Opening Meeting Nite
April 28, 2015
Affidavit Signing night: We have some affidavits we would like to ask member so sign, we will have a notary present to notarize them. The subject matter of the Affidavits are as follows:
Affidavit one, Common Core is a national curriculum indoctrinating our children under a United Nations Educational Agenda based on Socialism. Common Core Violates 3 Federal Laws:
- The General Education Provisions ACt (20 USC 1232A)
- Department of education Organization Act (20 USC 3403(b))
- The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 USC 7907(a))
Second Affidavit relates to executive orders and their direct violation of the Constitution, The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that ACTS of Congress MUST comply with the Constitution, in Reid vs. Covert October 1956, 3554 U.S. 1, at page 17 the Supreme Court held: “There is nothing in the Constitution that says laws enacted (or executive orders written) do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
Third Affidavit relates to Constitution Day, To commemorate the September 17, 1787 signing of the Constitution of The United States, Congress has designated September 17th of each year as Constitution Day, and September 17-23 of each year as Constitution Week. Each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year SHALL hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17th of such year for the students served by the educational institution.
REGARDING MOVIE NIGHT “HORNETS NEST” I made the decision after viewing the movie ” Hornets Nest” that I would not show it at a Tea Party Meeting. The reason can be well understood by those of us who have served in the military, especially in combat, the language is very, very strong, and lots of it, this movie was filmed on the battlefield no cutting, all raw footage. If anyone would like to view it, they are welcome to take it home, view it then return it so other can watch it. Yes it is in the theaters, there you make your own choice if you want to see it or not.
May 5th – Gregg Prentice – Election Intergity of Fl/Voter Registration Issues
May 12th – Starla Brown/Marc Fox – AFP Field Director on Upcoming Plans including Highlands County
May 19th – Joe Bernard – New CEO Highlands Regional Hospital, Highlands County – Hospital Coverage Under ACA
June 9th – Frank DeVarona – The Muslim Threat to America
June 16th – Art Ally – Faith and Liberty
October 20 – Brian Mast – Motivational Speaker – Double Amputee from Afghanistan.
This page is dedicated to Political petitions,
We need members to follow up on them.
Remember: Donations are a matter of personal choice,
Personally, I do not recommend anyone donate to every petition .
POSTED APRIL 24, 2015
Heritage Action for America
Week of April 19, 2015 – April 25, 2015
Stay current with the latest News around
the Nation and the World
Click on Blue/Red (Critical) Headline for the story
2nd Amendment – When The Brady Campaign Filed A Frivolous Anti-Gun Lawsuit, This Judge Responded Perfectly – 04/26
A perfect example of the PLCAA being used appropriately occurred recently after the Brady Campaign filed a lawsuit against four sporting goods companies on behalf of the mother of a shooting victim from the Aurora, Colo., shooting massacre — a suit quickly dismissed by Judge Richard P. Matsch. Their lawsuit attempted to place blame for the death of the plaintiff’s daughter due to “negligence” on the companies’ part, claiming they didn’t have “safeguards” in place to keep mentally deranged killers like James Holmes from purchasing their equipment. Not only did Judge Matsch dismiss the anti-gun group’s case, he also ordered “reasonable attorney fees” be paid to the defendants by the plaintiffs in the case. This is the Judge who presided over the Oklahoma Bombing trial of Terry Nichols
CLARIONPROJECT – Top Iranian General: Nuclear Inspectors Will Not be Permitted – 04/22
The deputy head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corpscategorically rejected any international inspectors on any Iranian military bases as part of the nuclear deal. Brigadier-General Hossein Salami told Iran’s state-run Press TV “They will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams.” “Visiting a military base by a foreign inspector would mean the occupation of our land because all our defense secrets are there” Salami said. “Even talking about the subject means national humiliation.”
NEWSMAX – Radical Islam Hungrily Eyeing US as Target – 04/22
Concern has been mounting recently over a trend on U.S. soil: Radical Islam is trying ever-new ways to sow destruction here. The examples are disturbing. Over the past several weeks, six Minnesota men have been charged with terrorism, accused of traveling or attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State group; two men were arrested in New York as they prepared to join militants in Syria and a third man was arrested in Florida for helping to fund their operation. Two women from Queens suspected of being a terrorist sympathizer’s were arrested in New York for allegedly plotting to detonate pressure cooker bombs in New York City, and a U.S. Army National Guard member and his cousin were arrested in a terror plot, which included bombing an Illinois armory and attacks on law-enforcement that could’ve killed up to 100 people.
