August 2019
« Oct    
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information


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!'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.


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



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.


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.


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

Bryon York – Has anyone actually read the El Paso manifesto?


John, please add to your address book. Thanks!

Today’s Edition: 6 minute read




Today’s must-read article by Byron York asks the question, “Has anyone actually read the El Paso manifesto?”
We’ve now been through almost a week of rising partisan hysteria, accusing President Trump (and by extension, anyone who voted for him) of being white supremacists who were accomplices to the El Paso mass shooting.
This was because the shooter reportedly posted a crazy “manifesto” that made it clear that he was enraged over race-mixing and illegal immigration (the blame-Trump crowd conveniently ignores that the shooter predicted the media would falsely blame Trump when he’d felt this way long before Trump entered politics – just as they’re trying to ignore the mass shooting the next day in Dayton, Ohio, by a Satan-loving, Elizabeth Warren-supporting, pro-gun control socialist, but I digress.)
York makes the point that everyone in the media is talking about the shooter’s motivations and his manifesto, but has anyone actually read it?  Because even though it’s clearly insane, there’s a lot of stuff in it that’s totally at odds with the leftist narrative or with any of Trump’s beliefs, but nobody’s saying anything about that. For instance, the shooter not only denies being influenced by Trump, he criticizes Trump for issuing too many work visas to foreigners.
Read the full article for the details, but prepare to be surprised if you thought his manifesto was just a rehash of a Trump rally speech.  He was also furious about automation replacing jobs, Republicans backing corporations, the high cost of college, and most of all, he rants at length about his extreme environmentalist views.
He was angry that illegal immigration was bringing in too many people who would exhaust resources (and use up government money that could be spent on universal health care and a guaranteed income.)  He’d obviously been filled with the same doomsday environmentalist messages that are drilled into many kids these days: that people are a plague and we need to “get rid” of a lot of them to save the planet.
At one point, he rails against people drying their hands on paper towels made from trees, as if the tree were more important than human life.
I wonder where he got that idea?  I’m pretty sure I know, but I would never blame the sources of such ideas for the killings this lunatic personally committed.

With gratitude,

Mike Huckabee

Has anyone actually read the El Paso manifesto?

