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!
Sarah Palin, Will She Run For President?
Sarah Palin, a very strong Conservative, may decide to run, she has a very strong following. There is only one Sarah and the libs are scared to death of her, sort of like they were of President Reagan, I remember all the b. s. they were mouthing. They know she is formidable, she can raise a half dead audience to their feet cheering.
She said a candidate like Hillary is no obstacle at all.
I know she would bring this country back from the abyss BHO and company has taken us to, bring back our military strength and regain our once held respect in the world, she would renew our relationship with our allies and be formidable to our enemies, we would return to the Constitution and the Rule of law, as set by our Founders, the countless executive orders would be examined for elimination and that damnable Obamacare would see the kiss of dearth…
Now there is a woman. She has the qualities of a Margaret Thatcher. The question is will she throw her hat in the ring, I hope she will in spite of foul mouthed addlebrained liberals who know she is capable of sweeping the floor with them, like an iron lady
1776 is the year that America declared their independence, but it is also the year that the Illuminati was founded, and the Illuminati came first.
“For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” Revelation 17:17 (KJV)
How well I remember the crystal-clear, cornflower blue sky on the morning of September 11, 2001. It was a perfect day, until the towers fell at the hand of Muslim terrorists. Out of the rubble, slowly arose a defiant new structure called the Freedom Tower, and it was being built to stand at exactly 1,176 feet from stem to stern. Patriots cheered and America got back to business. Then, very quietly, things started to change. Freedom Tower was out. The new name became the One World building.
What do I see when I look at the new logo? I see “One World”…”forever” as a message from the New World Order.
On March 27, 2009 NBC News reported that “the agency that owns the site says that the signature 1,776-foot skyscraper replacing the towers destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, will be known as One World Trade Center. The change came after board members voted to sign a 21-year lease deal with Vantone, a Chinese real estate giant, which will become the first commercial tenant at Ground Zero. The negotiations with Vantone, which is closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist government, had nothing to do with the name change”
And just so you have it straight in your head, the new name of the building was not changed to “1 World Trade Center”, it was changed to “One World, trade center”. Because that’s how it appears in all the splashy new logos and graphics in their advertisements. It is the One World building, that also happens to be a trade center. But that’s just a name, you say, right? Let’s take a look at what’s under the flashy new facade.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is secretly planning to deploy military-grade technology at One World
In February of 2012, it was reported that the high-tech system of thousands of “intelligent” cameras and computer processors can recognize people’s faces and retinas and then compare that information with databases such as terrorist watch lists, sources said.
One World Trade Center – A Stamp Of The Illuminati
Security measures at the 16-acre include the sensitive cameras alongside infrared and heat sensors that can be outfitted with explosive and radiation detectors.
And agency brass also are authorizing “artificial intelligence” computers that constantly track the behavior of people on the ground — figuring out how to spot “unusual movements” that can be flagged for security personnel.
For example, cops could be dispatched if the computers detected someone deviating from the normal walkways or walking against the flow of pedestrians; jumping around or making erratic movements; or dropping a bag where people do not usually leave their luggage.
“What we’re doing at the One World building has never been done before,” one agency official said.
The agency’s system will be connected to the NYPD’s Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which has cameras and scanners spread around downtown. The Defense Department contractor Behavioral Recognition Systems, based in Houston, will set up most of the system, which is expected to cost tens of millions of dollars.
n other words, the new One World building is meant to be the hub point through which the entire city of Manhattan will be wired for around the clock, hyper-invasive surveillance.
Muslim minarets adorn the top of the new One World building
When Muslims claim victory in a military conquest, they do two things. They build a mosque on or near the site of the battle, and then they raise up a minaret as high as it will go to show the world that that land has been claimed as an Islamic victory. The image on the left is the tower on top of the One World building, and the image on the right a minaret on an Islamic mosque. So what exactly would be the difference between these two structures? I am hard-pressed to discern between the two. They attempted to also build a huge mega-mosque right near the Ground Zero site as well, but were defeated by the efforts of our friend Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugs. But, as you can see, raising the minarets was completely successful.
