself and that is why I write and speak frequently regarding the danger to our Republic that it poses.

 It is past time to change the essentially phony narrative. Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself and protect its interests but that should not involve the United States.

One can only hope that eventually a majority of my fellow American citizens will also figure things out.

It might take a while, but the ruthless way Israel openly operates with no concern for anyone but itself provides a measure of optimism that that day is surely coming.