I dare you to find the word "God" in either document [the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution], except in the dating (Anno Domini)

Okay:

and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

There, I did it. Now what?

Admittedly, this is most likely the Deist creator "God" (who shows up again in "endowed by their Creator") and not the Christian God, but it's there and saying that it isn't won't make it go away. Yes, the founders were generally religious, but Jefferson, who wrote it, was a Deist as were a number of others. This was compromise language that could be accepted by practically anyone who is a monotheist (or even a henotheist). This however hardly makes both documents "replete" with references to God.

Thus this statement by Paul is pure blather:

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

as is this:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion...

The founders took particular care that the government of the United States was not founded on the Christian religion. In fact, they explicitly stated this:

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796
(Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797)
ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

Note the date of both the signing and the ratification. The treaty was negotiated in 1796 while George Washington was still President. It was ratified by the Senate in 1797 under John Adams. This was the 5th US Congress (1797-99) and many of the founders were serving in it. Was this treaty negotiated, signed, and ratified by the founders? — Yes. Was this language acceptable to the founders as the law of the land? — Yes. Was the United States established as a Christian nation? — No.

... to deny shooter the pleasure that he obviously derives from being humiliated. He is clearly a masochist who turns up every day as regular as clockwork to be abused. To deny him this would be cruel behavior. Shooter fills the same ecological niche as the kygmy in Al Capp's Li'l Abner. He exists to be kicked. And he enjoys it.

shooter posts this list periodically (the last time I saw it was on the old UT <http://www.haloscan.com/comments/glenngreenwald/116233071128326510/#50675>), just as he does his list of Democrats who believed that Saddam had WMD in 1998 (when they were part of the executive and had direct access to foreign intelligence and Saddam probably did have some WMD capability) and Fall of 2002 (by legislators who are reflecting the biased and distorted intelligence fed to them by the executive).

Apparently he considers them a Get-Out-of-the-Corner-You've-Painted-Yourself-into-free card for those occasions when he is taking a real bollocking and can't stand it anymore. I don't know where he got it from but it clearly didn't originate with shooter. It is classic projection.

By contrast, shooter (and the rest of his ilk) can be summed up by two simple rules:

• Rule 1 — Bush is always right.
• Rule 2 — If it appears that Bush is wrong, see Rule 1.

Can an oridinary citizen be charged with any offense for advocating disregard for the constiturion? Or, is it still freedom of speech?

It is a crime under USC 18 I.115 § 2385 to advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html), but it is not a crime to advocate disregarding the Constitution. If it were, people like Coulter, O'Reily, Limbaugh, Malkin, and Pat Robertson, who do it for a living, would all be in jail. No, wait ... since it would be a federal crime, it would have to be prosecuted by the DOJ and so a prosecution would be unlikely and even if there were and there were a conviction there probably wouldn't be any jail time because of their long service to the Republican Party. So forget what I said. Even if it were a crime those people would still do it with impunity. I wouldn't advise trying it while being a Democrat though. For Democrats, advocating following the Constitution is treated like a crime, or at least a social disease.