The Illuminati was founded in 1776, nine weeks before that of America
1776 is the year that America declared their independence, but it is also the year that the Illuminati was founded as well. In fact, the Illuminati’s creation on May 1st predates America’s founding by nearly 9 weeks. If they would have kept the original name of Freedom Tower, as it was supposed to be called, then that would be a great and patriotic match to the year 1776. But with the name change to the One World building, I have to believe that 1776 is indeed a reference to the founding of the Illuminati.
Just as the New World Order decided to put the headquarters of the Luciferian organization known as the United Nations in New York City, they have also decided to put the central command center for the coming One Word Government in New York City as well. The One World building, which could aptly be called America’s Pyramid, is a collection of Illuminati triangles from any angle you look at it from, including from an aerial view at the very top.
And lastly, however you choose to believe that the Twin Towers were brought down, one thing is for certain. What arose from the rubble in the aftermath was a scary new world that is on 24 x 7 digital lockdown, with never-ending global wars, and open terrorist attacks in every major city in America. Police departments are all being militarized with battlefield tanks, and the uniform of the average policeman looks like a cyborg from a video game. Government-funded race riots break out every few months, attempting to provoke a new civil war.
A lot more than people died on 9-11, freedom died that day as well, as the Patriot Act, the Utah Data Center, and the Department of Homeland Security will attest to.
The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable, but it’s disgustingly all too real
“No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.” Isaiah 54:17 (KJV)
They say that if you put a frog into boiling water, it will jump out. But if you put the same frog in cold water and gradually turn up the heat, it will never jump out until it’s too late, and get cooked. That’s exactly how the Obama administration is removing our freedoms, one at a time. And he has been astonishing successful. America in 2015 is a place Jesus Christ and the Bible are considered hate speech, and the LGBT Agenda is glorified. A place where everyone has rights except the bible believing Christian, run by an administration that allows Iran to have nuclear weapons but posting a Bible verse to your personal computer is illegal.
America, the wolf is in the White House and you are losing the battle for your liberty. It’s time to wake up, or admit defeat.
A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”
The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”
Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk.
She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.
READ THE REST OF THE STORY ON NOW THE END BEGINS…
It isn't - and the law suits will be forthcoming.
There’s now another issue with the controversial water rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants you to think there’s a lot of support for the proposed water rule that seeks to give the agency and the Army Corps jurisdiction over almost every water. Reportedly, the agency may cite this “overwhelming” support when it releases its final rule any day now.
In March, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “We have received over 1 million comments, and 87.1 percent of those comments we have counted so far—we are only missing 4,000—are supportive of this rule.”
Before proponents (the agency, Army Corps, and perhaps some of their friends and family members) get too excited, the pronouncement of support is misleading.
McCarthy failed to mention the Environmental Protection Agency engaged in controversial activities to help get support for the rule. Some have claimed these activities may even be illegal.
For example, the agency used a Thunderclap campaign to drum up support using social media. “We hope you’ll support our clean water proposal. To help you do that, and get your friends to also voice their support, we’re using a new tool called Thunderclap; it’s like a virtual flash mob.” The message was sent to about 1.8 million people.
The agency also has used social media in other ways to help promote the rule.
According to The New York Times, “Late last year, the EPA sponsored a drive on Facebook and Twitter to promote its proposed clean water rule in conjunction with the Sierra Club.”
The Environmental Protection Agency also developed a video to promote the rule, asking the question “Do you choose clean water?” As if critics of the rule want dirty water. On top of this, McCarthy has dismissed some public concerns about the rule as “ludicrous” and “silly.”
As seen through these examples, the Environmental Protection Agency has been acting more like an advocacy group than a federal agency that is supposed to welcome comments from all sides. It has tried to influence the comments that were received. When the agency uses its massive resources to get support for its rule, it shouldn’t be a surprise when it receives comments that support the rule.
After receiving heat about these questionable actions, the agency defended itself by claiming, “Our goal is to inform and educate. We encourage folks from all perspectives to participate so we can understand more, learn more and finalize a stronger rule.”
An agency isn’t educating when it’s actively trying to gain support for its rule and using numerous social media outlets to advocate. Suggesting support for the proposed rule is the same as supporting clean water isn’t education; it’s rhetoric.
The agency isn’t encouraging folks from all perspectives to participate when the head of the agency calls some public concerns ludicrous and silly. The message to the public is don’t even bother expressing criticism because we will either mock it or ignore it.
Of course, the number of comments isn’t supposed to matter anyway. As the agency itself states, “The comment process is not a vote—one well-supported comment is often more informative to the agency than a thousand form letters.” In fact, most of the comments were form letters (there were more than 1 million mass mail comments).
McCarthy also fails to mention opposition to the rule is massive. Groups representing farmers, ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, homebuilders, mining companies, counties, cities and state legislators, as well as individuals, state officials and other groups have submitted substantive comments expressing opposition to the rule. In other words, there is widespread opposition rarely seen to a proposed rule.
The rulemaking process is supposed to be open and welcoming for the public. It should not be gamed by an agency.
If we are talking about support for a rule, form letters don’t provide any answers, and the agency knows this. These desperate actions by the agency are understandable (not justified) when their rule is one of the most widely reviled in recent memory.
Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been hit with a racketeering lawsuit in Florida court.
The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state.
Klayman has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and other prominent politicians.
The racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation's chief diplomat.
"Negotiations by email about influencing U.S. foreign policy or U.S. Government actions to benefit donors to ... The Clinton Foundation or sponsors of speaking engagements would not be captured on a U.S. Government email account because her emails would not be with a U.S. Government official," Klayman said in court documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.
Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter!
IRS watchdog warned about identity theft for years
BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 05/27/15 11:11 AM
In 2011, the IRS identified more than 1.1 million incidences of identity theft.
State Dept. stonewalls release of Clinton staff's emails about temporary IG
BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 05/26/15 7:25 PM
Officials argue the "nature and scope" of Citizens United's FOIA requests are too broad.
'Witch hunt,' 'side-show,' secretive Hillary scandals dissected Sunday morning
BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 05/24/15 2:41 PM
Sen. John McCain questioned the value of Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department.
8 things we learned from the Clinton emails
BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 05/23/15 2:09 PM
The highly selective trove of emails revealed the seemingly strong influence Blumenthal wielded over Clinton.
Judiciary Committee to State Dept: Your handling of Clinton emails 'troubling'
BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 05/23/15 10:21 AM
Sen. Chuck Grassley questioned Hillary Clinton's conflicting statements about her private emails.
WH says U.S. ready to work with Iraq
WH says U.S. ready to work with Iraq
Remembering our fallen heroes
Remembering our fallen heroes
Soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan, Obama honors the fallen
Soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan, Obama honors the fallen
Jeb Bush speaks to the crowd at SRLC in Oklahoma City
Jeb Bush speaks to the crowd at SRLC in Oklahoma City
"Hillary Clinton deleted 32,000 email messages from her email server that included her communications arranging, negotiating, and agreeing upon speaking engagements by Bill Clinton in return for large speaking fees and donations to The Clinton Foundation," the documents, dated May 20, said.
Klayman pushed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order a "neutral forensic expert ... to take custody and control of the private email server and reconstruct and preserve the official U.S. Government records relating to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy during Defendant Secretary Clinton's term as Secretary of State."
Hillary Clinton handed over 55,000 printed pages of emails to the State Department in November of last year and reportedly erased the remaining records off her private server.
Critics of Clinton's decision to forgo use of an official email account argue the presidential candidate could have simply withheld any incriminating messages from the batch she gave the State Department.
Her supporters have dubbed the quest for Clinton's State Department emails a partisan "witch hunt."
Klayman pointed to the litany of scandals involving missing records that have followed the Clintons for decades, including the fact that thousands of emails disappeared during Bill Clinton's administration after White House officials threatened internal computer experts who blew the whistle on the "suppression."
"It's a perfect RICO case, it fits completely," Klayman said of the lawsuit. "Our Congress doesn't even have the guts to subpoena her documents. They'd rather get on Fox News. So we felt had to bring that case. Somebody's got to do it."
Klayman said a major reason for his lawsuit involves the fact that Cheryl Mills, then-chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, and the secretary of state herself "lied to the lower court" in by claiming there were no documents related to a pair of Freedom of Information Act requests he filed in 2012 while knowing those records actually did exist on the private server.
One FOIA, filed May 2012, pertained to allegations that Hillary Clinton issued waivers for preferred companies to do business with Iran despite strict congressional sanctions. The other probed a 2012 leak of classified information about Israel and Iran to the New York Times and was filed in June of that year.
Klayman said records on the Clintons' private server are "in imminent danger of being lost" in court documents and urged the court to intervene.
Clinton Foundation officials did not return a request for comment on the case.
The massive charity drew fire after a book by Peter Schweizer entitled Clinton Cash suggested foreign governments and companies with interests before the State Department donated to the foundation with the expectation that Hillary or Bill Clinton would ensure they received preferential treatment from the agency.
The battle has been raging over redefining marriage in Alabama, as the state's constitution declares marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, federal courts are attempting to force the state to issue marriage licenses to those practicing sodomy. In an attempt to stop probate judges from issuing licenses arbitrarily, the Alabama Senate passes bill by a vote of 22-3 without having to obtain permission from a government official.
Senate Bill 377, a bill which would end marriage licensing and replace it with a contract process, was approved by the Alabama Senate on May 19.
According to the text of the bill, it would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate.
"This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics," reads the synopsis of the bill.
The synopsis then adds, "This bill would also authorize the judge of probate to collect a fee for recording the contract of marriage. This bill would provide that the fee currently collected by the judge of probate and paid to the district attorney upon issuance would be paid when the marriage contract is presented for recording. This bill would provide for an additional fee to be paid to the General Fund."
This does not open up marriage for same-sex couples. According to the legislation:
Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties 16 who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the 19 following minimum information:
(1) The names of the parties.
(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and 24 based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
(4) The signatures of the parties.
Keep in mind that in the State of Alabama it is still illegal for those practicing sodomy to engage in marriage.
Senator Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), who introduced the bill said, "The purpose of Senate Bill 377 is to bring order out of chaos."
"The sanctity of marriage cannot be sanctified by government of men," Albritton said. "That is where we have gotten ourselves in trouble."
"When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties," he added. "Go back long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won't find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred."
In other words, Albritton wants the issue of marriage back in the hands of the Church. While the contract portion would be recognized legally, the requirements for marriage to be handled lawfully under the umbrella of the Church would remain intact.
Though Albritton hinted at a possible illegal ruling by the Supreme Court as being valid and not affecting the legislation, the question that needs to come to the forefront in all of this is why the state is issuing marriage licenses in the first place. Do your homework and you'll discover that a racial component is part of that history. The second question that should be raised is why any state would sit idly by and wait on the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. Governors with any understanding and backbone would currently be declaring that they have no constitutional authority to rule in the matter and should simply warn the judge's that no matter what their decision was, it was not within the purview of their jurisdiction to rule on the measure. Finally, it should be asked why a fee continues to be associated, and not just associated, but increased. According to Albritton, it was "to raise support."
Though the bill itself does not define marriage, the Alabama constitution does. Amendment 774, adopted to the constitution in 2006 reads:
(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.
Chief Justice Roy Moore has told state judges not to disregard the ruling of a federal court on Alabama's constitution and marriage. He has made the case for what marriage is and where the right to marriage comes from, God. Moore encouraged Governor Robert Bentley to resist federal tyranny in the matter, but Bentley seems to be more geared towards political correctness than he does the truth about rights, marriage and his duty to the people of Alabama.
Led by Justice Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court also put a halt to illegal same-sex "marriages" across the state back in March.
What is happening to our culture? Every single day it is something else.
Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey’s beat is the Internet. But her big piece on the front page of Wednesday’s Style section is about something broader: “Forsaking monogamy: The evolution of relationships has made affairs less clandestine and less combustive. And of course there are Web sites to help match tryst-seekers.”
This being the Post, there is no space for critics of the "evolution" of online adultery Web sites or their users. Dewey promoted the “non-monogamous dating site Open Minded,” where her married female subject, Jessie, advertised, “I’m into building deep and loving relationships that add to the joy and aliveness of being human.” She talked her husband into “ethical non-monogamy.”
The Post also used the term “monogamish,” the cutesy term of radical gay sex columnist Dan Savage to describe the married-but-cheating lifestyle.
The online headline was “Are new dating apps killing monogamy? Or has it always been dead?” Dewey pushed (B). Or monogamy is an old “agricultural” tradition that’s fading away in the modern age. Adultery is the new mainstream, according to Open Minded founder Brandon Wade:
Open Minded is a new kind of dating site for a newly mainstream lifestyle: one in which couples form very real attachments, just not exclusively with each other. He expects swingers, polysexuals and experimental 20-somethings to use his site. But he guesses that most of his 70,000 users are people like Jessie: Those in committed, conventional relationships, who realize that, statistically speaking, few modern couples stay with a single person their whole lives.
“If you look at marriage, it developed as a survival strategy and a means of raising kids,” Wade said. “But relationships are no longer a necessary component of life. People have careers and other interests — they can survive without them.”
That’s not wrong, says Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and one of the world’s leading relationship researchers. In the caveman days, humans teamed up in non-exclusive pairs to protect their children. Later, as people learned to plant crops and settle in one place, marriage became a way for men to guarantee kids, and for women — who couldn’t push heavy plows or carry loads of crops to market — to eat and keep a roof over their heads....
In fact, given the history and prevalence of non-monogamous relationships throughout cultures, it’s not scientifically correct to say the human species mates or pairs for life. Dogs mate for life. Beavers mate for life. Humans have one-night stands, paramours and a 50 percent divorce rate.
Fisher dubs it a “dual reproductive strategy”: We’re biologically programmed to form pair-bonds, yes, but some people — many people — are also programmed to seek out variety.
So, if you stay true to your spouse, you’re more like a dog or a beaver than a human. To the Post, this is about empowering the ladies, not the men:
More and more women will make this choice or consider it, Fisher expects; it’s in keeping with decades of widespread social change and women’s empowerment. Just 30 years ago, when Jessie was in her 20s, the average woman married at 23 and had her first child within the year. Her mother’s generation didn’t even leave the home. The majority simply raised kids, preached chastity and finger-waved their hair.
“That’s all sliding away from us,” Fisher said. “We’re shedding all these agricultural traditions.... [and] returning to the way we were millions of years ago.”
The Post story doesn’t quite explain that the Open Minded site is selling threesomes and other polyamorous hookups from its home page. Wade tells the Web surfer on the home page he’s created “a safe and stigma-free environment that brings the ease and flexibility of online dating to the currently underserved world of open relationships.”
Dewey ends with a little slam on that ancient Christianity thing, and how millennials have no use for it: “Thus far, most of its self-declared ‘monogamish’ users are under 33. In other words, they’re women (and men) who paid off their own student loans, fooled around on Tinder — and grew up with a notion of personal independence much different from the one taught in the 1st century A.D.”
PS: On her Twitter page, Dewey toed the usual liberal line: “The one kind of online shaming I could probably get behind,” she wrote, and linked to an NPR article on.... “drought-shaming” in California.
