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: 1326

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 AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service