Atheists put billboard on Billy Graham Parkway (OneNewsNow.Com)

CHARLOTTE, NC - A statewide coalition of atheists and agnostics has placed billboards in six North Carolina cities, including one along the Billy Graham Parkway in Charlotte.

That sign, according to The Charlotte Observer, pictures an American flag and the words "One Nation Indivisible" -- omitting the words "Under God," which were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

Read the full story...Atheists put billboard on Billy Graham Parkway OneNewsNow.Com - Your Source For News Right Now

Of course, if a Christian group were to erect a cross beside one of the billboards, the atheists would demand that it be removed.

I don't know about you, but I thank God for our country and the godly, Christian men and women who founded it. Man had, and has no say in the founding of our nation. It was entirely a process directed by God Himself.

John Adams said...

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

And that meant that our Founding Fathers who created the document were a God-fearing people, and that the people must likewise be God-fearing people to keep voting God-fearing people into office.

So, I'm not about to change to suit the wishes of unbelievers to try and force me to think otherwise. They are more than welcome to change their way of thinking, and it would better for them if they did change to the Truth.

Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!

GOP Senator supports leftist judge nominee (OneNewsNow.com)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Some congressional Republicans are threatening a filibuster to block confirmation of a federal appeals court nominee because of his religious rulings. But they won't get the support of Indiana GOP Senator, Richard Lugar.

In 2005, Judge David Hamilton ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives could not open its sessions with prayers that mentioned Jesus Christ or used terms like "savior."

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions noted that Hamilton was willing, however, to allow a Muslim cleric to offer invocations that mention Allah.

Senator Hamilton is the very epitome of what it means to be a RINO (republican-in-name-only), or liberal-lite. He is one who seeks to destroy not only what we stand for in America, but all that we have accomplished in the last 222 years with a foundation upon our Judeo-Christian heritage. Of course, the last 46 years of those 222 years have not brought us very much good due to a Supreme Court that has taken less of a constitutional approach to defining law and by going more with the flow of pop culture...In other words, concocting "law."

In that case, we need a return to our original system of a limited government as the Framers of our Constitution intended. The only one who has access to our personal lives as to regulating what we can and cannot do in a moral sense is Almighty God, and no Supreme Court judge or otherwise has any authority to overstep this.

God bless, and thank you for reading!



GOP Senator supports leftist judge nominee (OneNewsNow.com)

Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!

Gun Control

Are you a gun owner? Do you hunt? Do you enjoy a little sport shooting on the range? ... If so, chances are you won't have that Constitutional right for very long should Barack Obama be elected President of the United States.

Second Amendment for you: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, for someone who is opposed to our second amendment rights, they can hardly make an argument in favor of their position against gun ownership. Despite, they are belligerent in their quest to take the American peoples' guns. One of the Left's first attempts and main tactics is to attack the Constitution in an attempt to revise it to their liking, you see, they can't take the Constitution for what it is, they have to change it, and this is evil.

What you must remember here, friends, is do not let the Anti-American rhetoric flowing from the evil minds of organizations such as the ACLU trick you, such as when they make the claim that the "original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of states to to maintain militias."

Listen carefully now - What is the militia? George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, says it is the 'whole' people, and that means 'everyone' has the right to bear arms, not just the police force, but everyone has that right...and to disarm them is the best way to enslave them.

In essence, what you would have is a state where the assailants would be emboldened to seek out and commit evil deeds, and thus, the assaulted live under extreme fear all the time with no means to protect their homes and families.

With the United States at its highest population in history, over 300,000,000 people could you imagine the crime rate? Everything would become an assault weapon and no way to stop them. It just goes to prove how insane the ideas of liberals really are.

Something you need to ponder as we draw closer to this upcoming election with a man named Barack Obama on the ticket and poised to cripple the United States Defense.

Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!

Defining Article III section I

Powers of the Supreme Court

Article III section I - and what it says -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their Services and Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Supreme Court's purpose -

In my own words...(opinion)

To oversee cases that may or may not come into conflict with the Constitution; and to uphold the Constitution to the fullest extent of the powers delegated to them. Not breeching the trust of the will of the People of the States.

Has the Supreme Court acted in defiance of the Constitution? Yes.

A short list of cases where the Supreme Court defied the Constitution --

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Nebbia v. New York (1934)
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)
Helvering v. Davis
Cantwell v. Connecticut
United States v. Darby overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart (1941)
U.S. v. Carolene Products Co.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)
Engel v. Vitale - the School prayer clause (1962)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
Texas Monthly, Inc v. Bullock (1989)
Larkin v. Grendel's Den (1982)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Burnette
Wilkinson v. Jones (1987)
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. (2000)

...And this list doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, much less touch the cases that the Court's have forsaken the Constitution and literally forced their "standards of morality" on the American people as a whole.

What do we call this form of government? None other than...Tyranny!!!

The Amrican system of Law has essentially, went from God-Fearing & embracing to hating God, Christianity.

Evidently, something has went tragically wrong...

It seems as if people have lost their will...to defend...their will....Or, maybe the people of society at large are "comfortable" with the Supreme Court making their decisions for them? ... Maybe the people are like the Supreme Court and don't care about the Constitution and its Founding intent? Maybe they want to invent "new" standards of morality, and thus, permit the Supreme Court to legislate immorality without any consent, or thought, or care as to the outcome?

There remains much to be answered in that respect, for sure.

There is one thing we can be absolutely sure of though, and that is, those who stand for all that is right and moral in America, have allowed the Supreme Court to get away with their destructive legislation, and we are paying the price as we speak...and will pay the price for generations to come, by sitting by, and watching as America goes down the gutter, as the State of California has already.

So, what do we say then? "I don't care what happens to America, just so long as I have my monthly pay check on time?"

Or ... Say...

'NO! This is not a "Judgeocracy" We want America back!!! We're not going to allow no stinkin' Judges to force their depraved views on America any longer!!! We want America back!!!'

What say you? It's up to you...

God bless you!

--Jeremiah--




Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!

Interpreting the 8th amendment

Here we go again, boys and girls, it's a neverending battle to save America: From Liberals trying to subvert the Constitution, and ignoring the will of the people through despotic judges on our Supreme Courts.

So, round two, of constitutional interpretation.

Today were going to talk a little bit about the 8th amendment...What's it say?

AMENDMENT VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

How do we interpret it?

Well, it's quite clear that it should mean exactly what it says; but what is it speaking in reference to? It's speaking in reference to after a person who has committed a crime and has been afforded a fair trial (to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that said "criminal" should be deemed 'guilty' or non-guilty), and given a sentence. This is where it gets tricky though...

Now, any justice system should treat any human being with the "fairness" that they deserve, but after a careful study of the nature in which the crime was committed, and the competency of the individual carrying the crime out, and the capacity of the individual to reconcile his/herself to the fact that he/she did something wrong, it is the sole purpose of those who are standing in judgment of the individual to determine the proper sentence for the crime.

What about murder? Can we call self-defense..."murder"? Of course not!

Murder is an act of hatred against someone who is innocent and done nothing wrong...such as an innocent unborn child. Murder is the most reprehensible behavior known, because it takes the life of our loved ones!

Ok, now, I'll use myself for an example here for a second...What if I was called to be on jury duty, and I was the only one they could find...Is my sole judgment and verdict going to be good enough? Even if I had another fellow juror, or two, or three, or eleven or a hundred, would our judgment be correct from our basis without any outside influence? No! I'm afraid not, because there's only one place that a verdict in the face of law can stand worthy to be defined as 'Just'... and whose judgment might that be? The Word of the Almighty! Look in chapter 9 verse 6 of Genisis in the Old Testament...What does God say? 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man, his blood shall be shed' ... Right there folks, God ordained/ordered the Death Penalty as a universal punishment against murder! He didn't say "some" should be punished by Death Penalty, but 'ALL' who commit murder. And He reaffirms this throughout both the Old and New Testament - One is commandment number 6 in the Ten Commandments, and Leviticus chapter 20 is another, and the book of Romans in the New Testament. (Ed note: Correction - Exodus 21 is the correct chapter.)

Then you may ask...Why is this? To compel the hearts of the people to fear our God ordained government...Did you know that? The government is 'ordained' by God? Sure is! Read Romans 13. But not just to fear the government, but to show willingness to accept that we have a place in society, and that place is not to go recklessly about to do as we please, but to show that we are willing to forgive others for our petty little arguments and differences...not to flare up and get mad, and go on a shooting rampage, no, this is when we get in trouble, and is why the law man of the government was created, to maintain or restore order and peace.

One thing that must be stressed here though, is, once a life is taken, it can't be brought back, therefore, reconciliation is only possible with the individual and God on a one on one basis, and which, is something that we can't know for sure...nonetheless, is why a careful study of the individual's mental nature must be studied, in any event, the law must follow suit to fit the intentions of the convicted.

We are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as we strive to maintain those goals in mind. In other words, we can't violate the Fourteenth amendment, but that does not give us a license to violate the Law above the Fourteenth amendment - The Law of God. When we violate God's Laws, then God's judgment will be thusly, meeted out to us.

God bless!

--Jeremiah--

[Ed Note: I may have more on this tomorrow. For now...have at it]

Update: 12:01 AM May 21, 2008

Ok, I just wanted to add a few more thoughts to what I've already said...

If we interpret the 8th amendment as an argument against the Death Penalty then we place more weight upon our own consciences in regards to our duty to the familys of the victims slain. Thus, society begins to deteriorate to the point that no standard of decency and morality may be mandated...This is what has happened over the last several decades in America...As one justice opined..."The Court need not apply the law...but the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" In other words...If the majority of the Court's opinion, or "standards" differed from the elected officials within each States' own elected government, then the Court's "standards of decency" had simply "evolved" beyond the States and the Will of the People, and that the Court's "standards of decency" need to be applied.

What does this mean? In criminal law, it would mean forcing the States to treat criminals with more leniency. Therefore, subverting the Constitution, and taking away each States' powers to enforce the law. This is what we have found over and over again in Liberal activism, and is why, as I explained in a former thread...We need to avoid a Liberal controlled White House...because Liberal Activists have no respect for the Constitution, which is the rule of law, and its original, or Founding intent contained within it.

Just think about your Second amendment rights, and our Christian heritage that is afforded to us in the First and Fourteenth amendments.....ALL of that will be breeched if say someone like Barack Hussein Obama is nominated for President.

I will say this, if the people do decide to elect Mr. Obama to be our next President...then I would issue a call to my Brothers and Sisters who believe in the American way, and who cherish your Constitutional right to bear arms to join together and stick together and not let him take our guns away, and to make it clear, that we will worship Church service wherever we so choose, and however we choose.

Ok? Stick together!

God bless America!

(Ending time: 12:36)

Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!

Interpreting The Fourteenth Amendment

In the wake of yesterday's California Supreme Court decision to defy the good will of the people of California and permit same-sex marriage, I thought it would be an appropriate time to take a look at the implications of just such a decision and how the Court is flawed in their decision.

Just about every single instance in which same-sex marriage is brought up the Courts seem to always trot out the Fourteenth amendment as "justification" for same-sex marriage.

What the Fourteenth amendment says...

Amendment XIV Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or inforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuniities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Take note of that last part there..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, how do we interpret such as Clause? Well, Life, Liberty and property are all our basic rights as are stated within the confines of the Declaration of Independence as they are our God-given rights, and something that must be remembered when we say God-given - We are responsible, and held accountable to God for our rights...not to the government or any earthly individual. This is what the Fourteenth amendment says in relation to when the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution created it, and what they intended for it to mean. Thus, no one can deny us those rights that Almighty God is the sole Provider thereof.

Ok, onward we shall go...There are many laws, but, what, in general terms does law actually mean?

Law \'lo\n 1 a: a rule of conduct or action laid down and enforced by the supreme governing authority (as the legislature) of a community or established by custom b: the whole collection of such rules by enforcing rules c: the control brought about by enforcing rules 2 : a or principles stating something that laways works in the same way under the same conditions 4 cap : the first part of the Jewish scriptures - compare HAGIOGRAPHA, PROPHETS 5 : trial in a court to determine what is just and right according to the laws 6 : the department of knowledge that deals with laws and their interpretation and application 7a : the profession of a lawyer b : lawyers as a group.

Definitions #s 1&5 are what I want to capitalize on, both of significant importance to the subject at hand. Before I begin, it's critical to remember here, that, when we speak of law in the above stated terms...these are all definitions created by, and stated under man's conditions.

As was stated in definition #5 - law is determined by what is 'just' and 'right' or 'good' and 'bad' behavior and actions, and thus, in most instances, the laws are created (in most cases) to fit and protect what is good, likewise, resisting what is bad or evil, and ruling that conduct of persons within any said jurisdiction should do the very best they can to conform to what said law states, or suffer the consequences of disobeying said law.

So, where does yesterday's California Supreme Court decision stand in the face of 'Right' and 'Wrong'? The Supreme Court of California acted in false pretension to what the will of the people of California's intentions were. The people of California never intended for same-sex unions to be permissible under the law of California...the same as the majority of the American people don't want same-sex unions in this country. Why? Because homosexuality is 'wrong' and it goes against the Law of the Land, which is bound by and rest upon the Will of, and Law of Almighty God.

In the crux of it ... the Supreme Court Justices of California were never given any authority what-so-ever to enact, or put into effect such a law to allow same-sex unions, they just flat out made it up, and as some well know, the Founders never intended for the intent of the Constituion which they; themselves had framed and ratified under the auspice and authority of Almighty God and the good will of the people of the United States to be changed to support the disemmination of evil througout our God-given, God-blessed land and country, America!

The Fourteenth amendment gives no allusion to the allowance, nor "protection" of same-sex marriage, None!

--Jeremiah--



Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!