June 2017
« Oct    
PAYPAL Donations

The The Highlands Tea Party relies on your generous donations to keep the candle of liberty burning while we work tirelessly to reign in our out of control government, educate our Patriots on the latest issues,

We are a non-profit organization financed BY donations & occasional Raffles. >strong>No special interest funding our efforts. Your donations make a difference.

Donations are not tax-deductible.

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

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Please send checks to the address below,

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

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

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

General information

Archive for June 3rd, 2017


Canada Free Press Daily Mailout

HomeCoverAmericaNews-VideosMost Recent

LIVE: London Bridge Attack, Car Plows into Crowd, Stabbing at Borough Market, Vauxhall Gunfire 
By News on the Net
Terror Attack in London—up to 5 locations hit

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban 
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.  Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.
By Barry Shaw
The hypocrisy of those who don’t believe or practice what they preach
How Did We Get Here? 
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
How did our society get where we are today? Where did this profound hatred, disrespect for authority, for the rule of law, disdain for their own country, utter laziness, entitlement, anarchy, and anti-Americanism come from, especially in the younger generations who shape the future of our country?

First Redskins, Now LSU Tigers are targets of PC Lunatics
By Jeff Crouere

In our toxic age of political correctness, nothing is immune from liberal political attacks, even the beautiful, majestic and endangered tigers. It seems obvious that tigers should be supported since their numbers are dwindling the in the wild and their natural habitats are constantly shrinking.
Liberal racists incite violence on campus, public transit & public forum 
By A. Dru Kristenev
Appalled to watch belligerent mobs at The Evergreen State College and then read about the American Friends Service Committee sponsoring an anti-Israel forum in Washington, D.C., these issues have become personal.
Driven batty over Paris treaty rejection 
By Rolf Yungclas
President Trump goes after the Left’s sacred cow of global warming by rejecting the Paris climate treaty and you would think we were suddenly under a DEFCON 1 alert of imminent nuclear war. Some even called it treason to reject the Paris Accords treaty.
Exiting the Mad Hatter’s climate tea party 
By Paul Driessen
I can guess why a raven is like a writing-desk, Alice said. “Do you mean you think you can find out the answer?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice replied. “At least I mean what I say. That’s the same thing, you know.”
Colluding with Russians takes a back seat to the environment for getting rid of Trump 
By Judi McLeod
Just as the progressive left was coming up with a way to tax all of society for the very air that it breathes, President Donald Trump cast aspersions on the credibility of man-made climate change by pulling America out of the United Nations initiated Paris Climate Accord.













Trump’s Food Stamp Reform Would Close the Trap of Dependency

These claims are misleading.
In reality, the president’s proposed policy is based on two principles: requiring able-bodied adult recipients to work or prepare for work in exchange for benefits, and restoring minimal fiscal responsibility to state governments for the welfare programs they operate. The president’s budget reasserts the basic concept that welfare should not be a one-way handout. Welfare should, instead, be based on reciprocal obligations between recipients and taxpayers.
Government should definitely support those who need assistance, but should expect recipients to engage in constructive activity in exchange for that assistance.
Work Requirements
Under the Trump reform, recipients who cannot immediately find a job would be expected to engage in “work activation,” including supervised job searching, training, and community service.
This idea of a quid pro quo between welfare recipients and society has nearly universal support among the public.   Nearly 90 percent of the public agree that “able-bodied adults that receive cash, food, housing, and medical assistance should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving those government benefits.”   The outcomes were nearly identical across party lines, with 87 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans agreeing with this statement.



Yucca Mountain: The Department of Energy Should Take Steps Now While Awaiting Funding

Katie Tubb
Katie Tubb   Policy Analyst


The President’s budget requests $120 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) “to restart licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and initiate a robust interim storage program.” Yet Congress again provided no funding. The Trump Administration needs to move expeditiously on nuclear waste issues after eight years of delay under the Obama Administration. Even as Congress delays funding and works through draft legislation on nuclear waste management, there are some things the DOE can do now to prepare for completing the agreed upon process to review a license for Yucca Mountain.


1 – Taxpayers pay roughly $2 million per day as the DOE delays collection of nuclear waste from sites in thirty-four states.
2 – Unless Congress directs otherwise, the Trump Administration is required to continue the licensing review of a repository at Yucca Mountain.
3 – The DOE should reassemble teams at the DOE and the legal, national lab, and the management and operations contractor associated with the Yucca Mountain license.

The Circumstances

According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, Congress directed the DOE to begin collecting nuclear waste from defense and commercial nuclear power operations by 1998. Congress chose Yucca Mountain as the site for a deep geologic repository, should the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) grant the DOE a permit. Failure to do so has cost taxpayers over $6.1 billion in settlements to date, and is projected to cost tens of billions more.4

U.S. Department of Energy, Fiscal Year 2016 Agency Financial Report, p. 82, November 15, 2016, https://www.energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2016-doe-agency-financial-report (accessed May 15, 2017).    After years of study and roughly $15 billion spent, the DOE applied for a license to the NRC in 2008 because the Yucca Mountain location “brings together the location, natural barriers, and design elements most likely to protect the health and safety of the public.”5

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “DOE’s License Application for a High-Level Waste Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain,” June 14, 2016, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/yucca-lic-app.html (accessed May 15, 2017); Senator James M. Inhofe, “Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet,” Report to the Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, March 2006, http://www.epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf (accessed May 15, 2017).

At the time, the DOE believed a repository could begin receiving waste by 2017 should the NRC approve a license.6   U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Announces Yucca Mountain License Application Schedule,” June 19, 2006, https://energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-yucca-mountain-license-application-schedule (accessed May 15, 2017).Regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain, the scientific community and global experience have supported deep geologic storage as critical to any waste management plan.
Unless Congress directs otherwise, the Trump Administration is required to continue the licensing review of a repository at Yucca Mountain.7   In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia required the NRC to continue the licensing review “unless and until Congress authoritatively says otherwise or there are no appropriated funds remaining.” Katie Tubb, “Court Kicks Yucca Mountain Review Back in Motion,” The Daily Signal, August 13, 2013, http://dailysignal.com/2013/08/13/court-kicks-yucca-mountain-review-back-in-motion/.



Climate Budget Cuts Are Smart Management, Not an Attack on Science

May 25th, 2017     Commentary By
Katie Tubb Policy AnalystNicolas Loris@NiconomistLoris    Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney testified on Capitol Hill
on May 25 to explain and defend the president’s budget proposal.Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Trump’s budget proposal does in fact eliminate or cut a number of climate programs. But you don’t have to scratch too far beneath the surface to realize there are legitimate justifications for doing so.    Even if the federal budget won’t be balanced on the back of eliminated climate programs, there are a number of basic problems with government climate spending.
1. Quite simply, there are a lot of global warming programs.
For all the Obama administration’s emphasis on global warming as an issue, the Government Accountability Office’s December 2016 assessment found only partial improvement in program management and could not yet determine if government standards showed whether programs were being effective, as they had only just been implemented.    The Government Accountability Office noted in 2009 that “the federal government’s emerging adaptation activities were carried out in an ad hoc manner and were not well coordinated across federal agencies, let alone with state and local governments.”
At least 18 federal agencies administer climate change activities, costing at least $77 billion between fiscal years 2008 and 2013, according to the Congressional Research Service.
2. Most of the money goes to green tech rather than science.   
If these technologies are economically viable, there will be plenty of private sector capital available to develop them. Hardworking taxpayers shouldn’t have to dump money into speculative or failing technology companies or pad the bottom lines of successful ones.   The Department of Energy is notorious for spending on research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, electric vehicles, biofuels, coal carbon capture and sequestration, small nuclear, and batteries.
This has been particularly true in more recent years as a result of the Obama administration’s failed stimulus package, which funneled billions of dollars into energy technologies.    According to the Government Accountability Office, the bulk of federal climate spending has gone to technology development rather than science, wildlife, or international aid.
3. There’s a lot of wasteful spending.
While the Navy’s price per gallon may appear cheap, the actual total cost to the government is much higher.   Despite clear direction from Congress that fuels be cost-competitive, the executive branch camouflaged the costs of the Navy’s biofuel program by subsidizing it through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation program and the Department of Energy.
>>> A First Look at Energy Issues in Trump’s Budget 
There are other much larger boondoggles, too. The Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars on biofuels to meet a political objective to “jumpstart” a domestic biofuel economy with no strategic advantage for military capabilities.  There are many other equally ridiculous examples, such as an Environmental Protection Agency grant for “green” nail salon concepts in California.
As just one example of wasteful spending, Office of Budget and Management Director Mick Mulvaney highlighted the National Science Foundation’s grant for a global warming musical. (The nearly $700,000 grant was awarded in 2010.)
4. International climate initiatives are fatally flawed.
There are a number of problems with America’s continued participation in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body that has produced international global warming agreements and, most recently, the Paris Protocol.  One would think that an international climate conference aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be the perfect opportunity to have a teleconference to show some good faith. But instead, government officials from around the world fly to lavish venues while telling you to buy hybrids and eat less meat.


4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

President Donald Trump officially withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement in an announcement at the White House Rose Garden.Dennis Brack/Newscom

Nicolas Loris@NiconomistLoris,   Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy
Katie Tubb    Policy Analyst
It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.
1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.
The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.   If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.   In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.
Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.   Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintain the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.
The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.   In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.    Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.
2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.
In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.  The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.
The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.   Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.  No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.
Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.
The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.   But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.  Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.
China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.  Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.
Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.  However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.
4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.
Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.  Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.  Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.
There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.  The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.  That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.
The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies and while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.  The Paris Agreement was the open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.
Now, that door has thankfully been shut.

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