BELIEVERS SHOULD RESIST DEATH AS AN ENEMY
The will of the believer "will"-ing physical death, gives
the Adversary power of death over that one, and no
believer should yield to a "desire to die" until he knows
beyond question that God has released him from further
service to His people. That a believer is "ready to die" is
a very small matter; he must be ready to live, until he is
sure that his life work is finished. God does not harvest
His corn until it is ripe, and His redeemed children should
be "garnered as a shock of corn in its season."
It is ofttimes the prince of death as a Murderer, working
through the ignorance of God's children, (1) as to his
power, (2) the conditions by which they give him power,
and (3) the victory of prayer by which they resist his
power, who cuts off God's soldiers from the battlefield.
It is Satan as a Murderer, who gives "visions of glory,"
"longings to die," to workers of value to the Church of
God, so that they yield to death, even in days of active
service, and slowly fade away.
Believers who would have victory over Satan at every
point, must resist his attack on the body, as well as on
the spirit and mind. They must seek knowledge of God's
laws for the body, so as to obey those laws, and give no
occasion to Satan to slay them. They should know the
place of the body in the spiritual life; (1) its prominence,
and yet (2) its obscurity. Paul said, "I keep under my
body." They must understand that the more knowledge
they have of the devices and power of the Adversary,
and of the fullness of the Calvary victory within their
reach for complete victory over him, the more he will
plan to injure them. The whole of his schemes against
God's children may be summed up under three heads:
(1) To cause them to sin, as he tempted Christ in
the wilderness; (2) To slander them, as Christ was
slandered by family and foes; (3) To slay them,
as Christ was slain at Calvary, when, by the direct
permission of God, the hour and power of darkness
gathered around Him, and He by the hands of
wicked men was crucified and slain (Acts 2: 23).
As the believer gains victories over Satan, and his
deceiving and lying spirits, by thus recognizing, resisting
and triumphing over them in their varied workings, his
strength of spirit to conquer them grows stronger; and he
will become more and more equipped to give the truth of
the finished work of Calvary as sufficient for victory over
sin and Satan; in the power and authority of Christ by the
Holy Spirit; which will set others free from their power.
War on the Saints by Jessie Penn-Lewis
Tomorrow: Conflict and Attack
Obama's Legacy - Sean Hannity
The courts dealt another blow to Barack Obama's unilateral amnesty plan. This is just one of the many issues now plaguing Obama's legacy as his presidency winds down.
Barack Obama has discovered a love for unilateral executive actions as president. While his defenders will claim that he is not abusing this power, the facts simply aren't on their side. According to an analysis by Breitbart, the number of executive orders and memoranda issued by Obama dwarfs his predecessors and is the greatest since Harry Truman.
Significant memoranda signed by Obama include, “Developing a pilot program to implement a new retirement savings account for low-income workers, instructing the Department of Education to permit various borrowers to top their student loan payments at 10% of income, forcing federal law enforcement agencies to track any firearm involved in a federal investigation, and allowing more availability of relevant executive branch records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” (Breitbart)
But none have been as controversial as his actions related to immigration and amnesty. Obama unilaterally tried to extend amnesty programs for “Dreamers” and their parents. This would have shielded as many as 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.
Over half of the states, led by Texas, sued claiming that Obama had overstepped his constitutional authority.
The courts agree. What happened this week is that a federal appeals court held a lower court ruling that Obama's unilateral actions are indeed unconstitutional. In other words, his plans for unilateral amnesty remain on hold.
The issue will likely end up in the Supreme Court. And this won't be the only big issue to be decided by the court. As the Washington Post points out, Obama's legacy is increasingly in legal jeopardy: “Same-sex marriage. ObamaCare. Climate change. And now immigration. And in many cases, there is significant doubt about whether his signature initiatives will stand legal scrutiny.”
The New York Times is also already looking at Obama's post-presidency legacy. Perhaps this is because his presidency is likely to be filled with a litany of failures. From his unconstitutional actions to failed foreign policy and the inability to really kickstart the economy and create jobs, it's no wonder that liberals are already trying to look beyond his presidency.
Your support keeps freedom alive!