March 2020
« Feb   Apr »
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 March 1st, 2020

ACLU says red flag laws enable a court to violate civil rights without any real evidence someone is an “imminent threat.”

ACLU Agrees: Red Flag Laws Violate Civil Rights

The primary tool anti-gunners have found to get around the Second Amendment is the most controversial – red flag laws. Red flag laws enable ex-girlfriends, neighbors, old bosses, and distant family relatives to get local police to confiscate your firearms without you doing one thing wrong. All they have to do is say they fear you are a danger to yourself and/or others, and you own firearms.
There is no due process. Armed police will enter your home and take your firearms – just like in Nazi Germany.
The totalitarian measure has a singular source: Far-left anti-gunners. Many of them are funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his billions via Everytown for Gun Safety and political funding. Bloomberg and other anti-gunners like him want to disarm civilized society, much like New York City does its most to disarm its law-abiding residents.  While there is a singular source backing extremist laws like red flag laws, a diverse group opposes them. The one uniting principle is a simple and very potent one: Red flag laws violate civil rights. Specifically, they violate the rights to due process, self-defense, and the Second Amendment.
The ACLU cautions against red flag laws and their “impact on civil liberties, and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals, not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.”
The ACLU says red flag laws enable a court to violate civil rights without any real evidence someone is an “imminent threat.” The simple, unfounded fear that someone might cause harm to others without any evidence of prior history or overt threats of firearms violence is all it takes to violate civil rights under red flag laws.
The accused does not even have the right to legal representation. The court simply reviews claims and issues orders to confiscate firearms based on fear instead of reality.  Worse, the ACLU says red flag laws can be used to punish free speech and political advocacy. Police can use social media to declare a law-abiding gun owner a member of a criminal gang and use that as leverage to get a red flag warrant issued to seize firearms.
Someone who dislikes “overblown political rhetoric” could be targeted with a red flag law orders, the ACLU argues. And, police could be forced to tell others the person in question is considered an imminent threat of violence. That is nothing short of slander based on differing political views. Imagine your Hillary loving Aunt or nephew calls the cops on you because he dared disagree with him at the dinner table.
The opposition to red flag laws is wide-ranging, with conservatives and liberals truly focused on civil rights opposing them. That includes organizations as diverse as the NRA and the ACLU. That is because those organizations truly focus on rights for all. Red flag laws epitomize the unfounded fears anti-gunners have regarding firearms in general.
We already have background checks in place to review lawful gun purchases. Those background checks need better execution to become truly effective. Instead of invoking laws violating civil rights, improving existing laws would prove far more effective at preventing the wrong people from buying firearms and using them against others during blatantly illegal acts.


Here’s a Devastating, Little-Known Story About Bernie Sanders. Why Haven’t His
Rivals Exploited It?

Here's a Devastating, Little-Known Story About Bernie Sanders. Why Haven't His Rivals Exploited It?As someone who follows politics quite closely, I’m often fascinated when a potent piece of opposition research against a major candidate for office percolates below the radar for years, yet never quite breaks through.  Have you ever heard of ‘Sierra Blanca,’ as it relates to Bernie Sanders?  Neither had I.  Neither had hardly any voters, I’d wager.  Well, expect that to change, sooner or later.  Tim Miller, a hardcore anti-Trump conservative, is adamantly opposed to Democrats nominating Sanders.  He’s written a piece outlining a somewhat obscure episode that he anticipates would be used as a powerful cudgel to clobber Bernie in a general election.  Out of pure curiosity, I clicked the link in one of his tweets, and…wow:

(1) In 1998, then-Rep. Sanders cosponsored a bill that would allow Vermont and Maine to dump their nuclear waste in a poor and largely Latino town in Texas called Sierra Blanca.

(2) A Texas Observer article in 1998 covered protestors from Sierra Blanca confronting Rep. Sanders and being given the stiff arm. The story’s headline was “Sanders to Sierra Blanca: Drop Dead.” Sanders even rebuffed an offer to visit Sierra Blanca, telling its residents, “Absolutely not. I’m gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont.”

(3) Liberal hero Paul Wellstone—an actual progressive Democrat—gave a speech on the Senate floor calling this dump “environmental racism.” Former Texas Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes called Sanders actions “insanely callous.”
(4) After Congress approved the proposal, environmental regulators rejected the Sierra Blanca site. But a different site in Andrews County, Texas gained approval a few years later and Vermont/Texas maintain an interstate waste agreement.
(5) In 2016, Sanders’ tax returns revealed that as of 2014 Jane Sanders was still drawing a small salary as an alternate commissioner for the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission as part of the agreement with Vermont that her husband pushed.
This story is, well, toxic. Bernie drew up an environmentally-controversial proposal to dump nuclear waste in a Latino community, then refused to meet with the people it impacted.  Oh, and he managed to secure a little sweetheart deal to enrich his wife in the process.  Funneling public and campaign money to his spouse (no stranger to financial scandal) has been something of a pastime for this socialist, who was a jobless deadbeat before becoming a career politician who is now a millionaire with three homes.  This episode is problematic for Bernie on the subjects ranging from environment, to race, to his “man of the people” persona, to graft.  And as Miller notes, it makes for a hell of an ad — and this 15-second spot barely hits the basics:

Miller also points out the a left-leaning ‘fact checking’ organization reviewed an attack from a conservative group on this front four years ago: “Turning Point USA meme’d Sierra Blanca back in 2016 and got enough traction on Facebook that Snopes fact-checked it. Their verdict? Mostly True. It goes without saying that Snopes isn’t really in the business of giving TPUSA their seal of approval.”  This hit on Sanders is backed up by evidence.  Team Hillary dabbled with it in 2016, but Sanders’ competitors have let him slide on it thus far, even though it goes to the core of his persona — and could undercut his strong support among Hispanic Democrats.  It’s malpractice.  Team Trump won’t make the same mistake.  Speaking of major vulnerabilities, I agree with this assessment:

John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :