Nothing is guaranteed by a constitution that a foreign entity like the UN is not required to follow.

Also, every right we have is not only a privilege, it's voluntary, as in we can choose to forgo that right as many people did in Germany because they were afraid for their lives.

Also, money, or more accurately, debt is a very indirect and powerful form of control. One can volunteer not to exercise their right when they know that by exercising their right, they won't get the needed funds. Think about it. The most liberal states will always be liberal because their liberalism will be a defining factor on the amount of funds they receive, and they are so desperately in debt, they cannot afford to piss the wrong politicians off. Sure, such control could probably be challenged in court, but can you tell me by which laws or amendments? Can you even prove it because CA is full of like-minded liberals so CA, nor the federal government will ever admit it. Besides that debt desperation doesn't do anything to the politician themselves except make them rich as the more money that flows, the more of it can be skimmed, and the more of it diverted to allies who will in turn donate back to the politician. Sure the state will suffer, but the politician will only become more powerful.

If you need proof, you have only to look to the party who gains the most the more people suffer, the more impoverished they are, the more broken homes there are. Yeah, social programs make massive amounts of money that gets funneled to politicians all over the nation, and not only that, who do people who are suffering, and most often less educated because of the impoverished state they live in, vote for? Who do they support?

Tell me also, what party you think would benefit the most if everyone was successful, either employed or owned their own business, and most who wanted to own their own business knew more or less what they could do to attempt to make an entrepreneur of themselves? LOL, it's obvious. When you look at the reality of what's going on, you begin to see who's benefiting from our failures, and who from our successes. Then when politicians do or support things that would obviously hurt our economy, especially when it turns out those things failed and did indeed hurt our economy, how their power grows at every failure, their money increases at every failure, how people cry out in the streets on their behalf because of the failures.

No, they're not. They're just fooled, like many many more of us would be if we didn't have the failures like Nazi Germany, Communism, and socialism to learn from.

It's just that liberal America has been told by everyone around them to blame the wrong things, to hate certain people, to despise those that earned their place and success in society.

I agree with the arguments on the right side of this page that say some Democrats only support some parts of socialism. For the majority of the Democrats, that's probably true, but those that have the most power and influence, it's obvious what they believe because they've been pushing in the direction of total socialism step by step and they've been pushing hard, either taking all opposition out of the way or assimilating it's loyalty. It's not for no reason that only one major news network in all of the United States still doesn't spin things towards the left. Our educational system seems to produce so many more liberals these days. Think about it, Democrats dominate the arena of education and the text books that are written.

The point I'm trying to make is this, it doesn't matter that most Democrats and liberals are not all about total socialism, the fact is, they're still moving in that direction, and seeing how utterly successful Democrats and their media have been at convincing most of liberal America, literally, to believe any ridiculous thing, like the common expense of a dress worn at an RNC, who freaking cares, leads me to believe that when the time comes, most lower-level Democrats and most of liberal America will still support them.

I mean look at what's happening today. Liberals still back Obama and the Congressional Democrats like never before. Democrats have been at the seat of financial power in this nation for 2 years before Bush left office, yet none of the blame for this economic fiasco is laid upon them by liberal America. Democrats had unchallenged power over this nation for an entire year after Bush left office in both the financial and executive arenas. And for a year after that, republicans only had a single seat in the Senate with which they could only filibuster to stop legislation they didn't agree with, and only if they all agreed would they even be capable of filibustering. Now, for this last year, Republicans have only dominated one half of the financial arm of Government, the House.

In these three years, the first where Democrats had unchallenged control, they proceeded to pass a massive, unprecedented borrowing of money, of which, they have nothing but exaggerated numbers that don't even pass the declining numbers. In the second year, Democrats were about to pass a universal health care bill that was so bad, that it was not changed because of Republican opposition, because Republican opposition did not even matter at that time.

It was changed because of pro-life Democrats in Congress that threatened to side with Republicans if public funds could be used for abortion. After some more hashing, Obama was able to pass the bill on to the House, but again, pro-life Democrats were having difficulty accepting it. Then the MA senator came onto the scene, and finally Republicans could filibuster. However, Obama got the bill attached to a Budget bill so that it would not have to go back to the Senate and be threatened by a Republican filibuster, but still pro-life Democrats were not satisfied. Obama appeased them with an executive order that has questionable power to actually be enforced, and they got that $trillion health care bill attached to that budget bill so that the changes would not have to go back to the Senate for approval.

These were the most damaging things to our economy during these three years, and Republicans had nothing, whatsoever, to do with them. In fact, Republicans called out time and time again how damaging they would be to our nation, and in fact not only produced an alternative to the costly Obama health care bill, but to every single stimulus, to every single borrowing bill the Democrats passed. What's more is that those Republican alternatives focused on job creation and considerably less than even $100 billion, much less $700+ billion that the Democrats passed as they ignored Republicans.

Yet despite all of this, which was reported in the news all throughout, liberal America blames Republicans, one because they blame only Bush despite the fact that Democrats controlled Congress in 2006 and presided over our financial arm of government when the decline started that eventually resulted in a collapse by two very loyally Democrat-supporting companies that conveniently caused our recession just in time for elections.

Despite the fact that Republicans have been against and provided alternatives, and even warned us that we'd go through all we're going through now, liberal America still thinks that it's the Republicans fault for resisting Obama and not working across party lines. Well, Republicans haven't had any power, working across party lines for them would have meant to vote with Democrats on things they did not, at all, think was right for this nation. Apparently, they were right.

So, I say, that regardless of what the majority of liberal America believes today about socialism doesn't matter because when the time comes, they will be convinced by their leaders and liberal-loyal media to support their leaders as we are led into complete socialism.

I can't help it that liberals are so easily convinced. it's not Conservative America's fault that liberals won't think things through before they throw their support behind someone or something.

I mean look at Occupy Wallstreet for crying out loud, a bunch of liberals crying out against big business, just now, because recently, they were told by their leaders that big business was to blame, why, because they're greedy. That's all, and liberals take to the streets all around America in protest to capitalism.

The exaggerated numbers themselves, forgetting the lack of tangible evidence, prove that Obama's borrowing of massive amounts of money did nothing, were dismal failures.

But does that matter to liberal America, no, because they were told big business, greedy, protest, scream, yell, big business, greedy. It's like liberal America has forgotten what it means to have a rational thought for themselves. A nice punchline and a statement that lines up with their baseless preconceived notions, lie or half truth as it may be, and you can literally convince a liberal of anything.

And here's the 2nd most sad part of all of this. Not only do liberals see themselves as the most open-minded and intelligent in society, but they see all who disagree with them as lesser stupid people who need to be controlled so that they don't go blowing up things or starting fires and burning books. And it's because of this arrogance, that they are so easily manipulated, and so easily convinced not to listen to any arguments that would go against their preconceived notions.

You want to know what the most sad part of all of this is:

If liberals actually got all that they wanted, all their leaders were in absolute control of their governments, we went entirely over to socialism, and redistribution of wealth reigned supreme, they'd still end up losing. And you know why? Because, when governments have that kind of power over their people, it's only a matter of time before a dictator will usurp their rights and seek to control them for his/her own ambitions.

It's sad because liberals look at big business as rich, greedy, and using their money to corrupt politicians and politics. What's really sad here is that their answer, the one answer they will fight for, possibly even give their lives for, is to give all of that money that they believe has so corrupted big businesses solely and entirely to those who have the sole power over law.

Let me spell this concept out for the sake of liberals. The common liberal ideal is to take all of the control over the money away from those who are forced to influence others to introduce laws on their behalf and give it's control entirely into the hands of those that actually make the laws. You think corruption is bad now, well wait until those who make the law also control all of the money, as they see fit, then you'll truly see corruption.

This is why I say that even if liberals actually won all they wanted, they have still lost because they gave government unprecedented control over them. Only now, instead of a king-subject relationship where a king always knew that his life depended upon his nobility willing to tolerate him, we'll have a monarchy that's called a Republic, an autocracy that's called a Democracy, and the kings and queens who run it all don't even have to worry about other royalty killing them in their sleep when they screw their nations for their own gain.

Actually we don't know that dinosaurs were gone by that time. We don't actually know when the first human was on this earth. And even if we could pinpoint the time frame rather than merely speculate it, we'd only know of Noah's time because the flood likely wiped just about all traces of man from the face of the earth.

/

As for civilizations, well, you probably don't realize this, but back then the Bible says people lived for centuries. Adam lived to be over 900 years old. His children after him lived for centuries as well. Well, supposing that's true, then that's why there was civilizations back then. You think that the Bible covers all the facets of their lives back then? Do you not realize that we aren't told every detail?

So just because in one paragraph, Able was murdered and in another there was a city doesn't mean that the city existed at the same time that Able was murdered or at the time when Adam left the garden. It only means that it appeared eventually and someone was living there. Just because the Bible doesn't say, "and so many years later," does not mean that it wasn't so many years later. Geez, come on? Do you want the Bible to spell out every little thing that you could easily realize in your own head?

/

Think about it, after about 18 - 20 years we can start reproducing, for the most part, safely, as in the mother won't have complications because her uteris isn't ready yet. Now imagine you live for centuries. If you're having children with your wife for the purpose of bringing more hands to help with the work of survival, you're probably shooting for about 1 kid every 2 to three years depending on supply of resources such as food. And since food was likely very plentiful, they were probably having kids about every year or two.

/

Well, if you remember middle school, you can see that populating an area and creating a city or town wouldn't take but maybe 40 to 60 years. And when you live for centuries, 40 to 60 years is, as the Doctor put it, a pit stop. It's easy to see why the Bible jumped ahead in time so easily, because not much happened other than survival. There were not many big lessons to learn or examples to use, so not much is written because not much is religiously significant for us.

So, please, you have more common sense, I assume, don't just assume there were civilizations.

/

As for the dinosaurs, again, well, I believe they all died in the flood and the reason so many of their fossils remain is only because of the sudden burial under massive amounts of sediment as the water crashed through land as it rose higher and higher. Maybe they didn't and they just died out in environmental changes as many in science speculate. They didn't evolve into birds because that would only mean that one dinosaur survived, the one that is the root for the entire bird family. Birds all have several things in common, and to have that many things in common would mean one common ancestor had to have all of those things. That would mean one dinosaur, just one.

Don't listen to those guys. They don't even realize that a few fossils that might be part of the chain of missing links don't even come a fraction closer to linking the whole chain.

/

I mean imagine if evolution were actually true. Just going from four legs to two, or two to four. Just going from no hump to a hump or from no horn to a horn, going from six to eight legs or from no wings to wings or from scales to actual feathers, or from nose to bill, or e.t.c... would mean several links in a chain of organisms.

/

A few fossils that seem to be part of that chain means nothing. Unless you have like thousands of fossils of different organisms that demonstrate the actual transition and not just a grotesque deformaty that happened to be present in one animal of one species that happened to be preserved.

/

Evolutionists and Atheists sure love to say missing link fossils prove something, but the fact is that there should he links all over the place from organisms that have come gone, stayed and travelled the globe to another location, and there should be quite a bit more than a mere few of them.

/

The fact is, if atheists and evolutionists really actually saw evolution as though it were an actual fact, they'd be questioning all sorts of things and they'd never be able to believe it for sure like they pretend to now. They only believe it now because that's what politically popular science tells them to believe. There's plenty of evidence for creation, they just ignore it because that what politically popular science tells them to do.

/

They have too much faith in the scientific community to be completely fair and unbiased, completely forgetting the fact that science research and it's results are paid for, err, I mean "funded," by those that prefer one opinion over another.

/

Why else would sound scientific evidence be ostracized, downplayed, denounced for little reason, not persued in research to begin with, e.t.c...

/

It's not a conspiracy necessarily, although with the attitudes of current-day atheists that religion must be stopped at all costs, I wouldn't be suprised, but money talks, and money stops talking when science proves the source of that money to be a fool.

Well, it's hard to say really. It all depends on training and some physical characteristics.

If it's a well trained ninja, probably the ninja because he would never go head to head, but would assassinate like a thief in the night. That is their training, after all.

However, if he wasn't as well practiced in his skill, or the pirate was well practiced in his skill, the ninja may be found out and be forced in head to head fighting. However, pirates are a group so likely the ninja would die because he would not be able to take on a whole group of veteran fighters.

Of course, if that ninja were Bruce Lee, well, Bruce Lee would probably never go after the pirate because Bruce Lee didn't like to take on opponents unless there was a prudent reason to do so. I mean he declined martial arts matches for this reason against people he probably could have beaten just due to his sheer speed and agility if nothing else.

My final answer, if trained well enough and the pirates weren't prepared enough, then yes, because he'd assassinate with stealth. If either of the two conditions were opposite, then probably not because the ninja would have to be able to fight better than the pirate and be fast enough to fight more than one at a time.

Atheists use evolution and the big bang as their primary reasons for their faith.

Yet even those two primary reasons do not disprove or indicate that their is no God. Even Christianity, the bain of Atheism is not effected by those two things, even if they were proven facts.

Yet those primary two reasons have never ever been observed in any fashion. They will say that it has, but if that were true, it would not be a theory anymore. What has been observed is the ability of the body to adapt and overcome adversity in it's environment. The body's ability to overcome and survive changes in environment. That's what's been observed and established as a fact.

However, Atheists even ignore that fact.

The fact is, there is way too much that we don't know yet to say that evolution is a fact or that the big bang is a fact. The Atheist merely chooses to put their faith, their trust that those theories or a version of them are, in fact, true.

/

If they are right, who cares, God still exists, Christ is still the Son of God. The Bible account in Genesis was only demonstrating what we could understand that God did to create all of life on the earth.

/

However, if they're wrong, then well, I hope that they can look a truly just creator, Christ, in the face and truthfully and honestly tell Him that they honestly sought Him out and that Atheism was honestly and truthfully the logical answer from where all of their honest searching and seeking of the one true God, who ever He is, led them.

/

Because if they didn't, then God will have to ask why? Why didn't you make sure by honestly seeking me out? Why didn't you trust that the God of all there is and ever was and ever will be, the only truly just that there is would draw closer to you and reveal Himself to you if you only sought Him out? I just hope that the Atheist has a good answer, after all God truly is just and will hear out their answer in all honesty. I guarantee you, you will have no answer because a truly just God as God is, would not allow your seeking to be in vain. He will reveal Himself if you honestly seek Him out. It only make logical sense if God is in fact God, he'd have to be truly just, and a truly just God would not ignore one who is honestly seeking Him out. Also the Bible says that God will draw closer to those that seek Him.

They do pick and choose. Many of them.

You see, the thing is that Atheism is a religion, but Atheists refuse to accept that. This is why they're so choosy about facts.

You see, when I say I don't understand, but I know that God will reveal it one day either now or in the next life . . . The Atheist says i don't understand it but whatever the answer is, it has nothing to do with the divine or God.

I put my faith, my trust that God has the answer. The Atheist puts his/her faith, his/her trust that the answer is has nothing to do with God.

We both have our faith, the only difference is that I admit my answer is my faith, however, the Atheist refuses to acknowledge that their answer is also their faith.

This is why the Atheist is so easily able to be choosy about facts and not even realize it. They refuse to acknowledge one fact, the fact that they have faith in no-God, the fact that the religion of no-God rejects anything, even facts that indicate there is a God, which makes them more a religion than many others. At least most world religions will agree on some concepts that they share, Atheism will agree on no concept of any other religion.

Well, when one starts down the path of denying one fact, it becomes that much more easy to deny other facts as well.

Also, it doesn't help that Atheists tend to have a superior elitest opinion of themselves as being open-minded when in reality they ignore, reject, and ostracize anything at all that disagrees with their religion of no-God.

Another fact that Atheists deny is that the no-God God has been responsible for the worse atrocities in recent human history. Most of the world's communism operates on the no-God religion of Atheism, and somewhat Buddism, which is really just another form Atheism that believes there is a higher place of nirvana we should all strive for.

Then there is Hitler. He acted and talked like man who had no conscience to any God, an Atheist, yet because Catholicism was so popular in that time and Hitler said a few things about God here and there as any dictator desparate to maintain his power would in a nation dominated by a particular religious persuasion, Atheists utterly refuse to accept that Hitler was an Atheist.

They even ignore history. There are very few that did what Hitler did with such an utter lack of conscience to a higher power in all of human history, yet Atheists, even with these facts, they'll utterly ignore the obvious atheistic actions and attitudes of Hitler.

Despite these facts, they also ignore the very real fact that the freest nation in the world was founded by people who did in fact believe in the Biblical Christ Jesus who said that all men are equal in the sight of God, who said that God shows no favoritism, who said that the slave shall be greater than the master in the kingdom of heaven, who said and supported many of the very ideals on which this nation was founded.

Yet the Atheist believe that our founding fathers got those ideals and believed so strongly on those ideals that they were willing to die for them because of theories from Greeks and Romans. Greeks and Romans came up with some good theories, but those theories would never have gotten far without the Christian religion supporting them in the ancient and more recent words of prophets and Christ. Atheists utterly refuse to accept the faith of Christianity was the rock on which this nation founded and established it's ideals and constitution. Unalienable rights had nothing to do with the divine even though without the divine unalienable rights can't possibly exist because the fact is, one man's opinion is another man's joke. But God's opinion, well that holds quite a bit more weight.

One cannot dispute the fact that Christianity solidified the ideals that we hold so dear.

Yet even despite this, what is the main religion that above all others is ridiculed by Atheists? What is the main religion that above all others, Atheists would have regulated and indoctrinated into something that could be more easily controlled? What is the one religion that above all others Atheists would abolish, probably before any other? We all know the answer, Christianity. Christianity is the primary religion about which Athiests complain. Christianity is the primary example that Atheists use when they want to argue that religion should be regulated and controlled, if not completely abolished. Christianity is the primary religion that should take a back seat to society and law.

Yet Christianity never sought to establish a superior race or obliterate another. Yet Christianity never sought to establish complete control of the people in the hands of a few.

Yet Christianity never sought to force all people into one religion, at least not the religion itself didn't. Some who wanted power and wealth may have attempted to and failed.

Yet Christianity never sought to usurp the rights of the people for the sake of a pretend social equality. Atheism did at the hands of just about all of the Communist nations.

So yes, Atheists ignore a lot of facts, they just refuse to admit it, thus they continue in their ignorance of self-believed superior open-mindedness ignoring every fact that indicates that their religion is wrong or harmful in a society.

I see no picture. Are you referring to the smiley face, well then sure, I like it, but only because I'm partial to smiley with sunglasses. Otherwise, I see no picture.

Disobedience to God, which is sin, cannot be allowed into heaven.

/

It's obvious that we as humans, with our very finite understanding cannot truly understand why just any sin can condemn us to hell for an eternity.

/

We can try and understand, but we won't completely until God has revealed it to us.

/

The fact is, God has told us ahead of time that we will be judged and that any, even the smallest amount of disobedience, such as eating a mere fruit like Adam and Eve did when told not to, is hell-worthy for all of eternity.

/

We may not understand this, but it is so. And we can either accept that, move on and do our best to do what's right through Christ, or we can reject it and move on with doing what we think is right.

/

The choice is presented, and it is ours to make. No one else can make that decision for us. Not even God will make that decision for us. It is our sacred and divine right to make that decision for ourselves.

/

However, do not forget that God has not just done away with us. God has not left us without a way out. He knows how strict He is, but He has given us mercy, He has provided a way of being redeemed so that we can choose not to suffer for all eternity.

/

We do not have to do this or that. We do not have earn this or prove that. All we have to do is merely choose to accept Christ and follow Him.

/

We follow Christ, accept his sacrifice and resurection, and follow God by growing ever closer to Him by learning about Him and honoring Him, and we will not only be saved, salvation is the free part, but we will earn rewards. Rewards are the things you have to actually earn by your works. However, works are necessary after salvation to grow in God. If you do not grow in God, you will be tripped up somewhere along the way and may be pulled back into the life of sin that you left for Christ.