Washington State Representative and Army veteran Matt Shea is a Republican from the Spokane Valley (Eastern Washington) area. Matt Shea is not a racist. Matt Shea is not a terrorist. Representative Matt Shea is a liberty-leaning conservative Christian that actually believes in the Republican platform. He is more conservative than many. He angers progressives in and out of the Republican Party because he takes a no-holds-bar approach to promoting a society based upon Christian moral norms and the Bill of Rights; thus, he has become popular in the “patriot” movement and the enemy of the far-left antifa.
The patriot movement, in general, are conservative Christians who lean libertarian. We have a strong attachment to the Bill of Rights and especially the 2nd Amendment. We are often modern-day anti-federalist or extremely distrustful of the corrupt over-powerful federal government and unaccountable administrative Deep State. Yet the same men would often fight tooth and nail for their local governor. The attitude of the Sage Brush rebellion is nothing new out here in the West.
Recently a Seattle-based retired FBI agent named Kathy Leodler, who founded a firm called The Rampart Group, delivered a “report” to the Washington State far-left Democrats. Yes, there are Democrats in Washington State that wear communist black shirt (antifa) political pins as they perform their official duties in the State capital. In this report, retired-FBI agent Kathy Leodler accused Representative Matt Shea of being a domestic terrorist. The story has been picked up by a lot of lying, liberal and legacy mainstream media.
There are similarities between what violent communist black shirts (antifa) is trying to do to Republican Washington State Representative Matt Shea and what the congressional Democrats and their far-left aligned groups and the lying, legacy, liberal mainstream media tried to do to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and President Donald Trump. In all three cases, some questionable people make allegations, then a partisan investigation and then “cancel culture” or attempting to remove someone from public life you politically disagree with.
In Brett Kavanaugh’s case, it was Christine Blasey Ford; in Trump’s impeachment trial, it was initially started by Democratic-aligned opposition firm Fusion GPS, paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), who hired a retired British spy Christopher Steele. In Matt Shea’s example, it was a Republican turned progressive turncoat Jay Pounder, retired FBI agent Kathy Leodler and far-left Democrats in Washington State…
More information has been released on the fateful day that LaVoy Finicum was murdered on a lonely highway north of Burns, Oregon.
In January 2016, a Dead-man’s roadblock was set up on Hwy 395, seemingly by order of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) top agent in Oregon, Greg Bretzing…
The motion outlines the government’s version of events on January 26, 2016. It also states that the FBI requested the State police were not to wear their standard body cameras.
This is a highly unusual request, especially in the current societal climate. It generally benefits officers to have their actions recorded during potentially dangerous events.
To have the FBI’s elite Hostage Rescue Team specifically request assisting officers not wear them does not bode well for the expected outcome for the civilians involved.
In an additional apparent lack of transparency, they FBI also asked that subsequent interviews with agents not be recorded. This was, again, unusual as questioning is normally recorded, as the FBI well knows.
Read the entire article at Redoubt News by clicking here. And, yet, FBI agents only seem to worry that political attacks are tarnishing the agency’s reputation rather than the agency’s own continued bungling tyranny.
malheur noun mal·heur \ maˈlər \ archaic: misfortune, 1. misery resulting from affliction, 2. an event resulting in great loss and misfortune
Ron Paul has written an article on What the FBI/FISA Memo Really Tells Us About Our Government
The release of the House Intelligence Committee’s memo on the FBI’s abuse of the FISA process set off a partisan firestorm. The Democrats warned us beforehand that declassifying the memo would be the end the world as we know it. It was reckless to allow Americans to see this classified material, they said. Agents in the field could be harmed, sources and methods would be compromised, they claimed.
Republicans who had seen the memo claimed that it was far worse than Watergate. They said that mass firings would begin immediately after it became public. They said that the criminality of US government agencies exposed by the memo would shock Americans.
Then it was released and the world did not end. FBI agents have thus far not been fired. Seeing “classified” material did not terrify us, but rather it demonstrated clearly that information is kept from us by claiming it is “classified.”
In the end, both sides got it wrong. Here’s what the memo really shows us:
First, the memo demonstrates that there is a “deep state” that does not want things like elections to threaten its existence. Candidate Trump’s repeated promises to get along with Russia and to re-assess NATO so many years after the end of the Cold War were threatening to a Washington that depends on creating enemies to sustain the fear needed to justify a trillion dollar yearly military budget.
Imagine if candidate Trump had kept his campaign promises when he became President. Without the “Russia threat” and without the “China threat” and without the need to dump billions into NATO, we might actually have reaped a “peace dividend” more than a quarter century after the end of the Cold War. That would have starved the war-promoting military-industrial complex and its network of pro-war “think tanks” that populate the Washington Beltway area.
Second, the memo shows us that neither Republicans nor Democrats really care that much about surveillance abuse when average Americans are the victims.