The manifesto written by accused El Paso mass killer Patrick Crusius is the basis for the argument that the shootings were inspired by President Trump. Media commentators, Democratic presidential candidates, and all types of Trump critics have made that case in the days since the murders.
Much discussion was spurred by an article in the New York Times with the headline, “El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language.” The story quoted just 28 words of the nearly 2,400-word manifesto. It noted that Crusius specifically wrote that his views “predate Trump.” And it warned that “linking political speech, however heated, to the specific acts of ruthless mass killers is a fraught exercise.” Nevertheless, the Times declared that even “if Mr. Trump did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.”
Democratic contender Beto O’Rourke, an El Paso native, was much more blunt. “22 people in my hometown are dead after an act of terror inspired by your racism,” O’Rourke tweeted to the president.
So what did Crusius actually write? The Times story did not link to the manifesto, nor did many other media accounts. Most news organizations decided that even though the manifesto is clearly part of the El Paso story, they should not give Crusius the exposure he sought by linking to its full text. So many stories have included just a few snippets from the document. (The Washington Examiner has also decided not to link to the manifesto, but it can be easily found on the internet.)
But since the manifesto has become such an important part of the moment’s political debate, it is worth looking at the whole thing. And the impression one gets after reading the manifesto is quite different than some press accounts.
First, to be clear: The manifesto is insane. Part of it discussed commonly debated issues such as the environment and the economy in ways that are well within the boundaries of political conversation going on today — indeed, that might have come out of the New York Times or many other outlets. Other parts of it mixed in theories on immigration from far right circles in Europe and the U.S. Then it threw in beliefs on “race-mixing” straight from the fever swamps. And then it concluded that the solution is to murder Hispanic immigrants, going on to debate whether an AK-47 or an AR-15 would best do the job. By that point, Crusius had veered far from both reality and basic humanity.
But the question is, was he inspired by President Trump? It is hard to make that case looking at the manifesto in its entirety.
Crusius worried about many things, if the manifesto is any indication. He certainly worried about immigration, but also about automation. About job losses. About a universal basic income. Oil drilling. Urban sprawl. Watersheds. Plastic waste. Paper waste. A blue Texas. College debt. Recycling. Healthcare. Sustainability. And more. Large portions of the manifesto simply could not be more un-Trumpian.
Crusius began the manifesto by expressing support for Brenton Tarrant, the man who in March murdered 51 people and wounded 49 others in attacks on a mosque and an Islamic center in Christchurch, New Zealand. Tarrant wrote a 74-page manifesto entitled “The Great Replacement” that dwelled on demographic change in Europe, which Tarrant said was experiencing an “invasion” of immigrants with higher fertility rates than native Europeans. “This crisis of mass immigration and sub-replacement fertility is an assault on the European people that, if not combated, will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people,” Tarrant wrote.
Tarrant’s writing deeply affected Crusius. The first words of Crusius’ manifesto were, “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto.” Crusius went on to write that, “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion* of Texas. … I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.” Later, Crusius referred to Hispanic immigrants as “invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America,” and noted: “Actually, the Hispanic community was not my target before I read ‘The Great Replacement.'”
Crusius was clearly inspired in large part by Tarrant, who in turn said he was inspired by seeing demographic change in France when he traveled to Europe in 2017.
With that in the background, Crusius expressed deep concerns about politics in the U.S. One of the “biggest betrayals” in history, he wrote, was “the takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations.” Crusius said he could write “a ten page essay on all the damage these corporations have caused.” But the biggest problem, he said, was a dangerous political mix: “Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party-state.”
That one party, of course, was the Democratic Party. And although Crusius had little use for Republicans, he was most angry about what he had seen in the recent Democratic presidential debates:
They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters. With policies like these, the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely become nearly unanimous in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy Hispanic population to the Democrats is all it would take for them to win nearly every presidential election. Although the Republican Party is also terrible. Many factions within the Republican Party are pro-corporation. Pro-corporation = pro-immigration. But some factions within the Republican Party don’t prioritize corporations over our future. So the Democrats are nearly unanimous with their support of immigration while the Republicans are divided over it. At least with Republicans, the process of mass immigration and citizenship can be greatly reduced.
That is a not-inaccurate restatement of some of the calculations that have been going on in both Republican and Democratic strategy rooms around the country for many years, certainly before the emergence of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate.
Crusius expressed a number of reasons for his anxiety about immigration. Among them was the growth of automation in the American economy. “Continued immigration will make one of the biggest issues of our time, automation, so much worse,” Crusius wrote. Crusius had obviously read reports that millions of American jobs will be lost to automation in coming years. He noted that while “some people will be retrained … most will not.”
Crusius felt automation would take away his future, too. “My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn’t exist,” he wrote. “The job of my dreams will likely be automated.”
The automation threat, Crusius continued, means the U.S. “will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs.” (Crusius shared an interest in universal basic income, or UBI, and a pessimism about job retraining, with Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang.) Crusius’ idea was that fewer “invaders” meant more resources for government programs. “Achieving ambitious social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed,” he wrote.
Then there was education, the price of college, and the job market. “The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted,” Crusius wrote. As a result, “a generation of indebted, overqualified students [are] filling menial, low paying, and unfulfilling jobs.” A high school degree used to be “worth something,” he said. No longer.
And then, the environment. Americans enjoy an “incredible” quality of life, Crusius wrote, but “our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country.” Corporations, he said, are destroying the environment by “shamelessly over-harvesting resources.”
Crusius cited a children’s book by Dr. Seuss, The Lorax, which dealt with environmental devastation. It was published in 1971 and was made into a successful movie in 2012, when Crusius was 14. “This phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic ‘The Lorax,'” Crusius wrote. “Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent.”
There was more: “Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land,” Crusius wrote. And: “We even use God knows how many trees worth of paper towels just [to] wipe water off our hands.”
After his environmental concerns, Crusius, incredibly, moved to a discussion of the AK-47 versus the AR-15. And then to his racial theories. “I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems,” he wrote. “Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country.” Crusius then suggested dividing America into a “confederacy of territories” by race.
Crusius ended the manifesto by saying he expected to be killed in the attack he would allegedly carry out on Saturday. As it turned out, the shooter was not, and he is now behind bars, charged with killing 22 people and wounding 26 others. He said his actions would be misunderstood as being tied to Trump.
“My ideology has not changed for several years,” Crusius wrote. “My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I [am] putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.”
That was the only time Trump appeared in the manifesto, and it appears clear that Crusius borrowed his “fake news” characterization of the news media from the president. But that is not what Trump’s critics have charged. They have charged that Trump inspired Crusius to kill. They have charged it so often in the last few days that it has hardened into a general perception that Crusius was inspired by the president. But read the manifesto. It’s just not there.


Is Fox News trying to get ahead of the cord-cutting curve in a desperate move to boost its ratings?

NY Mayor Bill De Blasio’s Latest Soap Box: Fox News

NY Mayor Bill De Blasio’s Latest Soap Box: Fox News
New York’s commie-loving mayor Bill de Blasio has found an unlikely soapbox for his 2020 presidential run: Fox News.
If you happened to nod off and woke up to see de Blasio on Sean Hannity’s show last night, , you may have imagined you were having a nightmare.
But 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.

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

Gotta’ like the Daily Beast headline even though the Beast is hard left: ‘Hannity, After Nutty de Blasio Interview, Tells Dems: Look, It’s Not So Bad!’ (The Daily Beast, Aug. 8, 2019)

“Don’t worry, Hannity says he once applied to the NYPD and “even passed the psychological.”

“At the tail end of what can only be described as a surreal hour-long interview with New York City Mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Bill de Blasio on Wednesday night, Fox News host Sean Hannity implored the rest of the 2020 field to come on his show, promising them: “It’s not so bad!”

“Bad, maybe not. Strange, definitely!”

The Beast went on to describe the mayor’s ‘woohooing’ at being given such a golden opportunity to get his election message out:

“The New York mayor, who is both deeply unpopular in his city and flailing in Democratic polls, seemed absolutely thrilled to be on the Fox News primetime program. Beaming throughout, de Blasio couldn’t appear any happier than when he was arguing with the pro-Trump host over any number of hot-button issues, such as climate change or taxes.

“Early on in the marathon clash, de Blasio set the stage for how the rest of the interview was going to go down. With Hannity trying to corner the mayor on the issue of health care for undocumented immigrants, de Blasio simply accused the conservative talker of playing a “charade.” This wound up being a tactic de Blasio used more than once.

