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 »
Socialists Fear All Liberties - Frédéric Bastiat
Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)
Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)
Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)
Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows — and the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again — that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.)
Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people to associate together in true liberty.)
Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.
This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?
So what liberties, if any, should government have any control over?
Written by Allen West on July 27, 2015
The fallout from President Obama’s ill-conceived agreement with Iran has begun.
Over the weekend, the Ayatollah Khamenei sent a tweet showing Obama in silhouette with a gun to his head. The text was a blatant threat to the United States that it will be defeated if it engages Iran in combat. It’s clear the Iranian regime feels it has the high ground — especially while Obama was in Kenya being rebuffed for trying to lecture the Kenyan president about gay rights.
Are we sure about that poll which stated America is highly respected across the globe? Who did they ask, Lichtenstein and Monaco?
And in what Obama and his administration felt was to their advantage, they pushed a vote in the United Nations (UN) Security Council and the European Union to validate and endorse “his” deal. So now, the actions of our U.S. Congress, following the required 60-day review period, almost seem a fait accompli.
For all intents and purposes, the international sanctions are over, and new markets will be flocking to Iran — especially oil markets. This means not only hundreds of billions of unfrozen assets for Iran, but also new revenue which will flow to the world’s largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism. And this while our Congress holds hearings and goes on recess in August, kinda like a particularly bad episode of “As the World Turns.” Our Congress, who must achieve supermajority levels of 67 senators and 291 representatives to avoid Obama’s promised veto, has pretty much been relegated to irrelevance due to Obama’s end-around actions with the UN. Even if they can achieve the votes to sink the Iranian agreement, America will only have the ability to levy its own sanctions against Iran.
As for “snapback” sanctions, good luck after international business deals have launched and signed. And it takes a committee which includes Iran to “snapback” sanctions — doesn’t sound too snappy to me.
YAY!! This is a BIG Deal!!
The Texas Supreme Court today ordered the City of Houston to either repeal a controversial non-discrimination policy or put it to a citywide vote this November. Houston-area pastors celebrated the ruling as a victory in their battle with the city council and Mayor Annise Parker over the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes.
Jared Woodfill, a former Harris County Republican Party chief and a plaintiff in the case, said the ordinance, “tramples on the religious freedom of businesses and individuals, including, among other things, a provision allowing men … to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms under the protection of law.”
The Houston Area Pastors Council and supporters gathered over 50,000 signatures in June 2014 in an effort to rescind the ordinance. Parker and then-City Attorney Dave Feldman dismissed the majority of signatures. Three months ago, a Harris County district judge agreed the petition fell 585 signatures short of the requirement.
Looking into the future, Obama is going to make Hitler look like a goof-off.
“IRAN DEAL WORTH MORE THAN ALL U.S. AID TO ISRAEL SINCE 1948,” By Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart, June 27, 2015
iran us relations
The Iran deal will provide Iran with a cash windfall as sanctions are eased and assets are unfrozen. The total amount is estimated to be as high as $150 billion. If so, the Iran deal would give more cash to Iran than the $124.3 billion U.S. has given in total aid to Israel since 1948.
The exact amount that Iran would gain through the unfreezing of its foreign assets is a matter of some dispute. The Israeli ambassador has put the number at $150 billion; the Obama administration puts the number at $50 billion, since some of Iran’s assets “have already been obligated, including for projects with China,” the New York Times reports. Others say the number is higher; Foreign Policy estimated the number at “north of $120 billion,” with an additional $20 billion per year in oil revenues, making the deal worth $420 billion over 15 years.
If “north of $120 billion” is the best estimate, that would equal or surpass the total amount of U.S. aid to Israel since the country has been in existence, which the Congressional Research Service calculated to be $124.3 billion (in nominal terms) as of 2015. Even at the Obama administration’s low estimate, the cash freed to Iran by the deal would surpass total U.S. aid to Israel for the past 15 years, at minimum (roughly $3 billion per year).
It is true that the cash that Iran will access is “their own money,” as Secretary of State John Kerry has argued. Yet much of Israel’s aid is spent back in the U.S.–at least 75 percent of military aid, by law. In that sense, a large proportion of aid to Israel comes back as “our money” as well. Iran, of course, is not obligated to spend any of its foreign currency in the United States, and is certain to spend some of it on its terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East, as even the White House has conceded.
Given how controversial aid to Israel has become on the left (and portions of the right), the sheer scale of Iran’s benefits ought to give pause to supporters of the deal.
Monday's truth cartoon. Some things never change... Election 2016
Your support keeps freedom alive!