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: 1309

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 The above document stated by a College Connected to the Federal Government of the date 1787, this was tested, the 12 States Constitutional document tested, 1783, and 1781 on two different test.

US Constitution, September 17, 1787 tested to the date of Oct 31, 1787.

So if I break this all down in separate images,

 I am willing to bet the signatures of the founding fathers, they match up with the The Sussex Declaration

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/professor-danielle-allen-e...

 Oppps got to go, Ronald give birth to kittens...

As stated many times before all this ta-do is about nothing... the Sussex Document may be one of several attempts to negotiate a peaceful break with England... who cares, it is without any legal standing, has no legal impact on oir Constitution, as ratified by all 13 of the Colonies... not 12.

 In The Year of our Lord Jesus Christ, September 17, 1787, of common belief that this should of been the bonds of the US Constitution.

 The King a allegory, a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

 My faith, my God, where has it all vanished, no treaty should ever enslave God's Children, or a nation.

It vanished because no one put both the Declaration and the Constitution together.

The Declaration, with its claim to God Almighty as our Creator, and source of our UNalienable rights, and HIS LAWS, otherwise stated as the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

God's laws are above the laws of physics, gravity, mathematics, etc.. His laws are for peace, righteous dominion of the earth and all thereof. Enshrined in our founders' writings and beliefs.

No one puts them together as they should be, the Declaration and God's Laws are the Spirit of our Constitution. They are the Spirit of Life. Over America, to each and to all.

What has been abandoned must and shall be proclaimed in order to be reclaimed.  Amen.

7 hours have passed, Mr. Nelson has lost his voice, Rosie and Jean, blog on ladies...:)-

Yep, got that right Hank, Jean and Rosie, got the Ronald...

yep sure did...:)

Unlike some I have other things to do beside responding to this web site... I will get back when I can... responding to most of the queries by those on the site.

Ok Ronald, we will give ya all the time you need to respond to Rosie and Jean, I understand...:)

Need to borrow the book...:)

 Can people still hear the prayers of the Israeli people, they still pray for God to free them once again from the evil that Moses brought them out of.

Judaeo precepts, is only found in the Talbot, which recognizes Jesus Christ, the Talbot, like the New Testament, brought a change for Jews, the New Testament, bound by Christian Traditions.

 One book does not bare false judgement against the other.

Rosie:

The Talmod not the Talbot (whatever that is) contains the fundamentals of Jewish law and tradition... I have never heard of the Talbot.  

See: 

The Oral Law -Talmud & Mishna - Jewish Virtual Library
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-oral-law-talmud-and-mishna

Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life.  The Talmud & Mishna fill this need..

Perhaps you can provide a link to an authoritative source for the "Talbot"... thnaks.

Talbot Jewish book: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=qBCSXImcGu2zggeNkq-I...

 You see Ronald, more and more people who are Jewish, are rejecting the Talmud, as a old stick in the mud, like the old testament, when Rabbis  start covering up facts a about Jesus, then people that are Jews, step away from it.

 More Jews which you are not, "Ronald", are turning to Christianity.

 I myself do more of a historical backgrounds on things, that why I do not follow the King James Bible, my choice...

bye bye

LOL Tif.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage, pnj.com/opinion

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service