Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
In 2008, during Obama's first national campaign, Barack Obama is on record saying that America is not a Christian Nation.
"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just," Obama said. "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers."
He then continues by saying,
"I think it's time we joined a debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern pluralistic society."
Is multiculturalism a good thing or a bad thing for our American society?
You might not realize it, but this is a very important question.
The current "politically correct" viewpoint argues that pluralism – the acceptance and celebration of differing religions, philosophies and ideologies -- contributes to the strength of America.
You can see this in the widespread attempt to sanitize schools, courts and courthouses, and public buildings and public places, of any reference to God, Christ and the Bible.
This agenda is based on the notion that we are a more stable, prosperous society because we embrace diversity, toleration and acceptance of anything and everything.
But is this true? Those who founded and fought for our American culture and our American form of government didn't think so. In fact they had a very different view.
You are probably familiar with the name of Samuel F. B. Morse. He was the inventor who developed the Morse Code.
But his father, Jedidiah Morse was a pretty famous person as well. A Yale graduate, he was an educator who is still known as the "Father of American Geography." His work in that field included a textbook called "Geography Made Easy" which was used widely in schools, colleges, libraries and thousands of American homes.
Here's what he said about the importance of Christianity to the culture and the administration of government:
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism…
Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings that flow from them, must fall with them."
Was Jedidiah Morse right about this?
Asked another way, how is this multiculturalism working out for our culture.
As we see the role of Christianity diminished in our country -- as we see our institutions abandon or corrupt its doctrine -- are things getting better or worse for us?
When we eliminate all moral standards – When nothing is really considered to be "wrong" anymore, do we have greater freedom?
If Morse was right, America is in trouble.
Our Founding generation fought for and died for something. If we now believe that there is nothing that is wrong, then what did they fight against and what did they die for?
Or did they know something we have forgotten?
Psalm 33:12 reminds us, as it informed them,
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/10/multic...
When conservatives consider the casualties of Obama’s national security policies, their attention is drawn quite naturally to Benghazi. In this shameful episode, the Obama Administration sacrificed an ambassador and three American heroes to protect a deceptive presidential campaign message in which Obama claimed that the war against al-Qaeda was over and won (“Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run”).
When conservatives consider the casualties of Obama’s national security policies, their attention is drawn quite naturally to Benghazi. In this shameful episode, the Obama Administration sacrificed an ambassador and three American heroes to protect a deceptive presidential campaign message in which Obama claimed that the war against al-Qaeda was over and won (“Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run”). The facts are these: Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American heroes were sent into an al-Qaeda stomping ground that the British and other diplomatic consulates had already evacuated; they were denied the security they had requested; they were then left to die during a seven hour fire fight when their compound was attacked, and finally betrayed in death, when Obama and his representatives lied to the world about what had taken place and when he failed to bring their killers to justice as he had mendaciously promised he would.
Benghazi can be seen as the collateral damage caused by presidential lies – and worse – presidential denial that there is in fact a war that Islamists have declared on America. Instead Obama insists – in the official language he authorized and that is still in place – that America’s responses to acts of Islamic terror should be described as “overseas contingency operations.” If Islamic murders and beheadings take place in the homeland, Obama calls them “workplace violence.” Benghazi is also the most shameful presidential abandonment of Americans in the field in our history – a disgrace compounded when Obama justified his trade of five Taliban Generals for one American deserter by saying Americans don’t leave their countrymen on the battlefield, which is precisely what he did in Benghazi. All of which justifies the conservative focus on this terrible event.
But the casualties of Obama’s reign in Benghazi are dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of deaths his policies have led to in Syria and Iraq, and the millions of Iraqis, Syrians and Lybians that those same policies have caused to flee their homes and become homeless in Turkey, Tunisia and other places of refuge. Obama’s legacy is defined by his ideological aversion to American power, his rule as the most anti-military president in our history, and his deeds as an “anti-war” activist, opposed to the “war on terror” because he believes that America’s (and Israel’s) policies are the cause of terrorism and the hatred that Islamic fanatics direct against our country.
Because of his ideological opposition to American power, Obama deliberately and openly surrendered America’s gains in Iraq, which had been won through the sacrifice of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of American casualties. By deliberately handing over America’s massive military base in Iraq – a country that borders Syria, Afghanistan and Iran – Obama turned that country over to the terrorists and Iran, as his generals and intelligence chief and secretary of defense warned it would. Obama disregarded the warnings from his national security advisers – as no other American president would have – because he regarded America rather than the terrorists as the threat. In abandoning Iraq and deliberately losing the peace, he betrayed every American and every Iraqi who gave their lives to keep Iraq out of the hands of the terrorists and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Obama’s stubborn refusal to use America’s military might – ground forces backed by air power – when Assad crossed the “red line” Obama had drawn in Syria created a second power vacuum that the terrorists filled, thus leading to the emergence of ISIS or ISIL – the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant. Defenders of Obama will claim that the American public would not have supported a military intervention in Syria even if Obama had ordered one. But why is that? It is because for eleven years, beginning with their assault on “Bush’s war” in Iraq, the Democrats have sabotaged the war on terror, claiming that America’s use of power for anything but “humanitarian” purposes is illegitimate, dangerous and the root cause of the terrorist problem.
Because it was “humanitarian” Obama felt justified in conducting an unauthorized, illegal intervention in Libya to overthrow an anti-al Qaeda dictator, saying it was to prevent an invisible threat to civilians there. The result? Al-Qaeda is now a dominant force in Libya, and 1.8 million Libyans – a third of the population – have fled to Tunisia. Another brutal Obama legacy. Yet, how firm is Obama’s commitment to humanitarian interventions? In Iraq he stood by while more than half a million Christians were either slaughtered or driven into exile by ISIS murderers on their mission to cleanse the earth of infidels. This was the oldest Christian community in the world, going back to the time of Christ, and Obama let it be systematically destroyed before bad press and pressure from his own party caused him to intervene to save Yazvidis and a Christian remnant trapped on a mountain top.
The Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for Iraqis, Syrians, and Libyans. Now that ISIS is in control of territory the size of a state, has access to hundreds of millions of petrol dollars and advanced U.S. ordnance, not to mention chemical weapons that Saddam left behind, it is an impending disaster for the American homeland as well.
You didn’t think President Obama would do anything about amnesty before the midterm elections? Think again. It’s been quietly going on right under our noses.
Remember when we reported the government had been soliciting bids for transportation of children as early as January? Well, there’s another contract opportunity being advertised for “card consumables.”
As Breitbart reports, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge” scenario of nine million immigrant ID cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”
“The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount for a total of nine million.”
“The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document says.”
Those “future immigration reform initiative requirements” are far beyond estimates from the previous “Gang of Eight” immigration reform proposal, which went down in flames some months ago.
It would appear our Dear Leader is planning executive amnesty on a breathtaking scale.
My fellow Americans, if there was ever a time to get out and vote, it is for this midterm election. There is only one way to stop Obama’s agenda before 2016 and that is with the “I” word and the only way that can happen is if Democrats no longer control the Senate.
Please do not sit this one out.
Two ordained ministers have filed a federal lawsuit and are seeking a restraining order to prevent local officials from forcing them to marry same-sex couples, saying they have been threatened with fines and possible jail time over their refusal.
Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, claiming that city officials told them that they are required to conduct gay marriages under a nondiscrimination ordinance.
If they do not, the Knapps say, that they could “face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines,” according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom. The firm said the couple could face up to 180 days in jail or $1,000 in fines for each day they refuse.
“Each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties,” reads the official complaint. “Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over three years and being fined $7,000.”
An apparent refusal reportedly came last Friday when a man called the chapel two days after gay marriage was legalized in Idaho to inquire about a same-sex ceremony. The couple declined to perform the wedding, essentially placing them in violation of the ordinance; they subsequently filed the lawsuit.
While some might be wondering why ordained ministers are purportedly being forced to marry gay couples, consider that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, which opened in 1989, is a for-profit business, which means it is not exempt from local nondiscrimination regulations.
That said, the Alliance Defending Freedom claims that Donald and Evelyn Knapp perform religious ceremonies, which include references to God and Bible scripture. The firm is fighting back, arguing that the couple should not be coerced to take actions that violate their faith.
“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jeremy Tedesco said. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here — and it’s happened this quickly.”
The couple has been clear in the past that they would rather close up shop than perform same-sex ceremonies.
“I think the Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is not his way, and therefore I cannot unite people in a way that I believe would conflict with what the Bible teaches,” Donald Knapp told KXLY-TV back in May.
Your support keeps freedom alive!