The US Constitution is made for a Moral and Religious People... it is wholly inadequate to govern any other

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams.

Our founding fathers were devout Christians, the precepts and hallmarks of our Constitutional Republic reflect our Christian values and standards... if you want to be an atheist, agnostic, or hedonist you must understand that our government was established on Judeo/Christian precepts and can not function properly without them.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation that “[l]iberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith" was noted as the corner stone of America's greatness by Tocqueville... and that which separated us from the fallen governments of Europe. For, hundreds of years, the Natural Law and morality formed the foundation for our claim to certain unalienable rights, they were the source of our laws, and standards for social interaction and justice...

That has all changed. Today, People and governments see how far they can push the boundaries of good behavior and power without incurring rebellion or violence... For decades now, governments have adopted President Obama’s slogan of “Yes We Can”!Can we establish an entire branch of government dedicated to education even though there is no Constitutional grant of authority to do it? Yes We Can! We fight several undeclared wars lasting many years killing thousands, we create an entire dependent population thru social welfare programs none of which are Constitutional.

It is time we returned to our founding fathers faith and constitutional government... reorganizing and limiting the Federal Govrnments scope and power to those enumerated powers in the Constitution... and no more.  We must also restrict the Courts from using Stari Decisis and the courts judgments as LAW... they are not law, they are the Courts rendering of justice in a particular case and only that case.

Views: 1324

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Remember what oath did they take? Was it to "the constitution of the United States" the doesn't exist in Law or at Law or was it "the Constitution for the United States of America"

Think, of them for them.

Read my comment again for what I said.

I never said she was a woman of the streets or a whore as those that compiled the books of the Bible depicted her. I depended on the Gospel of Mary which puts her in a much different light and with Jesus as a well learned woman and leader.. I don't know how you read into anything different.

The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute comes from the account given in Luke 7:36-50 of a woman who anointed the feet of Jesus with her tears and ointment. Many people still identify Mary Magdalene as the repentant sinner who appears identified sometimes as the adulterous woman who also appears in the Gospel of John (chapter 8)

All the years I worked in the Middle East I never met a Ashkenazi Jew. However I did meet with hundreds that followed Jesus teaching as Egyptians, Palestinian's, and in  Bagdad. We had much in common because I was familiar with many of their faithful books that were banned from the Bible by Rome/Vatican.

The banned books were mandatory reading in college as they were married to the geologist and archeologist studies as a guide.

I also met many followers of Jesus that believed there will be no peace in the Middle East until the Phony European Jews are the blood lines of the Khazar Zionist are no more.

An Egyptian Coptic took me on tour of the Christian Churches and temples and told me it is believe Jesus preached on these streets. I overwhelming feeling of warmth set in to know that was possible and now I may have walked in his foot steps. 

 

Stay out of it Hank, and besides, he signed out... I will be watching for him, yep I sure will.

Federal Government with 17 enumerated powers NWO UN.

What cryptology does this represent ... what is its meaning?  If you want to be an effective communicator use idiograms that are commonly understood.

Conchita... you must be Tif's friend... do you know why she posted your picture on this cite? Are you two a thing...or what?

United Nations Declares Abortion a Human Right

The United Nations has sided with the pro-choice movement, declaring abortion as a “human right” for women. 

Last year, the U.N. Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment No. 36, a document expounding on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Humandefense.com reports: Article 6 posits that every human being “has the inherent right to life” and that this right “shall be protected by law.”

At first, the Human Rights Committee’s newest document appears to affirm this unambiguous message:

UN declares abortion a human right

However, when it comes to the matter of preborn life, the document makes clear that this “supreme right” is not one afforded to them:

“Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary terminations… restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering…”

The document goes on to explain governments “must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion” in the case that the pregnancy would potentially cause the woman “pain or suffering.” In addition, no laws or barriers may be placed that may push women towards “unsafe” abortions, including those caused by the “exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers.”

The last point may prove quite problematic for doctors and institutions that find abortion unethical. Will they still be allowed to opt out of providing abortions due to moral or religious objections? Or will they be mandated by the state to breach their own ethics?

Beyond that, certain terminology used in the document is ambiguous. For instance, what constitutes “mental pain?” Does raising a child constitute mental pain? Does giving a baby up for adoption? And certainly, you would be hard pressed to find any mother who found the process of childbirth itself entirely devoid of “pain” and “suffering.” Given that, does this mean abortion is never actually restricted? In effect, does this mean any woman could claim exemption from abortion laws at any point?

At the end of the day, this all comes down to one question: does every human being have an inherent right to life or not? If this question can be answered clearly, then everything else should fall into line. The U.N. needs to come forward with whether or not they still stand by the words articulated in the original International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Because, at this moment, it appears they do not.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-99...

Adrenochrome Ambrosia and how America Eats its Young

 I must say that is one hell of a UN Treaty....Baby Parts and blood for money.

The US is not a signator to this UN treaty ... all treaties must also have the approval of Congress before they are US Law.

Do you ever read the documents or links you post... if you did you would find that the United States of America is not a signtor to this UN Treaty... no signature present on Page 280 of the treaty, where it calls for the US to sign on to the Treaty.

Your research is dung... anyone relying on your post should do so with a very large grain of salt.

The United States has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), but is, Trump administration has not ratified the convention.

https://humandefense.com/un-declares-abortion-a-human-right/

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. https://twitter.com/NoahRFeldman/status/839185127494254592 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment http://bv.ms/2mY1ueX  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker
 

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service