September 2019
« Aug    
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 September 2nd, 2019

Claws of the Red Dragon”, Hong Kong Protest & US China Trade War

Steve Bannon: New Film On Huawei—“Claws of the Red Dragon”, Hong Kong Protest & US China Trade War

Can President Trump actually order American companies out of China?
What is Steve Bannon’s new film, Claws of the Red Dragon, all about?
And why does he describe Chinese telecom giant Huawei as “the greatest national security threat we have ever faced”?
How does President Trump differ from previous presidents, both Democratic and Republican, in his approach towards China?
What did previous administrations fundamentally misunderstand about China and the ruling communist regime?
And what is the role of Wall Street and Western business leaders in funding and empowering the Chinese Communist Party?
And, how can we expect the Hong Kong protests to play out?
This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek. Today we sit down with Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist to President Donald Trump, and former executive chairman of Breitbart News. He is also the Co-Founder of the Committee on the Present Danger: China.
We discuss how, in Bannon’s view, the Chinese communist elites have gained power and wealth through access to Western capital and technology, and used that power to stifle dissent and advance their self-serving global ambitions. And we look at the threat of Chinese telecom giant Huawei and its ties to the People’s Liberation Army, which are spotlighted in a new film produced by Bannon called “Claws of the Red Dragon.”

=== If you enjoyed this video, please LIKE it and SUBSCRIBE to our channel!

The Best Way to Enslave the People is to Disarm Them!

The Father of the Bill of Rights Warned: The Best Way to Enslave the People is to Disarm Them!

The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government when abiding by the laws…

By Bradlee Dean:

Bradlee Dean
“How many times I have broadcasted on air that you either deal lawfully with corrupt anti-gunner politicians for violating our Bill of Rights (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution), or you will be disarmed. There is no in-between. If Americans do not want to learn from history, then Americans will learn from experience in the present only to have wished that they had learned from history.” – Bradlee Dean
Have you ever wondered how it is that dictators and tyrants do what they do and how it is that they do it when it comes to having absolute control over the people (Isaiah 14:915)? Just look to the children of Israel, who were disarmed of every means to defend themselves while under absolute control by their oppressors, namely the Philistines.
Let me say that again, they had to first disarm them of their means to defend themselves against their oppressors to have absolute control. “So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan:” -1 Samuel 13:22
And so it is the reason why our forefathers established the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights because they understood this basic elementary principle.
George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, warned:  “To disarm the people…was the best & most effectual way to enslave them.” Americans must understand what is happening today.  Administration after administration has incrementally and systematically stripped the people of their right to bear arms with one excuse after another, if not through propaganda, then resort to brainwashing if need be.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution said:  “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
Today, we see it is in a full-frontal attack by this current administration that is right in front of our faces to further strip law-abiding gun owners of their right to bear arms through something called “red flag laws,” which are not law! (Luke 11:21-22).  “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” -Marbury vs. Madison 5 US 92 Cranch 137, 174, 176, (1803)
One must ask where these said representatives are deriving their delegated authority from in order to strip Americans of their right to bear arms?  They aren’t getting it from the American people who employ them nor from any founding document.  This is, in fact, foreign and subversive to American government.
Why is this government arming The IRS, DHS, VHA, OIG, SSA, NPS?
Did You Know That Your Government is Arming Agencies Like the IRS, DHS, VHA, OIG, SSA, NPS?

Friends, they are not laws no matter what they call them because they counter the Bill of Rights, which restricts the government, not “We the People.” The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government when abiding by the laws.
These red flag laws are nothing more than the government declaring whomever they will, and at will, a threat at their own interpretation, as well as their perverted discretion (Isaiah 5:20).  “Do not separate from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. “ –James Madison the 4th President of the United States
In other words, it will make it easier for those who are perverting and subverting the Constitution to weed out their political opposition.  Think that may be stretching things a bit? Look to the history of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot etc…

Think of this:  today, in America, when a crime is committed, the law abider is blamed for the crimes of the lawbreaker by those who are to uphold the enumerated laws (Revelation 12:10). This goes far beyond innocent until proven guilty.  These subversives are not so much worried about lawbreakers such as themselves as they are worried about the law abiders because they will be the ones to resist if it becomes necessary. After all, this is whom they are attacking.
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” –President Thomas Jefferson
Remember that those who are disarming you are those who promised to uphold the law, not tear it down, which makes them outlaws and they must lawfully be removed from office (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution).  If not, you will be disarmed (Luke 21:22).

Remember, friends, the US Constitution is the law of the land and not party affiliations.  “The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme law of the land.” -Article 6, Section 2, US Constitution)
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights
With the two of them brought together, Samuel Adams stated:  “The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”  What our forefathers bestowed upon us, their posterity, was that we all learn from their experience and wisdom in addressing tyranny in their time so that we can allow the lessons to avail in our times if need be (Proverbs 15:32).
If you look to the Declaration of Independence alone, you will find that document was our forefathers’ instruction manual in throwing off a tyrant that would not be ruled by God in keeping the people free under God (2 Corinthians 3:17).  How important were firearms in throwing off tyranny, simply look to the lessons that our first president George Washington had taught:

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty teeth.”

This is why Americans are armed. Lesson learned.
Alexander Hamilton stated the reason for the Second Amendment: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,” adding later, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says “the representatives of the people”?

Americans will either become the strength of the Constitution, or they will find themselves under the power and control of their oppressors just like that of the children of Israel!


Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media. Article by Bradlee Dean.
© Copyright by Bradlee Dean, 2019. All rights reserved.
Email Bradlee:
Read More Articles by Bradlee Dean


The ‘Red Flags’ Surrounding Red Flag Laws


The Capitol in Washington on Dec. 17, 2018. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)Commentary

In the wake of two recent mass shootings, calls for the enactment of red flag laws have risen exponentially. It’s perfectly understandable that so many want to do something, anything, to help prevent future tragedies such as the ones that took place in El Paso and Dayton.
But the blind enactment of red flag laws isn’t the appropriate response.
Red flag laws are effectively prevention laws that allow law enforcement and family members to petition a court to have an individual’s firearms temporarily confiscated if the person is believed to pose a danger to themselves or others.
The involuntary removal of weapons, usually done without notice, is generally for a set period of time—typically several days or weeks—until a more formal hearing can be held. At the formal hearing, the judge might rule that the ban is valid and extend the confiscation for a longer period of time, sometimes as long as a year. Or the judge might rule against the temporary order and allow the weapons to be returned to the owner.
In the event of a valid ruling, the gun owner may be forced to go to court multiple times in order to have his constitutional rights restored.

Inverting Due Process

One of the troubling issues behind such laws is the intent to “catch” people before they actually commit a crime—based on a presumption that the individual “may” commit that crime in the future. In essence, red flag laws are “pre-crime” laws, which is why they are also known as prevention laws.
And they invert our nation’s due process of “innocent until proven guilty” into something resembling “potentially guilty until proven innocent.” The intent behind red flag laws runs completely counter to the underpinnings of our legal system, which has been designed to impose punitive measures after illegal conduct has occurred, not in anticipation of it.
The idea that someone “might” be a danger, although tempting in the wake of these tragic shootings, doesn’t provide legal sufficiency to strip away an individual’s constitutional rights without the benefit of due process. Also worth asking is what, exactly, constitutes a red flag? And who gets to make that determination?
The issue of determination is a somewhat crucial question, as existing red flag laws are structured in a manner that incentivize seizure. A law enforcement officer or a presiding judge is unlikely to face any consequence for taking weapons away from someone who isn’t really a threat. But the potential public backlash from refusing to do so if something tragic was to happen would be fierce. There is an obvious inducement to err on the side of caution—even if it means a violation of that individual’s Constitutional rights.
Several state red flag laws, such as those in Oregon, allow for the temporary confiscation of weapons based solely on a brief statement from a third party who must be a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member. The affected individual isn’t given advance notice, nor is the person allowed to defend him or herself ahead of the confiscation. There is also no requirement that any illegal behavior must have occurred.
Some states allow for court petitions from parties outside of immediate family or household members and typically include mental health professionals. Hawaii goes even further, allowing for petitions to be made by medical professionals, educators, and coworkers.

Involuntary Commitment

In most cases, red flag laws have been invoked when the individual was deemed to be either a danger to themselves or to their immediate family and not because they were deemed to be posing a threat to a larger section of the populace. And there are several studies that indicate these methods have reduced suicide rates.
But this raises the question of why, if a person represents a level of danger great enough to warrant the seizure of his weapons, is he allowed to remain active in society without treatment? If an individual is deemed to be so dangerous as to require the confiscation of his weapons, surely professional treatment and some sort of custodial setting should be required.
A more useful hurdle might be a judicial determination that the individual meets the state standard for involuntary commitment and that remedy is the one that is followed. At a minimum, some mental health treatment should be requisite—and only after a due process judicial determination.

National Level

As it now stands, at least 17 states plus the District of Columbia have already enacted variants of red flag laws—known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO). Most of these laws were enacted following the 2018 Parkland, Florida, shooting, although Connecticut, the first state to pass a red flag law, did so in 1999. Notably, Connecticut’s red flag laws didn’t prevent the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting tragedy from occurring.
At the national level, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act. It would allow a court to issue an ERPO following the successful court petition by a family member or law enforcement officer that would require the surrender of the targeted person’s firearms. It would also prevent the individual from purchasing guns while the court order stands.
The act also requires that the issuance of the ERPO be reported to the “appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.” Who would have access to these databases hasn’t yet been made clear, nor is it known if the listing would be permanent.
Following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) announced a bill on Aug. 5 that would create a federal grant program to assist states in adopting red flag laws. According to Graham, “Many of these shootings involved individuals who showed signs of violent behavior that are either ignored or not followed up. State Red Flag laws will provide the tools for law enforcement to do something about many of these situations before it’s too late.”

