August 2019
« Oct    
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

Archive for August 5th, 2019


GOP Rep Dan Crenshaw, Sen Lindsey Graham
Push Gun Control In Wake Of Leftist’s Mass Shooting



Establishment GOPers Dan Crenshaw and Lindsey Graham joined with Democrats in a push to disarm their own voter base in the wake of antifa-supporting leftist Connor Betts’ mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio
Rep. Dan Crenshaw@RepDanCrenshaw · 
Replying to @RepDanCrenshaw These disgusting mass shootings have been following a pattern ever since Columbine. Sick and lonely men have decided this is how they will vent their frustration.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw@RepDanCrenshaw
The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state “red flag” laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone. 
Senator Lindsey Graham similarly exploited the shooting to push for gun control:
Lindsey Graham@LindseyGrahamSC · 
El Paso shooting is sick and senseless. Time to do more than pray. Time to enact common-sense legislation in Congress to empower states to deal with those who present a danger to themselves and others — while respecting robust due process.
Lindsey Graham@LindseyGrahamSC
May not have mattered here, but Red Flag laws have proven to be effective in states that have them. (2/2)
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham told BuzzFeed News he will start crafting legislation next week to expand police powers to preemptively seize firearms from people believed to be a danger to themselves or others.
Graham is angling to get bipartisan support for his bill, and has been in discussions with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Neither would outline specifics Thursday beyond saying it will be an original piece of legislation. Graham said work on hammering out the contents of the bill will begin next week.
Why do Republican sell-outs always push for their own law-abiding supporters to be disarmed after some unhinged criminal commits a crime?
Ivanka Trump@IvankaTrump
Congress should enact Red Flag laws/ Extreme Risk Protection Orders in EVERY state and increase resources dedicated to mental health support. 
Lindsey Graham @LindseyGrahamSC
Replying to @LindseyGrahamSC
Read more on Red Flag / Extreme Risk Protection Orders. 
“Red-flag” laws mean panels of unelected leftist bureaucrats and cops deciding on who is allowed to own a gun.  We’ve already seen how that has worked out in Maryland
Our government’s complete and total refusal to address any of our society’s actual problems (and insistence on only making them worse) is what’s “radicalizing” people.
The problem is our hostile, corrupt, decadent ruling class, not the small amount of free speech and gun rights we still have left.

Three tweets I sent to Graham and Crenshaw:

John Nelson @rstydaag
@LindseyGrahamSC @DanCrenshawTX Look at facts; the assault weapon ban showed no change, gun laws passed since accomplished nothing, gun laws are not going to stop these situations, the perpetrator will move to bomb vest or cars/trucks if necessary. common sense needs to rule!
John Nelson @rstydaag
@LindseyGrahamSC @DanCrenshawTX Look at the age of these shooters, they are not 45-55-65 year old people, they are 24- 35 years old! I sent all of you a two page article I wrote on Modern shooting outlining the cause, you need to read it, address the real problem; Humans!
John Nelson @rstydaag
@LindseyGrahamSC @DanCrenshawTX It’s time our members of congress address the real problem! Understand we did not have these issues till well into the 1990’s, it was at thi time major cultural changes came about, drugging our children in school with mind altering prescriptions


Contact: 202-646-5188
August 5, 2019

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past five years (Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.

Under the law, known as the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, candidates who do not publicly disclose their tax returns are barred from having their names printed on California’s primary ballots. Judicial Watch alleges that SB 27 imposes candidate qualifications beyond those allowed by the U.S. Constitution and impermissibly burdens a voters’ expressive constitutional and statutory rights. The lawsuit claims violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Qualifications Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988.
During the 2017-2018 legislative session, then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a previous version of this law, which California’s Legislative Counsel concluded “would be unconstitutional if enacted.” In vetoing the 2017-18 tax return law, Brown noted:

First, it may not be constitutional. Second, it sets a “slippery slope” precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power? A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system. For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.

The Judicial Watch complaint further alleges the political nature of the law, which is totally divorced from the states’ legitimate constitutional role in administering and establishing procedures for conducting federal elections:

None of the interests proffered by the California legislature for requiring the disclosure of candidates’ tax returns is related to election procedure or administration. Rather, the stated interests incorporate particular, substantive judgments about what is most important for voters to know when considering a candidate, how voters should go about “estimate[ing] the risk” of a candidate “engaging in corruption,” and what might assist law enforcement in detecting violations of the Emoluments Clause and crimes “such as insider trading.”


Unless SB 27 is enjoined, states will assume the power to create their own qualifications for national candidates seeking to obtain a party’s nomination for president. This could lead to as many as 50 distinct and possibly inconsistent sets of qualifications regarding the only national election in the United States. Using rationales similar to California’s, states might come to demand medical records, mental health records, sealed juvenile records, driving records, results of intelligence, aptitude, or personality tests, college applications, Amazon purchases, Google search histories, browsing histories, or Facebook friends.

“California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is an obvious legal issue that a state can’t amend the U.S. Constitution by adding qualifications in order to run for president. The courts can’t stop this abusive law fast enough.”

FCC bans robocalls, texts

FCC Chairman takes on robocalls: We want to make sure consumers are protected

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on the agency’s efforts to take on robocalls.

The Federal Communications Commission voted to approve laws that ban fraudulent text messages and international robocalls last week.

The new rules in effect neutralize loopholes in the Truth in Caller ID Act, which banned spoofing domestic calls but made it hard for the FCC to prosecute against perpetrators of scam text messages and international calls. Now, the FCC can monitor and penalize “bad actors” behind these types of schemes.



John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :