Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

WA Dems Commission Anti-American Manifesto

Shea committed no crime and was never even questioned by law enforcement.

WA Dems Commission Anti-American Manifesto

WA Dems Commission Anti-American Manifesto

By Anna Bohach

We are living in a time where allegations are truth and the accused is guilty until proven innocent. We have seen this theme portrayed on the national stage with House Democrats pushing a sham impeachment of President Trump on lies and deceit because they are unable to win in the arena of facts, logic, and truth. If only these tactics were relegated to the federal level…

These days, it seems that the attacks against President Trump are simply a blueprint to be leveled at any elected official who dares take a stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Yes, these days it does take super-human effort and faith to throw oneself in front of the elitist cabal determined to destroy democracy and say, “Not on my watch.” And that is exactly what President Trump and Representative Matthew Shea have done. And both have earned the vitriolic lies of the leftist’s in the media and their erstwhile supporters in our diseased bureaucracy.

The precedent has been set, any elected official no matter how small will be targeted for slanderous campaigns if they stand in the way of the Democrat regime. If Democrats cannot beat their opponents at the ballot box they will lie, slander, and accuse Republicans of the very crimes they themselves have committed. This is the story of Representative Matthew Shea of Washington State.

On December 19th, 2019, a company by the name of “Rampart Group” released an unofficial and unauthorized biography of Representative Matthew Shea’s life over the last 12 years or so. This biography, disguised as a “non-partisan report,” written by Democratic party donors Kathy and Paul Leodler, and commissioned by the Democratic controlled Washington State House of Representatives, seems to have had but one purpose: to provide justification for those who want to remove Rep. Matthew Shea from office by non-electoral means.

You see, Matthew Shea has been getting re-elected for the last 11 years! His constituents love him, he loves the Constitution, and the Democrats (and their milquetoast Republican toadies) want to get rid of him, for he is the biggest threat to their big government agenda. In other words, Representative Matthew Shea is exactly who the Founding Fathers of this great country envisioned when they created representative government. The attacks against Rep. Matthew Shea are attacks against his entire district.

Representative Matthew Shea is an honorable man. He is my Representative and I have had the privilege of knowing him for nearly five years. He is a decorated veteran United States Army Officer earning a bronze star for serving in Iraq and a well respected Constitutional attorney. He is a strong Christian, pro-life, pro-family, pro 2nd Amendment American Patriot. In other words, he is everything the democrats hate. He swore an oath to up hold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. He takes his position as a state legislator and Constitutional Attorney seriously. This why I voted for him.

The Rampart Group’s report on Rep. Matthew Shea is simply a political hit-job: it is 108 pages of innuendo, smears, personal attacks, and outright lies. To rebut each of its misrepresentations would require a volume that would take weeks to write and few would have the time to read. Instead, I can do one better. The Rampart report lists three separate events that it deems as “armed conflicts” where Rep. Matt Shea demonstrated some sort of “domestically terroristic” activity,” thereby earning him the designation of “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the Rampart Group.

As fate would have it, this author, her family, her friends, local and county law-enforcement—including Sheriff Daryl Wheeler of Bonner County, ID, and half-the-town of Priest River were present at one of the so-called “armed conflicts” as this “Rampart Group” report so inaccurately portrays.

On page 15 of the report, it is claimed that:

manifesto

I don’t remember ducking for cover. I don’t recall bullets flying. I didn’t gather my children and drag them into a foxhole to keep them from getting trampled by jack-booted thugs of the federal government. Misrepresenting this peaceful assembly of patriots, citizens, and law-enforcement officers alike to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights in defense of their 2nd Amendment Rights says far more about the authors of the Rampart Group report than it does about the attendees.

I guess in the vernacular of the leftist authors of the report, the phrase “armed conflict” and “peaceful demonstration” sort of sound alike. It depends on who you ask, I suppose. Although this report so gleefully passes judgment on all those who were present at this event, it is notably lacking in background on why we were all there in the first place.

Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration was quite full of individuals who had a total disdain for the Constitution of the United States of America, manifested by a total disregard of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It was an Obama era rule that targeted the veteran in question and sparked the rally of concerned citizens. As the Rampart Group report states on page 15:

manifesto

So there you have it. A stroke is now a criminal offense. If you have a stroke, your name will be entered into the “National Instant Criminal Background System.” Your Constitutional Rights are at the subjective whims of some “healthcare professional” and don’t you dare oppose that, for you will then be considered a “domestic terrorist.”

Representative Matthew Shea opposed it. Representative Heather Scott of Idaho opposed it. Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler opposed it. Are they all domestic terrorists? The pastors opposed it. The town of Priest River opposed it. I opposed it. My neighbors opposed it. I guess we’re all domestic terrorists now, if one is to believe the Rampart Group.

So how did this “armed conflict” really end? The insinuations of bloodshed and mayhem are just oozing from the Rampart Group. Was the VA representative really prevented from doing his job? Was there some large and hairy half-drunk redneck wearing a torn and tattered wife-beater with a bottle of Jack in one hand and a shotgun in the other hollering “Don’t come around here no more…” at the VA representative? The answer is, no.

Law-abiding Untied States’ citizens used their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceably assemble alongside local law enforcement and elected officials to protest the violation of another citizen’s Constitutional Rights. The event was peaceful, people carried crosses, bibles, pocket constitutions, and American flags. We opened in prayer, said the Pledge of Allegiance, and sang “God Bless America.” Children can be seen running around in the grass playing in the Youtube video of the rally.

To declare this peaceful assembly of American citizens an “armed conflict” of “domestic terrorists” is dangerous, slanderous, and sounds like the ravings of a mad dictator.

The investigative prowess of the Rampart Group stretched as far as “anonymous sources,” “unnamed whistle-blowers,” and even “wikipedia.” I’m impressed…I guess Youtube.com was just a web-site too far. In videos entitled “This Vet is Not a Threat” and “This Vet is Not a Threat-VSO Arrives” that have been posted on youtube.com since the event took place, show not only the VA representative showing up, but being welcomed. Nobody “blocked” him, nobody “attacked” him, and nobody was even rude to him. In fact, he did his inspection, made his determination, and there was no gun-confiscation. Not a single shot was fired, not a single weapon was brandished, and everybody left with a better understanding of what it means to be an American.

The other two events that the report calls “armed conflicts” were the Bundy Ranch Standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada and the Occupation of the Malheur Nation Wildlife Preserve in Harney County, Oregon. The report portrays Shea as the ring leader of the events that happened, when Shea was in fact invited by local elected officials to help diffuse the situations and to utilize his expertise and knowledge as a Constitutional attorney.

The Rampart report never mentions that all the people involved in these events were exonerated and that government acted illegally or irresponsibly in all three events. Matthew Shea committed no crime and was never even questioned by law enforcement.

A deliberate deviation from reality in order to justify a foregone conclusion and then passing that off as “fact” cannot be tolerated. The malicious manufacturing of a narrative in order to smear someone’s good name is not how law-abiding Americans settle their political differences. At least it wasn’t, until this current crop of leftist misfits infiltrated main-stream media and left-wing politics.

At what point does blatant disregard for the truth cross the line into deliberate misrepresentation? You can only “accidentally” get facts wrong so many times. You can only not see what is to be seen so many times. You can only not hear what is being said so many times before a pattern develops.

That pattern is that these “investigators” don’t see that everyone involved in these events has been exonerated, they don’t hear that no one is being charged with a crime, and they refuse to acknowledge the political motive behind their “report,” a motive that is plainly visible.

The authors of the report had decided the conclusion of the report before they even started. They conducted the investigation in order to justify their pre-existing conclusion. No attempt was made to remain neutral, ascertain facts, or remain unbiased. Evidence that conflicted with the conclusion they desired was discarded, witnesses who contradicted the desired narrative were ignored, and the entire investigation was a political hit-job, but that doesn’t go far enough.

This report is dangerous, it is a blueprint on how to completely undermine the rights and will of the people. It dehumanizes American citizens and trivializes their rights. It is a bigoted anti-American manifesto of elite liberals that portrays anyone who does not hold their world view as backward unwashed rednecks that cling to their bibles and guns. But those of us who have eyes can see that this is really their last ditch effort to try and unseat an American Patriot. It is not going to work. Not on my watch.

 

A condensed version of this article was published on The American Thinker.

The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our content to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

4 Comments on WA Dems Commission Anti-American Manifesto

  1. I’ve been giving some thought to this for awhile and am no clearer to an answer than when I started. Believing we can counter lies with truth has become delusional at best. That large majority continue to get their news from the MSM and are uncritical of what they read. The MSM doesn’t bother to fact check if the story fits their narrative and will distort the facts to fit the narrative as needed. And most people are too lazy to investigate on their own.
    And we can’t fight distortion of truth with facts as no-one is listening. We can’t let any distortion of fact enter our narrative as it will be used to make the case that we are the liars and it will be believed. Alinsky taught these folks well.

  2. Your article is on target Ms Bohack, and having been subjected to similar attacks myself, I can testify to how conscienceless and vicious the left can be…It was certainly a black day for Matt’s republican colleagues, and not because of the rampart allegations…They – the Republicans in Salem – are experienced enough to see this Rampart report for what it is – a bought and paid for tissue of lies..In their abject cowardice however they ran and hid, and did not stand up for the truth or for Shea..I would find it very difficult to confer with such craven rats..

  3. This appears to be very long, but the actual definitions of words used in the 2A as found in the 1828 Dictionary is listed.

    AS I recall the US Constitution has supreme authority, not the people – elected, hired, contracted, etc – who serve within our governments – state & federal, who decides. Not only does it NOT delegate those who serve within our governments with any authority over any weapons the American people may own, it forbids them from creating any such type of authority.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power …] “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

    Clause 16: [The Congress shall have Power …] “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    What do those words mean? 1800’s Dictionary http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary

    MILI’TIA: The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

    REG’ULATED: Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

    NECESSARY: That must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite. It is necessary that every effect should have a cause.
    2. Indispensable; requisite; essential; that cannot be otherwise without preventing the purpose intended.

    SECU’RITY: Protection; effectual defense or saftey from danger of any kind; as a chain of forts erected for the security of the frontiers.
    2. That which protects or guards from danger
    3. Freedom from fear or apprehension; confidence of safety;

    FREE; Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral;
    In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord;

    STATE, Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time.

    A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government.

    RIGHT; In morals and religion, just; equitable;
    Fit; suitable; proper;

    PEOPLE, The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation.
    The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank.
    Persons of a particular class; a part of a nation or community;
    Persons in general;

    KEEP, To hold; to retain in one’s power or possession; not to lose or part with; …
    To preserve; to retain.
    To preserve from falling or from danger; to protect; to guard or sustain.
    To preserve in any tenor or state. keep a stiff rein.
    KEEP the constitution sound. (yes, this is actually there)

    BEAR, To support; to sustain;
    To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place;
    To wear;
    To support or sustain without sinking or yielding;

    ARMS, Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
    War; hostility.

    NOT, A word that expresses negation, denial or refusal;

    INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj’. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
    1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
    2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
    3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

    So how do we KNOW that those who serve within our government has restrictions and forbiddens placed upon actions they may try to do? Preamble to the BILL OF RIGHTS says that is why the Amendments were added.

    PREAMBLE to the BILL OF RIGHTS: Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

    MISCONSTRUC’TION, noun Wrong interpretation of words or things; a mistaking of the true meaning; as a misconstruction of words or actions.

    ABU’SE, To use ill; to maltreat; to misuse; to use with bad motives or to wrong purposes; as, to abuse rights or privileges.
    To deceive;
    To pervert the meaning of; to misapply; as to abuse words.

    POW’ER, …
    Command; the right of governing, or actual government; dominion; rule, sway; authority.

    Legal authority;

Comments are closed.