The Portage County TEA Party, and Patriots from TEA Party and Liberty Groups from several surrounding counties, met at the FBI Building in Cleveland to DEMAND Equal Justice Under the LAW for All on Thursday, October 3, 2019. Cleveland TV Channel 19 did two live remote broadcast from the protest as well this video we posted on our Facebook page. We urge all Patriots to organize sign waves and take action to support President Trump and AG Bill Barr's investigation into this coup attempt! The Portage County TEA Party is currently planning a sign-wave on the bridge over State Route 8 in Cuyahoga Falls in the next week or so.
Thank you to all who attended! We had a good time and particularly enjoyed our little confrontation with the General Manager of WKYC TV - which was just 200 feet from where we protested and did not cover the event like Channel 19 TV did. It felt good to tell the "fake news" right to their face that they are liars!
On Wednesday night, members of the Portage County TEA Party marked the 911 Anniversary with a special prayer by Larry Stewart and by showing a video compilation of news video from that day 18 years ago which included the attacks in New York City as well as on the Pentagon and the heroic effort by citizens to stop the Islamic terrorist hijackers in Somerset, PA.
In the second half of the meeting, attendees were the first to see the Premier of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) produced documentary film "Targeting U.S." which documents the fight by TEA Party groups against the illegal targeting by the Obama Administration's Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Since the Portage County TEA Party was part of the successful ACLJ lawsuit against the US Government and the IRS, our group was given the honor of being one of the first in the nation to view the film.
After the movie, Tom Zawistowski, Executive Director of the Portage County TEA Party, who appeared in the movie multiple times to help tell the story, said that the reason this movie is important was because it shows that regular American's can fight our government, when it does wrong, and win that fight. He noted that today, we face a severe threat to the very survival of our Republic because of the lawlessness in our FBI, DOJ, NSA, CIA, DIA and Federal Government in general and that we must prepare to take on the Federal Government AGAIN to DEMAND Equal Justice Under the Law.
Zawistowski noted that without equal justice for ALL that we are not a Nation at ALL. Pointing out that what made the United States of America unique at its founding was the fact that we are a nation ruled by law and not men. Unfortunately, the evidence strongly demonstrates that in the past 50 years we have been ruled by men who have ignored and broken our laws. Zawistowski said, if the criminals who tried to rig the 2016 election, and attempted a coup attempt against President Donald Trump after his election, are not prosecuted then they will be free to continue to break the law and will steal the 2020 election.
Zawistowski concluded the meeting by telling members that he believes that Attorney General William Barr will not be able to prosecute those who are clearly guilty without public pressure to do so. He asked PCTEA Members to prepare to protest outside the FBI Building in Downtown Cleveland if AG Barr does not start to bring criminal charges outlined in the book "Ball of Collusion" - which Zawistowski called an indictment by former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.
Zawistowski, said that he would be working with the ACLJ to make the documentary "Targeting U.S." available for everyone to see and would let members know in the coming days how they can get DVD's or where they can watch the film.
If the TEA Party is such a failure, why is the left wing regressive socialist/communist media going so far out of it's way to lie about us??? When they are attacking you that means you're winning that's why! Enjoy this rebuttal in the Federalist:
There's no evidence that the Tea Party’s popularity was propelled by racism.
By David Harsanyi - AUGUST 28, 2019
“In the late summer of 2009, as the recession-ravaged economy bled half a million jobs a month, the country seemed to lose its mind,” The New York Times says, kicking off its tenth anniversary retrospective of the Tea Party movement. As you can imagine, the rest of the article continues in this vein, portraying conservatives who organized against Obamacare as a bunch of vulgar radicals.
Yet even this revisionism wasn’t enough for most contemporary leftists, who see everything through the prism of race.
“A fundamental flaw in this analysis is there is no mention of race and how much racism drove the Tea Party movement,” ABC’s Matthew Dowd claimed. “You can’t talk about the rage politics and leave out race.”
“This @jwpetersNYT retrospective on the Tea Party’s ‘summer of rage’ ten years ago makes not a single, solitary reference to race or racism,” Rolling Stone’s Jamil Smith said. “Nor does it acknowledge the reality that a good deal of it involved opposing President Obama because he was black.”
“How do you write a 10 years later piece on the Tea Party and not mention – not once, not even in passing – the fact that it was essentially a hysterical grassroots tantrum about the fact that a black guy was president?” asked non-biased Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery, calling it journalistic “malpractice.”
Well, you get the idea.
In the first draft of this piece, I joked that The New York Times might add a line about Tea Party “racism” before the day was over to placate the Twitter mob. They did it before I could even publish. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s no evidence that a “good deal”—or any substantial deal, for that matter—of the Tea Party’s popularity was propelled by racism.
The wealthy white leader of Congress at the time was just as unpopular among Tea Partiers as the black president. And, as we’ve seen, if Hillary Clinton had won the 2008 election, she would have generated no less anger among conservatives.
It was Barack Obama’s leftist rhetoric and unprecedented unilateralism—he had, after all, promised “fundamental change”—that ignited what amounts to a renewed Reaganism; a fusing of idealistic constitutionalism and economic libertarianism. (These days, there’s an excellent chance that progs see both those -isms as inherently racist, as well.)
Tea Party protesters not only felt like they were under assault from Democrats but that they had been abandoned by the GOP establishment. That is why so many primaried white Republicans. If you really wanted to hear them “rage,” you could always bring up the former Caucasian and Republican president, George W. Bush, who had “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”
As with any spontaneous political movement, some bad actors glommed onto protests. The New York Times article, for instance, informs us that “one demonstrator at a rally in Maryland hanged a member of Congress in effigy” and that a “popular bumper stickerwas ‘Honk if I’m Paying Your Mortgage’” – as if we’re supposed to be offended by the latter.
Most accusations of Tea Party racism are based on John Lewis’s accusation—dutifully repeated by most of the media without any skepticism—that someone had called him ugly names and spit on him when he and Nancy Pelosi strolled through protesters in front of the Capitol. Although there were cameras everywhere that historic day, no one was ever able to find any evidence to back up his claim.
None of this stopped Frank Rich, then a New York Times columnist, from boring into the collective soul of the movement, accusing it of engaging in “small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.” Joe Biden reportedly accused them of acting “like terrorists.” Tom Friedman referred to them as the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP. It was, as one Democratic Party memo explained, “not really all about average citizens,” but an astroturf movement paid for by corporate lobbyists and populated by “neo-Nazis, militias, secessionists and racists.”
All of this rhetoric sounds very familiar.
Left-wing protesters, no matter how puerile, hateful, or bigoted, are typically depicted as righteous agents of change. Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, “rage.” The “summer of rage” typically refers to the riots that swept a number of American cities in 1967. The Tea Party protests never turned violent. There were no riots. No broken Starbucks windows. It was the most peaceful “rage” you’re ever going to see.
I reported on the first of numerous Tea Party protests on April 16, 2010. What I saw were some silly people, and many others who were idealistic neophytes peacefully organizing around founding principles. Most had very specific policy goals in mind. None of them were about race. Most of them supported free markets. Many of them were still quite mainstream.
A CBS/New York Times poll at time found that the average Tea Party activist was more educated than the average American, and their concerns mirrored the mainstream. Although a majority were more socially conservative than the average voter—particularly on abortion—8 in 10 of them wanted their burgeoning movement to focus on economic issues rather than social ones.
Hardly the anarchists depicted in the media, the poll found that a majority of Tea Partiers wanted to reduce the size of government rather than focus on cutting budget deficits or even lowering taxes. A majority, in fact, believed that Social Security and Medicare were worthy taxpayer burdens. Not even clamping down on illegal immigration, often the impetus for charges of racism these days, was a big topic among these activists.
The Tea Party had three main grievances: Obamacare, government spending, and “a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.” The protests were fueled by Democrats’ unprecedented action on a health care policy. A decade later, the Tea Party’s suspicion that the health-care law was merely an incremental way to move towards more socialistic policies turned out to be correct, as most of the Democratic Party presidential field can attest.
The Tea Party, whether some of their champions later turned out to be hypocrites or not, didn’t want to change the Republican Party as much as they wanted to force conservative politicians to keep their promises. The movement initially backed a number of terrible candidates, but it learned.
In the end, the Tea Party successfully re-energized Republicans, who went on to win two wave elections and stifle Obama’s presidency for six years. Whether the movement was a long-term failure, as the Times argues, is a debatable contention.
One things is true, though: the majority of Tea Partiers were white. You know what that means, right? And, as those of us who covered the Obama administration remember, no matter how historically detailed or ideologically anchored your position might be, the very act of opposing a black president was going to be depicted as act of bigotry.
This cheap and destructive rhetoric now dominates virtually every contemporary debate, most of which have absolutely nothing, even tangentially, to do with race. It’s a kind of rhetoric, in fact, that now retroactively dominates our debates, as well.
David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.
The We the People Convention wants to THANK Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, and you should as well, for standing up for the 1964 Civil Rights Law and calling out the charade that the left has been conducting in our schools, our colleges, in large corporations, and in Government. Here's a memo, LGBTQ - XYZLMNOP, whatever, are NOT a legal protected class and never have been and never should be!
The Obama Administration "acted" as if they were a protected class and the left tries to force everyone to give them "special" rights and privileges but no federal law has ever been passed granting them protected status. It is time to have the Supreme Court make that clear so that you can tell you school district and you place of business, that homosexuals are not "special" and they should be treated just like everyone else!
But see, they don't want to be treated like everyone else, they don't want equal rights, they want superior rights to you and other Americans. They want to get the job even if they are not best qualified, they want to get the promotion because of their fake "protected class status" even if they aren't the best qualified, they want to threaten to sue your business for discrimination when you need to fire them because they can't or won't do the job, they want to get admitted to college before your child because of their fake "protected class status"! They in fact want to discriminate against YOU and everyone else - not be treated equally!
There is much more real discrimination today against straight, white, christian, males than against any other group - especially LGBTQ- XYZLMNOP, whatever, when AT LEAST 90% of their "claims" of discrimination have been hoaxes. America was built on the promise of EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE, it is time for the law to again make that clear and we trust the suit the AG Yost has joined will have the effect of re-establishing this fundamental American legal principle.
Yost Argues Federal Civil Rights Laws
Don't Protect LGBTQ Workers
Late on Friday, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost announced he'd join a U. S. Supreme Court case on whether federal civil rights laws protect LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination - and that Ohio would be siding with the states that think they do not.
That news came as a shock to some activists, but was well received by others. Sen. Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) is disappointed - to say the least."Our attorney general has entered into weighing in and support of a push to discriminate against a group of people. That is appalling," Antonio said.
For years, Antonio has tried to pass what she's called the Ohio Fairness Act - a bill to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the state's anti-discrimination law related to employment, housing, and public accommodations. She notes one of Mike DeWine's first actions as governor was to sign an executive order protecting LGBTQ state workers.
So Yost's decision to file a friend of the court brief in this lawsuit has left her puzzled, and she's written him a letter about that. "Why in the world would we put effort into taking away rights from people than working to open the circle and include everyone?" Antonio said.
But conservatives are pleased with the decision to join the lawsuit. Aaron Baer with Citizens for Community Values said the federal civil rights law at issue - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - includes five protected classes that are clearly defined: sex, race, color, religion and national origin.
"Attorney General Dave Yost is standing up for what the law is, not what some political activists want it to be. When Title VII was passed, it's very clear that sex means male or female. And what you have today is you have a handful of activists trying to redefine words that Congress passed to achieve their political victories," Baer said.
In this case, Baer also said it appears activists don't believe their own argument, that sexual orientation is protected by that law, "because if they did, they wouldn't be pushing things like HR5, what they call the Equality Act, or Senate Bill 11 in Ohio that they call the Fairness Act, where they're trying to add gender identity and gender expression to the law. They don't really even believe their legal arguments.""And so what you have is Dave Yost standing up for common sense and for what the law actually is instead of what a political agenda wants it to be," Baer said.
Some conservatives extend their concern to so-called "bathroom bills", which allow a person to use the restroom that matches their gender identity. Though that legislation has been proposed in Ohio, it's never been given serious consideration - and indeed, no state has a law like that on their books.
Yost wasn't available for comment, but said in a written statement that the case "is about whether the judiciary gets to write new laws or if that should be left to elected legislators." He adds, "If the law is to be amended, Congress, not the courts, should be the one doing it."
With that in mind, the state's leading LGBTQ rights group says Yost should be speaking up in the opposite way. "It is a backwards look for the state of Ohio to have the attorney general coming out and saying, look, LGBTQ people should not be protected from discrimination in the workplace," said Marshall Troxell, the policy coordinator for Equality Ohio. "Really, we would love for him to come out and say, LGBTQ people should be explicitly protected and urge his colleagues in the legislature to move the Ohio Fairness Act forward."
The Ohio Fairness Act has had three hearings, the last one in May. Antonio says it's the seventh time a bill like this has been introduced in the past 11 years. 29 states, including Ohio, have no laws with this anti-discrimination language.
Ohio is among 15 states - all Republican dominated - joining the Trump administration in arguing that federal civil rights laws don't protect LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. 21 mostly Democratic states and the District of Columbia have filed briefs opposing that. The case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8.
Judicial Watch will Send Attorney Eric Lee to the
2019 We the People Convention!
We are fortunate to have Judicial Watch send Attorney Eric Lee to the 2019 We the People Convention in Columbus, on Saturday September 21, 2019 at the Embassy Suites in Dublin, OH. Attorney Lee primarily practices in Judicial Watch's very active Election Law Division. While at Judicial Watch, Mr. Lee’s focus has been on enforcing Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires states to take reasonable efforts to remove certain ineligible voters from its voter registration lists. Mr. Lee works with local and statewide election officials throughout the country in monitoring and enforcing the provisions of Section 8 of the NVRA. At the Convention, Mr. Lee will give an over-view of voter fraud concerns that Judicial Watch has identified nationally and will discuss the things that we as citizens can do to eliminate voter fraud in Ohio for the 2020 election.
Since 2018, Mr. Lee has achieved two statewide settlement agreements related to the NVRA’s enforcement. He was co-counsel for Judicial Watch against Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla in forcing California to modify its list maintenance program and take reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from its rolls. He also obtained a court-ordered consent judgment against the Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections to do the same. Mr. Lee graduated from St. Mary’s College of Maryland and received his law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. He is licensed to practice in Maryland and the District of Columbia.
This Convention is not a rally, is not a place to come and hear speakers and be entertained. This Convention is an event for those who are willing to volunteer to do the important work that must be done in order to protect and defend our individual Freedom, Liberty, and Prosperity and WIN the 2020 elections! There are only 300 seats available and they need to be filled by Patriots like YOU, who want to make a difference in 2020. You will leave the Convention with a checklist of things that you commit to doing, in your own geographic area, that will result in a our victory next year! The focus of the 8th Annual 2019 We the People Convention will be:
• Voter Registration
• Candidate Recruitment for 2020 Primary
• Organizing to Stop Voter Fraud
• Organizing to Get Out OUR Vote in 2020
This content for this event is being created with the help of Judicial Watch, the Ohio Secretary of State's Office, and the National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action.
The Cost of the Convention is:
$35 per person and includes your lunch
Did you See this "Poll" being Pushed on Fox Newsand Everywhere Else Yesterday?
Do YOU Believe it?
How about the "polls", including Fox News, showing nearly every Democrat beating Trump in 2020? Do you believe those "polls"? How do they square with this Zogby "poll" showing Trump's approval numbers at record highs and support by 51% of Hispanics and 28% of Blacks approving of the President? How did Fox News and these other people's "polls" do at predicting the 2016 Presidential race? They were ALL wrong. These aren't REAL "polls" they are propaganda tools and you should tell people not to believe them and trust your own eyes and ears and brains to figure out what is really going on.
So, let's look at this "Red Flag Law" poll. If I ask you "Do you think mentally ill people should own guns?" of course you are going to say NO! The Devil is in the details as always. Some "Red Flag Laws" are saying that only family members could ask a judge to take away your guns because they "think" you are "mentally ill" and a danger to them or yourself. What's your definition of the word "family" today? Some "Red Flag Laws" include "friends" and most give police that ability to go to court and ask a judge to take your guns away. Is a judge qualified to determine your mental condition?
What is YOUR description of "mentally illness"? Would you trust any Psychiatrist, nearly 100% of whom are leftist, who supports the idea that what was 10 years ago a scientifically proven "mental illness" called "gender dysphoria" is now not a mental illness and now swears that gender is not determined by biology but by how you "feel"? Would you trust a court appointed Psychiatrist or Phycologist to make that decision about YOU when they literally deny science to conform to their leftist ideology? How do you think they feel about guns? From what I have read, nearly 100% of these cases go against the accused. All it takes is an accusation.
I have been reading stories of where these "Red Flag Laws" have "worked" to save lives. They rarely stop "potential" mass shootings, they stop suicides and domestic violence. Now in a dozen states, you can go to court and tell the judge that your husband or son or brother-in-law is acting strange or made a threat and the judge can order the police to take your guns because of something you said on social media or just said during a heated argument. OK, so you take my guns. If I am suicidal what stops me from hanging myself or overdosing on drugs? Nothing.
If I am a danger to my spouse and you take away my guns, what is going to keep me from just strangling them or stabbing them with a knife. Nothing. If I have posted on social media or a school bathroom wall about killing a bunch of people and you take away my guns, what is going to keep me from mowing down a bunch of students with my car or setting fire to the church while people are in it? NOTHING!
So, it isn't the guns is it? Only incarceration will stop violent people from acting out. That means that if a family member or anyone goes to the police and says this person is a threat to me or society then the police already have laws to arrest those people and lock them up - if they can prove it. There is the rub. It takes a lot of time and work to "prove" that someone "intends" to do something before they do it. Particularly when a US Citizen has free speech rights and 2nd Amendment rights and 4th Amendment rights. What we are talking about doing is replacing your rights and the rule of law with "opinions". Who wants to go down that path?
The bottom line is that it has NOTHING to do with guns. That is just an excuse for the left to create law that eventually allows them to confiscate guns from all citizens. That "poll" is only intended to give lefty "republicans" like Rob Portman and John Kasich cover to support taking away your rights, you freedom, your liberty AND your guns!
If the police can "PROVE" someone is a danger, AND the accused is given due process to defend themselves, then they should be locked up in a prison or mental institution. However I don't believe that the police should be allowed to take their guns - because you can't use a gun if you are locked up! See, but here is the other rub. The Psychiatric profession is not reliable in diagnosing "mental illness". Many of the mass shooters and killers, have been under the care of Psychiatrists who told parents that they were not a danger! In this article a Psychiatrist said "experienced psychiatrists fare no better than a roll of the dice at predicting violence"!
Like I said, the devil is in the details and that "poll" did not ask about those details and the people who answers the poll question had not consider ANY of this before answering. Well we better consider ALL of this before anyone makes "Red Flag Laws" the law of the land! The problem is NOT guns, the problem is our CULTURE and "Red Flag Laws" are doing nothing to address that and will do nothing to prevent mass shootings or mass killings through other means. All they will do is allow the Left to end the 2nd Amendment and confiscate the guns of all Americans. We are NOT GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN!
We the People Convention
We are fortunate to have Columbus Attorney Donald C. Brey opening our 2019 We the People Convention on Saturday, September 21, 2019 in Dublin, OHas he is one of the foremost experts on Ohio election law. Don will advise us on how WE can become active in running our elections in 2020 in order to assure that our vote is legal and accurate. He will answer YOUR questions about the entire election process and provide historical examples of problems that have been discovered in the past and how those problem were identified and rectified.
Don brings over thirty years of experience advising and representing clients in the areas of litigation and administrative law, ethics, and campaign and election law. He appears routinely on behalf of his clients before the Ohio Elections Commission, the Ohio Ethics Commission, the Inspector General’s office, and the Joint Legislative Ethics Commission. He also handles cases before the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Ethics and Grievances, the Disciplinary Counsel and bar association Certified Grievance Committees. He is a well- respected counselor in the area of ethics and professional responsibility and has been recognized by Best Lawyers in America® as one of the top lawyers in the administrative and litigation practices.
His administration law and litigation practice has been wide and varies from business disputes, licensing matters and election contents to First Amendment and other constitutional disputes, extraordinary writ actions and Appellate and Supreme Court cases. Don frequently advises and represents religious and other non-profit organizations on a wide variety of issues. He advises office holders, candidates and other politically active individuals and organizations on campaign finance law compliance issues regarding appropriate fundraising and spending, candidate filings, as well as avoiding or defending slander or libel charges during a campaign. Don has perennially been recognized as an Ohio Super Lawyer in the area of Political Law for his work in this area.