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!
Paul Craig Roberts
At 7pm on Friday 13th we do not have much information about the “terrorist attacks” in Paris other than that Paris is closed down like Boston was after the “Boston Marathon Bombing,” also a suspected false flag event.
Possibly believable evidence will be presented that the Paris attacks were real terrorist attacks. However, what do refugees have to gain from making themselves unwelcome with acts of violence committed against the host country, and where do refugees in France obtain automatic weapons and bombs? Indeed, where would the French themselves obtain them?
The millions of refugees from Washington’s wars who are overrunning Europe are bringing to the forefront of European politics the anti-EU nationalists parties, such as Pegida in Germany, Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front Party in France. These anti-EU political parties are also anti-immigrant political parties.
The latest French poll shows that, as a result of the refugees from Washington’s wars, Marine Le Pen has come out on top of the candidates for the next French presidential election.
By supporting for 14 years Washington’s neoconservative wars for US hegemony over the Middle East, establishment European governments eroded their electoral support. European peoples want to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, British. They do not want their countries to be a diverse Tower of Babel created by millions of refugees from Washington’s wars.
To remain a nationality unto themselves is what Pegida, Farage, and Le Pen offer the voters.
Realizing its vulnerability, it is entirely possible that the French Establishment made a decision to protect its hold on power with a false flag attack that would allow the Establishment to close France’s borders and, thereby, deprive Marine Le Pen of her main political issue.
Some people are so naive and stupid as to think that no government would kill its own citizens. But governments do so all the time. There are an endless number of false flag attacks, such as Operation Gladio. Operation Gladio was a CIA/Italian intelligence operation that relentlessly bombed innocent Italians, such as those waiting in a train station, murdering hundreds, and then blaming the violence on the European communist parties in the post-WW II era in order to block the communists from electoral gains.
A president of Italy revealed the truth about Operation Gladio, and you can read the sordid detail in a number of books and online. The bombings were not done, as was widely reported in the corrupt Western media, by communists. The bombings were done by Italian intelligence aided by the CIA. In one of the Italian investigatory hearings, a member of Italian intelligence said that the sites to be bombed were chosen in order to maximize the deaths of women and children, because these victims were most useful in discrediting the communists.
Considering the Western World’s long tradition of false flag orchestrations, the “terrorist attacks” in Paris could be the most recent manifestation.
American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.
U.S. Millennials More Likely to Support Censoring Offensive Statements About MinoritiesWe asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.
Even though a larger share of Millennials favor allowing offensive speech against minorities, the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
Compared with people we surveyed in dozens of nations, Americans as a whole are less likely to favor the government being able to prevent speech of any kind. The debate over what kind of speech should be tolerated in public has become a major story around the globe in recent weeks – from racial issues on many U.S. college campuses to questions about speech laws in Europe in the wake of concerns about refugees from the Middle East and the terrorist attacks in Paris.
Overall, our global survey found that a majority of Americans say that people should be able to say offensive things about minority groups publicly. Two-thirds of Americans say this, compared with a median of 35% among the 38 nations we polled.
In the U.S., our findings also show a racial divide on this question, with non-whites more likely (38%) to support government prevention of such speech than non-Hispanic whites (23%).
Nearly twice as many Democrats say the government should be able to stop speech against minorities (35%) compared with Republicans (18%). Independents, as is often the case, find themselves in the middle. One-third of all women say the government should be able to curtail speech that is offensive to minorities vs. 23% of men who say the same.
Furthermore, Americans who have a high school degree or less are more likely than those with at least a college degree to say that speech offensive to minority groups should be able to be restricted (a 9-percentage-point difference).
Europe More Supportive Than U.S. of Censoring Statements Offensive to MinoritiesIn Europe, where long-simmering racial tensions are of a different nature, compounded by the recent flow of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East, people are more willing than Americans to accept government controls on speech against minorities. A median of 49% across the six EU nations surveyed say this compared with 28% of Americans.
Among Europeans, there is a wide range of opinion on whether the government can prevent statements that are offensive to minorities. Seven-in-ten Germans say this should be the case (where there are clear laws against hate speech), as do 62% of Italians and half of Poles. The French are divided, with 48% saying that the government should have the ability to prevent speech that is offensive to minority groups, while 51% say people should be able to say these things publicly. In contrast, the balance of opinion in the UK and Spain is to allow people to say statements that might offend minorities.
In contrast with American Millennials, those ages 18 to 34 in Germany and Spain are more likely to say people should be able to say things offensive to minorities compared with those ages 35 and older. On the other hand, in the UK, the younger generation follows the lead of American Millennials by being less open to this form of freedom of speech and more willing to allow government restrictions. There are no significant age differences in France, Italy and Poland on this question.
Os Guinness: Liberals and Conservatives Are Getting Religious Freedom Wrong
Os Guinness is passionate about religious freedom. The legendary social critic is the author of the Williamsburg Charter, the Global Charter of Conscience, and many other works on the issue. In his latest book, The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity, Guinness offers a clarion call for protecting and promoting religious freedom as both a fundamental human right for all individuals and a foundational principle for any flourishing civil society. Judd Birdsall, who served from 2007-2011 with the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom, spoke with Guinness about the possibilties and challenges of securing religious freedom in a multi-faith world.
Why write a book about religious freedom now?
Religious freedom is one of the world's most urgent issues at this moment in history. For a start, it is the guarantee and protection of the foundational human right that best allows us the freedom to be human. Also, it is under assault around the world as never before, whether through brutal government oppression (think of China and Iran) or horrifying sectarian violence (think of Nigeria, Egypt, and much of the Middle East). But what makes the situation worse is the failure of the West to live up to the best of its heritage, and therefore to fail in demonstrating an alternative. This is especially tragic in the U.S., where the founders' settlement, which James Madison called the "true remedy" to the problem, is steadily being destroyed by fifty years of culture warring. And all this is happening at a time when the challenge of "living with our deepest differences" has become an urgent global problem.
There are of course endless academic studies of the issue, and many individuals and organizations have stood courageously against the violations of religious freedom, but where are the constructive proposals that lead to a better way? And where are the statesmanlike leaders addressing the issue? I hope my book will contribute to a new Western debate reaffirming the foundational importance of religious freedom. I hope too that it will challenge Americans not to squander their heritage foolishly as so many are doing now.
Read More: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013...
You cite several contemporary challenges to soul freedom, including the growing tension between the rival claims of religious liberty and sexual equality. How does a commitment to soul freedom help citizens navigate that tricky terrain?
Homosexual rights are now an established civil right in much of the West. But a civil right (which is conferred by some society) should never trump a human right like religious liberty (which is inherent in human nature). When that happens, the effect is to undermine all rights altogether, and turn politics into a mere power struggle. Not all homosexual activists have made this mistake, but those who do have fallen for one of the oldest pitfalls in the advance of human rights—the way in which (to put it in Roger Williams's terms again) those who were once "under the hatches" of the ship of state behave differently when they are "at the helm." The alternative way forward, when rights clash as they do now, is to seek for "reasonable accommodation" of differing rights, a very different procedure than the zero-sum policy currently being pursued.
Your subtitle ("Religious freedom and the making of a world safe for diversity") is a play on Woodrow Wilson's call to make the world "safe for democracy." Wilson is often accused of utopianism. Is making the world safe for diversity just another form of utopianism?
Such are the oppressions and convulsions around the world, and the polarization and gridlock in Washington, D.C., that any constructive proposal can be dismissed cheaply as utopian! That said, where would the U.S. be if such founders as James Madison had not learned from the 1,500 years of bad European precedents and dared to find a new way of relating religion and public life? But I am no Pollyanna. The global conflicts and bloodshed are tragic, Europe's commitment is floundering, the U.S. is carelessly throwing away its heritage, and there are no statesmanlike leaders addressing the issues, whether in the U.S. or anywhere.
"Diversity" is a dirty word for many conservatives who view it as a thin disguise for relativism or social engineering. What do you mean by "diversity," and why should conservatives—and liberals—champion it?
Many conservatives misunderstand and then twist the term "diversity." Diversity is simply a social fact. We are in a world where it is now said, because of the media, easy travel, and migration, that "everyone is now everywhere." What is dangerous is not diversity per se, but relativism—the claim that there is no such thing as truth. Freedom itself cannot be defended on the basis of relativism. So conservatives are wrong to dismiss diversity, just as liberals are foolish to celebrate it without working out its implications. E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many One) was once not just America's motto, but its greatest achievement. But today America is stressing the pluribus at the expense of the unum. The result can only be disastrous. The real question is, "How do we live with our deepest differences" when those differences are stronger and deeper than ever before? The answer, I believe, is to recover a principled vision of religious freedom for all and forge a civil public square in which it can flourish.
In what other ways does The Global Public Square challenge both liberals and conservatives?
People on both sides are making some crucial mistakes in the way they think they are defending religious freedom. The result is some very unconservative conservatives and some highly illiberal liberals. Among the unconservative errors is the way many people are fighting back against violations through law and lawsuits alone—whereas anyone with a knowledge of history knows that the secret of freedom lies in cultivating certain "habits of the heart" (through civic education) and not just resorting to law. Among the errors of the illiberal liberals is the current vogue for equality at the expense of liberty. From the French Revolution on, there are stark lessons about what happens when egalitarianism becomes the ruling principle. Yet the U.S. seems bent on repeating those errors as the sexual revolution wins the day and applies its vision of equality and non-discrimination everywhere. What happens, as a result, is that the state ends up discriminating against religious liberty and freedom of conscience—as with the misguided directives "de-recognizing" religious student organizations in the University of California.
Evangelical promotion of religious liberty is often criticized for being self-serving. How can we be better religious liberty advocates?
A journalist in the '80s commented to me that evangelicals speak of "justice," but what they really mean is "just us." In some ways, that might be expected because the Christian faith is the most persecuted faith across the world, and even in the U.S. there is something of an "ABC moment" (Anything but Christianity) in many discussions. But we Christians are followers of Jesus who are called to be "people for others." We should remember too that religion is always most influential and positive in public life when it addresses the common good. There is also the simple fact that rights are reciprocal and rights and responsibilities are mutual. That means that our rights are best guaranteed and protected when the rights of all others are protected.
You call for securing a truly multi-faith society without succumbing to a lowest-common-denominator unity. How should religious groups find this sort of common ground?
Civility is too often confused with niceness, with squeamishness over differences, or with the idea that it means ecumenical unity and a compromise over truth. But I would argue that the vision of a civil public square is actually the best protection of "the freedom to be fully faithful," and at the same time a way to........
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ...
My Oath is different, do you see how? When you fail in yours, you put me in one hell of a predicament!
Mercantilism, Fascism, Corporatism — And Capitalism
by Brad Warbiany
In politics, language is crucial. When different sides of a debate use the same term in different ways, the entire debate becomes fruitless. When terms for different ideas are thrown around as if they’re identical, the debate becomes muddled. It’s even more difficult to understand when people on the same side of the debate use terms differently.
Recently I’ve been listening to Free Talk Live quite a bit, and have enjoyed it greatly. The hosts are Ian, an anarchist (although he calls himself a “free marketeer, choosing to leave the baggage caused by misuse of the term anarchy behind), and Mark, who would best be described as a small-government Republican, in the RLC bent. They put on an entertaining show, but when it comes to economic matters, they get deep into the muddled mess of ill-defined terms. They use the terms mercantilism, fascism, and corporatism quite interchangeably. They further use mercantilism as their default term for what would be much more accurately termed corporatism. In the interest of clarifying the debate, here’s a basic rundown of what we’re talking about.
Mercantilism is separated from corporatism and fascism simply by its nature. Corporatism and fascism are political systems. Like capitalism, mercantilism is an economic theory. Mercantilism is a theory that the wealth of a nation is based upon its ability to amass gold and silver (and other valuable “money”), and thus a nation who exports more than it imports will be getting richer and richer every day. Of course, this theory on the wealth of nations was debunked rather thoroughly by Adam Smith in The Wealth Of Nations.
Mercantilism usually requires government intervention to be truly practiced. But mercantilism isn’t about regulation, or government sticking its hand into domestic industries. It is primarily a theory that discusses such things as balances of trade, and in the modern area, ideas of “dumping”, devalued currencies, and outsourcing. Though Adam Smith debunked the theories of mercantilism, and economists ever since have taken an exacto knife to the remaining pieces, mercantile thinking still resonates with the masses. Like many popular theories, it may not be right, but to a lot of people it “sounds” right.
To confuse it with corporatism or fascism, however, is mistaken.
Corporatism and Fascism
I place these two together because there are many similarities. They’re both political systems based on widespread government intervention and planning in the economy. They’re both seen as a bit of a third-way between capitalism and socialism, with corporatism seemingly nearer to capitalism, and fascism seemingly nearer to socialism. There are a few main differences though, most notably that fascism is a complete political system, whereas corporatism mainly deals with economic matters. But the biggest difference is who is pulling the levers of central planning, and for what purpose.
Fascism is a political system where individual interests are subservient to those of the state. In fascism, this occurs in all spheres of life, but this post deals purely with the economic. As I mentioned, fascism involves extensive central planning. It doesn’t abolish private property, but it drastically curtails the scope of property rights. Property can be used by owners for all “approved” state purposes, and only for those purposes. Venezuela, for example, would be more of a fascist state than a socialist state. But the key point of fascism is that it is an authoritarian state where the needs of the individual or corporation are subservient to those of the state. It is the politicians who are pulling the levers, and they’re doing it for national honor.
Corporatism, on the other hand, is a political system dominated by corporate interests with the stated goal of improving the economy. Individual rights are a little more widespread, but economic liberty is curtailed to ensure smooth and planned economic growth. While many would consider eminent domain cases like Kelo to be “fascist”, it’s more accurate to describe it as corporatist, as it involves economic actors pushing government into violating individual rights to promote business interests. America would be an example of a true corporatist state, where high-dollar business interests get politicians to write regulations friendly to their interest and punishing their competitors, under the false front of “protecting the consumer”. The businessmen pull the levers, for their own interests.
Corporatism and fascism have similarities, in that both involve widespread government intervention into an economy, but the former involves businesses controlling politicians for business interests, and the latter involves the politicians controlling business to further state interests.
Capitalism is neither mercantilism, corporatism, or fascism. Capitalism is an economic theory based upon the free exchange of goods and services. As a political system, capitalism thrives with almost no political interference at all. In fact, the big debate amongst libertarians is whether or not government itself is even necessary to keep a capitalist system afloat. But I think everyone would agree that capitalism and strong government are almost never found together. Most capitalist systems, when paired with strong government, devolve into corporatism. In fact, it is America’s descent into corporatism that has caused so many people to believe that capitalism and corporatism are the same thing.
In politics, we’ve let a situation fester for years where words mean different things to different people. That’s dangerous; a politician can say one thing and it’s heard by different people to have different meanings. Thus, politicians love to muddy the waters. Let’s make sure that words have meanings, and so let’s try to agree on them and use them properly.
What form of an economy do you want in America?
Which one do you think each candidate supports?
The Beast Out of the Sea
The Beast Out of the Sea
…2And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. 3I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; 4they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"…
"The wounding the head may be the abolishing pagan idolatry; and the healing of the wound, introducing popish idolatry, the same in substance, only in a new dress, but which as effectually answers the devil's design."
Many of you are "waiting" and watching for a lie, a false event. This is one of satans traps. For example, you may be waiting to see if Obama or the Pope is shot in the head. In a sense you are waiting and watching for satan.
Many people are led to believe that the wounding of the head is not that of a man, but of the authoritarian beast itself. A political beast . The collective, the organization.
The wounding of the 'Empire'!
Many believe the wound has already occured A.D. 476!
Discern and pray on all content. No one person or group is perfect.
There is a multitude of promises in the Old and New Testaments that give us the confidence to believe that God is waiting to send revival. One example is: "Be patient," says the Apostle James, "unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain" (James 5:7). Do we believe that the latter rain of revival is to fall before Jesus comes back again?
There is a multitude of promises in the Old and New Testaments that give us the confidence to believe that God is waiting to send revival. One example is: "Be patient," says the Apostle James, "unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain" (James 5:7). Do we believe that the latter rain of revival is to fall before Jesus comes back again? The promise is clear enough, but is our faith strong enough? Is it a faith which believes?
Expectancy also calls for a faith that receives- "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit." God fills only the hearts and lives of those who have a receiving faith. Have you received this fullness? God’s purpose for our lives is continuous revival, and continuous revival is equated with the continuous fullness of the Holy Spirit. When we are first converted the word to us is: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." From that point on the relevant exhortation is Ephesians 5:18, "Be filled with the Spirit." Have we faith to receive the fullness which God is waiting to pour out?
Expectation further calls for a faith that achieves. We read: "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak...as the Spirit gave them utterance....There were added that day about three thousand souls." Filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking with fearlessness, they stepped out to achieve results for God. And their expectation was not unrewarded. A large city was shaken, a great crowd was challenged and three thousand souls were converted in one day. Their whole ministry carried a relevance, an authority and a conviction such as men and women had never before witnessed. What happened on the day of Pentecost continued to happen through succeeding days and weeks, for we read that "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47); that is to say, men and women got right with God; not only on Sundays or on special occasions, but every day, in homes, in the synagogue, in the market place and wherever unconverted men and women came into contact with those Spirit-filled, revived men and women.
Pastor Robert K. Teske
Tomorrow: Part 7K - The Wind of Revival
See if you are! Has God been calling you???
Are you aware of the Republic for the United States and the effort to restore our Republic. I wanted to reach out to you and give you an update. The Republic is stronger than ever now and you should know that you are needed like never before.
Are you aware of the Republic for the United States and the effort to restore our Republic. I wanted to reach out to you and give you an update. The Republic is stronger than ever now and you should know that you are needed like never before. We are currently organizing for a State Fair event for the next 4th of July, We are getting ready to update all of our literature and website presence and our outreach has garnered support from the Oath Keepers, CSPOA (Sheriff Richard Mack and his organization) as well as other well known local and regional constitutional fraternal organizations. The Patriots are mobilizing like never before.
This Thursday night there is a news conference you can attend on your phone. The guest speaker is a well known former military commander speaking about the nature of our existence with respect to the criminal Dejure government and the state of the military stance against their efforts to destroy our national sovereignty. YOU WILL WANT TO HEAR THIS!! Please, listen to the call, if you are not available at the time of the call you can listen to the recording at your earliest availability.
Republic News Network
Thursdays at 6:00 PDT /9:00 EDT
Conf #: (712) 432-0075
Playback: (712) 432-1085
This is another conference call number for more information on the efforts to restore our nation.
Building the States
Wednesdays at 6:00 PDT /9:00 EDT
Conf #: (605) 562-3140
Playback: (605) 562-3149
Your support keeps freedom alive!