Archive for January, 2007

Homeland Security Memos Contradict U.S. Attorney

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

More information trickles out about two U.S. Border Patrol officers imprisoned after shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler.

In the high-profile case of two U.S. Border Patrol officers imprisoned after shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler, two Department of Homeland Security documents apparently contradict the version of events put forth by the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the case.

The internal Department of Homeland Security memoranda – which have been denied Congress despite repeated requests by two House members – show that within one month of the shooting incident involving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, government investigators had identified the smuggler as Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila.

But this seems to contradict U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton’s claim that Aldrete-Davila came forward through a Mexican lawyer who offered to identify his client in exchange for immunity.

A March 14, 2005, memo notes that Aldrete-Davila’s mother had contacted the mother-in-law of a U.S. Border Patrol agent to talk about the shooting and a memo from four months later talks about an interview with that Border Patrol agent. Also, the immunity agreement offered to Aldrete-Davila promises no prosecution against him will result from his testimony and reveals that it was signed on March 15, 2005.

Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, says the documents raise questions as to why Sutton chose to prosecute the Border Patrol agents rather than the drug smuggler.

Sutton defended his prosecution in an interview with WND.

He said he had no choice. “You have to understand that we could not turn our backs on this,” he told WND. “Two Border Patrol officers shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away and posed no real threat.” The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.

The documents further reveal Aldrete-Davila and his Mexican drug associates wanted to organize a “hunting party” to kill Border Patrol agents in retaliation for his being shot. The revelation raises the possibility Aldrete-Davila violated the terms of his immunity by concealing material information from the prosecutor and the jury at trial.

Original Link.

GOP Blocks Lawmakers’ Cost-of-Living Increase

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

Sometimes I think that Congress forgets that us “working” people can’t vote ourselves pay raises. At least the Republicans are on base with this one.

( - After being pounded by Democrats last year for accepting pay increases while not boosting the minimum wage, Republican congressmen Tuesday returned the favor by preventing an annual 1.7 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) from taking effect this year.

“There will be no COLA adjustment,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday after GOP members of Congress, led by House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), promised to block the annual $2,800 pay hike.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) “ran their own ads attacking [Republican] members on this,” Blunt explained. “Because of that, their members are going to suffer in terms of not being able to have a COLA.”

Blunt said that Democrats broke the agreement after last year’s pay raise-related vote had already taken place.

“The agreement always was that the parties would not use the COLA issue in the campaign,” he said. “It was as formal as anything not signed is.”

As a result, federal lawmakers’ salaries will stay at $165,200 for the year instead of receiving an increase due to a law passed in 1989 in which legislators got a pay boost in exchange for giving up honoraria for personal gain.

The annual vote on the pay raise is usually taken on an obscure procedural move instead of a direct up-or-down vote, and the Democratic and GOP whips each deliver a roughly equal number of votes to shut off any move to block it.

But as Cybercast News Service previously reported, Democrats used the issue to their advantage during the 2006 midterm elections.

After the GOP-led House voted down a minimum wage increase last June, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused Republicans of standing with “Big Oil” and their “pharmaceutical cronies” instead of with working families.

“That’s immoral,” Pelosi said at the time.

In the years since Congress approved the $5.15 minimum wage in 1997, “the price of gas has skyrocketed, the cost of health care is astronomically high, and America’s working families are feeling the pinch,” she said.

Pelosi said Republicans “have the opportunity to do the right thing” by joining Democrats in passing a minimum wage increase - “for America’s working families.”

“If Republicans continue to block increasing the minimum wage - which a strong majority of Americans support - Democrats’ New Direction for America means that on the first week we control Congress, we will pass a minimum wage increase,” she noted.

While the House voted earlier this month to “give Americans a raise,” the measure was tied up in the Senate until Tuesday when Democrats agreed to Republican demands to include $8.3 billion in tax breaks for small businesses to cover the extra costs associated with the minimum wage boost.

A vote in the Senate on the minimum wage measure is expected in the coming days.

The Democrats had hoped to attach the COLA measure to a spending bill expected to pass the House on Wednesday, but negotiations with Republicans during the past week were unsuccessful.

