Daily Archives: January 19, 2017



Published on Jan 18, 2017


Day 88 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Who Killed Monica Pertersen


Published on Jan 19, 2017

DisneyWorld in the North, Test in the Center, Harvest and Micro-Shark in the South
Will Braverman Investigate Missing DynCorp Kids?

A Braver Man Found? Apparently Not?

Stingers to Sarin to Kidneys to Hearts


Add Rajiv Shah To Good People Used By CF

Going Down To Haiti – How Low Can It Go?

Monica Petersen’s 100 Page Thesis, BMP in Haiti

Ulfkotte Said CIA Planted Sarin Gas Stories For Gaddafi and Saddam

Ude Ulfkotte Dies of Investigative Journalism

Cell Phone Records and Email Metadata Unwind the Conspiracy

DynCorp Police Training, Franchising Sex Entrapment

Immunity for All 19 State Dept Gmail Conspirators?

DynCorp Gov’t Contracts Need To Be Reviewed

DynCorp – Child Trafficking, Sexual Entrapment, Asset Seizure

DynCorp Contracts Come Under Chaffetz Microscope

Comey Has Had Marc Rich’s Documents For 30 Years

Who Killed Monica Petersen?

More Police Powers For FBI?

Trump Wants to Shake Up the CIA


FB Group #HRCRatLine

Due to the very large number of citations and sources, I now publish them with each slide. I try to order New York Times Pulitzers first, then former NYT Pulitzer winners, then New York Times writers. Any other reputable source like WaPo, WaTimes, Tribune, LA Times, Seattle P-I, etc are then list. Then second tier media followed by alternative media.

Murdered journalist and investigators get a higher ranking than remotely sourced stories through offshore news funnels like SOHR.


Discussions of UFOs & ‘convincing’ psychics discovered in new CIA documents – CIA BELIEVED SOME WAS REAL [UFO]


Published on Jan 19, 2017

There’s no shortage of intrigue in the CIA’s newly released archive of nearly 13 million pages of declassified records. Some of the more peculiar revelations detail the handling of UFO sightings and the potential weaponization of psychic powers. RT America’s Alexey Yaroshevsky reports.

Six reasons why the Hillary Clinton nomination was completely rigged and illegitimate


(NaturalNews) Democrats are consoling themselves by claiming Donald Trump’s election is illegitimate, but they’ll do themselves and the nation a favor if they consider their own faults — including the top-to-bottom corruption in their own party and political strategy. (RELATED: Read more news about Hillary Clinton at Clinton.news)

(Article by John Hayward from Breitbart.com)

1. The Democrats’ rigged primary: Democrats should begin by accepting the obvious truth of a rigged primary revealed by WikiLeaks. The party’s key leaders — not the party’s voters — picked and promoted Hillary Clinton, meaning she was secretly coronated before the primary ever began. Her rival Bernie Sanders never had a chance. The “nomination” contest was theater designed to make Sanders voters accept Clinton. His voters ought to be furious at Sanders for playing along with this farce, which he most certainly did.

When Party elders shriek about nefarious Russian interference in the election process, they’re trying to distract from what the leaked DNC emails actually said, and the fact that we now know those emails are 100 percent genuine, despite early Democrat statements to the contrary. One of those shrieking claims came from Donna Brazile, who was directly involved in doctoring a primary debate by leaking questions to Clinton, not to Sanders.

2. The Democrat superdelegate system: Then there’s the openly rigged element of the Democratic primary, the superdelegate system. It is a political instrument specifically designed to shut down insurgencies and make the interests of Democrat voters secondary to the judgment of party elites, and the powerful lobbyists who manipulate them. Hillary Clinton was chosen by special-interest donors who had already spent a fortune currying favor with her, as demonstrated by the instantaneous collapse of the Clinton “charities”, the instant the Clintons had no more favors to sell.

3. The Democrat money machine: Building a titanic campaign war chest was the paramount concern of the Democrats in 2016, because they thought it — and their media allies — would give them an unbreakable headlock over the public debate. So Joe Biden was told he could not afford to get into the race. Same for Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who barely raised enough cash to pay for a Philly cheese sandwich. Their financial kneecapping allowed Clinton to suck up hundreds of millions in campaign cash, sometimes in legally questionable ways, even as she railed against the influence of money in politics.

4. The media was part of Clinton’s campaign: It’s fun to watch Democrats wail about Russian spies using WikiLeaks to influence the election, when it’s clear the mainstream media was able to downplay the actual contents of those emails enough to keep most voters in the dark. Sure, outfits like Breitbart News did everything we could to report those revelations, but that’s nothing compared to the influence wielded by the establishment media when it gets a “narrative” avalanche rolling.

Of course the establishment media was an active participant in the rigged primary scandal. Those leaked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta reflected very, very poorly on the press. That’s something Democrats could fix – there’s no reason for illegitimate behind-the-scenes coordination between their candidates and the media.

Democrat voters also should demand an end to the incestuous relationship between the media and Democratic politics because it has become as much a liability. Sure, it’s helpful to have the media in your hip pocket, but the value of that advantage is severely degraded when the public knows about it, and has lost faith in the establishment press as a result. Worse, the media enabled a weak, out-of-touch candidates like Clinton to capture the Party nomination.

5. The law was bent and broken to keep Clinton in the game: Democrat voters also should be questioning the legitimacy of Clinton’s nomination because the rule of law was corrupted to preserve her political viability.

Her candidacy should have ended when the email server story broke. (Really, it should have ended with the publication of Clinton Cash, but the Democrats incorrectly believed their controlled media could insulate her from the fallout of those astounding revelations.)

The politicized Obama Justice Department did Democrats no favors by staving off indictments that would have taken Clinton out of the game, or by slow-walking the email investigation until her replacement became prohibitively difficult. The Obama administration perfected tactics for dragging scandal investigations out until they became “old news,” but they miscalculated and prolonged Clinton’s email scandal until it blew up like a string of demolition charges throughout the 2016 election.

Before they began howling about Russian espionage, Democrats were pushing the narrative that FBI Director James Comey sabotaged Clinton’s election hopes by speaking at length about her “extremely careless” actions when he announced no charges would be recommended, and then kneecapped her again by reviving the Clinton investigation briefly during the last days of the presidential campaign.

As with their narrative about WikiLeaks, Democrats are complaining that Clinton was “sabotaged” because people revealed the truth about her. They’re saying their presidential candidate could only win if damaging facts were concealed, false media narratives were perpetuated, and special exemptions from the law were granted to her. That sounds like the very definition of an illegitimate candidacy.

6. Democrats try to hack the electorate: We might also challenge the legitimacy of a political strategy that relies so heavily upon using immigration to hack the demographics of the American electorate. Before Clinton’s defeat shocked them into silence, liberal analysts were beginning to churn out a fresh wave of “Emerging Democratic Majority” pieces about how native-born GOP voters would never win a national election again. One of the reasons Democrats subjected the Electoral College to one of their post-election tantrums is that the EC makes it harder for them to hack the presidential vote with mass immigration. That’s the true significance of the observation that Clinton’s popular-vote “victory” came entirely from California.

Before the 2016 election went down, it was commonly observed that Republicans might have won the previous two presidential contests if they were still running with Ronald Reagan’s electorate; this observation was used to mock Trump as foolish for pursuing an obsolete electoral strategy that could never work in the new, demographically-upgraded America.

That observation also lies behind the Democrats’ decision to downplay the economic concerns of struggling Americans, and to largely ignore the distastefully un-diverse electorates of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in favor of outreach to immigrants, racial subgroups, gays, professionals, unmarried women, and other element of the hoped-for ‘Emerging Democratic Majority.’ If Democrats didn’t believe they had a reserve army of immigrant voters for Clinton, they might have nominated Biden or Sanders to instead win ordinary Americans to their side. Amusingly, if those immigrants didn’t exist, American voters’ incomes would be higher — and fewer would have been angry enough to shift their votes to the GOP’s candidate.

To sum it all up, everything about Clinton’s nomination and campaign stinks to high heaven.

That’s why Democrats should try to reform their own corrupt party before they lose again in 2020, if only because they can’t overthrow the Constitution or persuade the military to install their next candidate. As President Barack Obama would say if the shoe was on the other foot, reform of the Democratic Party is the legitimate thing to do.

As for Republicans, they know that there are many other techniques that Democrats use to hack the electorate, including the Democrats’ control over the media and education systems. That’s why Republicans should work hard and fast to disable all of them, permanently, because they have a sworn duty to protect the legitimacy of our voting system.

