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: Who would you choose as the next Speaker of the House of Representatives?
View poll and comments »
U.S. Constitution › First Amendment
Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the FREE exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No where in any founding document does it state 'separation of church & state'. Make the lie big enough, say it often enough....and then if all else fails act like bullies and sue.
2nd SUIT AGAINST UNDER #GOD NEW STRATEGY 2 SECULARIZE #AMERICA http://j.mp/1jAS6nt #tcot #ccot #teaparty #Constitution #1stA #liberty
According to the propagandists for the centralization of the American national government in 1787, known euphemistically today as “Federalists,” the size, scope, and diversity of the United States is supposed to make such looting impossible. The claim that a larger and more expansive government produces more freedom may seem counterintuitive to some, but such is the proposition taught to American school children year after year.
We have James Madison, and specifically his Federalist Paper No. 10, to thank for the popularity of this rather dubious theory.
In the essay, Madison’s position is that large expansive republics are superior to small limited republics because they balance a variety of “factions” (by which he meant interest groups and voting blocs) against each other and prevent any single group from unduly influencing the government. In a small republic, Madison argued, small factions are able to easily take control of the state’s resources or the state itself. Included among these factions is any large voting bloc with similar interests. The majority and its alleged penchant for the oppression of the minority can be controlled by cancelling out the interests of local majorities at the national level with majorities from other states, thus leading to a balanced population in which no particular faction can gain an upper hand.
Madison’s purpose was to demonstrate that if the American states were allowed to remain largely independent, as they indeed were in 1787, they would degenerate into despotism, but if the states were all consolidated into one federal system, the different factions within the many states would be balanced out and no group or alliance could ever take control of the new government.
A New Jersey school district has been sued over "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The suit was brought by an anonymous atheist couple. If the state court in New Jersey rules that, indeed, it is discriminatory for public schools to include "under God" in the Pledge and that the schools can no longer recite the Pledge or they must recite it without "under God", what will you instruct your children / grandchildren to do? Not comply? or Comply?
A story from another of our tolerant and inclusive public universities.
Despite attempts to silence her and like-minded friends, Stanford University senior Judy Romea refused to back down.
Romea, president of a campus group, had hoped to create a civil atmosphere during an all-day conference at Stanford that she helped organize to discuss “marriage, family, and sexual integrity.” Then the school’s Student Graduate Council defunded the event and slapped her group, the Stanford Anscombe Society, with a hefty “security” fee in an attempt to quash the pro-marriage event.
Romea persevered, though, and led the Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS) to put on a successful conference April 5 called Communicating Values: Marriage, Family & the Media. In an exclusive interview with The Foundry, she discussed what motivated her to push forward while facing uncharitable resistance.
“The whole point of SAS is not to declare political victory when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage,” Romea said. “That’s a very myopic view. The mission is really to engage each other and show the world what real and valuable relationships are [between] people who agree and disagree.”
Romea, who was born and grew up in Valencia, Calif., founded SAS as a college freshman. The group, named after British philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, meets weekly to discuss the roles of family, marriage, and sexual integrity in the lives of Stanford students.
Romea says she never expected to be met with hostility by Stanford classmates and student leaders. Instead, she hoped the group would promote a culture of dialogue and tolerance on Stanford’s diverse campus. She hoped to see relationships and conversations thrive.
Romea’s interest in the study of marriage and family began early, she says. A conference held by the Ruth Institute in 2012 first sparked her interest in academic arguments regarding marriage and human sexuality. Even as a high school student, she says, she often talked to friends about the value of stable relationships.
One goal of her group’s conference was to “expose [students] to the intellectual and rational arguments for marriage, as well as [other] tools they have at their disposal with which to communicate their values,” Romea said.
These good intentions apparently didn’t matter to leaders of the Graduate Student Council. Romea, a business major, was buckling down for final exams when the student government group unexpectedly pulled funding for the conference—to her frustration and disappointment.
The student council expressed disapproval with the ideology of the scheduled speakers, several of whom were advocates of marriage as the union of a man and a woman—and oppose redefining marriage. Among them was Ryan T. Anderson, The Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon fellow, whom the student council claimed March 5 would make some in the campus community “feel threatened.”
To counter the “unsafe space” the student council also said the marriage conference would create, it ordered Romea’s group to provide $5,600 for event security or cancel. After SAS garnered some media attention by publicly demanding the lifting of what Romea called a “tax on free speech,” the university administration “found” sufficient funds to cover security costs.
Romea was struck by the fact that some Stanford students seem to think marriage should be an off-limits topic for her group. The irony to her was that although the lecture forum is designed to be a place where diverse ideas can be expressed, some were disgruntled that invited speakers would oppose the redefinition of marriage. She said:
A void in the campus discourse exists regarding marriage, family, and human sexuality. At best, deviations from these values are viewed as strange, while at worst, they’re the result of bigotry and hatred — as we saw with the funding controversy regarding this conference.”
Romea didn’t press ahead alone, though. She attributes the success of the event to the hard work and courage of fellow SAS leaders Elisa Figueroa and James Capps, as well as planning committee members Irene Onyeneho and Josephine Romea (her sister).
Through it all, Romea says, her mother cheered her on. When she thought twice about holding the conference, her mother encouraged her, saying, “Why would you back down when anything that is good requires a lot of sacrifice and a lot of tenacity?” Romea felt her confidence return.
“Standing up for marriage [takes] a commitment to living your life according to your principles,” she said.
Marriage advocates need each other at a time when they are being tarred as bigots or worse, she told The Foundry.
“It’s beautiful to be able to collaborate with other individuals on something like this,” she said, adding:
If the whole controversy has taught me anything, it’s that the fight for marriage and family will be won, not by shouting down the other side, but through teamwork and friendship of the kind demonstrated by the Stanford Anscombe Society’s members and supporters.”
The U.S. government’s and news media’s demonization of Putin (who’s no saint) should not be allowed to overshadow the fact that America’s rulers have needlessly provoked the Russians, the coup in Kiev being just the latest example. In 1998, the architect of the postwar containment policy, George Kennan, warned that humiliating Russia by expanding NATO “is a tragic mistake.”
Must we learn this the hard way?
Your support keeps freedom alive!