Also expressing disappointment at Tuesday’s developments was Senate GOP Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who told reporters there’s no shortage of wealthy lawmakers - such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) - using the pay raise issue as a political sword.

“It’s very easy for the multimillionaires … to demagogue this issue,” Lott added.

Original Link.

Why Were Anti-War Protesters Allowed to Spray-Paint US Capitol?

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

I wondered this as well. So much for “security”.

( - A group of anti-war protesters spray-painted anarchist symbols on the steps and pavement outside the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, and police did nothing to stop them.

A conservative advocacy group says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should order an investigation into what happened and why.

“Surely, the tens of millions of dollars the American people have invested in the security of their Capitol means there is videotape that will assist in the identification and arrest of the perpetrators,” the Family Research Council said in a message to supporters.

The Hill newspaper reported on Sunday that rank-and-file police officers had formed a security line to keep protesters away from the Capitol.

Those officers “were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols,” the newspaper reported.

Morse told The Hill that a “splinter group of anarchists” had engaged in “minor instances of spay-painting” in an attempt to force a confrontation with U.S. Capitol Police.

“It is the USCP’s duty and responsibility to protect the Capitol complex, staff and public while allowing the public to exercise their First Amendment rights… [and] at the end of the day, both occurred without injury to protestors or officers,” the Hill quoted Morse as saying.

Morse said the protesters failed in their attempt to rush the Capitol’s doors; and he told The Hill that the spray paint was “easily removed” by staffers from the office of the Architect of the Capitol, who came in on Sunday, their day off, to clean up.

Imagine the response if pro-life demonstrators had swarmed onto Capitol grounds simply to pray last week, said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. If the pro-lifers had “trespassed,” Perkins mused, “the outcome would have been quite different.”

“Unlike last Monday’s peaceful pro-life protest, this mob of liberals was given access and leniency to commit criminal acts on government property. This special treatment is unacceptable,” he added.

The U.S. Capitol chief of police reports directly to the speaker of the House, the FRC noted, and therefore it is up to Rep. Pelosi (D-Calif.) to order an investigation into the anarchists’ behavior and the police response.

The FRC also noted that last week’s March for Life, which attracted many more people than last weekend’s anti-war protest, “earned little more than a footnote in the nation’s news,” compared with the front-page coverage given to the anti-war, anti-Bush forces.

Original Link.

Funeral Disruptors Face Court Setback

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

Well this is good news.
Now, I’ve said it many times before, but I’ll say it again for those people who haven’t read my views on this group before.
The Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas are more cult than church. Calling them Baptist is even a further reach. These people are not representing or preaching the same Bible I know.
Let me clarify…
God will not accept sin. Homosexuality is a sin. But murder is also a sin. In God’s eyes, sin is sin.
As a Christian, it is our calling to oppose all sin. With this in mind, that is why I will always oppose making homosexuality “normal” and “good”. According to the Bible, it is not “normal” or “good”, it is a sin.
Now with that said, Jesus taught us how to minister to people who need to hear God’s word. I assure you that it is not the way the so-called Christians of the so-called Westboro Baptist Church are doing it.
I rebuke them and advise them to reexamine the Bible.
God hates sin. All sin. God loves us. All of us. He does not hate “fags” and he certainly did not invent IED’s to kill American soldiers because the nation somewhat supports homosexuality. Sinful people, not following God, make IED’s and use them to do sinful, evil things to other people.

( - Members of a Kansas church who protest homosexuality at military funerals suffered a setback Tuesday in their case challenging Missouri’s “funeral protection law” when a federal judge ruled that the law could be enforced while under review.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyers representing the Westboro Baptist Church asked the U.S. District Court in Western Missouri to prevent the state from enforcing the law, which prohibits demonstrations near military funerals.

The controversial church is known for demonstrating outside military funerals, proclaiming that God allows U.S. soldiers to be killed because they are fighting to defend a nation that tolerates homosexuality.

In a ruling handed down Tuesday, Chief Judge Fernando Gaitan ruled that the Missouri law resembles federal law upheld by the Supreme Court enough to deny the motion for injunction.

“This Court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claims regarding the constitutionality of [the law],” Gaitan wrote.

“We’re pleased the court seems to recognize the right of funeral attendees to mourn those who died defending our country without being disrupted by protestors,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a press release. Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group, filed briefs in the case in support of the restrictions.

“Unlike the ACLU, most Americans believe that mourners should be able to engage in quiet and reflective prayer at funerals,” Fitton said.

While the ruling is seen as a victory for the state’s attempts to protect mourning family members from the protests, it is not a final judgment of the law’s constitutionality. The court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Jan. 22, 2008.

The church has seen similar “funeral protection laws” overturned. In September, a federal judge in Kentucky struck down the commonwealth’s ban on military funeral protests, saying it went too far in restricting freedom of speech.

Representatives from Westboro Baptist Church were not immediately available for comment Tuesday.

Original Link.

Celebrities Warn: 10 Yrs. To Save Planet

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

Okay, just because you play a scientist on TV or in a movie, doesn’t really make you a scientist. Just thought I would clear that up since there are several celebrities that don’t seem to get that. I find it hilarious that Hollyweird insists on weighing in on subjects they know nothing about. Instead of warning people how to keep our planet cool, they need to be warning people to turn to God before it’s too late. After all, God is the maker of this planet and He is in complete control of all aspects of it - including the temperatures.

A NEW worldwide movement backed by celebrities, musicians, politicians and business leaders is aiming to reverse the effects of global warming over the next decade.

Global Cool launched in London and LA today and is calling on one billion people to reduce their carbon emissions by just one tonne a year, for the next 10 years.

Boffins have found the climatic tipping point - when the climate becomes irreversibly damaged - can be turned back if global CO2 emissions are reduced by one billion tonnes a year.

Campaigners then hope cleaner, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, water and hydrogen would have been developed.

Big names including Leonardo Di Caprio, Orlando Bloom, KT Tunstall, Pink, The Killers, Razorlight and Josh Hartnett have thrown their weight behind the worldwide effort to beat climate change.

A website has been set up,, with advice on how to go green by reducing energy consumption through doing simple things such as sharing a shower with a mate.

Original Link

Antisemitism Rising in Germany

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

Holocaust memorials defiled by neo-Nazis

This is not a good thing to have happen in the country that spawned the Holocaust. They need to put a stop to this right now.

The German authorities were preparing for criticism from the Jewish community after it was revealed that a Holocaust memorial in Berlin was being used as a public lavatory by tourists and by neo-Nazi sympathisers.

The disclosure, in a Berlin newspaper, will trigger a new debate about how the Holocaust should be remembered in Germany.

One argument against building the monument — that consists of 2,700 concrete slabs resembling Jewish gravestones — was that it would become a target of anti-Semitic vandals. The managers of the memorial, which attracts 3.5 million visitors a year, have tried to play down the scandal.

“This just belongs to the teething problems of any new monument,” Uwe Neumaerker, of the Memorial Foundation, said. The German Government has been aware of the problem since the monument was completed in May 2005 but has tried to maintain a silence for fear of encouraging more vandalism.

The defacing of Jewish memorial areas in Germany by followers of the far Right has become a widespread problem that is acknowledged rarely.

On the eve of Holocaust Day at the weekend a group of youths set fire to a restored railway carriage — symbolising the deportation of the Jews — in Lower Saxony. In the eastern German port of Stralsund, concrete was poured over a memorial for a Jewish family, the Keibel-Cohns.

A court in Frankfurt an der Oder, on the Polish border, sentenced three youths to between nine and 14 months jail this month for urinating on a Jewish memorial.

Original Link.

AFA: “Hollywood Goes Deeper Into The Sewer With Sick Films”

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

And I’m in total agreement with the American Family Association on this one.

Hollywood recently sunk to a new low. In the name of art, two sick movies—among others—were presented at the 2[0]07 Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

One film, “Hounddog,” features a very distrubing scene showing the character of 12-year-old Dakota Fanning being raped. The other film, “Zoo,” is about a man having “unnatural” relations with a horse. (That is as graphic as I am willing to get in this letter.)

These movies represent the sickness which masquerades as “art” in Hollywood.

Here is what Roger Friedman of Fox News says about the rape scene of the 12-year-old in “Hounddog.”

“Since I am one of the few who’ve actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the child’s rape. Once it happens, it’s never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. There’s no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone who’s watching the film. It’s simply there for shock value.”

For more information on the movie, click here.

Why would a parent ever allow their 12-year-old child to star in a movie which depicted her being raped? More disconcerting, Joy Pervis, the agent who discovered Dakota Fanning, described her family as “a good Christian family.”

The producers have even conned rape-assistance groups into using the movie in a public-service announcement!

I consider this nothing less than child abuse!

The other film, “Zoo,” which features the man and horse, is described by Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times as a “strange and strangely beautiful film.” Such is the mentality of Hollywood. Robinson Devor, director of the film, said he was “asked many times, often with a wrinkled brow, ‘Why are you making this film?’ It was something I did resent; I thought artists had the opportunity to explore anything.” The people responsible for these films are sick!

Four companies — Pepsi, Blockbuster, Delta Airlines, and L’Oréal — made large contributions to sponsor the Sundance Film Festival, making it possible for the directors to promote these movies.

AFA Website.

Uproar Over Border Agents to Get White House Review

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

It is amazing how loud the public has to get in order to get the President’s attention. Maybe he can shed some light on all this.

Amid growing criticism from congressmen and activists of its handling of the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents, the White House is opening up a line of communication with lawmakers and promises it will review a transcript of the trial.

During a telephone interview today with WND, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., received a call from press secretary Tony Snow, inviting him to meet for a friendly, unofficial discussion about the case.

Meanwhile, Snow explained to WND the White House’s current stance in a brief interview Sunday.

“What we’re doing is getting the entire trial transcript so everybody can see what happened in trial, and we can try to discern the real facts of the case,” Snow told WND after a luncheon address at National Review’s Conservative Summit in Washington.

He insisted the development does not represent a shift in how the White House is approaching the case.

“I think what’s happened is a lot of people have differing accounts of this, and the best way to resolve them is not by having people scream at each other but by finding out what the fact record is, and that’s what we’re going to do,” said Snow.

Took ya long enough.

Rohrabacher said, however, he has no doubt this is a response to pressure – including campaigns for a pardon and House resolutions to throw out the case – noting that previously the president and his senior staff would not return phone calls from him and other senior congressmen.

“The very fact that they are now willing to look at this case is indication of some progress,” Rohrabacher told WND. “However, if they don’t do an honest assessment – for political reasons, or for ego reasons or for reasons of friendship with the prosecutor – then it doesn’t make any difference if they take a second look, or a first look at the facts.”

Rohrabacher characterized his planned meeting with Snow as a “conversation between two old friends.”

“It’s not a formal negotiation but an opening up of communications,” he said.

The California congressman, along with several Republican colleagues, has been sharply critical of the administration’s handling of the prosecution of former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences Jan. 17, of 11 and 12 years respectively, for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them.

Rohrabacher previously told WND he considered the president’s handling of the case “disgraceful.”

“This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen,” Rohrabacher told WND, referring to the president. “It’s shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party. He obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders.”

Problems with transcript

Snow told Rohrabacher the White House is trying to get a copy of the transcript as soon as possible, but there have been obstacles.

The main problem, according to Rohrabacher, is with the transcript’s accuracy, because the court reporter apparently “wasn’t up to the challenge the case presented.”

The congressman could provide no further details, only that “they’re working on” difficulties with the transcript. He contended, however, the administration has enough of the facts to make a decision now.

“The president shouldn’t have to go to the transcript to see that, on the face of it, this prosecution makes no sense,” Rohrabacher said. “You’ve got a professional drug dealer who was a mule for the cartels, and the prosecutor has been taking that person’s side and his word.”

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton defended his prosecution in an interview with WND.

The White House press office was asked today to answer follow-up questions but has not responded.

A staunch defender of Ramos and Compean, TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told WND he has seen snippets of the transcript and contends there are problems with the prosecution’s case.

“I’m anxious to see the transcript, because I’m not afraid to see what will be revealed,” he said. “Once people find out the truth, they will be even more outraged that the government pursued the case, knowing what they know.”

This reeks of a cover-up.

Original Link.

Feds ‘Knew Smuggler’ in Border Patrol Case

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

More information continues to trickle out about the accusations, trial and conviction of two U.S. boarder guards who “shot” a drug smuggler.
As time goes on, it becomes more and more evident that there is a cover-up and these two border guards were wrongly convicted.

New evidence suggests prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of El Paso lied about how the government found the fleeing illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, according to a Border Patrol advocate closely following the case of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Contrary to claims, no Mexican attorney was involved as an intermediary offering to reveal the identity of the drug smuggler and bring him back to the U.S. in exchange for given immunity to testify against Border Patrol, contended Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol.

“It’s shocking how much lying Johnny Sutton has done about Aldrete-Davila,” he told WND.

“The government made a deal with the devil to put Ramos and Compean behind bars,” Ramirez said. “Sutton’s story about the lawyer in Mexico is a total fabrication, completely and maliciously false. The government knew Aldrete-Davila’s identity from Border Patrol and DHS sources almost immediately after the event.”

Commenting to WND for this story, Sutton insisted there was insufficient evidence to charge the drug smuggler, who was in a foreign country, which would have made it difficult to extradite him.


The government did have a choice to prosecute the drug dealer they had identified as the suspect, he insisted. Instead attorney Sutton and his office decided to give the likely drug smuggler immunity so he could testify against Ramos and Compean.

Ramirez was emphatic in his conclusion.

“If the truth about how the government got their hands on Aldrete-Davila had been told to the jury, there is no way the jury would have believed a word of his story that he was unarmed.”

In the Jan. 19 WND interview with Sutton, a reference to Aldrete-Davila’s family seemed at the time to contradict Sutton’s claim that Aldrete-Davila came forth from a Mexican lawyer seeking immunity. In explaining why his office did not seek to prosecute Aldrete-Davila, Sutton commented in the interview that:

The agents put us in a situation where there was no way to prove in a court that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was connected to that load of marijuana. We would not even known about him had he not come and the investigators for Homeland Security been able to find him through his family.

Now, in the context of the information provided by Andy Ramirez about the connection between agent Rene Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila’s families in Mexico, Sutton’s comment apparently corroborate Ramirez’s account. The DHS agent Sutton to which Sutton referred could be Chris Sanchez, who was working with Aldrete-Davila’s family in Mexico to bring the suspect back to the U.S.

From the beginning of the case, Sutton has claimed he could not prosecute the drug smuggler because the fleeing Mexican got away and left no fingerprints on his van at the scene Feb. 17, 2005. The van was found to contain 743 pounds of marijuana. Aldrete-Davila abandoned the vehicle to head for the Rio Grande on foot, determined to evade arrest from the Border Patrol in hot pursuit.

“Sutton’s attempt to make his decision to prosecute Ramos and Compean look sympathetic falls apart once we realize the government had found the suspect, contrary to Sutton’s claims that finding the suspect was impossible,” Ramirez told WND. “Yet, apparently attempting to cover up the truth, Sutton has stuck to his story that Aldrete-Davila came forward through a Mexican lawyer who shielded the identity of his client until the government gave his client immunity.”

Sutton has consistently claimed that without fingerprints, the prosecution had no alternative but to abandon the idea of prosecuting the perpetrator of the cross-border drug delivery.

Yet, somehow, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila showed up back in the U.S. as a guest of the government. Once Aldrete-Davila was back in the U.S., a U.S. Army doctor removed a bullet that entered his right groin after passing through the left side of his left buttocks. All this was engineered by Sutton’s office, in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, aimed toward obtaining from Aldrete-Davila ballistics evidence that would prove Ramos and Compean had fired and hit Aldrete-Davila as he fled.

WND separately has reported the ballistics evidence failed to tie the weapon fired by agent Ramos with the bullet removed from Aldrete-Davila by the U.S. Army doctor.

Since Aldrete-Davila escaped the scene without being apprehended, Sutton had no way to prove definitively the drug smuggler had been unarmed, unless he could give Aldrete-Davila immunity and obtain his testimony on the stand.

Proving that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed was a central part of Sutton’s case arguing Ramos and Compean had committed assault with the intent to kill under 18 U.S.C., Section 113(a)(c) and seeking to add 10-year mandatory sentences for having committed this assault with their weapons, in violation of 18 U.S. Section 924(c). If Aldrete-Davila was a fleeing, armed drug smuggling suspect, then Sutton simply had no case against Ramos and Compean.

WND previously has reported on a letter Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Oct. 11, 2006, arguing 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) was the wrong statute under which to prosecute Ramos and Compean.

Ramirez told WND that charging Ramos and Compean with 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) showed the determination of the prosecutors to pile on as much prison time as possible on the two agents. The statute carries a mandatory 10-year sentence as additional punishment for carrying or using a weapon in a violent crime, such as rape or drug smuggling.

In his interview with WND, Ramirez charged the government found Aldrete-Davila in an independent investigative manner that would have permitted Sutton to have prosecuted the drug dealer. Instead, Sutton decided to offer Aldrete-Davila immunity and free government-paid medical care, provided he would return to the U.S. and testify against the Border Patrol agents.

Original Link.

Preambles of State Constitutions

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

I found this interesting.

  • Alabama 1901: 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: We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
  • Arizona 1911: We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
  • Arkansas 1874: We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…
  • California 1879: We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.
  • Colorado 1876: We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.
  • Connecticut 1818: The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
  • Delaware 1897: Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
  • Florida 1885: We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…
  • Georgia 1777: We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…
  • Hawaii 1959: We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .. Establish this Constitution.
  • Idaho 1889: We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
  • Illinois 1870: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil l, 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: We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
  • Iowa 1857: 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: We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
  • Kentucky 1891: We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…
  • Louisiana 1921: We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
  • Maine 1820: 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: We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…
  • Massachusetts 1780: 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: We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
  • Minnesota 1857: 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: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
  • Missouri 1845: 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: We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution…
  • Nebraska 1875: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
  • Nevada 1864: 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: 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: We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty…
  • New York 1846: 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: 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: We, the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…
  • Ohio 1852: 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: 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: 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: 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: We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
  • South Dakota 1889: We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties…
  • 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: We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
  • Utah 1896: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
  • Vermont 1777: 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: 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: 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: We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…
  • Wyoming 1890: We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish this Constitution.

OK, so let me recap here:
All the states of the United States of America, in either the Preamble of their state constitutions, or in their state bill of rights, acknowledge the existence of a divine influence.
Eleven of them use terms like “Supreme Ruler of the Universe”, “the Creator”, “Divine Guidance”, “Supreme Being”, “Sovereign Ruler of the Universe”, “the Great Legislator of the Universe”, “Author of Existence” and “Divine Providence”.
The remaining thirty-nine used “God” and “Almighty God” to express their belief in not only a divine power, but a belief in the God of the Bible.

The atheist would have us believe that this country never intended to support or hold religion dear. They are not only holding to the belief that there should be no mention at all of God in government, but that it shouldn’t even be allowed in the public square.
If groups like the ACLU and the quasi-Christians at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, have their way, all vestiges of the Christianity that formed this great nation would be wiped away, never to be recounted again. Religion would be limited to private homes and places of worship.
But even with all of the evidence proving there is a God, and the fact that our founding fathers, at both the national level and state levels, called on Him for guidance and approval, the atheist crowd still continues to try to advance it’s agenda of anti-Christian persecution in direct violation of the state and federal constitutions and bill of rights.
Maybe someday, the people of this country will demand that the government uphold the law of the land as it is written, instead of the way some activist federal or state judge “interprets” it in order to advance his/her agenda.
See my article “What Does the U.S. Constitution Actually Say About Religion?

Copyright © 2005 - 2007 Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian Family, All Rights Reserved