Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
Note about the U.S. Constitution:
While we hear about the "separation of powers," that terminology is not to be found in the Constitution, This idea, is like another assertion we may often witness to the effect that we have "co-equal branches" of government. The words "Co-equal branches" does not appear in the Constitution. Well. . . these principles are not in the provisions of the Constitution, and the content of the Constitution itself can prove this beyond any doubt.
But the Constitution does afford Congress the ability to exercise power over either the Judicial or Executive branches. The distribution of powers is more of a distribution of tasks with Congress at the helm.
Consider the Supreme Court, for instance. We see that, while the members of the Supreme Court are "nominated" by the President, they must be approved by Congress to take office. So Congress has the upper hand here! Also, Congress can remove a Supreme Court Judge (Art. III, Sect. 1): "The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior federal courts, may be removed by Congress, for bad "behavior." The Constitution does NOT define Supreme Court appointments as lifetime appointments, but the Constitution provides for "a compensation. . .during their continuance in office," a specific term not specified, but allowed to continue, unless Congress determines "bad behavior." Who should be the interpreter of the Constitution? I think the intents of those who wrote it. And, who is a member of the Judicial body to tell Congress what the laws they write mean? Well. . .?!
The Judicial department is a matter of a designation of tasks, all of which Congress holds primarily. Congress writes the laws and allows the Judicial to hear and try cases, to implement as may apply in various cases. This doesn't give the Supreme Court power over Congress. But Congress can remove both any and all Justices of any Federal Court and reset, or re-establish or permanently terminate any Federal Court whatsoever! It is Congress that "may from time to time establish" "inferior courts."
So Congress has such power over the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, that it can remove justices as it chooses! In addition Congress can delete, wipe out entire court systems as it chooses! So . . Congress has power over the Judicial branch. And that's the truth!
Congress can also exercise various powers over the Executive branch in addition to its ability to impeach the President and remove him from office. The President is to "faithfully execute the laws," and there are rules Congress itself orders apart from any Presidential approval: Art. 1 Sect. 8: "Congress shall have the power to. . .taxes. . .commerce. . .rule of naturalization. . .coin money. . .punish counterfeiting. . .extends copyright. . .set up courts. . .punish piracies and felonies on the high seas. . .declare war. . .make rules concerning captures (military). . .raise and support armies. . .maintain a navy. . .make rules for the government and regulation of the land, sea (and air) forces. . .call forth the militia. . ."
The U.S. President is not given any power that is not under Congress in some way. The only exception to this is the power to pardon officials, and others who have committed crimes against the United States itself--That's it. The President has a "veto" for laws written under Section 7, but Congress can over-ride that veto. The President is a CEO of the country and Commander-in-Chief of the Military, but in so far as the President "executes faithfully" the laws and rules made by Congress. Neither is the President "Commander-in-Chief" unless under such a time as Congress has called forth military into active service somewhere--The Constitution says this in Article II.
The President's real power is in his position to influence. This makes all the difference in that, since the President is NOT afforded dictatorial power, the office of the President must utilize leadership. Leadership is the skill and ability to guide and direct others as to where they want to be, rather than ordering others according to some kind of Kingly assertions of personal whims!
If we do not want to suffer under tyranny, we must demand that the real and actual provisions of our U.S. Constitution be followed, and not violated! Thoughout our history, time after time, power grabs have been exercised. Presidents making treaties without the 2/3 required Senate Confirmation, for instance! And Presidents acting to declare war without stating so, also unofficially, but still actually! We need to be tired of all of this and not take it anymore!
While it is clear that Congress is not using all of the powers that the Constitution has afforded to it, we must educate others about this and act to implement the provisions of our Constitution that protect our rights and restrict dictatorial powers! We do have our Congresses having passed various "acts," and "laws," that have been written to get around the provisions of the U.S. Constitution! Well . . .there really isn't any other way to alter the Constitution apart from its amending process described within the Constitution itself.
So, what about the oath of office all the officials of the government take to follow the U.S. Constitution without reservation?! All those in the Senate and the House who voted for the War Powers Act, The Patriot Act, and other such measures that violate the U.S. Constitution, etc., should all be impeached for violating their oaths of office. Ha! True! But will they impeach themselves--there are so many of them!
Education is sorely needed! Those running for office must educate and the need is for candidates who are truly supporters of the U.S. Constitution! It is also true that no "act" or "law," that does not agree with the Constitution, indeed violates it--no such "act" or "law" can trump the U.S. Constitution! So, what can and should we do?!
For Congress to turn to the Supreme Court for a ruling about a treaty such as the U.S. treaties, would be for Congress to deny its own power! All that is needed is for Congress itself to state that such treaties are unconstitutional, in a "Resolution" (or other kind of formally stated memorial), separately by the House and/or the Senate, or a joint Resolution (NOTE: Resolutions stating the will of one house of Congress or another are not "bills," requiring a Presidential signature or veto to be valid!)! In addition there are many powers of Congress that supersede that of the President.
It is worthy of note that Obama has been setting his own rules in the military, while Constitutionally he is limited to the rules that Congress should be making exclusively! A President can only execute the laws, and not make the laws! God help us!
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim ... It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you! Call it Free Syrian Army ... call it Syrian Opposition ... call it whatever you want, and what our resident president chooses ... but it is ALL ISIS !! Obama has been arming, funding, and using our troops to train them ... all using OUR tax dollars! How crazy is that ! Now he is sending $500 million more of our tax dollars to them ...
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim ... It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you! Call it Free Syrian Army ... call it Syrian Opposition ... call it whatever you want, and what our resident president chooses ... but it is ALL ISIS !! Obama has been arming, funding, and using our troops to train them ... all using OUR tax dollars! How crazy is that ! Now he is sending $500 million more of our tax dollars to them ... and the funniest but saddest part of all of this is that it is just a façade so he can build his Muslim caliphate! MJB
OBAMA’S “MODERATE” SYRIAN REBELS: “Our jihad started in Syria and it won’t finish until we are on your land and this banner in Allah’s name, will be raised on the White House”
ATTENTION AMERICA! These are the so-called ‘moderate’ rebels to whom Barack Hussein Obama just pledged $500 million. Call them what you will – FSA, Free Syrian Army or Syrian Opposition – they are all ISIS and Obama has been arming, funding, and using our troops to train them for more than two years. Now he is going to give them $500 million more of your tax dollars. What are you going to do?
These “moderates” are anything but moderate. They not only are no different than the al Qaeda offshoots of al-Nusra Front and ISIS, but most of them have joined forces with one of these groups. There is no Free Syrian Army. There are only Islamic terrorist groups whose mutual goal is to bring down the secular Assad Regime and replace it with an Islamic Caliphate.
Click CC button for English subtitles if you don’t see them:
No one is good--except God alone.
Why does God allow tragedy? Why does He allow babies to be born with disabilities? Why does He permit wars to rage? If God can prevent such hardships and heartaches, why doesn't He?
Here is the classic statement of the problem: Either God is all-powerful but He is not all good, therefore He doesn't stop evil. Or, He is all good but He is not all-powerful, therefore He can't stop evil. And the general tendency is to blame all of the problems of the world on God, to say that God is the one who is somehow responsible.
"If God is so good and loving," people will say, "why does He allow evil?" By even stating it in that way, however, what they're really saying is they don't believe God to be good and loving.
By questioning God's goodness and love, we are in essence saying that we know more about it than He does. The fact is, God doesn't become good because that is our opinion of Him or because we happen to personally agree with His actions or His words. Nor does He become good because we vote on it and all agree that is the case.
God is good because God says He is good. And it is not up for a vote.
You see, God is good whether I believe it or not, and He alone is the final court of arbitration. As the apostle Paul said, "Let God be true, and every human being a liar" (Romans 3:4, NIV).
What, then, is "good"? Good is whatever God approves. And by the same token, bad is exactly what God says is bad. Some might say, "That's circular reasoning," but I would describe it as biblical reasoning. The Word of God is our source of truth, defining right and wrong and what our values ought to be.
In Isaiah 1:18 we read, "'Come now, and let us reason together,' says the Lord." God is saying, "Here's the way I see things. You need to see it the way I see it." And He goes on to tell us that His thoughts are above our thoughts and His ways are above our ways.
He is good. If you don't start there, you'll never get anywhere.
Confronted with pure evil in the form of ISIS, President Barack Obama treats the jihadists as if they represented an isolated threat that can be dealt with on its own. ISIS (or ISIL as the U.S. government calls it, or the Islamic State as the jihadists now call themselves) has no relationship to Islam, according to the president and his Secretary of State John Kerry.
ISIS is “not Islamic,” Obama declared in his speech last week announcing the steps he intends to take to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. “And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” It is “a terrorist organization, pure and simple,” Obama added.
In other words, according to the president, ISIS is for all intents and purposes made up of a bunch of nihilists who just engage in terrorism for terrorism’s sake. There is no purpose to what they are doing other than their pleasure in the deaths and mayhem they wreak, he would have us believe.
This fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy we are fighting will continue to result in Obama’s piecemeal muddle that passes for a “strategy.” Are we even in a war? It depends on which member of the Obama administration is speaking and on what day. When are we going to start bombing ISIS in Syria as the president said he was prepared to do in his speech last week? Are we waiting to put together a “coalition” to bring the fight to ISIS on the ground while we send in some military advisors and otherwise limit ourselves to air strikes? Apparently so, since the president has already made clear to the enemy what we will not do. And talking about coalitions, it seems that ISIS has had more success in that arena. All Obama and Kerry have managed to do so far is to cobble together vague pledges from some countries without specific commitments that we know of to contribute combat troops. ISIS, on the other hand, has reportedly recruited fighters from around seventy countries. These fighters are committed to ISIS’s fight for a caliphate. And the idea that we can find and train enough reliable so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels to “partner” with, who are motivated to take on the jihadists with “boots on the ground,” is a joke.
Indeed, ISIS and its other jihadist cohorts do have a vision, contrary to Obama’s confusion of terrorist tactics with their endgame of Islamic supremacy. Terrorist tactics, along with stealth jihad tactics of infiltration and manipulation of our institutions, serve to achieve this endgame. And while different jihadist groups may squabble among themselves over who represents the purest form of Islam, they are united by their hatred of the “infidels” – and the intent to covert, subjugate or kill as many of us as possible. Whatever name they go by, whether it is ISIS, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or the Islamic Republic of Iran that supports some of these groups and others, they all represent an indivisible threat to global peace, security and individual liberties. They are, in short, part of a common enemy driven by the same pathological supremacist ideology.
Unlike President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees the threat and its animating ideology without rose-colored glasses. Addressing a conference of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Prime Minister Netanyahu described the repugnant vision as one of global supremacism.
We’ve seen this before. There’s a master race; now there’s a master faith. And that allows you to do anything to anyone, but first of all to your own people and then to everyone else… The goal is we establish a new Islamist dominion, first in the Middle East and in their warped thinking, throughout the world. They all agree on that. They are not limited in their scope to a territory. They’re not limited to borders.
While Obama went through the motions in commemorating the anniversary of 9/11 and has displayed moral confusion, Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke eloquently with moral clarity about what is at stake for the civilized world:
I believe that the battle against these groups is indivisible and it’s important not to let any of these groups succeed anywhere because if they gain ground somewhere, they gain ground everywhere. And their setbacks are also felt everywhere. If they gain ground, if they were to succeed, they would return humanity to a primitive early medievalism … where women are treated as chattel, as property and gays are stoned and minorities persecuted if they’re left alive at all.
Prime Minister Netanyahu knows firsthand that a true leader cannot make excuses for jihadists who fancy themselves as custodians of the “master faith” of Islam, nor negotiate with them. It does not make any difference how they label themselves. They are all branches of “the same poisonous tree,” as the prime minister put it. “These groups have absolutely no moral or other impediment to their mad desires. Once they have massive power, they will unleash all their violence, all their ideological zeal, all their hatred, with weapons of mass death,” he added.
President Obama mistakenly believes that he can separate the branches of the poisonous tree and engage with some of them as if they were unrelated fruit trees. Thus, his fruitless outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood and to the Iranian regime.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is under no such illusion. With moral clarity, he understands the jihadist ideology of Islam supremacism that we are up against and what is at stake if we do not defeat it. President Obama does not, which places us at risk of another even deadlier attack on our homeland.
By: Author, Joseph Klein
Your support keeps freedom alive!