“With Hannity still hammering away at immigration, de Blasio again yelled that it was a “charade,” this time telling Hannity that this is what Fox News does.

“Oh, my network!” Hannity exclaimed. “By the way, there are people on my network who don’t like a single thing I say! What are you talking about!?”

Oh, give us a break, Sean.  It’s Fox viewers and not network people you should aim to please!

This also gave the mayor an opening to tell Hannity’s viewers what Fox does:

“I agree you’re not a monolith,” the mayor replied. “But too much of the time what Fox and News Corp do is try and take people’s minds off the fact they are being screwed economically by the one percent.” (Daily Beast)

“And so it went. Back and forth the two would go, at times seemingly having the time of their lives. Hannity, who has rarely interviewed anyone outside the Trumpworld bubble over the past few years, constantly bounced between combativeness and chumminess. The mayor, meanwhile, just appeared elated that he was getting this much TV time to himself.”

Small wonder!

Back to the Beast:

“At one point, during a conversation about New York police recently getting doused by water—which Hannity ominously described as “unidentified liquid”—the Fox News star took a few moments to recount the time that he said he nearly became a police officer.

“Telling de Blasio that the NYPD are his heroes and “extended family,” Hannity claimed that he applied to be a New York City police officer.

“I got a 99 on the test—I even passed the psychological,” he added. “And the physical!”

“Standards were lower back then,” de Blasio quipped, prompting Hannity to applaud the mayor for his very good “jackass comment.”

“After a further discussion about school diets that somehow segued into Hannity bragging about his 90-minute-a-day mixed martial arts workouts, the Fox News veteran wrapped up the night with his plea to Democrats.

“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.”

Could this all but giving his prime time show over to the likes of Bill de Blasio have anything to do with forecasts predicting cord cutting of cable television by the masses—alarming now,  but bound to accelerate over the next four years?

A new forecast predicts cord cutting will accelerate over the next four years. (Forbes, Aug. 6, 2019)

“It started as a trickle. Now it’s threatening to become a flood.

“The phenomenon of cord cutting, or eliminating pay TV subscriptions by cable or satellite companies, is about to get even bigger, according to a report released today by eMarketer, a research firm.

“Households that have cut the cord will soar by 19.2 percent this year, the report projects. By year’s end, 40.2 million households will have eliminated their pay TV subscriptions, compared to 86.5 million who still have them.”

“The difference between those numbers will shrink, too, over the next few years.

“By 2023, the number of households without pay TV will hit 56.1 million, while those with will fall to 72.7 million. In fact, by 2021, more than a fifth of U.S. households will have cut the cord.”
“Interestingly, the telco companies don’t appear to be doing much to keep those customers. The report states that cord cutting growth “could partially be inflicted by TV providers themselves, as many are now prioritizing profit over revenues.”
Is Fox News trying to get ahead of the cord-cutting curve in a desperate move to boost its ratings?
Meanwhile about the end message Hannity delivered to 2020 Democrat candidates last night:
“By the way, I have a message for all you 2020 candidates.” “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.”
Although she’s not a 2020 candidate, but a publicity hound trying to influence the outcome of who gets the DNC nomination, will Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez be Sean Hannity’s next guest?


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

Judi McLeod — Bio and Archives | 35 Comments

Copyright © Canada Free Press

RSS Feed for Judi McLeod
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has 


Webmaster: Let’s understand a couple facts before we get our daner up on this ridiculous statement from the far left UN:
One: The temperature on the planet has raised a mere 0.6 % since the beginning of the Industrial revolution which they date to 1750
Two: Everything the UN IPCC does is computer modeling based on Human input Theory which can be manipulated to come out with whatever result they want to sell you today or tomorrow! (this includes their climate warming fudge data)

UN: Give up meat to save the planet

The United Nations is gravely worried about your hamburger.
Yesterday, the Journal Nature carried a story with the provocative title “Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change in human diet.”
As expected, the report created quite a buzz in both the mainstream and social media world. Marc Morano, CFACT’s director of communications and editor of Climate Depot, was called onto Fox and Friends to comment. You can watch his appearance on the program posted below.


The long and short of the argument put forward by UN nanny-state officials is that “efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of global warming will fall significantly short without drastic changes in global land use, agriculture and human diets.” Hence, they conclude, there is a need to radically cut back on ranching and farming, and especially those dastardly cows that burp and blow gas out their backsides.
It would be one thing if they were just “urging” people to follow their advice. After all, there are many legitimate reasons people pursue vegetarian or vegan diets voluntarily. But alas, such is not the modus operandi of those in the liberal ruling class. They want to “incentivize” you to get with the program.
This was alluded to by Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, who stated this in the report: “it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”
What sort of “incentives” is Hans talking about? Well, if Germany is any indication, it could be something like a stiff tax on meat — much like cigarettes. Or perhaps it might be something like removing miles of farmland through “wetlands” and “endangered species” laws. Maybe it’s even imposing something like “Meatless Mondays” as Mayor de Blasio is currently serving up to school children in the Big Apple. Some are even advocating pressuring restaurants to provide “meat patches” and “eating insects” as featured menu items. The possibilities are endless.
I know, I know. Such Brave New World techniques to engineer societal conformance may seem a bit far-fetched at the moment. But we caution that it may not be far off if met with no opposition, for as philosopher William James once said “There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”
CFACT will make every effort to make sure the “absurd continues to remain absurd.”
For nature and people too,
Craig Rucker


U.K. Prime Minister Unveils Merit-Based Immigration Reform

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:10 AM PT — Friday, August 9, 2019
Boris Johnson plans to ease immigration rules for high-skilled workers and outstanding talent as part of the prime minister’s broader immigration reform.
One America’s Kristian Rouz looks into the matter.


Border Walls In Hungary Reduce Illegal Immigration

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:31 AM PT — Thursday, August 8, 2019
As the Trump administration continues its push to secure the border, supporters argue walls have been successful in other parts of the world.
One America’s Jack Posobiec has more.


Dr. Lott: Democrat Gun Restrictions Not Making Americans Safer

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:39 AM PT — Thursday, August 8, 2019

As Democrats call for more restrictions on gun rights, a leading scholar on the relationship between firearms and crime says none of the proposed restrictions will make Americans safer.

One America’s John Hines has more from Washington.


President Trump: Discussion On ‘Meaningful Background Checks’ Happening

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:59 AM PT — Friday, August 9, 2019
President Trump signals progress in both the Senate and House on measures to prevent future mass shootings. In a pair of tweets Friday, the president said “serious discussions” on background checks are underway. He said he has also spoken with the NRA, so “their views can be fully represented.”
The president then pointed out that he’s a big Second Amendment supporter, but said the country must work together for its own safety. He spoke with reporters on the issue outside the White House Friday, saying he’s spoken with “hardline Second Amendment senators” who agree with him.

“We need intelligent background checks. This isn’t a question of NRA, Republican or Democrat,” Trump replied when asked about gun reform legislation after last weekend’s mass shootings.
“I talked to Mitch McConnell yesterday. He’s totally on board.”

President Trump noted that he’s also discussed the issue with Democrat leadership, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. He said he believes both Republicans and Democrats will “lead the charge” on sensible background checks.
President Donald Trump talks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, Aug. 9, 2019, in Washington, as he prepares to leave Washington for his annual August holiday at his New Jersey golf club. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Reexamining America’s Mental Health, Not the Second Amendment

Related image

mental health

The Second Amendment is, predictably, under fire again.  In the wake of the Texas and Ohio tragedies, Democratic presidential candidates want to call Congress back off recess to conduct a “special session,” passing immediate, restrictive anti-gun legislation on the heels of weekend shootings by two mentally deranged assailants.  Deeper thinking may be required.
The two tragedies are sobering, senseless and have brought America back to a time of grief.  They involved guns, but they cast a long shadow over the state of mental health and our national unity.  Needed right now is less emotion, more rational thinking, not another swipe at longstanding, constitutionally grounded Second Amendment rights.  The issue is more arresting, more serious.
Common sense flees the mind in times of high emotion.  Facts often help restore it.  Nationally, we are experiencing a society-wide mental health crisis.  It parallels other converging social crises – including the national drug crisis, intergenerational fractures, reduced religious affiliations, higher levels of professional and family stress, escalating combat veteran needs, and social, political and cultural conflicts.  None of these are made better by national leaders who misunderstand, misdiagnose, or seek to politically redirect public attention for other purposes.
First, the national numbers associated with mental health ailments are staggering – and reveal a need for great human compassion, proven individual and public policy strategies, and a re-elevating of these issues in the public dialogue.  Twisting public discussion to serve other aims, political agendas, or to further stir public ire at a time of public grief is not just poor judgment and bad leadership, it is patently unhelpful.
A 2018 study by the National Council for Behavioral Health offered prescient insights:  “There is a mental health crisis in America … and more needs to be done to give Americans much needed access to mental health services.”  Specifically, “the demand for mental health services is stronger than ever, with six in ten Americans (56%) seeking … mental health services for either themselves or for a loved one.”
Moreover, “these individuals are skewing younger and are more likely to be lower income and have a military background,” and today “the large majority of Americans (76%) also believe mental health is just as important as physical health.”  So, the problem is enormous, and we know it.
The biggest thing?  We are in a solvable crisis, whether for lack of family cohesion, faith as foundation, social alienation, speed and nature of cultural disruption, acceleration of social change, reduced human interaction and amputated personal skills, displacement in the roll of history, or just economic, political or personal insecurity.   This is the radiating center of other problems; we have to address it.
Second, the violent, unnerving deaths this past weekend – tied to two individuals who, by all appearances operated with severe mental and/or emotional impairments – should be answered by thoughtful, non-partisan public policy solutions, a review of private and public records.  These events should be the springboard for a national discussion about how to restore individual, community and national mental health, emotional stability, and national unity – not to further incite public disunion.
Third, comparative numbers may seem inapt at a time of grief, but these numbers help place the two leading issues – mental health and a renewed discussion of gun rights – in perspective.  While the events are tragic, they must be understood in context to better prevent recurrence.   And deeper causes need to be understood.
The tragedies affect us deeply because Americans value innocent human life, because we want to protect our country, our communities, and the future.  These deaths – and events like these – seem frightening and unforeseeable but are preventable.  Occurring in a public place, they appear random, which adds to fear, unease, and public discomfort.  That is why a more robust discussion of mental health is timely.
But rational minds must take also stock of other facts – the reasons we have an individual, constitutionally guaranteed right to “keep and bear arms.”  The Second Amendment, placed in the Constitution to allow individuals to protect themselves, their homes, families, communities and our nation’s future against government and individual attacks, cannot be materially restricted without undermining other liberties.
In fact, the Second Amendment protects liberties found in the First, Fourth, Sixth and virtually all other Amendments.  A mortal threat to public safety is presented by restricting the chief means for protecting public safety, one viewed as sacrosanct by our Founders.  The right to keep and bear arms remains sacred, constitutional and material to our country’s free future.
Put differently, the right to “keep and bear arms” without excess restriction, intrusion or confiscation has long been understood as seminal to a nation’s freedom.  Even last century’s seminal “man of peace,” the advocate of non-violence Mahatma Gandhi, warned the Indian people never to allow a government to take their guns.  Referring to the Arms Act of 1878, he said: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
More simply, unforeseen loss of life is common, and seldom produces a cry to eliminate the physical cause of lost life, but rather increased caution in human behavior.  Draconian restrictions on firearms will not solve the underlying mental health crisis, any more than banning cars is the right answer to end car crashes. Nationally, mental health problems lead to needless loss of life – more than any one object.
So, while the process of national, local and family grief rests heavy on all of us, there is also a genuine need for deeper and longer-term thinking.  We can tackle the mental health crisis and reduce these tragedies, while respecting constitutional prerogatives and honoring individual rights, including the right to self-protection, protection of others, and protection of other individual liberties.  We can help make our society healthier and safer, while keep faith with the Second Amendment.
So, predictably, the Second Amendment is under fire in the wake of a shooting-related tragedy.  The bigger question is what mental state did the shooters bring to these scenes, how did they get to that mental state, and how can we work to prevent others from getting there?
The problem is not with our rights, but with America’s fraying mental health and emotional well-being – especially in a time of growing disunion, disinterest in reestablishing social cohesion and reaffirming national union.  Perhaps it is time again to think again about being “One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”  For enduring peace, hard work, an honest assessment of history, and a conversation about where we are, is a good place to start.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This – Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today