Read more at: Breitbart.com


FBI sought secret FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign officials

Image: FBI sought secret FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign officials

According to recent reports, the FBI was trying to launch a surveillance operation against several officials from Donald Trump’s campaign team over the summer. The FBI sought broad surveillance powers over four highly ranked members of the President-elect’s campaign team during the election, based on claims they had suspicious contact with Russian officials.

It is very rare that the FISA courts turn down an FBI request to conduct surveillance on someone, but they did just that, telling investigators that they needed to narrow their request. The four Trump team members who escaped the FISA warrants were not named directly in the report, however, it was in relation to claims that Russia possessed a significant number of files that could be used to blackmail Trump. The files collectively formed the basis of accusations against Trump campaign personnel members Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Lt. Gen. Micheal Flynn, and Trump’s personal lawer Micheal Choen. Those four men are most likely the names that were omitted in the report.

Secondary reports have surfaced, which speculate that the FBI did in fact seek to fulfill a narrower application in attempt to obtain a warrant from the FISA courts. If these reports are indeed true, it will put a further damper on the relationship between the incoming Trump administration and the intelligence community.

While it’s not incredibly shocking that the FBI was interested in surveilling members of Trump’s campaign team, it is very shocking that the FISA court said no. The last time the FISA court rejected a warrant request was back in 2009. There is an unconfirmed report stating that the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but it’s unclear if that has led to a full-on investigation.

The FISA courts were named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. They stamp warrants which grant the US intelligence community broad surveillance powers under amendments to the original 2008 law. The courts proceedings are private, barring the first ever publicly made decision in 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed the existence of the PRISM program by presenting an NSA warrant to surveil Verison’s customer communications.

We don’t have a thorough understanding of the inner workings of the FISA, but we know that’s the place the federal government turns to seek warrants for spying on people, and they usually get their wishes granted. The Department of Justice shows thousands of annual applications are made by the federal government each year, with just a few of those needing modification prior to being approved by the FISA courts. It is likely that a modified version of the rejected warrant application was approved in October – based on the past behavior of the FISA courts, and reports of an unverified dossier that is gradually gaining attention.






Beware: These fake cancer charities are out to steal your donations!


The next time you wear a pink ribbon or join a charity run for cancer, better be wary of where your donations are being funneled.

It doesn’t matter how noble your intentions are. If you’re donating to a cancer charity, your money is most likely being siphoned to organizations that pay their big bosses large salaries and bonuses. The remaining funds (if any are left, at all) go to the organizations’ money-making marketing departments, where cancer awareness means business.

Just recently, a number of charities — the Cancer Fund of America, Cancer Support Services, the Breast Cancer Society and the Children’s Cancer Fund of America — have been revealed as manipulative cancer shams run by a family of con artists.

“This is as about as bad as it can get: taking money away from cancer victims,” said Jessica Rich, chief of the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection (FTC). The FTC was joined by the attorney general and law enforcement officials from all 50 states in a highly publicized case against these frauds.

According to company credit card reports, the con artists wasted good donation money on cell phone apps, iTunes purchases, dating website subscriptions, movies, sporting events and meals at Hooters!

Preying on the sympathies of potential donors, the charities used phrases like, “We help cancer patients anywhere in the United States. Men, women, and children with over 240 types of cancer.” To add fuel to the fire, these charities even claimed millions in tax deductions for donated items that didn’t exist at all.

All in all, the organizations managed to raise around $187 million for “cancer awareness.” These charities promised they were helping people with cancer, but only a shocking 3 percent of what they took from donors actually went to help cancer patients. Their form of help? Cheap “direct patient aid” which included adult diapers, sample-size toiletries and Little Debbie snack cakes.

Unfortunately, the four aforementioned fraudulent cancer charities are not the only ones out there collecting money under false pretenses. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans nowadays continue to be hoodwinked by self-serving charities that do nothing but enrich themselves at the expense of millions of patients all over the world.

If you really intend to help, remember: Putting funds directly in the hands of cancer patients should take precedence over cancer charity waste, and helping patients find healing strategies that empower their immune system should take precedence over chemotherapy and all other suppressive mainstream treatments constantly being marketed down our throats.

Sources used: