THIS IS HOW THE "LOYAL" OPPOSITION THINKS

By now you must know that a group of so-called "peacemakers" have been abducted by Islamic terrorists in Iraq. The abducted "peacemakers" were part of a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams. Their own website makes it clear that they are a hard left-leaning organization. Now four of their members are being held by Islamic jihadists. See: http://www.cpt.org/

Now, just let me ask, . . . are these peacemakers upset with the Islamic terrorists who have taken their compatriots hostage?? Well, as a matter of fact, no, . . . . they're not. They're upset with both the people and the government of the United States. Radical Islam has a definite and stated course of action when it comes to Christians (whom they call, “non-believers”). They are either to be converted, subjugated and taxed, or killed. Well, these particular “non-believers” have now been captured and are being held hostage. That would be the subjugation part. Will they be killed?? Will they convert?? Of course, it is possible they could be released if the Islamists determine that would be in the best interests of the jihad, but remember that, contrary to what you read in American media, things are NOT going very well for the jihadists in Iraq, right now. But these fellow members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams don't seem to have any problem at all with the Radical Islamic extremists who have captured their comrads. They're upset with none other than the United States, of course! Here's a statement that the Christian Peacemaker Teams released:

"We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the
actions of the US and UK governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the
continuing occupation and oppression of its people."

Now, maybe some of you leftists can tell me, just how is one supposed to deal with or interact with intellect of this nature?? These are people who have stood by Palestinian terrorists and who condemn the oppression of the U.S. Border Patrol agents who try to keep our borders secure. Now, in this particular case, they're solidly on the side of the insurgency in Iraq. That means that they are supporting the terrorists’ ideals and goals over there. Yet, they blame you and me for this predicament they find themselves in! Someone please explain this to me.

For those of you reading this, with even a slightly conservative perspective on all things political, this is the intellect of the left. All that is bad that is happening in the Middle East, and in the world, is the fault of the evil United States. Our attempts to bring the rule of law and a popularly elected government, (as opposed to a ruthless dictator/murderer/sociopath), to the people of Iraq constitutes oppression and occupation. Our attempts to secure our borders amount to nothing more than oppression of poor Mexicans. Sure, these people have the right to be out-of-control lunatics, but where is it written that we have to treat them as worthy of serious consideration?? They're lunatics. Let's ask our friends in the journalistic world to recognize them as such, so that we can direct our attentions to things more important, . . . like killing the diabolical terrorists who took them.



May God Bless these people, who seem to be victims of their own, warped, sense of loyalty, patriotism, and morality.

And, may God Bless America!

Dan'L













$

WILL ANYONE SAY THAT MOVEON.ORG LIED?

Probably not . . . . because Moveon.org is a liberal organization . . . . just about as liberal as you can get without changing your name to socialism.org or peaceatanyprice.org.

Here's the story. Moveon.org was running an advertisement on its website calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq: i.e., calling for surrender. As the narrator of this ad was talking about American troops they showed a picture of British troops --- saying that they were Americans. Deceptive?? Well, let's look at the way they handled it, . . .

You could tell they were Brits because one of them was wearing shorts . . . . not part of the American GI uniform. When Moveon.org learned of the error they tried to alter the photograph by darkening the British fatigues to look more like American fatigues, and by photoshopping a new pair of pants on the soldier wearing shorts!! This, of course, was a deliberate and premeditated attempt to be completely deceptive. The very thing the left is so fond of attributing to George Bush.

Later, when their attempt to deceive was discovered, they just eliminated the picture altogether. You can get the entire story here.

And if you want to see the altered pictures, they are available here.

Enjoy.

God Bless,
Dan'L

The Moron known as Ted Turner is at it again

He took time out from flipping bison burgers and worrying about the financial success of his newest investment on West Dodge Road, in Omaha, Nebraska the other day to regale us with his opinions on the war in Iraq.

According to the guy who's also known for being one of Nebraska's biggest non-resident-non-taxpayers, the country of Iraq is not better off without Saddam Hussein. This should come as no surprise. As we have since learned, Saddam Hussein was quite the buddy of Turner's CNN for a long time. The TV network that Ted started did their best to hide Saddam's atrocities in exchange for media access. WhaddaSurprise, ehh??

Now, with their sugar daddy sitting in prison, they no longer have the edge. (see commentary below, for more scintilating quotes from the Moron Turner), . . . But what has to be most depressing to Ted is that Iraqis are now living in freedom. They now have more clean water, electricity and schools than they did before the war. There have been free elections. A Constitution has been drawn up. We have won the war.

I guess we should cut Ted a break, . . . he hasn't been this depressed since the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union broke up. Oh, and some ballsy journalist should ask him if Iraqi women were better off being raped by the Fedayeen. Perhaps what Ted meant to say was that CNN was no better off now than it was when Saddam was in power. That might be quite a bit more accurate!

Here are some other fine quotes from the Moron Turner:

"I ended the Cold War"
( 6/7/2005 ) Ted Turner – never known for his modesty - claims credit for helping end the Cold War, saying his 1986 Goodwill Games eased international tensions through sports competition. "I thought, between sports and news and television and friendship, that you could end the Cold War," he told a conference of CNN employees and contributors marking the network’s 25th anniversary. "And by God, we did."

"Propaganda tool of the Bush administration"
( 1/25/2005 ) Ted Turner called Fox a propaganda tool of the Bush administration and indirectly compared Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's popular election to run Germany before World War II. Turner made those fiery comments in his first address at the National Association for Television Programming Executives' conference since he was ousted from Time Warner Inc. five years ago. The 66-year-old billionaire, who leveraged a television station in Atlanta into a media empire, made the comment before a standing-room-only crowd at NATPE's opening session Tuesday. His no-nonsense, sometimes humorous, approach during the one-hour Q&A generated frequent loud applause and laughter.

"Hijackers were motivated by world poverty and were brave at the very least"
( 6/19/2003 ) Media mogul Ted Turner Monday praised the firefighters, rescue workers and police officers for their courage on Sept.11, but said he thinks the terrorist themselves were brave because New York's World Trade Center crumbled and the Pentagon in Washington was partially destroyed.

During a speech at Brown University in Providence, R.I., Turner, founder of CNN, said the hijackers were motivated by world poverty and "were brave at the very least.

"The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't have any hope for a better life," he said.

Turner added that he thinks the terrorists "also might have been a little nuts." (From an article dated 2/12/02)

Democrats Speak Out on WMD

Perhaps Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) should have done some research before charging the Bush administration with "manufacturing” and "manipulating” pre-war intelligence relating to Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs.

In particular, Reid should have researched statements made by several prominent members of his own Democratic Party.

Republicans have circulated numerous pre-war Democratic statements on weapons of mass destruction since Reid blurred the line between the claims of the Democratic Party and the slanders of Michael Moore. Reid on Nov. 1 invoked Rule 21, accusing the Bush administration of purposely misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Bottom Line: If the Bush administration was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then so too were many leading Democrats.

The following is a list of statements made by prominent Democrats on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program:

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."

****Congressional Record, October 9, 2002


Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

****Congressional Record, October 10, 2002


Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

****Congressional Record, October 10, 2002


Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

****Congressional Record, October 10, 2002


Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

****Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002


Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
"There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

****Congressional Record , October 8, 2002


President Bill Clinton
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

****Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998


"[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."

****Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998


"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

****Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998


Vice President Al Gore
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people."

****Larry King Live, December 16, 1998


"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen."

****ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998


"We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his Country."

****Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, Calif., September 23, 2002


Secretary Of State Madelyn Albright
"Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges.”

****Remarks at the American Legion Convention, New Orleans, La., August 9, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people."

****CNN "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," February 18, 1998

Defense Secretary William Cohen
Cohen appeared on ABC’s "This Week” in 1997 to talk about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. To illustrate the danger, he brought a five-pound bag of sugar.

Cohen: It’s important when we talk about weapons of mass destruction that we translate that into something that the American people, and hopefully, the world community can understand. If you take a five pound bag of sugar and accept – call this anthrax (holding up a 5-pound bag of table sugar). This amount of anthrax could be spread over a city – let’s say the size of Washington. It could destroy at least half the population of that city. If you had even more amounts ...

One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax could produce death within five days.
VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such – one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.

Cokie Roberts: Would you put that bag down please.

Cohen: Now I want to point out – I will spill it on the table – point out that he has had enormous amounts and I’d like to go to some of the lies that have been told about this, because originally, if we could look at this particular chart, the original declaration of Iraq, he said he had small quantities of nerve agent for research. We found almost four tons of VX – that little vial I just showed you – four tons of it.

****"This Week” on ABC, November 16, 1997

Terrorists and tyrants

By Victor Davis Hanson

As American casualties mount in Iraq, politicians at home now fight over who said what and when about weapons of mass destruction and the need for going to war. One of the most frequent charges is that President George W. Bush hyped a non-existent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida — and that as a result, we diverted our efforts from finishing off the real terrorists to start a new and costly war to replace a secular dictator.

This charge is false for several reasons — and illogical for even more.

Almost every responsible U.S. government body had long warned about Saddam's links to al-Qaida terrorists. In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Then in October 2002, George Tenet — the Clinton-appointed CIA director — warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade."

Seventy-seven Senators apparently agreed — including a majority of Democrats — and cited just that connection a few days later as a cause to go to war against Saddam: ". . . Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

The bipartisan consensus about this unholy alliance was not based on intriguing but unconfirmed rumors of meetings between Saddam's intelligence agents and al-Qaida operatives such as Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.

Nor did the senators or the president ever claim that Saddam himself planned the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the Justice Department, the Senate and two administrations were alarmed by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate that established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

More importantly still, one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam after the attack. And after the U.S.'s successful war against the Taliban, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the present murderous al-Qaida leader in Iraq, reportedly escaped from Afghanistan to gain a reprieve from Saddam.

All of this is understandable since Saddam had a long history of promoting and sheltering anti-Western terrorists. That's why both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas — terrorist banes of the 1970s and 1980s — were in Baghdad prior to the U.S. invasion and why the families of West Bank suicide bombers were given $25,000 rewards by the Iraqi government.

Saddam worried little over the agendas of these diverse terrorist groups, only that they shared his own generic hatred of Western governments. This kind of support from leaders such as Saddam has proven crucial to radical, violent Islamicists' efforts.

After Sept. 11, it became clear that these enemies can only resort to terrorism to weaken American resolve and gain concessions — and can't even do that without the clandestine help of illegitimate regimes (from Saddam in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the theocracy in Iran, Bashar Assad in Syria and others) who provide money and sanctuary while denying culpability.

Middle Eastern terrorists and tyrants feed on one another. The Saddams and Assads of the region — and to a less extent the Saudi royal family and the Mubarak dynasty — deflected popular anger over their own failures on to the United States by allowing terrorists to scapegoat the Americans.

Yet, for a quarter-century, oil, professed anti-communism and loud promises to "fight terror" earned various reprieves from the West for these dictatorships, who were deathly afraid that one day America might catch on and do something other than shoot a cruise missile at enemies while sternly lecturing "friends."

That day came after Sept. 11. To end the old pathology, we took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon, encouraged Lebanese democracy, hectored the Egyptians about elections, told Libya's Moammar Gaddafi to come clean about his nuclear plans, and risked oil supplies by jawboning the Persian Gulf monarchies to liberalize.

The theory behind all these messy and often caricatured efforts was not the desire for endless war — we removed by force only the two worst regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq — but to allow Middle Easterners a third alternative between Islamic radicalism and secular dictatorship. No wonder that wherever there are elections in the Middle East — Afghanistan and Iraq — legitimate governments there have the moral authority and the desire to fight Islamic terrorism.

Americans can blame one another all we want over the cost in lives and treasure in Iraq. But the irony is that not long ago everyone from Bill Clinton to George Bush, senators, CIA directors and federal prosecutors all agreed that Saddam had offered assistance to al-Qaida, the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans. That was one of the many reasons we went into Iraq, why Zarqawi and ex-Baathists side-by-side now attack American soldiers — and why an elected Iraqi government is fighting with us.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and military historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

HOW COULD 50 STATES BE WRONG??

Somewhere along the way, the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. How could fifty States be wrong??

This is very interesting, in view of the recent legal arguments, brought before the various courts of appeal and the SCOTUS!!

Be sure to read the last two paragraphs. America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their state constitutions:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution
Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land
Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution . . .
Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government . . .
California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . . .
Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy .
Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .
Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty . . . establish this Constitution . . .
Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .
Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance . . . establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution
Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges. establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties . . .
Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity . and imploring His aid and direction . . .
Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty . . .
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We..the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe .. in the course of His Providence, an opportunity . And devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution
Minnesota 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings
Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . establish this Constitution
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty. establish this Constitution
Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution.
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty.
New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those
North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty. establish this . . .
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance.
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing
South Carolina 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil! and religious liberties. Establish this . . .
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience . . .
Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution
Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to. enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI . Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator. can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.
West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God.
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility.
Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties. establish this Constitution.

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts who have ruled otherwise, are wrong!!

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn

God Bless America,
Dan'L