Tag Archives: DNC

Here We Go Again?

The country is abuzz (or would be, sans partisan social media censorship) about the contents of a laptop and external hard drive that apparently belonged to former vice president Joseph Biden’s son Hunter and that have become the subject of a “bombshell” report by the New York Post.

Continue reading

Spy Spin

There’s a narrative developing around the Steele Dossier, and it’s not a promising one, from the perspective of those who want and expect truth and transparency. An op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal lays out this narrative, which has been hinted at before. So what’s the new spin?

Continue reading

DOJ May Charge the Russian Hackers?

A story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) claims that Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors may charge actual Russians for the “hack” of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that occurred in early 2016. [emphasis added to quotes]

The Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers and swiping sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Continue reading

Awan-na Know What’s Going On!

We’re not about to let Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook as easily as the New York Times wants to, so here’s more news about the Awan Scandal. (When the mainstream media blame Trump and “fringe” alternative media, calling an exploding Democrat scandal a conspiracy theory or Islamophobia, you know you’re onto something.)

Now comes news that Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who was killed in a very strange “attempted robbery,” had allegedly been at a party earlier the evening of his death with a bunch of Washington DC IT workers.

That would fit the profile of the entire Awan extended family, who all worked for the DNC in DC.

Continue reading

As the Tables Turn: Lynch Goes Under the Microscope

Several recent developments will be interesting to follow in the mainstream media. It’s their turn to squirm now. An article in the New York Post says that a special counsel may “probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice.”

Whether or not an investigator is appointed, Congress itself intends to investigate former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her potential obstruction of justice and politicization of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server.

Continue reading

Putin Weighs in on Comey

Recently Russian President Vladimir Putin opined about the ongoing saga of former FBI Director James Comey’s mendacity: [emphasis added]

It looks weird when the chief of a security agency records his conversation with the commander-in-chief and then hands it over to media via his friend,” Putin was quoted by Russia’s Tass. “This is strange. What is the difference then between the FBI director and Mr. Snowden? He is not a head of the special services, but a human rights activist.” …

“I am not familiar in detail with the testimony given by former FBI director Comey,” Putin said during a question and answer session with citizens. “Again, he gave no evidence of this (Russian meddling).”

Continue reading

Three Days and Counting


Three days from now, Donald J. Trump will have been sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. The best news of the week is illustrated above, in an image courtesy of Bruce Leshan. Those are the vans moving the Obamas into their new house and out of our house.

Continue reading

Electoral College Vote 2016

We the people American Constitution with feather pen

Today the electoral college electors meet in their various states to vote for the next president of the United States. Electors, as you know, are under unprecedented and coordinated pressure from the political left, who are begging them and even threatening them, in an attempt to get them to ignore their sworn oaths and, in some  instances, state laws.

Continue reading

Coincidence or Intentional?

by Bridgette

Coincidence or Intentional?

Barack  Obama  takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts

There appear to be three or more major documentary omissions that occurred regarding Obama’s nomination, his election, and are now being seen in eligibility lawsuits. When looked at one by one, we note the problems. But when viewed together, a pattern emerges. Leading up to his election, all pertinent information and documentation about his background was either lost, misplaced, hidden, fabricated, or sealed. These items could be included in this pattern of omissions, but we do not have the evidence in hand.

Here are three that show another pattern of fraud and deception and, I believe, intention.

Omission #1
The Democratic Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the position of President of the US. It appears there were two DNC Certifications prepared by the DNC. Copies of these were recently found online. Both documents were signed, dated and notarized by the same same people on the very same day. When comparing the two, it was noted on Document #1 that the proper legal text was used in the DNC’s “Official Certification of Nomination.” Document #2 was missing a portion of the text that clarified that both the presidential and vice presidential nominees were legally eligible to serve. Document #2 was sent to most States for their records. Not one State official noted the omission of a pertinent sentence. Following is the missing text in Document #2 regarding the constitutional eligibility statement:

” the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #2

Cheney does not call for objections during the Electoral College vote as required by the Constitution. He was reading from a prepared script or the “Rules of Order.” Perhaps the script was altered like Document #1 above, and the specific wording to call for or accept objections was not there to be read. Was it omitted intentionally? At the point in the program where VP Cheney should have read the statement asking for objections, there was some activity out in the audience. Whatever was occurring, Nancy Pelosi jumped up from her chair thus interrupting VP Cheney, and everyone began clapping. When the applause ended, VP Cheney picked up from where he left off when the applause interrupted him. Perhaps he lost his place, or it was overlooked, or it wasn’t in the script he was reading, but the pertinent statement wasn’t read. Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #3

It was just noticed by Leo Dorofino that the DOJ’s brief in Barnett vs Obama (Orly’s lawsuit) omitted a few pertinent sentences from a paragraph they were citing to substantiate their case.

“Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…” Coincidence or intentional?

Even though I have read most of the cases, I hadn’t thought to compare paragraphs of information presented by the opposition, but perhaps there are others. Even though we can “see” a pattern of fraud and deception, the examples that are brought to light, and that can be substantiated might prove very valuable. Are there any other examples of which you are aware?

(AP Photo/Jeff Christensen)