August 2019
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
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>

THTP - POLL
General information

Archive for August 13th, 2019

Epstein’s Death Raises Questions About Media

Analysis Behind the News
Epstein’s Death Raises Questions About Media
Within the last two weeks, the media has reached a fever-pitch in its coverage of President Trump. Not content to merely portray him as a racist and white supremacist, some in big media are deeming him a conspiracy theorist.
While this could be easily dismissed as the media picking on President Trump, it points to a much deeper handling of the media’s rather shallow reporting of conspiracy.
We’ll talk about that today on this episode of Analysis Behind the News.
TAKE ACTION:

1. Read  In the Shadows of the Deep State.
2. Apply for membership in The John Birch Society.
3. Subscribe to our news alerts.

ATTACK ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT


Image result for john birch society logo pictures

Preserving the Second Amendment and Eliminating Red Flag Laws

Image result for john birch society logo pictures

Preserving the Second Amendment and Eliminating Red Flag Laws

Preserving the Second Amendment and Eliminating Red Flag Laws
Written by   Monday, 12 August 2019 18:53

With the recent mass shootings that have taken place in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the political push for red flag laws are rapidly increasing. A number of Republican lawmakers and self-described “pro-Second Amendment” advocacy groups, including President Trump, are calling for immediate enactment of red flag laws.
To clarify, a red flag law is a politically divided gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves without due process and facing their accusers in a court of law.
These red flag laws are unconstitutional and are a direct shot at our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Restricting and taking away our gun rights will not prevent these tragedies from happening. Just last week a gang member in California stabbed and killed four people and wounded two more. We must recognize that we have laws in place that restrict gun ownership and laws against murder, yet we still see murders committed. Laws, by definition, will not deter those determined to break the law.
It is understandable for the public to want to eliminate these mass tragedies from happening but the solution is not gun restrictions. In light of what has been happening, we must also remain educated on the good that firearms do for us. Bob Adelmann, writer for The New American, wrote an articlerecently showing incidents where firearms saved lives. If we let our emotions cloud our judgement we lose sight of the facts at hand. When these mass shootings happen, it is important that we stay educated on the facts and don’t react to our emotions to sway us to believe that gun restrictions will help solve this violence. As a nation we have yet to find a solution to prevent these mass tragedies from happening, but we do know one thing. The solution is not to take away our guns and our right to bear arms.
Preserving the Second Amendment and our God-given freedoms starts with you. The federal government will continue to assume powers that are undelegated, but state legislatures can use nullification based on Article VI in the Constitution, to declare unconstitutional federal laws null and void. Help to educate your state, community and elected officials on the importance of supporting our Second Amendment rights. The right to keep and bear arms must be protected if we wish to stay a free nation.
Take Action:
  1. Learn more about The Founders Brilliant Solution to Big Government in our Article VI Constitutional Principles Booklet.
  2. Host a Constitution is the Solution workshop series. Contact your local coordinator to get started.
  3. Our “Rein in Big Government” Action Pack is the perfect resource for educating yourself and your state legislators.
Image from iStockPhoto.com, by Kristin Bjornsen

WATCH: Democrat Vs. Democrat Socialist

WATCH: Democrat Vs. Democrat Socialist

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:47 AM PT — Monday, August 12, 2019
As the 2020 election season gets in full swing, democratic socialist ideas are picking up momentum among progressives. However, it’s important to note how democratic socialists are different than traditional Democrats.
One America’s Chloe Salsameda breaks down those differences.

