Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive.  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.

As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents.  When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process.  Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.

Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part.  You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment.  However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.

This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment.  Again, pay close attention. WATCH

What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}.  What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.

Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.

First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents.  They requested a return of documents containing classification markings.  These are two entirely different things.

Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings.  Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.

Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved.  In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security.

Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare game playing with words taking place, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed.   Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.

During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place.  The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:

[Source pdf, testimony transcript – page 43 and 44]

Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval.  It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un].  CNN even wrote about it HERE.

[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]

Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.

We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.

Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue.  Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.”  A diplomatic déntete was created.

NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.

Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?

Would all of this hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim?  YES!  Would President Trump even characterize those as government property?  NO!

Can you see the way it unfolds?   Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.

In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√.  Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.

But wait, it gets better….

First, why would President Obama write about the DPRK nuclear threat in his letter welcoming President-elect Trump to the White House?  It always struck me as odd, even years ago, when Trump would talk about this issue.  It never made sense why President Obama would memorialize that type of an issue in writing, until today.

Normally that type of policy and leadership issue would be part of a conversation.  “Mr. Trump, as I depart office the number one issue you might first want to deal with on a national security basis is the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, here’s my opinion”… and so it would go.  Why write it down?   If the intention was to create a record that would always mean the letter was going to remain hidden from public review, then writing about DPRK nukes would be a solid tool for that motive.

Lastly, who would know about the content of the letter that President Obama wrote to President-elect Trump, specifically as it centers around a national security issue?  Who would know what Obama wrote to Trump?

Lisa Monaco would certainly know the content of the letter written by Barack Obama to Donald Trump; she, Susan Rice and Kathryn Ruemmler might have even assisted in the writing of it.  Remember, it was Susan Rice who wrote the January 20th “by the book” memo memorializing the FBI targeting of Trump, and Kathryn Ruemmler represented Susan Rice as her lawyer when investigators made inquiry.

Lisa Monaco was previously President OBama’s senior advisor for national security.

Currently Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco is the head of the DOJ operation that was targeting the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents and framing the legal issues for the DOJ to use in court.  Special Counsel Jack Smith also reports to Lisa Monaco.

Things making sense now?  (read more)

As wildfires continue to spread across western, and now central and eastern Canada, burning forestland and homes, the mainstream media continues to imply that climate change is the main culprit, despite a growing number of reports showing that arsonists have been arrested for allegedly setting dozens of fires. 

“Several arsonists have been arrested in the past weeks in different provinces for lighting forest fires,” People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier tweeted. “But the lying woke media and politicians keep repeating that global warming is the cause.”

Several arsonists have been arrested in the past weeks in different provinces for lighting forest fires. But the lying woke media and politicians keep repeating that global warming is the cause. https://t.co/rdZsnG9b6F

— Maxime Bernier (@MaximeBernier) June 7, 2023

The severe nature of the wildfires has caused Canadians to wonder why they have spread so rapidly, especially as many of the affected areas are not typically impacted by wildfires of this degree or at this time of the year. 

In the past months, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have arrested several arsonists who have been charged with lighting fires across several provinces including Nova Scotia, Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta. The motive behind lighting the fires is unclear.  

One Albertan, John Cook, has been arrested and charged with 10 counts of arson after setting a string of wildfires in and around Cold Lake, a hamlet near Edmonton. 

In addition to damaging vehicles and structures, Cook was charged with setting aflame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Cherry Grove, Alberta. 

A Vancouver man charged with arson has been released until his trial on October 9, with Cpl. Michael Gauthier asserting that he is not a risk to light further fires.

“This incident was not random in nature and we do not believe there is risk to other members of the public or businesses from the individual who was arrested,” Gauthier stated. 

Despite the numerous arrests, mainstream media outlets continue to publish articles attributing the wildfires to climate change. 

“Rise in extreme wildfires linked directly to emissions from oil companies in new study,” the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reported.  

“Canadian forest fires are the latest costly climate disaster that public accounts fail to capture,” another CBC headline read.  

“Climate change is increasing the risks of wildfires in the country, experts say,” Global News attested.  

Despite these claims, statistics from Canadian National Fire Database reveal that wildfires across Canada have decreased in recent years, having peaked in 1989.

Notably, the mainstream media outlets attributing the increase of wildfires to climate change have received funding from the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which is actively pushing for increased bans on using natural resources in Canada to combat “climate change.”

About this potential conflict of interest, retired Canadian colonel David Redman recently testified that legacy media outlets are “ministries of propaganda,” with multiple former mainstream media employees also making similar comments about their past employers.  (read more)

Massive wildfires have rapidly spread across the Canadian province of Quebec, fueled by dry and hot weather conditions and multiple lightning strikes. The number of fires escalated from 36 to over 100 following a thunderstorm on June 1st, catching authorities off guard. As of Thursday, that massive conflagration has gotten worse. Much, much worse. And the flames are spreading.

Trace Gallagher of Fox News gave a sobering update on Thursday about the unprecedented scale of the wildfires in Canada, which have ravaged through the forested countryside and has dealt severe damage to air quality throughout the northeast.

Wait- how many fires! pic.twitter.com/TYrbldKqG6

— Karli Bonne’ (@KarliBonnita) June 7, 2023

“While most fires in the Western provinces are under control, the fires have now opened new fronts spreading to eastern provinces of Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario. Right now, there are 437 active fires with about 250 out-of-control. About 26,000 Canadians have evacuated their homes because of the fires. And experts say the hazardous conditions in New York City are the worst on record.”

A Tik Tok user named Al Vanchon had his own beliefs about why the raging wildfires may be suddenly spreading throughout the Canadian wilderness.

There are 250 "out-of-control" wildfires now raging across Canada.

This Tik Tok user believes he may know why. pic.twitter.com/LatPyIGgEc

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) June 8, 2023

“If you haven’t heard the latest up here in Canada, BC’s on fire, the East Coast is on fire, and now Quebec,” he said. “Quebec all in one day, the entire province caught fire on a beautiful day.”

“This is planned, and I’ll tell you why it’s planned,” he continued. “They want to move people out of the countryside, into cities, then they want to lock ’em down in 15 minutes cities. How do you do that? Contaminate the air, contaminate the water, and so on.”

“This is all a ploy and a plan to get people into cities to implement their smart cities,” he added. “And it’s the only way they can control you. First, they have to go to digital currency and get you into smart cities. This is happening and this is real. This is evil. This is pure evil.”

The official line on how the wildfires in Canada started are that lightning strikes and unseasonably warm weather are to blame. There are many officials attempting to blame “climate change” for the wildfires.

There has been a considerable “global response” to the Canadian fires. In addition to around 110 firefighters from France, 600 firefighters from the United States are en route to Canada, with some expected to arrive in Quebec next week. However, a new challenge has arisen as some fires have grown so large that they are merging with others, presenting a difficult challenge for firefighters.

With over 280,000 hectares (691,900 acres) of land already consumed by the fires, this is already Quebec’s most severe fire season to date. The Canadian province is grappling with wildfires on an unprecedented scale, a phenomenon more commonly associated with regions in western Canada such as Alberta and British Columbia.

The fires have already sparked a talking point among climate activists and politicians who claim without evidence that the wildfires have indirectly been caused by human activity. While others are much more accusatory in their linkage of human activity to the fires.

In summary, civilian distrust of the government is at an all-time high following the authoritarian Covid response, the ensuing lockdowns, the mask mandates, and the vaccine mandates. It is unsurprising but unfortunate that any time there is a national emergency, the first response for millions of people now is to suspect the government is somehow behind it. (read more)

Yes, it’s true, according to the information contained in the Jack Smith indictment of President Donald John Trump, The Conservative Treehouse likely holds similar “classified documents” as outlined in the case by the special prosecutor.

Once you understand how, you then understand one of the most overlooked nonsensical aspects to the insufferable DOJ and FBI case that has been pushed in the media for the past year.

The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists.  It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”

[SOURCE page 41]

There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings.  As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.”  When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.

You might think this is a one-off use of the “documents with classification markings” lingo, but it’s not.  This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago.   Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents.  The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]

[Indictment Source, page 4]

It is obvious from the demand, the DOJ/FBI were casting a wide net on the compliance side, knowing that amid hundreds-of-thousands of presidential documents and records, there would be obscure documents with classified markings that had nothing to do with national security.  Thus, the “classified markings” establishes a Lawfare compliance tactic.

It will be interesting to see how this nonsense progresses.  It becomes easier to call it nonsense, when you simply accept the approach being used.  If the DOJ-NSD, FBI, Special Counsel or NARA were genuinely interested in ‘national security issues’, they would not be playing obtuse word games in order to structure court filings simply for media narrative engineering and propaganda purposes.

Again, all of these insufferable pretending elements simply create more avenues for smart legal minds to highlight to the court.  The judges can see through this nonsense, and their action or lack thereof becomes part of showcasing their own agenda.  Fortunately Judge Cannon has a very solid background on the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  She wouldn’t need to have this stuff pointed out to her; she has already experienced it.

In the interim, for your own conversational points with friends and family, simply draw their attention to the difference between Classified Documents and documents containing “classified markings,” eventually everyone except the rabid orange-man-bad moonbats will figure out the games being played. (read more)

WASHINGTON — Mike Davis, Founder and President of the Article III Project, issued the following statement after the unsealing of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of President Trump:

“Today’s indictment, the day after we learned the FBI covered up evidence since 2017 then-Vice President Biden and his family took at least $10 million in foreign bribes and changed U.S. policy, confirms Garland’s indictment of Trump is political. The Presidential Records Act, not Espionage Act, controls a former president’s handling of his presidential records. Generally, per a binding 2019 Justice Department legal opinion, it’s legally impossible to obstruct an investigation into a non-crime. The theory the President of the United States can declassify information and still get charged for espionage–under a ‘national defense information’ theory—will not survive Supreme Court review,” Davis said. 

The Article III Project (A3P) was founded by veteran GOP operative and attorney Mike Davis, who, after helping win the Senate confirmation battles of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, developed the reputation as a “take-no-prisoners conservative eager to challenge the left with hardball tactics,” as reported in The New York Times.

A3P defends constitutionalist judges, punches back on radical assaults on judicial independence (like court-packing) and opposes judicial and other nominees who are outside of the mainstream. Davis previously served as Chief Counsel for Nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and led the Senate confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and a record number of circuit court judges. (read more)

If you haven’t heard the news yet, the Biden Administration’s Justice Department announced Friday afternoon that they were indicting President Trump, listing 37 felony allegations against the former president.

I’ll spare you the outrage or celebrations that you’re probably seeing proliferating through the media industry, depending on which side you stand on, because none of that is particularly consequential to the issue at hand.

I surveyed some followers on social media to get a sense of what people were thinking, and the reactions varied from “I’m so sick of Donald Trump dominating the news for every day of my existence!” to “this is a witch hunt!”

Tyler Cardon, the CEO of Blaze Media, added some insightful commentary too.

“Everyone’s stuck in an endless cycle of whataboutism,” Cardon replied. “There are no objective standards anymore. Probably never were. It just wasn’t as obvious as it is now. Politics is about power. Those who wield it punish their enemies and reward their friends.”

Indeed.

I somehow find myself agreeing with all three sentiments expressed.

Nonetheless, there’s a clear lesson from this debacle: no more pretenses.

