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!
Back in November 2014 Cruz said, “he would push hard for a Republican-led Senate to be as conservative and confrontational as the Republican-led House.” He has said what he would do by going against McConnell. He has been confrontational and truthful when he went against the establishment Republicans. He has been more of a leader in the Senate than McConnell.
Back in November 2014 Cruz said, “he would push hard for a Republican-led Senate to be as conservative and confrontational as the Republican-led House.” He has said what he would do by going against McConnell. He has been confrontational and truthful when he went against the establishment Republicans. He has been more of a leader in the Senate than McConnell. Cruz also said he would like the Senate to be as aggressive in trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act as the House, which has voted more than 50 times to get rid of the law. Once again, he fought against the establishment to defund Obamacare. Once again, he showed leadership.
Cruz wrote an opinion piece in USA Today laying out 10 conservative priorities he thinks Republicans should pursue, including moving toward a flat tax and drawing a hard line on illegal immigrants. In the interview here, Cruz reiterated some of those points, such as approving the Keystone XL pipeline. He is fighting the media like ABC’s David Muir when he gave viewers a distorted history lesson, saying Cruz was “The combative Tea Party favorite who shut down the government for days over Obamacare.” Donny Deutsch, also on MSNBC, called Cruz “unelectable” and added “I think he’s the worst. I think he’s scary, I think he’s dangerous, I think he’s slimy and I think he brings no fresh ideas.” Well, they actually spoke the partial truth for once. He is combative, scary to the progressives, dangerous to the progressives. This is why he is a leader and would make a great conservative candidate. He is fighting for our Freedoms and our Liberties, just like Ronald Reagan did. Everything he says and does comes from the heart. Rush Limbaugh put it best, "The Left always tells you who they fear most by who they attack most", they are more afraid of him than any other person. So to me, that makes him qualified.
There are only three Christian faiths that have, without waver, advocated strictly for peace, throughout history, the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites (Anabaptists) and the Quakers. How can there be such a drastic difference of belief within the same religion?
I want to know how any Christian can condone US aggression (the use of force against another)! Please state your religion (if you dare) and why you believe as you do.
Only fools express any trust in Obama these days or the Iranians who have made him look the fool when no one in their neighborhood or the world trusts a thing they say or do.
After more than six years of listening to President Obama’s unremitting lies, when he says of the latest “accord” with Iran, “It’s a good deal” and standing in the Rose Garden declares that the U.S. and Iran have reached “an historic understanding” the only history being made his own ignominy and idiocy.
It would be historic if anyone could extend either President Obama or the Iranians any trust. Indeed, since the U.S. created its first atomic bombs to end World War II, one nation after another has secured their own nuclear weapons, starting with the then-Soviet Union who built theirs with plans stolen from us!
We have been down this road before. On April 1st Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger offered an abridged look at the quarter-century of negotiations with North Korea which agreed to all manner of terms, signed all kinds of agreements, and joined various international organizations to assure everyone of their peaceful intent. He warned that “No agreement is going to stop Iran. Agreements, and a lot of talk, did not stop North Korea.”
“Iran,” said Henninger, “knows it has nuclear negotiators’ immunity: No matter how or when Iran debauches any agreement, the West, abjectly, will request—what else?—more talks. Iran’s nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs will go forward as North Korea’s obviously did, no matter what.”
All the back-and-forth between the White House and Congress about the “accord” is essentially meaningless. It is mostly a debate about the treaty-making powers the Constitution extends to the executive branch and, at the same time, limits with legislative “advice and consent” of the Senate. For now the Senate can only wait for whatever is decided by June 30, but it is unlikely Obama will send it the text of the agreement.
To influence the outcome, Congress talks of the sanctions it has imposed on Iran and says it will impose again, but Obama has no legal authority to lift those sanctions, only Congress does.
The same day the President made the announcement, Javad Zarif, the Iranian counterpart to Secretary of State John Kerry made his own announcement. The U.S. and Iran, he said, had agreed in principle to let Iran continue running major portions of its nuclear program. “None of those measures”, intended to slow Iran’s progress, “include closing any of our facilities. We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”
This is the result of 18 months of “negotiations” with Iran. In the same way the U.S. caved to North Korea since the 1990s, it has caved to Iran and it has done so with the blessing of the European Union and the other members of the P-5+1, France, Great Britain, Russia, China, and Germany.
For good measure, to show how wonderfully warm the relations between Iran and the U.S. are, within hours after Obama’s announcement, Foreign Minister Zarif accused the U.S. of lying about the details of the tentative framework—“the historic understanding”—saying that the U.S. had promised the immediate termination of sanctions.
The notion that we would know if Iran was continuing its nuclear program because the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be inspecting its facilities is about as credible as similar inspections in North Korea when, in 2002, it cut the IAEA seals on its nuclear factories and withdrew from the non-Proliferation treaty, starting a nuclear reactor. It has pursued its nuclear weapons and missile programs ever since.
In the same fashion as the Soviet Union, China, and Israel, we didn’t know that either Pakistan or India had acquired nuclear capability until after they tested theirs. That’s how we will know when Iran has nuclear weapons. It already has intercontinental missiles with which to deliver them.
As quoted in an April 3 article by Mark Dubowitz, executive director, and Annie Fixler, policy analyst, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, they cite an unnamed “senior State Department official” as saying “The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we’re one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what everyone agrees is the biggest threat to the region.”
Unless one believes in unicorns and other fantasies, this latest “accord” and what we are being told about it by the President and the State Department is not a great achievement. It is doomed to failure because Iran has had no intention of doing anything other than getting economic and other sanctions removed. Time is on their side as they work to develop their own nuclear weapons.
When Iran tests its first nuclear weapon, Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.
© Alan Caruba, 2015
The book of James is written to the Jew. We learn this from the outset, when he greets, “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (James 1:1). It is important to remember this when you read James, for many things will sound strange to the ear of someone who is coming off of the Apostle Paul’s writings. Paul addresses the church and his writings are the complete message of grace that was given to him by the Lord Jesus (Galatians 1:12).
Some have pitted James’ writing in direct contrast to Paul’s, stating that Paul and James were having a verbal spat about what true faith was. This is patently incorrect as neither Romans nor Galatians (Paul’s essential documents on grace) were yet written. James’ theme is “religion”, or the service of religion on the outside. He doesn’t claim that works are greater than faith, but that faith should always be identified by the works that it produces.
For the ear tempered to the soft tones of Paul’s gospel of grace, the 4th chapter of James booms with judgment. Remember that James is preaching to the scattered Jews, and many of them have never come into the knowledge of grace. Most are still working the works of the law in order to achieve righteousness, and of course, they are falling woefully short. James accuses them of having lust in their hearts; of being adulterers and adulteresses and friends of the world. Paul would say none of these things in his letters. Again, we are dealing with two different audiences.
Suddenly, in verse 6, James uses “grace” for the first time. The English word “grace” is used in 1:11, but it is a different Greek word meaning “beauty”. The “grace” of James 4:6 is Paul’s “grace”, often translated “favor”. James is just now getting around to telling the reader of God’s grace. Without Paul’s powerful revelation of God’s grace, James can only understand this wonderful gift in small segments. Even he, without that revelation realizes that God’s gifts must transcend our ability to receive them. In spite of all of the bad that the reader is doing, James says that God has “more grace”. Paul would confirm this when he would write, “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Romans 5:20).
James now adds that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. For James, this is not an original thought, but is pulled from his memory of Old Testament scripture. Proverbs 3:34 says, “Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace to the lowly”. James is making the only connection that he knows to get someone into the grace of God. It is Paul who will reveal that it is justification by faith, but James says something that is not at all contradictory to that doctrine, “Submit yourselves therefore to God” (James 4:7). The “therefore” shows us that in light of the fact that God’s grace moves on us when we are humble, James concludes that in order to walk in God’s grace you must submit yourself to God. When submitted, you can resist the devil and he will flee and then you can draw near to God and he can draw near to you.
Only those who have humbled themselves can ever walk in God’s abundant grace and favor. It is pride that thinks that sanctification can be achieved by removing things from one’s life, or by consecrating more. For every rich, young ruler that turns away saddened by the demands of the law, there is a Zacchaeus who is rejoicing in grace. Which one are you?
The left's "fear and hatred of Christianity" and religion in general has driven America's culture wars for the past 30 years, Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience Monday.
"That is what people on the left just have the biggest struggle with. It's a giant enemy," he said in comments reported by Breitbart.
Christianity is a powerful enemy the left has no control over and will never be able to dominate, he said. It is "an enemy they will never be able to obliterate and they know it, but they nevertheless try."
He pointed out that the left has found a huge appreciation for Pope Francis because some of the things he says seem to line up with their thinking.
"So when the Vicar of Christ now and then comes out, utters some economic policy that makes them think he's one of them, they celebrate," Limbaugh said. "I think it's fascinating they desperately want the Pope to be one of them. … Then the Pope will come out the next day and makes it clear he's not one of their guys.
Leftists vacillate from "love, hate, anger, reassessment, appreciation," he said. "It's a fascinating case study to me."
Liberals have done much the same with religious freedom laws, Limbaugh said, pointing out that they loved the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when it was signed by President Bill Clinton. But they didn't like Indiana's state RFRA, saying it targeted gay people.
He pointed to a story by David Weigel on Bloomberg Politics showing Democrats are on the "wrong side of public polling" on the issue, even among voters in their own party.
"That’s not what the militant left wants… So when the Marist poll comes out and shows a majority of Americans oppose the leftist position on this, Weigel is writing a column here trying to warn them to be very careful of what they're doing here," he said.
"In other words, whatever happened in Indiana, it's not the majority position in this country. It's the minority position," Limbaugh continued.
"Polling indicates it. Weigel's trying to point it out to Democrats, 'Hey, look, you don't own this issue. Most people agree with the pizzeria owner in Walkerton. Most people do not agree with us walking in there and trying to shut 'em down.'"
The reality, Limbaugh said, is that "the mainstream media, gay activists, civil rights activists, you name it, are trying to make it look like the vast majority of Americans agree that Indiana is a backward, racist, bigot, homophobic state, and they want them penalized. And Marist says it's not even close to being true. It's the exact opposite
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rush-Li...
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
The Rightful Remedy Conference took place on Saturday, March 28, 2015 on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Several speakers on a wide variety of topics conveyed their thoughts on issues from America's heritage to Constitutional Sheriffs to the issue of an Article V convention. It is on the latter matter that Publius Huldah spoke and was, in this writer's opinion, the most passionate about the information she provided.
"We're at the fork in the road," she began. "Should we push for an Article V convention or should we do what our framers advised when the federal government usurps power?"
Sadly, many on both sides of the issue of an Article V convention don't know the difference in what she is asking, but Publius took the time to distinguish and expose those she calls "false friends."
"Alexander Hamilton warned that most men who overturned the liberties of most republics began by paying obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants," she added. "That is happening today. False friends, demagogues, demanding a convention where they can improve this Constitution by amendments while they actually scheme to increase government power over us by rewriting our Constitution."
Of course, on the other side is George Soros and his team of Marxists desire a Marxist-style constitution to be substituted for the current Constitution by the year 2020.
PH labels those on the "phony right" and the left as "change agents" and claims that before they can get what they want, "they need a convention." The reason for a convention is because, according to PH, "a new constitution can only be introduced at a convention."
"False friends are not being truthful," she warned. "But I will show you the truth."
Article V provides two methods of amending the Constitution. Either Congress proposes amendments or Congress calls a convention to propose amendments, if 34 states apply for such a convention. The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments. Congress proposed each one of them. As for the second method, America has never had a convention under Article V, but we did have a convention under the Articles of Confederation, America's first constitution, which ignored the amendment ratification process, under the AOC, in favor of a new method of an entirely new constitution.
However, PH points out, "When we ratified the Constitution, we created the federal government. It is a federation of sovereign states (countries), united under a national government only for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution, with all other powers reserved by the states and the people."
The listed powers given to the federal government over the country are listed in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1-16. Only four categories are actually authorized by the Constitution for the federal government. Within those categories are the only things the federal government has been authorized to do:
International commerce and relations
Immigration and naturalization
Domestically create a uniform commercial system
Weights and measures
Patents and copyrights
Money system based on gold and silver
Some road building
And with some amendments, they are to secure certain civil rights
That's it! That's all they are supposed to be doing, which isn't much, but they are doing far more!
"If it is on the list, Congress may make laws about it," PH declared. "But if it's not on the list, Congress usurps power and adds unlawfully when it interferes."
Since there are less than two dozen powers delegated to the federal government, most people could live their lives and very seldom encounter the federal government if we followed the guidelines of the Constitution.
So why is America becoming more totalitarian? According to PH, it's because neither the people nor those they elect know what the Constitution says and, therefore, neither of them have sought to enforce it.
"We stopped reading our Declaration and Constitution, and because we didn't know what they said, we were unable to do our duty to vet, monitor and discipline our public servants," she said. "We allowed our servants to bribe us into surrendering our liberties."
PH went on to list numerous federal programs in which the states and the peoples handed over their liberties to the federal government rather than retain them.
From here she began to expose those she calls "false friends."
"False friends exploit our ignorance when they tell us amendments can limit the powers of the federal government," she warned. "But when people learn the short list of delegated powers, they can't be deceived by false friends who tell them that the remedy for a federal government, which has seized thousands of powers that are not on the list, is to amend the Constitution."
"Think," she said. "When the feds seize powers that are not on the list, what part of the Constitution do you amend to fix that? Do we need an amendment to say that feds can't do things which aren't on the list? We already did that! It's called the Tenth Amendment and they ignore the Tenth Amendment!"
However, PH was not to speak without mentioning names. "Mark Levin, Michael Farris and Rob Natelson of the so-called 'Convention of States Project' insist the problem is the Constitution. They say the solution is to change the Constitution."
"Yes, even though we abandoned the Constitution over one hundred years ago and have no standard but our own opinions, all we need to do is change the Constitution and that will fix everything," she sarcastically declared.
While men like Farris and Levin say that amendments will limit the scope and power of the federal government, doesn't the Constitution already do that? Isn't the problem with men that don't follow those limits rather than with the actual limits themselves? How can amendments limit these men from doing the thousands of things they are already limited from doing, but are doing anyway?
As an example, PH used the use of arms to prove her point.
"Look at guns," she explained. "Our Constitution doesn't delegate to the feds power to regulate guns, gun sales, ammunition, firearm dealers and do background checks, but they do it anyway. So, let's pass an amendment saying they can't do any of this. But we already did that. It's the Second Amendment, but they ignore the Second Amendment!"
"So the claim of these 'false friends' that we can control the feds, who ignore the Constitution, by changing the Constitution, is so absurd they cannot possibly believe it," she concluded.
She then declared, "They have a hidden agenda in agitating for a convention, and from the absurdity of this claim and the falsity of their other claims, we may infer an evil intent."
PH then said, "We know that Levin and Farris don't want to limit the power of federal government because the amendments they propose legalize powers the feds have already usurped."
She then listed three of the amendments advanced that do just that.
Parental Rights Amendment
Levin's amendments would legalize unconstitutional agencies for as long as Congress authorizes them, like: Education, Energy, Agriculture, EPA, HUD, DHS, HHS, ATF, etc., etc., etc. (These aren't on the list in the Constitution)
Levin's amendment to limit federal spending is also phony. The Constitution already limits spending to the enumerate powers. His legalizes unconstitutional spending via a budget.
Though Article I, Section I of the US Constitution authorizes Congress to make limited laws under enumerated powers, but since Woodrow Wilson, federal agencies have been, in essence writing their own codes and regulations independent of Congress, and every one of them is outside the scope of the federal constitution. In fact, they are not only outside of the Constitution, they are in violation of it! The same thing is true of spending.
PH then warned, "Don't go by the names of the amendments. They are chosen to deceive you!... They're amendments institutionalize the very institutions they purport to correct."
"Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless," she thundered. "The rule of law is still on our side, but not for long if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be replaced."
PH then recounted the fact that these "false friends" tried to get an Article V convention for fifty years, but they were stopped. Now, according to PH, these groups and individuals, like the ACLU, have repacked themselves to appeal to American patriots in order to market it as an issue of states' rights.
However, as she previously pointed out, the states sold out their rights and the rights of the people for federal money.
"State governments are not victims of federal tyranny," she said. "State governments are enthusiastic participants in federal tyranny."
"We must stop electing people to office who have their hands out for federal money," she added. "There's no such thing as something for nothing. With federal money comes federal control."
She then went on to elaborate on how "false friends" came up with the ridiculous notion that the framers believed that the way to rein in the feds was via amendments to the Constitution.
"Our framers never said that when the feds ignore the constitution, the remedy is to change the Constitution," she said.
While I know that this particular article is getting a bit long, consider that this is only about halfway through her presentation and it is well worth your listening to, whether you are for an Article V convention or against it. As I have stated previously, I believe there are well-meaning patriots who are seeking to do something to stop the tyranny we are experiencing, but there are also "false friends" who either know better or should know better regarding an Article V convention. Sadly, many are being led astray on this particular issue.
I care not for what title's men wear nor their various accolades by neo-conservatives and media whores. The issue on this matter is whether or not the warnings against an Article V convention are warranted or not. All I have seen from the accolades' side is deception, which leads me to believe that an Article V convention is most certainly a trap.
I have spoken to many supporters of an Article V Convention, and apart from one man (who is a fellow contributor friend), most of them don't have a clue about the dangers involved in an Article V convention. In fact, they haven't even read the other side. They've merely followed their media idols.
I will follow up this piece writing on the second portion of PH's address. However, I encourage you to listen to the entirety of what she says. If you still find yourself in the camp that wants an Article V convention and you are still pressed to push for one, then all I can say is that you get exactly what you deserve.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/false-...
The Rule of Law
by Tom W. Bell
Why is the rule of law so important? Law professor Tom W. Bell explains how the rule of law is a critical part of a free and tolerant society. The rule of law means that people are not subject to the arbitrary will of others. It means they can engage in activities that others might disapprove of without fear of persecution. When there is rule of law, people can buy property, plan businesses, and otherwise plan for the future with confidence. As Bell explains, the rule of law provides a necessary framework for civil society. To make his argument, Bell draws from such thinkers as Aristotle, John Locke, Thomas Paine, James Madison and Friederich Hayek.
5:25 minute video worth watching: http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/the-r...
The United States Army has announced they will be conducting a simulated training exercise over the summer in which they plan to simulate battles and insurgent attacks throughout Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. According to recently unclassified documents, the exercise, which categorizes Texas and Utah as “Hostile” States, will run from July 15 through September 15th.
Multiple branches of the military are expected to take part in the massive drill including Navy Seals, Green Berets and the 82nd airborne division.
What to Expect during the Drill
While a number of liberal news organizations are doing everything they can to defend the drills, smearing anyone who dares question why the military is conducting large-scale drills that look like preparation for the implementation of Martial Law,the fact is we have the right to ask questions. Imagine if this drill happened under the last president; these same people would be up in arms crying about Martial Law and begging the ACLU to do something about it.
Military offers official response.
While the U.S. military has confirmed the drill, they say the public has nothing to worry about. They claim that the drill is just “a regular training exercise.” But that hasn’t stopped many from wondering why their documents list Texas and Utah as Hostile zones.
The Army says Jade Helm is a real exercise and will take place in the Southwest, as the slides indicate. But USASOC spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria said that’s the extent of the reports’ accuracy.
“It’s a training exercise. Just a regular training exercise,” Lastoria said of Jade Helm, which USASOC documentation references as a training exercise in at least one previous year as well.
Documentation showing where Drill will Take Place
JADE Military Drill
Why are so many of these drills looking at American Citizens as a Threat?
Back in 2012, an army report about the future use of the military as a police force within the United States caused a huge controversy. The report included theoretical situations where the U.S. Army could be sent into U.S. cities that have been taken over by Tea Party “insurrectionists.” The report titled, Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future, was written by a retired Army Colonel and described how future warfare could be conducted on American soil. It also described tea party members and “immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues.”
In 2013, the Ohio Army National Guard 52nd Civil Support Unit conducted a training drill where Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.
Make no mistake, I believe most of the Military is very Patriotic. In fact, many of them have also expressed concerns over these exercises, and concerns over why the most patriotic among them seem to be being forced out of the military. A number of them have emailed us about this administration’s attempts to demonize anyone with patriotic views, and warn that our country is being fundamentally transformed into something that our founders never intended.
God is saying.... I AM the power! Not Wash. D.C/
Welcome "Sisters & Brothers"!
As we "cut to the chase" today, we feel you will find this author has decided to pen what a growing number of todays society dare not speak of even in private. I personally find this mind-set to be extremely strange given the overwhelming facts that tell us little of this is any great secret in the 21st century
. Regardless of how some of us feel concerning this "Sexual Revolution" such as it is and has been, the direct and indeed the in-direct results from this "Social Activity" is literally killing this nation in and of itself. Even the mere mention of "Morality" flies in the face of todays standards OR lack of in most social circles and is a far cry from those most of us grew-up under I would imagine.
After reading and re-reading "Brother" Baskerville's thoughts I find I cannot find any fault in his findings. One thing is crystal clear after you finish reading his article is he does NOT attempt to shy away from "Tempting the social tigers" in any manner I have found and I commend him on his stand on morality, such as it is in todays world. We believe you will learn much before this is finished. Please enjoy and offer your thoughts as your time allows!
Peace be with you, Amen
Your support keeps freedom alive!