Special Ops Combat Veteran Runs To Flip Ariz. House Seat For GOP

Special Ops Combat Veteran Runs To Flip Ariz. House Seat For GOP

Neil W. McCabe, OAN Investigative Reporter — Washington, D.C.
UPDATED 7:00 AM PT — Tuesday, August 13, 2019
The sixth generation Arizonan, who is a firefighter and city councilor in his community, is running for House seat representing Arizona’s First Congressional District.  He told One America News his Army service in Afghanistan motivates him.
“I was in Urozgan Province for about eight months and then for my second deployment I was in Heret and Badghis provinces,” said Chris Taylor, who is running against Democrat Rep. Thomas C. O’Halleran. O’Halleran first won the seat in 2016. “I saw an extensive amount of combat over the 16 months that I was there–over 250 missions. I was in firefights all the time.”
Taylor said he is a second generation paratrooper and that his father saw combat in Vietnam. After Taylor earned his jump wings at Fort Benning, Georgia, he reported to the John F. Kennedy Special Operations School and Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he was trained to become a psychological warfare specialist. After his assignment to Special Operations Command, the Arizonan said he deployed twice to Afghanistan, first with Green Berets and then with Marine special operators.
“Most of the time to seek close contact we would go out on reconnaissance patrols–basically to get outside the wire and see who would attack us,” he said.
“The ways the rules of engagement were it was hard to go and pick fights, so we’d have to wait until we were attacked. Then, we would use overwhelming force to put the enemy to sleep,” he said.
Jon Johnson, who covers politics for the Gila Herald, said Taylor’s campaign comes as the state’s Republican Party is unwinding from years of internal conflict. “The problem is there is kinda different factions that have been going at it for quite some time–hard, hard right versus more centrist Republicans.”
Despite the factions in the party, Taylor has a good shot at taking the seat from O’Halleran, whose support is concentrated in Flagstaff and the Indian reservations, he said.
“I said in an article I wrote about him, he’s right out of central casting to be a Republican–the look they would love to have, good looking, nice head on his shoulders, someone who could bridge between the hard right, who vote for you if you have an R next to your name no matter what and the centrist guys,” Johnson said.
“He might bring over a lot of independent voter would otherwise vote Democrat,” he said.
As he goes around the district, Taylor said he keeps hearing from voters, especially from veterans, that they are frustrated with the lack of services for veterans in the rural district.
It is a problem he knows firsthand, he said.
“The number one issue for me that people always talk to me about is the level of care that our veterans are getting, particularly in rural area,” he said. “Living where I live I still have to drive two hours.”
With more than 58,000 square miles, Arizona-1 is the largest district in the state and the tenth largest district in the country.
Taylor said the incumbent does not understand the challenges of rural Arizona.
“Congressman O’Halleran is hurting the people of our district, because he doesn’t really know what it is to be a rural Arizona,” he said. “He’s from Chicago. He’s come here and tries to say he has our best interests, but we don’t have real representation in Congress.”
Taylor might be facing a two-term incumbent, but he is not doing it alone. He is getting support from local activists who were part of both the presidential campaigns of former Texas congressman Ron Paul and his Sen. Rand Paul (R.-Ky.)

There is NO ‘CLIMATE EMERGENCY!’

Only emergency that matters is the threat to our way of life in the free democratic world placed upon us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate or the environment. Their goal is world socialism and government control

There is NO ‘CLIMATE EMERGENCY!’


There is NO 'CLIMATE EMERGENCY!'Speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change held on July 25th in Washington, D.C., Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville said, “There is no climate crisis. There is no climate emergency. Even if all of the warming we’ve seen in any observational data set is due to increasing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which I don’t believe it is, it’s probably too small for any person to feel in their lifetime.”

Yet, on July 9, Reuters News Agency reported “Democratic lawmakers, including six presidential candidates, on Tuesday unveiled a Congressional resolution declaring a climate change emergency to spur ‘sweeping reforms’ to stem a dangerous rise in global temperatures. The non-binding resolution, introduced by Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Earl Blumenauer and Senator Bernie Sanders, ‘demands a national, social, industrial and economic mobilization’ to ‘halt, reverse, mitigate and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency and to restore the climate for future generations.’”

In an effort to drum up support for its costly ‘carbon tax,’ the Liberal government of Canada has also announced a climate emergency. Britain’s parliament has declared a climate change emergency as well, “backing a call by opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for ‘rapid and dramatic action’ to protect the environment after… weeks of protests by the Extinction Rebellion climate movement,” according to Reuters. The Climate Mobilization group exclaimed that “Over 790 local governments in 17 countries have declared a climate emergency and committed to action to drive down emissions at emergency speed.”

In considering whether this makes any sense, let’s take a page out of Blumenauer’s book and, as he put it, “tell the truth about the nature of this threat.”

The so-called emergency is nothing other than the over-active imaginations of activists who are putting too much faith in the computer model forecasts of the future, while ignoring observational data that tells us nothing extraordinary is happening.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies asserts that between 1880 and 2017, there has been only slightly more than one-degree Celsius rise in the so-called global average temperature despite a supposed 40% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database of state-wide extreme weather records, arguably the best of its kind in the world, shows that so far in 2019, only one extreme weather record has been set—the coldest day in the history of Illinois.

In 2018, the only records set were:

  • the largest hailstone in the history of Alabama
  • the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in Hawaii
  • the most precipitation in a year in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.

In 2017, the only record set was for the fastest wind gust in California.

In 2016, no records were set.

In 2015, only two records were set: the most precipitation in a year in Arkansas and the largest hailstone in the history of Illinois.

In 2014, only one record was set—the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in New York. And so it goes, year after year as we move into the past with the occasional state record set, as one would expect due to natural climate variability. In the first 18+ years of the 21st century, only two states recorded their maximum temperatures—South Carolina in 2012 and South Dakota in 2006.

Contrast that with 1936, when 15 states set their all-time maximum temperature records.

Similarly, the NOAA’s updated coastal sea level tide gauge data (2016) shows no evidence of accelerating sea level rise. NOAA data also shows that for almost 142 consecutive months starting on Oct. 24, 2005, there were no major or moderate landfall hurricanes in the continental United States, the longest such period in records starting in 1851.

Much to the frustration of climate alarmists, the instrumental record clearly indicates that, not only is there no climate emergency underway, but today’s climate is actually quite stable.

Computer model forecasts

The climate scare is based on only one thing (aside from the drive for world socialism—see the conclusion to this piece)—computer model forecasts of what may happen someday if we do not restrict our use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2emissions. But these models do not work because we do not understand the science well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Observations demonstrate that the actual rate of warming between 1979-2017 is three times smaller than that predicted by the average of 102 different climate models.

Let’s drill a bit deeper into this scandal.

Our government has financed more than one hundred efforts to model our planet for the better part of three decades. They continue to do so even though none has been able to predict the known past or, after a decade of study, accurately predict what was to happen ten years later. If you watched this year’s Indianapolis 500 motorcar race, you know they predicted 80% chance of rain, but the sun never went behind a cloud.

The problem facing scientists who study climate with no bias is that the public has no clue what mathematical models actually are, how they work, and what they can and cannot do. So, let’s try to simplify the complex subject of mathematical modeling.

Before we build buildings or airplanes, we make physical, small scale models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built

Historically, we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations

When dealing with systems that are totally beyond our control, we try to describe them with computer programs or mathematical equations that we hope may give answers to the questions we have about how the system works today and in the future. We attempt to understand the variables that affect the operation of the system. Then we alter the variables and see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing and is the very best use of mathematical models.

Historically, we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations we think might control how nature works. Yet, today, in the climate sphere, we are doing just that.

All problems can be viewed as having five stages: observation (seeing a physical occurrence), modeling (estimating mathematical relationships), prediction (how the system might work), verification (seeing a correct result) and validation (determining that the result was not a random occurrence).

Perhaps the most active area for mathematical modeling is the economy and the stock market.  No one has ever succeeded in getting it right, and there are far fewer variables than those that determine Earth’s climate. For many years the Wall Street Journal selected five eminent economic analysts to select a stock they were sure would rise in the following month.

Then they had a chimpanzee throw five darts at a wall covered with that day’s stock market results. A month later they determined who did better choosing winners: the analysts or the dart-throwing chimpanzee. For many years the chimp won so often that they discontinued the contests. We are not saying that today’s mathematical modelers would not beat chimps throwing darts at future Earth temperatures, but we will not object if you were to reach that conclusion.

While no one knows all the variables affecting climate, there are likely hundreds of them. Here are some important factors for which we have limited understanding:

changes in seasonal solar irradiation
  1. energy flows between the ocean and atmosphere
  2. energy flows between the air and land
  3. balance between Earth’s water, water vapor and ice
  4. the impacts of clouds
  5. understanding the planet’s ice
  6. mass changes between ice sheets, seal level and glaciers
  7. ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes
  8. the impact of vegetation on temperature
  9. tectonic movement on ocean bottoms
  10. differential rotation between Earth’s surface and the planet’s core
  11. solar system magnetic field and gravitational interactions.
Yet today’s modelers tell us that they can forecast the planet’s climate for decades or even a century in the future and want our leaders to manage our economies accordingly. Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysics laboratory once calculated that if we knew all the variables affecting climate and plug them into the world’s largest computer, it would take 40 years for the computer to reach an answer.
The only emergency that matters is the threat to our way of life in the free democratic world placed upon us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate or the environment in general. Their goal is world socialism and complete government control of the peoples on our planet. It is an assault no less frightening and damaging than the wars that have plagued mankind since the dawn of time. It’s time governments stood up to them.

Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris — Bio and Archives | 2 Comments

Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst with of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.


CFPSubcribe


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

The PLO is shouting loads of codswallop from its Ramallah-Headquarters rooftop–as the ceiling slowly collapses under its feet

Trump reaffirms Bush’s recognition of Jewish claims in West Bank


 

Trump reaffirms Bush's recognition of Jewish claims in West BankThe Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is frothing at the mouth at media reports indicating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking a public declaration from US President Donald Trump recognizing Israeli sovereignty over parts of the occupied West Bank prior to the Israeli elections on 17 September.
PLO spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh stressed that any procedure or decision affecting Palestinian national rights and the resolutions of international legitimacy shall be considered illegitimate. Abu Rudeineh warned such a move would have “serious implications”.
Abu Rudineh continued:

“This step, if taken, would constitute ongoing playing with fire,” he added, and stressed that stability and security are indivisible and that “peace would not be made at any price”.

“Neither this step would establish any right ]to Israel], nor it will create a viable false reality,” he added.”

Such a Trump declaration would undoubtedly help Netanyahu’s re-election chance—as have Trump’s declarations on Jerusalem being Israel’s capital, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and recognising Jewish claims in the Golan Heights.
However Trump’s US Ambassador to Israel—David Friedman—has already made such a declaration, telling the New York Times on 8 June 2019:

“Under certain circumstances I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”

Friedman diplomatically continued:

“We really don’t have a view until we understand how much, on what terms, why does it make sense, why is it good for Israel, why is it good for the region, why does it not create more problems than it solves… These are all things that we’d want to understand, and I don’t want to prejudge… Certainly Israel’s entitled to retain some portion of it.”

Friedman confirmed what has been declared American policy since 2004—when President Bush made the following written commitment in his letter to Israel’s then Prime Minister – the late Ariel Sharon , on 14 April 2004:

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

This commitment was overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day.
Bush’s letter welcomed the disengagement plan Sharon had prepared:
“under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace”
Israel honoured its commitment—at great personal loss of life, injury and property damage to both its civilian population and military forces. Israel continues to pay a heavy price for that disengagement as Hamas remains in control of Gaza with the avowed aim of wiping Israel off the face of the map.
Trump has already recognized—and will continue to recognize—Jewish rights in the West Bank as sacrosanct.
The PLO is shouting loads of codswallop from its Ramallah-Headquarters rooftop—as the ceiling slowly collapses under its feet.
Author’s note:The cartoon—commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators—whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

 

CFPSubcribe

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

 

What the Left and the MSM pass off as political news and intelligent commentary has been confused – the true with the false and the false with the true.

What the Left and the MSM pass off as political news and intelligent commentary has been confused – the true with the false and the false with the true.

