Declaration of Independence from the State of Israel By Glen Wallace                                                                           Spring, 2025 It is a separate matter between the normative nature of the State of Israel and the extraordinary measures the US government has been taking to favor Israel. Regardless of the nature of Israel, the establishment clause of the First Amendment dictates that the government cannot favor any religion, including the state religion of Israel, Zionism, over any other religion. The First Amendment also demands that the government not infringe on speech, including speech critical of Israel and Zionism, within the land of the United States of America. There is no asterisk within the First Amendment allowing for exemptions from these requirements of the government if the speaker or writer, whose speech is being infringed upon, is not a full citizen of the US. The Amendments are the rules that the government has to follow. I've read comments that visa and green card holders have to follow the rules here. Those commenters don't get it; the rules that are the law of the land that are found in the First Amendment are for the government, and require that government to allow anyone within this land to speak freely without infringement by ICE or any other government entity. Over the decades, thanks to the efforts of the abolitionists, suffragists and civil rights activists, the US has codified the premise that what was meant in the Declaration of Independence where it is written that “we find these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal” includes people of all races and both genders. Yet, the US still chooses to go to great lengths to support a country, the State of Israel, that does not share those same views or values. Representatives are only in Congress to represent their own ambitions, and AIPAC is there to help them meet their goals in exchange for votes to favor Israel. Hamilton and the Federalists were effectively closer in mind with the Loyalists and King George than they were with Jefferson and his ideals of freedom and sympathy and confidence with the commoners. What was the whole point of the revolution in the first place if they were all going to just go back to the same ways of thinking and governing? Is the Trump administration trying to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 by the Federalist Party controlled Presidency and Congress? I heard on one video a claim that Trump wants the US to join the British Commonwealth? If true, then is he trying to Make America British Again? I wonder what his commoner red had wearing supporters would think of that. I have my doubts that they would be supportive. This also leads me to wonder if, in reality, Trump wants Canada to become part of the US so that the US can become part of the British Commonwealth. So, everyone has it backwards; it is not the Canadians that need to be alarmed, but it is Americans that should be alarmed by his suggestion of Canada becoming the '51st State.' His suggestion is implying a regression back to the time when the original Colonies were under the rule of King George of England. Trump is sounding like the loyalists of 18th century America who wanted to remain part of the British kingdom. An important contrast needs to be made between the cases of Canadian journalist and activist Yves Engler and Jewish American journalist Max Blumenthal. Both journalists are fierce critics of Israel, and both faced authorities in each of their countries for that criticism. But Blumenthal was only briefly detained at an airport and questioned upon returning to the US. Engler, on the other hand, was jailed for days and charged with a crime for his criticism of Israel. Canada, as part of the Commonwealth, does not have the protections that we have in the US regarding the freedoms of speech and the press as found in the Bill of Rights. All the Commonwealth countries also had the most draconian Covid restrictions and control measures of any governments around the world; they even had Covid concentration camps. In the original Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson, it declared that all humans are endowed by the creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly the visa and green card holders, who were deported solely because of their views on Israel and Palestine, inalienable rights were violated with their arrest, detainment and deportation. Now, while we can't impose on other sovereign nations our views on human rights, at least we are supposed to be able to maintain those rights within the sovereign borders of our own nation, as dictated by the US Constitution. Don't forget that the Wuhan leak and operation warp speed mrna vaccine development happened under Trump's watch. And Trump never fired Fauci. And if the CCP were really enemies of the US Deep State, would they have ever allowed the collaboration between the NIH and the Wuhan Lab to ever happen in the first place? The Bill of Rights are a set of rules for the rulers, not the ordinary plebs. The Amendments are the law of the land, that all government officials must follow when treating people within the land of the US. You don't hear about visa and green card holders being arrested and jailed in some corporate for-profit prison for praising the trump administration in their speech and posts and articles. No, the only ones being arrested are being arrested for speech critical of the State of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. This is a prima fascia case of infringement of speech by the government, thus a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The Administration is clearly trying to injure these visa and green card holders for their speech. I see comments online claiming that it is the immigrants who need to follow the rules or face the wrath of ICE. What those commenters don't get is that the immigrant critics of Israel are following the rules. It is the Trump Administration that isn't following the rules of the US Constitution that they are required by law to follow. What rules did the Tufts University PHD student break by penning a school newspaper article critical of Israel? Israel has achieved mastery in spreading deceptive propaganda. One of those propaganda talking points is the line “Israel has a right to exist” as a canned response to any criticism of the ongoing practices of the Israeli government. That line is a red herring non sequitur that has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of Israel's actions. Whether or not the State of Israel has a right to exist is irrelevant to the point that Israel has no right to deliberately target innocent men, women and children in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. And given that there is a preponderance of evidence that Israel is deliberately targeting innocent men, women and children on a mass scale, especially in Gaza, the United States should not be funding Israel with one dime, let alone billions of dollars in military aid. The psychology of motivation is a complex subject. So it is to a degree unknown why someone such as a member of Congress pursues such a position. But I think I can make some guesses. Career politicians probably enjoy the recognition and admiration and prestige that comes with their positions and titles as a member of Congress. Maybe they felt the need to prove something to the world; to show everyone what they could achieve. But to achieve their position, they realize they need some help in the form of campaign donations; lots of campaign donations. And who is there to provide the big dollars absolutely necessary to achieve the success they so deeply crave? Why it's none other than the Israeli lobby with the massive monetary money pile that they are so willing to give to a candidate for office. But before a candidate can get the Israeli lobby dollars, the candidate has to do something in return, a quid pro quo. The candidate has to promise to always vote in favor of sending US public funds, that rightly belong to the people of the candidate's district, to a foreign nation way across the globe on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea; the State of Israel. And unfortunately, a vast majority of those ambitious career politicians are more than willing to sell out their own constituents in order to achieve their dreams of winning a seat in the United States Congress. There is a great deal of evidence and eyewitness testimony that Israeli forces have been deliberately targeting children in Gaza. While normally the public correctly treats child killers as the most abhorrent of human beings, the public tends to look the other way when the State of Israel does the same thing. It is absurd to treat as antisemitic criticizing the actions of Israel. If there are some Zionist snowflakes that feel threatened or offended by protesters and critics of Israel and Israel's genocide in Gaza, then that's the problem of the snowflake, not the Israel critic. There is something referred to as 'the reasonable person standard' that should be followed in this matter. The reasonable person standard dictates that when judging a claim of harassment or offense, the one doing the judging of the situation should ask whether any reasonable person in the same or similar situation also feel harassed or offended. If, for instance, in a workplace, someone claims they feel harassed because a coworker said “hi” to them in a friendly tone of voice, the claimant would be judged not to have a case of harassment because their mindset response was not that of a reasonable person. Ironically, it is the political right that is often the ones claiming that Jewish students are feeling harassed and intimidated by campus protesters protesting the actions of the State of Israel. It is ironic because it has been the political right who have correctly called out the woke left for being unreasonable when claiming that students and others are being offended, harassed or intimidated when a professor inadvertently mispronouns a student in a classroom or a school doesn't allow a biological boy to use the girls locker room or participate in girls sporting events. The woke right is a real thing. The woke right engages in a double standard when it comes to cries of antisemitism over anyone criticizing Israel on the one hand, and on the other hand, then correctly calling out the unreasonableness of the woke left who refer to as hate speech any criticism of woke left gender speech and categorization. How did we go from Thomas Jefferson declaring that it is self evident that all humans are created equal in the 1776 Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln reiterating that same point in the Gettysburg address in 1863, to the US government supporting a nation, Israel, who considers anyone not of pure Jewish blood as having less value than that of an insect? I'm wondering if Jefferson's support of the French revolutionaries parallels with Henry Wallace being flimflammed by the Soviets when he visited the Soviet Gulag prison camp Kolyma. When Wallace visited Kolyma, it had been Potemkin Villaged for the then Vice President's visit as the Soviets had replaced the starving prisoners with fit, well nourished prison guards posing as prisoners. Kolyma had also been prettied up in other ways for the VP's visit to get him to think the prison was treating its inmates in a humane manner. And it worked, as Wallace walked away from the visit convinced that it was an ordinary prison that treated its inmates with dignity and humanity. It was only later that Wallace was to discover that he had been grossly misled by the Soviets when he admitted as much to the public. I suspect that Thomas Jefferson was similarly insulated by the Jacobin revolutionaries from their atrocities against the plebs who would lose their heads for merely being rumored to be in the slightest against the regime. The French Revolutionaries were no doubt a tyrannical bunch, but Jefferson was adamantly opposed to any form of tyranny and, for the most part, insisted on the young American government abide by that opposition to tyranny at the time and ensure that opposition on into the future. Is something similar also going on, from a psychological standpoint, when it comes to otherwise conservative commentators who seem to block out of their consciousness the atrocities committed by the State of Israel? But at least Jefferson, while governor of Virginia, ended the establishment of the Angelican denomination of the Christian church as the state religion of Virginia; likely the origination of the phrase 'separation of church and state.' But when the first Amendment was written, it specified that no religion of any nature be allowed to be the established religion of the nation. And the courts have determined that favoring any religion is tantamount to establishing that religion as the national religion. Therefore, no religion can be favored by any of the governments within the United States according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. But obviously, the US Government, by heavily funding the Zionist government of Israel, is heavily favoring the religion of Zionism, thus violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Government is also favoring Zionism by arresting green card holders and visa holders in the US for speaking and writing against the Zionist State of Israel. How can the United States of America, a nation founded on the principle of all humans being created equal, associate and closely align itself with a nation, the State of Israel, that is founded on the belief that humans of one ethnicity, being Jewish, is superior to every other ethnicity of human beings on the planet? Whenever Israel's actions are challenged, I often hear the red herring retort that “Israel has the right to exist!” It is a rather ironic response, given that Israeli government officials and their military officers and soldiers clearly don't believe Palestinian human beings have any right to exist whatsoever. It is an open question whether any non-natural entity, whether that entity is a corporation or a nation state, has any right to exist in the first place. There should be no doubt that in the priority of rights, the rights of natural persons definitely take precedence over the rights of non-natural entities such as nation states like Israel. Defenders of Israel seem to have their priorities mixed up. While Israel engages in the wholesale slaughter of innocent, sentient civilians in Gaza, so many are so quick to come to the defense of a non-sentient, unfeeling, non-natural political thing with an ontology comparable to that of a corporation. No such thing should be given priority in terms of a right to exist over that of a real, natural human being with feelings, hopes and dreams. We would have to delve into the psychology of motivation to attempt to ascertain what drives so many members of Congress to do whatever it takes to succeed. But I suspect many career politicians have a tunnel vision ocd fixation on achieving success in their political careers. Maybe they have some feeling of inadequacy from their childhood that they feel the need to compensate for in order to squelch that gnawing feeling of inadequacy eating away at them. But, whatever the reason, if they discover some thing or someone who can give them the keys to success that those career politicians crave so much, then they'll likely do whatever those key holders demand. In the halls of Congress, those key holders are the Israeli lobby. US House member Thomas Massie has stated that almost every other member of Congress, besides himself, has an AIPAC guy that the Congressperson effectively reports to. Is this what the founders envisioned for this nation to become; a nation where the United States legislators have to get approval from the representatives of a foreign nation before voting on any piece of legislation? It doesn't seem to me that is what the founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams and others, had in mind when they put so much effort into forming this nation. I believe it is fortunate that Jefferson was not himself ambitious for political career success. Insofar as he did pursue public office, it was out of his sense of duty to help the State of Virginia and the US achieve the ideals in terms of higher ethical principles for his home state and the nation. Jefferson once wrote: “I had rather be shut up in a very modest cottage, with my books, my family and a few old friends, dining on simple bacon, and letting the world roll on as it liked than to occupy the most splendid post which any human power can give.” It is just that sort of mindset where a politician is little prone to the enticements of a lobbyist offering likely career success in exchange for voting in accordance with the lobbyist's direction. Unfortunately, the mindset of Jefferson's character has become more the exception than the rule. As a result, we as a nation have become more so the subject of Israel's rule today than the colonists were under the rule of England before the revolutionary war. Not since the Protestant Reformation has there been an instance where a religious organization has intruded on the sovereignty of faraway nations as Israel is currently intruding into US affairs. The US government, regardless of which party is in control, basically reports to the prime minister of Israel for their marching orders. The American constituents are analogous to Ingrid Bergman's character in the movie Gaslight. And the villain in that movie is analogous to the members of Congress and Presidents who vote to fund the Israeli war machine. But the villainous MOCs and POTUS's are not obsessed with valuable jewels; instead, they are obsessed with their own political success and winning the next election. And to do that, the career politicians will romance and woo the constituents, making them believe that they, the politicians, actually care about anyone else but themselves and their own obsession with political career success. The idea espoused by Jefferson, Lincoln and others that we are all created equal does not merely mean that we all have equal abilities and should be given equal opportunity to succeed and live our lives as we choose. It also means that we all are equally potentially susceptible to the temptation of megalomania, hate, rage, along with all the trappings of temptation that go along with having political positions of power. It would be naive, and go against the edict that we are all equal, to assume that any class of humans is invulnerable to the sins and temptations that go along with political power if members of that class were once victims of tyranny, such as the Nazi holocaust. It would then be naive to assume that the Israelis could never commit a holocaust of their own simply because their ancestors were once victims of the original holocaust. In the debate over the situation in Gaza and US support for Israel, I often encounter people throwing out red herrings in the midst of the debate. A red herring is a statement that is meant to derail an argument from a specific topic that is indefensible over to a another specific topic that is defensible. Usually the other topic is related to the general topic being discussed. The goal then of the person throwing out the red herring