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: Now that CPAC is over- who do you think is the front-runner for 2016?
Congressman Paul Ryan
Former Senator Rick Santorum
Former Gov Huckabee
Dr. Ben Carson
Other- Discuss below!
View poll and comments »
Montgomery, AL – Today, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Tom Parker, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the word “child” in Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute applies to the born and unborn in Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks. This decision follows a similar one handed down last year by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ankrom v.
Montgomery, AL – Today, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Tom Parker, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the word “child” in Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute applies to the born and unborn in Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks. This decision follows a similar one handed down last year by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ankrom v. State, where Alabama’s highest court also ruled that the word “child” includes the “unborn child.” In that case, Liberty Counsel’s amicus brief arguing that the protection of the unborn is in keeping with the protections afforded the born in various areas of the law.
“In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions. One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards. Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child,” said Staver.
Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks involved the conviction, following a guilty plea, for chemical endangerment of a child. Hicks ingested cocaine while pregnant with “J.D.,” which resulted in J.D. testing positive for cocaine at the time of his birth. Hicks argued that the word “child” in the chemical-endangerment statute did not apply to an unborn child. The trial court rejected the argument presented by Hicks. Relying on the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Ankrom. v. State, the Criminal Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “the plain meaning of the word ‘child,’ as that word is used in the chemical-endangerment statute, includes an unborn child.” The opinion goes on to state that “the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development and has done so by enacting the chemical-endangerment statute.”
The concurring opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker are particularly significant because they reveal the flaws in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions, beginning with the 1973 case of Roe. v. Wade.
Read excerpts of the Judge's opinions at: http://www.themoralliberal.com/2014/04/1......
But Jesus called the children to Him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these ..."
I believe if this passage hadn't fallen by the wayside, like many others, there would not be so many troubled and immoral children in this nation!
Listen up patriots!
World Bank wants water privatized
Humans can survive weeks without food, but only days without water —
in some conditions, only hours. It may sound clichéd, but it’s no
hyperbole: Water is life. So what happens when private companies control
the spigot? Evidence from water privatization projects around the world
paints a pretty clear picture — public health is at stake.
In the run-up to its annual spring meeting this month, the World Bank
Group, which offers loans, advice and other resources to developing
countries, held four days of dialogues in Washington, D.C. Civil society
groups from around the world and World Bank Group staff convened to
discuss many topics. Water was high on the list.
It’s hard to think of a more important topic. We face a global water
crisis, made worse by the warming temperatures of climate change. A
quarter of the world’s people don’t have sufficient access to clean
drinking water, and more people die every year
from waterborne illnesses — such as cholera and typhoid fever — than
from all forms of violence, including war, combined. Every hour, the
United Nations estimates, 240 babies die from unsafe water.
The World Bank Group pushes privatization as a key solution to the
water crisis. It is the largest funder of water management in the
developing world, with loans and financing channeled through the group’s
International Finance Corporation (IFC). Since the 1980s, the IFC has
been promoting these water projects as part of a broader set of privatization
policies, with loans and financing tied to enacting austerity measures
designed to shrink the state, from the telecom industry to water
But international advocacy and civil society groups point to the pockmarked record of private-sector water projects and are calling on the World Bank Group to end support for private water.
In the decades since the IFC’s initial push, we have seen the results
of water privatization: It doesn’t work. Water is not like
telecommunications or transportation. You could tolerate crappy phone
service, but have faulty pipes connecting to your municipal water and
you’re in real trouble. Water is exceptional.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=99d_13977...
Confusion of Republic and Democracy
Over time the terms republic and democracy have come to have meaning bit blurring them together. This may stem back to President Woodrow Wilson’s characterizing World War I as an effort to make the world safe for democracy. President Wilson was mistaken.
Written Constitutions and Republics of Limited Power an American Contribution to the World
Over the history of mankind, there have been documents alleging to be constitutions in that they have written out governmental powers. These documents have generally been placed into effect by a monarch, oligarchy or dictator, and as they have not been submitted to and approved by the people at large, they do not meet the true definition of a constitution.
The process of establishing a constitution and having the government derive its authority from the approval of the people through a ratification process is an American contribution to human social organization. The evolution of the written constitution in America is often said to have started with the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which set forth the powers and organization of that colony around 1638. The result of that is Connecticut’s nickname, the Constitution State.
Over the next 140 years, political evolution of the concept of a constitution continued in the colonies and culminated in the Philadelphia Miracle in the Summer of 1787, the United States Constitution and the creation on a national scale for the first time, a Republic.
- See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/guest-commentar...
Your support keeps freedom alive!