Constitutional Violations

Judge Andrew Napolitano, who was asked for his opinion of the Graham-Blumenthal legislation on Fox News, provided a direct and blunt response, noting, “Honest, decent, law-abiding people should not lose their rights because some judge thinks they might do something in the future. That’s the Soviet Union model, not the American.”
Congress has long had a bad habit of enacting poorly written, responsive laws, and there is generally an inclination on the part of government to overreach. When enacted legislation and regulation fails, the nature of government is to follow up with additional laws and regulations. If the government is allowed to seize guns based on the possibility of a future crime, how long before the seizure is of one’s liberty?
Laws that deter future crimes are obviously a positive step. But laws that punish a potential future crime are not. It’s for this reason, along with a lack of due process, that many red flag laws are viewed as unconstitutional. Depending on how the law is written, there may be violations of several different constitutional amendments.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution mandate that no citizen shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” When individuals have their firearms confiscated in advance of a judicial hearing, both amendments are violated, and the individual’s Second Amendment right has been effectively converted into a privilege.
Red flag laws may violate other portions of our Constitution as well—such as the right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment) and unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment).

NRA Requirements

The NRA has written repeatedly on emergency risk protection orders (ERPOs) and has listed a series of requirements they believe should be present in any ERPO legislation in order to protect individual rights:
  1. The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.
  2.  An order should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.
  3. The process should require the judge to make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment. Where the standard for involuntary commitment is met, this should be the course of action taken.
  4. If an ERPO is granted, the person should receive community-based mental health treatment as a condition of the ERPO.
  5. Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
  6. ‘A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.
  7. There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon termination of an ERPO, when a person is ordered to relinquish their firearms as a condition of the order.
  8. The ERPO process should allow an individual to challenge or terminate the order, with full due process protections in place.
  9. The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms as a condition of the ERPO.
  10. The individual must also have the ability to sell his or her firearms in a reasonable time without violating the order.

Balanced Response

The recent tragedies are horrific and it’s understandable that our society would require some sort of response. But this shouldn’t come at the expense of our civil liberties and in a manner that violates our constitutional rights. Nor should the underlying issue of mental health and requisite care be overlooked.
As Congress and the states continue their debate, these qualifying measures listed above should receive serious discussion and inclusion in any pending legislation.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He is a CFA Charterholder and worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He also runs the website and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.


Back to School: Islamist Indoctrination for US Kids?

The new school year is upon us and Access Islam, a program backed by the Department of Education, is under fire again after being accused of being an Islamist indoctrination program.
This program claims to educate school children about religious diversity, but it is specifically geared toward Islam.
Children in grades 5 through 12 are required to learn about the Five Pillars of Islam then asked to make posters about them, read and interpret Islamic scripture from the Quran and provide examples on how Muslims implement these lessons into their everyday lives.
  • In Virginia, students in the program were required to copy the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, which declares, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”
  • In New York, students were shown videos of Islamic terrorists justifying their attacks against Israelis.
  • In Massachusetts, students were given reading materials funded by Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, which advocates for “Palestine.” While these textbooks were being used in schools, there was a rise in the amount of anti-Semitic acts committed.
It should be noted that the U.S. Department of Education backing Access Islam contradicts the United States’ stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The United States has shown public support for Israel and does not recognize a country called “Palestine.” How can the U.S. publicly support Israel while simultaneously support anti-Israel ideologies being taught in its public schools?
There is a certain point where education transforms into indoctrination, in this case, Islamist indoctrination. Many people have accused Access Islam of crossing this line, based on the fact that no other religion is taught this thoroughly, if at all, in American public schools and with no critical eye.


In fact, no other religious program of this scale has been backed by the U.S. Department of Education.

Moreover, in states where the program is taught, it is not offered as an elective course, but rather a required subject. The program is not even taught in religious studies classes (which most American public schools do not offer).
Students encounter Access Islam lesson in their mandatory classes, such as history and geography.
There have been multiple cases of parents requesting that their child receive an alternative assignment, but their requests have been refused. Children are told they will receive a failing grade if they do not complete the Access Islam assignments.
There has been a nationwide outrage against this program in recent years and with a new school year about to start, it is important to get all the facts out.
Access Islam is more of an Islamist indoctrination program than an educational program. It lacks the objectivity required to legally implement a program of this manner in our public schools.
Watch videos from the Access Islam curriculum (more videos from the program can be found by clicking here):


Exiled Chinese Billionaire’s Accusations of China (w/ Guo Wengui & Kyle Bass)

Published on Aug 27, 2019

Kyle Bass sits down with infamous Chinese businessman Guo Wengui, also known as known as “Miles Kwok,” to hear a series of shocking accusations and predictions revolving around the Chinese government. Kwok provides his perception of the backstory behind several recent high-profile news items, and touches on the Chinese government’s management of the economy. He also unfurls an alarming forecast about Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma. Filmed on October 5, 2018 at an undisclosed location.

WOW! Watch Term Limits Advocate SHRED Congress!

Published on Jun 27, 2019

Watch as term limits advocate compares Congress to lice and root canals! He tells this senate committee that 60% of Americans say that they would fire every single member of Congress if they could. And that the people have lost confidence in this Congress because career politicians routinely abuse power.
#TermLimits #EmptySeats #SJR1 #TedCruz

John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :