THE HIGHLANDS TEA PARTY  

OCTOBER 16, 2018

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

President Trump ratcheted up his legal and personal battle with Stormy Daniels on Tuesday, calling her “Horseface” and threatening to “go after” her and lawyer Michael Avenatti after a federal judge tossed their defamation lawsuit.   “’Federal Judge throws out Stormy Daniels [sic] lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.’ @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas.  She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!” Trump tweeted on Tuesday.

Daniels, the adult film star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford and who says she had an affair with Trump, had sued the president in April over a tweet in which he denied her claims of being threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011.
A federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday threw out the defamation lawsuit and ordered Daniels to pay the president’s legal fees. Trump’s reference to Texas apparently stems from the judge citing a Texas law in dismissing the case brought by Daniels, a Texas resident. His mention of a “letter” may be the original statement Daniels wrote and signed in January denying an affair, before she backtracked.

But Avenatti, who is mulling a 2020 presidential run and is one of the president’s most vocal critics, swiftly fired back at the latest tweet, blasting Trump as a “shyster” and a “liar.”  “You are a disgusting misogynist and an embarrassment to the United States. Bring everything you have, because we are going to demonstrate to the world what a complete shyster and liar you are. How many other women did you cheat on your wife with while you had a baby at home?” Avenatti replied.  Daniels fired back as well, saying Trump “has demonstrated his incompetence, hatred of women and lack of self control on Twitter AGAIN” — and joked that his latest tweet revealed a “penchant for bestiality.”

Daniels, in an exclusive “60 Minutes” interview, had said a man threatened her for going public about the alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump later cast doubt on her alleged parking lot incident.  “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!” Trump tweeted in April.  The court, on Monday, ruled in favor of Trump, noting the tweet “constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.,” according to U.S. District Judge S. James Otero’s ruling. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”

“The ruling also states that the President is entitled to an award of his attorneys’ fees against Stormy Daniels,” Trump attorney Charles Harder said in a statement to Fox News. “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. (Michael) Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.  The amount of the award for President Trump’s attorneys’ fees will be determined at a later date.”

Daniels first came into the spotlight earlier this year, when she sued Trump and his former personal attorney Michael Cohen over a non-disclosure agreement. Daniels said she was paid $130,000 in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her silence about the alleged one-time sexual encounter with Trump.

Fox News’ Frank Miles contributed to this report. 

Trump demands apology from Elizabeth
Warren over ‘fraud’ DNA claim

Credit: Getty Images

In an early 2020 Twitter face-off, President Trump and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren are in attack mode over the Bay State senior senator’s DNA claims to a drop of Native American lineage.

The president today called for Warren to “apologize for perpetrating this fraud” of her Cherokee roots.  She fired back just minutes ago that his “recycled racist name-calling” was old material and “in 21 days, you’re going to lose Congress.”

The 2020 presidential race appears to be off to an early start.

The drama comes as a top member of the Cherokee Nation criticized Warren’s use of a DNA test to imply she has an ancestral link to the tribe — a criticism the president jumped on.  “Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!” Trump wrote.  The Cherokee nation is calling Warren’s DNA test “useless” and “inappropriate” as a basis for anyone believing they belong to the nation.  “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong,” wrote Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr.

“It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens,” Hoskin added in a tweet.

Warren yesterday released a report from DNA analysis company 23 and Me and an accompanying video about her claims of Native American heritage, which have long dogged the senator. The reports say it appears she has a Native American ancestor six to 10 generations back, which would make her between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Indian.

Warren claims that according to family lore, her great-great-great-grandmother was at least part Cherokee.

The Bay State’s senior senator — up for re-election next month and facing GOP challenger state Rep. Geoff Diehl — said she’ll take a “hard look” at running for president after the election. She’s already being considered one of the top Democratic candidates if she does jump into the race.

BOSTON GLOBE – CLICK HERE TO READ ON>>>>>

17 States File 2nd Amendment Briefs with Supreme Court

By Bethany Blankley
October 12, 2018 at 4:41pm

Seventeen states signed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, which many argue could bolster Second Amendment protections.  At issue is Title 38, Chapter Five, Section 23 of the Rules of the City of New York, which prohibits licensed firearm residents from removing their firearm from their home.

Two exceptions exist, including removing the gun from their home to practice at a firing range or to hunt in the state. Both require an expensive permit and authorization by the local police department. To remove a firearm from the home for any other purpose requires a separate and expensive “carry” permit that is difficult to obtain.   The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the state’s largest and nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization, and three individuals, Romolo Colantone, Efrain Alvarez and Jose Anthony Irizarry, filed suit in the Southern District of New York, arguing that Title 38 is unconstitutional. They also sought an injunction against its enforcement.

The district court held that Title 38 does not violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the fundamental right to travel, or the First Amendment. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling. The NYSRPA filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 4.   Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry is leading the 17-state coalition, arguing the law restricts lawful gun owners from self-defense outside of the home.

The brief requests the court consider “whether the city’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.”  “The restrictive policies memorialized in New York City’s ‘premises permit’ scheme unduly burdens the Second Amendment rights held by all Americans,” Landry said in a statement. “Criminalizing travel with a securely stored firearm creates an imbalance in our federal system that weighs against lawful exercise of the Second Amendment inside and outside of New York City.”

The brief maintains that the city has not shown sufficient cause to burden citizens’ gun rights in their pursuit of crime prevention and public safety. It argues that public safety measures are hampered by the city’s restriction, which prevents licensed and trained gun owners from carrying outside their homes.  The “premises permit” requires that thousands of firearms be left in unoccupied homes “where they are of no use to their lawful owners when faced with dangerous situations.”

“The need for self-defense is not limited to the home and the right to possess a firearm should not be either,” Landry said. “From self-defense to hunting, the lawful exercise of our Second Amendment rights should be fully supported.”  The brief also argues that “New York’s regulatory scheme discriminates against interstate commerce because it ‘deprives out-of-state businesses of access to a local market’ by forbidding its citizens from hunting and patronizing ranges outside the state with their own guns.”

Attorneys General and/or governors from the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, joined the brief.   The brief cites numerous examples of case law supporting the plaintiffs. It maintains, “Had Petitioners lived in one of the three circuits that have determined that the right to bear arms outside of their home was a core rightfully protected by the Second Amendment, their ability to carry their weapons to second homes, to gun ranges to practice or compete outside the City, or to take them out of state would have been protected.”

Landry argues that the Supreme Court should reverse the court of appeals.

Florida Senator Bill Nelson used Hurricane
Michael to fundraise and collect data for 
Democratic Party

October 13, 2018/by Dr. Rich Swier

Good Morning –

We have now seen how badly parts of the Florida Panhandle were devastated
by Hurricane Michael, and we continue to pray for our fellow Floridians.

The first responders who have worked tirelessly, the neighbors who are helping
neighbors, and efforts across the state and nation to help Floridians in need are
inspirational.

Over the last few days, Team DeSantis and I have been working with fellow
veterans to collect supplies that we will be transporting to those impacted
by Hurricane Michael in the Panhandle.

While cleanup and recovery efforts are underway, I want to share a way we can
support our neighbors in need by donating to the Florida Disaster Fund; every
little bit helps!

As a parent of a public-school child, you may not have any say in what, when, or how your children are taught about controversial subjects.

Meanwhile, even local schools and state departments of education are losing authority over education decisions to a smaller and more centralized group of “experts” who are further away from and less accountable to the real experts: the parents and local school teachers who know those children and work to meet their needs every day.   It is no accident, no coincidence. And it’s not just your imagination. There really is a steady trend by the government and the courts to remove the influence of parents from the public schools.

