Profile image
By John Rolls (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Bisexual Senator Loves the Constitution Yet, Shuns the Author – Then On Whose Behalf is She Serving? - Bradlee Dean +Video

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

By: Bradlee Dean  /   Sons of Liberty Media

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian  religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of FREE governments.” -Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Dr. Jerry Newcomb reported this week on Sons of Liberty Media that last week, the first openly bisexual U.S. senator was sworn in, and she refused to be sworn in on the Holy Bible, as is customary. She instead opted for a law book with the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.  She says she chose the book because of her “love for the Constitution.”

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema has a first name that ironically means “Follower of Christ” in Latin.  In addition to being openly bisexual, she is also listed as the “only member of the Senate who does not identify as a member of a religion” according to the Pew Research Center for Religion and Public Life.

A representative that promises to serve the people yet, shuns the author? If she does not love God, then how is it that she can serve His government on the behalf of His people (1 John 5:2)?

If she declares that she does not believe in God (Psalm 14:1), then whom does she make reference when it comes to that which is right and wrong, according to law (Exodus 20)?

If it is not God’s government that she is too serve in upholding the enumerated laws of the US Constitution that she claims to love, then one has to ask as to where her loyalty lies? Plain and simple, she then is undermining American law, period.

It is not the people that gave her delegated authority to do act out in such a manner, for the people received their rights from the One that she denies.  Think about it. This idolater has no business whatsoever serving in the US government in any capacity (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Furthermore, she claims to be a bisexual (Romans 1:24-32) woman.  Anyone paying attention to the fact that when a people advocate that which the Lord condemns (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), a door is soon open for the enemies to walk through (Deuteronomy 4:6; contrast 28:63).

First, the sodomite communities get a pass from the people in this country to do that which God and American law (The two sciences that run together-James Wilson) clearly condemn (Look to your states statues).

Secondly, on the heels of the sodomites are the subversive Communists, Muslims and God knows who else, who are not here to assimilate, but to destroy (Deuteronomy 28:43).  There is a clear pattern being played out before your eyes and it must be carefully watched (Proverbs 14:34).

It’s happened in France, Germany, Canada, etc.

Now let’s counter this subversive nonsense and take a look to what, in contrast to this said senator what it is that our founding forefathers have established.

Founding father John Witherspoon said:

“Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country …”

Witherspoon concluded:

“It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier …

God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.

… the Glory of God, the public interest of religion and the good of others, as civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue. A Republic must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.”

These people are reprobates and are standing in direct opposition to our founding forefathers and what it is that they established.

President John Adams said:

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

Where did our forefathers get this understanding? Look to their forefathers.

Mayflower Compact

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great BritainFrance, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of EnglandFrance, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620

Now Americans, look to your forefathers.

On April 30, 1789, the first president of these united States, George Washington, took his oath with his hand on the Bible open to Deuteronomy 28, the chapter that promises blessings and curses on a nation in accordance with its faithfulness or unfaithfulness to keep God’s Word.

At the end of the oath, Washington added the words “So help me God,” and leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Since then, President Andrew Jackson stated:

“The Bible is the Rock upon which our REPUBLIC rests.”

“The Bible is the cornerstone for American liberty.” – President Thomas Jefferson

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it (the Constitution) a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”  -Alexander Hamilton

Either the American people are going to take heed to the Word of God in keeping His Commandments or they are going to willfully subject themselves to His curses (Exodus 23:32-33).

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/bisexual-senator-loves-the-constitution-yet-shuns-the-author-then-on-whose-behalf-is-she-serving/

 

 

Report abuse
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite

Comments

Your Comments
Question Razz Sad Evil Exclaim Smile Redface Biggrin Surprised Eek Confused Cool LOL Mad Twisted Rolleyes Wink Idea Arrow Neutral Cry Mr. Green

Total 5 comments
  • DK

    A Constitutionalist is a follower of republicanism, legalism and secularism, specifically the liberty to believe to hold property and to be represented are enshrined with no restrictions other than to obey the constitutional government and laws it made, the founding charters of the colonies were local government and they became subservient to state governance but continued on as bylaws. The only time there was a possibility of a religiously basee constitution was under colonialism. That persons transgender and lack of a common belief has certainly rubbed the writer up the wrong way, but that has nothing to do with Christianity nor did Christianity have anything to do with a masonically authored constitution which Jefferson wrote into the text divine providence once but entirely left out whose and from what church. It sort of drags the believers in, yes it could be me like a lottery advert, but you already know its not.

    • Rockledge

      The notion that republicanism is an element of being a constitutionalist is a bit misleading. The modern republican party has very little in common with Linbcolns republican party, other than being a protector of the interests of corporations and financial entities.

      In reality, it was a republican appointee dominated Supreme Court that rendered laws against pervert marriage unenforceable.

      Both political parties exploit the constitution as they see fit. Neither represents the will of the people and neither resemble either the founding fathers ideals or the parties in their original incarnations. Neither party is strict constitutionalist, much as they may pretend to be.

      The reality is that we have had a few hundred years of law books being filled, and our legal system now depends as much on legal precedent as it does the constitution, although theoretically the constitution is still the yardstick.

      One thing the religious right ( who I disagree with vehemently on most issues) was right about, giving freaks a foot in the door would given time inspire them to try to pervert all of society, which they very much have.

      Although you are right that it is a secular government designed mostly by men who escaped imposed religion, the reality is that Christianity did indeed have an influence on this countries development and design. A very major influence. The founding fathers did in no way intend this to be a “Christian” country, they did, however, envision a nation of free religion in a situation where the dominant religion, by a large margin, was various factions of Christianity.

  • Rockledge

    The united states is not , by any stretch , “Gods government”. It is very much a man designed secular government, and always has been. Capitalism is far from being similar to the government and economic ideals God put in place in the old testament.
    Which is part of the problem. Men fled countries of imposed religion to be free from it.
    As it turns out, being a society in which men are free to choose what religion and what level of religion they practice doesn’t work either.
    Because those who chose “without” tend to pollute society with evil practices.

  • Rockledge

    Also:

    Mr Washington was a Deist.
    Mr. Hamilton and Mr Jefferson spoke the opinions of two men, and obviously did not speak for the eventual decisions that the signers of the constitution put their mark on.
    Politicians have given their opinions of what this country is founded upon for its’ entire history, and do so to this day. That doesn’t mean their opinions are the definitive.

  • st

    people need to stop living between there legs. any one who will sleep with anyone should not have power :idea: :arrow:

SignUp

Login

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.