Before the totalitarian COVID deception hit America Jeffrey
Epstein died in jail under suspicious circumstances. To my knowledge Epstein’s
death is still officially a suicide while in police custody. Loads of evidence
both circumstantial and specific suggests something other than a suicide. The “other
than” led to a host of memes mocking the official death typically ending with
something like “and Epstein didn’t kill himself”.
WHY!?
Epstein catered to the unsavory titillating desires of wicked
powerful men usually with underage girls. I and many believe Epstein was
silenced.
NOW Epstein’s essentially operations manager - Ghislaine
Maxwell -has been arrested and – GASP! –
is in police custody. Besides wondering if her fate will be a silencing, an
interesting editorial video put out by DEMOCREPUBLIX NEWS explores the
arrest, the prosecutor in charge of the arrest, President Trump’s possible
going after those going after him scenario and more.
JRH 7/6/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit,
check
Ghislaine Maxwell was caught in New Hampshire. Jeffrey
Epstein’s partner-in-crime is now in U.S. custody in the darkest of all places,
the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
The first thing on everyone’s mind should be, “Which faction
actually has her and how long will she survive?”
Thanks for watching! Subscribe, so you don’t miss out on the
news of the day.
A lengthy yet stupendous article written by J.E. Dyer
exposes the hypocrisy of the lying Dems when it comes to criminal justice and
the U.S. Constitution. The Dems feign (cough
Pelosi) love of the rule of law except or unless that law applies to
Dem/Leftist/Deep State law violations. READ ON!
JRH 2/14/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
***************************
The Jessie Liu clue: A D.C. cover-up that IS Spygate
The "Old"
(Eisenhower) Executive Office Building across from the White House in
Washington, D.C.. (Image: Wikimedia)
Four federal prosecutors resigned from
their case on Tuesday when Attorney General William Barr overruled the
sentencing recommendation they made for Roger Stone, whom Robert Mueller had
forwarded charges against involving “five separate counts of lying to the House
Intelligence Committee and two charges of obstructing a congressional
investigation and intimidating a witness.”
Notably, the Justice Department’s lead counsel in the Stone
case, Jessie Liu – the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia – had
recently turned over that role to Timothy Shea, because Ms. Liu had been
nominated for a post at the U.S. Treasury. Liu was also the lead counsel
for some time on the Michael Flynn case.
On Tuesday, Trump withdrew the Liu nomination for the
Treasury job, about the same time the four prosecutors, three of whom were
members of the Mueller team, announced they were off the Stone case. Liu
was previously scheduled for a Senate hearing on Thursday.
Jessie Liu - center on
MSNBC - MSNBC video (screen capture)
In the interest of getting expeditiously to the meat of this
post, I won’t rehash the whole story on this. It can be gleaned at the
links. One thing is important to note, however, as we survey what looks
very much like a major maneuver of some kind between the “swamp” and the Trump
administration.
According to a DOJ source, the four prosecutors who left the
Stone case on Tuesday changed their sentencing recommendation
between the time they briefed it to the Department and their formal filing with
the court. The clear implication is that they told their bosses one
thing, but then filed with the court for another. The sentence they
recommended – seven to nine years – was well outside the sentencing guidelines
for the offenses, and the DOJ (according to the source) had not seen or
approved it. Rather, the DOJ thought the recommendation would be a
different one.
At this initial stage, readers should draw their own
conclusions about who is telling the truth here. There is reason, at
least, to believe that the formal sentencing recommendation was made without
approval from the DOJ higher-ups.
That would be enough reason for the four prosecutors to be
off the case. But Jessie Liu wasn’t involved in the sentencing recommendation,
so that incident, in itself, doesn’t explain why her nomination was withdrawn.
Enter the March 2017 handoff
This section of the analysis is what we might call a
wholly-owned subsidiary of sundance at Conservative Treehouse, to whom
the credit goes for the superb sleuthing that revealed
a bottom line I’m going to state up-front. It is fully developed by
sundance, and for the essential background and documentation, please read the
CTH article.
The bottom line is that some media outlets have had a
complete copy of at least the first FISA application on Carter Page since March
of 2017, when Senate Intelligence Committee official James Wolfe leaked it to
four journalists, including his girlfriend Ali Watkins. This is recorded
in documents from James Wolfe’s prosecution, which were unsealed in 2018.
CTH points out what that means: that outlets like the New
York Times, where Watkins later took a job, have known what was in the FISA
application since shortly after the compromising handover by James Wolfe took
place. The date was 17 March 2017, two months after Trump took office,
and long before the FISA applications were made available in redacted form to
the public.
Moreover, Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, may have known about the compromise at the time it
happened.
And Jessie Liu was the prosecutor who eventually accepted a
plea from James Wolfe to a minimal charge, and
effectively swept this bombshell leak of incendiary Top Secret material under
the rug. As pointed out at CTH, a core motive for this was the
determination of Wolfe’s defense to call witnesses who would almost certainly
have revealed that members of the Senate knew what Wolfe was doing.
Sundance calls this the “DC cover-up that’s as big as
Spygate.” Key aspects must be noted in that regard; e.g., that there are
media outlets that must therefore be complicit in selling the pubic a bill of
goods on the “FISA applications” narrative. They’ve known all along what
those applications contained, yet published as if they didn’t: not to protect
national secrets, but to support a narrative that injured real people – through
harassment and manufactured prosecutions – based on falsehoods that the FISA
applications expose.
Sundance also makes a sound case that Mark Warner, and
probably others, knew as well; not only what was in the FISA applications
(which Warner had to know, having been authorized to read them unredacted in
the SCIF), but that the FISA applications had been leaked to the media.
Again, it is certain that at least one of the first two FISA
applications (from October 2016 and January 2017) constituted the material
leaked. A sentencing document filed by the
DOJ in December 2018 makes that clear. It may have been only the first
application that was leaked; I discuss that below.
This is undoubtedly enough of a compromising situation for
some in the Senate to not want it coming out in a confirmation hearing for
Jessie Liu. Sundance prepared some good, suggested questions for the
now-canceled hearing. But I doubt members of the Senate would really want
the answers coming out in public – or even just the implications raised by the
questions.
This was Spygate
I would go further than sundance, meanwhile, and say that
this cover-up isn’t merely as big as Spygate. It is Spygate.
It was part and parcel of the effort to gain advantage over Trump and take him
down, an effort that started before he was even elected, and one whose full
panoply of methods we still haven’t grasped.
To lay it out, I’ll start by noting something that hadn’t
clicked into place with me until sundance highlighted it in the post linked
above. I had followed the James Wolfe case, knew
about Jessie Liu’s role, and even understood that the classified material
involved – i.e., leaked by Wolfe – was related to the FISA applications.
But it hadn’t registered meaningfully with me that Wolfe
leaked the material on 17 March 2017.
Recognizing the significance of that specific date makes the
difference in how we see the event and its motivation. Why? Because
during that period, Devin Nunes was working on a set of requests for the
executive agencies which included FISA applications, and information about
“unmasking” actions taken by federal authorities.
Nunes had sent a demand – disclosed to the Washington
Post on 15 March – to the NSA, CIA, and FBI for information from them on
whose names had been “unmasked” from incidental (non-targeted) electronic
surveillance, in the period of the Trump transition (and probably some
additional time on either side of it).
But he also sent a separate request to the Justice
Department specifically for FISA applications.
In February 2018, the Lawfare blog posted a handy (if
hostile) timeline of Nunes’s efforts to
figure out what was going on with the unmasking. Most Spygate followers
will chiefly remember Nunes’s dramatic press conferences
later in March of 2017.
But he had gained sharpened awareness of the unmasking as an
issue when it became clear, with the David Ignatius article in the Washington
Post on 11 January 2017, that Michael Flynn had been unmasked in a phone
call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Nunes fully understood the relationship between
FISA-authorized surveillance and unmasking. And he knew that it would be
necessary to look into the records on both aspects of intelligence processing
to determine what had been going on.
Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee tells press he has been notified that Trump team
communications have been “incidentally,” legally collected. He also said more
names involved in Trump campaign have been unmasked but … MORE TO READ]
After President Trump sent his famous 4 March 2017 tweets
about having been “wiretapped” by Obama, Nunes and Adam Schiff, the ranking
member on the House Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to the acting
attorney general (Dana Boente) requesting “copies of any applications the
Justice Department submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
any orders that the court released, and any copies of warrants issued by
federal judges or magistrates regarding Trump, his campaign surrogates,
business associates, employees, family and friends.” The timeframe
requested was the year 2016.
That letter was sent 8 March 2017. And note this about
it: whatever your opinion of Devin Nunes, one thing no one would say of him is
that he was complicit with either anti-Trump media or anti-Trump officials
(i.e., “deep staters”) inside the government.
Thus, his letter of 8 March would have been the first
communication from such a person – an official outside the anti-Trump
circle – posing formalquestions, to which the Carter Page FISA
applications had to be the answer.
In other words, Nunes was taking aim at the real
target. (Something I noted at the time; see my link on his 22 March 2017
press conference, above.)
Don’t get ahead of me here, because understanding this as a
Spygate episode requires seeing it whole. Nunes and Schiff gave the DOJ a
deadline of 13 March to respond. On 13 March, the DOJ requested more
time. Nunes’s office told the media that if there was no response before
FBI Director James Comey testified to the House committee the following Monday
(20 March), Nunes would request the information during Comey’s hearing, and
would subpoena it if necessary.
On 17 March, the day the FISA applications were made
available in the SCIF on Capitol Hill, Nunes then provided this very
informative statement to the media: “The Committee is satisfied that the
Department of Justice has fully complied with our request for information from
our March 8 letter on possible surveillance related to Donald Trump or his
associates.”
That statement comports perfectly with what we would expect
if the DOJ had forwarded copies of its 2016 applications made to the FISA
court, including the Carter Page application.
Note two things. One, fulfilling this request from
Nunes and Schiff would have been the reason the Carter Page FISA application
was sent to the Hill on 17 March 2017.
Mark Warner and the Senate Intelligence staff would have
known the request had been made – and known that the documents were coming on
the 17th – because Warner was in the Intelligence Gang of Eight, and Schiff
would have shared it with him, at a minimum.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) –
Youtube (screen capture)
Two, only the first Carter Page application, from October
2016, would have met the terms of the House Intelligence Committee request,
which was for applications made in 2016.
That’s why I think it’s probable that only the first FISA
application was leaked to the media on 17 March 2017.
A decision point, identified
But of more importance is the point that Nunes was the
catalyst for shaking it out of the DOJ. That means that at the time the
FISA application was leaked, and indeed for at least a couple of weeks before,
some group of Deep Staters was closely attuned already to the significance of
Nunes’s role and what he was trying to do. They knew he was on the hunt
for a trail of activity that would lead back to them.
The interval between 13 and 17 March is thus an intriguing
one. The DOJ asked for more time on 13 March, but apparently without
previewing anything it was committing to. By 17 March, it had delivered
the Carter Page FISA application, along with the others from 2016.
That tells me a decision was made between 13 and 17 March to
deploy the Carter Page application rather than trying to keep it under wraps.
The method of deployment was sending it to Capitol Hill.
This would constitute circumstantial evidence of the
collusion that sundance postulates, presumably involving actors other than
James Wolfe on Capitol Hill – and suggesting cooperation with the Justice
Department, which sent the FISA application, and the media, whose members
received the leak from Wolfe.
On Tuesday 21 March, the day after Comey’s 20 March hearing,
Nunes made his famous visit to the White House complex and viewed material on
the unmasking of U.S. persons, an inspection arranged for him by officials
inside the White House. The next day, 22 March, Nunes briefed his
concerns to the media, setting off a firestorm.
There were other events in the ensuing timeline; read them
at your leisure. I’ll skip ahead to the one on 30 March, when as Lawfare
recounts, “The New York Times reports that Ezra
Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for
intelligence, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer in the White House counsel’s office
working on national security issues, provided Nunes the intelligence documents
he referenced in his March 22 press conference.”
The events highlighted above, including that last one, are
the ones that matter.
The Nunes events make this Spygate
The date 17 March 2017 was not happenstance. Because
Devin Nunes was probing for information about surveillance of the Trump team,
there were quite a few people on Capitol Hill – and in the media – who would be
motivated to set a counter-operation in motion at the first opportunity.
It’s easy to identify 17 March 2017 as that opportunity,
because that’s the date stamped on the “official copy” of the Carter Page FISA
application that made its way to the Hill.
But can we find the outlines of a Deep State/anti-Trump plan
here? Can we justify thinking in terms of collusion, and supposing that
multiple people were involved in taking advantage of that opportunity?
There are strong reasons to say yes. They relate to
two circumstances. One is the 30 March New York Times article
identifying two individuals as Devin Nunes’s contacts in the White House.
The other is the very first event in the Lawfare timeline:
11 November 2016, when Nunes was appointed as an adviser to the Trump
transition team.
That means Nunes himself had been subject to being
dragnetted in the Carter Page surveillance, by the two-hop rule, since 11 November
2016.
Nunes probably wasn’t the only one on Capitol Hill, for that
matter. But once he was seriously on the hunt for FISA and unmasking
information – which would lead to the activity trail of the anti-Trump
surveillance – the motive to keep him under surveillance would have been
exceptionally strong. He met that definition by mid-February 2017 at the
latest.
Remember, it’s not “wiretapping” we’re talking about.
It’s not listening in on phone calls. The method would have been
retrieving “non-contents” information from telecom providers, using tailored
queries that met the criteria authorized by the Carter Page FISA warrant.
That kind of surveillance, covering phone calls, texts, and other instant messages,
could be done without the subject or anyone connected with him ever knowing.
If Deep State planners were tracking Nunes, they had not
only the motive to drop the Carter Page FISA application to the Hill, and
thence to the media, on 17 March 2017, but the means to foresee that Nunes’s
contacts with the White House would lead very soon to his being afforded a look
at what had been going on there. They were alerted, in other words, to
the danger to themselves, in time to take planned and deliberate advantage of
the FISA application’s arrival on Capitol Hill.
Tracking Nunes (and probably the other two individuals named
by the New York Times) was also a likely and accurate way to identify
Nunes’s White House contacts(s). It had the merit of not requiring an
initial cue from a source who actually witnessed the interactions.
Knowing whom Nunes had been in contact with, his monitors could then ask
intelligent questions of White House leakers who had only incidental awareness
of what others in their vicinity were doing.
Pulling Liu’s nomination
If I were Trump and Barr, and had assembled information
pointing in essence to a scenario like this – or were still in the process of
assembling it – I wouldn’t want the Jessie Liu confirmation hearing to trip
landmines before their time.
Trump wouldn’t withdraw the Liu nomination merely out of
misplaced compassion for embarrassed senators or Deep Staters. He’d have
good reasons to do it for his own purposes (with or without a dramatic event
like the four prosecutors’ departure).
One of those reasons would be that Jessie Liu probably
doesn’t belong in the job at Treasury. Whatever else she knew about James
Wolfe and the Senate Intelligence Committee in the March 2017 timeframe, she
knew that the classified material Wolfe leaked to the media was the Carter Page
FISA application. She was apparently willing to cooperate in keeping that
explosive information out of the public eye.
It may be that Liu was less culpably complicit than willing
to go along, on the sidelines of an ambiguous situation, under pressure from
higher echelon. We needn’t have a bloodthirsty attitude about Liu, per
se.
But here’s what we do need to have: an accounting to the
American people, before even one more official involved in very questionable
actions by the government gets another pass.
The people have trusted the system in the blind long
enough. No reckoning – no happy-face career progression for the known
participants. If you want to object, go sell it to Michael Flynn and his
family. (Or sell it to Roger Stone. DOJ let James Wolfe off with a two-month
sentence.)
An additional reason for pulling the Liu nomination is
simply that it may not be time to detonate the landmine yet. John Durham
is doing his job. He, Barr, and Trump will know when it’s time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
____________________________
J.E.
Dyeris 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.
As the Globalist and American Left (cough Dem Anti-Christians) assault
the Liberty of Christians in the name of immoral Multiculturalist Humanism
trying to ram unbiblical immorality down the throats of Bible Believers, read
and comprehend the Originalist thinking of the Founding Fathers and America’s
modern supporters of the Founders.
JRH 1/21/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather
than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to
post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a
huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
Many of America’s founders defended religious liberty,
believing it grounded on the duty men and women have to worship their Creator.
As late as the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans were able to work together to
protect that liberty, but unfortunately, the political left has begun to
abandon religious freedom.
Government and LibertyThe featured image is a study for a mosaic in the
Wisconsin State Capital, “Government and Liberty” (c. 1912), by Kenyon Cox
(1856-1919), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
As the 2020 presidential campaign heats up, conservatives
would do well to reflect on two important speeches made last fall that were
virtually ignored by the media. In September, President Trump gave an excellent
address at the United Nations where he made it clear that religious freedom is
not just an American constitutional right, it is a God-given right that should
be respected across the globe. A month later, Attorney General William Barr
made virtually the same argument in a speech at the University of Notre Dame.
As late as the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans were able to
work together to protect religious liberty. Most notably, the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 passed in the House without a dissenting vote, was
approved 97 to 3 by the Senate, and was signed into law by President Bill
Clinton.
Unfortunately, the political left has begun to abandon
religious freedom. The Obama Administration showed little concern for religious
liberty when it required businesses to provide contraceptives and
abortifacients to employees, even when business owners had religious
convictions against doing so. It also offered a rare challenge to the doctrine
of ministerial exception, a legal protection which holds that religious groups
should be free to choose, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “who will
preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”
Not to be outdone, then-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke
announced in October that churches that hold disfavored views on same-sex
marriage should lose their tax-exempt status. He apparently views this
important religious liberty protection as a “reward” that can be withdrawn when
the government disagrees with the theology of a church, mosque, or synagogue.
In the academy, Professors Marci Hamilton, Brian Leiter,
Richard Schragger, John Corvino, Micah Schwartzman, and others have made
well-publicized arguments criticizing religious liberty. These scholars have
penned multiple works with titles such as Why Tolerate Religion? and
“What if Religion Is Not Special?”
In his United Nations speech advocating religious liberty,
President Trump made it clear that religion is, in fact, special. He observed:
The United States is founded on
the principle that our rights do not come from government; they come from God.
This immortal truth is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and
enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Our
Founders understood that no right is more fundamental to a peaceful,
prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious
convictions.
He is absolutely correct. As I argue in my recently
published book Did America Have a Christian Founding?,
Americans embraced a robust view of religious liberty precisely because they
believed that it was a God-given right. Colonial leaders such as Roger
Williams, William Penn, Elisha Williams, Samuel Davies, Isaac Backus, and John
Leland regularly made biblical and theological arguments to support this
freedom. So did the civic leaders who crafted our constitutional republic.
Many founders believed that religious liberty is grounded on
the duty men and women have to worship their Creator. A fine example of this is
George Mason’s 1776 draft of Article XVI of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights:
That as religion, or the duty
which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, can be governed only by reason and conviction, not by force or
violence; and therefore that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the
exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and
unrestrained by the magistrate [emphasis added].
Mason’s draft of Article XVI was reprinted throughout the
states and had an important impact on subsequent state constitutions and the
national Bill of Rights. But it was not the draft that became law. James
Madison, in his first significant public act, didn’t deny that individuals have
a duty to worship God, but he objected to the use of “toleration” because it
implies that religious liberty is a grant from the state that could be revoked.
The Virginia Convention agreed with Madison and amended Article
XVI to make it clear that “the free exercise of religion” is a right, not a
privilege given by the state. Like Virginia, the Massachusetts Constitution of
1780, which was largely drafted by John Adams, grounds religious freedom in the
“duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the
Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.”
President Washington agreed with Madison that it was far too
late in the day to speak of religious “toleration.” In his wonderful 1790
letter to the “Hebrew Congregation” in Newport, Rhode Island, he noted that all
citizens
possess alike liberty and
conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is
spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another
enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the
Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to
persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection
should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their
effectual support.
Like Mason, Madison, Adams, and Washington, President Trump
and Attorney General Barr recognize that religious liberty is a God-given
freedom that must be robustly protected, both in America and throughout the
world. As we contemplate who we should vote for in November, we should remember
which political party is most committed to protecting what many founders called
“the sacred right of conscience.”
+++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather
than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to
post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a
huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
_____________________________
The
Imaginative Conservativeapplies the principle of appreciation to the discussion
of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with
mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly
contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The
Imaginative Conservative is sponsoredbyThe Free Enterprise Institute(a U.S. 501(c)3 tax exempt organization). Your donation
to the Institute in support of The Imaginative Conservative is tax
deductible to the extent allowed by law. (Gifts may be made online or by check
mailed to the Institute at 9600 Long Point Rd., Suite 300, Houston, TX, 77055.)