I’m not saying your child’s teacher or principal, or even your local school board, is out to get you. Nor am I suggesting some giant system-wide conspiracy, where some shadow organization is secretly working through all different channels to rob you of your rights.

It is something bigger and more dangerous than that.

What we are witnessing is the rise of an ideology, a statist mindset that actually believes that “expert” agents of the state can make better decisions for your child than you can.   In 1979 the Supreme Court held, “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), at 603. Unfortunately, a growing, powerful minority no longer find that idea repugnant today.

Instead, they argue that because not all parents are experts in education, parents should not be trusted with educational decisions for their child. Education is far too important; it must be kept in the hands of the experts.   This trend is seen in court cases such as Fields v. Palmdale (2005),which held that parents have no say in what, when, or how their children are taught about controversial subjects in the public schools; and Parker v. Hurley(2007), which held that parents have no right to opt their children out of objectionable material, even if it does not involve a core curricular subject.

It is also seen in legislative action, such as Congress’s 2009 defunding of a voucher program in D.C. that allowed low income families to make school choices for their children. And that perfectly parallels a lawsuit brought in 2013 by the federal government against the state of Louisiana in an attempt to end a similar educational choice program in that state.   For those of you keeping score, our list now covers all three branches of the federal government: the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive.

Your tax dollars pay for the public schools. Yet elitist bureaucrats are making them unsafe for parental rights while pushing their own statist worldview. And anywhere unsafe for parents is unsafe for children.

No Chance to Say “Goodbye”

A hospital in Toronto has proposed that doctors should have the authority to euthanize minor patients without even a word to the parents. [News source: Sick children in Canada may soon be euthanized without parental consent.]

An end-of-life decision for a terminally ill child must be heart-wrenching, a parent’s worst nightmare. But can you imagine learning—after the fact—that your child’s doctor has already taken that from you? You’ve had no time to work through the terrible news, no chance to say, “Goodbye.”  According to the policy proposed by the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics in the British Medical Journal’s Med Ethics, that would become a reality. In the decision-making flowchart included with the study, no assisted suicide discussion occurs with parents until a “reflection period” after the child has already been killed.

Under current Canadian law adopted in 2016, “capable patients” 18 years of age or older can opt for assisted suicide. This new policy would make that option available to “capable” children, as well. A child of 15 or 16 could opt for assisted suicide and instruct the physician not to alert her parents until after the fact, a request the doctors would be bound to honor under confidentiality laws.

The danger if there should be fraud in the system is tremendous. Who is to stop a hospital from terminating the life of a young patient against the patient’s will, if there are no parents in the mix to protect the child’s interests? It’s easy enough after the fact to claim consent from one who is no longer there to say otherwise.   But even with safeguards in place, this policy still places vulnerable children—even mature children—in a terribly awkward spot. As the Supreme Court declared in Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584 (1979), “Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.”

How much more is this true when the decision is literally life-and-death?

As any loving parent will tell you, it is not enough to ask whether my child could make that decision on her own. The fact is she should never have to. That’s just the kind of heavy lifting I’m here to face with them.   Yet Toronto University seems bent on cutting parents out of the child’s life just when that child needs a parent the most,robbing both parent and child of their final hours, days, or even months together.

Fortunately, this is only a policy proposal; it is not yet law, even in Canada. And it is even further removed from becoming the law here.

But now that “biomedical ethicists” have broached the subject (they argue that since Ontario laws do not require a parent’s permission for a child to refuse treatment, they should not require permission to end a child’s life, either), the proverbial genie cannot be put back in the bottle. It is only a matter of time before it is adopted somewhere and eventually makes its way here.

That is, unless we act to stop it. Which we can.

***Action Items***

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would protect the right of parents to direct the care of their minor children. This raises a tremendous legal barrier to those who want to snatch authority away from parents and give it to medical personnel.

And you can help us get the Amendment adopted.