Democrats’ “Racism” Mantra Does Not Resonate with Reality


Democrats, Racism, Mantra Does Not Resonate with RealityThe current “Democratic” or “Progressive” Party’s strategy to use the cries of racism and white supremacy as a mantra leading to the 2020 elections is an example of politicized racism, or selective/targeted hatred. It demonstrates a thought process that attempts to marginalize one’s primary opponent(s) and cast reasonable doubt into the minds of anyone who would ally themselves with such an opponent. It is a clever strategy or effort to manipulate the minds of low-information voters who, if they do vote in any national elections, vote with limited reasoning. Especially, the strategy is aimed to manipulate people of color, or those who empathize with their “plight.”

Yet, many intelligent black citizens have seriously awakened to the political ploy. However, when they do, they are called out. Recently, CNN’s Don Lemon attacked Rev. Bill Owens, the founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP). Apparently, Lemon took issue with Rev. Owens for attending a recent meeting with President Trump, in which the two discussed concerns regarding poverty-stricken areas. Lemon essentially insinuated during the live interview that the pastor should not be taken seriously because of his alleged shield for Trump’s “racism.” The CNN host practically accused him of being a sellout to his race.

Lemon asked, “So the president tweeted today he was looking forward to his meeting with wonderful inner-city pastors… any concern for you that the president used this meeting with black leaders to insulate himself from the criticism?”

Rev. Owens replied, “I don’t think so. I don’t think that at all because I have been to the White House four times in five months… So it was nothing about insulating him from anything. He wanted to hear from us, what our concerns were and what he could do to help us.”

Such was the nature of the questioning or the interrogation as it could be more appropriately described. Lemon continued, “So I know it’s hard for you, you think it’s hard to believe that Trump is racist… but he’s repeatedly used racially-charged language. He consistently attacks black and brown elected leaders. So, why is that hard to believe, pastor?”

Owens replied, “I find President Trump a leader of all colors. He attacks whom he will. He’s his own man. And I can’t dictate what he should or shouldn’t do. But he does not just attack black people,” answered Owens. “He attacks anybody, and you know it.”

Lemon jumped at the chance to attack Owens’ faith as a Christian. “So, as a man of faith, as a Christian, you’re saying he attacks anyone. It sounds like you’re condoning attacks? Is that Christianly or godly?”

Rev. Owens pushed back: “I’m just stating a statement of fact… I’m not condoning anything. I’m stating a statement of fact. President Trump does not pick the people he attacks because of color. He attacks anybody he feels needs it.”

“Is that okay with you?” Lemon shot back.

Rev. Owens retorted, “Well, I’m not his judge!”

Yet, the Left and their MSM barking dogs want to be the judge of people who support President Trump. Additionally, they want to be the judge and jury and public character assassins when they can get away with it. It is quite likely that their day of judgment is upon them. Rev. Owens will likely face a lot of criticism for his stand in support of Trump.

He went on to explain that he is currently trying to help black young people and poor people of color in the United States. He explained, I’ve done it, and I’ll do it again, and I will work with this president on that agenda.”

Lemon asked, almost in an accusatory tone, “Did you work with President Barack Obama on that agenda?”

Owens fiercely shot back: “I worked with all presidents on that agenda — all presidents. I work with anybody who wants to help this country and help our inner-city young people. I don’t want them to have to go through what I went through to get where I am. Thank God I’m blessed; starting from nothing on the other side of scratch, I have three university degrees because God blessed me and this great country.”

Another strong voice that came out in support of President Trump was Rev. Alveda King, the niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She spoke out strongly against the “racist” accusations coming against President Donald Trump. King has spoken on several occasions via various platforms to provide a clear counter to the continual smear tactics of the Left and their MSM “barking dog” behavior. King recently told “Fox & Friends” that such characterizations of Trump as a racist would not be a depiction of the truth. “President Trump is not a racist,” King said.

Rev. Alveda King went on to explain, “I’ve had the experience of going head to head with genuine racists.” And she would ask Trump accusers if they’ve “ever met a real racist.” She continued, “President Trump has said, ‘We all bleed the same,’ he’s very clear on that, and he has done so much for all Americans, including African-Americans.” Rev. King’s solution to America’s problems begins instead by those on both sides of the political aisle need to “look for solutions” with each other. “We have to overcome evil with good… When people call each other racist, we are one blood,” and continuing, she came to a sharper focus “One human race, different ethnicities — we’re not color blind, we can see, but that is for the purpose of appreciating each other, and we have to do that.”