FOXNEWS – Book on ‘Clinton Cash’ reportedly claims foreign donors got State Dept. favors – 04/20 – Must Watch Video
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign is just one week out of the gate, but already a supposedly bombshell book threatens to rock her candidacy. The New York Times reported Monday that the book, set for release on May 5, will make new claims about donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign donors. Specifically, the book reportedly claims foreign entities that donated to the foundation — and that gave former President Bill Clinton high-dollar speaking fees — in turn received favors from the Clinton State Department. Author Peter Schweizer reportedly claims to have found a “pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds.”
Why Hasn’t President Obama been Impeached? A question that keeps going around the internet in many forms, the answer is below.
Modern Presidential Impeachment Procedure:
The United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Thus far in the history of the United States there been three Presidential impeachment proceedings — in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act – 1974 against President Richard Richard Nixon for the Watergate coverup (106 years after Johnson) – 1998-99 against President Bill Clinton for concealing an extramarital affair (24 years after Nixon).
Please pay particular attention to the very last statement, this is why he has not been impeached.
- Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.
- The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.
- If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.
- If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.
- If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).
- The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.
- The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.
- The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.
- After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate’s verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.
Marco Rubio takes early edge in Republican pundit primary
On newspaper pages and online, the pundit primary is heating up in the Republican Party.
The views of conservative columnists such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Stephen Hayes, and Jonah Goldberg will shape the way donors and party leaders view the 2016 candidates.
Here’s a look at the GOP hopefuls who, for better or worse, are getting the most attention from these influential thinkers:
The Florida senator is running away with this contest.
The buzz for Rubio began back in 2012 as Republicans sought to regroup after President Obama’s diverse coalition delivered him a surprisingly easy victory over GOP nominee Mitt Romney in the general election.
“If there’s a winner tonight, it’s the Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio,” Will said on Nov. 4, 2012. “All eyes are now going to be turned to him as a man who might have a way to broaden the demographic appeal of this party.”
The young Hispanic politician’s appeal among conservative pundits has grown steadily since then.
Just last month, Rubio was buried in the polls, but Krauthammer declared him the most likely to win the GOP nomination. Since his announcement last week, he’s shot to the top of the pack, though.
Krauthammer has called Rubio “the most knowledgeable and fluent current contender” on foreign policy, and Hayes has labeled him “the best communicator in the Republican party and probably in American politics today.”
Earlier this month, Kristol seemed giddy over the prospect that Republicans had the opportunity to buck history and nominate a fresh new face for a party that he said typically nominates “the presumptive heir.”
“This year, Democrats are falling in line, really to an extraordinary degree, I think, behind Hillary Clinton who lost eight years ago,” he said. “And it’s Republicans who seem to have an appetite for someone new and different. So, we’re ready for Marco.”
The pundits also look favorably on the Wisconsin governor’s likely candidacy.
Krauthammer, Will and Hayes have all said Walker is either tied with Rubio or just slightly behind him as the candidate with the best odds of becoming the party’s standard-bearer.
In a February interview on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Will gushed over Walker, calling him a “pure Reagan-ite” who showed guts in his recall fight and who will reap the rewards from the donor community because of it.
Krauthammer has said Walker has “the attributes you’d want for this kind of race,” arguing in a February appearance on Fox News that he can appeal to both the Tea Party and establishment wings of the party.
Still, the pundits seem wary of Walker’s early foray into the field, citing some early missteps as evidence he may not be ready for the rigors of a presidential campaign.
Walker has been criticized for changing positions on ethanol subsidies and immigration, for firing a staffer who was critical of the Iowa caucuses, for comparing Wisconsin union demonstrators to the Islamic State and for flubbing questions on evolution and President Obama’s patriotism.
Goldberg wrote a column called, “Is Walker ready for prime time?,” in which he stated that the notion the Wisconsin governor is in over his head is “rapidly becoming conventional wisdom.”
Kristol compared Walker’s early blunders to “spring training…when a player is learning a new position.”
Krauthammer said the missteps could be overcome, calling them, “Rookie mistakes, easily forgotten — if he learns from them.”
The former Florida governor is falling flat with conservative pundits.
They generally agree his intentions are good, but that he’s the wrong person to represent the party in 2016 and maybe the worst candidate to take on Hillary Clinton in the general election.
“There’s no way there will be a Bush-Clinton race in 2016,” Kristol said in 2014.
“He’s the only Republican candidate who would make the Clinton name an asset for Hillary, not a liability,” Goldberg wrote in a column called “Jeb Bush is not the GOP’s ideal ‘change’ candidate.”
Hayes predicted that Bush’s early fundraising success wouldn’t be enough to push him across the finish line, saying on Fox News that the “grassroots conservatives will have a lot to say about this before this is over.”
And Krauthammer has openly bashed Bush for the now infamous remark that some immigrants come to the country illegally “as an act of love,” calling the comment “bizarre.”
Will seems the most open to Bush, calling him “the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan” and defending Bush’s stance on immigration.
But for Will, Common Core is a bridge too far.
“Unless stopped now, the federal government will not stop short of finding in Common Core a pretext for becoming a national school board,” he wrote. “If Bush does not see the pertinence of this…he should not be put in charge of the executive branch.”
Unfortunately for the libertarian-leaning Kentucky Senator, major conservative pundits hew closely to the hawkish wing of the party.
Krauthammer has said Paul is “closest to Obama on his view of foreign policy,” and Hayes has written an op-ed on Paul’s foreign policy called “Rand Just Doesn’t Understand.”
“I think Rand Paul is totally overrated as a 2016 possibility,” said Kristol, who is one of the party’s most influential defense hawks. “The media loves him because he takes a couple of liberal views, publicizes them in an incoherent way. I predict Rand Paul will get fewer votes than his father [former Texas Rep. Ron Paul] got in 2012.”
Even those who aren’t outright hostile to Paul over his foreign policy say his national security stances will cost him politically. Goldberg has sought to parse Paul’s views, saying there’s a difference between being an “isolationist,” which he argues Paul is not, and a “non-interventionist,” which he said is a better description of the Kentucky senator.
“The problem is that the political ground has just caved in beneath him,” Goldberg said.
Other pundits have expressed admiration of Paul for his willingness to speak bluntly or take difficult positions on a range of issues that many politicians shun, like criminal sentencing reform and drug laws.
However, others are skeptical there’s political payoff.
“He’s trying to base his campaign on groups that don’t often vote Republican or vote at all; particularly youth,” wrote Will.
The Texas senator’s problems among pundits are similar to Paul. Still, they say to watch out for Cruz, arguing that the Tea Party favorite could surprise a lot of people with support from grassroots conservatives.
“Ted Cruz has one great advantage: He’s very much underestimated, his chances considerably underrated,” Kristol tweeted.
Similarly, Hayes has said Cruz is “underestimated by mainstream journalists and the mainstream Republican establishment and the very reasons that they are skeptical of his ability to do well are the reasons that he will do well or will be a formidable candidate in the Republican primary.”
But they say Cruz’s penchant for mayhem in the Senate and thin legislative record calls into question why he’s even running.
Krauthammer speaks highly of Rubio, another first-term senator, but bashes Cruz — who has been in the Senate just four years — as inexperienced.
“Cruz talks, but you have to ‘walk the walk’ rather than just talk the talk,” Krauthammer said. “You have to have done something. But that’s not his record in the Senate.”
Goldberg says that Cruz has a “palpable disdain for the consensus-building and glad-handing that these processes require,” while Will has disputed Cruz’s claim that there is a silent majority of evangelicals who have been on the sidelines awaiting a true conservative candidate.
“There is no need to nominate Cruz in order to make the GOP conservative,” he wrote.
A few days after Netanyahu was re-elected in Israel –
Senator Marco Rubio
gave this impassioned speech on the Senate Floor
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) took to the Senate floor Thursday to voice his opinion on President Obama’s assault on Israel.
It has taken two days for Obama to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and congratulate him on his reelection. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have taken part in very sensitive talks with Iran about its nuclear program.
Rubio began speaking on how Obama has always been among the first to call controversial leaders and congratulate them on winning their elections but has remained silent when it came to congratulating on the United States’ biggest ally in the Middle East. Rubio continued, making multiple points that the Obama administration has not stood with Israel.
“If America does not stand with Israel, who would we stand with?” Rubio said.
Malik Obama interviewed by Director Joel Gilbert
(Dreams from My Real Father)
In this “tell all” interview with Director Joel Gilbert, Malik Obama, the “half-brother” of President Obama, reveals his pain and confusion over Barack’s shunning of his Kenyan family after becoming President. Malik provides a stunning take on the film, Dreams from My Real Father, stating “Frank Marshall Davis and Barack look alike” and adds that Barack does not look like his father. Malik says he would like a DNA test so the truth can come come out. Malik also states that Barack is “deceptive” and “has not been an honest man.” In the interview, Malik displays an early manuscript he helped edit of Barack’s book Dreams from My Father with a different title. Malik Obama, also known as Abon’go (Roy) Obama, was born in 1958. He is the first child from the marriage of Barack Hussein Obama and Kezia Obama. Malik and Barack first met in 1985 when Barack flew from Chicago to Washington DC to visit Malik. Malik later hosted Barack in Kenya and they served as the best men at each other’s weddings. Barack wrote of his lifelong relationship with Malik (Roy) in Dreams from My Father.
Any views or opinions presented in this Video are solely those of the Narrator/Interviewee and do not necessarily represent those of The Highlands Tea Party. This documentary is sent for informational purposes only, it is your choice to read, forward, or delete.