is to evade a point in which their opponent in the debate is superior on that point. They are effectively following Sun Tzu's advice from the Art of War, where he states about opponents: “If he is superior in strength, evade him.” Thus, the Zionists cannot defend, before the court of public opinion, the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, including children, so they evade that point in the debate by bringing up red herrings about variety of topics that still are related to Zionism and the State of Israel but have absolutely nothing to do with the specific topic of targeting innocents in Gaza. Some of those red herrings one might expect to hear if one brings up the targeting of children and other innocents in Gaza and the US paying for the guns, bullets and bombs the IDF uses to carry out the mass murder of civilians there include: “Israel has a right to exist!” or “We are working towards a two state solution” or “It's all Netanyahu's fault” or “a two state solution is ideal but the Palestinians have rejected that solution.” All of those statements are completely off topic from my premise that it is wrong for the US to be funding Israel given that we know they are deliberately targeting civilians with lethal force in Gaza. It is important to know the techniques that the criminal masterminds of the State of Israel are using to evade a point they know very well that cannot win before the court of American public opinion. The Israelis know very well also that they cannot maintain their genocide of the people of Gaza without massive financial support from the US treasury, which they have no right to. Also, I'm not blaming every one that brings up these red herrings; they are just parroting the talking points of media figures on the radio, TV and video who in turn are getting their talking points from the Israeli Ministry of Propaganda. The Zionists are evil geniuses that have managed to infiltrate so many levels of the media in a so far very successful effort to control the narrative and thereby control the psychological mindset of the American general public that the support of which the Israelis require in order to keep the US financial gravy train chugging their way. I'm not pro-Palestine or pro-Hamas; I'm anti-giving money, bombs, guns and bullets to an entity I know very well is going to use those resources to murder innocent civilians in Gaza. Imagine if you had a friend that confided in you that they are a serial mass murdering killer. But in addition to that, that friend said their gun broke and asked if they can have your gun so they can go out and go on another shooting spree of innocent bystanders, including children. So, what would you do under such a scenario? Would you conclude that one must support and stand by their friend under any circumstance and give your friend your gun so they can go out on another murderous crime spree? Of course not. Instead you would tell your friend you were going to fetch that gun for them, but instead actually quietly call the police and urge them to come over ASAP and to arrest your friend for murder to keep them from killing again. So, if that's the case, why does anyone still support US financially supporting the mass murderous State of Israel with state of the art armaments that enables them to engage in daily killing sprees of innocent men, women and children within Gaza? The arrogance of moral hubris provides fertile growth for the demonic seeds of evil. The Zionists have moral hubris from their purported justification for existing in the first place; the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews. From that justification that the Zionists have in the front of their minds, they are blinded to possibility of being possessed by the same evil demonic spirits that the Nazis were possessed by. But as it turns out, the Zionists have in fact fallen victim to the very same demonic possession that the Nazis fell victim to. Devilish, demonic, Satanic spirits are always looking for fertile ground in which to grow. And there is no more fertile ground than in a people who put themselves in a position of being above reproach due to the skeletons they are fighting in their historic closet. This phenomena has been witnessed throughout history and is occurring even to this day not just in the Levant, but even here in the US. It is the American Left who so vociferously accuse others of engaging in hate; by expressing hatred towards those they accuse of engaging in hate. How ironic. That very phenomena with America's left was on display upon the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk. While, at the time of this writing, there is only a suspect in custody, who is presumed innocent by law, there have been a great number of online posters celebrating the assassination because Mr Kirk allegedly wrote or said things the left categorizes as 'hateful.' But what those leftists are displaying is the very same demonic possession that is currently possessing the Israeli Zionists that many of the American Left correctly criticizes. But they have the moral hubris that prevents them from witnessing the hate inside themselves because they view themselves as only being against hate. All the while, they fail to provide a single example of an instance where Mr Kirk expressed hatred towards anyone or any group of people. Any nation where its lawmakers gather for a foreign sovereign state leaders visit and give him over fifty standing ovations is effectively handing over their own sovereignty to that foreign nation. But that is exactly what happens every time Netanyahu speaks before the US Congress. The US legislators who are supposed to represent the constituents from their districts are instead acting as extreme sycophantic yes men to the leader of a foreign state; they are effectively running and crawling over each other to kiss the ring of and pledge fealty to Benjamin Netanyahu. What thoughtful patriot of the US wouldn't have a problem with this? But there's the problem. It is the thought leaders that are the ones already compromised by the State of Israel through blackmail, bribery or coercion to promote the unwavering, unequivocal, unlimited support for that foreign State. And it is the thought followers who either don't mind having their own thoughts be molded by another or are totally unaware of what's going on that end up parroting the talking points of their favorite talking head on the TV, radio or internet.