Looks like Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Murdered Brendan Mess and 2 other men ALL JEWS

I am sorry Christians You don't love your enemy you burn your enemy. Maybe you Christians can turn the other cheek when getting slapped but Jews now slap back. When will you learn?

Investigators have 'growing evidence' that Boston bombers 'slit throats of three men and dumped marijuana across their bodies in gruesome unsolved murder'

• Tamerlan Tsarnaev's friend Brendan Mess and two other men were found killed in September 2011 but their murderers have not been found
• Now investigators said forensic evidence connects the Tsarnaev brothers to the scene and cell phone records show they were in the area
• After Mess's death, Tamerlan did not go to his funeral and stopped attending the boxing and martial arts club they had attended together

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 15:59 EST, 10 May 2013 | UPDATED: 16:08 EST, 10 May 2013

Investigators have gathered 'mounting evidence' that suggest the Boston bomber brothers could have been involved in a grisly unsolved triple murder in 2011, it has emerged.

Officials told ABC News that forensic evidence could tie Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to the killings of Brendan Mess, Raphael Teken and Erik Weissman, who were found with their throats slit and marijuana dumped over their dead bodies in a Waltham, Massachusetts house.

The Tsarnaevs knew the men as Tamerlan trained in boxing and martial arts with Brendan Mass.

However, officials said more DNA testing is required before bringing an indictment against the surviving brother, Dzhokhar, who is recovering from a self-inflicted gun wound in a prison infirmary.

Involved? Tamerland, left, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, right, could have been involved in a 2011 triple murder, investigators have said. Forensic evidence and cell phone records reportedly tie them to the scene

Following the April 15 bombings and the suspected involvement of the Tsarnaev brothers, investigators began to look into the link between Tamerlan and Mess.

 

Authorities have now told ABC that forensic evidence from the crime scene in 2011 matches the Tsarnaev brothers. Their cell phones were also in the area at the time of the killings, records show.

Victim: Tamerlan's best friend, Brendan Mess, had his throat slit in an attack in September 2011

The three men had ordered food from an Italian restaurant on the September 11, 2011, but when a delivery woman came to leave the food, no one answered the door.

The next morning, one of the victim's girlfriends found their bodies.

Their throats had been slit, they have been covered with marijuana and there was also $5,000 cash in the home.

Initially police said two other people had been there on the day and they were looking to question them, although no one has ever been charged.

Ray said there had been no forced entry, so police believe the killer was known the victim and was let into the apartment.

Investigators at the time said the murders were 'targeted and not a random act of violence.'

Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone issued a statement soon after the murders saying, 'based on the present state of the investigation, it is believed that the victims knew the assailant or assailants, and the attacks were not random.'

Neighbors described Mess and his two roommates as quiet, nice people who were a welcome change of pace from previous residents who often had loud parties late into the evening.

Murdered: Raphael Teken (left with a friend) and Erik Weissman (right) were also killed in the home

Scene: Investigators said there was no sign of forced entry so it is likely the men knew their murderers

After the deaths, friends said that Tamerlan acted oddly - failing to attend his close friend's funeral and dropping out of the martial arts school where they had both trained.

One man who knew Tamerlan through the gym where they trained said some of their social circle 'without even speaking about it beforehand have all been thinking' he could be involved.

The friend, who gave his name only as Ray, told BuzzFeed Politics: 'At the time, none of us would have thought it was Tam. It was just so emotional and we thought we had someone else who had done it.'

But since Tamerlan was identified as the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three and injured 180, Ray believes his sudden disappearance after Mess's death may be a clue.

Band of brothers: Tamerlan Tsarnaev, fifth from left, top row, poses with his team at 2010 New England Golden Gloves Championship in Lowell, Mass. He boxed with Mess before the murders

Quiet guy: Tamerlan's (left) former coach described him as a subdued, nice young man who kept to himself

'Tam wasn't there at the memorial service, he wasn't at the funeral, he wasn't around at all,' Ray said. 'And he was really close with Brendan. That's why it's so weird.'

Tamerlan was killed following a gunbattle with police, a day after the FBI released images of him and his younger brother at the Boston marathon.

They allegedly dumped two pressure cooker bombs crammed with shrapnel and detonated them near the finish line, killing three people, including an eight-year-old boy, and injuring 180 more.

His brother, 19-year-old Dzhokhar, was found hiding in a boat parked in a suburban yard and suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the neck.

He is now recovering and has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Horror: The Tsarnaevs were allegedly behind the Boston bombings on April 15, which left three dead

Read more:

• ABC News :: 'Mounting Evidence' Boston Bombers Involved in 2011 Triple Murder

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2322750/Tsarnaev-brothers-Investigators-growing-evidence-Boston-bombers-slit-throats-men.html#ixzz2Swa4ewBl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


 kApril 26, 2013, - 4:40 pm

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/61977/tamerlan-tsarnaev-triple-murders-were-all-jews-targeted-for-religion-on-10th-anniv-of-911-thats-islam/

Tamerlan Tsarnaev Triple Murders Were ALL Jews Targeted for Religion on 10th Anniv of 9/11 – That’s ISLAM

By Debbie Schlussel
As you’ve probably read, authorities believe that Boston Marathon Islamic terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev is behind the triple murders of three men, including one who was his friend. But what you probably didn’t know is that all three men–who were stabbed to death on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks–were Jews. It appears that this is why they Tsarnaev murdered them. He targeted them because he was a Muslim, and their “crime” was being Jewish. Their stabbed, bloody bodies were found on September 12, 2011. Remember, THIS. IS. ISLAM. . . .


They Were Jews: Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Murder Victims, Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman, and Raphael “Rafi” Teken, Zichronam LiVrachah [Blessed Be Their Memories]
Reports identify Brendan H. Mess, 25, Rafael M. Teken, 37, and Erik Weissman, 31, as Jews. And while some FBI agents and Boston PD officials want to tie the murder of Weissman to drugs, that’s a red herring. The one thing the three had in common is their ethnicity and religion: they were Jews.
That Was Then . . .

This Is Now . . .

But the agenda of federal, state, and local law enforcement is to make us believe that Muslims don’t target Jews, that we all “Co-Exist” in America in peace (an absolute fraud), and that we should not fear for our lives around Muslims, the way Jews in France do. I know, firsthand, that that is bunk, since I’ve received multiple death threats from Americans, and every single one of those is from a Muslim–some of them convicted in federal court for it. They are not in Riyadh or Cairo or Tehran or Paris or London. They are on American soil.

As a Jew in America, I know that I am a target of Muslims because on a regular basis, Muslims let me know it in very explicit terms. Sadly, most of the self-appointed, unrepresentative “leaders” of the organized Jewish community don’t want you to know that Muslims on American soil kill Jews on American soil, merely because they are Jewish. But it’s happened repeatedly throughout the last several decades. This isn’t the first time. It’s just the latest.
More about the Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s stabbing victims from Wicked Local.

Tags: anti-Semitism, Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Islmaic terrorists, Jews, Jihad, Rafi Teken, Raphael Rafi Teken, Raphael Teken, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Tamerlan Tsarnaev anti-Semite, Tamerlan Tsarnaev anti-Semitism, Tamerlan Tsarnaev Jews, Tsarnaev Jews
Copyright 2000–2013 www.debbieschlussel.com 

FORGOTTEN REFUGEES or ARE THE MUSLIMS AND COPTICS GOING TO GIVE THE LAND BACK THEY TOOK FROM JEWS IN 1945?

| friend on Facebook | forward to a friend Our mailing address is: *|info@harif.org|* Harif - promoting the history and heritage of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa

TASTE OF THINGS TO COME

Not long ago Obama said that Islam is a peaceful religion and to  respect the Koran. Did anyone tell their Iman's that it's peaceful and peaceful means let everyone live their way of life their way? I guess not. 

Last year in December 

"Tunisian imam sued for call to ‘sterilize the wombs of Jewish women,’" Times of Israel, December 20

The Tunisian Association to Support Minorities is suing a prominent Tunisian imam for hateful incitement against Jews.During a Friday sermon broadcast live on November 30 on Hannibal TV, Sheikh Ahmad Al-Suhayli of Rades, a suburb of Tunis, told his followers at the Khatib mosque that “God wants to destroy this sprinkling of Jews… and is for sterilizing the wombs of Jewish women,” the liberal Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm reported.
Qais El-Beltagi, a lawyer representing the association, alleges in the lawsuit that Al-Suhayli’s comments violated Tunisia’s 2011 Decree 115, which criminalizes “calls to hatred between races and religions, and the population.” He said that article 52 of the decree calls for “a prison term of between one and three years and a fine ranging from 500 to 1,000 euros” for hate-filled speeches....

Obama has made his stand. He said all what I have been saying without Obama saying a word by nominating Hagel. Yet the Jewish Democrats support the party not their religion, their families or the future of their families. The Party is more important to them then their families lives. 

To top this all the Democrats want to make the office of Presidency a infinite time term. A Dictator ? A President of Genocide? Will he remove the powers of Senate or the House? Who did the same thing in Germany? I am not going to give you the answer you look it up!

Put Leah Lax in office as a Congress women and let her turn the Democratic Party around. 

Hagel-chaired think tank predicts Iran will be ‘natural partner’ for U.S.

JNS.org

Click photo to download. Caption: Chuck Hagel. Credit: U.S. Senate.(JNS.org)


The Atlantic Council, a think tank chaired by defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel which last month published a column titled “Israel’s Apartheid Policy,” during the same month predicted that Iran “should be viewed as a potential natural partner” for the U.S.
The Washington Free Beacon reported that the think tank’s December policy paper titled “Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World,” which was not written by Hagel himself, predicted the following of an Iranian regime that continues to forge ahead with its nuclear program and bankroll both Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism: “A post-mullah dominated government shedding Shia [Muslim] ideology could easily return to being a net contributor to stability by 2030.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) has called President Barack Obama’s Hagel’s nomination of Hagel “a blow to U.S.-Israel relations, to the President’s relationship with the American Jewish community, and to U.S. security in the Middle East.”
Glenn Kessler, author of the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column, noted that Hagel told the Associated Press after his 1998 Middle East visit that the Israeli government “essentially continues to play games.” Commenting on Palestinian terrorism, the former Nebraska senator said “Desperate men do desperate things when you take hope away.”
Additionally, in 2002, Hagel told CNN regarding Yasser Arafat that he would not “single out the Palestinians and Arafat as the real problem” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because “it doesn’t help when we take public sides on this and castigate and assign all of the responsibility and all the blame to one side.”

Speaking about George Washington and a historic letter found.

Speaking about George Washington. In a Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I  composed by Good Old George Washington there is no mention that this is a CHRISTIAN Country but assured them freedom and happiness. Watch the Anti Semites on the TeaParty.Org calls this letter fake. Because this was in the hands of the Jews.

This letter which reads

Reproduced throughout the centuries

1895

This copy of Washington's Letter to the Jews of Newport appeared in a souvenir booklet printed for the 1895 Hebrew Fair at Madison Square Gardens, New York.

The text of this famous letter reads:

Gentlemen.

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, [1] from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Go: Washington

(Image: Educational Alliance and Hebrew Technical Institute, 1895)

NO MENTION  OF CHRISTIANITY .It mentions CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS.  

Private Owner of Washington's Letter

Richard Morgenstern Keeps Historic Jewish Document Hidden

gilbert stuart

By Paul Berger

Published December 27, 2011, issue of December 30, 2011.

Richard Morgenstern just wants to be left alone.
But when you are the multimillionaire owner of one of the most important documents in American Jewish history — George Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I. — avoiding the limelight is not easy. Especially when that document disappeared from public view 10 years ago and you are the only man in the world with the power to bring it back.
In a series of articles and opinion columns this year, the Forward has highlighted the importance of the letter not just to the American Jewish community, but also to the American nation. “It’s the most eloquent statement, perhaps in our history, of religious tolerance,” Washington biographer Ron Chernow told this paper.

In recent years, the National Museum of American Jewish History and the Library of Congress, among others, have tried to persuade Morgenstern to return the letter to public display so that Americans can see the original document in which their first president lauded his government, “which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”
The Forward believes that the Library of Congress is still negotiating with Morgenstern over the letter, a suspicion that only intensified when the Forward requested clarification from the library.
“As a matter of policy, the Library of Congress does not discuss negotiations we may or may not be having regarding acquisitions,” Audrey Fischer, a Library of Congress spokeswoman, said in a November 30 email. “These matters are confidential until such time as all parties agree to publicly announce a gift, donation or purchase.”
She added, “Hope this clarifies the matter,” as if to underline the fact that it did not.
Morgenstern, meanwhile, continues to maintain as low a profile as possible. Reached by phone at one of his homes, in Boca Raton, Fla., Morgenstern said he did not wish to comment.
Very little has been written about Richard Morgenstern. But how can a man who controls the fate of such an important document, and whose family foundation, the Morris Morgenstern Foundation, donates about $500,000 each year to mostly Jewish causes, remain such an enigma?
Here’s what we know about him:
Richard Morgenstern owns a 12,000-square-foot, eight-bedroom home in the leafy Beverly Glen neighborhood of Los Angeles. He is a real estate investor and a congregant at Temple Sinai on Wilshire Boulevard. (The Morris Morgenstern Foundation donated $35,000 to the synagogue in 2007.)
A few years ago, Morgenstern bought a 5,000-square-foot condominium at the palatial Boca Raton Resort & Club. The resort, which is owned and operated by Waldorf Astoria, boasts elegant public spaces, a marina, a golf course, a croquet lawn and a private beach.
Officially, since Morris Morgenstern died, in 1969, his namesake foundation has been run by his son, Frank. But in practice, those who have had dealings with the Morgenstern family say, day-to-day decisions are made by Richard, Frank’s eldest son.
According to legal papers filed during the mid 1980s, Richard Morgenstern is “an experienced and successful investor” with a net worth of more than $2 million
The papers, which relate to the running of Frank’s trust, note that Frank, then 69, suffered from hypertension, urological problems and insomnia, and needed help managing his financial duties. “He believes that his wife and children are the optimum choice as his eventual successor Trustees,” the papers said.
They go on to describe Richard as a talented businessman, then operating several hotels and motels, including the Sheraton Americas Hotel in Hialeah Gardens, Fla., with a staff of 250. Richard’s younger sister, Carol, is described as the founder of an event-planning company, Exceptional Events, and as the author of several books. Their kid brother, Alan, then 32, was described as a real estate broker.

Famed Words: A copy of the original letter from George Washington to the Jews of Newport, R.I., was published in a Jewish fair in 1895.

The three children were trained in investing by their father as he was trained by his own father, the court papers say. They add that the Morgensterns “are a closely-knit family and have the interest of each other at heart.”
Richard Morgenstern and his wife, Tammy, raised their three children, Michael, David and Sari, in Los Angeles. In 2007, Richard transferred his California driver’s license to Florida, where his father, now in his 90s, still resides.
According to the Florida Secretary of State’s office, Richard has voted in Florida in the general elections of 2008 and 2010 and in a municipal election this past March.
Though he still spends part of the year in Los Angeles, he has not voted in California since 2004. His 2006 silver Mercedes-Benz is registered to his Florida address.
In its most recent tax filings for 2010, the California-based Morris Morgenstern Foundation listed assets totaling $9 million, including “historical documents” valued at $300,000.
Those documents almost certainly include George Washington’s letter to the Jews of Newport. If that is the case, the valuation, carried out by Washington-based Second Story Books in 2007, may be on the conservative side. David Redden, a Sotheby’s vice chairman, recently estimated that the letter could fetch between $5 million and $10 million at auction.
In order to maintain its tax-free status, the Morris Morgenstern Foundation must give 5% of its assets to charity each year.
The foundation is a regular contributor to the Anti-Defamation League, which received about $50,000 over the past five years, and to the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, which received more than $100,000 during the same period.
“We don’t comment on our donors,” said Marla Egers, executive vice president of the federation. The ADL also declined to comment.
The foundation gives regularly to the University of Pennsylvania, where Richard, who attended the Wharton and engineering schools, graduated in 1968. During the past two years, the foundation has also donated $20,000 to Beit T’Shuvah, a Jewish rehabilitation center for people suffering from substance abuse and addictions.
Nina Haller, Beit T’Shuvah’s director of development, said: “I’m sure the family had a personal interaction. Somebody knew somebody and saw the transformation.”
By far, the largest recipients of the foundation’s largesse are the Jewish Communal Fund and Agudath Israel of America, which have received a combined $1.6 million during the past five years.
Perhaps in keeping with Morgenstern’s desire for secrecy, JCF is a donor-advised fund that funnels donations through the organization without declaring the money’s final destination. Since 2007, the foundation has given $785,000 to JCF.
Ellen Israelson, vice president of marketing and donor relations, said the multibillion-dollar fund “gives an additional layer of privacy and confidentiality” to families.
Donor-advised funds have tax advantages, too. Instead of giving money to recipients straight away, donor-advised funds can withhold contributions for decades or longer. Critics such as Ray D. Madoff, a professor at Boston College Law School, claim that such funds allow families to take annual tax write-offs while creating, as Madoff recently noted in The New York Times, “a legacy for future generations.”
There is no evidence that the Morgenstern foundation’s contributions are not dispersed in full each year.
The ultra-Orthodox umbrella group Agudath Israel of America has received $850,000 from the Morgenstern foundation during the past five years, also for a donor-advised fund.
Rabbi Avi Shafran, a spokesman for Agudath Israel, said in an email that Agudath retains a small portion of the money as a fee, while “the vast majority of the donated funds are (and here have been) remitted to the philanthropist’s intended end-receivers.”
Because JCF and Agudath funds are donor advised, Morgenstern has essentially become a mostly anonymous donor. No one, apart from his family, can say where his money has gone.
It is unclear why the Morgensterns, who belong to Conservative congregations (Frank Morgenstern and his wife, Deborah, are members of Kol Anshei Shalom, a Conservative synagogue, in Boca Raton), would choose a strictly Orthodox umbrella group such as Agudath to disburse almost one-third of their annual charitable contributions.
Like so many aspects of the Morgenstern family, their philanthropy and their motivations remain unclear.
Similarly unclear are the reasons why Morgenstern has resolutely refused to allow other institutions to display the letter during the past decade.
Even Moishe Smith, a man who has done more than most to try to persuade Morgenstern to give up the letter, says he does not understand the family’s reservations.
The Washington letter disappeared from view in 2002 when the B’nai B’rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum, where the letter was on loan, closed its Rhode Island Avenue exhibition hall and relocated to a much smaller space. The majority of the museum’s holdings, including paintings, Judaica and the Washington letter, were put into storage.
Smith, president of B’nai B’rith International from 2006 to 2009, said he tried several times to persuade Morgenstern to allow the letter to be loaned to another institution where it could be put on display.
Smith said that before he took over as international president, Morgenstern turned down a temporary loan request from the Library of Congress because he was concerned about the document moving about too much.
When Smith was in office, he tried to persuade Morgenstern to lend the letter for the opening of two new Jewish museums: the $10 million Ambassador John L. Loeb Visitors Center, in Newport, and Philadelphia’s National Museum of American Jewish History. Morgenstern turned down both requests.
“I said, ‘This is the right thing to do. Let’s put it on display.’” Smith said. But Morgenstern declined.
“I had two, maybe three, face-to-face, heart-to-heart meetings with him,” Smith said, “and even after those two or three meetings, I couldn’t give you any particular clue or reason why he doesn’t want that letter on display.”
Smith added, “We would be more than thrilled for the public to be able to have the opportunity to view the letter.”
B’nai B’rith International is chained to the letter by an agreement it made with Morris Morgenstern 50 years ago to accept the document on long-term loan.
As the Forward chronicled earlier this year, Morris Morgenstern, a self-made New York financier, bought George Washington’s Letter to the Jews of Newport in 1949.
Unlike his 5-foot, 11-inch tall grandson, the elfin Morgenstern used the letter to attract attention.
The son of Austrian immigrants, Morgenstern grew up poor on Manhattan’s Lower East Side before making his fortune in real estate. After he bought the letter, he enlisted the help of up-and-coming Jewish marketing maestro Howard Rubenstein, and between the two of them they came up with an idea to promote the letter.
Morgenstern made copies of the original and had them framed. He turned them into the Morris Morgenstern Foundation Award and presented them to deserving people, such as 1961 awardee Dr. John K. Lattimer, a urologist at New York Presbyterian Hospital.
Morgenstern used the letter to garner attention in the press and to gain audiences with dignitaries, including former presidents Herbert Hoover and Harry Truman and future presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
But the letter was more than just a public relations tool for Morgenstern. He believed in its power to teach and to inspire.
At a New York school in 1960, he told a class that Washington’s immortal phrase — that America’s government would give “to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance” — was not even his favorite section of the letter.
Instead, The New York Times reported, Morgenstern preferred Washington’s quotation in the letter of a passage from Micah, that “every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
Even the famous “to bigotry no sanction” phrase was not Washington’s. It was lifted, almost word for word, from a letter written by Touro Synagogue warden Moses Seixas, who welcomed Washington to Newport in August 1790.
At the time, the Seixas family was one of the last of the great Sephardic Jewish families living in Newport. The town’s once thriving industry, which had benefited so many Jews, suffered under a lengthy British occupation during the Revolutionary War.
Just 15 years after Washington’s visit, the last members of the congregation closed down the synagogue. They passed the deeds to the land, and gave the building’s keys to New York’s Sephardic Congregation Shearith Israel.
Until recently, it has been a mystery how the letter traveled to the Morgenstern family from the Seixas family. According to minutes of a Touro Synagogue board meeting, in 1950, Morris Morgenstern located the letter aboard the Freedom Train, a traveling exhibition that toured America after World War II.
Freedom Train documents stored at the National Archives reveal that the owner of the letter in the late 1940s was Howard Milkman Sr.
Milkman’s son, the Rev. Howard Milkman Jr., confirmed that his father, a furniture salesman who died in 2003, sold the letter to Morgenstern.
“I think Dad wanted to make sure it was in good hands,” Milkman said.
When the younger Milkman went through his father’s private papers after his dad’s death, he discovered correspondence between Morgenstern and his father. But Milkman said the documents are gone now, since he threw everything away.
He said the letter, which was sold when he was a boy, was rarely spoken about at home. His father never broached the subject with him. “I kind of overheard it,” Milkman said of the sale. “It was family lore.”
Instead, the one aspect of his Jewish heritage upon which the elder Milkman dwelled was his family’s historic ties to Shearith Israel.
Milkman Sr. converted to Christianity in 1944, after he married Anita Quay. But he instilled in his son the belief that their ancestors, who included members of the Gomez and the Phillips families, part of the Sephardic elite, played an important role in Shearith Israel’s history.
Milkman Jr. said that his father visited Shearith Israel’s sanctuary with him shortly before he died. “My dad got very teary when he walked into that room,” he said.
A family tree, published in Malcolm Stern’s “First American Jewish Families,” shows that Milkman Jr. is a direct descendant — the great- great-great-grandson — of Moses Seixas.
So it seems more than likely that the letter stayed in the Seixas family for more than 150 years before the elder Howard Milkman sold it.
A letter at the National Archives, dated May 12, 1947, shows that until just before he sold it, Milkman wanted the Washington letter to be shared with the public.
“I happily, lend… the original George Washington letter for the duration of the Freedom Train exhibition,” Milkman wrote to the organizers of the exhibition.
Morris Morgenstern showed that he, too, wanted to share the letter with the public.
Now, it’s Richard Morgenstern’s turn.
Additional reporting by Nathan Guttman.
Contact Paul Berger at berger@forward.com and on Twitter @pdberger.


Read more: http://forward.com/articles/148406/?p=2#ixzz1i56gozNK

FINAL DESTINATION: AUSCHWITZ

Islamic hate Where does it say in the note they are peaceful? it did say 

FINAL DESTINATION: AUSCHWITZ Maybe the Senate and congress will connect the dots or does this have to happen to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi!

 

Woman accused of sending fake WMDs to politician shot dead after attacking police officer

By MICHAEL ZENNIE

Last updated at 8:27 PM on 26th December 2011

A woman who was facing federal charges of sending a fake Weapons of Mass Destruction to a New York politician was killed by police officer after attacking him at her apartment in Marietta, Georgia. 

In April, Jameela Barnette, 53, mailed a vial of perfume, a hateful letter and a stuffed monkey with a star of David on it to New York state Sen Greg Ball, because she believed he was biased against her Islamic faith. 

She also sent a bloody pig's foot and an anti-Semitic letter to Rep Peter King because he was hosting Congressional hearings about 'radicalization' in the American Muslim community. 

Bizarre hoax: Barnette gained attention this spring for a pair of strange, anti-Semitic packages she sent to politicians

Shot dead: Jameela Barnette was killed by a police officer after she attacked him with a knife and a handgun, authorities said

On Saturday, police were called to Barnette's apartment by a panic alarm. When an officer arrived, police say, Barnette attacked him with a knife and a handgun. 

The officer defended himself and shot Barnette, killing her. 

 

More...

• Horror as family of seven shot dead on Christmas morning as they were opening their presents
• Woman, sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, could be hanged after international outcry

The unidentified officer was treated for injuries to his arm .

Barnette told the New York Post in April that she thought the letters to the politicians were self-explanatory. 

Last month, the FBI arrested her on charges of sending a hoax weapon of mass destruction for her letter to Sen Ball.

Strange package: This strange package, including a vial of perfume, arrived at the office of New York state Sen Greg Ball in April

The package Sen Ball received included a Curious George stuffed monkey with two stars of David taped to it, along with a note that said 'FINAL DESTINATION: AUSCHWITZ.' 

She told the Lower Hudson Journal News that she sent the monkey because: 'I knew the Jews were behind the hearings. A monkey is a representation of who the Jews are.' 

Rep King's letter also contained anti-Semitic tirades and references to him being a Jew -- even though he's Catholic. 

The letter reported ended with the phrase, 'kiss my black, Muslim-American a**.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078730/Woman-accused-sending-fake-WMDs-politician-shot-dead-attacking-police-officer.html#ixzz1hjxU1TrB

Learn Your American History

On a Radio Show , called TeaParty.org, ,December 21, 2011 to be exact, they boosted the Jews did not finance the Revolutionary War of 1776. These Ignorant Anti Semites on the  TeaParty.Org deny's that Jews played a decisive part of founding of the 13 original States, the design of the American dollar which not only honors the 13 original States but the Jewish participation  by using the 13 stars in the circle to show a Star of David , and that the first draft of the Constitution. One Nation Under God was written by a Jew! It was not about Christianity but about the one God of Moses .Yet many Tea Party Members wish this information wasn't true trying to state that this was only written by Christians. In the Constitution it states basic Talmudic Laws that the Christians of today regard it as an insight that the forefathers had in the future, Not realizing it was the insight of a Jew who experienced prosecution in Europe from the Christian countries he escaped. By leaving out religion in the Constitution guaranteed Jews a safe heaven until the State of Israel was to be restored to a Jewish country again.
Also in these tapes below it also explains that Christoper Columbus was Jewish and he discovered the America. A Jew discovered America. I bet it's eating your heart out Tea Party Hosts after trying a very poor attempt to prove me wrong.
Many historians, Christian historians who wrote out Haym Solomon from the history books could not erase the historic documents hidden away in the archives.  Eventually he recognized in 1917 there was a plaque placed on the wall at Mikvah Israel Cemetery where he was buried in an unmarked grave in Philadelphia on Spruce Street beween 8th and 9th Streets and  in 1975 a Communicative USA stamp was issued to honor Haym Solomon.

I find it amazing you can not accept a Jew that has done so much for America. I can not understand why you hate Jews so much that you refuse to support one but world support a lesser man over a Jewish Woman. You are trying to make America what it is not by bringing religion into politics you are destroying our Country. I am an American are YOU?

Revolutionary War Historical Article

Haym Salomon -The Revolution's Indispensable Financial Genius

By Donald N. Moran

Editor's Note: This article was reprinted from the October 1999 Edition of the Liberty Tree and Valley Compatriot Newsletter

Haym Salomon was born in Lesno, Poland in 1740. His parents were Jewish refugees from Portugal, who escaped religious persecution there. In his early twenties, he traveled throughout Europe acquiring an extensive knowledge of currency finance, that was to serve him well in his coming years.

After ten years of touring Europe he returned to Poland to join in that country's war with Russia. It is believed that he had to escape from the Russians, and decided on England. After earning enough money to pay for his passage to America he sailed in August, 1772. He arrived in New York City that winter.

In 1772, New York was a thriving colonial city of some 14,000 souls. Salomon soon learned that the colonies were in political turmoil over the issue of taxation without representation. Haym soon started a brokerage company and was very successful. His clientele included a large number of prominent loyalists, however, when word of the fighting at Lexington and Concord reached New York, Haym sided with the revolting Colonials and joined New York's active "Sons of Liberty". This was to get him into serious trouble.

New York City fell to the British on September 15th, 1776. Five days later a mysterious fire destroyed twenty-five percent of the city. 493 houses were burned, greatly inconveniencing the British Army that had planned on quartering their troops in these houses.

British General William Howe blamed the Sons of Liberty (He was probably right although no evidence has ever been found to substantiate it). George Washington reportedly said: "Providence, or some good honest fellow, has done more for us than we were disposed to do for ourselves". (Congress had forbidden Washington to destroy the city to deny the British it's use). In any case, before the British and citizens of New York City had put out all the fires, all known members of the Sons of Liberty found themselves in jail! Among them Haym Salomon.

A makeshift prison was set up in an old warehouse, called the "Old Sugar House". The building was in terrible condition and the prisoners suffered horribly. Salomon became ill with a severe chest cold (pneumonia?). He was transferred to the maximum security prison "The Provost" where his condition worsened. Haym noticed that the Hessian soldiers that were serving as guards did not speak English, and the British did not speak German. He let the British know he could speak German, without volunteering to be an interpreter. He did not want to be viewed as a British sympathizer. He was soon given the job and received better treatment, food and quarters.

During this time Salomon became a member of the American espionage ring. They operated in such secrecy that even today we know little of their activities, however, it appears that Salomon was responsible for encouraging more then 500 Hessian solders to desert to the American side! The British paroled him, not knowing of his other activities. However, two years later, he was again arrested, and this time taken to a prison called "Congress Hill". On August 11th, 1778, he was convicted of several capitol charges, all relating to his activities as a spy. He was sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead, the next morning. He was returned to his cell to await his fate.

Haym Salomon had planned on this eventuality and had hidden some gold coins in his clothes. With them he bribed a guard, escaped and made his way to Philadelphia and safety.

In Philadelphia he reestablished hi s brokerage business from a coffee house and became known as a knowledgeable broker. In addition he was appointed by Congress as Postmaster to the French Army and Navy as well as to the Spanish, French and Dutch Ministers (Ambassadors). He did very well, and soon had created a new fortune.

About this time his ability to make money and serve the cause of American independence was noticed by Robert Morris, Congress's Minister of Finance. Haym started handling transactions for Congress. He did this for little or no remuneration, his continued contribution to the American cause. He made numerous personal loans to members of our fledging government, thus allowing many of them to stay in Philadelphia. It should be noted that these loans were from Haym's personal funds. Like Robert Morris, and other contributors, none were reimbursed or repaid.

In August of 1781, our Southern forces had trapped Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis in the little Virginia coastal town of Yorktown. George Washington and the main army and the Count de Rochambeau with his French army decided to march from the Hudson Highlands to Yorktown and deliver the final blow. But Washington's war chest was completely empty, as was that of Congress. Washington determined that he needed at least $20,000 to finance the campaign. When Morris told him there were no funds and no credit available, Washington gave him a simple but eloquent order: "Send for Haym Salomon". Haym again came through, and the $20.000 was raised. Washington conducted the Yorktown campaign, which proved to be the final battle of the Revolution, thanks to Haym Salomon.

The Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3rd, 1783, and ended the Revolutionary War, but the financial problems of the newly established Country were not. It was Haym Salomon who managed, time-after-time, to raise the money to bailout the debt ridden government.

The damage done to Salomon's health during his imprisonment is believed to have led to his contracting tuberculosis. At age 44, on January 6th, 1785, he succumbed to the disease, leaving his wife, Rachael (Franks) Salomon, and four young children. He was buried in the Mikveh Israel Cemetery, Philadelphia. His estate showed that he owned approximately $354,000 of Continental securities, but inflation had reduced the value of this substantial amount owed him to a mere $44,732. Against this asset, he owed $45,292. His estate was insolvent! Haym Salomon had died in bankruptcy.

Prior to the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, Congress did not have the power to levee taxes, other then collect duty on imported goods. The overwhelming debt owed by the fledgling Nation far exceeded that of its meager income. Among the indebtedness obligating Congress was the need to provide pensions for those officers and soldiers who had been wounded while serving in the Continental army. This was their first priority. Repaying vast sums to a few creditors like Salomon and Morris, was outweighed by the number of disabled veterans desperately needing governmental support.

Haym's children attempted, on several occasions, to recover the monies owed, but they were always turned down. They even offered to accept a settlement of $100,000 - - but, Congress simply didn't have the money.

In 1925 a bill was introduced in Congress to erect a statue to Haym Salomon in Washington, D.C., but again, events interceded. The financial crash of 1929 caused the government to renege on the project. In 1926, Congress, did however, officially recognize the contribution to the American Revolution by Salomon, and passed a resolution placing a record of his efforts in the Congressional Record.

On December 15th, 1941, the City of Chicago erected the statue of George Washington, flanked by Haym Salomon and Robert Morris. It stands today at the intersection of Wabash and Wacker Drive. Under the image of Salomon it says "Haym Salomon - Gentlemen, Scholar, Patriot. A banker whose only interest was the interest of his Country. "

The twelve foot tall statue we rededicated on January 10, 1999, was sculpted by Robert Paine in 1941 and was originally placed in Hollenbeck Park in East Los Angeles in 1944. Because of vandalism, the statue was moved to MacArthur Park in 1953, and then again to West Wilshire Recreation Center of Pan Pacific Park at the request of the Los Angles Council of the Jewish War Veterans of America, who paid all the relocation expenses.

On March 25th, 1975, in time for the bicentennial, the United States Post Office issued a commemorative postage stamp which honored him as a Revolutionary War hero. It depicted him seated at a desk. On the front side of the stamp are the words "Financial Hero". And, for only the second time in 143 years of U.S. stamps, a message appeared on the back of this stamp, reading:

"Businessman and broker Haym Salomon was responsible for raising most of the money needed to finance the American Revolution and later to save the new nation from collapse. "

http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/salomon.html

Trinity Church vs USA was over thrown with ACLU vs McCreay County Kentucky , et al

I was listening to the Tea Party on their blog radio show they mentioned the Trinity Church vs the USA which was overturned. Now they are saying this is a Christian Country from a over turned law. I ask my fellow Jews not to support the Tea Party or any of the Tea Party groups. These people made it clear they are Anti Semites . I suggest you boycott and not give any money to the Tea Party Candidates and any programs they plan or support their demonstrations. These people are straight out Jew Haters. According to them No Jew can even run for any office. No Jew can keep their business open on Sunday and they will instill another Blue Law. Jewish Children will have to sit through readings of the New Testament. This is NOT part of our religion. I believe religion should stay at home and not in the schools. If you want your child to have a religious education it will  not be on our Jewish Money Unless you allow Jews to conduct morning prayers with Talis and Tifilan and have a Ark with the Torah in the school. And that no non Jew can touch the Torah or the Ark. And serve Kosher foods only to Jewish Students and teachers. And be closed on the entire 8 days of Passover and all Jewish both Minor and Major holidays since these Holidays and Laws of Prayer are mentioned and COMMANDED in the Old Testament. Or we can have no religion in the schools. You complain about the Muslims and their demands on your Christian Children and Schools YOU TEA PARTY are doing the same to Jews. As YOUR JESUS said do unto other as they would to do unto you! or the Talmud version which is older then yours "Do not onto others what you would wish not them do onto you." (from Talmud, Shabbat)

We as Jews have fought so hard in getting our rights while these Anti Semites  continue calling all Jews Communist, Marxist, Socialist. remember what Rabbi Hillel said "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" This is exactly what happened before WW2 with the Nazi up rising. These Christians only want Jews to help them fight the Muslims.

 If  you notice they say the Muslims want to kill Jews and infidels which he classified Jew not being part of America, Therefore these people on the Tea Party don't care about any other faith. If you are a Jew they let you know that you are a Jew and not part of the USA. Please don't take my word for this  listen and hear how they strip the rights away from every other American who are Hindu , Buddhist,  Jews and other minorities. We as Minorities must suffer under Christianity in this free country the USA.

Listen to internet radio with Tea Party on Blog Talk Radio

According to these Tea Party God told the Christians to take the land away from the Native American. Why because they are not Christians. The Christians raped, murdered and stole the lands from the Native American because they were heathens to the Original Christians. How about the Pilgrims who tortured people burnt them or boiled them in oil because they claimed they were witches.  That was very Christian of them.

The hate that is spewing out of the this show for Jews and all Jews are on the left.

  Because they are an ignorant group they did not even have the manners to wish any Jewish Citizen a Happy Hanukkah yet they want Jewish money to support them, pick our brains, and  help them. Let their "Christians" give them money and funding. Jews Just give to Israel because when is comes to push and shove like it happened in WW2 the "good" Christians hate will be very prominent and the sheep will shed their skins and the wolf will come out. This is their Christmas Holiday. They are suppose to show good to all man and woman, the hate for Jews really comes out on Easter when they blame us for Jesus Death when it was King Constantine who changed the story of Jesus and developed the hateful religion that exists today against all Jews who refused to believe his story.

Jews and Muslims have one thing in common other then not eating pork , which is that they do not allow Idols in their homes or on their property. Therefore, out of courtesy this government respects this by not placing  nativity idols in the Peoples White House. The White House also receives Jewish Tax Payers Money!  However,  the "good" Christians  want to change this.   Jesus was Jewish and he would not eat HAM or pork products or shell fish or any food listed in the Torah as not Kosher in your "Christian" house and he would not allow idols even of himself on lawns. In fact he became violent when he saw the money ex-changers outside the Temple walls because the Romans had engraved images on the coins and he attacked them. He was only following the Laws of Moses all 613 laws which Christians who say they have Jesus in their hearts refuse to follow not one of the 613 laws. King Constantine exempt the 613 because he knew that he could not convert the pagans if it was too difficult of a religion to follow. Ego you have the Christmas tree lights  The Trees come from a Pagan Holidays.




Here is the Muslims explanation of X-mas and Yes I took the Christ out of Christmas

 

So you have the Romans worshiped of Saturnalia which is the Sun God and the Muslims worship the Moon God .
 

No. 01-5935

---

In The United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¨ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

McCreary County, Kentucky, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¨ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

ON APPLEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, LONDON DIVISION,
CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 99-507

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¨ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDATION,

in support of the Appellant.

Supporting reversal.

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¨ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

---

DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFLIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST

Pursuant to 6th Cir. R. 26.1, The National Legal Foundation makes the following disclosure:

1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? NO.

If the answer is YES, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and named party:

N/A

2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interest in the outcome? NO.

If the answer is YES, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financial interest:

N/A

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Disclosure Statement
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities
Interest of Amicus
Argument

1. The first commandment, "Have no other gods," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
2. The second commandment, "Have no idols," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
3. The third commandment, "Honor God’s name," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
4. The fourth commandment, "Honor the Sabbath," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
5. The fifth commandment, "Honor your parents," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
6. The sixth commandment, "Do not murder," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
7. The seventh commandment, "Do not commit adultery," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
8. The eighth commandment, "Do not steal," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
9. The ninth commandment, "Do not perjure yourself," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.
10. The tenth commandment, "Do not covet," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

Conclusion
Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Service

---

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Addison v. State, 116 So. 629 (Fla. 1928)
ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County, 145 F. Supp. 2d. 845 (E.D. KY 2001)
Anderson v. Maddox, 65 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1953)
Barbour v. Barbour, 330 P.2d 1093 (Mont. 1958)
Bertera’s Hopewell Foodland, Inc. v. Masters, 236 A.2d 197 (Pa. 1967)
Brimhall v. Van Campen, 8 Minn. 1 (1858)
Caldwell v. Henmen, 5 Rob. 20 (La. 1843)
Cason v. Baskin, 20 So.2d 243 (Fla. 1944) (en banc)
Chisman v. Moylan, 105 So.2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
De Rinzie v. People, 138 P. 1009 (Colo. 1913)
Doll v. Bender, 47 S.E. 293 (W.Va. 1904)
Ex parte Mei, 192 A. 80 (N.J. 1937)
Gillooley v. Vaughn, 110 So. 653 (Fla. 1926)
Hardin v. State, 46 S.W. 803, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1898)
Hollywood Motion Picture Equipment Co. v. Furer, 105 P.2d 299 (Cal. 1940)
Hosford v. State, 525 So.2d 789 (Miss. 1988)
L. v. N., 326 S.W.2d 751 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959)
Matter of Storar, 434 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961)
Paramount-Richards Theatres v. City of Hattiesburg, 49 So.2d 574 (Miss. 1950)
People v. Rosen, 20 Cal.App.2d 445, 448-449 (1937)
People v. Rubenstein, 182 N.Y.S.2d 548 (N.Y. Ct. Sp. Sess. 1959)
Petition of Smith, 71 F.Supp. 968 (D.N.J. 1947)
Pullum v. Johnson, 647 So.2d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Rogers v. State, 4 S.E.2d 918 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
Ruiz v. Clancy, 157 So. 737, 738 (La. Ct. App. 1934)
S.B. v. S.J.B., 609 A.2d 124 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1992)
Schreifels v. Schreifels, 287 P.2d 1001, 1005 (Wash. 1955)
State v. Chicago, 143 S.W. 785 (Mo. 1912)
State v. Donaldson, 99 P. 447 (Utah 1909)
State v. Gould, 46 S.W.2d 886(Mo. 1932)
State v. Mockus, 14 ALR 871 (Maine Sup. Jud. Ct., 1921)
Succession of Onorato, 51 So.2d 804 (La. 1951)
Swift & Co. v. Peterson, 233 P.2d 216 (Or. 1951)
Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & Rawle 393, 401 (Penn. 1824)
Watts v. Gerking, 228 P. 135 (Or. 1924)
Weinstock, Lubin & Co. v. Marks, 42 P. 142 (Cal. 1895)
Young v. Commonwealth, 53 S.W. 963, 966 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932)
Others authorities:
"Acts and Orders of 1647" (Rhode Island), reprinted in Colonial Origins (Donald S. Lutz ed., 1998)
An Abridgement of the Laws of Pennsylvania (Collinson Read ed., 1801)
An Act Against Blasphemy and Profane Cursing and Swearing," Laws of the State of Maine (1822) (passed February 24, 1821)
An Act Against Adultery, Polygamy, and Fornication, Statutes of the State of Vermont (1791) (passed March 8, 1787)
"An Act for Freedom of Conscience" (Pennsylvania, 1682), reprinted in Colonial Origins (Donald S. Lutz ed., 1998)
An Act for Suppressing Vice and Immorality,Laws of the State of New Jersey, Revisedand Published Under the Authority of the Legislature (William Paterson ed., 1800)
An Act for the Better Observation of the Lord’s Day, and for Repealing All the Laws Heretofore Made for that Purpose, Constitution and Laws of the State of New Hampshire (1805) (passed December 24, 1799)
An Act for the Due Observation of the Sabbath, or Lord’s Day, 1 The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, (1808)
An Act for the Due Observation of the Sabbath, Statutes of the State of Vermont 157 (1791) (passed March 9, 1787)
An Act for the Effectual Suppression of Vice, and Punishing the Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers, 1 The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia: Being A Collection of all such Acts of the General Assembly, of a Public and Permanent Nature as are now in Force (1819)
An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes not Capital, Constitution and Laws of the State of New-Hampshire; Together with the Constitution of the United States (1805) (passed February 16, 1791)
An Act for the Punishment of Divers Capital and Other Felonies," 1 The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (1808)
An Act for the Punishment of Drunkenness, Gaming, and Profane Swearing, Statutes of the State of Vermont (1791) (passed February 28, 1787)
An Act for the Punishment of Profane Cursing and Swearing, The Laws of the State of New Hampshire,the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire,and the Constitution of the United States, with its Proposed Amendments (1797) (passed February 6, 1791)
An Act Providing for the Due Observation of the Lord’s Day, Laws of the State of Maine (1822)
An Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing within this Province and Territories, 1 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1810)
An Act to Restrain People from Labor on the First Day of the Week, 1 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1810) (passed October 14, 1705)
A Digest of the Laws of Virginia, which are of a Permanent Character and General Operation(Joseph Tate ed., 1823) "Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politic and Martial for the Colony of Virginia" (1610-1611), reprinted in Colonial Origins (Donald S. Lutz ed., 1998)
"Blasphemy-Profaneness" (1695), reprinted in 1 Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute of South Carolina, (Joseph Brevard ed., 1814)
"Breaking the Sabbath", reprinted in James Coffield Mitchell, The Tennessee Justice’s Manual and Civil Officer’s Guide 428 (1834)
Capital Laws of Connecticut (1642), reprinted in Colonial Origins (Donald S. Lutz ed., 1998)
Charles J. Hoadly, Records of the Colony or Jurisdiction of New Haven, From May, 1653, to the Union, Together With the New Haven Code of 1656 (1858)
"Charter of Liberties and Frame of Government of the Province of Pennsylvania in America" (1682), reprinted in Colonial Origins (Donald S. Lutz ed., 1998)
"General Laws and Liberties of New Hampshire" (1680), reprinted in Colonial Origins (Donald S. Lutz ed., 1998)
"General Rules Applicable to a Summons, Warrant of Attachment," Rev. Stat., reprinted in Edwards, Justices of the Peace in the State of New York
George Washington, "General Orders, Head-Quarters, Cambridge, July 4, 1775" in 3The Writings of George Washington, (John C. Fitzpatrick ed.,1931)
James Kent, 1 Commentaries on American Law (1826)
Jeremiah Perley, The Maine Justice: Containing the Laws Relative to the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace (1823)
"Massachusetts Body Of Liberties" (1641), reprinted in Colonial Origins (Donald S. Lutz ed., 1998)
"Massachusetts Body Of Liberties" (1641), reprinted in Select Charters and OtherDocuments Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775 (William MacDonald 1993)
Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers (1823)
Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman (1843)
"Of Crimes Against Religion", reprinted in Swift, 2 A System of the Law
"Of Profane Cursing and Swearing," Rev. Stat. 673, Art 6, reprinted in George C. Edwards, Treatise of the Powers and Duties of the Justices of the Peace and the Town Officers in the State of New York (1836)
Of the Observance of the Lord’s Day and the Prevention and Punishment of Immorality, The Revised Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1836) (Passed November 4, 1835)
Statutes of the State of Vermont (1791)
The Code of 1650
Title VII: Of Towns and Town Officers, Section 76, The Revised Statutes of the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts (1836) (Passed November 4, 1835)
Title 160: Sunday, 1 Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Law of South Carolina (1814)
"Vice and Immorality" (1741), reprinted in A Manual of The Laws of North Carolina, Arranged Under Distinct Heads, In Alphabetical Order (John Haywood ed., 1814)
Zephaniah Swift, 2 A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796)

---

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus curiae The National Legal Foundation (NLF) is a 501c(3) public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of First Amendment liberties and to the restoration of the moral and religious foundation on which America was built. Since its founding in 1985, the NLF has litigated important First Amendment cases in both the federal and state courts. Most notably, the NLF litigated Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) at the United States Supreme Court and Ex parte State ex rel. James v. ACLU of Alabama, 711 So. 2d 952, 977 (1998) at the Alabama Supreme Court.
The latter case involved the public display of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courtroom. Due to its involvement in this and other cases, The NLF has researched the historical impact that the Ten Commandments have had on America. This issue is of great interest to the NLF and our constituents.

