DONATE

Friday, December 13, 2019

Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government? Frightening Challenges to Americans' Conscience

I read this CBN article rapidly and did not notice President Trump’s name in it. BUT the theme of this article is the very reason the Dems, the RINOs and various forms of Leftists want Trump gone by any means necessary. The theme is Biblical-minded Christians are being placed in a position to choose between their Biblical Christian conscience and the ever increasing government mandate to de-Christianize American culture. President Trump is an obstacle to this Leftist de-Christianizing transformation.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be [a]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the [b]carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. --Romans 8: 5-8 NKJV



JRH 12/13/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 
the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
********************************
Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government? Frightening Challenges to Americans' Conscience

December 11, 2019


WASHINGTON - Religious liberty today faces more challenges than ever.  If you pay attention to the headlines, you know these are dangerous days. The battleground is often in the courtroom, where a frequent defender of religious liberty there sees new reasons for hope.

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Senior Counsel Luke Goodrich points out every human has a conscience, and the government shouldn't be messing with it. 

"It's that inner voice that urges us to choose the good and reject evil," Goodrich told CBN News.

Big-Time Battler for Conscience Rights

He has fought for the right of conscience several times before the US Supreme Court, and writes about huge challenges to it in his new book titled Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America.

"When the government comes in and forces us to violate our conscience, it's forcing us to go against our human nature and violating a fundamental human right," Goodrich said.

But as America moves toward a post-Christian era, issues long felt by believers and their conscience as wrong are now exalted.  Therefore any opposition to them is condemned as rank discrimination.

'Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government?'

Goodrich explained, "We have experienced a major cultural shift in the last 10 to 20 years where traditional Christian beliefs about truth, about human life, about human sexuality…they used to be fairly broadly accepted or at least uncontroversial, but now those long-standing Christian beliefs are actually viewed as a threat."

He added, "We're seeing all kinds of new religious liberty conflicts and Christians really being put to the choice: will you obey God or will you obey the government?"

The biggest current battleground: homosexual and transgender rights.

"If you're a Bible-believing Christian and you hold a traditional view on sex and marriage, then the rapid advance of gay rights is certainly the most significant religious liberty threat today.  And we're seeing conflicts in multiple areas all across the country," Goodrich noted.

The government long ago said you can't discriminate based on someone's race or sex. If the Supreme Court this term rules "sex" includes sexual orientation or transgender status, it could mean real trouble for those with biblical views on human sexuality.

Jack Phillips x Thousands

You could likely multiply by the thousands new legal problems of the kind suffered by Christian baker Jack Phillips, who refused to make a cake celebrating gay marriage and ended up in a legal battle over his conscience rights for years.

"Thousands of religious organizations will face new lawsuits and new liability simply for acting on their long-standing beliefs about human sexuality," Goodrich predicted.

At one point, supporters promised same-sex marriage wouldn't harm anyone. Well, depending on how the high court rules, Goodrich pointed out those same people could go all out, claws bared, to get their opponents.

"There's a strong effort right now, particularly among progressives, to brand traditional Christian beliefs about marriage as a form of bigotry, and then use the power of the state to punish those religious beliefs and practices," he said.

Bigotry or Believing in What's Actually Best?

On the other hand, Frank Wright of D. James Kennedy Ministries maintains believers back only one-man, one-woman marriage because it's healthy for families.

"The Bible says it because it's for our welfare. It's what enables families to flourish," Wright told CBN News. "The secular research going back decades is irrefutable. Children do better when they have a mom and a dad.  And they are safer, they are more economically secure, they have less bad outcomes in life in terms of drugs and crime and all these things. It's God's design because it's what's best for us."

He's sad that homosexuals and their allies view the conservative support of one-man, one-woman marriage as bigotry and hatred.

Wright explained, "If they were to come to me and say 'Why do you hate me?' I would explain to them that I don't. ‘You and I see this issue totally differently.  I don't hate you.  Why should I hate you?   And why should you hate me because we disagree?'"

How Culture Views 'Good' Religion vs. 'Bad' Religion

Goodrich believes some of this comes from how modern society views religion.

"I think our culture is not really hostile to religion per se, but rather draws a distinction between good religion and bad religion," he explained.

Goodrich added the culture sees so-called "good religion" as, "Fairly relativistic. You keep it private. You don't make absolute truth claims and you don't make any intense moral claims."

On the other hand, this same culture sees bad religion as one that makes moral judgments among other things.

"Makes absolute truth claims. It doesn't stay confined to the four walls of the home or the church, and it gets out there," he said. "It evangelizes. It claims truth and it actually makes moral judgments.  And that kind of religion really today is deemed to be bad, and folks are much more willing to use government power to punish those sorts of belief."

Forced to do the Transgenders' Bidding

As for the transgender issue, the Obama administration mandated that doctors and hospitals provide surgery for men who wanted to be turned into women and women into men.

Goodrich explained the government was ordering doctors to perform those surgeries, "Even when it violated their religious beliefs and their medical judgment.  And if they didn't do that, they would be deemed to be discriminating and would be subject to government penalties."

Abortion is another battleground where supporters try to demonize those who can't and won't back it.

Those Against Abortion Labeled as Discriminators

"If you as a Christian, whether you're a doctor or an employer, if you oppose abortion, you're somehow denying health care to women and discriminating against women," Goodrich explained.

This Becket lawyer fought for both the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby's pro-life stand before the Supreme Court.

"The government was trying to force them to provide abortion-causing drugs in their health insurance plans or in their businesses, even when their conscience told them 'you cannot participate in an abortion,'" Goodrich said of his clients.

Many Dark Clouds, But a Silver Lining

The high court ruled in favor of both, and Goodrich says believers can take hope in how often their conscience rights win in court.

"There are some real difficulties ahead, and we should take stock of where we're at and be realistic. But at the same time, there's a lot of reason for hope.  We have a 90 percent win rate and we're undefeated at the US Supreme Court," Goodrich said.

He warned, however, Christians need to prepare for defeats and learn how to show Christ's love even to a culture that's turning more and more against them.

How the Bible Can Guide Us in Such a Time

"Much of scripture is written to Christians who are facing suffering and persecution for their faith.  And as Christians, we need to recall those teachings and let those influence us," Goodrich argued. "And it's not just about winning or fighting a culture war.  It's actually more about being like Christ in the midst of these conflicts."

What this attorney hopes for is a government that just leaves religion alone as much as possible.

For instance, in public schools, it shouldn't force students to pray, but can allow a time where they can pray if they want. It shouldn't build a cross on government property, but it can let those there stand. It shouldn't oppose religion OR promote it. It should just let it be.
+++++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
____________________
© 2019 The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., A nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Charitable Organization.



Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Before Crossfire Hurricane: Devin Nunes asks the essential question...


J.E. Dyer examines Horowitz’s Report on Crossfire Hurricane FISA abuses (a better word – CORRUPTION) in Devin Nunes questioning of pre-operation beginnings by the FBI. VERY IMPORTANT READ and you’ll want to read a few times to digest the info.

The first paragraph has a link to the 480-plus page IG Report.

JRH 12/11/19 (H/T:  J.e. Dyer  at Facebook Group Patriot Action Network)
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 
the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
*************************
Before Crossfire Hurricane: Devin Nunes asks the essential question after release of DOJ IG report

December 11, 2019

Devin Nunes (Image: Screen grab of Fox News video, YouTube)

Analytical revelations from the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the conduct of the “Russia-Trump” investigation won’t end any time soon.

The highlights have come out quickly, such as the startling count of 51 procedural violations by the FBI just in forwarding the FISA applications on Carter Page, and the fact that nine of those 51 involved making false statements to the FISA court.  In light of these and other findings, the IG report’s conclusion that all this troubling conduct didn’t amount to “bias” on the part of the FBI seems rather … beside the point.  Pick another measuring stick, folks.  That one is about as useful to our public purpose as Gloria Steinem’s famous bicycle was to a fish.

Whatever we label it – and “bias” is an unimpressive scare word to begin with – a federal law enforcement undertaking so full of violations and false statements is a problem of the highest priority.  So call it Petunia, for all I care.  Just don’t have the crust to call it something that frames it to be written off.  Real, live Americans have to live every day with what we suffer the FBI to do in the name of law and order.

And if the senior officials at headquarters are allowed to misbehave themselves so badly, it doesn’t much matter how honorable the rank and file are.

In any case, although there is surely a lot more to come as the IG report gets its public walk-through, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) bore-sighted Monday evening on the question that must propel us forward.

The IG report only takes us so far.  That’s because it accepts the start date of its investigative charter as the day Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched by the FBI: 31 July 2016.

We’ll learn a lot from looking at the period after that.  But the operations of U.S. agencies against (or, if you like, “involving”) members of the Trump campaign were underway well before that.  Even if we use the friendlier-sounding term “involving” here, it’s still the case that agencies and personalities that engaged with Trump campaign members after 31 July 2016 were also involved with them before 31 July 2016.

Devin Nunes called that out on Monday.  He’s brought this up previously, and didn’t elaborate at length in his segment with Sean Hannity (whose audience wouldn’t need a lengthy explanation).  But that’s what he’s referring to here.

And his question is the essential one.  The DOJ IG report looked at the conduct of the FBI and DOJ in Crossfire Hurricane.

But who was coordinating what was being done before Crossfire Hurricane started?

That question gets to the fundamental mystery of how the counter-Trump operation was started, and who was behind it.  The motive for the operation can only be ascertained fully by answering these questions.  The FBI was a late-comer to the game.  It wasn’t “the” string-puller (which was probably a small group, rather than a single individual).

If nothing else, Peter Strzok’s affect in 2016 tells us that.  He doesn’t text like someone who has known for months – or years – that Stefan Halper was set onto LTG Michael Flynn back in 2014, or that Carter Page has been working with the FBI since 2013 to take down Russian agents in the United States.

And that’s really the point about the IG report too.  The report is framed as if it’s kind of no big deal that there was prior engagement by the actors in its own drama with the Crossfire Hurricane targets:  Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Michael Flynn.

The IG report accepts at face value the narrative that Crossfire Hurricane was initiated on 31 July 2016, based on the nugget from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that in May 2016, George Papadopoulos had told him something about the Russians and incriminating information on Hillary Clinton.

Yet within two weeks of 31 July 2016, this new operation had turned unerringly to a confidential source (Stefan Halper) who had known Paul Manafort for years, had engaged with Michael Flynn back in 2014, and had invited Carter Page to a conference at Cambridge in July 2016 (where Halper and Page happened, according to Halper, to discuss the possibility of Halper joining the Trump campaign), before Crossfire Hurricane started.

Meanwhile, the FBI had had Manafort under investigation several years earlier, and had electronic surveillance of him since 2014 (up through probably March of 2016, when reporting suggests the FISA authority for that surveillance expired).

The FBI had been receiving cooperation from Carter Page in interdicting Russian agents in the U.S. who were trying to recruit Americans.

And Stefan Halper, whom the IG report refers to as Source 2 (with a number of allusions that make Halper the only viable candidate for that designation), had been involved in an apparent attempt to pin the appearance of improper Russian connections on Michael Flynn in 2014.

Papadopoulos, on the other hand, while he had not been approached by Halper before 31 July 2016, had been approached in March 2016 by the Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud, who was well known to the U.S. State Department and ran tame among the top officials of the British and Italian intelligence organizations.  Papadopoulos was subsequently approached by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat with extensive links to the same UK intelligence officials Stefan Halper hosted conferences with at Cambridge multiple times each year.

There are a couple of passages in the IG report that afford an intriguing look at how these remarkable coincidences were accounted for in testimony to the IG.

We are given a little background on Stefan Halper’s (Source 2’s) checkered history as a confidential source (p. 313 as page-numbered in the IG report document):

Source 2 was closed by the FBI in 2011 for “aggressiveness toward handling agents as a result of what [Source 2] perceived as not enough compensation” and “questionable allegiance to the [intelligence] targets” with which Source 2 maintained contact. However, Source 2 was re-opened 2 months later by Case Agent 1, and was handled by Case Agent 1 from 2011 through 2016 as part of Case Agent 1 ‘s regular investigative activities at an FBI field office.

Case Agent 1 remains anonymous in the report and has not been firmly identified by blogosphere analysts.  He is referred to as male in the report, however, and was working Crossfire Hurricane in 2016.*  He is described as having an extensive history with Source 2 between 2011 and 2016.

Therefore, we get the following characterization a couple of paragraphs later (on p. 314):

Source 2 ‘s involvement in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation arose out of Case Agent 1’s pre-existing relationship with Source 2. Case Agent 1 told the OIG that when he arrived in Washington, D.C. in early August 2016 to join the Crossfire Hurricane team, he had never previously dealt with the “realm” of political campaigns. He said he lacked a basic understanding of simple issues, for example what the role of a “foreign policy advisor” entails, and how that person interacts with the rest of the campaign. Case Agent 1 said he proposed meeting with Source 2 to ask these questions because Case Agent 1 knew that Source 2 had been affiliated with national political campaigns since the early 1970s.

Case Agent 1 seems to have known the source he had been handling since 2011 reasonably well.  So this passage in the middle of p. 315 comes across as a bit puzzling:

Source 2 told the Crossfire Hurricane team that Source 2 had known Trump’s then campaign manager, Manafort, for a number of years and that he had been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn. Case Agent 1 told the OIG that “quite honestly … we kind of stumbled upon [Source 2] knowing these folks.” He said that it was “serendipitous” and that the Crossfire Hurricane team “couldn’t believe [their] luck” that Source 2 had contacts with three of their four subjects, including Carter Page.

It strains credulity just a bit, that Case Agent 1, who’d been handling Source 2 since 2011, found it mere “luck” to discover that Source 2 knew Manafort, whom the FBI had investigated intensively since 2011, and had contacted Carter Page, with whom the FBI had worked since 2013, only a couple of weeks before Case Agent 1 joined Crossfire Hurricane.

Perhaps Case Agent 1 had no reason, at least, to know about Source 2’s connection with Michael Flynn.  But as for the rest, it sounds for all the world as if Case Agent 1 read a Wikipedia entry on Source 2 to get his background information, and then was disingenuously astonished to find out how relevant to Crossfire Hurricane Source 2’s history would actually be.

Case Agent 1’s protestations sound, in other words, less than credible.

His and the Crossfire Hurricane team’s reported disbelief in their “luck” requires accounting for, given the extensive history of the FBI with everyone that “luck” applied to.

That’s where Devin Nunes’s question comes in.  If it wasn’t the FBI that assembled all that “luck” prior to 31 July 2016 – who was it?  And was it, as we would reasonably assume, the same maker of “luck” that manufactured a series of contacts in early 2016, and then handed George Papadopoulos to the FBI, tied up with a bow?

Obviously, readers will be waving their hands in the air at this point calling out “Brennan!”  But it’s equally obvious John Brennan couldn’t do this alone.  Just for starters, the Steele dossier was a key component of the anti-Trump operation, and there is neither need nor evidence for connecting it to Brennan’s instigation (at least not directly).

Moreover, the collaboration that may have come from foreign intelligence agencies (e.g., in Italy and the UK, as well as the notorious grab-bag of other European sources, like Estonia, supposedly plying Brennan with information in early 2016) would have had motives other than merely helping Brennan out with a personal project.  For those sources, motives related to their own perceived interests had to be in play.

There are probably reasons the public will never be cleared for why Brennan would have taken a set against Michael Flynn.  We know of one reason why senior personnel at the DOJ might have.

Meanwhile, the odd centrality of Ukraine and Paul Manafort to the Russiagate drama seems to have had its origins and motives from other actors: in the State Department, in the Democratic Party, in at least one of the Democrats’ major funders, George Soros.  And those origins and motives appear, like the animus against Flynn, to have predated even Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Nunes is right.  This is what we need to get to the bottom of.  All that “luck” the Crossfire Hurricane team stumbled into: who authored it?  Will John Durham be able to dig that out?  Is he making the attempt?

William Barr’s comments this week, which include a reference to looking at the activities of other agencies (besides the FBI and DOJ), suggest that at least some version of that attempt may be underway.  But we don’t know its scope or quality.

If we get a few indictments for things done by DOJ and FBI personnel after 31 July 2016, and if Trump weathers the impeachment frenzy unscathed – and if we complacently accept never knowing the answer to Nunes’s question – we remain at grave risk for something like this happening again.  We remain at risk for not understanding the alarming power our government’s intelligence and law enforcement tools can wield over our nation’s future.

That’s why one of the most important things the IG report can do is point us not only to opportunities for indictment, but to discrepancies in testimony and narrative that set channel markers: buoys we can navigate by in chasing down Nunes’s question.

The alarm he raised in early 2017 is what cued both his committee and an interested public to demand the exertions that got us to the DOJ IG report.  In his excellent new book The Plot Against the President, journalist Lee Smith recounts much that was previously unreported about Nunes’s efforts and the centrality of his role.  Without Nunes, we wouldn’t have the broad public understanding we have today of the truth about Russiagate and Spygate, as opposed to the script written by Fusion GPS and pounded in the media.

I suggest trusting Nunes one more time: that we cannot rest until we know how and with whom this whole business really started.

* Regarding the identity of Case Agent 1, Internet sleuths are lobbying for one of two FBI agents who have spoken at Halper-organized events at Cambridge in the last decade.  This tweep suggests one of them (who was an FBI attaché at the U.S. embassy in London from 2012 to early 2016).  That agent has been a speaker for Halper at least twice.  In an article for The Federalist, Mollie Hemingway had a list of three names – including the one suggested by @TheLegalBrain1 – of FBI agents who appeared at a Halper conference in Cambridge in 2011.  Other analysts are partisans of the third name in the 2011 list for Case Agent 1.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
_________________________
J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.

Copyright © 2019 Liberty Unyielding. All rights reserved.

ABOUT Liberty Unyielding

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.


Wrong Wray — It's NOT the Whole FBI


Current FBI Director Christopher Wray views FBI exoneration of targeting President Trump before and after election in 2016 in the IG Michael Horowitz Report. President Trump should view another firing of another Deep State FBI Director AND replace Wray with someone willing to drain the swamp stench of Dem influence in that Agency.

JRH 12/11/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Please Support SlantRight 2.0
Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 
the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
*****************************
Wrong Wray — It's NOT the Whole FBI
The vast majority of the 12,484 special agents and 2,950 intelligence analysts in the FBI steadfastly abide by their oaths.

By  Mark Alexander
Dec. 11, 2019


On Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray issued his response to the Justice Department’s FISA report, concluding: “Finally, we will review the performance and conduct of certain FBI employees who were referenced in the Report’s recommendations — including managers, supervisors, and senior officials at the time. The FBI will take appropriate disciplinary action where warranted. Notably, many of the employees described in the report are no longer employed at the FBI.”

But in a follow-up interview, when asked if he had any evidence that the FBI unfairly targeted Trump’s campaign, Wray replied, “I don’t.” If his response was specifically related to the FISA report evidence that was limited in its scope, then Wray’s comments are in line. But if he was suggesting that there is no evidence of bias among “managers, supervisors, and senior officials at the time,” that assertion is ludicrous and earned this response from Donald Trump: “I don’t know what report [Wray] was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me.”

Moreover, Director Wray was asked a leading question as to whether he was offended by suggestions that the FBI is part of the “deep state.”

He took the bait on a broad question: “I think that’s the kind of label that is a disservice to the 37,000 men and women who work at the FBI who I think tackle their jobs with professionalism, with rigor, with objectivity, with courage … so that’s not a term I would ever use to describe our workforce and I think it’s an affront to them.”

Wrong, Wray — the question asked was absurd and disingenuous. He knows better and should have chosen his words much more carefully. The “deep state” assertions have always been limited to a handful of FBI personnel Wray identified in his response — those high-ranking “managers, supervisors, and senior officials” with strong bias in favor of Hillary Clinton. This has never been about the FBI at large.

Almost two years ago, in “The FISA Memo and the Demos’ Deep-State Operatives,” I noted:

Democrats and their Leftmedia outlets are promoting the diversionary false narrative that serious questions about the political motives of those who seeded the FISA warrants are a “broad assault on the Department of Justice and FBI” by President Trump and Republicans. According to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), “This wasn’t about oversight. This is about … attacking the DoJ and FBI, a transparent attempt to discredit these institutions.”

As I noted then, in fact, it is Democrats like Schiff who are broad-brushing the FISA memo inquiry to include “institutions” rather than “individuals.” The memo names a handful of corrupt Democrat deep-state operatives in the DoJ and FBI who colluded to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump and who, after his stunning upset, sought to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency.

As I also noted then: “The vast majority of the 12,484 special agents and 2,950 intelligence analysts in the FBI steadfastly abide by their oaths ‘to support and defend’ our Constitution. They also strive to live up to the FBI motto: Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Indeed, most FBI agents, whose reputations are being sullied by the corrupt actions of a few high-ranking officials, are both personally and professionally offended by that corruption.”

Again yesterday in “The DoJ FISA Report — Trump Was Right,” I noted that “Hillary Clinton’s backers were high-ranking FBI bureaucrats” — as Wray identified in his report.

For the record, it was and remains Democrats who, by advancing this charade to take Trump down, have cast a cloud over the entire FBI — a cloud that will take years to dissipate. When Wray answers loaded media questions without redress, he also throws his whole agency under the bus.
+++++++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
__________________________

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind. Copyright © 2019 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.


Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Impeachment Smoke & Biden-Ukraine Corruption

What Are the Dems Really Hiding?

An intro by John R. Houk
© December 10, 2019

As the Dems read off and eventually lead the House of Representatives Articles of Impeachment based on hate-inspired Trump Derangement Syndrome more than verifiable facts, watch this video.

The video examines Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden & son Hunter corruption that more documentation exists than any faux-corruption President Trump is accused. Things to note is the incredulous corruption inherent in Ukraine that the video hosts speculates (due to connections) quite probably includes the current Ukrainian President Zelensky.

If Ukraine is so corrupt even under Zelensky, should the U.S. abandon involvement with whoever leads the Ukraine government? My guess is PROBABLY NOT. That is as long as a Ukraine government defies Russia, Ukraine makes a great foil against any Russian interests that conflict American Interests.

So what does that mean for Trump and Biden?

Americans NEED to know if Biden corruption enriched his family and/or bilked American taxpayer dollars. AND if any of that Biden corruption discussed in the video was connected in anyway to Crooked Hillary working with corrupt Ukrainian entities to frame Trump and get a Crooked Hillary election victory in 2016 (which thank God did not occur).

As speculated in the video, Americans NEED to know just how much the Dem-darling Obama knew and did about said Biden corruption.

JRH 12/10/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Please Support SlantRight 2.0
Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 


Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
***********************


Posted by Mr Reagan
196K subscribers - Dec 10, 2019

Over the past few days, I dug into Biden's history in Ukraine. What I found was astonishing. Watch the video to see the full extent of Biden's corruption.

_____________________________
Impeachment Smoke & Biden-Ukraine Corruption
What Are the Dems Really Hiding?

An intro by John R. Houk
© December 10, 2019
___________________________
The Full Extent of Joe Biden's Corruption

Mr Reagan About Page

Hello, I'm Mr Reagan. My mission is to spread reason and rationality throughout the world. I don't believe in petty motivations, envy, hate, resentment, or greed. I believe in rational solutions to real problems. I believe that we have an obligation to help the less fortunate where they already live. And I believe in judgment, not based on the color of one's skin, but by the content of one's character.