Read more articles by Robert B. Charles

 Leave a Reply

newestoldestmost voted
Frank S.

An outstanding article, full of common sense. What I found almost as disturbing as the two heinous acts themselves this past weekend, is how the MSM immediately went into high-gear putting this all on President Trump. Hours upon hours of the same garbage, regardless the network. This has to affect so many people already afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome. But I think the single biggest reason we’re seeing these horrible acts is that we, as a country, are systematically dismantling those institutions that have made us the nation we are. As a rule I’m not a very religious person (but I am a Christian), and I try to keep religion out of my arguments. But I think we are seeing more and more evidence of the result of removing God from nearly everything. Might it be that as we turn our backs more and more on God, He is turning… Read more »


A couple of days ago a guy in CA stabbed six and four died. Also a couple of days ago someone drove onto a curb in Phoenix, AZ killing three. London, England has band knives on the streets except for the squiggly ones used by Aribics (sp) for religious symbols. On another note the bad old NRA is the organization that came up with the NICS (National Instant Check System) given to congress for passage. That gives gun dealers a phone in to the FBI for a check that in my experience happens in a half hour or less on ALL prospective gun buyers. It allows for any type of felonious crime record of any individual to be brought to light and the FBI will refuse the purchase. I can’t believe that if a person has substantiated mental issues that can’t also be added to the FBI record. Additionally, I… Read more »


It is 1984. Do not talk to your neighbor. Keep your mouth shut around family. Only share with strangers and non-stranger useless info like how’s the weather. Be careful of sharing anything deep with spouse or children. Everyone is now an informant and you are guilty without due process.


There was an incident in Southern CA , where a person stabbed 6 people, 4 fatally. Why wasn’t this blaring on national TV? Authorities refused to give the ethnicity of the victims or the stabber. It just doesn’t fit their agenda, it seems. My conclusion is that it may have been an illegal alien. What conclusion can anyone come up with? Let’s ban KNIVES!

Douglas Weise

When God is removed from the public square, Satan takes over.

Brenda Blunt

Mental health is a sad thing. However, raising a child needs to have the same values when I was a child. Kids were given chores and held accountable for getting them done!! Also, playing outside instead of being in front of a television! Having a parent at home to raise the child instead of a daycare or a medication! Times are changing and sadly how children are raised. There are children who have been raised wonderfully and the parents have done an amazing job and should be congratulated.


Why would anyone feel complete despair with our country with the leadership we have in Congress ? Why would all the crazy ramblings of public officials make someone feel completely helpless? The media wouldn’t just keep broadcasting their propaganda if they knew it was creating these feelings of despair and and total uselessness? Our country is on the brink of total destruction when our youth and future feel that they have no future by dissolving them not as an individual in America but as one individual in the world. Their fears are real with the open border ideology of the media and politicians who try to out do the others with their craziness.

Kay Thompson

You hit “the nail on the head!” It’s NOT the guns, it’s a need for humongous focus on “Mental Health Care” in the US!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 And teaching and encouraging community (family, friends, co-workers) to bring themselves to report “red flags” no matter how difficult it is! You are probably saving many lives! And getting help for the person before they actually carry out plans!
Please continue keeping us “ up-to-date” on this subject! Thank you!


They can pass all the laws they want. It will just hurt the normal people. Criminals will always kill.


