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 »
Following last week’s controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, voters believe more strongly that individual states should have the right to turn their backs on the federal courts.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Perhaps even more disturbing is that the voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.
Special Headline: Guess Who’s About To Go Bankrupt in America [Learn More]
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.
Voters are closely divided in their opinions of both of last week’s major rulings. Negative views of the Supreme Court are at their highest level in nearly nine years of regular surveying. Positive opinions are also up to a less dramatic three-year high.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 30-July 1, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Earlier this year, 26% of voters told Rasmussen Reports that President Obama should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Forty-three percent (43%) of Democrats shared this belief, while 81% of Republicans and 67% of unaffiliated voters disagreed.
The more a voter approves of Obama’s performance, the more likely he or she is to say that states should not have the right to ignore the federal courts.
Higher income voters are more likely to oppose letting states ignore federal court rulings than those who earn less.
Support for ignoring the federal courts is up among most demographic groups, however.
SPECIAL: Let’s blast the hell out of Congress over the same-sex marriage ruling, demand funding for it not be allowed and return to states’ rights, the Constitution and conservative principles!
Most voters have long believed that the Supreme Court justices have their own political agenda, and they still tend to feel that that agenda is more liberal than conservative.
A plurality (47%) of voters continues to believe the federal government has too much influence over state governments, and 54% think states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs that they don’t agree with. Even more (61%) think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them.
The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.
Only 20% now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty. Sixty percent (60%) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead.
The liberal mainstream media has been trying to hide this for years, but race-baiter-in-chief President Barack Hussein Obama’s own family used to own slaves.
Specifically, Obama’s great-great-great-great grandfather on his mother’s side, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves — a 15-year-old black girl and 25-year-old black man.
Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves — a 60-year-old black man and 58-year-old black woman.
Furthermore, the Duvalls, who lived in the 1800s, can be traced back to Mareen Duvall, a land owner in the 1600s who owned 18 slaves.
When this revelation initially broke in 2007, an Obama campaign spokesperson tried to deflect from it by arguing that Obama also had ancestors who “fought for the Union in the Civil War.”
And you can best believe that, according to The Baltimore Sun, Obama made no mention of these slave-owning relatives in his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.”
He and his pals in the mainstream media tried for years to hide his own family’s slave-owning past while they continued hammering white Americans for their ties to slavery and vestigial racism.
That Obama’s ancestors owned slaves in all reality does not matter. What matters are his own actions in the present.
However, because of the politically charged climate in which we live — one in which liberals are pining to erase the Confederacy from our history books — it’s important that all Americans be aware of President Barack Hussein Obama’s own past.
Since this is the weekend of the Fourth of July Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? If you haven’t you should.
NOT ONLY INTERESTING, BUT THINK OF WHAT A GREAT MINI-SERIES THIS WOULD MAKE, IF ONLY THERE WERE ON MORE PATRIOTIC PEOPLE IN THE FILM AND TV BUSINESS...
Their story. . .
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton , Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: freedom is never free!
It's time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July means more than beer, picnics, and baseball games.
True "reflection" is a part of this country's greatness. Please be a participant.
Posted by Curtis Martin
A Muslim barrister has been filmed telling a women’s workshop that the government is lying about the threat posed by Islamic State.
Ibtihal Bsis, a presenter on the London-based Islam TV channel and member of the radical Hizb ut-Tahrir group, tells the meeting in Southampton that as Muslims they are being oppressed and accuses the government of deliberately exaggerating the ISIS threat as an excuse to hound Muslims.
“ISIS are a nobody and they are a nothing; they are allowing them to grow… they are using them for propaganda.”
She also denies that holding radical views leads people to join Islamic State.
“‘If you have an extremism [sic] you’re on a pathway to terrorism’. Incidentally there is no evidence for that at all. None”
BBC South Today reports that Bsis was invited to speak on the government’s ‘Prevent’ counter-extremism strategy. She tells the gathering that they should resist questions from officers, accusing Prevent of demonising Muslims.
“If a Prevent officer, social workers or even the school have asked questions of your child about their salat, their hijab, you can say you’re not entitled to do that.”
She also says:
“All we do is talk, and we have strong ideas, and they’re alternative to the so-called democratic ideas that they have, and they’re not comfortable with that.”
Her comments have been criticised, however, with some accusing her of promoting division between Muslims and wider British society.
Monawar Hussain of the Oxford Foundation told the BBC: “That really is utter nonsense. As a British Muslim, I have more freedom in Britain than I would have in any Islamic country on the face of this Earth.
“If these people are going round trying to sever that relationship that’s not good for our communities, it’s not good for our society, it’s definitely not good for our country.”
Bsis previously spoke at a rally in London last year where she praised Islamic fighters in Syria, saying “their victory is our victory, as their blood is our blood.” In March this year she spoke of her support for controversial charity CAGE who were accused of being apologists for notorious terrorist Mohammed Emwazi, better known as ‘Jihadi John’.
Bsis’s lawyers said in a statement: “It is in all of our interests to stamp out terrorism in the UK and abroad. However, I believe that it is important that as a society we seek to scrutinise the recently passed Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which I, together with a number of experts feel may have a disproportionately negative impact on the Muslim community.
“I am disappointed that the BBC may use the comments which I have made out of context to present the Muslim community and those questioning the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 in a negative light.”
Your support keeps freedom alive!