No more pretending that there is equal treatment in the United States under the current system. These indictments prove with absolute clarity that there is currently no such thing as equal treatment under the law here. It’s a sad state of reality for a country founded on the fundamental notion that all people are created equal.

The politically motivated indictment against a former president makes it crystal clear that there are two tiers of justice in America.

There is a Uniparty in the United States that maintains special protections for virtually any and all crimes, and then there is everyone else.

Donald Trump falls into that “everyone else” category, despite having obtained the highest office in the country, because he did not ideologically conform strongly enough with Uniparty sentiment.

Crimes committed by Uniparty members always go unpunished. The president’s crackhead son can engage in a multi million dollar influence peddling scheme. The former Secretary of State can get caught destroying evidence of her criminal activity. Multiple presidents can get away with lying their country into a series of devastating wars, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. They are truly untouchables.

And instead of acting as neutral representatives of law and justice, federal agencies are committed to their status as the Praetorian Guard of the Uniparty. They still pay lip service to American founding ideals, but they know that we know that they are actively making a mockery of it, and they still don’t care.

"We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone," Special counsel Jack Smith said in defending his indictment. "Adhering to and applying the laws is what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more, nothing less." (read more)

Note: What follows is the text of Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue for his show on April 24th, 2023. He was fired, and his show was canceled, over concerns by Fox News executives about the content of this monologue — which was never aired. Sections placed in parentheses here are, generally, directions for where producers should place video clips.

(Here’s the lead I’m envisioning. Sandy Cortez just did an interview with Jen Psaki in which she demands that authorities pull our show off the air. )

Members of Congress aren’t allowed to talk like this. The Constitution of the United States prohibits it. American citizens have an inalienable right to critique and criticize their political leaders. Our politicians are not gods. They’re instruments of the public’s will. They serve the rest of us, not the other way around. For that obvious reason, politicians can never censor our speech or try to control what we think. That unchanging fact is the basis of our founding documents, of our political system and our personal freedoms. As a former government official who claims now to be a journalist, Jen Psaki should know this, and defend America’s foundational principle. She refuses. Instead, Psaki nods along like a fan as Sandy Cortez calls for law enforcement to shut down news programming. The White House Correspondents Association and various other self-described advocates of press freedom stay silent too. Apparently they agree with Ocasio-Cortez, or they’re too afraid to say otherwise.

It’s distressing to watch this. The last thing America needs is more public figures saying radical things. What if we came on the air five nights a week and called for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to be handcuffed and carted away because we don’t like her political views? We could certainly do that. We never would, because it would be terrible for our country. Extremism is self-perpetuating — the more you encourage, the more you get, exponentially. We don’t want that. We want to live in the United States we had a few years ago, where people who disagreed with one another were willing to debate directly, using facts and reason, and didn’t call for their opponents’ imprisonment. We’ll do whatever we can to return to that standard, including giving Sandy Cortez airtime. She is welcome on this show any time. We’ll travel to meet her anywhere, and give her the full hour. We’ll be civil and rational, and let those watching decide who’s got a more appealing vision for America’s future. We’ve asked her to come on this show many times. We’ll continue to do that.

And where, we wonder, is Ocasio-Cortez on the question of Ray Epps? January 6th was a violent insurrection they tell us — and on the basis of that claim, they’ve turned the war on terror against America’s own citizens. We believe that is a false characterization. As we’ve said many times January 6th was not an insurrection, which is why no one has been charged for that crime. No guns were brought into the Capitol. No plans to overthrow the government have ever been found. It was not an insurrection. But there was violence. A Capitol police officer called Michael Byrd executed Ashli Babbit, an unarmed protestor, and was praised for doing it by politicians in both parties. Outside the building, a riot broke out. Windows were smashed; cops were assaulted. We were offended by this on the day it happened, and we said so. We still are. We’re against violence, whether it’s in Chicago, Ferguson, downtown Kenosha or on the west steps of the Capitol building in Washington. The main question from January 6th is, how did the violence start? Nearly two and a half years later, we still can’t say with certainty, but there are clues in the contemporaneous video tape. The night before the riot, for example, a man called Ray Epps was caught on camera encouraging protestors to breach the capitol.

The next day, as the violence began, Epps was filmed again doing the same.

As one friend asked, “You mean with all the well-credentialed amoral people available in the Democratic Party, this is the best they could do? And to top it off they put the babbling idiot named Kamala Harris in office to serve as his backup?”

It is indeed a rather remarkable thing to behold.

But the more I think about it, I suspect we might be asking the wrong questions.

The queries above assume that the Deep State respects us enough to want to make a credible show of the candidate selection process.

But what if that is not the case?

What if the goal is not to entreat us with some semblance of excellence, but rather to humiliate us, and in this way, makes us internalize the idea that all attempts to resist are futile?

I mean if you have the ability, through your complete control of the government and media matrix to get an obviously mentally incompetent man into the highest office in the most powerful country in the world (while placing another—Fetterman—with similarly limited cognitive capabilities in that same country’s Senate in order to stave off possibly devastating Republican investigations) what can’t you do?

Most importantly, from their point of view, it seems that those of us here and abroad who still have the temerity to admit the grotesqueness of what is going on, begin to sink into despair regarding the possibility of wanting or engendering meaningful change under such circumstances.

It’s not like any of this is new. Sadistic humiliations rendered from above have a very long and illustrious historical genealogy.

There are many, many stories of potentates and mafia dons forcing the “lesser” members of the groups they control or seek to control to salute their favorite animals in public or, as we used to say on the playground, to “Eat Sh-t” in both its real and metaphorical forms.

Closer to us in time and space are, of course,  the systematized humiliations and tortures at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and a whole host of Black Sites around the world imposed on prisoners either captured or kidnapped by the US in its so-called War on Terror.

