Right On: For Democrats, what goes around comes around, part 1

Composite image, elements courtesy DonkeyHotey via Flickr, St. George News

OPINION — I have to hand it to her; Hillary Clinton is right on this one. Russians have been meddling in our politics in dangerous ways that threaten our democracy.

Then again, she should know. She was a party to the crime, a crime worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra.

She raised the issue of Russian meddling last year. Both she and Obama expressed alarm that Trump had positive things to say about Russian President Putin. In comparison, how did the two of them treat Russia?

  • March 2009: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “reset” relations with Russia, promising a “fresh start.”
  • March 2012: Obama told Russian President Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” after the election.
  • October 2012: After Romney called Russia “our No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Obama responded that “the 1980s are calling and want their foreign policy back.”
  • March 2013: Obama canceled a missile defense system in Central Europe opposed by the Russians.

So did this Obama/Clinton reset improve relations with Russia? Hardly.

Kremlin hardliners must have been chuckling at U.S. naiveté while Russia annexed the Crimea, sent its military into the Ukraine, supported Iran and sent warplanes into Syria to back Assad Bashar.

But far more sinister things were going on behind the scenes during this same time period. Clinton used a deal with Russian nuclear companies for her personal gain and the Obama administration covered up the entire affair.

  • 2009-10: A Russian nuclear company sought approval for its purchase of a Canadian company controlling 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves. The FBI uncovered the company’s bribes, extortion and money laundering, all while the company was donating millions of dollars through third parties to the Clinton Foundation.
  • June 2010: Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for giving a 90-minute speech in Moscow, one of 11 payoffs that size or larger while his wife served as Secretary of State.
  • October 2010: The Obama administration approved the sale of U.S. uranium reserves.
  • November 2014: Vadim Mikerin, a Russian nuclear executive working in the U.S, was indicted. The indictment stated Mikerin did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect (uranium) commerce…by extortion.” His actions were known to the Obama administration five years earlier.
  • April 2015: The New York Times reported on the connection between the Russian uranium deal and donations to the Clinton Foundation.
  • August 2015: The Obama Justice Department issued a low-key notice saying Mikerin had reached a plea deal but only for money laundering.
  • December 2015: The Justice Department put out a press release stating “a former Russian official…was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.

This damning sequence of events speaks for itself.

The Clintons benefited personally to the tune of millions of Russian dollars since they use Clinton Foundation funds for their entertainment and travel expenses.

While Hillary served as secretary of state, seven foreign governments donated to her foundation, a clear violation of her pledge to the contrary. Of 154 private interests with whom she spoke over four years, 85 were donors. With her 2016 election loss, donations dried up and the foundation closed its doors. Connect the dots.

The Obama administration, anxiously pursuing its “reset” with the Russians, approved a seamy deal when it knew full well that criminal activity lay just below the surface.

Then the administration did all it could to hide the affair from public view. It delayed prosecution for five years to separate it from Hillary Clinton’s involvement as secretary of state. Next it struck a plea bargain that ignored the major crimes in favor of a generic money laundering charge, less likely to attract public notice.

Watergate was a watershed public corruption scandal. Any objective review of this scandal shows that it far exceeds a minor burglary and presidential cover-up. Here, millions of dollars were paid in what can easily be interpreted as bribes of a cabinet officer and a former president.

As to be expected, all parties involved have denied any wrongdoing.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder both sat on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States that approved the Russian purchase. Both refuse to comment.

Other prominent names involved in this sordid affair have every reason to be conflicted today.

Robert Mueller was the FBI director during this entire time period. Ironically, he is now the independent counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and has every reason to obfuscate and exonerate FBI actions.

Mueller was appointed as independent counsel by Rod Rosenstein, now Trump’s deputy attorney general. Rosenstein supervised the Mikerin investigation. Rosenstein clearly knew that both he and Mueller were compromised to a degree at least as witnesses to the Obama administration cover-up. Also involved was then-assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump.

Judges routinely recuse themselves for far less tangential involvement in a case.

All these names are part of the swamp Trump says he came to drain. Maybe the time has come for a major house cleaning.

Going one step further, I recommend naming a special counsel to investigate this entire affair. If Hillary and Bill avoid prosecution, at a minimum they should disgorge the ill-gotten “donations” to their foundation whose primary function has been to house former staffers and pay personal expenses.

Part 2 next week: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and the real Russian meddling in 2016 presidential election politics.

Howard Sierer is an opinion columnist for St. George News. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2017, all rights reserved.


Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • St Geo November 2, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    I am aghast to have read something as conservative as this in the St George News! Wow! Ed Kociela must be grinding his teeth over this. Me? Well heck, it is what it is. And it’s the truth. Can’t wait for the second installment coming next week.

    • vintagehippie November 3, 2017 at 1:40 am

      Howard, this is a very good summary of the facts !

  • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Howard Sierer needs to find better sources and learn to fact check. Time and time again he makes baseless claims that have been circling the toilet that is the clogosphere. I think the last time he tried to banter with me he used approximately 10 hyperlinks and only one, a blog entry from a college freshman (not in a relevant major), used his exaggerated language or supported his fallacious claims.

    1) He links to the InQuisitr, a second rate news aggregator with a clear bias, about Clinton’s “election loss, donations dried up and the foundation closed its doors” an ironically asks us to “connect the dots” despite there being no dots to connect in his own example. This regurgitated claim is boldly inaccurate in content. The Global Initiative was dismantled last year but the Clinton Foundation is still running. Details matter when trying to so broadly and aggressively condemn someone. Bill Clinton just visited a Clinton Foundation project this week.

    2) The Hill article linked seems like a solid piece of journalism and should give anyone pause about the way Russia has infiltrated our political and economic processes, including the Obama administration. But Sierer once again tries to connect dots that have yet to surface. First, make it clear, these allegations gained traction with the political smears in the trash book “Clinton Cash” which define the character and tone of the claims. Second, the “New York Time reporting” link is actually about the Clinton Cash book and not in house reporting about the link between Russia and the Clinton Foundation donations Sierer claims. That could have been a simple mistake buts it consistent with his sloppy logic and general partisan hackery. While many of that facts surrounding the Uranium One deal are true, many are have been found to be false. And even Clinton Cash never justified any claim of collusion of corruption, despitSe historic relations between the groups. That may explain why Sierer hedges his bets with the final statement about the issue, ie “This damning sequence of events speaks for itself.” He wants the reader to once again connect dots that aren’t even there while avoiding statements of conspiracy himself.

    For me reading on the details I suggest folks go to PolitiFact or Snopes:


    Its a real shame we lack thoughtful, non-partisan analysis of this issue. Power relationships in these moments should be questions but it requires a reasoned, rational approach that folks like Sierer lack. Yeah, most of us have our hackles up about the cozy relationship politicians have with money. In this case, the relationship the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One gives most of us pause. But the details of it don’t match Sierer’s conspiratorial claims. Much of the money was donated by a previous businessman who was out of the company before the deal was done, ie not benefit. The numbers about quantity of Uranium don’t align nor does the current owner, Russia, have a permit to export the uranium.

    It takes a critical approach to dismantle these complex topics but Sierer is just another partisan hack who lacks the media literacy or willingness to dissect the issue in a thoughtful way. Our society needs authors and writers willing to dig into such difficult subjects without the bias of a partisan lens. Sierer is not that person nor do I expect much better from his next installment.

    • John November 2, 2017 at 2:38 pm

      bikeandfish…here’s some facts for your misinformed little know it all mind…1. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: The former head of Russia’s uranium company (Ian Telfer) made four hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million.

      As the New York Times has confirmed: “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

      2. CONFIRMED by the New Yorker magazine: Bill Clinton bagged a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank.

      The New Yorker confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin.”

      “Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asked the New Yorker.

      Similarly, the New York Times has confirmed that: “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

      3. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: Despite claims to the contrary, Uranium One has, in fact, exported “yellowcake” out of America and is “routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.”

      The New York Times confirmed that: “Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license.”

      4. CONFIRMED by The Hill: The FBI has uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.”

      The Hill confirmed last week that the FBI has uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.”

      5. CONFIRMED by CNBC: Clinton Foundation mega-donor Frank Holmes claimed he sold Uranium One before Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the Russian transfer—but his company’s own SEC filings prove otherwise.

      On CNBC, Clinton mega donor and uranium executive Frank Holmes claimed he sold his Uranium One stock before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approved the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to Putin’s Russia in 2010. Yet according to his company’s (U.S. Global Investors), own 2011 SEC filing, Holmes’ company still hold Uranium One stock, a point he later admitted.

      6. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: While eight other agencies had to sign off on approving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was the only government agency headed by an official (Hillary Clinton) whose family foundation received $145 million from foreign investors involved in the uranium deal.

      In its financial review of the uranium transaction, the New York Times confirmed that nine foreign investors in the uranium deal flowed a combined $145 million to Hillary Clinton’s family foundation. None of the remaining eight agency heads who approved the uranium transfer received foreign donations to their family’s charities.

      7. CONFIRMED by The Hill: FBI agents already have an eyewitness and documents to support the most explosive parts of the Uranium One story.

      The Hill confirmed that federal agents have “obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow.”

      The United States House and Senate have now launched official probes into the Uranium One scandal.

      • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 4:01 pm

        Did you read my comment, John? I support transparency regarding money the Clinton Foundation made while she was Sec of State. I don’t support connecting dots that don’t exist.

        1) Remember, that uranium is used for US utilities, per the same article: “That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,”. The same article explicitly states that “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.” Sierer’s posts ignores that reality and jumps to conclusions that are unsupported. But there is an underlying concern about Clinton’s MOU about Clinton Foundation transparency that does deserve specific analysis. I support scrutiny of Clinton but it needs to match the details.

        2) True. But remember where this originated with Scheweizer, he even “said that while his research uncovered no proof of a quid pro quo between foreign interests and the 2016 Democratic frontrunner, the evidence does suggest a troubling trend.” I agree and believe that nuance matters and is constantly lost in translation by the rabidness of folks like Sierer.

        3) True but you cherry-picked the statement despite the next sentence being this: ” Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.” So it was shipped legally, 75% came back to US after being refined and 25% went to countries with a US relationship. Up an up.

        4) True, which is why I said in my initial comment that “Power relationships in these moments should be questions but it requires a reasoned, rational approach that folks like Sierer lack. Yeah, most of us have our hackles up about the cozy relationship politicians have with money. In this case, the relationship the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One gives most of us pause.”

        5) Please hyperlink a source as I can’t verify much of that statement. We do know his capital company held $4.7 million in stock in 2011 but it seems that is a different issue, ie moving the goal post. But the issue was Frank Giustra as he donated the most of the $145 million and did sell all of his stock 18 months before she became Sec of State. Once again, as fact checked, ” the Russian deal occurred “while nine investors funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation” is not supported by the evidence presented in Clinton Cash.”


        6) ZeroHedge? Talk about trash news source. The quote from the Hill seems legit hence my previous statement “The Hill article linked seems like a solid piece of journalism and should give anyone pause about the way Russia has infiltrated our political and economic processes, including the Obama administration.”

        No administration should be above criticism and I support investigation of any illegal ties. But thus far even real journalist, ie not Sierer, have found no evidence that indicts Clinton or their foundation of wrong doing. I agree the cozy relationship between monied interest and politicians is a “troubling trend” and I have no problem with people voting on such information as its brought to light. I am against individuals like the Clintons cashing in on their political ties for personal gain.

        But there is no evidence of Quid Pro Quo. If/when there is, I say prosecute.

    • John November 2, 2017 at 2:46 pm

      bikeandfish.. you still got your training wheels on..Thanks again for a very sad and knuckleheaded denial of the truth ..again..more liberal talking points from rachel madcow.. you do it every tiime

      • John November 2, 2017 at 2:58 pm

        and for your information bikeandfish, snopes is a liberal couple with a cat…

        Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.

        Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

        Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

        • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 4:13 pm

          DailyCaller? They are infotainment.

          If you want to fact check the fact checkers feel free and I will follow the evidence, as I exhibited in my first response to you. But using opinion pieces from Tucker Carlson’s ego site isn’t worthy of anyone’s time. As you make assumptions about what I read you use even worse sources without any sense of irony (Dailycaller and what looks like a copy and paste from ZeroHedge). Show me respectable sources and I will read them. Give me garbage opinion pieces disguised as journalism and I will throw it away.

          I have fully accepted the truth, ie fact checked investigative journalism. I do not conflate the conspiracies of folks like Sierer with truth. He uses fact to make huge jumps in logic that are not born out by evidence. He is a prime example of what is wrong with political pundits on both sides.

          • John November 2, 2017 at 6:46 pm

            just as good as any crap you use..and you just can’t handle being wrong can you?

    • NickDanger November 2, 2017 at 4:38 pm

      Liberal Rule #1: Conservative sources are always lying, and “fact-check” sources are always telling the truth.

      There’s quite a lot of truth in Howard’s article here, Bike. Know how I know? Because I read ALL the sources. I’m well-aware there are people and factions who want to fill me full of lies so I’ll see things their way. So I get my information from the left, the right, all points in-between, and draw my own conclusion if it’s a subject that interests me.

      You are becoming much more parrot-like in your approach, which doesn’t make me happy – just the opposite. In fact, I’d love to believe that here in the ol’ St. George News there is one liberal voice of reason, taking the good with the bad, admitting when his party’s leaders are behaving without integrity (you’ll never hear any intelligent conservative extolling President Trump’s integrity, only his effectiveness), and not merely auto-disputing sources with questionable sources of his own. But Snopes? Politifact?

      Know how you can tell when someone’s lying to you, Bike? When they go out of their way to insist that they are telling the truth. Everything after “To be perfectly honest…” is a lie, just as every “fact check” source on the internet has its own agenda.

      I can’t believe that you, of all people, have been taken in by these so-called fact-checkers. ALL news sources are ostensibly fact-checkers. I’d be a lot more careful in the future, Bike, of the ones that go out of their way to call themselves that.

      Anyway, nice article, Howard, I enjoyed it. Your research does, in fact, check out. Looking forward to the second installment, though frankly, I’m almost tired of beating up on Hillary. She’s certainly not going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020 so as far as I’m concerned, short of investigating her for the numerous felonies of which she is certainly guilty, I don’t see any point in giving her more of this country’s leaders’ (or my) valuable time.

      • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 5:31 pm

        Using snopes and politifact is legit. If they have made mistakes in what I have corrected Sierer on, show it. I verified their investigation through multiple sources. They justify their research with links and sources to allow people to quality control.

        Sorry, but not “ALL news sources are obstensibly fact-checkers”. Most “news” sources as we know them today aggregators and opinion sites: HuffPo, Breitbart, ZeroHedge, etc. They are rarely reliable sources. They aren’t all bad but most aren’t worthy of being considered reliable sources like: New York Times, Washington Post, Wallstreet Journal, The Hill, etc. And when in doubt one can normally fact-check with organizations like Reuters or AP.

        The reality is most people are consuming infotainment, not traditional journalism. Far too much editorializing and far less journalistic integrity. Most of cable news fits that category, on both sides. Its a form of entertainment that mixes in just enough news to satisfy the average person without jeopardizing their bias. Voila, the bubble. You are right about reading material from multiple sources, especially across the spectrum. I figure folks that watch Fox should be willing to watch MSNBC if they accept commentary as news.

        So no, conservative sources don’t always lie nor do liberal sources always tell the truth. Just look at how Maddow was owned by everyone last week. But the DailyCaller and ZeroHedge are hideous platforms, and the same goes for the Inquisitr (l leans left). I can read his sources, the material and their bias and judge them accordingly. And in this case, just because Howard pulls from multiple venues doesn’t mean he is painting an accurate picture, ie the fallacy of “presenting both sides”.

        Per this article…..Howard often links to other sources but like I highlighted in my response he often summarizes them wrong and/or uses them justify conclusions the sources themselves don’t support. And other times they are outright lies, ie the closure of the Clinton Foundation. This article is a prime example. If he left it at just questioning the Clinton Foundation’s and her record of disclosure than it would have been fair. She failed to live up to her own standards and has developed cozy relationships with industry, ie something most of us are tired of. Instead, he fills it with conjecture unsupported by expert opinion. And then he presents that misinformation as fact in a skewed opinion piece. Sadly, given the way people conflate opinion with news, this misinformation makes its way into the public as fact.

        Until Howard stops presenting opinion and conspiracy as fact I will be here to correct his mistakes. It does no good to let his ideas go uncontested, no matter party allegiance.

        • NickDanger November 2, 2017 at 6:06 pm

          Okay, I’m going to give you some information, Bike, and I assure you, THIS INFORMATION IS REAL.

          Factcheck.org was founded in December 2003 by Brooks Jackson, a reporter for CNN, a well-known liberal-biased source. Jackson still serves as Director Emeritus.

          The acting director of Factcheck.org is Eugene Kiely, ex-reporter for USA Today and the Philadelphia Inquirer, also known liberal sources.

          Factcheck.org is now partially-funded by Facebook, the planet’s leading libthink hivemind/echo chamber, which is now notable for censoring and suppressing Far Right content while letting the Far Left rage unchecked.

          The Managing Editor of Factcheck.org? A woman. The full staff of writers? A black man and two women.

          Politifact was founded by the current Deputy Managing Editor of Factcheck.org, Robert Farley, who made his bones with the St. Petersburg Times, which is, guess what…another notorious liberal-biased rag.

          Snopes is a site which was traditionally dedicated to verifying or debunking urban legends. If you really think some internet kid can successfully make the leap from “urban legend investigator” to “final word on Washington politics,” I’m not sure you can be helped.

          In any case, no, your sources are not reliable, Bike, they are either verifiably founded and manned by journalists whose only prior credentials are with known liberal sources, or in the case of Snopes, just a website probably still operated out of some guy’s basement. Probably a very nice basement since they made a TV show out of it a few years ago.

          I appreciate the advice on aggregators, BTW, but no worries there. I only read original sources. It might surprise you to know that I consider the New York Times the single most reliable news source. They certainly have a liberal bias but they also hold their legacy and reputation in high regard, and have the finest ACTUAL fact-checking department in the world.

          • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 8:33 pm

            First and foremost, you can’t discount fact-checkers because of the bias of their previous employers. There would be no viable fact-checking if that was the case as every human has bias in some form. But we can fact check because organizations like Politifact, Snopes and Factcheck.org submit to certain guidelines that can be audited, by organizations like the IFCN, or committing to certain principles that are consistent with such journalistic integrity. As you pointed out, “biased” news sources can be quality and factual if they maintain certain principles like the New York Times.

            Take Snopes, one of the leading fact-checkers in the US. They are audited as IFCN compliant, transparent about their methodology and provide sources for their queries. They may have started out as urban legend checkers, years ago, but their team of researchers is more than capable of handling the work of verifying political facts.

            The fact that the writers for a fact checking website are a black man and two women doesn’t disqualify it as reliable. That approach is about your own prejudice. There is absolutely no merit to using that information the way you have.

            The fact is folks across the political spectrum are capable of reporting the truth. Certain sources become “authoratative” (like Snopes and Politifact) because they consistently adhere to principles that can be tested. Simply stating they aren’t and pointing out who they worked for in the past doesn’t cut it. Given their history you have to show us examples of the mistakes they made and how they refused to address them. That is evidence I would look at. But it better meet the same metrics of an organization like IFCN requires, ie transparent in citations and methodology. It takes a lot more then superficial insults to discount their reliability.

          • NickDanger November 2, 2017 at 11:03 pm

            I most certainly CAN discount fact-checkers because of the bias of their previous employers. No one is non-partisan anymore, and if a journalist ends up working for a partisan publication, it’s a safe bet that it aligns with his interests. No one jumps the fence in journalism. And no one is trying to tear down the fence either.

            So you can act as if the known liberals manning the fact-check sites you frequent are neutral. But then after that, there’s reality.

            I’m not sure you are familiar with the concept of fact-checking in any case. Real fact-checking is done by well-connected journalists with high-level and/or anonymous sources. If someone reliable tells the New York Times that President Trump is hosting a strip croquet game in the Rose Garden, they pick up the phone and call the White House. If the White House denies it, they call their anonymous source in the kitchen. “Oh yeah, they’re playing naked croquet out there right now, I can see them out the window, the President and a bunch of naked ladies.” But do they print that? Nope. They need corroborating testimony first. So they call the White House back and say they know President Trump is playing strip croquet in the Rose Garden and they’re running the story. Then the White House comes clean and starts damage control.

            THAT is fact-checking.

            What Factcheck.org and these other sites do is not fact-checking. It’s basically professional-tier strawmanning.

            Here’s a good example of a “fact check” I read today on Factcheck.org – “Blackout or Ham Radio Drill?” – http://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/blackout-ham-radio-drill/

            Apparently Factcheck thought that the following tweet needed to be debunked: “can’t wait for November 4th when millions of antifa supersoldiers will behead all white parents and small business owners in the town square.”

            They don’t give the name of the person who tweeted that, or any reason any sane person should have, could have, or did take that tweet seriously. They only say, because that date coincides with an annual ham radio drill in which a communications blackout is simulated by the U.S. Army, that “some websites have now spun the annual ham radio exercise into a conspiracy theory involving a government shutdown of the power grid in concert with an antifa-led riot.”

            Tell you what I’d really like to see, is someone FACT-CHECK them on whether this was ever a real story on a real website and was ever considered real news by anyone at all. I never heard that the Department of Defense was planning a blackout to coincide with antifa riots, and I’m practically an information junkie. Did you hear about it? Did anyone? No, what’s really happening is that Factcheck is creating their own fake news to debunk, or just deeming any provocative but ridiculous non-news that they come across into something that needs to be debunked. Whatever gets the page-clicks and keeps the DONATIONS rolling in.

            Also, I am quite free to render judgment based on race and sex when it comes to the division between liberals and conservatives. It’s common knowledge that most blacks are liberals and most women are liberals. Shall I just pretend I don’t know that when confronted with an news staff represented by nothing but members of these special interest groups?

            You know, Bike, you shudder at the harsh reality of it all, but it’s your kind who has exacerbated this great divide we now endure. For centuries this country has thrived under conservative, Christianity-based legislation and practices. Then all of a sudden, pretty much within the last 20 years or so, an entirely new faction has arisen, a faction of man-children, women, beggarly minorities, and sexual deviants. They want to do everything differently all of a sudden, and they have no appreciation for how they got here in the first place. Well, it doesn’t work that way. No, I mean seriously, the country will not function that way. And many of us know that.

            So everyone on the liberal side is suspect. They are enemies of the state as far as I’m concerned. They can’t hide their liberal roots, and I’m not going to allow them to hide behind a facade of non-partisan neutrality. I call out liberals where they sit. In this case, they are currently sitting at your favorite “fact-check” websites.

          • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 11:52 pm

            Yeah, should have edited my statement better about “you can’t” with a clause about doing so and expecting it to be persuasive in any manner. Do what you want, including an odd rant about a fact checked rumor about a ham drill (your demand was answered in the link you provided, ie it ran on InfoWars).

            To clarify, you “ante hoc” fact checking, what you describe, is just one of the legitimate ways of fact-checking. “Post hoc” fact checking like the websites we have discussed is another legitimate way of verifying accuracy of statements. Both are real and important.

            Odd rant about your white supremacist views.

          • NickDanger November 3, 2017 at 12:59 am

            You forgot “male.” White male supremacist. But that’s not what I said, that only reflects what you already know about me. I merely pointed out the obvious statistical likelihood of 1 black male and 2 white females equaling 3 liberals. Only the mentally handicapped or Orwellian doublethinkers would look at them with the presumption of political neutrality. We’re not presuming anything anymore, we’re lining up on the other side of the battlefield now.

            You’re aligned with a faction that has decided white males are the enemy. Well, if we are, we’re the most powerful enemy you’ll ever confront. And if we aren’t, the rest of you are doing everything you can to MAKE enemies of us. This isn’t Hollywood. Out here in the real world, we don’t watch every word we say for fear of losing our job and being demonized by the press. We don’t watch everything we do to make sure it isn’t hurting anyone’s precious feelings. Here in the real world, when you confront intelligent white men with shaky liberal nonsense, you better bring your lunch. We can’t even see the world you’re talking about, only the one we built.

          • bikeandfish November 3, 2017 at 10:06 am

            I think the way you discount the ability of black men an all women from being able to report and fact news accurately definitely fits cleanly into a definition of white supremacy.

            Its interesting that men like you assume that critiques of the specific elements of white history means “white men” are the enemy. Clearly any idea can have its extremist, including liberal ideology, ie Antifa or various minority militant groups. But a critique of how the gender pay gap is noticeably worse for minority women doesn’t mean men are evil. It would be like me assuming because you vocalize white supremacist ideology means all white men agree with such prejudiced world views. Thats now how logic and criticism works. Once again, I think you conflate one smaller thing with a bigger issue, ie elements of US white culture being a condemnation of everything white. Thats are strawman and fear mongering.

            On the other hand at least you own your racial and sex-based prejudice as it makes it easier to simply discount most of your ideas wholesale. Not that we don’t it seriously as we saw in the 2016 election your form of paranoid white supremacy can inculcate itself into a mainstream organization that is actually antagonistic with such prejudice, ie classical liberalism that defined conservatives for decades is fundamentally opposed to institutionalizing such racist and sexist policy (ie the liberty emphasis of Hyde). No matter how serious the threat you pose the littlest of daylight exposes the wholesale unAmerican and hideousness of your ideas. It may take a while, especially given the way alt-right folks like you have subtly polluted populism, but as a new conservative movement coalesces they will not so subtly kick you to the wayside. The RNC is complicit in using you for short term gain but make no mistake they have no interest in you and your ilk beyond votes.

            I have no doubt you can’t see anything other than the racist world you want. You have made it perfectly clear you are blind.

            Did you mean “pack my lunch”? Am I supposed to bring it to the big people table to have my butt metaphorically kicked by the intellectual and moral prowess of John or white supremacists like you? At least get the phrase right if you are trying to be intimidating in any form.

  • John November 2, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    4 hours and not a peep from the snowflakes ! Good piece Howard ! You must’ve hit a nerve ! Can’t wait for part 2 !

  • Pheo November 2, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    This is embarrassing, even for you, Howard.

    First off, that uranium cannot be exported.

    Secondly, I’m just going to cut and paste this from the Weekly Standard, a conservative news source. I know I can’t change your mind, but maybe someone else coming by can see the truth.

    On her Sunday show, MSNBC host Joy Reid claimed that Hillary Clinton did not sit on the panel that approved the Uranium One deal.

    ″So what you’re talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton,” Reid said.

    The purchase of a majority share in the uranium mining company Uranium One, by the Russian Atomic Energy Agency was first approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and received final approval from the Obama administration in 2010. CFIUS is made up of nine departments, including the State Department, of which Clinton was the secretary during the sale’s approval.

    In a 2015 interview, however, Clinton said she was not involved in the Uranium One deal. “There were nine government agencies who had to sign off on that deal,” Clinton told a New Hampshire TV station. “I was not personally involved because that was not something the secretary of State did.”

    At the time, the New York Times received a statement from former assistant secretary Jose Fernandez, who was appointed to the CFIUS during the Uranium One deal. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” Fernandez told the Times.

    So while Clinton may have been briefed on the matter, according to Fernandez and Clinton, the secretary did not personally approve the deal.

    In 2013, the CFIUS posted a general overview of the committee’s process. The article notes the strict confidentiality of the committee, stating, “By law, information filed with CFIUS is subject to strong confidentiality requirements that prohibit disclosure to the public.”

    The CFIUS overview goes on to say that the committee members are made up of the heads of each department and that these members are the ones who review each transaction. The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 states that CFIUS “shall be comprised of the following members or the designee of any such member.” Fernandez, presumably, was Clinton’s designee.

    Both Clinton and Fernandez publicly insist that Clinton did not intervene in the Uranium One deal. And no one with knowledge of the process has suggested that they are misrepresenting the truth.

    • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      Thanks for the thoughtful and supported response.

  • John November 2, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    Just knew the that the truth denying liberals would come out.. they are they ones who need to fact check..they are just so predictable it must be terribly embarrassing for them.. but probably not, they aren’t bright enough to see they have bee played..talk about sounding off with the liberal talking points of the day ! What a bunch of misguided uninformed liberals ! I would say they are giving liberalism a bad name but but being a liberal just means you are stupid anyway.. go fact check and quit watching madcow…

  • KarenS November 2, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    Funny how we have this sudden and voluminous interest in the Clintons and Russia. Some of the dates mentioned go back almost ten years. Oh, that’s right, there is a special counsel who is investigating any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. I feel fully confidant that if there was anything at all to investigate with the Clintons and Russia, our own Jason “Benghazi” Chaffetz would have investigated all of it before he left office. He didn’t so there must not be anything to it.

    • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 4:06 pm

      Yep, more partisan deflection. Clinton isn’t above reproach and any findings of the Uranium One deal that are problematic should result in prosecution. But this partisan deflection only serves the parties involved and not justice.

  • John November 2, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    I commend bikeandfish for his accurate depiction of this blatant attempt to distract from Trump/Russia by flogging a right wing anti-Hillary screed. Please understand she was Secretary of State when the sale was approved and even if you believe the worst of the false accusations it was Obama and the Committee on Foreign Investments who OK’ed the deal.
    Is it no longer politically expedient to blame Obama? You betcha.

    • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      It was the Obama Admin who okay’d the deal, correct. It would appear Clinton never participated directly with the deal as another executive of the Department of State did, ie one of the 9 who voted.

      I think the deal is questionable myself and only looks slightly better under the guise of trying to “reset” tensions. I think Obama and his administration made a ton of mistakes and I have been willing to call him out on that (not here as I started commenting 6+ months after he left office). I am not sure how this deal was in the best interest of the US.

      I just find it a shame that individuals on both sides tend to deflect attention from current investigations by pointing fingers at actions of the other. I believe politicians and public servants should be held accountable to law and the public good no matter party allegiance. If the Uranium One deal requires special counsel, so be it. I just don’t have much faith that the process to decide that will be anything but party line and therefor problematic.

      • NickDanger November 2, 2017 at 5:43 pm

        “I just don’t have much faith that the process to decide that will be anything but party line and therefor problematic.”

        So my question to you then, is this:

        If you are against “party line” politics, why is it that you are so strictly in the Far Left? I mean you’re 100% by the book liberal, you do not agree with ANY conservative viewpoint. Surely they must say something that makes sense sometimes. But not in The World According to Bikeandfish.

        You have never gone any further in condemning Hillary than agreeing that there should be an investigation into her activities. I’ve seen you agree to that on multiple occasions. “Hmm, this does seem like something that should be investigated,” you’ll say, or something to that effect. But never, “Hmm, that does sound like Hillary’s a criminal who has accepted (probably) billions of dollars in bribes in the form of donations to the Clinton Foundation.” A foundation which could only exist via the fact that her husband is a two-term ex-President, and which is, unsurprisingly, not nearly as transparent as the Clintons claim – http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/293507-seven-ways-the-clinton-foundation-failed-to-meet-its-transparency-promises

        Which is, by the way, a bloody good argument for forcing ex-Presidents AND the wives of ex-Presidents into full retirement when they have completed their term(s). But I digress.

        So why so partisan, Bike, and at the same time claiming to be so anti-partisan? Could it be that you’ve gone full contrarian and don’t even know what you believe anymore?

        Just remember, there’s always a seat for you at the big people table.

        • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 6:21 pm

          Its interesting to see people grasping at straws for my political allegiance. I’ll give you a hint…I haven’t voted for the same party two times in a row, for the presidency, ever in my life. Look at my points about the failures of gun control legislation to see how I am not “far left”.

          Why do I critique conservatives on this site more? Have you noticed the ratio in contributors and commentors? Its like 3 to 1. Per Ed, I find he doesn’t cite “fact” as much as the others. He seems to comfortably advocate his opinion, which is harder to fact check given its opinion. Hence why I often condemn his tone and strategy, which I find rather cliche and antiquated.

          These authors volunteer their interpretation of news and I take the time to critique it. That is why the comments section exists, to debate ideas. The authors are trying to persuade us so I figure its fair game to criticize were their logic or examples are faulty. Howard’s are easier to dissect because he is clearly a novice writer, lay at most of his topics and his confidence exceeds the support of his sources. Hyde is clearly more educated in his very narrow topic but fear mongers with extravagance. Ed is a die in the wool liberal who likes to paint opposition with a very broad brush. All three have viable perspective and likely solutions that could help our diverse republic but none seem to be willing to get out of the ideological bunkers.

          Your comment about the big person table gave me a good laugh. I assume that is what you intended.

          • NickDanger November 2, 2017 at 7:24 pm

            Anyone who is grasping at straws for your political allegiance just doesn’t know you, Bike. No straw-grasping here, allow me to identify you since you are apparently refusing to self-identify: You are a liberal.

            Now I will freely admit that I sense a VERY RECENT (as in, just in the last two days) change in your tone. In my humble opinion, I believe you now realize that you’re in a pickle. You don’t have the White House, you don’t have the HoR, you don’t have the Senate, and you don’t have the SCOTUS. You need help. The kind of help only a healthy dose of anti-partisan politics can get you.

            So why don’t you just admit to me, here, this one time, that your opinions in the arena of social justice haven’t changed one bit, but that you do now realize that you’re at the mercy of the opposing party, so you’re taking a sudden anti-partisan stance. I won’t tell anyone, and most people are already done with the local news and on to their nightly television worship by now.

            I find it very hard to believe that you’ve ever voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Who could it possibly have been? It couldn’t be John McCain, George W. Bush, or Donald Trump. Could it? Even I was hesitant to vote for McCain. So it could only be Mitt Romney. But that still puts you voting for either McCain/Palin or Bush/Cheney if you never voted for the same party twice in a row. I can scarcely imagine that, Bike.

          • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 9:25 pm

            Oh, Nick, you don’t know me. You conflate criticism of political ideas with actual affiliation. I am neither a modern liberal nor a classical liberal. I don’t fit in any one political box other than maybe “moderate” which doesn’t really mean much as I think the standard spectrum its based on is fatally simplistic.

            My specific votes don’t match your assumptions nor any traditional box. I vote for individuals without deference to party affiliation which happens to allow me to vote for republicans, democrats, libertarian and other third parties (not much anymore). I won’t reveal who nor verify for you. I will say I often think about how certain tickets will work together with existing representatives, ie almost a coalition framework. Beyond that I don’t find much value in traditional political ideologies.

            My concerns about social justice transcend party and are based on explicit concepts of liberty (hence why I think Hyde can be a viable voice when he doesn’t derail the core idea with fear mongering) founded in classical liberalism. I think you also conflate my ideas about that with the notion that they are best solved at the federal level, which is inaccurate. In fact, you may find those of us who talk about such issues are actually trying to influence us at the societal level without deferring to government intervention.

            Per collaboration…I value collaboration in general because I think it leads to greater stability and sustainability than our current focus on presidentalism (both sides). I have been anti-partisan for at least a decade to the consternation of my friends and family not for opportunistic reasons.

            Best of luck throwing darts at the board.

