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.
First it was one church. Then a second joined. Now there’s an online presence and a campaign for people of faith across the nation to recognize that God comes first, ahead of nation, and that means the Stars and Stripes will be accorded second place, behind the Christian flag.
According to a report from WBTV in Charlotte, North Carolina, Pastor Rit Varriale is placing the Christian flag at the top, with the American flag below it, on the flagpole at Elizabeth Baptist Church in the town of Shelby.
“Our typical flag etiquette is to have the American flag above the Christian flag. But when you stop and think about it, it should be our commitment to God first, then our commitment to country,” he told WBTV.
He admits he got the idea from Pastor Walter Wilson, down to road, at Focus Missionary Baptist Church.
And Wilson said the idea just came to him.
“As I was changing the rope one day, the Lord just laid on me that He is first and when He told me that, I switched the flags around.”
Now Varriale has launched the God Before Government website, through which other pastors are encouraged to join the movement.
There, he writes, “If there was ever a time when people need to stand up for traditional values and beliefs, it is now. On Sunday July 5th, Elizabeth Baptist Church in Shelby, North Carolina, took its stand with a flag raising ceremony that displayed the Christian flag over the American flag. This new approach to flag etiquette symbolizes that our service and commitment to God is greater than our service and commitment to government – especially a government that coerces us to violate our commitments to God.”
He said churches need to “start flying the flags in such a manner that it is clear we will serve God before government. If your church is willing to join ours, please take a picture of the flag pole at your church, post it on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter using the hashtag #GodBeforeGovernment, and join the conversation about religious freedom and the role of government in modern society.”
On the site, he advises readers that silence is “no longer an option.”
He recalled a prayer offered to the North Carolina General Assembly, in which he said, “The sad truth about the church is that it often takes the path of ease, when instead it should take the path of resistance, responsibility and reform. … The American church, like the German church of the 1930s and 1940s, is free of persecution because it has done little that is worthy of persecution.”
Both pastors told WBTV they hope to spark a movement across the land – especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that created same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states.
Varriale acknowledges that some claim the move is disrespectful. And unpatriotic.
But the former Army Ranger brushes it off.
“I really don’t need a lecture on patriotism, I’m willing to give my life for my country. When you think of military mottos, for example, God and country, God first and then country,” he told WBTV.
Varriale he said the position of the flag is a symbol that congregations will serve God first.
One online commenter, Dave Higginson said, it’s a wakeup call for Americans “that God blessed us with our country and [Christians] should not, nor ever will, play ‘second fiddle.”
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!