It seems to me like one of biggest problems in this country today is lack of discipline and respect for others that the younger generation is not getting from parents, educators, and those around them, There is also too much disconnect with others due to every one having face buried in cell phone or computer instead of interaction with real people face to face. the media spends it’s effort telling everyone it is someone else’s fault, not the person doing the miss deed. what ever happened to the time when the news was suppose to print the truth, not their twisted take or biased opinion?

Josephine pooley

Well said!


If they want to do something, then maybe we should start with banning guns for Democrats. Just a thought.l


Looks as if we’re witnessing the the beginning of the end of freedom and freewill entering into the life of bondage via socialistic / Communism. Intelligent move Eloy’s you are being controlled by the Moore-Locks as Eloy’s i.e the Time Machine. These Totalitarian Communist Democrat Libertarians are self proclaimed Gods opening the door into Purgatory. This slippery one way slope is all down hill into purgatory the satanic influence in full glory spreading like wildfire………. Protect save our 2nd Amendment God Given Right with all our strength decapitating the head of the serpent, NO guns, NO freewill, NO freedoms NO ownership of private property NO god, NO soul, NO life, total bondage by politicians and their democrat bureaucratic ilk… akin to the SS Troops. No man Nor law can legislate any persons personal choice of safety or freedom of choice. Incarceration an or capitol death insures by separating the criminal… Read more »

Stephen Russell

Mental Health solutions:
Form Uniform red Flag guidelines.
National Mental Health summitt held
ID worst Psych RX on market
ID abuses or non??
National Red Flag Policy enacted
Open up school files vs Seal.
Share data
Compare data.
OK #800 Ph , online for Kin, friends to ID suspects.
Open files on SM for Users.
OR Nothing gets done.,

Change Mental Health system or As Is stays.
States set guidelines or Feds do?
Some basis where one can ID & NOT suffer.
System is unfair & rigged.
Move dangerous mentally ill to workcamps
NO jails or prisons.
Just workcamps BUT decent care at camps


Expert: New Guidelines Needed To Address Psychological Warning Signs In Kids

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:57 AM PT — Tuesday, August 6, 2019

There are ramped up calls to identify dangerous individuals, following the deadly shootings over the weekend. One America’s Neil W. McCabe spoke to a clinical psychologist about his own research into the matter.

Check out my article in Canada Free Press, go to their web site: then
go to archives, scroll down to John nelson click on (Archive) The editorial will come up:

Where did it all begin?

Modern Day School Shootings: What is the actual root of the problem?

OAN – FBI Expert Endorses President Trump On Mass Shootings

WATCH: FBI Expert Endorses President Trump On Mass Shootings

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:07 AM PT — Tuesday, August 6, 2019
An FBI expert echoes President Trump’s calls for smarter measures to address gun violence and deter potential shooters.
One America’s Kristian Rouz looks into the debate.

Pelosi & ‘Squad’ Plan Election-Eve Trip To Guatemala

Speaker Pelosi & ‘Squad’ Plan Election-Eve Trip To Guatemala

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:12 AM PT — Tuesday, August 6, 2019
As Congress continues its August recess, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is headed to Guatemala with the so-called “squad.”
One America’s John Hines has more from Washington.

President Trump Explores Executive Action For Hate Crimes Following Mass Shootings

President Trump Explores Executive Action For Hate Crimes Following Mass Shootings

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 6:59 AM PT — Wednesday, August 7, 2019
President Trump is seeking executive action, following two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio over the weekend. “I’m also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively and without years of needless delay,” the president announced.
This comes as he reaffirmed his stance Monday to increase ‘red flag’ laws, which would prohibit unstable individuals from owning or purchasing a firearm.
White House hopefuls suggested gun restrictions should go even further by lawfully banning assault weapons altogether. Other Democrat leaders are choosing to blame Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by claiming it’s the majority leaders job to put a background check measure up for vote.
“You don’t like it, Mr. McConnell, you have the right of that, why don’t you put up the vote? Put it on the Senate floor. He doesn’t have the guts to do it. He’s weak. He’s a weak leader.”
— Gavin Newsom, (D) Gov. – Calif.

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2019, before boarding Marine One for a short trip to Andrews Air Force Base, Md., and then on to Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, in the afternoon to praise first responders and console family members and survivors from two recent mass shootings. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Democrats have also targeted the president, suggesting his rhetoric has contributed to white supremacist hate crimes. Regardless of accusations, the president said he is confident America will rise to the challenge and is asking both parties to put politics aside.
“Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside, so destructive, and find the courage to answer hatred with unity, devotion and love — our future is in our control,”stated President Trump.

No, we did not leave the party…the Democrats left us.

No, we did not leave the party…the Democrats left us. Over time, the Democrats turned left…hard left. And we kept driving straight down the road

Hard Left Turn–We did not leave the Democrat Party, It Left Us

William Kevin Stoos imageBy  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 6, 2019
Cover Story | 4 Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Hard Left Turn--We did not leave the Democrat Party, It Left Us“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy
“Free health care, free college, free medical for illegal aliens, open borders, reparations, and guaranteed income for all Americans.”Democrat Platform 2020?”
The candidate was a man of great courage. A decorated war hero, he was nearly killed in combat. He risked life and limb to save his comrades and never left their side.  He was a true patriot in every sense of the word. After his military service, he devoted his life to public service.  He stood for strong national defense, a vigorous economy, and promotion of free enterprise. He vowed to fight socialism and believed with all his heart in the principles of freedom and capitalist democracy—which made the United States the most powerful country on earth.  He knew how to salute the flag—you know, with the hand over the heart.
He challenged Americans to work for the good of the country—not ask the country for a hand out or a free check. Of course, the government would help the truly needy—as it always had. But the country was not “Uncle Sugar” who would be all things to all people. Nor was it our private piggy bank. He did not believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. He was an enlightened, good-hearted man; but he was no Robin Hood. He did not believe in the Marxist axiom, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Socialism was an evil doctrine, to be opposed at every level; capitalism, with all its faults, was the way to prosper and do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It was what made our nation prosper.  He understood this.  His name was John. He was of Irish descent.
His platform held that, “If America is to work effectively for peace, [it] must first restore its national strength-military, political, and economic.”  It cautioned that our military power was declining relative to that of the Chinese and Russians.  It declared that democracy was the supreme form of government , which “places its highest value upon individual dignity,” and it opposed socialism, in which “the rights of men and women were sacrificed to the state.”  It pronounced that, with respect to the former members of the Soviet bloc, his party would “never accept any deal or arrangement which acquiesces in the subjugation of these peoples” by Russia. His platform promised to “unshackle American enterprise and to free American labor, industrial leadership, and capital, to create an abundance that will outstrip any other system.”  It boasted that, “Free competitive enterprise is the most creative and productive form of economic order that the world has seen.” It promised to “foster the development of [energy] from all sources, including water, tidal, and nuclear power.”  It vowed to prospect for mineral deposits, oil shale, and radioactive materials as means of generating energy. It was a platform that was bold, unafraid, unabashedly pro-American, pro-capitalism, and pro-democracy. It did not seek to “transform” America, but to promote the values that made it great.  And it did not apologize for America.
Although the biographical sketch as well as the platform might well be that of Donald Trump, it is not. The man was President John F. Kennedy and the platform was that of the Democrat Party. If his bio does not sound much like the vision of American espoused by AOC, or Bernie Sandersclaus or Elizabeth Warren it should come as no surprise.  Their Socialist creed does not remotely resemble that of our beloved Jack Kennedy. In fact, I doubt that Kennedy would agree with these folks about very much at all. Which brings me to my point.

In the early 1960s, I was a Democrat. Everyone in my family was a Democrat.  Everyone I knew was a Democrat

In the early 1960s, I was a Democrat. Everyone in my family was a Democrat.  Everyone I knew was a Democrat. We believed in the country and were proud of it. Our families worked hard.  Most of us went to church. We saluted the flag. We did not know what welfare was. We helped the poor and our neighbor. No politician had to tell us to do so.  We said the Pledge of Allegiance, belonged to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, never thinking that it was politically incorrect to do so.  We loved the country, and asked nothing from it other than to protect us. Our president was a national hero who risked life and limb to rescue his comrades during World War II and he was anything but a socialist. He never associated with homegrown terrorists, enemies of the United States, radical anti-Semites, or racist preachers who cursed America from the pulpit. And patriotism was neither a dirty word nor politically incorrect.
Back then we were all traveling through life in a caravan—our whole family, and everyone we knew—in our Democrat Fords and Chevys, believing Kennedy Democrat ideals,  and living Kennedy Democrat family values as we drove down the middle of the road.  I still have the same basic values I did back then. So does my brother, my parents, and many of my friends.  We did not change; the party did.  Co-opted by vacuous Hollywood celebrities, the mainstream press and avowed Socialist Democrat candidates who tell us how to think—radical socialists who believe that government is a candy machine—the party of Truman and Kennedy is now nothing I recognize.  Nor would my father—who worked so hard for the party decades ago.
No, we did not leave the party…the Democrats left us. Over time, the Democrats turned left…hard left. And we kept driving straight down the road.


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

The El Paso and Christchurch Shootings: The Ecofascist Connection

Tarrant and Crusius seriously believe Earth, and cherished environs thereon, are being terminally degraded by overpopulation. Groups spreading such absurd beliefs bear some responsibility for Tarrant’s and Crusius’s actions.

The El Paso and Christchurch Shootings: The Ecofascist Connection

The El Paso and Christchurch Shootings: The Ecofascist ConnectionOn March 15, 2019, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant attacked a mosque and Islamic centre in Christchurch, New Zealand with a semi-automatic rifle; killing 51 and injuring 50.

On August 3, 2019, 21-year-old Patrick Crusius attacked a WalMart crowded with Latino shoppers in El Paso, Texas with a semi-automatic rifle; killing 22, injuring 24.

Both men posted manifestos. In three places in his 87-page The Great Replacement Tarrant self-defines as ecofascist; to wit: “I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosely and consider myself Eco-fascist.”

The manifesto bandies eco-clichés:

Rampant urbanization and industrialization, ever expanding cities and shrinking forests, a complete removal of man from nature, with obvious results.”

A section titled: “Green nationalism is the only true nationalism” concludes: “There is no traditionalism without environmentalism.” Another section argues for protective tariffs around “environmentally conscious” societies. An overarching concern is:

The environment is being destroyed by overpopulation.”

Tarrant’s conclusion:

Kill the invaders. Kill overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

Crusius’s four-page ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ is a hat-tip to Al Gore

Crusius’s four-page ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ is a hat-tip to Al Gore that praises Tarrant. Crusius rails against: water pollution, resource overharvesting, inadequate recycling, urban sprawl and consumerism. According to Crusius:

“…our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden on future generations.”


The environment is getting worse by the year.”

He lays much blame on overpopulation; specifically immigration, hence:

…the next logical step is decreasing the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”

Such views are not “fringe” environmentalism. While Big Green currently downplays the issue, many enviro-organizations keep overpopulation phobias alive. Several million Europeans and Anglo-Americans belong to groups that contend Earth and/or their homelands are dangerously overpopulated.

While the following abridgement of: Traditional Population Control AdvocacyFrom Malthus to Mifepristone: A Primer on the Population Control Movement focusses on the US scene; similar milieus exist across Europe and the Anglosphere.

Malthusian and hostile to immigration

Virginia-based Negative Population Growth (NPG) has 5 employees and 25,000 dues-paying members. NPG claims overpopulation is the main threat facing Earth and its climate. They believe America’s existing population outstrips its natural carrying capacity. They convey their demands for stark reductions in immigration via radio and TV appearances and in ads in mainstream publications. NPG distributes “teachers’ packets” and “student fact sheets.”

In 1999, NPG published The Population-Environment Connection: Who Makes It? to survey enviro-org positions on population. Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters and National Audubon Society identified overpopulation as a primary environmental problem. National Wilderness Federation and Wilderness Society declared immigration to be a problem; the latter calling for reduced immigration.

From its 1892 inception to the mid-1970s, the Sierra Club remained programmatically Malthusian and hostile to immigration. The Club financed and publicized Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb (1968).

In the 1970s, anti-immigration zealot John Tanton chaired Sierra Club’s Population Committee. Tanton, an ophthalmologist and ardent conservationist, founded a Michigan-area Sierra Club chapter. (He later founded Scenic Michigan.) An outspoken eugenicist, Tanton also established a Planned Parenthood chapter.

Frustrated with what he perceived to be the Club’s wishy-washy immigration stance, Tanton launched Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1979. He briefly led Zero Population Growth and co-founded Numbers USA. Tanton feared Hispanics were overrunning America.

Sierra Club is now pro-immigration and even endorses amnesty for illegal aliens
In the 1990s, Sierra Club’s anti-immigrant faction (Tanton acolytes) attempted to take over the board. Failing in this coup, the faction then forced a Club-wide petition on immigration; losing by a 2-to-1 margin.
In 2004, Sierrans for US Population Stabilization made another assault on the Club’s board, but were again defeated 2-to-1. Club execs accused the anti-immigrant faction of white supremacism.
While Sierra Club is now pro-immigration and even endorses amnesty for illegal aliens, it remains committed to population stabilization. The Club considers population and environment intrinsically linked. They fret about overpopulation in the developing world and the leveling-off of US contraceptive use. They claim that filling unmet needs for contraception would do more to protect the climate than preventing deforestation.
Tanton’s brainchild, FAIR, draws 90% of its $13 million annual revenues from 50 foundations. FAIR employs 28 staff and claims 1.9 million members. While FAIR’s opposition to immigration is explicitly environmentalist; FAIR gives equal attention to immigrant-related crime and fiscal burdens. Prominent on FAIR’s board is Planned Parenthood, and Population Institute, director Sarah Epstein.
The anti-immigration Numbers USA claims millions of members. Co-founder Roy Beck, one of America’s leading enviro-journalists, received awards from the EPA and Izaak Walton League; and has been guest speaker at Society of Environmental Journalists conventions. Beck is a specialist on, and opponent of, urban sprawl. He co-founded Numbers USA because he believed: “the country’s environmental goals could not be achieved without reducing immigration.”


West Wing Reads

Ivory Coast passes legislation encouraged by Ivanka Trump

“Ivanka Trump is applauding the recent passage of legislation in Ivory Coast related to changes she pushed during her April trip to Africa,” Jill Colvin and Alexis Adele report for The Associated Press.
“The country is in the process of updating its family code to make it more equitable to women — a move President Donald Trump’s eldest daughter and senior adviser praised as ‘a great step forward.’” The new law will support women’s ownership rights and their equal management of household assets. Click here to read more.
“A White House initiative spearheaded by Ivanka Trump to help women in developing countries get ahead economically announced its first batch of grants on Wednesday: $27 million for 14 projects in 22 countries, mostly in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia,” Darlene Superville writes in The Associated Press. “The projects are meant to help women with employment and entrepreneurship and to provide women in business with access to financing and other assistance.”
“Since last fall, the Department of Homeland Security has consistently stated that Border Patrol’s temporary holding spaces were not designed nor ever intended to detain the record numbers of migrants illegally crossing the border, including tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families every month,” members of a bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory council write in USA Today. “The Border Patrol did not cause this crisis; our broken immigration system did. To fix this problem requires immediate changes to our laws, not just funding.”
“Ensuring farmers have long-term, free and fair access to our largest trade markets is critical to empowering the next generation of family farmers,” Iowa’s Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig writes in The Hill. “While the latest round of federal trade aid assistance will provide some much needed, short-term relief for farm families, farmers need and want markets to sell their products. Congress has the power to open additional market opportunities right now by ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).”

Privacy Policy | Contact the White House | Unsubscribe


John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :