June 2019
« May    
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information


THE HIGHLANDS TEA PARTY MEETING – June 18, 2019 – Dr. Lee Gross – Direct Patient Care




1000 Sebring Square
Sebring Florida

June 18, 2019

Dr. Lee Gross
Direct patient Care
Dr. Lee Gross, President of the Docs 4 Patient Care Foundation and the founder of Epiphany Health Direct Primary Care used an op-ed to describe an easy change in the law the Trump
Administration could make that would open up enormous amounts of access
to low cost, quality healthcare.

June 25, 2019 Open Night – 
July 23, 2019Kevin Roberts – Candidate County Commissioner District 1 Kevin J. Roberts, is the founder
and first Chief Executive Officer, the Champion for Children Foundation of Highlands County, Inc.
JuLY 30, 2019Rep Pigman – 2019  FL Legislative session update.
August 6, 2019Armando Escalante Constitutional Convention
September 24, 2019 Karen Schoen – Knowledge is Power
October 01, 2019Tom Trento and Dick Manasseri – Trump reelection, United West and SCS and pending visit to Israel.

Vice Chair Bob Gilmore – Talking Points
Chairman John Nelson – Talking Points
Tina Altic AFP Regional Representative

Hope this week finds everyone in good health.
Please let myself or Bob know if you or any member is going in for
surgery, or have other issues we should put in our prayers.

VACATION SCHEDULE: The Highlands Tea Party will be taking the following weeks off:

THTP will take July 2nd, 9th, and 16th off,
Meetings will resume July 23rd.

We are asking everyone to PLEASE attend the Don Elwell Town Hall Meeting on the 16th of July at SFSC,
This is on our schedule, was planned as a meeting at the Town Hall.

I am sure there will be Pizza served. It is important meeting as they are working on the budget
for for the 2019/2020 period.

We are working to make America better, the grassroots are the base
for positive change in this nation, but we all need to pitch in whether it be:

  • Writing letters to senators, many we try to set up for you to make it easy,Sign up for NumberUSA send the faxes, they
    are all written, and you can add your comments.  It’s to easy folks let’s use it!
  • Making phone calls to Legislators, not just the ones that represent us, all on
    the list we send out.
  • Writing letters to the editors. you folks have to be the voice that fires back at
    these Left-Wing progressives in the local paper, they will only accept so many
    of my letters each month WE NEED TO SPEAK UP AND ANSWER THEIR LEFTIST
    PROGRESSIVE SPIN!.  Please Let me know by email if you send a letter.
    John Larsen Letter to Editor – 1/23 – Citizens of the U.S are to be protected
    Jack Nelson Letter  to Editor – 1/10 – Walls vs Technology: What Does America Say?
    Jack Nelson Letter to Editor –  2/19 – Rebuttal – Who really had the Highest National Debt.
    John Nelson Letter to Editor – 2/26Rebuttal – To the “MAGA CURSE ” published 2/16
    Bill Rees –  Letter to Editor -02/22 – Rebuttal – Stop Selling Guns across from the HIgh School
    Jack NelsonGuest Column – 03/04 – What is the Root of the Problem
    Jack NelsonGuest Column – 03/20 – What Can we do to resolve school shooting
    Millie Richmond Guest Column – 03/16 – Listen to our Story
    John Larsen Letter to Editor – 03/21 – Without Exception our Framers were Christians
    John Nelson Guest Column  – 05/14- New Rick Scott bill deprives Americans of Critical Medicines
    john Nelson Letter to Editor  –  05/19 – Assault is grossly misused word

Education is the key – This is The Tea Parties Objective!
We are a conservative, partisan, patriotic, Constitution, GOD loving organization!





An open letter to new Florida residents:


GOP County Chair – An open letter to new Florida residents: Please don’t break our state!

Dear New Florida Resident:

Welcome to the Sunshine State! Like those of us who already live here, you’re no doubt enjoying Florida’s beautiful weather, affordable housing, favorable tax policies (how about that no state income tax?) and all-around wonderful quality of life.

And for those of you who moved from New York, California or other places where sky-high housing costs, even higher taxes, crime and traffic are just facts of life Florida must seem like paradise.

And it is. Which is why your new neighbors have just one simple request: Please don’t break our state.

And by “please don’t break our state,” of course, we mean “please don’t keep voting for the same Democratic policies that ruined the place you just came from.”

You see, for several years now, Floridians have noticed a trend that is as disturbing as it is mystifying. Every month, thousands of new residents pour into our well-run paradise of a state and then many of our new neighbors continue to vote Democrat.

They don’t seem to comprehend that the reason places like New York, Detroit and California have become unlivable is because those states and cities have been under Democratic control for most of the past 50 years.

Taken to their logical conclusion, Democratic policies of big government spending, overly generous welfare programs and crushing tax burdens eventually destroy even the most prosperous communities.

Detroit is a perfect example: In 1960, Detroit was a shining example of American free enterprise. Its residents enjoyed the highest per capita income of any U.S. city. Then the Democrats took over. Today, Detroit is one of the poorest cities – a shambles where derelict houses and buildings line crime-ridden streets.

Or look at San Francisco. That bastion of the American left should be a liberal utopia, right? And it is – if you recognize that modern liberalism invariably leads to greater income inequality, not less, with big government exacerbating social ills like public drug use, crime and rampant homelessness.

All of which is to say, we get it. We understand why you would want to leave places that have been decimated by the Democratic Party’s liberal policies. What we don’t understand is why you would want to turn Florida into the place you just left by continuing to vote Democrat.

Because, as you are quickly learning, we have it good here. Conservative leadership has made Florida one of the best states in which to live. Republicans at all levels have fought for more freedom, smaller government, better education, less regulation and more innovative policies.

Our great new Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Cabinet and our state Legislature are continuing this trend. And now that you’ve traded your snow shovel for sunscreen, we hope you will trade your Democratic Party membership for the party that made Florida’s success possible the Republican Party.

So once again, welcome to Florida. We’re so happy you escaped from the broken place you just left. Just please don’t break this one, too.

Brandon Patty is chairman of the St. Johns County Republican Party.

Senators reach $4.5B deal on Trump’s emergency border request

Senators reach $4.5B deal on Trump’s
emergency border request

Senators reach $4.5B deal on Trump's emergency border request
© Getty Images
The top members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have struck a deal on President Trump‘s request for more funding tied to the U.S.-Mexico border after weeks of stalemate, two aides confirmed to The Hill.
The deal — worked out between Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the top Democrat on the panel — would provide Trump more than $4.5 billion for the border funding package.
The agreement comes less than a day before the Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up the border package. If senators hadn’t been able to reach a deal, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had threatened to force a vote on a bill next week to pressure Democrats to go on the record on the Senate floor.
The Senate’s $4.5 billion package is expected to include billions in humanitarian aid for the border, including money to shore up the Department of Health and Human Services’s (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement. Senators and administration officials had warned that without more money the office would run out of funding by early next month.
Lawmakers are hoping to pass the supplemental border bill before they leave at the end of next week for the July 4th recess. But there are still hurdles, including winning over the Democrat-controlled House.
A House Dem aide said on Tuesday evening that they hadn’t yet signed on to the deal between Leahy and Shelby nor seen the details.

Friends and Family Meet and Greet with President Trump

RALLY AFTER THE RALLY!  President Trump is flying into Miami after the rally in Orlando on Tuesday, June 18th.  A “meet and greet” is being organized at the Miami Airport, 11:00 pm.  

Show President Trump Florida is with him!

Image result for picture of trump and air force one

McCabe Confirms Some FBI Employees ‘Frustrated’ No Charges Brought Against Hillary Clinton

McCabe: Some FBI Employees “Frustrated” Clinton Wasn’t Charged in Email Scandal


NEW YORK — Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe lent some credibility to a previous White House claim that some FBI personnel were upset over the agency’s decision, under the leadership of disgraced ex-FBI Director James Comey, not to charge Hillary Clinton in the criminal probe of her private email server use.
The claim that some FBI rank-and-file workers lost confidence in Comey following his infamous press conference announcing that no charges would be brought has been in dispute.
Yet in largely unreported testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on December 21, 2017, McCabe confirmed that some FBI personnel were “surprised” and “frustrated” with the result of the
CThe Associated Presslinton email case as announced by Comey. A transcript of McCabe’s testimony was released three weeks ago by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga.
On July 5, 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, Comey held a notorious press conference during which he bypassed Justice Department tradition by unilaterally declaring that “no charges are appropriate” in the case of Clinton’s private email server. It is not the role of the FBI to make such pronouncements.
In his testimony, McCabe clarified that he was “not aware” of sentiments expressing disappointment or surprise from within the small unit that specifically investigated Clinton’s email case. But he stated several times that there was negative sentiment about Comey’s decision within the larger FBI.
“I am not aware of those sentiments within the team,” MCcCabe said. “But I am aware that the outcome of the case was surprising, and maybe frustrating to many people, including some of the people who work for the FBI.”  Asked what those FBI employees were surprised about, McCabe replied, “I think, like many people around the country, they were surprised by the result in the case and the fact that we were not recommending pursuing charges.”
“When I say surprise,” he added, “I’m talking about people who heard the Director’s statement on July 5 and were frustrated with that result, not people who were engaged in the investigation or the prosecutors across the street at the Department of Justice.”  McCabe was asked to respond to a November 2016 statement from Trump confidante Rudy Giuliani that he had heard from other former FBI agents “there’s a revolution going on” inside the agency over the decision not to charge Clinton.
“I am not aware of a revolution,” McCabe replied before going on to once again concede that some FBI agents were indeed surprised and possibly frustrated.
“As I said, there was certainly FBI personnel who were surprised and maybe frustrated by that result,” McCabe continued.  “Director Comey spent a lot of time, in the months following his announcement, you know, in visits to field offices and interactions with retired agents’ groups, and things like that, answering a lot of questions about why we had done what we had done.”  The White House official who took the most flack for saying that FBI agents were upset over the case was undoubtedly White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who made a statement to that effect to reporters on May 10, 2017.
“Most importantly, the rank-and-file of the FBI had lost confidence in Comey,” she said, discussing Comey’s loss of credibility. “We’ve heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things.”  According to the final report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, Sanders walked back some of those statements.  Reads the report: “Sanders told this Office that her reference to hearing from ‘countless members of the FBI’ was a ‘slip of the tongue.’”
“She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything,” the report continued.  After the release of Mueller’s report, Sanders went on Fox News where she maintained that the claim about disgruntled FBI agents over the Clinton email case was “not untrue.”
“I acknowledge that I had a slip of the tongue when I used the word ‘countless,’ but it’s not untrue,” she said, explaining that she meant to convey that “a number of both current and former FBI agents agreed with the president. James Comey was a disgraced leaker who tried to politicize and undermine the very agency he was supposed to run.”
In the wake of the Mueller report’s release, CNN political analyst April Ryan went so far as to call for Sanders to be fired over her statements about FBI agents.
“Not only does she not have any credibility left, she lied,” Ryan claimed. “She outright lied and the people, the American people, can’t trust her. They can’t trust what’s said from the president’s mouthpiece, spokesperson, from the people’s house.”  “Therefore, she should be let go; she should be fired; end of story,” Ryan stated. “When there is a lack of credibility there, you have to start … lopping the heads off. It’s ‘Fire me Thursday’ or ‘Fire me, Good Friday.’ She needs to go.”
In October 2016, the Daily Caller reported that some FBI agents were frustrated with Comey’s leadership following the Clinton email probe conclusion.
“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling,” one FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases was quoted as saying in a transcript obtained by the Daily Caller. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

Interesting commentary on the rise of the economy under President Trump

Floyd Stern:

From a friend of a friend…

They struggle so hard to ignore the success of the Trump economic policies that they simply trip over their own words
In the Wed Biz section they did a story headlined; “JOB BUMP IN RED COUNTIES: IS IT TRUMP or JUST A BLIP”..
First keep in mind that these are mostly jobs that Democrats in the 2016 election claimed “were simply gone forever” basically saying to the American people; get used to “not working” accept your unemployment check and keep quite.
But listen to some of the numbers according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment grew strongly in the 1256 counties that voted strongly for Trump.  Even though this seemed like it might be a “blip” in the first year it has continued into the second year.
The major recipients seem to be in “manufacturing” EXACTLY where Obama said; “what is Trump going to do, wave a magic wand?”.
Well, I guess Trump did have that magic wand and it appears to be mostly a direct result of eliminating federal rules that has stifled manufacturing sectors remember?  According to the economic pundits like Paul Krugman “we are in for the biggest economic crash of the last 100 years with Trump as president.”

BTW, that quote was the day after Trump won the election and he is the NY Times leading Nobel Prize winning economist who writes op-eds for the same paper.  The “net” result of the article is; People who voted for Trump are getting what they voted for JOBS, and for some strange reason the NY Times finds that to be unusual! WOW!  A politician who actually delivered on his promises!!!  What a novelty!
Now comes another piece in the Friday NY Times about basically the same subject  “Headline is: “MANUFACTURING HAS PICKED UP DURING THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, but not in the industrial Mid-West”.

To quote inside the article “A combination of tax cuts and deregulation pushed by the Trump administration appears to have fueled a widespread increase in the pace of job creation in manufacturing in many more counties in Mr Trump’s first 2 years than in the first 6 years of the Obama administration.” Read that again; more jobs in 2 years than in 6,.and in manufacturing, etc that “were gone forever.(that magic wand again)

The NY TIMES is trying very hard to find an excuse or reason to explain that this is all an accident or it is a mirage?  It is simply not what is really happening.  You know 3.6% unemployment is not really spread around, more people working than ever before, more people in the “BLACK & HISPANIC COMMUNITIES’ are working than ever before.

Those are just mirages to the NY Times and they headline articles to try and prove their premise that the Donald Trump Economy is not really happening!  The problem they keep running into is, THE NY TIMES cannot handle the truth of the facts about the Trump Economy because if they did admit that the Trump administration does indeed have the right formula, and more people are working than ever before, making bigger “real  wage gains” than in 20 yrs, why should you vote for a Democrat, any Democrat?

My, my what a dilemma for the NY Times, they HATE Trump, and everything about Trump,  they simply cannot accept that the economy is doing exactly what the Paul Krugman’s of the world said would never, ever happen.

And that leaves very little room for a democrat to win in 2020.
If only the media would accept the truth, then 99% of the coverage of Trump might be a bit more even handed.  But alas, that is simply much too much for the media to accept,  if they did they might just discover that the reason Trump Voters put up with his bombastic rhetoric and at times disgusting behavior is, Donald Trump has delivered exactly what he promised.
So his voters simply don’t care that Trump is what Trump is, they have jobs, and under democrats they got government checks. Most people like jobs much better, that is why Bernie will lose, and so will every democrat who promises freebies.

The people know that there are NO FREEBIES, there is NO FREE LUNCH!  BTW for those who still say;  I would still take Hillary any day”, remember exactly what she did with her magic wand, she tried to make 30,000 emails disappear; Her “wand” didn’t work!







Justice releases legal opinion backing Treasury’s refusal to release Trump tax returns

The opinion comes after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin last month rejected a subpoena from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) demanding Trump’s personal and business tax returns from 2013 through 2018.  When Mnuchin rejected Neal’s request, he said he did so upon the advice of DOJ, and that the Justice Department would publish a legal opinion with its advice.
Both Mnuchin and Neal have said they expect the tax return issue to end up in the courts.
Neal requested Trump’s tax returns through a provision of the federal tax code that states that the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns sought by the chairmen of Congress’s tax committees, so long as the documents are viewed in a closed session.  If a committee obtained tax returns, it could vote to submit a report to the full House or Senate and return information in that report could become public.  Neal’s requests stated that he wants Trump’s tax returns because the Ways and Means Committee is conducting oversight and considering legislative proposals relating to how the IRS audits presidents.

But DOJ said in its opinion, which was addressed to the Treasury Department general counsel, that it agreed with Treasury that Neal’s stated reason for seeking the tax returns is pre-textual and that his real reason for wanting the documents is to make them public.  “No one could reasonably believe that the Committee seeks six years of President Trump’s tax returns because of a newly discovered interest in legislating on the presidential-audit process,” DOJ wrote. “The Committee’s request reflects the next assay in a longstanding political battle over the President’s tax returns.”

DOJ noted that the text of the federal tax code provision Neal cited doesn’t require a congressional tax committee to state a reason when requesting tax returns. But the department said the statute couldn’t give a committee the right to receive confidential information that lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.

“Congress could enact legislation that makes tax returns available to the public at large, but it has chosen instead to make them confidential and to prohibit Treasury from releasing them to unauthorized persons,” the opinion states. “Lacking any role in implementing the laws itself, Congress may confer upon its agents a right to request and receive confidential information only to the extent necessary to serve a legitimate legislative end.”

Neal has argued that it’s not proper for Treasury or DOJ to second guess a congressional committee’s determinations about its need for tax returns, but DOJ criticized that argument.  “Just as Congress may not empower its agents to exceed the boundaries of legitimate legislative power, an assertion from a committee chairman may not prevent the Executive from confirming the legitimacy of an investigative request,” the DOJ said.  the Justice Department also said that Treasury’s refusal to provide Trump’s tax returns to Neal does not violate a federal contempt of Congress law or a law making it a crime for a federal employee to fail to preform the duties of his or her job with an intent to defeat a tax-code provision.

The department said that in rejecting Neal’s request, he was following a provision of the federal tax code that bars unauthorized disclosures of tax returns.

Democrats blasted DOJ’s opinion, arguing that the administration had decided a while ago that it would not comply with a request for Trump’s tax-returns and that the opinion was pretext.

“This so-called ‘legal opinion’ came after the President publicly stated his Administration’s intention to illegally refuse the Chairman’s request, which was followed by Secretary Mnuchin’s statement to our Committee that OLC would issue an opinion justifying that refusal,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. “The legal opinion did not come first, it came last in order to justify a decision that the President made to ignore the law after the fact, and everyone watched this ridiculous farce play out.”

The BEST Explanation Of The Russia HOAX On The Internet!

You HAVE TO Watch This… In Only 5 Minutes, Charlie Kirk
Russian Witch Hunt, Spy Gate & So Much
More WATCH Until The End!



5 policemen in California have come down with typhoid fever…Others with TB and over half of them have TB when they get to the border…In California they are expecting Black Plague because of poor sanitation of the people living in the streets..A group came from Africa this week and sent them to San Antonio..There were more than 2000 cases of  Ebola in Africa.…They say they tested them and they don’t have it, but their relatives will come to visit them here and they will go over and visit them so it’s only a matter of time until they bring the ebola virus here…THINK TWICE AMERICA BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT ….What a disgrace…..


Judicial Watch Sues Colorado

Contact: 202-646-5188
June 13, 2019

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

“Leftists in Colorado and other states want to undo the Electoral College and the U.S. Constitution in the hopes of guaranteeing control of the presidency,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This attack on the Electoral College would give large left-leaning states and voter fraud an unconstitutionally outsized impact on the outcome of our presidential elections.”

Judicial Watch’s Colorado counsel is former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler of the firm Klenda Gessler & Blue LLC.


FOX NEWS – Sarah Sanders will leave office by the end of the month,

WH Press Secretary Sarah Sanders will leave office by the end of the month, Trump announces

President Trump announced Thursday on Twitter that White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders will be leaving her position at the end of the month.

“After 3 1/2 years, our wonderful Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be leaving the White House at the end of the month and going home to the Great State of Arkansas,” Trump said. “She is a very special person with extraordinary talents, who has done an incredible job! I hope she decides to run for Governor of Arkansas – she would be fantastic. Sarah, thank you for a job well done!”
Trump’s announcement came moments before he made remarks at a White House event on its “Second Chance” program boosting hiring of criminals who have served their sentence

“We’ve been through a lot together and she’s tough, but she’s good,” Trump said at the event Thursday.

Sanders, 36, and the daughter of former Arkansas Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee worked on her father’s presidential campaign during the 2016 Republican primary until he dropped out of the race. She then joined the Trump campaign and, subsequently, the Trump administration as a White House communications aide. She was promoted to White House press secretary in 2017, after the president’s first top spokesman, Sean Spicer, resigned from the position.
If she chooses to follow in her father’s footsteps the seat for governor opens up in 2022.
Throughout her tenure at the White House, Sanders has come under fierce criticism from members of the press for being dishonest on the president’s behalf during press briefings that were often contentious and emotional. Eventually, the press secretary stopped giving daily briefings altogether at the suggestion of the president who said the press covered her “rudely and inaccurately.”.
most outspoken and loyal supporters of the president and his agenda and I know he’s going to have an incredible six more years and get a lot more done,” Sanders said.
Huckabee also tweeted about the news of Sander’s departure, taking the opportunity to praise his daughter calling her “a great one” and joking that he says that “with as much objectivity as Fake News CNN has towards @POTUS.”
Gov. Mike Huckabee  @GovMikeHuckabee

Well, @realDonaldTrump is losing @PressSec who is a great one and I say that with as much objectivity as Fake News CNN has toward @POTUS

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

After 3 1/2 years, our wonderful Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be leaving the White House at the end of the month and going home to the Great State of Arkansas…

Fox News’ Alex Pappas contributed to this report. 



ABC   News executive producer Ian  Cameron   is married  
to  Susan Rice , Obama’s former National Security Adviser. 
CBS   President  David Rhodes   is the brother of  Ben Rhodes ,  
Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic  
ABC   News correspondent  Claire Shipman   is married to  
former Whitehouse Press Secretary  Jay Carney 
ABC   News and Univision reporter  Matthew Jaffe   is married  
to  Katie Hogan , Obama’s former Deputy Press Secretary
  ABC   President  Ben Sherwood   is the brother of Obama’s  
former Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood 
CNN   President  Virginia Moseley   is married to former Hillary  
Clinton’s Deputy Secretary  Tom Nides . 
“Believe me!”  This is “Huge” and is a ‘partial’ list since the  
same incestuous relationship holds true for NBC/MSNBC 
and most media outlets.  Trump has been right all along … 
Fake News is generated by this incestuous relationship. 
Ya think there might have been a little bias in the news? Ya Think



Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter
  • The FBI must begin producing documents regarding Daniel Richman, the Columbia Law School professor former FBI Director James Comey used as a go-between with the press, a federal judge decided. 
  • Richman is a close friend of the former director who performed work for the Bureau as a “special government employee.” 
  • The Daily Caller News Foundation and Cause of Action Institute are seeking records and communications Richman produced for the FBI to better understand “special projects” he performed at Comey’s direction.
Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in before giving testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in before giving testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Fox News revealed Richman had “special government employee” status with the Bureau, where he worked on special projects at Comey’s behest. Richman’s faculty page at Columbia Law School indicates he was an advisor to Comey and a consultant for the Department of Justice.
TheDCNF filed a FOIA request for “all records, documents, and communications pertaining to Daniel Richman, a special government employee hired by former FBI Director James Comey” shortly after the Fox report in April 2018.
The Bureau failed to make a determination on that request within 20 days as required by law, prompting TheDCNF’s lawsuit in a Washington, D.C., federal trial court.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected the FBI’s motion Friday, meaning production of Richman documents will follow within one month.  “The court finds that the FBI has not shown exceptional circumstances or made sufficient progress in reducing its backlog to warrant an Open America stay,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
“This is a significant victory not just for The Daily Caller News Foundation, but for all members of the transparency community who want to hold the FBI accountable,” said Cause of Action’s Eric Bolinder. “The FBI picked the path of obstructing records transparency by mis-applying the Open America standard. Thankfully, that now has to stop.”
“This important precedent signals that the courts will not tolerate the federal government’s attempts to stall FOIA requests in order to circumvent transparency measures,” Bolinder added.  The judge ordered the parties to set a production schedule by June 28. The Bureau will produce 500 records per month.
“We thank Cause of Action and Judge Kollar-Kotelly for helping us bring these records to light,” Bedford said.
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.



Image may contain: textImage may contain: 2
                                  people, people smiling, meme and textImage may contain: 1
                                  person, smiling, textImage may contain: textImage may contain: 1
                                  person, meme and textImage may contain: people
                                  standing and text

No photo description


Islam’s War on the Christian Cross
By Raymond Ibrahim
A Muslim migrant in Rome recently stabbed a Christian man in the throat for wearing a crucifix around his neck.  The assailant, a 37-year-old Moroccan, is accused of attempted homicide; “religious hate” is cited as an “aggravating factor” in the crime.

This is hardly the first “religious hate” crime to occur in the context of the cross in Italy.  Among others,

  • A Muslim boy of African origin picked on, insulted, and eventually beat a 12-year-old girl during school because she too was wearing a crucifix
  • A Muslim migrant invaded an old church in Venice and attacked its large, 300-year-old cross, breaking off one of its arms, while shouting, “All that is in a church is false!”
  • After a crucifix was destroyed in close proximity to a populated mosque, Cinisello Balsamo’s mayor said concerning the identity of the culprit(s): “Before we put a show of unity with Muslims, let’s have them begin by respecting our civilization and our culture.”
What is it about the crucifix that makes some Muslims react violently?  Islamic hostility to the cross is an unwavering phenomenon — one that crosses continents and centuries; one that is very much indicative of Islam’s innate hostility to Christianity.

For starters, not only is the cross the quintessential symbol of Christianity — for all denominations, including most forms of otherwise iconoclastic Protestantism — but it symbolizes the fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims.   As Professor Sidney Griffith explains, “The cross and the icons publicly declared those very points of Christian faith which the Koran, in the Muslim view, explicitly denied: that Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross.”  Accordingly, “the Christian practice of venerating the cross… often aroused the disdain of Muslims,” so that from the start of the Muslim conquests of Christian lands there was an ongoing “campaign to erase the public symbols of Christianity, especially the previously ubiquitous sign of the cross.”

This “campaign” traces back to the Muslim prophet Muhammad. He reportedly “had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with its figure upon it,” wrote one historian (Sword and Scimitar, p. 10).  Muhammad also claimed that at the end times Jesus (the Muslim ‘Isa) himself would make it a point to “break the cross.”

Modern-day Muslim clerics confirm this.  When asked about Islam’s ruling on whether any person — in this case, Christians — is permitted to wear or pray before the cross, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi, a Saudi expert on Islamic law, said, “Under no circumstances is a human permitted to wear the cross” nor “is anyone permitted to pray to the cross.”  Why?  “Because the prophet — peace and blessings on him — commanded the breaking of it [the cross].”

Islamic history is a reflection of these sentiments.  For instance, the aforementioned Sheikh al-Tarifi also explained that if it is too difficult to break the cross — for instance, a large concrete statue — Muslims should at least try to disfigure one of its four arms “so that it no longer resembles a cross.”  Historic and numismatic evidence confirms that, after the Umayyad caliphate seized the Byzantine treasury in the late seventh century, it ordered that one or two arms of the cross on the coins be effaced so that the image no longer resembled a crucifix (Sword and Scimitar, p. 54).

Testimonies from the very earliest invasions into Christian Syria and Egypt of Muslims systematically breaking every crucifix they encountered abound.  According to Anastasius of Sinai, who lived during the seventh century Arab conquests, “the demons name the Saracens [Arabs/Muslims] as their companions.  And it is with reason.  The latter are perhaps even worse than the demons,” for  whereas “the demons are frequently much afraid of the mysteries of Christ,” among which he mentions the cross, “these demons of flesh trample all that under their feet, mock it, set fire to it, destroy it” (Sword and Scimitar, p. 27).

Reminiscent of the recent drawing of a cross in fecal matter on a French church, in 1147 in Portugal, Muslims displayed “with much derision the symbol of the cross. They spat upon it and wiped the feces from their posteriors with it.” Decades earlier in Jerusalem, Muslims “spat on them [crucifixes] and did not even refrain from urinating on them in the sight of all.” Even that supposedly “magnanimous” sultan, Saladin, commanded “whoever saw that the outside of a church was white, to cover it with black dirt,” and ordered “the removal of every cross from atop the dome of every church in the provinces of Egypt” (Sword and Scimitar, pp. 171, 145, 162).

Lest Muslim hostility to the cross still seem aberrant — limited to some obscure saying of Muhammad or “ancient history” — below is a very partial list of examples of how the crucifix continues to throw even “everyday” Muslims into paroxysms:

Egypt: A young Coptic Christian woman named Mary was mauled to death when her cross identified her as a Christian to Muslim Brotherhood rioters.  Similarly, 17-year-old Ayman, a Coptic student, was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students for refusing to obey the teacher’s orders to cover his cross.

Pakistan: When a Muslim man saw Julie Aftab, a Christian woman, wearing a cross around her neck, he attacked her, forced battery acid down her throat, and splashed it on her face — permanently damaging her esophagus, blinding her in one eye, and causing her to lose both eyelids and most of her teeth.

Turkey: A 12-year-old boy in Turkey wearing a silver cross necklace in class was spit on and beaten regularly by Muslim classmates and teachers.

Malaysia: A Christian cemetery was attacked and desecrated in the middle of the night by unknown persons in the Muslim-majority nation.  Several crosses were destroyed, including by the use of “a heavy tool to do the damage.”  Separately, a Muslim mob rioted against a small Protestant church due to the visible cross atop the building of worship.  It was quickly removed.

 Authorities had to rescue a female Christian teacher after Muslim “parents threatened to tie and drag her off of the island” for “preaching Christianity.”  Her crime was to draw a compass — which was mistakenly taken for a cross — as part of a geography lesson in class.

As Islam’s presence continues to grow in Europe, it should come as no surprise that attacks on crosses are also on the rise.  Aside from the aforementioned attacks in Italy, the following occurred either in France and Germany, where attacks on churches and crosses have become endemic:


  • A Muslim man committed major acts of vandalism at two churches, including by twisting a massive bronze cross.
  • Christian crosses and gravestones in a cemetery were damaged and desecrated by a Muslim.
  • A Muslim man who checked himself into a hospital for treatment went into a sudden frenzy because there were “too many crosses on the wall.”  He called the nurse a “bitch” and “fascist” and became physically aggressive.
  • After Muslims were granted their own section at a cemetery, and after being allowed to conduct distinctly Islamic ceremonies, these same Muslims began demanding that Christian symbols and crosses in the cemetery be removed or covered up during Islamic funerals.
  • A German language report from notes that in the Alps and in Bavaria alone, some 200 churches have been attacked and many crosses broken: “The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background.”

Such is the history and continuity of Islamic hatred for the cross — that symbol which represents the heart of the Christian faith, namely the death and resurrection of Christ, two events Islam vehemently denies.  The jihad on the cross began with Muhammad, was carried out by early caliphs, and continues to this day by jihadis of the world, not to mention the occasional “everyday” Muslim.

Note: For more on the long history of jihad on the Christian cross, see author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

June 7, 2019

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/islams_war_on_the_christian_cross.html#ixzz5qMrWRoYx

When the Left Defended the Electoral College

Jun 07, 2019

Happy Friday from Washington, where lawmakers on the left relish the idea of choosing presidents by popular vote. Not so long ago, some well-known Senate liberals opposed the change, Fred Lucas reports. President Trump scores a win with his latest foreign trip, Ted Bromund writes. Why commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre? Concerned Americans tell us. A veteran pollster talks Trump on the podcast. Plus: Adam Michel on protecting the middle class from tax hikes, Nathaniel Thomas on abortion and African Americans, and Nicole Russell on the transgender agenda’s effects in our schools. Enjoy your weekend.

When the Left Defended the Electoral College

Joe Biden in a portrait taken Dec. 13, 1978, the month after the Delaware Democrat was re-elected to the Senate for the first time and about 30 years before he was elected vice president. The next year, Biden was among Senate liberals defending the Electoral College in debate over a constitutional amendment to elect presidents and vice presidents by popular vote. (Photo: Getty Images)

New York today is part of the movement to choose presidents by popular vote, but 40 years ago a nationally known liberal from the state took to the Senate floor to argue the advantages of the current system.

The Electoral College, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan asserted in his July 1979 speech, forces consensus and allows a president to “govern with the legitimacy that has come of attaining to such diverse majorities.”

The New York Democrat, who died in 2003, had lots of liberal company at the time.

Other Senate Democrats who opposed a constitutional amendment to scrap the Electoral College and elect presidents and vice presidents by direct popular vote included Joe Biden of Delaware, a future vice president, and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a future presidential candidate.  The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

These Democrats were joined by Edmund Muskie of Maine, the party’s vice presidential nominee 11 years earlier; Paul Sarbanes of Maryland; Thomas Eagleton of Missouri (briefly a vice presidential candidate in 1972); and John Durkin of New Hampshire.  Of those states, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey now are part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement in which states that sign on pledge the votes of their electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

Four decades ago, though, advocates of a popular vote for president didn’t try to end-run the process of amending the Constitution.  Biden, first elected to the Senate in 1972, served there from January 1973 until he successfully ran for vice president as Barack Obama’s running mate in 2008.

Bipartisan Divide

In 1979, Congressional Quarterly reported that senators “crossed party and ideological lines” in the debate over Senate Joint Resolution 28.  The measure was sponsored by Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., an old pro with constitutional amendments who had drafted the 25th Amendment on presidential succession in a crisis as chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution.  With bipartisan support and opposition, Bayh’s resolution passed by a vote of 51-48, far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment. A majority of Republicans opposed the measure.

The Senate breakdown at the time was 61 Democrats, 38 Republicans, and an independent who caucused with the Democrats.

At the time, Congressional Quarterly reported, “three of the Senate’s most liberal Republicans”—John Heinz of Pennsylvania, Charles Percy of Illinois, and Lowell Weicker Jr. of Connecticut—“voted against direct election of the president.”  Weicker eventually left the Republican Party and won the Connecticut governorship as an independent. Both Illinois and Connecticut are among states that joined the popular vote compact.  Since the 1979 debate, Republican presidential candidates twice have won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote, pushing the debate largely along party and ideological lines.

Under the Bayh amendment, the presidential candidate with the most votes nationally would win. If no candidate got 40%, though, the top two candidates would face each other in a runoff election.  Incidentally, that setup would have imperiled Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who won the 1860 presidential race with 39.8% of the vote against a splintered Democratic Party.

Minority Votes

Strong advocates of protecting the Electoral College four decades ago included the National Urban League, an African American civil rights group, and the American Jewish Congress, a Jewish civil rights group.  “Take away the Electoral College and the importance of being black melts away,” National Urban League President Vernon Jordan testified during a Senate hearing at the time.

“Blacks, instead of being crucial to victory in major states, simply become 10%  of the electorate, with reduced impact,” Jordan said.

Jordan later became an ally of President Bill Clinton, and was among the cast of characters in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The National Urban League has changed its mind, stating in a report last month that it backs moving “the U.S. toward the popular election of presidents through states’ participation in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, with the goal of eliminating the Electoral College.”  In an official pronouncement on the 1979 proposal, the American Jewish Congress cited similar reasons for opposing the Bayh amendment, The New York Times reported.

The organization’s statement said blacks and Jews “make up a significant proportion of the electorate in the key states with large electoral votes, and they tend, at least in presidential elections, to vote in a bloc.” It continued:

Hence, the political parties are sensitive to the interests of Jews and blacks both in their selection of candidates and in the adoption of party platforms. In a system of direct election, however, where a vote in one state is equal to a vote in another, that influence will be lost.

In a 2004 report, the Congressional Research Service explained a prevailing view about minority groups during the 1979 debate that helped explain why the presidents of the National Urban League and American Jewish Congress supported the Electoral College:

Another theory advanced during debate on Electoral College reform centers on the asserted advantage enjoyed by ethnic minority voters. According to this argument, minority voters, e.g., blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, tend to be concentrated in populous states with large Electoral College delegations.

By virtue of this concentration, they are presumably able to exert greater influence over the outcomes in such states because they tend to vote overwhelmingly for candidates whose policies they perceive to be favorable to their interests, and thus helping to gain these states and their electoral votes for the favored candidates.

Bayh, who died in March after living to see his son Evan Bayh serve as governor and senator from Indiana, became an advocate of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. For years, the elder Bayh would blame the 1979 defeat on minority advocates.  In 2012, Bayh told BuzzFeed, “I had an interesting experience, one of the few times I’ve been angry enough to throw people out of my office.”

He said African American and Jewish leaders told him “to get off this Electoral College reform kick. … You dump us into the whole mix, and we’ll get lost.”

Bayh, who also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, recalled replying: “You’re talking to somebody who busted his tail for ‘one person, one vote.’”

‘Most Radical Transformation’

A diverse coalition indeed backed a national popular vote in 1979, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Other prominent backers included Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jake Garn, R-Utah.

In reporting on their defeat, Congressional Quarterly summarized: “A few northern liberals aligned July 10 with a majority of Republicans and southern Democrats to thwart passage of the direct election amendment.”  Because the Senate passed the measure by only a bare majority, the House didn’t bother taking it up even though in 1970 it had mustered a supermajority in favor.  The 1970 measure died from a Senate filibuster primarily led by Democrat-turned-Republican Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Interestingly, many segregationists in the South cited voting bloc protections similar to those cited by civil rights advocates in the North in arguing for the Electoral College.

Moynihan led the Democrats’ opposition to the Bayh proposal, calling it the “most radical transformation in our constitutional system that has ever been considered.”

“The Electoral College requires the assembly of consent—again, concurrent majority—in one part of the country and another part of the country, and yet another part, all defined in terms of several states,” Moynihan said. “It has as its extraordinary ability the formation of consensus as between widely differing regions, political purposes and styles, and political agendas.”

The New York Democrat continued:

The fundamental thrust of this measure, however unintended— nonetheless, it seems to be ineluctably clear—would be to abolish that principle of concurrent majority.  If there is once introduced into the Constitution the idea that a president may routinely be elected by 40% of the vote, you have the most ironic of all outcomes, that in the name of majoritarianism we have abolished even that single majority which the Founders so feared.

Foolish policies like the Green New Deal and 100% renewable mandates would harm our economy and significantly raise the cost of electricity for American households.

Study Finds Wind and Solar 2 to 3 Times More
Expensive Than Existing Generation Resources

WASHINGTON—Today the Institute for Energy Research and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy released a new study evaluating the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from new and existing generation resources.

Levelized Cost of Electricity

By relying upon data reported by energy generators themselves to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the innovative study takes into account several important considerations that other reports do not when calculating LCOE.

These include the imposed costs of wind and solar generation (i.e. the costs imposed when dispatchable generation resources are required to remain in service but are forced to operate less in combination with wind and solar generation), as well as the costs of operating existing generation sources in addition to those of building and operating new plants. Including these considerations presents a fuller picture of the operating costs of wind, solar, coal, gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric sources.

The following chart shows the stark contrast between the cost of electricity from existing and new sources:

Levelized Cost of Electricity

As the chart shows: the average LCOEs from existing coal ($41), cc gas ($36), nuclear ($33), and hydro ($38) resources are less than half the cost of new wind resources ($90) or new PV solar resources ($88.7) with imposed costs included.
Tom Pyle, President of the Institute for Energy Research stated:
“This study illustrates why foolish policies like the Green New Deal and 100% renewable mandates would harm our economy and significantly raise the cost of electricity for American households. Shifting our electricity generation away from existing affordable and reliable plants to expensive and intermittent wind and solar would substantially increase energy costs for businesses and families. This study provides a necessary reality check for anyone making decisions about America’s electricity policy.”
Michelle Bloodworth, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCCE) said:
“This new study is unique because it provides an apples-to-apples comparison of existing and new electricity sources. The study shows that policymakers should carefully consider levelized costs when decisions are being made to retire coal-fired power plants because replacing them with gas, wind or solar could be a bad economic decision.”
Read the full study here.
Download the one pager here.


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us


Trump is making a huge mistake by leading the LGBT parade

Click to enlargeBryan Fischer
Bryan Fischer is the host of the daily ‘Focal Point’ radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association. ‘Focal Point’ airs live from 1-3 pm Central Time, and is also simulcast on the AFA Channel, which can be seen on the Sky Angel network.
June 3, 2019
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
Host of “Focal Point” on American Family Radio, 1:05 pm CT, M-F www.afr.net

Donald Trump is getting some bad advice from somebody. That’s on the “somebody,” whoever that is, but the president has taken their advice, and that’s on him.

Trump is already running for reelection, although the formal announcement won’t come for a couple of weeks. But somebody (Javanka?) has convinced him that it will help him in 2020 to launch a global campaign for homosexuality today.

Here’s how the president put it over the weekend:

    • As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. My Administration has launched a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality and invite all nations to join us in this effort!
If the president’s advisers think this is going to cut any ice with LGBT activists, they haven’t been paying attention. Gay activists are hostile, implacable, and vengeful toward their political adversaries. Thus the president will pick up virtually no LGBT support with this move, but he could lose a lot of evangelical support along the way. Purely from a political standpoint, it’s a bad move.

Perhaps the president has lost sight of the fact that 81% of evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and they’re the reason he’s in the White House. It is a fact beyond dispute that 81% of evangelicals are not going to be down with President Trump using the power of his office to promote sexually abnormal behavior around the world.

If he sticks to this position – despite counsel to the contrary from folks like Tony Perkins, Robert Jeffress, Rev. Franklin Graham, and Jerry Falwell, Jr. – it will erode his base, not expand it. A significant percentage of evangelicals, to be sure, will continue to support the president and will vote for him in 2020. But it will dampen, diminish, and perhaps even extinguish the enthusiastic support he has enjoyed from his evangelical base. At a minimum, it will rattle and confuse them all.

Evangelicals have enthusiastically embraced this president for three reasons: his embrace of religious liberty, his defense of the sanctity of human life, and his appointment of federal judges who apply the Constitution instead of rewriting it.

Such judges know that the free exercise of religion is embedded in the Constitution as the first right enshrined in the First Amendment. On the other hand, they also know that no right to engage in sodomy – or similar behavior clearly condemned by the Bible – is articulated anywhere in the Constitution, which means that religious liberty should prevail in any legal conflict.

But the stubborn reality is that the homosexual agenda, which the president just enthusiastically embraced, is the single greatest threat to religious liberty in the history of the Republic.

The president, naively in my view, seems to believe that gays can have their “rights” and Christians can have theirs and nothing bad will happen. But as we have seen repeatedly with wedding vendors, adoption agencies, bathroom policies, employment policies, and the like, the two – religious liberty and the gay agenda – come into repeated conflict. In those showdowns, one side of the other has to win. Either constitutionally protected rights of religious liberty will win or purely manufactured “rights” will. On this issue, it is simply impossible for everybody to get what they want.

President Trump, just like everybody else, is going to have to pick a side.

Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty. Where the LGBT agenda advances, religious liberty retreats. The two things are locked in mortal combat, and one side or the other must in the end prevail.

We’ve seen this with Christian bakers, who have been given the grim choice between adhering to conscience or getting punished. As Tammy Bruce observed, to be forced to work against your will is slavery, and to be forced to violate your conscience is tyranny.

Evangelical voters believe sincerely in a Bible which teaches that homosexual conduct is an “abomination” in the eyes of God, is contrary to nature, and has lasting and even lethal consequences for those who practice it. Those who engage in it “receive in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27). The worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic is just one example.

The Roman Catholic Church has always correctly taught that homosexual acts, because they deviate so far from God’s design for human sexuality, are “acts of grave depravity” which go not only against Scripture but “against natural law.”

Because homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy, it is a practice that no rational society should ever embrace, subsidize, or celebrate.

On the other hand, even among those who believe homosexuality should be contrary to public policy, I do not know a single one who advocates the death penalty for it. There are plenty of alternatives to the death penalty if we are looking for appropriate sanctions. Our first commander-in-chief, for example, did not execute a homosexual soldier who was found in his ranks; he simply dismissed him from the army.

Outside of Muslim countries, the death penalty for homosexuality is largely a myth. For instance, there is not even one confirmed example of a homosexual being put to death in Victorian England – not one.

We don’t want to hurt homosexuals, we want to help them, just as we do with those trapped in other pathologies. We don’t, for example, put drug addicts to death in America; we try to help them by putting them in treatment programs. That’s what drug courts are all about.

President Trump is simply and badly wrong to grab the rainbow flag and cheerlead the global LGBT parade. He certainly has plenty of people around him who will give him good counsel on this matter. Here’s hoping and praying he takes it.

© Bryan Fischer

Democrats, in alliance with environmental billionaires, the Church, technocrats, and the United Nations have figured out how to stay in power in perpetuity by flooding America with illegal aliens from third world countries inimical to our interests

Psychological Dependence on Communism

Psychological Dependence on Communism

This is an orchestrated, communist assault on America to destroy America’s borders, to create confusion in America, to overwhelm the system politically.” – Trevor Loudon, expert on communism

My adult daughter asked me one day what had driven me to leave behind my family in my home country, abandoning everything I’ve ever known and loved, to come to America, knowing that I may never return to see any of my family again, and how did I cope with such uprooting psychologically.
I am not sure that I had dealt well at all, for the longest time, with the abrupt separation, the anxiety, the forced loss of my Romanian citizenship, becoming an American legal alien, with my painful displacement, and the utter despair of finding myself in a foreign land, alone. It felt as if I had gone to outer space, landed safely on another populated planet, but everything around me seemed inhospitable and strange.
How did you know, she asked, if America was truly better? What if you were lied to by the western media? How could you have trusted their description of capitalism when today the mainstream media engages in constant lies and gross distortions of the truth?  Surely not everyone in America lived so well like the Texan oil tycoons that Hollywood had portrayed on television at the time. But the truth was, I left on faith, I just “knew” deep down that even the poorest Americans lived far better than we did and had a much better life, not just an existence.
The answer to her questions was more difficult than one could fathom. But a simplistic and superficial response would be that it was a mixture of foolish teenage courage, blind trust, naïve anticipation for a better future than the hopeless one we had, and desperation.
I just “knew” in my gut that things could not possibly be any worse than they already were. After all, America was the land of opportunity and freedom if one was willing to work hard to succeed and assimilate into the new culture. Little did I know how difficult and long drawn out this assimilation would be. And it was not for the lack of trying relentlessly to fit into the American southern culture where I was treated with suspicion and mostly rejected for being a foreigner.

Dreamers of our worst nightmare, the demanding global citizens with rights given to them by the United Nations to occupy and inhabit any land they wish

She asked me if I would you do it again, if I was given the opportunity to come to America of today. I am not so sure. Who would want to exchange one form of totalitarian communism for a western version of global communism?
Decades after immigrating legally, going through the tedious and expensive paperwork process of becoming a naturalized American citizen, being criticized for my patriotism and my anti-communism stance, the awful attacks I receive daily from anti-American Democrats, leftists who call themselves “progressives” and other assorted online stalkers and trolls, who dislike my message and my writing, who attack everything I stand for, who I am, my education, my career, my family, my honor, my very being, my husband, it saddens me that America has educated so many generations of self-loathing citizens who would prefer to live under the oppression and tyranny of socialism and communism. They are sure that THEY can do it better.
Today economic refugees hailing from Central America and other third world countries claim political asylum and walk across the southern border by the thousands each day and nobody stops them. The lights are on, but nobody is home.  These migrants demand that America supports them and their extended families, pay for their children’s education, welfare, health care, and housing, and give them the same rights as any American citizen. Why wait to work hard and earn anything? They are the Dreamers of our worst nightmare, the demanding global citizens with rights given to them by the United Nations to occupy and inhabit any land they wish.

America’s youth are gripped by the ardent desire to live under socialism and communism

Could it be possible that the current batch of immigrants, legal and illegal, fall under the rubric of those who subscribe to the notion of the devil they know and that is ALL they know, sometimes being illiterate in their own language but voting here where they don’t speak English or understand the culture and the country’s history but they know that if they do vote Democrat, the generous welfare they receive is assured?  If someone would have told me that forty years later communism, as much as I had feared it, would have followed me in America, I would have probably advised that person to go to an insane asylum. Who would want to live under such an oppressive form of government, ideology, and economy?
Yet America’s youth are gripped by the ardent desire to live under socialism and communism and they view it quite favorably, probably because they have no clue what it is and neither do their western parents and teachers.  Parents who had escaped repressive socialist and communist regimes do know differently. Some teach their children; but others think, they are teaching their offspring to hate that form of government, but subliminally they are not, and are living their lives as if they are still dwelling in those countries they’ve left.  Take for instance my mom’s hoarding. When my children were small, she used to hide bags of potato chips and cans of coke in the Maytag dishwasher that was broken. She still thought, we would starve if she did not have a stash of food even if it was junk food.

Living under Communism

She lived in fear of the American government knocking on our door and taking our things just like she experienced under communism when they did confiscate all her personal possessions and bank accounts.
There was no tangible evidence that the American government would take things away from her, but her frame of mind was psychologically shaped by what she saw and experienced. Such parents would certainly create false narratives in their households because they would be unable to recognize the communist indoctrination that had altered their behavior subconsciously.
I did not behave like my mom because I lived 20 years under communism and she 48. I was able to reject the status quo of communism that was forcing us to live our lives by their ideological design. Mom, on the other hand, accepted everything and anything she was told, never questioned anything, so the false narrative communism forced upon her became her reality.  Older Romanians today are so damaged psychologically that they are nostalgic for communism, for Ceausescu’s brutal regime. They were satisfied with the meager communist welfare and rations because it was a dependable constant in an otherwise destitute life.
My older cousin said, “we got a salary every month, whether we tried hard or not, we could bribe doctors with a chicken, a pat of butter, a liter of cooking oil or fresh milk, a bar of soap, extra rationing coupons, for fake medical excuses, and we stayed home to rest for weeks on bogus medical diagnoses. The salary kept coming, and we still had a job when we returned. When we got pregnant, we stayed home for years to care for the newborn and the subsistence salary never stopped.”

There is the physical communism and the psychological communism that one experiences

There is the physical communism and the psychological communism that one experiences. People can flee the physical communism but are they able to erase their psychological and welfare dependence created by communist indoctrinators?
Why is it that some who escaped tyranny and poverty, despite living in a free nation, fail to denounce that tyranny and the poverty they had escaped from and instead criticize the free country and its citizens who took them in? Such is the case of Rep. Omar, who escaped Somalia, yet criticizes America, Christians, and those who took her in and gave her an education, freedom, and even a lawmaker’s seat in the House of Representatives.  Do oppressed/tortured people from a tyrannical society ever feel a sense of calm and welcome when they are given refuge in a freer society? Do they get better psychologically, or do they always remain in that dependent/oppressed state of mind no matter where they are? Do they tend to bite the hand that feeds them?  Are immigrant parents from communist countries somewhat subliminally responsible for their millennial children’s utopian ideas of socialism and communism? Were they raised in a manner that promoted those collectivist ideals?
Many immigrants, legal and illegal, fight very hard to leave oppression behind, yet they live in ghettos of their own making in the free country, dress in clothing that represents subjugation, away from the mainstream society, never learning English, as if they were still in their former countries or cultures.  Secrecy and hoarding of food and other necessary items like toilet paper, medicine, diapers, soap, food, become a problem. It is done to make sure that there is a steady supply in the future, just in case rationing ensues. One Romanian woman I met years ago had enough canned goods and toilet paper in her huge pantry to last her small family a decade.
My mom has been free in this country to do what she wants, when she wants, does not have to worry about her personal belongings being taken, confiscated, or seized by the government. But her years of living under socialism and communism became so oppressive psychologically that she transferred that reality to her life in America today, where she hoards everything imaginable, useful or not, in her room and the drawers of her dresser.
Rationing dictated by scarcity are alien concepts to many generations today who have never had to do without anything and who do not understand that, by any measure, Americans live the most privileged, worry-free, and want-free life than anybody else in the world. By any standards, we are wealthy beyond comparison and live a very good and advantaged life with the best healthcare in the world.  The communist country in which I was born and where I spent my formative years, has struggled with its ability to escape the metastasis of communism, a form of psychological dependence that is hard to erase even after thirty years since its declared “demise” in 1989.
There is still a steady daily diet of propaganda from the Social Democrat Party (PSD), from the socialist indoctrination centers called schools, with revisionist history written in textbooks by NGOs with generous funds from the Soros foundations, from the main stream media with the same globalist talking points, and from television programming which bombards people with false information and misdirection.  An IT person earns the same salary as a McDonald’s cashier or a LIDL grocery store chain employee while large crony EU corporations take advantage of the cheap and well-educated labor in Romania in a proverbial race to the bottom.
The elder Romanians, who are bombarded daily by false information in the news, truly believe that they are being robbed by inequality and unfair wages. Their collectivist victim mentality is still in the gutters of communism when the proletariat was told that communist wages were the only fair ones – everyone was equal, equally paid, and equally miserable. And the common enemy was capitalism and entrepreneurship. 
Today people can express their opinions and complaints ad nauseam, without fear of retribution, but nobody listens to their gripes. During the Soviet style communist rule, they would have been sent to hard labor camps and prisons.
Since we are back to square one of communism, this time on a global scale, both here in America and in the former Soviet satellite countries, the simple answer to my daughter’s initial question would be, I would probably not leave my family behind again and embark upon a voyage to another world that used to value freedom and opposed communism with all its might but now embraces it with vivacity and determination because life has been so good in America, the brainwashed generations need a mindless and robotic “hope and change.”
We cannot convince a population of entitled privileged millennials that communism is not a good way to live; their teachers and parents did not do a good job of illustrating just how horrible communism was and how many millions have died under communism tortured and imprisoned for their divergent thoughts and ideas.
Young Americans may have understood the horrors of the Holocaust but not the horrors of Stalinism, Marxism, Castroism, and their sanctioned genocides such as Holodomor during the Soviet regime. Holodomor (Голодомор) means “murder by hunger.” It was a man-made famine, a genocide perpetrated by Joseph Stalin’s communist goons on the Ukrainian people in 1933. About 4.5 million people were starved to death in Holodomor.
Most teachers who have bought into the Common Core sub-standards of education, have agreed to dumb down American children’s education to conform to the globalist world view of collectivism and worship of Islam to the detriment of Christianity.  Those students who have escaped psychologically the clutches of indoctrination in public schools or their parents’ inability to teach them how tyrannical communism was, will be subjugated by other means such as:
  • Social credit scores (where they can and cannot travel, whether they can keep their jobs, use social media, practice their Christian faith, and tracking their world view)
  • National I.D. cards with a strip and computer chip with private data, tracking them everywhere
  • Collectivism
  • Social Marxism
  • Moral relativism
  • Environmentalism
America will undergo a merging of labor and education, modeling the dictates of U.N. Agenda 2030, tracking a student’s attitudes, values, feelings, and beliefs. Will preferential treatment be given to those who comply? What will happen to those who won’t comply?
Ultimately it will not matter how many Americans will buy into cultural Marxism and how many will wake up and refuse to give up their country, private property, civilization, wealth, and our country’s sovereignty.
Democrats, in alliance with environmental billionaires, the Church, technocrats, and the United Nations have figured out how to stay in power in perpetuity by flooding America with illegal aliens from third world countries inimical to our interests, thus acquiring future Democrat voters and church pew occupants. A single party rule, the Democrats, will be able to confiscate all guns and dissolve our borders, eliminating our sovereign nation.


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh — Bio and Archives | 15 Comments
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Romanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com

The Framers designed a system of government limited in scope and shackled by the Constitution

An Arrow Aimed at America’s Heartland

Are you ready to get down into the weeds and look at a current attack on our Federal System through the lenses of American Constitutional History to gain an understanding of something which is nothing less than an arrow aimed at America’s Heartland?

This is a wakeup call to citizens of Middle America of a plot to strip us of our electoral importance by the entrenched elites of the Deep State.

National Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

Recently, Nevada became the 15th state to pass a measure granting its Electoral College votes to the candidate winning the nationwide popular vote regardless of how the citizens of their own State voted.  This movement is being led by an organization called National Popular Vote. The founders of the 501(c)(4) Are election law expert and attorney Barry Fadem and John Kaza (co-inventor of the scratch off lottery ticket). 

Fadem and Kaza both have impressive careers filled with professional achievement.  However, it’s easy for anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of civics to discount their efforts by assuming though they may be intelligent and accomplished they don’t know much about how our government is designed to work.  In reality the exact opposite might be the case.  These two and their organization aim to disrupt the balance between the States and have intentionally launched this arrow aimed at America’s Heartland.

America’s Heartland

Their objective is to influence a group of States whose electoral votes total 270, which is the number needed to win the presidency, into an alliance binding them to follow a majority vote attainable by a combination of New York, New England, and the Left Coast without regard to how the citizens of the States voted.  During the Constitutional Convention the Framers vigorously debated how the government they were designing should operate.  When looking at the election of the chief executive they rejected direct democracy because they believed it was too prone to result in a majority that would act as a tyrant.

Looking back across time this collection of largely homeschooled patriots drew upon their knowledge of history and philosophy.  Specifically they looked to the writings of Plato who wrote in the Republic that the people or the demos, as they were called in Greek,  could not be trusted because they would inevitably vote for whoever promised to meet their desires of the moment even if that meant taking from others or from the national treasury.  In other words they would vote for a Santa Claus over a Washington or a Jefferson.  A lesson well learned and applied by the pitiful politicians promising paradise who make up the best Congress money can buy. 

Plato thought the majority would lack the knowledge and wisdom to make sound choices. Of course he didn’t know about our enlightened American education system that spends more time indoctrinating the young skulls full of mush about Al Gore’s Climate hoax religion than it does about the founding of this country.  A federally controlled union infected system spends more energy turning our children into good little socialists than teaching them that capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system ever devised.

Electoral college was created to prevent the United States from becoming a place where the majority subjugated the minority

Instead of echoing the platitudes of Comrade Sanders and AOC as if they had any chance of working in the real world our government indoctrinators could teach about how the Connecticut Compromise led to the structure of our bicameral legislature and the executive branch.  They could teach that the electoral college was created to prevent the United States from becoming a place where the majority subjugated the minority.
Hamilton and Madison, two of the key strategists in devising our government focused on factions or combinations of likeminded people who work together to advance their own interests.  Mainly they spoke of majorities and minorities.  Madison especially thought that government must be structured in such a way as to fragment the power of the majority so that it could not become tyrannical.
When you read Federalist 9 (Hamilton), Federalist 10, and Federalist 51 (Madison), these deep thinking political theorists identified three key elements they felt existed to help give the new United States a chance for success: its population size, geographic size, and the differing interests of the independent States. Back in those days before smartphones, the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, and 24-hour cable news, these factors made it difficult if not impossible for minority factions to combine into a coalition large enough to do any real damage to our system.  But today with near instantaneous communication people can be rallied quickly which means emotions can easily out run reflection.
In America today intolerant minority factions can be whipped up into tyrannical majorities in a way the Framers never imagined. At the very time in our history when we are more vulnerable than ever to manipulated majority rule,  the National Popular Vote movement wants us to embrace direct democracy at the presidential level.

If this arrow finds its mark a bicoastal electoral juggernaut will trample the voice of the Heartland into the dust of History

The Framers designed a system of government limited in scope and shackled by the Constitution.  A system designed to do little as opposed to doing too much. They attempted to build a system based on the nature of man.  A system of divided power able to control humanity’s less desirable tendencies.
As Madison said in Federalist #51, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
This identifies the basic problem perfectly.  We aren’t angels.
Because of this we need controls designed to prevent unfettered majority dominance. The Electoral College is the tool given to us by the Framers to make sure all of the States have a voice that is heard. However, if enough States adopt the National Popular Vote this safeguard will be neutralized, not through amending the Constitution but instead by doing an end-run around it.  If this happens we’ll take a long step towards the dystopian vision our Framers sought to avoid: the tyranny of the majority.
One question I have is, “How do these political manipulators convince people to vote to make their future votes irrelevant?”  To paraphrase Lincoln, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”  But you can probably fool enough people to convince a majority to vote themselves onto the sidelines of History.”  If this arrow finds its mark a bicoastal electoral juggernaut will trample the voice of the Heartland into the dust of History.


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us


John Nelson - jenkan04@gmail.com
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2FB Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com