There were, of course, many ways our government could have dealt with such people. We could have treated them the way we treated German Nazis and Italian Fascists, who were held at Ft. Devens not far from my hometown in the last years of WWII, where they were fed, housed and used as farm labor in the fields beside Americans of both genders, and received—as a member of my family who helped provide it told me—regular medical and dental care.

But no, the Neo-Con architects of that conflict had no time, in an objectively much less dangerous era dealing with an objectively much less dangerous and much less destructive enemy, for separating the core humanity of their opponents for what were, from the US point of view, their mistaken beliefs and actions. 

They wanted to completely humiliate and destroy them, and set up intricate systems in Cuba and other places for doing so. 

And it didn’t stop there. 

While rounding up human beings to be tortured abroad, the same government-entrenched sadists began subjecting those of us at home to rituals like shoe removal at airports, or the bizarre, march-in-track-lanes-while-sniffed-by-dogs thing they do at RDU in North Carolina, measures that, as anyone who travels to other countries knows, are not done anywhere else because they contribute nothing substantial to insuring safe flights.

But, of course, they are very good at making many citizens feel small and powerless before the state. 

If you pay close attention, you’ll see that the present oligarch class’s desire to rub our noses in it is proliferating like mushrooms in a damp forest. 

Here are just a few of the completely shameless F-Yous that come quickly to mind. 

—The entire Deep State and its media acolytes concertedly lying about the reality of the Hunter Biden Laptop

—Pretending with a straight face that Putin blew up his own pipelines and now the dam whose disappearance threatens lands and cities he currently controls. 

—That January 6^th was violent but the summer of BLM riots was not.

—Basically admitting in the February 4^th, 2021 Time magazine article how a coalition of powerful non-elected forces (they of course elide the Deep State’s coordinating role in all of it) came together to insure Biden’s presidential victory, while criminalizing anyone else not from their camp who even brings up such manipulations as a concrete possibility.

—Using the combined might of Big Pharma, Big Tech and the Deep State to demand, in violation of all existing moral and medical norms, that hundreds of millions of people be forced to take an untested genetic therapy that, even if its claim to efficacy were true, which they were not, was clearly not needed by 98%+ of the population, an operation topped off by having our 21st century version of Caligula’s horse say he was ”losing patience” with the morally grounded people among his electorate who refused to go along with the madness.

The list is infinite. 

And it doesn’t end with what we generally think of as the world of politics.

Have you tried getting a problem resolved by telephone or online customer service in the last few years, years marked, of course, by an obscene rise in both corporate consolidation and overall corporate profits?

Good luck! 

“Oh, so you’ve got a problem with some thing or service we sold you? Great, we’ve got a person who we pay cents per hour to in another country who barely speaks English and who reads off a script and has no actual power to resolve anything who will deal with you. Ok? And you’ll have the privilege of speaking to him after waiting for hours during which time you could have done many other enjoyable or productive things with your own life. Ok? What’s that? After waiting all that time and talking to the poor underpaid script reader your problem wasn’t resolved? Oh well, We’ve got the power and we’ve got your money and you’ve got no recourse. F-You! Peasant!” 

I know a 4th-generation Chinese acupuncturist who lived through the Cultural Revolution. He tells me with bitter laughter of what it was like at the hospital where his father was a senior doctor during those times. There is one story he references again and again to underscore the idiocy of those times: how the government appointed the coal shoveler from the boiler room to be president of the hospital complex for several years. 

The government obviously knew he was incapable of doing anything but destroying the important institution. 

So why did they do it? 

They did for the same reason that the Deep State placed the self-evidently incompetent Biden in the chair. 

To show us that they can do it, and in this way, to have us internalize the idea that we are effectively powerless to oppose anything else they choose to medically, culturally, and economically shove down our throats in the coming months and years. 

The next move is ours. 

Will we live down to the image they have of us as scared and stupid beings? 

Or will we decide to recover some of our lost dignity and struggle to bring rationality and democracy back to our lives? (read more)

Rather than write 10,000 highly specific and legally granular words to deconstruct the Trump indictment, I will share the opinion of others with supporting analysis and add some substance to the issues. Later I will compile all the various points of analysis into one very granular article.

First, it is important to always remember why this indictment is taking place.  The DOJ, specifically Lisa Monaco, are continuing the offensive against Trump in large part to cover for the actions of the Obama administration in the originating targeting of their political opposition.  Originating Spygate operations (’15-’16), Russiagate (’16-’17), Mueller (’17-’19), Impeachment #1 (’19-’20), Durham (’19-’23) and Jack Smith ’22-present, are all part of one long continuum of weaponized DOJ and FBI operations.  The entirety of the effort is to protect the actions taken by the Obama administration. [Note to congress: Questioning Durham this month is defense key #1]

In this interview {Direct Rumble Link} Jeff Clark gives his opinion of the statutory weaknesses that exist in the case as outlined in the indictment.  The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  WATCH.

Granular note, putting aside the fact that classification is irrelevant to the statute being used, within the indictment please notice how the DOJ states 102 classified documents [pg 27], some that were never marked classified as noted in the indictment [count 11, page 30] but defined as classified after DOJ review, were discovered after the Trump affirmation of compliance in July 2022.  This is the predicate for the FBI raid.  Again, a total of 102 documents were identified as classified by the FBI/DOJ.

They were unable to use classification status as a legal mechanism to attack President Trump; instead, they use the non-production as an evidence enhancement to the ridiculous claim that Trump lied to them (sec 1001); but notice how there are only 31 documents [31 counts] outlined as national defense security issues.  This would mean approximately 70 classified documents are memory holed by this special counsel.

70 defined “classified” documents retrieved, no description provided, those documents not a part of any legal contention – they just disappear.   I suspect we know what those sets of documents pertained to, and they have everything to do with DOJ and FBI conduct in Russiagate.

CTH has a years-long research library on all of these Trump-Russia investigative issues, including the in-real-time background stories that encompass them, and that library is massive.

If you have a specific question, ask me in the comments section and I will do my earnest best to review and answer.

Tell me what questions you have, and I will do my best.

Be of good cheer, I really don’t think this indictment will past the first defense challenge, The Presidential Records Act.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. called for emphasizing the “content of our character” over “the color of our skin,” the subtext was “stop judging people as a faceless collective on the basis of their superficial appearance and instead look to them as individuals with unique characters.”

It is tragic that King’s plea for an integrated, assimilated society, in which race became incidental, not essential to our personas, has mostly been abandoned by the Left in favor of racial stereotyping, collective guilting, and scapegoating by race and gender.

Indeed, many of the old pathologies—fixation on racial essence, obsession with genealogy, nullification of federal laws, states’ rights, and segregated spaces and ceremonies—are now rehabilitated by woke activists.

In that larger landscape, the collective adjective and noun “white” now has also been redefined and mainstreamed as a pejorative to the point of banality.

“White” followed by a string of subsequent oppressive nouns—“rage,” “supremacy,” “privilege”—has become a twitch on campus. Diversity, equity, and inclusion deans and provosts cannot write a memo, issue a communique, or sign a directive without a reference to “white” something or other.

Like the [Bolshevik, Billionaire & BlackRock promoted] omnipresence of transgenderism in popular culture, all of a sudden, the obsession with whites as a Satanic collective has become a national fad—a pet-rock or hula-hoop-like collective madness.

Yet such an addiction remains bizarre in a variety of ways. Millions in the present are now to be libeled as oppressors by the contemporary self-described oppressed—supposedly for what some whites who are mostly now dead once did to now mostly dead others.

Yet what does “white” really mean anymore? Is it an adjective or noun indicating color? Culture? Race? Ethnicity? Is white defined as three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter paleness? Is it an overarching state of mind that encompasses both “Duck Dynasty” and “The West Wing”?

Certainly, in a multiracial, intermarried nation, with 50 million residents not even born in America, the term is a construct that can mean almost anything and thus nothing much at all.

Hispanics are often lumped in with other “marginalized” peoples as part of the vast diversity coalition. Yet most Latinos are indistinguishable from Italian-, Arab-, Greek- or Portuguese-Americans, who, in turn, are all usually considered part of the “white” majority. Does a mere accent mark or trilled “R” transmogrify a blue-eyed Argentinian-American into the preferred nonwhite, diversity collective?

In our crazy racially categorized society, had George Zimmerman just adopted his maternal surname Mesa and Hispanicized George to Jorge, then a “Jorge Mesa” might not have been so easily demonized as what the New York Times slurred as a “white” Hispanic following his deadly confrontation with Trayvon Martin in 2012. 

The controversial City University of New York firebrand and graduation speaker Fatima Mousa Mohammed recently railed against capitalism, Zionism, Israel—and, of course, “white supremacy.” Yet she herself is whiter than white. She is now an elite with a law degree. Is she then a beneficiary of “white privilege”? Or do her radical politics trump skin color and earn her exemption?

Is a snarly, divisive Joe Biden, barking at the moon about “ultra-MAGA” and “semi-fascist” white monsters, then, not a purveyor and beneficiary of white supremacy by virtue of his woke politics?

I know a lot of white mechanics, forklift drivers, and assembly workers. I have never heard one employ one of Biden’s racial putdowns like “boy” or “junkie.” Do they enjoy white privilege in some way the Biden family consortium does not—despite Joe’s past fulsome praise of iconic segregationists or his Corn-Pop fables of black youth petting his golden hairs on his sun-tanned white legs, or Hunter’s taboos about dating Asian women?

“The View’s” Sonny Hostin has created a mini-career in imaging all the ways in which she can smear “white” women as demonic (“White women, in particular, want to protect this patriarchy”) as she thinks up new Hitlerian gas metaphors of dehumanization, such as white women resembling “roaches voting for Raid.”

When the media wishes to attack black conservatives like Larry Elder, it now can call them “white supremacists.” When it wishes to warp the news for its woke agendas, it assures us that a Latino mass-murderer was a “white supremacist” and then, in Pavlovian fashion, academics follow with essays assuring us that their “research” proves Hispanics too can be white supremacists.

The creation of false racial identities is an accurate touchstone of perceived collective racialized privilege. “Passing” for white in the racist days of Jim Crow reflected a means of escaping racist segregation and discrimination for blacks.

Now the increasing trend of whites seeking to pass for nonwhites—Elizabeth Warren, Ward Churchill, Rachel Dolezal—reflects a self-interested and careerist assessment that nonwhite status is advantageous.

In college admissions, are applicants more likely to massage a non-white or white identity for perceived advantage? Is the racist ossified “one-drop rule” or “one-sixteenth” genealogy now rebooted as helpful proof of proving white or nonwhite heritage?

Then we come to the absurdity of lumping together 330 million diverse Americans, with ancestries that are often quite antithetical—Serbians and Albanians, Turks and Armenians, Israelis and Syrians, Germans and French. Are all these ancient antagonists reduced now to white automatons of a sinister collective borg?

Arrive as an immigrant from Hungary or Estonia, and—presto!—you are culpable for creating supposed monsters of the past like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, whose statues must be toppled or defaced? Arrive the same day from Oaxaca and you are somehow exempt from such reparatory burdens?

Immigration, at least, is immune from the academic perversion of research, and simply reflects realities on the ground. Millions of immigrants instinctively vote with their feet. We are told the U.S. current population is 67 percent to 70 percent “white” while yearly immigrants, legal and illegal, may total upwards of 90 percent nonwhite.

But how is this paradox possible? Given the loud global warnings about “white rage” and “white supremacy,” why would millions of nonwhites risk their lives to reach a country where they would be assured of being subservient to “white privilege”?

Can it instead be true that they simply do not believe what media and political elites tell them, given they have learned from prior immigrants that far from being at risk, they will have opportunities impossible in their native countries?

Do not new arrivals risk their lives to enter the United States because they rightly assume that a so-called white majority country strangely, unlike their own tribal homelands in China or Mexico, does not fixate on race but instead encourages those who do not look like the majority to join their commonwealth—in a way the Mexican Constitution, for example, traditionally did not?

Class apparently now means nothing. Does the white mechanic in Provo supposedly think like the Pelosi family—as a fellow “white” person?

Are Barack Obama’s “clingers,” Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” and “irredeemables,” and Joe Biden’s “semi-fascists,” “Ultra-MAGAs,” “dregs,” and “chumps” all of the same mentality? Do they share the same values as those embraced by Hunter Biden, Jane Fonda, and Adam Schiff, by virtue of some mystical bonds of whiteness?

Where are the data to support the charge of imperious whiteness? Do so-called raging whites commit hate crimes in numbers greater than their demographics?

In fact, they are underrepresented.

Do purported whites hunt down people of color as if we are all living in 1920s rural Mississippi?

In fact, in relatively rare interracial violent crime, whites are up to 10 times more likely to be victims of black- or Hispanic-perpetrated violence than agents themselves of interracial assault.

Do white supremacists send poor people of color abroad, as often argued, to die in rich white men’s wars?

In fact, white males died in Iraq and Afghanistan at twice their numbers in the general population. Is that asymmetry proof of what Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin pontificated about in fixating on white privilege?

How do we adjudicate or define “proportionate representation”? What is disproportionate?

Would it be the more than 70 percent of African Americans in many professional sports at six times their percentages of the population? Or perhaps the current admission statistics of the incoming class at Stanford University, where the university boasts that just 22 percent of its 2026 class is so-called white?

Is it white privilege, rage, or supremacy that explains why seven of the current 25 cabinet and cabinet-level secretaries of the U.S. government are heterosexual white males? Does white privilege reveal why Asian Americans, on average, enjoy an annual median household income some $25,000 higher than their white counterparts?

Are whites, by virtue of their supposed privileged caste, immune from suicide? In fact, the so-called white suicide rate is more than double the rate of blacks and Hispanics.

Do supremacy and privilege explain why two-thirds of the annual opioid overdose deaths are among whites?

Perhaps to substantiate the boilerplate of “white supremacy” and “white rage,” we might look to efforts at retro-segregation?

Are privileged whites insisting on white-only college graduations? Perhaps they are demanding set-aside spaces on campuses, where they feel “safer” and can enjoy racial affinities and solidarity by excluding others? In fact, there are racially segregated spaces on campuses, but they tend to exclude whites.

Perhaps the Left means white supremacy is a euphemism for a return to segregated housing and red-lined neighborhoods. In fact, there are racially segregated dorms on campuses, the so-called “theme houses,” but again these were demanded by nonwhites.

We are told that it is not safe for the diverse to be around white people, given their supposed violent proclivities. But that certainly seems not to be the case for our elites. The Obamas often lecture the country on housing discrimination and the historic efforts of whites to self-congregate and exclude. But the ex-president owns four expensive homes, in Kalorama D.C., Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii, and Chicago. Yet he is least likely to reside in his richly diverse Chicago neighborhood and apparently feels more at home with the mostly white neighbors of his other three estates.

Indeed, some of the most severe critics of “white privilege” and “white rage” are themselves ensconced in white neighborhoods, such as the Duchess of Sussex or LeBron James. When Oprah Winfrey damns white supremacy in graduation speeches, is her subtext a snarl at her fellow billionaire neighbors in Montecito?

So, what is going on with the contemporary fixation on white, white, white?

Why are there so many Duke Lacrosse, Covington kids, Tawana Brawley, and Jussie Smollett cases, as if the dearth of white oppressors and the multitude of would-be oppressed requires the fabrication of so-called white hate crimes?

Why does Joe Biden lecture the country on its supposedly greatest terrorist threat of “white supremacy”—this from the most racialist president of the modern era, who sets himself up as the judge of who is and who “ain’t black”?

This rebooted white collective stereotype seems to be the obsession of two general groups. One cadre is the elite professional, left-wing whites. By any definition of income and status, its members are quite blessed and privileged. For them, voicing the new white pejorative is a sort of psychological mechanism that excuses their own guilt-ridden privilege, by fobbing purported toxic “whiteness” onto an amorphous “semi-fascist” other, while virtue signaling they are not like “them.”

“Them,” of course, are those who live and work in places like East Palestine, Ohio, and who have zero privilege but, by the Obama-Clinton-Biden standards, are culturally and socially deplorable.

Such “white rage” and “white supremacist” mantras are also careerist cues that signal, as with party membership of the old Soviet nomenklatura, that they are correct and now audited for raises, promotions, and rewards. 

The second group is composed of the wealthy, left-wing minority elites in politics, media, entertainment, sports, and government service. For the Al Sharptons and “squad” members of the world, damning “white, white, white” bogeymen alleviates them of any painful analysis of inequality, such as the role of endemic illegitimacy and absent fathers in nearly ensuring a lack of parity. It is hard work to buck the teachers’ unions and set up K-12 charter schools in the inner city that focus on math, science, and languages to ensure parity. But it is easy and cheap—and far more lucrative—to blast the SAT test as “racist” and demand reparative admissions to Yale or Harvard.

For the racialist careerist, the less racism there is to find, all the more essential it is to root it out somehow, somewhere. So, here arrives a new genre of manufactured hate crimes, whose logic is “even if it did not happen, it reminds us that it could have happened.”

The dearth of actual racism also demands a new set of adjectives that serve as something like sophisticated detectors to discover otherwise invisible natural gas fumes. The adjective “systemic” means only the select can now spot racism. Like air, it is everywhere but invisible and thus requires battalions of diversity, equity, and inclusion inspectors to use their training to expose it in the common atmosphere.

“Microaggressions” exist as a tacit admission there are no aggressions as we commonly define them. No matter—there are still hints that there might be some racial aggression, once experts redefine words and gestures to ferret out micro-racists in our midst.

Where does this all lead?

We are wasting trillions of dollars in capital, labor, and time in tribal cannibalism as our friends abroad watch in horror, and our enemies savor our decline into collective suicide—while we sink into debt, our cities turn barbaric, our borders disappear, our criminal justice system collapses, and our military chases its tail.

We know from history the ultimate destination of tribal chauvinism, and it is not pretty. Once a society retribalizes, it descends into a Hobbesian war of all against all. Everyone eventually seeks out or manufactures a tribal identity for self-protection. Tribalism operates on the principles of proliferation: if a neighboring nation goes nuclear, then everyone in the neighborhood must too.

Unless some passengers on our runaway train force our engineers to hit the brakes, we are headed over the cliff into Yugoslavia. (read more)

I've posted several times about one of my favorite movies, a nearly two-decade-old low budget film called Facing the Giants, which received ho-hum reviews from critics.  Early on, the viewer sees Coach Taylor’s Eagles are hapless, starting a do-or-die season with a record of 0-3 (no wins to three losses).  One day, the beleaguered coach is fretting in his office and is paid a visit by an older man named Mr. Bridges who has paced the halls of the school for years praying for a spiritual revival.

Mr. Bridges encourages the coach and tells him he is to bloom right where he is planted because God still has plans for him at the school, even though whispers persist everywhere around him.  The coach asks him in disbelief if he really believes God wants him to hear that message and Mr. Bridges says this:

There were two farmers who desperately needed rain, and both of them prayed for rain.  But only one of them went out and prepared his fields to receive it.  Which one do you think trusted God to send the rain?

The coach knows the answer, and the rest is history.  His team goes on to win it all and Coach Taylor sees God’s hand at work in all aspects of his life.  We God-fearing, patriotic Americans living in 2023 also face giants of fear and failure, and thus far, are laboring in vain because our attitudes and actions are not collectively in line with the values and desires we express in writing and in speech.

What I am going to write today may offend you, and I’m alright with that.  Some of the best things that happened in my life, even though they hurt then, and perhaps caused lasting damage, drove me to greater heights.  My Dad made fun of my weight when I was in middle-school and told me he was embarrassed to watch me play baseball.  That did in fact cause me serious self-esteem issues that lasted for many years, but also drove me to excel and persist in a way few others can and maintain a level of physical fitness that sets me apart from those who made fun of me all those years ago, when I was busy being picked last for sports teams and underachieving in big ways. 

How else do you think I’ve lasted this long on the road, travelling 271 days for work last year, never getting sick, and taking everything that can possibly be thrown at me?  If you’re sitting around angry at the state of the nation today, yet mentioned in one of these groups described below, then this article is for you.  There is no time like the present to push away apathy, commit to action, and live your life without the belief that what you do leaves no lasting impact.

If we are going to pray for rain, victories over these powers and principalities, then our actions need to line up with the belief that we expect to receive these victories over darkness from God Himself.  It has been made abundantly clear to us that these giants are far too imposing and powerful for us to handle ourselves, or we would have long since done it by now.

These areas must be prepared to receive rain, and quickly:

Engagement

Are we truly doing everything we must do to achieve victory on key freedom battlefields?  You can tell what those battlefields are by discerning which issues the politicians are refusing to resolve to the benefit of the people.  Those appear be to be election integrity, medical freedom, equal justice, and other critical issues.  I have always told event attendees that election integrity is the only political issue that matters, because without it, we have no say in who we have as representative leaders.  I usually carry on describing the battles for medical freedom and justice for political prisoners, as well as the pro-life cause, to be top-shelf choices for citizen engagement.

Clearly, if you’ve followed my work, you know my field is election integrity.  That’s why I don’t stumble into the medical or judicial fields often – so I stay on task and in my lane, and most importantly, out of the way of others with a bigger platform than I have for those, or any other, fields.  Everywhere I go, it never fails – people are eager to solve the crisis of our system of elections.  If 80% of self-described Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, then 99% of those attending election integrity events do (the exceptions granted are for spouses, friends, or colleagues dragged along for the free dad jokes).

Why is it, then, that our critical counties are desperately short on precinct committeemen?  Maricopa County, Arizona, ground zero for the election integrity crisis, is many hundreds of precinct committeemen shy of being fully staffed, not only more than two and a half years after Trump’s stolen election, but seven months after Kari Lake’s.  In fact, a number of the precinct committeeman spots that are staffed are filled by members of the Arizona Republican cartel, with a short supply of patriots will to step up to the plate.

Well, they’re just going to steal it again, and the courts are corrupt.

It isn’t you that is supposed to deliver a miracle.  That is God’s job.  Read your Bibles – God still requires action even when he is busy doing a miracle.  David still picked up the stones, Joshua marched around Jericho, Moses stuck his staff in the sea, and Daniel willingly went to the den of lions.  Christ himself even went to the cross, a sentence reserved for the most despised, heinous enemies of the Roman Empire.  How are we supposed to drive out the vote, get eyes on the lowest levels of election administration that catch voter fraud (different than election fraud), and implement key policy locally and statewide when we can’t even step up to fill the most basic leadership positions available pertaining to elections?

Christians reading this – did you know that atheists engage in political activities at a rate that is double that of white evangelical Christians?  Are we truly able to spend all of June complaining about a woke corporate vomit-fest when we have all but ceded the civic and cultural terrain to those who fully embrace postmodernism?

The same can be said for the other mountains impacting culture, as defined by the great Lance Wallnau, who has become a good friend of mine.  If we care about medical freedom, are we organizing lawfare against companies that violate the rights of our citizens?  If we espouse pro-life views and criticize the abortion lobby, are we finding ways to make it easier for would-be mothers to choose life?  Posting on social media is no longer the end goal of activism.  We must outrun and outhustle our opponents if we are to impact society.

Attitude

Coach Taylor had his own memorable line in the movie, telling a player with a bad attitude that his attitude was the aroma of his heart.  My dad ingrained in me that my attitude was my altitude, and even wrote me about the importance of maintaining a good attitude when I was across the world in Afghanistan, and he was at home dying of cancer:

Are our attitudes in this freedom movement, which is supposed to oppose the status quo of corruption, whether that comes from the right or the left, and enhance the liberty of the nation, something to emulate, or something to discard?  Sure, there are infiltrators inside the wire, but you all know if this applies to you, or if it applies to many of our fellow patriots who suck energy from a group.

You know the drill:

(Good news is posted)

You’re just stringing us along with “hopium,” and nothing will ever change.

(Bad news is posted)

So you’re telling us it’s over?

(Neutral news is posted)

This is taking too long!

If you are a leader, your thoughts and actions impact those around you in ways you may not consider.  You may be strong enough to drive on, but if your pessimism forces ten other people to pack it up and take shelter, where then is your army?  We have plenty of influencers, but far too ground troops thanks to discouragement, disillusionment, and apathy caused by lack of pursuit of achievable goals.

Conduct

The political right has become radicalized and baptized in ideological purity thanks to the failings of those we call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  I never heard the term until I was 24 years old, but since then, have found it to be overused, and generally held in reserve to verbally punish those who don’t align perfectly with one’s own viewpoints.

Anyone not against us is for us.  Those who want clean elections, even if they don’t know exactly how to achieve that goal (who does?), are on our side.  We don’t need to start splinter groups creating the same wheel every time someone has a disagreement.  Children in kindergarten learn right away to keep their hands to themselves and to learn to share toys with other children.  It seems to me that many on this side of the operation need to re-learn these critical lessons.

Every time an influencer with a huge following hits another influencer with a huge following, it is not the influencers who take on the damage.  It is the subscribers who are wounded because they often don’t know who or what to believe.  Why?  Because most people are not political.  They may know elections are rigged, but they grab at low hanging fruit, or people who offer only elementary solution, and because of that, may still get involved.  We spend more time hitting, doxing, digging, and swinging at people who are on our side than we do swinging at the enemy or organizing for action, as proven by the vacancies I’ve described in Maricopa County and elsewhere, and as shown by statistics showing the dominance of the irreligious in political participation over Christians.

For example – I do not agree with anyone who believes that the 2024 election can or will be won by our ballot harvesting; however, to oppose them on anything more than technique and strategy in a public forum would be to oppose the good things they do, such as registering new voters, raising awareness, and getting people off of their butts to engage with their neighbors in an age in which iPhones have taken the place of real relationships and camaraderie.

We need people on our side fighting for fair elections, or the unborn, or for political prisoners, who have taken vaccines you yourself would not have taken (practically every veteran leaving the military from 2021 and beyond), and we need people on our side who have only recently pushed away views that are left, even far left, of center.  If we don’t allow people to change, we don’t have the numbers to turn the tide in America.  Like it or not, there is a Gospel lesson in there, too, and it is not lost on me that many of the key players in Scripture came from outside of the circle of public approval.

Many people claiming to war with us war against us even in terms of simple economics, claiming to be capitalists while acting like socialists, harassing people over being paid modest amounts for their time, work, and intellectual property while taking all the slings arrows that come from a given event.  While failing to understand the left’s dominance of economics and what that means for we little people, they discourage others from taking up the fight.

Finally, while I am critical of many of the establishment candidates lining up for the 2024 race, I am willing to disagree at the personal level for the sake of the operation.  I have one friend in mind who is doing great things in the political world who has seemingly faded from view over a DeSantis-Trump fissure, and I regret deeply that political division has caused movement toward these goals to stall in many ways.

Faith

This gets to me like no other point on my list.  If social media weren’t so essential to spreading the word and communicating with the troops in the field, I would likely cease using platforms like Telegram, Twitter, and Truth Social.  Public officials are fair game for criticism of their open corruption, obstruction, evil agendas, and lies, and even so, I almost always keep said criticism on social media focused on those specific items, not their personal failures, children, or sex lives. 

I consider it highly discouraging to see so many on our side proclaim Christian faith and use that faith to crush others at a personal level who may or may not ascribe to the same worldview.  Twitter and Telegram are toxic cesspools of drama, gossip, slander, and evil of which every word will one day be answered for.  If there is anything (thus far, not the media, mileage, occasional high blood pressure, stress, threat of peril, loss of ability to climb a corporate ladder) that makes me want to move away to obscurity, it is the constant bickering, infighting, and drama among purported patriots and followers of Christ that, instead of being in the world but not of the world, are behaving just like those we claim to oppose.

This does not mean we don’t fight back, have an edge, or get hot blooded.  Our faith calls us to engage, to stay grounded to our values, and to effectively lead others who are not as strong into action.  We must do everything possible to prepare to receive victory, and until we have our own houses in order as pertains to engagement, attitude, conduct, and faith, we will be continuously frustrated in the face of our challenges. (read more)