• First, you can volunteer for the Resolutionary Campaign,our effort to introduce in your state a legislative resolution calling on Congress to promote the Amendment. Since our email introducing the campaign four weeks ago, we’ve heard from dozens of volunteers across the country ready to step up and help. You can join them by emailing Michael@ParentalRights.org and using “Resolutionary” as the subject line. Let me know what state you’re in, and I can point you in the right direction to get started.

• Second, you can fuel the campaign—and our ongoing work to pass the Amendment—with your generous donation. We depend entirely on donors just like you to fund our efforts to educate the public and policy makers about this important issue.

Before us lies a brave new world where you can take your sick teen to the hospital and come home with just a box of his belongings. But we can stop it from coming and preserve those final moments—and those momentous decisions—for families to face as one.

Together we can secure the Parental Rights Amendment and protect families even in their most fragile moments like these.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

Sincerely,

VIDEO: Three Million Florida Christians Do NOT Vote

October 10, 2018/in Elections, Policy, Politics, Religion, Social Issues, Video /by The United West

‘

By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotOctober 8, 2018 9:42 AM with 0 comments

The United Nations has once again issued another dire climate change report claiming we must act before it’s too late. (Despite the fact that UN’s climate science is once again put under serious scrutiny. See: Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit of UN IPCC)

The media has dutifully reported this latest round of climate “tipping points.”  The latest UN report has extended the climate deadline by which we must allegedly empower the UN bureaucrats to save the world until 2030 or just 12 more years!  Former Vice President Al Gore has also joined in, piggybacking on the UN for yet another tipping point warming.

Even NASA’s lead global warming advocate, Dr. Gavin Schimidt, has had enough of the UN and media’s climate tipping points.

Schmidt tweeted on October 7: I agree…that framing this report as ‘we only have 10 years to act’ as done by the  Washington Post in their headline is neither correct nor helpful. Making better decisions on emissions is always going to be helpful – whether it’s now, in 5 years or in 20 years.”

CNN reported on October 8: “Governments around the world must take ‘rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’ to avoid disastrous levels of global warming, says a stark new report from the global scientific authority on climate change.”

But as the new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, reveals, climate tipping points have a long history of repetition, moved deadlines and utter failure. The book documents that the earliest climate “tipping point” was issued in 1864 by MIT professor who warned of “climatic excess” unless humans changed their ways.

The UN’s alarming
new climate report

John,

The UN climate science panel’s job is to write a scary report before the UN holds its next big climate conference this December in Poland.

Yet global weather, extreme or otherwise, is normal.  Sea level continues to fluctuate at the same tiny pace it did since before the industrial revolution.  Temperature observations consistently come in lower than computer models predict.  Polar bears keep on thriving (sorry seals).  What’s an alarmist to do?

Ramp up the adjectives.

That’s exactly what the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just did.  They issued a new “climate tipping point” this time giving us only 12 years to make “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” before their dire predictions finally come true.  Do you think this tipping point is more accurate than the many that have already come and gone without harm?

CFACT’s Marc Morano is all over it at Climate Depot:

The climate change scare campaign has always relied on arbitrary deadlines, dates by which we must act before it’s too late. Global warming advocates have drawn many lines in the sand, claiming that we must act to solve global warming—or else. 

That’s an excerpt Marc posted from his best-selling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change which you can pick up on sale at the CFACT store.

Marc posted a vast history of past tipping points at Climate Depot.  They’d be funny if they weren’t dangerous.

Al Gore gave the game away at Jerry Brown’s climate conference in San Francisco when he said, “we have to make the decarbonization of the global economy the central organizing principle of human civilization.”

In other words, fork over your finances and freedom to Gore and company and everything will be alright.

Does anyone really think wrecking our economy by funneling trillions of dollars to Gore’s friends through the UN would be a sound idea?

For nature and people too,

P.S.  Get your copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change at the CFACT store.  Marc Morano does a tremendous job providing scientific and historical context that exposes the tricks and traps of the global warming trade.  Knowledge is power.  Get your copy today!

The message you have just received was delivered by Mike Huckabee and includes advertising powered by PowerInbox.  These ads help bring this newsletter to you free of charge. 

Today’s Commentary — Bombshell FBI news

Six-Year-Old School Children
Instructed to Write Gay Love
Letters to Make Them
‘Accepting of Diversity’

Portriat of potential assassin

William Clyde Allen has been arrested for allegedly sending envelopes suspected of containing ricin to President Donald Trump and the Pentagon. (Davis County Sheriff’s Office)

By Chris Agee
October 4, 2018 at 12:53pm

Federal investigators in Utah say a Logan man has admitted to authorities that he sent letters containing a toxic substance to individuals at the Pentagon and to President Donald Trump at the White House.

According to KSTU-TV in Salt Lake City, FBI Special Agent Doug Davis confirmed that William Clyde Allen had been arrested on suspicion of sending the packages.  Authorities wearing protective garments were at his home searching for evidence shortly after he was taken into custody.

“We had indication that he may possess dangerous chemicals in the house,” Davis said. “I can’t comment further.” Police say those living in the vicinity of Allen’s home are not in danger.

The FBI has compiled a complaint on the matter, which states that Allen confessed on Wednesday to the plot to send Ricin to U.S. officials. According to the probable cause statement, the suspect “confessed to having purchased castor beans and having sent letters” to the Pentagon and White House

“All four letters tested positive for Ricin poison,” the court document added.

“According to our preliminary analysis, the substance was castor seeds, from which Ricin is derived,” said Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Dana White. “The FBI is still investigating.”   Authorities believe Allen sent the letters late last month through the U.S. Postal Service “to the President of the United States, the FBI Director, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Naval Operations.”

Allen has been identified as a former member of the U.S. Navy. He has also faced previous criminal charges, including driving under the influence, attempted aggravated assault and child abuse or neglect.   As The Western Journal previously reported, the potentially harmful substances were detected before any of the letters reached their intended destinations.

Army Col. Rob Manning issued a statement earlier this week confirming that “all USPS mail received at the Pentagon mail screening facility” on the day of the alert was “under quarantine” and posed “no threat to Pentagon personnel.”   Those who knew the suspect say they were surprised to hear of his alleged involvement. Some of his neighbors described him as a nice man who helped out in his community.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

 WE WON – YOU LOST!

As you know, now Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the SCOTUS 50-48 yesterday. Every Republican but one, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), voted for him.  Every Democrat but one, Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), voted against him.  This will backfire on the Democrats in the mid-term elections.

Kavanaugh sworn in as 114th Supreme Court justice,
hours after Senate votes to confirm

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Associate Supreme Court Justice on Saturday  (Fred Schilling/Supreme Court)

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice late Saturday, just hours after the Senate voted to confirm him to the nation’s highest court after a rancorous confirmation battle.   Kavanaugh was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts in a private ceremony, accompanied by his wife and children. The ceremonial swearing in is expected to happen on Monday evening at the White House. It means that now-Justice Kavanaugh will begin hearing cases before the court on Tuesday.

The Senate voted 50-48 to confirm Kavanaugh, mostly along party lines, after a weeklong FBI probe helped settle concerns among most wavering senators about the sexual assault allegations that nearly derailed his nomination and led to a dramatic second hearing. Saturday’s roll call marked the tightest successful Supreme Court confirmation vote in over 100 years, closer than even that of Clarence Thomas who similarly faced sexual misconduct allegations.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the sole Democrat to vote “yes.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was a “no,” but voted “present” as a courtesy to Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who was attending his daughter’s wedding in Montana.

Democrats reacted to the vote by urging supporters to turn out to the polls in November for the midterms.

“The American people are raising their voices to a deafening roar today. We will not stop marching, we will not stop fighting, and we will vote on Election Day for leaders who share our values.” Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said in a statement.

FOXNEWS- CLICK HERE TO READ ON>>>>>