Essentially, one can tell the niece is echoing the words of her famous uncle. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. must have left a deep impression upon her, as she arose as a wise spiritual leader in this time of division and hatred. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. also rose above the petty negative in his speech entitled, “I Have A Dream” in which he also looked at the divisive issues that splintered America and he called for brotherhood as well:

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former Slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood… I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character… I have a dream that one day… right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers…

If one seriously looks at the life and legacy of MLK, he was not just a civil rights leader, as the revisionist historians prefer to portray him. His energy of righteousness was rooted in the fact that he was a genuine Christian minister, but his dream was also a dream that would have appealed to God, but it did not appeal to all Americans then, nor sadly now. We still have a cultural tendency to not fully examine anyone’s character without first making a judgment on, say, skin color. For the most part, we are easily swayed by the superficial features of individuals and public personalities, often content to limit our assessments of people to what appears on the surface.

It almost seems impossible to conceive that around 50 years ago, people in a part of our country had grown so callous to the value of human beings that entrenched hatred led to extremes of brutality and murder as a way to ensure political and social control of their fellow human beings. Yet, when we look at some of the violent crimes of hatred, against people of color, against the people who are religious, or even against people who simply support the POTUS in a public way, maybe it is not so hard to imagine.

A Christian clergyman, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., stood up and spoke out at the risk of his family’s safety and at the risk of his life to change the nation for the better. He faced genuine racists that not only had possessed the internal attitude, but also had helped to create a political system that institutionalized racism through forced segregation. That reality is what Rev. King had to risk his life to fight—the manifestation of personal racism into a legalized political system. This was what the “Democratic” Party established in the South. That was after slavery was abolished! Their oppression was real, not imagined, their tyranny over human lives was truly substantial, not hypothetical.

No matter how much the Left and the MSM barking dogs seek to redefine what racism is, or who a racist is, the reality is that it will be incredibly difficult to have hollow accusations match the real nature of the Democrat control of the South only around 50 years ago. Whether by implication or by vociferous accusation, calling people racists for their opposition to political policies does more damage to the denotative meaning of the word than any other journalistic effort. It represents a gross and purposeful distortion of truth.

Amazingly, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. defined racism as a disease – essentially a disease of the heart that one would see as hatred. In his collection of sermons, Strength to Love, in the sermon entitled, “Loving your enemies,” he explained:

Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a                                                                           night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction…
Another reason why we must love our enemies is that hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. Mindful that hate is an evil and dangerous force, we too often think of what it does to the person hated. This is understandable, for hate brings irreparable damage to its victims. We have seen its ugly consequences… in the terrible indignities and injustices perpetrated against millions of God’s children by unconscionable oppressors.
But there is another side we must never overlook. Hate is just as injurious   to the person who hates. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true…
So, if Dr. King’s assessment is correct. and racism is a disease reflecting the absence of love in the human heart, then all the accusations, all the implications, or all the blatant uses of the label of racist or racism will not correct the fundamental problem. Unfortunately, the ones who employ such crude tactics may already know that.  It is extremely unfortunate, but many black Americans and organizations within the black community like the present day Black Lives Matter, or the Black Muslims of the 60s, and the Black Panthers, who rejected Dr. King’s assessment of racism and his dream even while he was working with the black communities.
America is indeed a land of diversity, but not all voices raised in what appears to be indignation over racism are in harmony. Some people simply follow what others say without much serious or rational thought. Some are confused. And others are filled with genuine hatred themselves. To be a racist, one normally displays symptoms of hatred, or the absence of love towards others. There is no one political party that has a monopoly on hatred, yet God is surely observing all in America in this time, and certainly, He can distinguish what is inside the hearts of humanity. Bearing false witness against one’s fellow human beings is a serious crime in God’s eyes. What the Left and the MSM pass off as political news and intelligent commentary has been confused – the true with the false and the false with the true.
Hopefully. Americans who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, will pay close attention. Divided, “We the People” will fall. United, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

CFPSubcribe


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

Sean Hannity Comes Rushing To The Defense of CNN’s Foul-Mouth Chris Cuomo

Meanwhile, if Hannity continues to offer a Fox News soapbox to the likes of de Blasio and rushes to the defence of foul-mouthed Chris Cuomo, he’ll soon have to answer to the name, ‘Clown Hannity’.

Sean Hannity Comes Rushing To The Defense of CNN’s Foul-Mouth Chris Cuomo


Sean Hannity Comes Rushing To The Defense of CNN’s Foul-Mouth Chris CuomoWhat gives with “Tick Tock”, “Tick-Tock”-teasing Fox News host Sean Hannity?

Last week, he boosted the profile of 2020 presidential candidate, Commie-loving New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who got to trot out his lib-left agenda, mostly uninterrupted,  for one full-hour on prime time TV.

You really weren’t having a nightmare …
“that really was de Blasio pontificating at length about his radical plans for America and it really was Sean Hannity—not just providing him leeway but even joking with him.”  (Canada Free Press, Aug 8, 2019)

“Hard to believe but true, Fox News gave Hiz Honor de Blasio better coverage than CNN or MSNBC.”

Hannity ended his jocular interview with de Blasio with this message for Democratic presidential primary contenders: “By the way, I have a message for all you 2020 candidates,” he said. “It wasn’t that bad. Come on the program, we will give you a fair shake and you can reach more people than any other show on cable.”
Looks like he meant it:
Today Hannity came rushing out of the bullpen in defense of CNN’s Chris Cuomo, though not a 2020 candidate, one of their biggest supporters.
“Fox News’s Sean Hannity came to Chris Cuomo’s defense after video shows the CNN host threatening a Trump supporter who referred to him as “Fredo”—a character in The Godfather known as the dumb brother.(TownHall, Aug. 13, 2019)

“The footage shows Cuomo becoming enraged, claiming using the word is an insult to Italians and akin to the n-word.

“Eventually, he threatens to throw the man down the stairs.

“The YouTube video claims to be “Footage sent in by a [That’s The Point with Brandon] fan,” and goes on to explain that “a fan of news went to ask Chris Cuomo for a photo, mind you the man who asked him DID NOT know his real name and knows of him only through The RUSH LIMBUAGH SHOW [sic] and on that show Rush repeatedly calls him ‘FREDO’ so the man legitimately thought his name was FREDO. At this point CHRIS CUOMO LOSES IT AND THREATENS THE MAN WITH VIOLENCE!” (Washington Examiner, Aug 12, 2019)

“Punk-# b—ches on the right call me Fredo,” Cuomo says, and goes on to explain why he finds that name offensive.

“Fredo was from The Godfather,” Cuomo said. “He was a weak brother. And they use it as an Italian aspersion. Are any of you Italian? Are you Italian? It’s a f—king insult to your people. It’s an insult to your f—king people.” He then claimed that “Fredo” is the N-word to Italians. “Is that a cool f—king thing?”

“The other man in the video then mockingly tells Cuomo that he is “a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television,” to which Cuomo responds, “If you want to play, we’ll f—king play.”

“After further back-and-forth, Cuomo said, “You’re gonna have a f—king problem. It’s a little different on TV. Don’t f—king insult me like that. You called me Fredo, like I call you ‘punk b—ch.’”

“Hannity praised Cuomo’s response to the man and said he has nothing to apologize for.  (TownHall)

“I say good for @ChrisCuomo,” Hannity tweeted. “He’s out with his 9 year old daughter, and his wife, and this guy is being a jackass in front of his family.

“Imho Chris Cuomo has zero to apologize for. He deserves the apology.”

No doubt if Hannity, the father of children himself, had heard the same kind of profane language used within their earshot, he would have gone BANANAS.

Meanwhile, if Hannity continues to offer a Fox News soapbox to the likes of de Blasio and rushes to the defence of foul-mouthed Chris Cuomo, he’ll soon have to answer to the name, ‘Clown Hannity’.

Over to you, Rush Limbaugh.


CFPSubcribe

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

THTP OFFICERS

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

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com