We must always protect the nation from liberals who promote "Mob Rule"

but it did say, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal"

Well except if you are black, brown, a Jew, a Muslim or just a plain old woman, then you were not consider equal in the US.

Some things need revising.

I think you are incorrect or misinformed.

Read the 1st, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the constitution and the civil rights acts. There are no exceptions, all citizens have equal protection and rights under the law unless they break the law and have some rights curtailed.

If you know of a law or policy that does not treat people equally, I will fight with you to have it changed. Otherwise, your statement is false.

They do AFTER those changes were added.
They would not exist if they were not needed.

Brilliant. "They would not exist is they were not needed".

I said "if," not "is."

And why would amendments and acts be needed to adjust or rectify law if there was no need to do so?
Is there a later Amendment establishing, excuse me, 'assuring' the rights of landed gentry males of English blood?

The Founding Fathers initially didn't want anyone but wealthy property owners to have a right to vote, and that's after they thought establishing a monarchy would quickly end in revolution. The extension of that to all white males and the Electoral College as a safeguard against their potential stupidity coming into play was what they finally ended up with for that reason.

pssst, you forgot to tell me my retort that shut you up was even more brilliant that the previous.

Yes, those were added some time after the original document came into affect. The Constitution is not an immovable object and can be revised. Next up should be a rewriting of the 2nd Amendment.

The founding fathers did not consider the U.S. a Christian Nation, but they were strongly influenced by Judeo/Christian values.

western civilization is influenced by the values, because it is made up of the people.

John Adams wrote, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”. However, every session of Congress does open with a prayer.

There’s no law saying it has to; if they didn’t want to, they wouldn’t

A certain voting segment of the population would go ballistic .... (rolls eyes)

And which would that be?

LOL

I doubt it but ok

Through thorough research and marked erudition, Frazer illuminates a maelstrom of differing theological perspectives among a group of Americans that we often refer to glibly as Christian or Deist. Frazer’s book expands our notions of what these people believed about God, scripture, the afterlife, and other "Christian" dogmas, and contributes to the understanding that America's religious history has always been deeply and fundamentally plural. It is true that short-hand terms such as Christian, Deist, theistic rationalist are necessary at times, but for those who wish to think through America's religious history in more intricate and nuanced terms, this compelling book provides just such an opportunity. Some readers may come away from this book with a new set of categories. but all readers should benefit from a deepened understanding that the founders, however we label them, were not themselves limited in their thinking by the appellations we seek to bestow upon them."—Law and Politics Book Review

https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Beliefs-Americas-Founders-Revelation/dp/0700620214

It’s well worth reading. Blows the religious fundamentalist’s “Christian Nation” arguments away.

The Founding Fathers did not consider the US to be a nation at all, but a federation of nations, hence the name.

Individual States - nations - had the right - which some utilized - to have a state religion.

Actually the First Ammendment was intended to protect the right of individual States to have a state religion if they so choose against the imposition of one on the Federal level.

Two of the States did, one requiring a religious exam taken by its citizens before running for office back in the day.

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

The prohibition is on Congress imposing or interfering with religion. The intent was to protect State (and individual) rights, just as it does with speech, assembly, etc as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.a5d648d1ca56

posting a picture of the constitution and adding a caption doesn't make it a fact

What a brilliant statement. However, in this case, it is a fact. Of course, most leftists have never bothered to read any of these documents, so how would they know.

well, of course no one bothers to read the documents. the majority of the words in the constitution in this image aren't legible.

You can easily find the full texts online. They should be required reading.

I was required to read the constitution in one of my high school years

I would guess that the percentage of people who have actually read them, doesn't differ between people on the right and on the left.

democracy: the oppression of the minority by the majority

republic: the oppression of the majority by the minority

dictatorship: the oppression of all by the one

communism: the oppression of all by the party

anarchy: the oppression of no one, for you have no control over others or their lives

Anarchism is the way to peace, victory, progress.

research anarcho-capitalism and see.

Anarcho-capitalism: The oppression of the poor by the rich.

anarcho capitalism: nobody oppresses anybody, because everyone is responsible for themselves only.

Except there'll be an economy, and those who don't own property have no protection from a central constitution.

then buy property and get a job.

also in anarchy there IS NO constitution.

But, the people with property already have the upper hand, and might not want to sell it. They might make extortionate, corrupt payments. And with no one to scrutinise them, big companies won't see the need in being moral.
And before you say "Big companies can be moral", look at the triple A gaming industry. They are corrupt, extortionate and incompetent. Only acting because they have caught the attention of the government. And sure, you don't need to buy their games, if this attitude spreads to more fundamental requirements for life, it could incite a plutocracy.

(trump did)