Author: jacohn3062

 	Who's Debanking?
	**Now bank executives confirm: Obama and Biden used 'debanking'
     agenda against political foes
     By World Net Daily / August 19, 2025

     This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
     Among all of the other Democrat scandals that now are coming to
light: the Russiagate lies, the scheming at the highest levels of
the White House to undermine a duly elected president, the undue
influences orchestrated to impact the 2020 election, there's another
horror being revealed.
     Executives of America's banking industry now have confirmed
that the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administrations, when they were
in office, tried to force the bankers to "debank" the Democrats'
political foes.
     President Trump, in fact, recently addressed the concept of
"debanking," or closing accounts and refusing to do business with
companies or individuals because of their politics, by ordering
an end.
     Bank executives then confirmed that the Obama and Biden agendas
were "to deny services to individuals and businesses for political
reasons," Fox Business reported.
     "Those pressures were very, very real. When your regulator
gives you a suggestion, it's not a suggestion, it's an order. The
political stuff is very real, those pressures are real," Fox News
Digital confirmed a "senior banking official" reported.
     Fox News Digital spoke with two executives at leading U.S.
banks, who asked to remain anonymous, fearing reprisals.
     They reported under Obama, and again under Biden, "banks were
pressured to deny services to certain industries as part of
Operation Choke Point and Operation Choke Point 2.0."
     One official documented, "When there's ambiguity in the law,
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for a long time the be-
holder was the Obama and Biden administration."
     Already, a report from the House Oversight Committee confirmed
"Operation Choke Point" involved a DOJ team aiming to "choke" legal
companies that Obama disliked.
     They worked with regulators to falsely describe industries,
such as firearms, as "high risk."
     During his first term in the White House, Trump ended Obama's
scheme, but then Biden revived them in "2.0," lawmakers have
charged.
     Trump has confirmed that multiple banks attacked him, his
accounts and his business operations, likely a result of the poli-
tical warfare assembled under the program.
     In fact, First lady Melania Trump wrote in her memoir that she
and her son Barron were debanked, as well, the report said.
     "I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long time bank
decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to
open a new one.… This decision appeared to be rooted in political
discrimination, raising serious concerns about civil rights
violations," she charged.
     Former Republican Sen. Sam Brownback accused JPMorgan Chase of
having debanked his nonprofit, the National Committee for Religious
Freedom, in 2022, the report said.
     Trump's order, "Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,"
warns that banks that deny services to customers for their political
views or beliefs will be banned.
     One executive explained how the agenda from Obama and Biden
would work: Politicians would use regulators to pressure banks to
inflate "negative press" that had been directed at conservatives or
political foes "as a pretext to debank them."
     "It's all kind of set up, it's like somebody set the table, and
it all ends up focusing on Republicans and conservatives," the
executive told Fox.
     Banks, in a flurry of activity of late, have been promising
that they do not discriminate based on political or religious
views.**

     So, Obama and Biden actually used debanking but Trump asked
about it because his family had been denied during the Biden term.
     It seems that there is no limit to how corrupt nearly every
Democrat can't seem to process what follow the law means or that
no one is above the law. This has to end.
     We should all pray that God will protect our nation.

  Conservatively,
  John

	**FBI Accuses Obama of Treason
      Anonymous / Date unknown
     FBI documents on Trump–Russia Probe allegedly found in ‘burn
bags’: Report
     Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has accused
former President Barack Obama and his national security team of
orchestrating a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine Donald Trump’s
2016 election victory through falsified intelligence reports about
Russian interference. The explosive allegations, announced during
a White House briefing on July 23, 2025, represent an unprecedented
attack by a sitting intelligence chief against a former president.
     Gabbard declassified a 44-page report prepared by the House
Intelligence Committee in September 2020 that she claims proves
Obama administration officials manufactured findings to suggest
Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. The report,
authored by Republican staff members, questioned the intelligence
community’s assessment that Vladimir Putin preferred Trump over
Hillary Clinton.
     During the Wednesday briefing, Gabbard stated there was “ir-
refutable evidence” that Obama and his team directed the creation
of an intelligence assessment they knew was false. She characterized
the actions as the “most egregious weaponization and politicization
of intelligence in American history” and announced she had referred
Obama to the Department of Justice for potential criminal
prosecution.
     The allegations center on the January 2017 Intelligence Com-
munity Assessment that concluded Russia had interfered in the 2016
election to damage Clinton’s campaign and boost Trump’s prospects.
Gabbard argued that Obama administration officials ignored intel-
ligence showing Russia could not manipulate vote counts and instead
manufactured a narrative to delegitimize Trump’s electoral victory.
     Former CIA officer Susan Miller, who helped lead the intel-
ligence assessments on Russian interference, strongly disputed
Gabbard’s claims. Miller, a 39-year agency veteran, questioned
Gabbard’s understanding of intelligence work and defended her team’s
findings. Miller told reporters that “it is not a hoax” and empha-
sized the assessments were based on verified intelligence from
trusted sources.
     Miller and her former team members have hired lawyers to defend
against potential charges, reprising a situation from 2017 when they
faced similar scrutiny. The scenario parallels the investigation by
special counsel John Durham, whose four-year probe into FBI invest-
igations of Trump-Russia links resulted in only one conviction of
an FBI lawyer who altered an email.
     Obama’s office issued a rare public statement dismissing the
allegations as ridiculous and part of an attempt to distract from
the Jeffrey Epstein files controversy. Spokesperson Patrick
Rodenbush indicated that nothing in the declassified documents
undermines the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to
influence the 2016 election without successfully manipulating votes.
     Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper broke their silence on July 30,
publishing a joint op-ed in the New York Times calling Gabbard’s
allegations “patently false.” They accused her of rewriting history
and undermining established intelligence findings.
     Democratic lawmakers have criticized the timing of Gabbard’s
announcement, suggesting it serves as a distraction from mounting
pressure on the Trump administration to release information about
Epstein. Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, accused Gabbard of releasing partisan
materials that risk exposing sensitive sources and methods used to
gather intelligence on Russia.
     Representative Jason Crow characterized Gabbard as having
become a “weapon of mass distraction” in her efforts to regain favor
with Trump following their public disagreement over Iran’s nuclear
program. Crow noted that multiple investigations, including a bi-
partisan Senate report co-authored by current Secretary of State
Marco Rubio, have consistently supported the intelligence com-
munity’s findings about Russian interference.
     The Justice Department announced the formation of a “strike
force” on July 23 to assess the evidence and examine potential
legal steps resulting from Gabbard’s disclosures. However, reports
suggest Attorney General Pam Bondi was caught off guard by Gabbard’s
request for her department to investigate the matter.
     Trump has amplified Gabbard’s claims, sharing content on Truth
Social and telling reporters that Obama had been “caught absolutely
cold.” The President characterized the Obama administration’s
actions as treason and indicated it was time to pursue legal action
against political opponents.
     The controversy represents an escalation in Trump’s long-
standing grievances about investigations into Russian interference
in the 2016 election, which he has consistently labeled a “hoax.”
Multiple investigations by Congress, the intelligence community,
and special counsels have previously confirmed that Russia inter-
fered in the election, though they reached different conclusions
about coordination with the Trump campaign and the extent of any
impact on electoral outcomes.**

     I found an interesting tidbit a few years ago that actually
quoted Hillary at the second debate with Trump when she first
accused him of having colluded with Putin and shortly afterwards
He spoke at a news presser, informing them ALL that he had never
met Putin or spoke with him.
     The Left used a conversation between Putin and two of his sons
about the possibility of building a building in Moscow. The sons
made it clear that Putin wanted too much and that was the end of
it all.
     God will judge the corruption that attempted to destroy the
Trump business. It never happened. They are lost but they will be
Judged.

  Conservatively,
  John

**Clinging to God in Seasons of Disappointment
	How to trust God’s promises when your deepest desires
remain unmet.
     July 28th, 2025 / Faith Activist Post
     Psalm 37:4 offers a beautiful promise “Delight yourself in the
Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.” Yet what do
we do when those desires remain unfulfilled? What happens when you
are genuinely seeking God praying, obeying, delighting in Him and
still your heart aches for something good that never comes?
     This is a reality many believers face. Creation itself, Paul
reminds us, is “groaning” with unfulfilled longing (Romans 8:22).
The question is not whether disappointments will come, but how we
respond to them.
     One woman’s story illustrates this struggle powerfully. At 52,
she walks with a cane after surviving a severe accident that left
her in a months-long coma and required years of therapy. She has
prayed for decades to be married, yet remains single and has never
even been kissed. Her question is raw: “Does this mean I’ve been
refined only for God? Am I misunderstanding His promises?”
     When Longings Go Unmet
     The truth is, every Christian carries unfulfilled desires of
some kind a marriage that is not what we hoped for, a child who has
wandered from faith, a career that never took shape, a health
crisis that lingers.
      We read promises like “Ask, and it will be given to you”
(Matthew 7:7), and “No good thing does he withhold from those who
walk uprightly” (Psalm 84:11), and we wonder if our unanswered
prayers mean something has gone wrong. Yet the Bible itself gives
us examples of faithful people living with “unanswered” longings.
     Paul pleaded three times for God to remove his “thorn in the
flesh,” but the answer was no because Christ’s power was made
perfect in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:8–9). In the end, Paul
found contentment in what God had chosen for him, because Christ
Himself became his deepest satisfaction (2 Corinthians 12:10).
     This is a profound truth for us: when God says “no” or “not
yet,” He invites us into a deeper joy, one that isn’t dependent on
circumstances, but on His presence.
        Learning to Trust Again
     How do we live with this tension, year after year?
     1. Cast your burden daily.
     Unfulfilled desires are heavy burdens. If we try to carry
them alone, they will crush us. Scripture tells us, “Cast your
burden on the Lord, and he will sustain you” (Psalm 55:22).
Every morning, we can come to God and say, “Father, my heart
aches for this longing. But You are wise, good, and loving. I
roll this burden onto You again today. Show me how to walk in
freedom.”
     2. Resist the temptation to wear your pain as a badge.
     It’s easy to let disappointment shape how we present our-
selves to others, subtly trying to communicate how hard our lives
are. But the Spirit calls us to maturity to acknowledge our
longings before God and a few trusted friends, while still choosing
to live a life marked by joy.
     Christian maturity does not deny sorrow, but it refuses to
let sorrow define us. It is possible to taste unfulfilled desires
and still live a life full of purpose, friendships, ministry, and
hope.
     3. Recognize God’s deeper promise.
     Sometimes, our deepest longing is not ultimately for marriage,
health, or success it is for a life that matters, a life that
reflects God’s worth. And God promises to give us that. He promises
Himself.
     As Jesus said, “Seek first the kingdom of God and his right-
eousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).
Even when we do not receive what we hoped for, we can trust that
God is giving us what is best for our souls both now and for
eternity.
     Living With Hope
     Many faithful believers have lived full, joy-filled lives
while carrying unmet desires. Think of the single women who devoted
their lives to missionary work Amy Carmichael, Mary Slessor, Gladys
Aylward, and others. Their lives weren’t defined by what they
lacked, but by what they pursued: the glory of Christ.
     Our hope is not in getting everything we want in this life.
Our hope is in a God who promises us Himself. Psalm 16:11 reminds
us, “In your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand
are pleasures forevermore.”
     So, to the one whose heart is breaking from unmet desires,
remember this: You are not forgotten. God is not withholding good
from you. He is shaping you for something eternal.
     Every day, roll your burdens onto Him. Ask Him for strength to
live fully, even with a “melancholy note” in your life’s symphony.
And trust that the joy He has prepared for you will one day out-
shine every earthly disappointment.**
     God says He will save His people. He also explains that those
who choose to not obey His Commandments will have their names
removed from The Lamb's Book of Life.
     I can't imagine anyone would condemn themselves to a life in
Hell FOREVER.
  Conservatively,
  John

	 SCOTUS Says Parents Can Follow Their Faith 
     Supreme Court Ruling Means Parents Can Follow Their Faith in
     Raising Children
       Thomas Jipping | Daniel Davidson | June 27, 2025
     	**WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 20: U.S. Supreme Court Associate
Justices Samuel Alito (L) and Clarence Thomas wait for their oppor-
tunity to leave the stage at the conclusion of the inauguration
ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025
in Washington, DC. Donald Trump took the oath of office for his
second term as the 47th president of the United States.
     In one of its final decisions this term, the Supreme Court has
affirmed the right of religious parents to follow their faith in
making decisions about their children’s public school education.
     In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court sided with parents who asked
that they be notified and given the chance to opt their children
out of instruction that violates their faith on matters of
sexuality.
     The case originated in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the
school board requires certain pro-LGBTQ+ storybooks to be incorpo-
rated in the English language arts curriculum for all students,
including those as young as 5. The board had millions of books to
choose from, but it picked these books specifically to influence
students’ thinking about sexuality and to challenge parents’ tra-
ditional views.
     How do we know? The board told teachers so, and it even de-
scribed ways for them to accomplish these goals.
     The pushback predictably included parents, but teachers and
administrators also balked, questioning the efficacy and age
-appropriateness of this scheme.
     Initially, the board said that parents would be notified when
this controversial material would be used and allowed to opt their
children out.
     Like most school districts, Montgomery County provides for
parents to opt their kids out of all sorts of things, including the
use of sex education curriculum.
     Then, without explanation, the board abruptly canceled this
accommodation policy and took the opposite position—making partici-
pation in pro-LGBTQ+ instruction mandatory for even the youngest
students and telling teachers not to notify parents at all.
     With the Justice Department’s support, a group of religious
parents sued. Their particular faiths differed, but they agreed
that exercising that faith included guiding their children in
matters of sexuality. By not only blocking them from doing so, but
also imposing its own sexual ideology, they said, the school board
violated their First Amendment right to exercise religion.
     The parents said they would likely prevail on the merits and,
therefore, asked for a preliminary injunction ordering that they be
notified and allowed to opt out in the meantime.
     The district and appeals courts denied their request by
utilizing a very narrow concept of what burdens religious exercise.
Nothing short of the government compelling someone to abandon their
religious beliefs, they said, can burden the exercise of religion
—a standard that reduces the “exercise” of religion to little more
than private religious beliefs or perhaps formal religious worship.
     The First Amendment prohibits an “establishment of religion”
and protects the “free exercise” of religion. The Constitution’s
framers thought of religious establishment narrowly and religious
exercise broadly.
     Now, though, judges have turned the First Amendment on its
head. They see religious establishments that do not exist and, as
the lower courts did in this case, ignore the very real ways in
which the government interferes with religious practice.
     In a 6-3 vote Friday, the Supreme Court reversed the lower
courts and granted the parents a preliminary injunction. Writing
for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained that the right to
exercise religion includes the parents’ right to direct the reli-
gious instruction of their children. Putting parents on the side-
lines while schools impose their own sexual ideology on students
obviously interferes with that right. 
     As Alito explained, “the Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+
inclusive’ storybooks—combined with its decision to withhold
notice to parents and forbid opt outs—substantially interferes
with the religious development of their children.”
     Many parents have no choice but to send their children to a
public school, a decision that should not require them to surrender
their constitutional right. The bottom line, Alito wrote, is that
“government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it re-
quires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a
very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and prac-
tices that the parents wish to instill.”
     Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Elena
Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, distorted the parents’ position
the same way the lower courts did. She mischaracterized them as
demanding notice and an opt-out “of every lesson plan or story time
that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs.”
     The parents never took that position. Instead, they objected
to instruction that poses a “very real threat of undermining” those
beliefs and the parents’ right to direct their children’s religious
instruction.
     The fact is, as Alito pointed out, these materials are
“unmistakenly normative,” designed to promote certain values and
beliefs and to discourage others regarding sexuality and gender.
The threat to parents’ ability to guide their children’s instruction
on such sensitive matters is obvious.
     Thankfully, the Supreme Court has never adopted the narrow,
crabbed view of religious freedom that the lower courts and
Sotomayor did in this case. The First Amendment, Alito wrote, is
not as “feeble” as Sotomayor claims. It protects us against much
more than compulsion to abandon our religious beliefs.
     The Constitution gives parents a general right to direct their
children’s upbringing and education and, separately, a specific
right to exercise religion. This case arose where those rights
intersect, and the Supreme Court’s decision strengthens both of
them.**

     God's Word is what our laws are based. God is the source of
all that is moral and ethical in America.
     There will be a price to pay to those who pervert God's
Commandments both here  and in eternity.

  Conservatively,
  John

	*Say, What?
     By: Bill O'Reilly / July 13, 2025

     It is lazy writing to begin a column or letter or email with
the word "I."  Therefore, that sentence shields me from accusations
of sloth because, now, this column really begins.

     "I" am an American who likes to hear opposing points of view
if they are honestly presented.  No propaganda, however.  No
tolerance for deceitful people who spout gibberish for money. The
so-called "pundit class" in this country is rife with corruption.

     Also, I choose my associates carefully, having been betrayed
as we all have been. Among my crew are a number of liberal people
who are making the same mistake: they get agitated every time
President Trump says something provocative, which is "a lot," as
the Donald might opine.

     Every day, I get missives bemoaning the President's over-
the-top rhetoric: crocodiles in the Rio Grande, invading Green-
land, 800 percent tariffs on Paraguay.

     Mr. Trump's verbal bombs drive his detractors insane, which
very much amuses the Chief Executive.

     I explain all this in my book "The United States of Trump."
For decades, Donald Trump has created chaos among those with whom
he is negotiating or opposing. The tactic has generally worked
well for him.

     Best example. The first Republican debate back in August 2016.
There's the political neophyte Trump on stage with a slew of career
politicians who generally believe he's a nitwit.  Trump's strategy
was simple: channel Don Rickles.

     Remember Boring Jeb, Lyin' Ted, Little Marco?  Trump's verbal
grenades unsettled his competition, throwing them off their game,
especially Jeb Bush, the favorite at the time.  The Bush family
harbors a deep grievance against Trump to this day.

     When my anti-Trump associates wail and gnash their collective
teeth, I respond simply: evaluate what the President DOES, not what
he SAYS.  His words and tone can change from hour to hour.

     Ask "Little Marco", who is now Secretary of State.

     There has never been a President like Donald Trump, as I have
pointed out in this space.  He's not going to tone it down or
change his strategy.  He's taking his flamboyant style to the grave.

     In three and a half years, we will be able to historically
evaluate Mr. Trump.  But I can assure you that bombastic rhetoric
will only be a footnote to his legacy.

     What he actually does and how well that works for the American
people will define him for the ages, as it should.*

     Trump compounded his rhetoric because he was a pragmatic
realist so he hired and fired people to complete tasks he had for 
them and then he moved onto his next project.

     People, to this day, don't get him so they hate him without a
logical reason, all while he knew and knows exactly the result he
seeks. To do that he never lets the corrupt Left or the corrupt
media know what his right hand is doing.

     That is how a businessman accomplishes so much while the blind
politician make up lies and run in circles.

     God and Trump are on the same frequency and if all things were
equal he just might get that third term.

     America must pray for God's plan and America's survival.

  Conservatively,
  John

 	    Misunderstanding Trump
        **Victor Davis Hanson | June 18, 2025
     President Donald Trump stops and talks to the media before he
boards Marine One on the South Lawn at the White House on June 15,
2025, in Washington, D.C.
     Many are now demanding that President Donald Trump act abroad
in the way they think he had promised and campaigned—which can be
mostly defined as how closely he should parallel their own version
of MAGA.
     But Trump’s past shows that he never claimed that he was either
an ideological isolationist or an interventionist.
     He was and is clearly a populist-nationalist: i.e., what in a
cost-to-benefit analysis is in the best interests of the U.S. at
home and its own particular agendas abroad.
     Trump did not like neoconservatism because he never felt it was
in our interests to spend blood and treasure on those who either did
not deserve such largesse, or who would never evolve in ways we
thought they should, or whose fates were not central to our national
interests.
     So-called optional, bad-deal, and forever wars in the Middle
East and their multitrillion-dollar costs would come ultimately at
the expense of shorting Middle America back home.
     However, Trump’s first-term bombing of ISIS, standing down
“little rocket man,” warning Russian President Vladimir Putin not
to invade Ukraine between 2017-21, and killing off Qasem Soleimani,
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many of the attacking Russian Wagner Group
in Syria were certainly not Charles Lindbergh isolationism but a
sort of Jacksonian—something summed up perhaps as the Gadsen “Don’t
tread on me” or Lucius Sulla’s “No better friend, no worse enemy.”
     Trump’s much-critiqued references to Putin—most recently during
the G7, and his negotiations with him over Ukraine—were never, as
alleged, appeasement (he was harder in his first term on Putin than
was either Barack Obama or Joe Biden), but art-of-the-deal/trans-
actional (e.g., you don’t gratuitously insult or ostracize your
formidable rival in possible dealmaking, but seek simultaneously to
praise—and beat—him.)
     Similarly, Winston Churchill initially saw the mass-murdering,
treacherous Josef Stalin in the way Trump perhaps sees Putin, some-
one dangerous and evil, but who if handled carefully, occasionally
granted his due, and approached with eyes wide open, could be useful
in advancing a country’s realist interests—which for Britain in 1941
was for Russia to kill three-quarters of Nazi Germany’s soldiers
and, mutatis mutandis, for the U.S. in 2025 to cease the mass
killing near Europe, save most of an autonomous Ukraine, keep Russia
back eastward as far as feasible, and in Kissingerian-style derail
the developing Chinese and Russian anti-American axis.
     Trump was never anti-Ukraine, but rather against a seemingly
endless Verdun-like war in which after three years neither side had
found a pathway to strategic resolution—a war from the distance
fought between two like peoples, one with nuclear weapons, and on
the doorstep of Europe.
     Usually, Trump prefaced the war as a nonsensical wastage of
life, at staggering human cost that his supposedly more humane and
sophisticated critics never mentioned all that much.
     At best, one could say Trump really did lament the horrific
loss of life, and at the least, as a builder and dealmaker, wars for
him rarely made any practical business sense, i.e., it seems wiser
to build things and mutually profit than to blow them up and
impoverish all involved.
     Add it all up, and what Trump is doing vis-à-vis Iran seems in
line with what he has said and done about “America First.”
     He sees Israel’s interests in neutering the nuclear agendas of
the thuggish and dangerous Iran as strategically similar to those of
our own and our allies—but not necessarily tactically in every in-
stance identically so. Thus, Trump wants the Iranian nuclear threat
taken out by Israel—if feasible. And he will help facilitate that
aim logistically and diplomatically.
     If it is not possible for Israel to finish the task, in a cost
-to-benefit analysis he will take it out—but, again, only after he
is convinced that the end of Iran’s nukes and our intervention far
outweigh the dangers of a superpower intervention, attacks on U.S.
installations in the region, a wider, ongoing American commitment,
spiraling oil prices, or distractions or even injury to his ambi-
tious domestic agenda.
     Trump is willing to talk to the Iranians, rarely insults their
thuggish leaders, and wants to show that he always preferred ex-
hausting negotiations to preemptive war.
     That patience allows him to say legitimately that force was his
last choice—as he sees all the alternatives waning.
     Thus, Iran’s fate was in its own hands, either to be a non-
nuclear rich state analogous to the Gulf States but no longer a half
century rogue terrorist regime seeking to overturn and then appro-
priate the Middle East order and to threaten the West with nukes.
     Tactically, Trump thinks out loud. He offers numerous possible
solutions, issues threats, and deadlines (some rhetorical or nego-
tiable, others literal and ironclad). He alternates between sounding
like a U.N. diplomat and a Cold War hawk, and sometime pivots and
reverses himself as situations change.
     All this can confuse his allies, but perhaps confounds more of
his enemies.
     In sum, he believes as far as enemies go, public predictability
can be dangerous—unpredictability even volatility being the safer
course.
     Add it all up, and there is a reason Putin did not invade
Ukraine during Trump’s first term; why for the first time in nearly
50 years the Middle East has some chance at normality with the
demise of the Iran’s Shia crescent of terror; and why Europe and our
Asian allies may be more irritated by Trump than by Obama and Biden,
but also probably feel that he is more likely to defend their shared
Western interests in extremis, and will lead a far stronger and more
deterrent West than his predecessors, one that will prevent war by
assuring others that it is suicidal to attack the U.S.**

     Trump and his administration have a motto that best describes
our most notable attention getter. "Peace by Strength", then say
what you mean and mean what you say.
      Pray to God and ask for his grace.

  Conservatively,
  John

	House Democrat Says He Supported Trump's Bill
	Jerry McConway / July 7, 2025
     *House Democrat says he supported 75% of Trump’s bill.
     Over the last week, all we have heard about his how horrible
Trump’s big, beautiful bill (BBB) is from Democrats.
     Now, I did not support the bill, but my resistance is based
on the financials, not the content itself, most of which I
support.
     A New York Democrat just revealed he supported about 75% of
the bill, yet he still rejected it.
     "It just passed."
     When the BBB passed the House on Wednesday, I ate my plate
of crow, although I had prefaced it by saying that there was the
chance the Freedom Caucus was just putting on a big show, and that
is what they did.
     The bill was on Trump’s desk for an Independence Day signing,
giving Trump a huge win.
     There is a lot to like in the bill, especially on the border,
but my concern was how much money this bill would add to our debt,
especially because the GOP ran on lowering the debt and ending the
budget deficits.
     I have never wanted to be wrong more in my life, and I am
rooting for this bill to spark the economy as Trump thinks it will,
and that it will not only pay for itself, but it will also help cut
the nation’s debt, which is now over $37 trillion.
     "It’s immoral."
     Just before the bill was going to the floor for a vote, House
Minority Leader Jeffries (D-NY) showed up with a couple of binders
that contained a nearly 9-hour speech.
     He preached, "This is just one of them. but we wanted to make
sure that the American people had an opportunity to fully and more
completely understand, in the light of day, just how damaging this
one big, ugly bill will be to the American people."
     He later added, "This reckless Republican budget is an immoral
document. And everybody should vote no against it because of how it
attacks children, seniors, and everyday Americans, and people with
disabilities.
     “This reckless Republican budget is an immoral document. And
that is why I stand here on the floor of the House of Represent-
atives with my colleagues in the House Democratic caucus to stand
up and push back against it with everything we have."
     "I agree."
     The entire caucus swarmed Jeffries after his speech, treating
him like a rock star, but it was more reminiscent of a scene after
a big win for the debate club. Yet, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) just
admitted that, as the opposition, he liked most of the bill.
     He stated, “I like the idea that we’re investing more money
to secure the border. I like the idea that we are providing tax
breaks to lower-income folks and hard-working middle-class folks
and people aspiring to the middle class.”
     He then claimed that the issues he disagreed with were
“devastating,” citing the bogus narrative that Medicaid benefits
will be taken away from the most needy (untrue) and that Trump’s
tax cuts only benefit the wealthiest in this country (untrue).
     Now, I have to say, if I were in the opposition, I would be
ecstatic that I could support 75% of a bill from the other side.
I would have come forward to work with the other side to try to
get some of those other points a little less damaging in my eyes
to generate bipartisan support. But you see, Congress is so toxic
that it was never even an option. He had a chance to get Dems a
win here, and he blew it simply because party leadership wanted
nothing to do with this legislation.*
     The problem seems to be that Democrats fear their party or
liberal supervisors more than they care about their constituents
or their lying eyes.
     Everything they have been fed was written some 60 years ago
by Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, a pair of communists named Richard
Cloward and Frances Piven who wrote the Cloward-Piven Strategy or
Alinskiy's "Rules for Radicals"  (How to be a Socialist).
     You will see how these books will force feed you exactly how
they have screwed up everything that was good in the U.S.
     In the Strategy it gives you eight steps that Clinton ( the
housing and bank collapse) used HUD to start it. Then Obama stuck
to the book and forced Americans to buy ObamaCare trying to get
us conned into single payer healthcare and he was using Alinsky's
Rules in an effort to push us into depending upon the corrupt 
media as their go to news almost exactly like Alinsky wrote them.
     Why do you think every time one of them speaks they not only
all repeat the same thing, they lie 'word for word' right in time
with the corrupt media?
     It amazes me too that so many want to deny the facts and 
can't admit how much better things were for them during Trump's
first term and how much better off we are now and he is only seven
months in. 
     It saddens me how clueless most of the left are and how
incompetent nearly all of them are.
     God promised in the Bible that he would save  His people. We
have to pray for His Grace.
  Conservatively,
  John

	*USAID plunders voters in shocking bribery scheme
	June 17, 2025 / Jakob Fay (blog)

     The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
and the Trump administration aren’t exactly on the best of terms.
     Voters may recall that after President Donald Trump ordered a
“90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance” at
the start of his second term, the foreign aid agency emerged as an
early contender for the DOGE chopping block. “With regards to the
USAID stuff, I went over it with (the president) in detail and he
agreed that we should shut it down,” said Elon Musk. In March,
Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed he was canceling “83% of
the programs at USAID.”
     More recently, the department confirmed it plans to eliminate
all overseas positions by the end of September, in what a former
official called “definitely the final closing out.”
     The mainstream media-political establishment was horrified.
“Killing U.S.A.I.D. Is a Win for Autocrats Everywhere,” The New
York Times summarized in a headline.
     However, a recent shocking scandal underscores exactly why so
many Americans distrust bloated government agencies in general and
USAID in particular.
     According to a press release from the Department of Justice,
a former USAID official and three corporate executives recently
pled guilty “for their roles in a decade-long bribery scheme in-
volving … over $550 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars.” Court docu-
ments reveal that Roderick Watson, a federal contracting officer
for USAID, agreed in 2013 to begin receiving bribes from Florida
business owner Darryl Britt in exchange for Watson’s help receiving
government contracts.
     “The defendants sought to enrich themselves at the expense of
American taxpayers through bribery and fraud,” explained Matthew R.
Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
“Anybody who cares about good and effective government should be
concerned about the waste, fraud, and abuse in government agencies,
including USAID.”
     Over the years, Britt and two other colleagues, Walter Barnes
and Paul Young, “regularly funneled bribes to Watson, including
cash, laptops, thousands of dollars in tickets to a suite at an NBA
game, a country club wedding, down payments on two residential mort-
gages, cellular phones, and jobs for relatives.” Watson returned
the favor by “manipulating” USAID to secure over $550 million in
contracts for Britt’s businesses.
     In other words, you, the taxpayer, footed the bill while
Watson pocketed extra cash, tickets to a professional sporting
event, and a free wedding. 
     This is nothing but a flagrant betrayal of the American people
— and, unfortunately, it’s probably more common than we realize.
     “Watson was entrusted to serve the interests of the American
people — not his own — and his criminal actions for his own personal
gain undermine the integrity of our public institutions,” complained
U.S. Attorney Kelly O. Hayes. “Public trust is a hallmark of our
nation’s values, so corruption within a federal government agency is
intolerable.”
     Fair enough. But let’s be honest: “public trust” in America is
a dead and dying myth — an antiquated fantasy from a bygone era.
     The National Election Study has been polling Americans about
their trust in Washington to do the right thing since 1958. Over
the first several years of that survey, spanning the Eisenhower,
Kennedy, and Johnson presidencies, trust remained surprisingly high
(73-77%). However, it quickly began to fall, plummeting to 36% the
year Nixon resigned. Although that number flatlined for the rest of
the century and briefly peaked after the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
the share of Americans who say they trust the federal government
has not climbed higher than 30% since 2007.
     We shouldn’t be surprised. USAID is one of many in a sea of
government agencies bent on plundering taxpayers and squandering
their money. Even before this scandal, Americans were already well
acquainted with a federal authority that enriched itself at their
expense. Trump may be keeping an eye on the problem, but not even
shuttering USAID will fix it. 
     Only through an Article V convention can we circumvent Con-
gress, force our representatives to curb their monstrous appetites
for spending, and constrain Washington to accept much-needed anti
-corruption reforms. Until then, you might as well sign, seal, and
personally deliver your hard-earned dollar to the DC graft and back
-scratching machine. Who knows? It may end up in the next $550
million bribery scheme!
     If, however, you’re ready to rein in the federal government
and make it accountable to the sovereign citizens of the states
again, sign the COS petition below.*

     The petition can be easily found online. 
     There are several Blue states considering joining the Conven-
tion of States. This is how we can get term limits and other bills
forced through the Congress.
     With God's and everyone's help we can get to 34 states and
then this corruption will become unstoppable.
     Pray and believe.

  Conservatively,
  John 

 
	 Why Are There So Many Denominations
     **If we’re one Church under one Savior, why do our Sunday
     mornings feel so divided?
     May 2nd, 2025 / Unknown Author
     Step into any town in America and you’ll see the signs First
Baptist, Grace Methodist, St. Paul’s Episcopal, Living Word Non-
denominational. Each one distinct in style, history, and theology,
but all claiming to follow the same Jesus. It's no wonder many
believers, especially younger Christians, are asking Why are there
so many denominations? And does any of it actually matter?
     It’s a question that reaches beyond curiosity and into the
heart of Christian identity. And the answer, while complicated,
begins with one surprising truth: most denominational differences
are about preference, not principle.
     *Not Just Theology But Taste
     We like to think denominations split over serious theological
concerns. And sometimes, they do. The Protestant Reformation in the
16th century was a needed correction to abuses within the Church.
The Methodists emphasized sanctification. The Baptists reclaimed
believer’s baptism. The Pentecostals highlighted the gifts of the
Holy Spirit.
     But over time, many new divisions haven’t been about doctrine.
They’ve been about personality, politics, and preference. Whether
we sing hymns or contemporary worship. Whether we baptize by
sprinkling or submersion. Whether the pastor wears robes or ripped
jeans. These aren’t insignificant, but they’re rarely worth parting
ways over.
     As church historian David Bebbington noted, denominational
fragmentation has often been "less about doctrine and more about
ego, ethnicity and ecclesiastical turf wars." In other words, we’ve
let pride and tradition become louder than unity.
     *One Body, Many Divisions
     The early Church was diverse, but it was united. In Acts, the
Holy Spirit brought together Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles into
one fellowship. This was no small feat. It meant bridging centuries
of hostility, culture, and worship traditions. Yet what held them
together wasn’t agreement on every issue it was a shared Lord, a
shared Gospel, and a shared mission.
     Fast forward to today, and we have more than 47,000 Christian
denominations worldwide. That number isn’t inherently bad. Diversity
can reflect the richness of God’s creation. But it becomes a problem
when denominations stop being expressions of unity and start being
expressions of division.
     In the United States, denominational loyalty is rapidly fading.
According to Pew Research, only 28% of adults under 30 identify with
a specific Protestant denomination. Nearly half of this group now
attend nondenominational churches, many of which operate like
denominations under a different name.
     This isn’t just a trend; it’s a reflection of disillusionment.
Many younger Christians are tired of seeing the Church divided over
secondary issues. They’re weary of worship wars, doctrinal gate-
keeping, and theological tribalism.
     *The Cost of Division
     When denominational identity becomes central, we risk turning
the Church into a collection of clubs rather than a family. We speak
of “one body, many parts,” but often act like we’re many bodies,
competing for relevance and market share.
     Jesus prayed that His followers would be one (John 17:21), not
just in spirit, but in witness. “By this everyone will know that you
are my disciples,” He said, “if you love one another” (John 13:35).
He didn’t say they’d know us by our doctrinal exactness or ecclesi-
astical alignment. Love, not logos, was to be our distinguishing
mark.
     That doesn’t mean theology is unimportant. It shapes how we
understand God, how we interpret Scripture, and how we live. But
when theological clarity becomes an excuse for division, we’ve
stopped building Christ’s Church and started building our own.
     As theologian N.T. Wright put it, “When we let our theological
emphases turn into identities that exclude others, we’re no longer
expressing unity in Christ we’re undermining it.”
     *From Division to Mission
     So what’s the path forward?
     It starts with humility. We must admit that not all of our
convictions are essential. Some are preferences wrapped in passion.
Others are cultural habits dressed up as doctrine.
     Next, we must prioritize the Gospel. The core message of Christ
crucified and risen should be the foundation of every local church.
Everything else styles, structures, sacraments should support, not
supersede, that mission.
     Finally, we must reclaim our shared identity. We serve the same
Lord. We were given the same Spirit. We are called to the same
mission - make disciples, love God, love others.
     Heaven won’t be divided into denominational sections. There
won’t be separate rows for Baptists and Pentecostals, Anglicans and
Charismatics. There will be one Bride, united in worship before one
Savior.
     So maybe it’s time we started living that way down here.
     Share this with someone navigating church differences or for
more honest reflections on faith and unity.**

     Often the divisions boil down to cutting and pasting the parts
that a particular group want to follow like members of the LBGTQ+
communities so they split away like the Catholic Church did last
year.
     Read Revelation 22:19-21. It leaves no room for many of the
problems we have.
     Pray that we can return to what God's Word says, not what some
want it to say.

  Conservatively,
  John

** It was you, Obama
	Obama: It was you.
	Gertrude McGillicuddy
	June 19, 2025
	**"Obama: It was You."
     * It was you who spoke these words at an Islamic dinner - "I
am one of you."
     * It was you who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."
     * It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to
re-build foreign mosques.
     * It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict- "I
will stand with the Muslims."
     * It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that -
"I am a Muslim."
     * It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
     * It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology
Church condemning America and professing Marxism.
     * It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under
Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
     * It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our
Creator " - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
     * It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon
On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Qur'an.
     * It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the
United States Of America.
     * It was you who instantly threw the support of your admin-
istration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory Mosque
overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.
     * It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer
Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the
White House
     * It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to
shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go
there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested the
mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.
     * It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your
Czar Corps.
     * It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland
Security.
     * It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an
outreach to Muslim communities.
     * It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY in-
dividual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
     * It was you who was the first President not to give a
Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang
photos of Chairman Mao on the White House tree.
     * It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all
Islamic terrorists.
     * It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an
Islamic terrorist.
     * It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the hor-
rific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet,
have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical
human-rights abuses.
     * It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge
the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely
praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of
numerous Islamic terrorist's assaults.
     * It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars
to Hamas.
     * It was you who ordered the United States Postal Service to
honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
     * It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach
to help "empower" the British Muslim community.
     * It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture
studies in Grammar schools across our country.
     * It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any
form of jewelry during Ramadan.
     * It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season
so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal
White House religious events.
     * It was you who was uncharacteristically quick to join the
chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak,
formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain
muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of
Egyptian Christians.
     * It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie
Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an
off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
     * It was you who said this country is not a Christian nation.
     * May Our God, The One and Only God! Have Mercy On Your Soul.**
     Obama quickly showed his colors and was a massive disappoint-
ment to the American people.
     I was amazed that whenever a crisis arose like the hurricane
that hit the Northeast or the mass shooting that happened at the
Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 Obama conveniently had to take
a trip to Vegas or Hawaii or go on vacation to play golf.
     Our God NEVER forgets and frowns on those who invoke His name
to try to impress. We will ALL be judged.
  Conservatively,
  John