October 2019
« Oct   Nov »
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 October 16th, 2019

Mid-Day Digest · Oct. 16, 2019 Read Online Subscription
“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.” —Benjamin Franklin (1735)
Demo Debate: Taking on the Constitution
Tuesday night’s Democrat presidential debate in Westerville, Ohio, featured 12 candidates — the most crowded presidential debate in history. The three-hour spectacle was full of lies, divisive politics, and unconstitutional proposals. As is our custom, we’ll digest a few of the lowlights.
(Full transcript here.)
Attacking the new frontrunner
Elizabeth Warren has steadily rallied support in the polls, even overtaking Joe Biden in several of late. That means she was finally attacked by almost every other candidate. The most effective attacks were over her incessant refusal to admit that middle-class taxes will go up to fund her version of Bernie Sanders’$32 trillion Medicare for All.
“Costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations,” Warren repeated, while “for hard-working middle-class families, costs will go down.”
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg jabbed, “Your signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything, except this.” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar was even harsher: “At least Bernie’s being honest here and saying how he’s going to pay for this and that taxes are going to go up. And I’m sorry, Elizabeth, but you have not said that, and I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we’re going to send the invoice.” Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke said Warren was “more focused on being punitive or pitting one part of the country against the other.”
Yes, that is what Democrats do. Indeed, Warren has no plan to pay for this multitrillion-dollar scheme (which has numbers that don’t add up anyway) beyond an unconstitutional “wealth tax” on the hated rich. On that note, she had a Barack “You Didn’t Build That” Obama moment: “Look, I don’t have a beef with billionaires,” she said. “My problem is you made a fortune in America, you had a great idea, you got out there and worked for it. Good for you. But you built that fortune in America. I guarantee you built it in part using workers all of us help pay to educate. You built it in part getting your goods to market on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for.”
There have been more than 300 questions in the Democrat debates so far. Zero have asked about our national debt, which is at more than $22 trillion and rising rapidly. The only five mentions of the word “debt” in last night’s debate were about student-loan debt, which most Democrats on stage want to raise the federal debt to pay for. That’s true of all their other vote-buying schemes, too. So the reason they’re not asked about how to handle the debt we already have is that they’re too busy proposing ways to rack up new debt.
Gun confiscation
The September debate featured O’Rourke’s outrageous call for gun confiscation. Last night’s follow-up showed him backing off just a tad. If a law-abiding citizen refuses to turn in his semiautomatic rifle, or, he said, “brings it out in public and brandishes it in an attempt to intimidate — as we saw when we were at Kent State recently — then that weapon will be taken from them.”
Memo to Beto: It wasn’t citizens with guns doing the shooting at Kent State.
“If they persist,” he continued, “there will be other consequences from law enforcement,” though he claimed he expects Americans will “do the right thing” and that “we don’t go door-to-door for any other laws in this country; we’re not doing it here.” Unconstitutional laws like gun confiscation should hold no sway over Americans in any case. But Beto also said if a citizen didn’t submit to a “buyback,” “there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm.”
Other candidates disagreed with O’Rourke only because his proposal is politically bad. According to Buttigieg, “We are this close to an assault-weapons ban,” and O’Rourke shouldn’t mess it up. Klobuchar agreed: “I just keep thinking of how close we are to finally getting something done on this.”
Memo to Demos: We’re not close to another ineffective and unconstitutional ban on the cosmetically different rifles pejoratively and inaccurately known as “assault weapons.”
The Democrats’ impeachment coup attempt is their primary strategy for 2020, so of course it came up last night. Indeed, it was the first topic, and it was also Biden’s roughest moment. (More on that here.)
Warren declared that impeachment “must go forward.” Bernie Sanders, who proved he’s alive and kicking after his recent heart attack, agreed because, he pronounced, “In my judgment, Trump is the most corrupt president in the history of this country.”
Klobuchar added, “We have a constitutional duty to pursue this impeachment.”
Anytime a Democrat mentions the Constitution, you are permitted to laugh. Last night, the only times it came up were during demands for impeachment or with Kamala Harris’s ridiculous assertions about “reproductive rights” being somewhere in the Constitution. Every proposal Democrats made on stage is unconstitutional, and they violate their oaths “to support and defend” the Constitution on a daily basis.
But a couple of Democrats advised caution on impeachment. “First of all, we must be fair,” said Sen. Cory Booker. “We are talking about ongoing proceedings to remove a sitting president for office. This has got to be about patriotism and not partisanship.”
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard concurred, saying, “If impeachment is driven by these hyperpartisan interests, it will only further divide an already terribly divided country.” Moreover, she said, “If the House votes to impeach, the Senate does not vote to remove Donald Trump, [then] he walks out and he feels exonerated, further deepening the divides in this country that we cannot afford.”
As with the Constitution, Democrats are decidedly not driven by any patriotic interest, but rather partisan divisiveness. Impeachment is inherently political, and their attempt is more so than previous ones. But that’s why Booker and Gabbard aren’t the standard bearers for a Democrat Party that is hell-bent on taking out Donald Trump.



From The Epoch Times:

A prominent conservative watchdog group filed two lawsuits on Oct. 10, seeking records on the investments by two foreign firms tied to Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden.

Judicial Watch sued the departments of state and Treasury for records tied to the investments by Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings and China’s Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). The watchdog requested records from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) after the government failed to turn over documents pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request filed on June 24, 2019.


From Judicial Watch Chris Farrell’s op-ed for The Daily Caller: -LET’S HAVE A COUP


From Judicial Watch Chris Farrell’s op-ed for The Daily Caller:

“Congressional Democrats are engaged in a series of secret hearings as part of an impeachment-style process, attempting to manufacture the political conditions for an actual impeachment and potential election-year removal of a sitting president.
Those who object to calling this a coup might imagine that coups must involve people in uniforms hauling bedraggled deposed politicians from their offices, tanks in the streets, perfunctory announcements read by nervous journalists, and so forth, all the panoply of coups in the developing world. But coups can take other forms, and the term is appropriate whenever entrenched interests work actively against the will of the people and Constitutional processes to overthrow a government.
We have seen this coup process unfolding since even before President Trump took office. The first stage was during the 2016 election, when the plotters such as former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tried to ease the installation of Hillary Clinton as president by ensuring she paid no price, political or otherwise, for her sketchy dealings as secretary of state, and how she kept everything secret through the use of her illegal home-brew email server. They were also working hard to undermine Trump’s campaign through an unprecedented campaign of domestic and international spying, abusing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, collecting information on Trump and his associates and circulating the discredited, Clinton-funded Steele dossier.”


OCTOBER 19, 2019




Food & drinks will be available



Proceeds to Assist Local Veterans


Does the Democratic Party have a God problem?

By Lathan Watts

Democratic presidential debates provide an excellent opportunity for the aspiring leaders of the party to address and embrace religious freedom for all Americans. Religious freedom should be considered a positive fundamental American principle by both major political parties.

At least one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls — Beto O’Rourke — has stated that churches who don’t support same-sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status. Will any of the other candidates distance themselves from this unconstitutional weaponization of the IRS?

It was not so long ago at the 2016 Democrat National Convention when the attempt to add the words “God-given” to a resolution was met with a chorus of boos from the delegates.

At their most recent summer meeting, the Democrat National Committee unanimously passed a resolution criticizing America’s First Freedom, religious liberty, claiming it is used to “justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities.”

Unfortunately, the DNC resolution, which also enthusiastically embraced the religiously unaffiliated as emblematic of the party’s values and “the largest religious group within the Democratic Party,” unnecessarily pits non-religious citizens and people of faith against each other in an us against them proposition at a time when our nation desperately needs more unity.

Thus far every Democrat debate has been a missed opportunity to ask the candidates their view on religious liberty. But they need to be asked. Do they agree that religious liberty is no longer a freedom worth protecting, and is, in fact, a threat to civil rights as the DNC resolution states? Do they welcome religiously affiliated Americans, or fear them in the same way it appears the DNC fears religious liberty?

Specifically, the candidates need to be asked about cases where religious liberty is under fire.

For example, do the candidates believe it was appropriate for Dallas, Texas Judge Tammy Kemp to hand former police officer Amber Guyger a Bible after she was sentenced for the murder of her unarmed neighbor? Was that a unifying act of compassion as many saw, or “inappropriate” and “unconstitutional” as one special interest group has claimed?

Do they support the inclusion of a World War II veteran’s Bible in a privately owned and operated POW/MIA Recognition Table display at the Manchester Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Hampshire? Or do they side with the effort by some to remove the Bible?

Do they agree that people like Oregon small business owners Aaron and Melissa Klein should be penalized by the government and forced to close their small family bakery for trying to operate their business according to their faith?

Do they agree with the decision by a Washington state school board to fire football coach Joe Kennedy simply because he kneeled in prayer at the 50-yard line after games and after the players had already left the field?

Americans deserve to know.

Some polling indicates that those who claim no religious belief or affiliation are among the fastest growing groups of our population. If so, people of faith may soon be a minority group in America. But that too is exactly why the First Amendment was written — to protect the right to believe and live accordingly even when your views are unpopular.

President Thomas Jefferson, who famously penned the oft misused phrase “separation of church and state” stated in a letter to a Baptist group, “No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

To Jefferson and the Founders, religious liberty was about protecting each man’s right to live according to his own beliefs. They knew that if government was allowed to invade the space between a man and his God or force him to violate his own conscience, there would be no limit to government oppression. Thus, they placed religious liberty first in the Bill of Rights, without it every other freedom we hold dear would fall.

Religious freedom is so fundamental to the American way of life that it should never be used as a wedge to divide Americans. There are plenty of political issues on which the left and the right may never agree, but standing for the right to disagree, particularly when motivated by your faith, should always be bipartisan. If one of our two major political parties in America has truly abandoned this principle, then God help us all.

Lathan Watts is Director of Legal Communications for First Liberty Institute, the nation’s largest non-profit law firm and think tank exclusively dedicated to preserving religious liberty for all Americans, and a Regional Fellow of National Review Institute. Learn more at firstliberty.org

BETO O’ROURKE -Mortal enemy of the Second Amendment, – Want;s to Tax churhes who beleive Homesexualilty is a Mortal sin

Beto’s War on Religious Liberty

By Daniel John Sobieski
Having sworn himself to be a mortal enemy of the Second Amendment, pledging to go door-to-door to confiscate the AR-15s law-abiding citizens possess to protect their homes and family, Peter Francis O’Rourke now sets his sights on the First Amendment by announcing at a CNN townhall event on LGBTQ policies, a “church tax” on those religious entities who believe, based on their religious faith, that homosexuality is a sin and, based on their originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, that gay marriage is not a constitutional right. As reported on The Blaze:

O’Rourke affirmed that he would strip churches and other organizations of their tax-exempt status if they refused to support the LGBT cause by opposing same-sex marriage.

CNN’s Don Lemon asked O’Rourke how far the government should punish organizations for following traditional religious beliefs about marriage.

“This is from your LGBTQ plan, and here’s what you write, here’s a quote, ‘Freedom of religion is a fundamental right but it should not be used to discriminate,'” Lemon said.

“Do you think religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?” Lemon asked.

“Yes,” O’Rourke said simply to a loud applause from the LGBTQ audience.

“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for any one or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” O’Rourke added.

Apparently, in Beto’s mind being entitled to hold one’s own religious beliefs is not a basic human right, unlike killing the unborn up until the moment of birth. Tolerance in the alternate universe of the liberal elite is a one-way street. But they don’t want tolerance. They want acceptance.  Never mind that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Never mind the touted separation of church and state. Beto would place the jackboot of government oppression on the throat of religious liberty. His “church tax” is intended to dry up contributions to  churches, religious institutions, even their charitable efforts.  He wants us to believe the Constitution was written to protect lifestyles, not liberties.
Beto seems to have fully embraced candidate Barack Obama’s famous “bitter clingers” remark made during the 2008 campaign:

Barack Obama had not yet locked up the nomination for his party when he revealed his true feelings about gun owners to attendees of a private fund raiser in San Francisco last April:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Beto is targeting Obama’s cartoonish characterization of “bitter clingers” who are simply law-abiding Americans who believe the Constitution means it when it says we have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect our right to speak freely and talk about and practice our religious beliefs without government intervention or restriction. Hillary call them, called us, “deplorable” and worse yet, “irredeemables” even though redemption is what our Christianity is all about.
Early in his presidency, President Trump issued an executive order freeing religious institutions from some of the shackles imposed or supported by the Obama administration, including the Johnson Amendment, which prevented religious leaders from linking their religious beliefs to public issues from the pulpit.
It ended the official hostility of government to all things religious that was part of the Obama administration’s fundamental transformation of America. This was no small thing and means that the likes of the Little Sisters of the Poor would not be dragged into court again to fight for the religious liberty the Constitution guarantees them. Modifying regulations to honor religious conscience was significant, as was the directive not to enforce the Johnson Amendment, which forbids priests and pastors from disagreeing from the pulpit with government encroachment of our liberties.
Trump’s placing Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Supreme Court was a huge step forward in preserving religious liberty. Gorsuch, as Lifesite News reported, was a staunch defender of the religious liberty rights in the cases of Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor:

Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor. Their names were synonymous with major Supreme Court battles to stop the Obama Administration from forcing them and others to pay for drugs that cause abortions.

And when it came to their religious freedom to opt out of Obama’s abortion agenda, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch agreed.

In a significant ruling in a major landmark case, Gorsuch outlined a broad definition of religious freedom that could point to how he would rule in similar cases regarding abortion if confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Hobby Lobby and the Court ruled that companies like it can be exempt from the Obama abortion mandate. Gorsuch sided with Hobby Lobby in 2013, writing, “The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.”

He also argued in his own separate opinion that the individual owners and directors also had valid religious freedom claims….

Gorsuch also sided with the Little Sisters of the Poor, defending the rights of nuns not to be forced to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans.

As the late Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, former head of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, once observed, President Obama’s idea of religious liberty differed little from Josef Stalin’s:

Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union,” Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George recently wrote.

“You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship — no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society.”

Beto O’Rourke wants to restore that oppressive vision of a society without true religious liberty. President Trump believes otherwise. We cannot allow the federal government to strip away the religious conscience of a nation founded by those who believed our unalienable rights came from God and not government.
Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human EventsReason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.             

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

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com