        • John November 2, 2017 at 9:01 pm

          Thank you Nick, bike is too far gone to be able to admit it..maybe too embarrassed to admit it? But it certainly shows

          • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 9:30 pm

            Actually don’t have any trips planned in the future so I am definitely not gone. I appreciate your concern for my well-being though, as we all know a vacation and rest helps us all. Your compassion shines through again, John. Such a shining example of compassion and charity you are buddy. You brighten our community with your presence.

  • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    On a side note, Romney should get more credit for calling out Russia years ago. They have been a threat for decades and will remain a threat for decades as long as Putin continues to run his authoritarian regime. I get the sentiment of a “reset” but it clearly failed. Its a real shame politicians don’t own those mistakes.

    For the past year the democrats have been drawing attention to Russia because they saw a viable attack against Trump. We’ll see if that was true. Now the republicans are watering at the mouth again over Russia because of the dossier and Uranium One because it distracts from Mueller’s investigation.

    Neither will do so consistently because it doesn’t serve their own interests, ie power, to be consistent. And a concern for the good of the American public gets trampled on in the process. Russia is the only one who benefits from such petty, tribal loyalty in the short and long run.

  • ladybugavenger November 2, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    I love Trump!

    • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      That there is an opinion that can’t be debated.

    • dodgers November 3, 2017 at 5:34 am

      He is getting it done. Kudos to OUR president!

  • commonsense November 2, 2017 at 8:55 pm

    Alert. Bike fish is Ed. Now you know. Consider the source.

    • John November 2, 2017 at 9:25 pm

      I thought that might be the case..haha!

    • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 9:33 pm

      I can’t imagine the site allows the contributors to use sock puppet accounts.

      The conspiracy theories are rich on this site, that is for sure.

      • John November 2, 2017 at 10:51 pm

        they let you on…

        • bikeandfish November 3, 2017 at 10:22 am

          Its okay if you don’t know what a sock puppet is, John.

          Ed seems to have no qualms standing up for his own ideas given he volunteers a viewpoint, every week, that is clearly in the minority for this region.

          • John November 4, 2017 at 9:38 pm

            We all know that you are a sock puppet…you prove it with every long winded blowhard display of your gullibility and arrogance. Life must be tough for you, always being wrong without a clue of how to win anything. No wonder nobody likes you.

    • dodgers November 3, 2017 at 5:40 am

      Now it makes sense. Thanks for connecting the dots.

  • dhamilton2002 November 2, 2017 at 9:20 pm

    Truly disgusting!!!!! Good bye St George News…for good

    • bikeandfish November 2, 2017 at 11:32 pm

      Nothing new there really. Brazille’s opinion rests on established knowledge and confirmation of what most have guessed. Ultimately this is what matters, “This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity”. The parties are private entities and don’t have as much regulation so they sadly get away with alot of unethical activity. That said, if Sanders runs in 2020 they have guaranteed another win for Trump.

    • dodgers November 3, 2017 at 5:46 am

      Hillary controlled the DNC and had full knowledge of the dossier and the millions they paid for it, through Russian contacts, to try to impact our elections. She was intimately involved in her own accusation of Russian collision. This warrants a complete investigation by a special council, but one without any connections to Hillary.

  • dodgers November 3, 2017 at 5:31 am

    Good share Howard. Look forward to part 2, which I assume will include some about the dossier paid for by Hillary’s DNC. As for the uranium deal, it’s now been revealed that some has made its way outside the U.S.
    Certainly, there is plenty of evidence to substantiate a full-blown investigation of Hillary and all the players in the previous administration, some who are still around. This includes investigating Mueller, Rosenstein and McCabe as well.
    Working with the Russians, Hillary and the DNC paid many millions for construction of a dossier, to try to impact our elections.
    YES, we need a special council to investigate.

  • ladybugavenger November 3, 2017 at 7:36 am

    These comments are too much. I’ll fill you in: b&f is an agnostic, lgbtq liberal with no particular political party. fish will argue for days. fish is deadset on fact checking and believes snopes.com 100%.
    b&f loves the outdoors and enjoys fall colors.

    • bikeandfish November 3, 2017 at 10:18 am

      Nice attempt…. I’ll give you another hint, I don’t trust any source 100%. A healthy skepticism prevents such blind trust. But I do put more trust into organizations that have a history of fact-checking, transparency and reliability.

      I do value the debate. Though, very little time is needed to respond.

      The only box you properly put me in was agnostic, given I self-describe as such.

      Best of luck with the guessing as its been fun entertainment to watch people try.

      • ladybugavenger November 3, 2017 at 12:04 pm

        99% lol

        I know we can’t put you in a box because you are quite the escape artist. (Commendable tho, I dont like being labeled or put in a box either) I often times think you are like a fish out of water, squirmy and flopping around and gasping for air (no disrespect meant to you or the fish)

        • ladybugavenger November 3, 2017 at 12:10 pm

          If snopes.com said God is real, that is one fact check that you would not believe.

          I’m actually enjoying reading yours and John’s comments. Thanks for the change. 🙂

          I am feeling a bond between you two.

          • bikeandfish November 3, 2017 at 12:32 pm

            The benefit of being an agnostic is I don’t believe evidence supports the existence of God nor disproves his existence, like an atheist. If someone were to empirically prove the existence of god and a fact checker proved it was accurate I would follow the evidence to accept that reality. As an agnostic I just believe every element of belief now is based on faith and that God as a supernatural being isn’t testable or provable. Its a relevantly neutral position yet consistent with my skepticism.

          • ladybugavenger November 3, 2017 at 1:36 pm

            Lol…thats the problem, you need a fact checker. Do some soul searching and you will see. Oh wait! You’re agnostic so you wouldnt believe you have a soul. You believe just live and die. You just exist in this corrupt world. There is no purpose of you being here on earth? That’s awful.

            That means you can be programmed like a computer. What if your programmer is corrupt? What if you get a virus? What if you get hacked? What if you go completely dark? What are you going to do? Who will you turn to? That’s some matrix stuff right there b&f. A soulless, spiritless being, programmed to believe whatever the programmer wants you to believe.

            Must be really confusing for you to believe any truth.

          • bikeandfish November 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm

            Nope, not confusing at all.

            Purpose to life is beyond the of this article or website but don’t worry about my poor soul. I have purpose and I’m not a simple computer.

            Sounds like we both liked the Matrix movies. We’ll always have that LBA :^)

          • ladybugavenger November 3, 2017 at 6:09 pm

            As an agnostic, do you believe people have souls?

            You must hsve faith in order to believe in God. Faith is hope. Hebrews 11:1 KJV
            “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
            It was not faith alone that made a believer out of rebellious ladybug.
            I always knew there was something more to this life ……just didn’t know what the heck it was or what it meant and then one day, it all came together and BAM! I saw it, I saw the counterpart to Jesus and it all starting making sense.

            Ironically, it’s similar to Matrix

          • ladybugavenger November 3, 2017 at 6:26 pm

            It was in 1992 i saw something and experienced something in an apartment in Anaheim, Ca. I was with my ex husband. We never talked about it again. All we did was say Anaheim and we never got past the terror in our eyes. I searched and searched to find the truth. Our marriage didn’t last. I kept searching. But it wasn’t until 10 years later, in 2002. I met my life long husband, he had a brother demon possessed before we met and about the same time of my experience in Anaheim. That’s when i got my answers.

            How does an agnostic explain demon possession? I don’t think you can because until you experience it, (and get evidence of it yourself) you have no idea what it really means. It goes against any logic and any human understanding. It feeds into a psychosis diagnosis. But it’s real. It’s not psychosis.

            I’ll always have Anaheim as a reminder of things ive seen. No one can take it from me. And i always have hope for things not seen. Because i know if I’m suppose to see it, I will. That includes God’s vengeance. I don’t take revenge on people. God’s vengeance is so much bigger. I just wish sometimes i could see it happen to those people that hurt my family in la county. But if its not mine to see, than so be it. But I still wonder.

            I’m actually blessed to have experienced all that I have seen. Thank you Jesus!

          • ladybugavenger November 3, 2017 at 7:30 pm

            It could have been 1990, I don’t recall. I don’t want to go back and time travel.

            It lasted 3 days before i said, there’s something walking around, do you see it? He saw it too. It sat on my couch, wearing all black and where the head should be was a glowing light. It had black boots and they walked across the living room. It stole my cigarette. It was in my bed. It was in the bathroom and i could hear the sound of a shower and i kept saying, someone is in the shower, someone is in the shower.

            AWefter we both acknowledged it, we left and never stayed the night again. We would go back to get our stuff and open all drapes and wouldn’t say a word to each other. Because if we did, and this demon was there, we would fight. We went to my mom’s and she didn’t believe us. The people that believed us also had similar experiences. We left and went to Utah and tried to carry on as a normal family. We had a son, but we were deeply affected by terror and the unknown. I had a daughte. Then it seemed like more terror and more bad things happening. Over and over. I couldn’t take it, I had to leave him. And i struggled for a long time. Tormented by the unknown. No answers that made sense from anyone. And then when it all made sense it was more torment. My mom calling me crazy, my ex husband calling me a Jesus freak. More and more people destroying me, taking from me, false witnesses telling lies…all I could think was why? Why? Why is this happening?……today i can say, it was all for God’s glory. To know myself. To test my faith, To learn it’s not what other people say or do, it’s what i say and do. I have the power to destroy people with my tongue or lift people up. It’s to know myself, to not let things go so far that I get enraged. To know that i can’t change people and I’m in control of who i allow in my life. To know when to walk away. To know what might be right for someone else, may not be right for me. And to know that I can overcome any obstacle.

            So there you have it. A tidbit amount of ladynug’s adventure in this God forsaken world.

            Anyone suffering from depression or suicide, please seek help. Get down on your knees and cry out to God. And pick up that phone.. 800 273-8255 for the suicide hotline.

            God will never leave you or forsake you. Don’t you leave him.

          • ladybugavenger November 4, 2017 at 6:23 am

            It was definitely December 1992…..oh, you want to know what started it? I was doing crossword puzzles and there was a bible crossword. I went to my mom’s and got her Bible and I brought it in to the apt. The first thing we notice was a broom falling against gravity….we nailed it to The wall the second thing was the bedroom was at least 10 degrees cooler than the kitchen. Which was right at the bedroom entrance. Mind you, this apt was about 600 sq ft. I turned on the stove that faced the bedroom door and nothing. You could put your arm halfway in the bedroom and feel the cold. Nothing i did, would heat that bedroom. And then it got worse..

          • ladybugavenger November 4, 2017 at 6:29 am

            I contemplated suicide, I wanted to die. I wanted it over. My (ex)husband told me I would go to he’ll if I committed suicide. I cried and cried and cried out to God.

            My ex husband telling me that was the best thing he ever did for me. Here i am a redeemed, blessed, God fearing woman, praying all time and with peace of mind….with a little ptsd left in me, but I’m getting through that day by day. Amen thank you Jesus! My Lord and savior

          • ladybugavenger November 4, 2017 at 6:46 am

            I never went to a counselor or psychiatrist. I’ve never been on anti depressants…ill tell you why, because I knew (God put it in me to know) someone like you or theone, or my mother would have locked me up in a psychiatric ward because you would never understand the unseen. You would never understand what I saw, what i went through. You would label it a mental disorder. And Put me on anti psychotics. And I would have never found peace. Peace of mind comes from God. And people like you confused people like the younger me that struggled to find the truth. I’m stronger now than you’ll ever know. Confusion does not come from God. It comes from Satan. Let go Let God.

  • commonsense November 3, 2017 at 11:10 am

    Have you seen the couple who runs Snopes.com? California liberals, poorly groomed and funded by Soros, just part of the propaganda machine.

  • DB November 3, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    No one will probably see this so far down in the ‘stack’ in this thread, but here it is…Posts that are short and to the point have the most impact.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.