The National Legal Foundation has authority to file this amicus brief pursuant to the consent of both parties.

---

ARGUMENT

1. TWO AUTHORITATIVE VOICES ESTABLISH THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS HISTORICALLY IMPACTED LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN AMERICA, NAMELY COLONIAL, REVOLUTIONARY, AND FEDERALIST LAWS AND CONTEMPORARY COURT DECISIONS.

In the case below, the court focused on the religious element of the Ten Commandments, while ignoring the historical significance of the Ten Commandments, stating "[t]he reasonable observer will see one religious code placed alongside eight political or patriotic documents, and will understand that the counties promote that one religious code as being on a par with our nation’s most cherished secular symbols and documents." ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary Co. 145 F. Supp. 2d 845, 851 (E.D. Ky. 2001). However, there is nothing incompatible nor—more importantly—unconstitutional about a religious document having real, valid, and enormous historical significance, also.
This brief will concentrate on this one aspect of the opinion below, in order to explain why the historical significance of the Ten Commandments helps render their display constitutional. The brief will explain how one of the each of the Ten Commandments has historically impacted American law and jurisprudence and thus, why the Ten Commandments should be permitted to be displayed with other political and patriotic documents.
For the purpose of this amicus brief, the commandments of the Ten Commandments as listed in the Bible Exodus 20:3-17 and Deuteronomy 5:7-21 (and in a shortened version in Exodus 34:14-28) will be summarized as:

1. Have no other gods.
2. Have no idols.
3. Honor God’s name.
4. Honor the Sabbath day.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not perjure yourself.
10. Do not covet.

Every one of the Ten Commandments was enacted into the laws of the colonies and molded the common law of the colonies.

1. The first commandment, "Have No Other Gods," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The first commandment was historically incorporated into American law. For example, the first commandment was incorporated into the first written law code in America by the Virginia colony. A 1610 law from the Virginia colony declared the following:

[S]ince we owe our highest and supreme duty, our greatest and all our allegiance to Him from whom all power and authority is derived, and flows as from the first and only fountain, and being especially soldiers impressed in this sacred cause, we must alone expect our success from Him who is only the blesser of all good attempts, the King of kings, the Commander of commanders, and Lord of hosts, I do strictly command and charge all Captains and Officers of what quality or nature soever, whether commanders in the field, or in town or towns, forts or fortresses, to have a care that the Almighty God be duly and daily served, and that they call upon their people to hear sermons, as that also they diligently frequent morning and evening prayer themselves by their own example and daily life and duties herein, encouraging others thereunto.

"Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politic and Martial for the Colony of Virginia" (1610-1611), reprinted in Colonial Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History 315-316 (David S. Lutz ed., 1998) [hereinafter Colonial Origins]. Additionally, the very first law in Massachusetts’ legal code was based on the first commandment. "If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Deut. 13.6, 10, Deut. 17.2, 6, Ex. 22.20." "Massachusetts Body Of Liberties" (1641), reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 83. Connecticut also made the first commandment its first law. "If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death (Duet. 13.6 and 17.2, Ex. 22.20)." "Capital Laws of Connecticut" (1642), reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 229. These are just a few of the examples that affirm the first commandment’s role in the history of American law.

2. The second commandment, "Have no idols," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The second commandment also historically impacted American law. Just one example is New Hampshire’s 1680 law prohibiting idolatry, which is typical of the colonies’ idolatry laws.

It is enacted by ye Assembly and ye authority thereof, yet if any person having had the knowledge of the true God openly and manifestly have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Ex. 22.20, Deut. 13.6 and 10.

"General Laws and Liberties of New Hampshire" (1680), reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 6.

3. The third commandment, "Honor God’s name," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The third commandment also historically shaped American law and jurisprudence. Laws enacted to observe the third commandment were organized into two categories: laws prohibiting blasphemy and laws prohibiting swearing and profanity. Noah Webster, an American legislator and judge, affirmed that both of these categories of law were derived from the third commandment:

When in obedience to the third commandment of the Decalogue you would avoid profane swearing, you are to remember that this alone is not a full compliance with the prohibition which [also] comprehends all irreverent words or actions and whatever tends to cast contempt on the Supreme Being or on His word and ordinances [i.e., blasphemy].

Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman 8 (1823); see also Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers 296 (1843). Colonies enacted laws that embodied these two categories. For example, a 1610 Virginia law declared:

That no man speak impiously or maliciously against the holy anTd blessed Trinity or any of the three persons . . . upon pain of death. That no man blaspheme God’s holy name upon the pain of death.

"Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politic, and Martial for the Colony of Virginia" (1610-1611), reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 316. Similarly, a 1639 Connecticut law declared that

[i]f any person shall blaspheme the name of God the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse in the like manner, he shall be put to death. Lev. 24.15, 16.

The Code of 1650, at 28-29. Other colonies passed similar laws: Massachusetts in 1641, "Massachusetts Body Of Liberties" (1641), reprinted in Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775 87 (William MacDonald ed., 1993) [hereinafter Select Charters]. Connecticut in 1642, "Capital Laws of Connecticut" (1642), reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 230; New Hampshire in 1680, "General Laws and Liberties of New Hampshire" (1680), reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 6; Pennsylvania in 1682, "An Act for Freedom of Conscience" (Pennsylvania, 1682), reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 289; Pennsylvania in 1700, An Abridgment of the Laws of Pennsylvania 32 (Collinson Read ed., 1801); Pennsylvania in 1741, "An Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing within this Province and Territories," reprinted in 1 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 7 (1810); South Carolina in 1695, "Blasphemy-Profaneness" (1695), reprinted in 1 Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute of South Carolina 87-88 (Joseph Brevard ed., 1814); and North Carolina in 1741, "Vice and Immorality" (1741), reprinted in A Manual of The Laws of North Carolina, Arranged Under Distinct Heads, In Alphabetical Order 264 (John Haywood ed., 1814).
Prominent Framers also enforced the third commandment. For example, Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued numerous military orders during the American Revolution that first prohibited swearing and then ordered an attendance at Divine worship, thus relating the prohibition against profanity to a religious duty. Typical of these orders is Washington’s declaration on July 4, 1775.

The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the army which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness; and in like manner requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine Service to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

George Washington, "General Orders, Head-Quarters, Cambridge, July 4, 1775" in 3 The Writings of George Washington 309 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1931).
The third commandment also affected the history of American jurisprudence. Judge Zephaniah Swift, author of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the third commandment’s prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing:

Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.

Zephaniah Swift, 2 A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut, 320 (1796).
The laws against blasphemy and profanity based on the third commandment continued beyond the Founding Era. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, several states passed laws based on the third commandment: Connecticut in 1784, An Act for the Punishment of Divers Capital and Other Felonies, 1 The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut 295-96 (1808); New Hampshire in 1791, An Act for the Punishment of Profane Cursing and Swearing, The Laws of the State of New Hampshire, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, and the Constitution of the United States, with its Proposed Amendments 280-81 (1797) (passed February 6, 1791); Id. at 286-87 (a separate act passed February 10, 1791); see also An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes not Capital, Constitution and Laws of the State of New-Hampshire; Together with the Constitution of the United States 277 (1805) (passed February 16, 1791); Vermont in 1791, An Act for the Punishment of Drunkenness, Gaming, and Profane Swearing, Statutes of the State of Vermont 51 (1791) (passed February 28, 1787); An Act for the Punishment of Divers Capital and other Felonies, Id. at 75 (passed March 8, 1787); Virginia in 1792, A Digest of the Laws of Virginia, which are of a Permanent Character and General Operation 453-54 (Joseph Tate ed., 1823); see also An Act for the Effectual Suppression of Vice, and Punishing the Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers, 1 The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia: Being A Collection of all such Acts of the General Assembly, of a Public and Permanent Nature as are now in Force, 554-56 (1819); Pennsylvania in 1794, Act of April 22, 1794, An Abridgment of the Laws of Pennsylvania 380 (1801); Maine in 1821, Jeremiah Perley, The Maine Justice: Containing the Laws Relative to the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace 7, 236 (1823), see also An Act Against Blasphemy and Profane Cursing and Swearing, Laws of the State of Maine 66-67 (1822) (passed February 24, 1821); Tennessee in 1834, Breaking the Sabbath, reprinted in James Coffield Mitchell, The Tennessee Justice’s Manual and Civil Officer’s Guide 428 (1834); Massachusetts in 1835, Title VII: Of Towns and Town Officers, Section 76, The Revised Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 185 (1836) (passed November 4, 1835); and New York in 1836, "Of Profane Cursing and Swearing," Rev. Stat. 673, Art 6, reprinted in George C. Edwards, Treatise of the Powers and Duties of the Justices of the Peace and the Town Officers in the State of New York 379-80 (1836).
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reaffirmed that the laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law. "The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law." Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & Rawle 393, 401 (Pa. 1824). The court then noted that Pennsylvania’s laws against blasphemy had been drafted by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the United States Supreme Court:

The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . " He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.

Id. at 403. The United States Supreme Court in Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 470-71 (1892) subsequently invoked the authority of and endorsed this Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision. The third commandment’s influence on profanity and blasphemy laws was reaffirmed by subsequent courts, such as the 1921 Supreme Court of Maine in State v. Mockus, 14 ALR 871, 874 (Maine Sup. Jud. Ct., 1921) and the 1944 Florida Supreme Court in Cason v. Baskin, 20 So. 2d 243, 247 (Fla. 1944) (en banc).

4. The fourth commandment, "Honor the Sabbath," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The fourth commandment historically impacted American law and jurisprudence. While a representative sampling will be presented below, there are three points that clearly establish the effect of the fourth commandment on American law.
First is the inclusion in the U.S. Constitution of the recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, ¶ 2, stipulating that the President has ten days to sign a law, "Sundays excepted." The "Sundays excepted" clause had previously appeared in the individual State constitutions of that day, and therefore, when incorporated into the U. S. Constitution, carried the same meaning that had been established by traditional usage in the States. That meaning was then imparted into the constitutions of the various States admitted into the Union subsequent to the adoption of the federal Constitution. The historical understanding of this clause was summarized in 1912 by the Supreme Court of Missouri which, expounding on the meaning of this provision in its own State constitution and in the U. S. Constitution, declared:

It is provided that if the Governor does not return a bill within 10 days (Sundays excepted), it shall become a law without his signature. Although it may be said that this provision leaves it optional with the Governor whether he will consider bills or not on Sunday, yet, regard being had to the circumstances under which it was inserted, can any impartial mind deny that it contains a recognition of the Lord’s Day as a day exempted by law from all worldly pursuits? The framers of the Constitution, then, recognized Sunday as a day to be observed, acting themselves under a law which exacted a compulsive observance of it. If a compulsive observance of the Lord’s Day as a day of rest had been deemed inconsistent with the principles contained in the Constitution, can anything be clearer than, as the matter was so plainly and palpably before the Convention, a specific condemnation of the Sunday law would have been engrafted upon it? So far from it, Sunday was recognized as a day of rest.

State v. Chicago, 143 S.W. 785, 803 (Mo. 1912).
The second point concerning the impact of the fourth commandment on American law is seen in states recognizing the Sabbath as evidenced in their civil process law. For example, a 1830 New York law declared that "Civil process cannot, by statute, be executed on Sunday, and a service of such process on Sunday is utterly void and subjects the officer to damages." "General Rules Applicable to a Summons, Warrant of Attachment," Rev. Stat. 675, reprinted in Edwards, Justices of the Peace . . . in the State of New York, at 38. Similar laws may be found in Pennsylvania in 1862, "Charter of Liberties and Frame of Government of the Province of Pennsylvania in America" (1682), reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 281; Pennsylvania in 1705, An Act to Restrain People from Labor on the First Day of the Week, 1 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 25 (1810) (passed October 14, 1705); Vermont in 1787, An Act for the Due Observation of the Sabbath, Statutes of the State of Vermont 157 (1791) (passed March 9, 1787); Connecticut in 1796, "Of Crimes Against Religion", reprinted in Swift, 2 A System of the Laws 326 (1796); and New Jersey in 1798, An Act for Suppressing Vice and Immorality, Laws of the State of New Jersey, Revised and Published Under the Authority of the Legislature 329-330 (William Paterson ed., 1800) (passed March 16, 1798).
The third point concerning the impact of the fourth commandment on American law and jurisprudence is found in the United States Supreme Court’s declaration that Sabbath laws remain constitutional today. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961). Similarly, during the twentieth century several state courts have acknowledged that the Sabbath laws were derived from the fourth commandment. For example, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1967 did a thorough exegesis of Sabbath laws and concluded:

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work." This divine pronouncement became part of the Common Law inherited by the thirteen American colonies and by the sovereign States of the American union.

Bertera’s Hopewell Foodland, Inc. v. Masters, 236 A.2d 197, 200-01 (Pa. 1967). Other state courts have made similar declarations: Florida in Gillooley v. Vaughn, 110 So. 653, 655 (Fla. 1926); Georgia in Rogers v. State, 4 S.E.2d 918, 919 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939); Minnesota in Brimhall v. Van Campen, 8 Minn. 1 (1858); Mississippi in Paramount-Richards Theatres v. City of Hattiesburg, 49 So. 2d 574, 577 (Miss. 1950); and New York in People v. Rubenstein, 182 N.Y.S.2d 548, 550 (N.Y. Ct. Sp. Sess. 1959).
The fourth commandment was also enacted into law. Examples of the early implementation of the fourth commandment into law are seen in the Virginia laws of 1610, "Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politic and Martial for the Colony of Virginia," reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 316-17; the New Haven laws of 1653, Charles J. Hoadly, Records of the Colony or Jurisdiction of New Haven, From May, 1653, to the Union, Together With the New Haven Code of 1656, at 605 (1858); the New Hampshire laws of 1680, "General Laws and Liberties of New Hampshire," reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 10-11; the Pennsylvania laws of 1682, "An Act for Freedom of Conscience," reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 288; and the Pennsylvania laws of 1705, An Act to Restrain People from Labor on the First Day of the Week," 1 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 25-26 (1810) (passed October 4, 1705), see also Abridgement of the Laws of Pennsylvania 362 (1801); the South Carolina laws of 1712, Title 160: Sunday, 2 Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Law of South Carolina 272-75 (1814); the North Carolina laws of 1741, Vice and Immorality, A Manual of The Laws of North Carolina 264 (1814); the Connecticut laws of 1751, An Act for the Due Observation of the Sabbath, or Lord’s Day, 1 The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut 577-78 (1808), see also Swift, 2 A System of the Laws (1796) 325-26. During the Federal Era and well beyond, states continued to enact and reenact Sabbath laws. In fact, the States went to impressive lengths to uphold the Sabbath. For example, in 1787, Vermont enacted a ten-part law to preserve the Sabbath, An Act for the Due Observation of the Sabbath, Statutes of the State of Vermont 155-57 (1791) (passed March 9, 1787). In 1791, Massachusetts enacted an eleven-part law, Of the Observance of the Lord’s Day and the Prevention and Punishment of Immorality, The Revised Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 385-86 (1836) (passed November 4, 1835). In 1792, Virginia enacted an extensive eight-part law, An Act for the Effectual Suppression of Vice, and Punishing the Disturbers of Religious Worship, and Sabbath Breakers, 1 The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia 554-56 (1819) (passed December 26, 1792), see also A Digest of the Laws of Virginia 453-54 (1823). In 1798, New Jersey enacted a twenty-one-part law, An Act for Suppressing Vice and Immorality, Laws of the State of New Jersey 329-33 (1800) (passed March 16, 1798). In 1799, New Hampshire enacted a fourteen-part law, An Act for the Better Observation of the Lord’s Day, and for Repealing All the Laws Heretofore Made for that Purpose, reprinted in Constitution and Laws of the State of New Hampshire 290-93 (1805) (passed December 24, 1799). In 1821, Maine enacted a thirteen-part law, An Act Providing for the Due Observation of the Lord’s Day, reprinted in Laws of the State of Maine 67-71 (1822) (passed December 24, 1799).
These and numerous other examples prove that the fourth commandment historically shaped American law and jurisprudence.

5. The fifth commandment, "Honor your parents," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The fifth commandment historically affected American law and jurisprudence. Many early state codes cited both the fifth commandment and additional Bible verses as the basis for their laws related to honoring parents. For example, a 1642 Connecticut law declared that

If any child or children above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding shall curse or smite their normal father or mother, he or they shall be put to death; unless it can be sufficiently testified that the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of such children, or so provoke them by extreme and cruel correction that they have been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from death [or] maiming. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20, Ex. 20:15.

The Code of 1650, at 29; see also "Capital Laws of Connecticut," reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 230.
Even three centuries after these early legal codes, state courts were still citing the fifth commandment as the basis for the public policy between parents and children. For example, in 1934, a Louisiana appeals court stated:

‘Honor thy father and thy mother,’ is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. ‘A child,’ says the code, ‘whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.’

Ruiz v. Clancy, 157 So. 737, 738 (La. Ct. App. 1934) (citing Caldwell v. Henmen, 5 Rob. 20 (La. 1843). These and numerous other examples demonstrate that the fifth commandment historically impacted American law and jurisprudence.

6. The sixth commandment, "Do not murder," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The sixth commandment exerted substantial force on American law and jurisprudence. The sixth commandment influenced American criminal laws. For example, a 1641 Massachusetts law declared:

4. 21.12, Numb. 35.13, 14, 30, 31. If any person commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary and just defense nor by mere casualty against his will, he shall be put to death.
5. b. 25.20, 21. Lev. 24.17. If any person slayeth another suddenly in his anger or cruelty of passion, he shall be put to death.
6. Ex. 21.14. If any person shall slay another through guile, either by poisoning or other such devilish practice, he shall be put to death.

"Massachusetts Body Of Liberties" (1641), reprinted in Select Charters, supra, at 87-88.
Courts have also traced murder laws to the sixth commandment. For example, in 1932 a Kentucky appeals court declared:

The rights of society as well as those of appellant are involved and are also to be protected, and to that end all forms of governments following the promulgation of Moses at Mt. Sinai has required of each and every one of its citizens that "Thou shalt not murder." If that law is violated, the one guilty of it has no right to demand more than a fair trial, and if, as a result thereof, the severest punishment for the crime is visited upon him, he has no one to blame but himself.

Young v. Commonwealth, 53 S.W. 963, 966 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932). Other courts have recognized the sixth commandment as the historical root in murder laws. See, e.g., Matter of Storar, 434 N.Y.S.2d 46, 48 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980) (Caardamone, J., dissenting); Ex parte Mei, 192 A. 80, 82 (N.J. 1937). These and numerous other examples prove that the sixth commandment impacted American law and jurisprudence.

7. The seventh commandment, "Do not commit adultery," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The seventh commandment also historically influenced American law and jurisprudence. Several colonies and states cited the seventh commandment for their adultery laws. For example, a 1641 Massachusetts law stated that "If any person committeth adultery with a married or espoused wife, the adulterer and adulteresses shall surely be put to death. Ex. 20.14." "Massachusetts Body Of Liberties," reprinted in Colonial Origins, supra, at 84. Nearly half-a-century later, Vermont enacted an adultery law based on divine law.

Whereas the violation of the marriage covenant is contrary to the command of God and destructive to the peace of families: be it therefore enacted by the general assembly of the State of Vermont that if any man be found in bed with another man’s wife, or woman with another’s husband, . . . &c.

An Act Against Adultery, Polygamy, and Fornication, Statutes of the State of Vermont 16-17 (1791) (passed March 8, 1787).
Centuries later, courts were still using the seventh commandment as the basis for enforcing their State statutes on adultery. For example, in 1898, the highest criminal court in Texas proclaimed that the Texas state law on adultery was derived from the seventh commandment:

The accused would insist upon the defense that the female consented. The state would reply that she could not consent. Why? Because the law prohibits, with a penalty, the completed act. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is our law as well as the law of the Bible.

Hardin v. State, 46 S.W. 803, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1898). In 1955, the Washington Supreme Court also declared that the seventh commandment was the basis for its adultery laws. "Adultery, whether promiscuous or not, violates one of the Ten Commandments and the statutes of this State." Schreifels v. Schreifels, 287 P.2d 1001, 1005 (Wash. 1955). Other courts have made similar declarations. See Barbour v. Barbour, 330 P.2d 1093, 1098 (Mont. 1958); S.B. v. S.J.B., 609 A.2d 124, 125 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1992); Petition of Smith, 71 F. Supp. 968, 972 (D.N.J. 1947). The above mentioned examples plus many other examples indicate that the seventh commandment played an important role in American law and jurisprudence.

8. The eighth commandment, "Do not steal," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The eighth commandment also historically affected American law and jurisprudence. Chancellor James Kent, a "Father of American Jurisprudence," in his classic 1826 Commentaries on American Law confirmed that laws prohibiting theft were found in divine law. "To overturn justice by plundering others tended to destroy civil society, to violate the law of nature, and the institutions of Heaven." James Kent, 1 Commentaries on American Law, 7 (1826). Subsequently, other legal authorities reaffirmed the divine origin behind the prohibition of theft. For example, in 1951, the Louisiana Supreme Court declared, "In the Ten Commandments, the basic law of all Christian countries, is found the admonition "Thou shalt not steal.’" Succession of Onorato, 51 So. 2d 804, 810 (La. 1951). In 1940, the Supreme Court of California made a similar declaration:

Defendant did not acknowledge the dominance of a fundamental precept of honesty and fair dealing enjoined by the Decalogue and supported by prevailing moral concepts. "Thou shalt not steal" applies with equal force and propriety to the industrialist of a complex civilization as to the simple herdsman of ancient Israel.

Hollywood Motion Picture Equipment Co. v. Furer, 105 P.2d 299, 301 (Cal. 1940). Significantly, other courts have acknowledged the same. See De Rinzie v. People, 138 P. 1009, 1010 (Colo. 1913); Anderson v. Maddox, 65 So. 2d 299, 301-02 (Fla. 1953); Addison v. State, 116 So. 629 (Fla. 1928); State v. Gould, 46 S.W.2d 886, 889-90 (Mo. 1932); State v. Donaldson, 99 P. 447, 449 (Utah 1909). These and numerous other examples demonstrate that the eighth commandment historically impacted American law and jurisprudence.

9. The ninth commandment, "Do not perjure yourself," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The ninth commandment also historically influenced American law and jurisprudence. For example, a 1642 Connecticut law against perjury recognized its origin in divine law. "If any man rise up by false witness, wittingly and of purpose, to take away any man’s life, he shall be put to death. Deut. 19:16, 18, 19." The Code of 1650, at 28-29; see also "Capital Laws of Connecticut," reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 230. Similar laws were found in other colonies: Massachusetts in 1641, "Massachusetts Body Of Liberties," reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 84, Rhode Island in 1647, "Acts and Orders of 1647," reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 190-91; New Hampshire in 1680, "General Laws and Liberties of New Hampshire," reprinted in Colonial Origins, at 7; and Connecticut in 1808, An Act for the Punishment of Divers Capital and Other Felonies, The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut 295 (1808).
Courts have also openly recognized their indebtedness to the ninth commandment for perjury laws. For example, in 1924, the Oregon Supreme Court declared that "No official is above the law. ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’ is a command of the Decalogue, and that forbidden act is denounced by statute as a felony." Watts v. Gerking, 228 P. 135, 141 (Or. 1924). In 1988, the Supreme Court of Mississippi cited to the ninth commandment in instructing a prosecutor to not make accusations without evidence to support them.

When the State or any party states or suggests the existence of certain damaging facts and offers no proof whatever to substantiate the allegations, a golden opportunity is afforded the opposing counsel in closing argument to appeal to the Ninth Commandment. "Thou shalt not bear false witness . . . " Exodus 20:16.

Hosford v. State, 525 So. 2d 789, 799 (Miss. 1988). Other courts have cited the ninth commandment as the source for laws against perjury. See People v. Rosen, 20 Cal. App. 2d 445, 448-449, (1937); Pullum v. Johnson, 647 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); L. v. N., 326 S.W.2d 751, 755-756 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959). These and numerous other examples confirm that the ninth commandment played a role in American law and jurisprudence.

10. The tenth commandment, "Do not covet," has impacted America law and jurisprudence.

The tenth commandment also helped form American law and jurisprudence. Many courts have recognized that the tenth commandment forms the basis for several of their laws. For example, in 1895, the California Supreme Court cited this prohibition as the basis of laws against defamation. Weinstock, Lubin & Co. v. Marks, 42 P. 142, 145 (Cal. 1895). In 1904, the Court of Appeals in West Virginia cited it as the basis of laws preventing election fraud. Doll v. Bender, 47 S.E. 293, 300-01 (W.Va. 1904) (Dent, J. concurring). In 1958, a Florida appeals court cited it as the basis of laws targeting white-collar crime. Chisman v. Moylan, 105 So. 2d 186, 189 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958). And in 1951, the Oregon Supreme Court cited the tenth commandment prohibition as the basis of laws against modern forms of cattle rustling. Swift & Co. v. Peterson, 233 P.2d 216, 231 (Or. 1951). These and numerous other examples confirm that the tenth commandment affected American civil and jurisprudence.
Historical evidence, drawn from law codes, judicial decisions, and declarations of great American lawgivers, affirms and reaffirms that the entire Ten Commandments has made a seminal contribution to the early common law and still continues today to make a significant contribution to the modern common law. Aside from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, it is difficult to argue that there is any single work that has had a greater or more far-reaching impact on four centuries of American life, law, and culture than the Ten Commandments. For this reason alone, the Ten Commandments merits display.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the National Legal Foundation respectfully requests that this Court reverse the district court’s grant of a supplemental preliminary injunction.
Respectfully submitted
this 2nd day of November, 2001.
David R. Huggins

---

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(c)(5) and 32(a)(7)(C), the undersigned certifies this Brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B).
1. Exclusive of the exempted portions in Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii),and those portions not included in a Brief Amicus Curiae, this Brief contains 5,815 words.
2. The Brief has been prepared in proportionately spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 97 in Times New Roman 14 point.
David R. Huggins
Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae, National Legal Foundation
Steven W. Fitschen
2224 Virginia Beach, VA 23454, Ste. 204
(757) 463-6133

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the National Legal Foundation’s amicus brief in the case of ACLU v. McCreary County, No. 01-5935 on all required parties by depositing the required number of copies of the same in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, at Virginia Beach, Virginia, on November 2, 2001, addressed as follows:
David A. Friedman, General Counsel
American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky
425 W. Muhammad Ali Boulevard
Louisville, KY 40202
Representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, as Counsel of Record
Matthew D. Staver
Liberty Counsel
210 E. Palmetto Avenue
Longwood, FL 32750
Representing the McCreary County, et al., as Counsel of Record
David R. Huggins
Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae, National Legal Foundation
Steven W. Fitschen
The National Legal Foundation
2224 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
(757) 463-6133

Return to NLF Activities Page

Return to NLF Home Page

---

	Post Office Box 64427, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 23467-4427 Phone (757) 463.6133; Fax (757) 463.6055; E-mail nlf@nlf.net
© 2006 by the National Legal Foundation & Minuteman Institute