Wednesday, November 2, 2016


Published on Nov 2, 2016
Infowars reporter Owen Shroyer attempts to question Texas Director of Elections Keith Ingram after he ran away from David Knight last week. Keith Ingram, after being asked a simple question about election fraud, now has a full time armed state trooper guarding his office. It's glaringly obvious these election officials have something to hide. 
Keith Ingram, Director of Elections
Elections Division
Office of the Secretary of State
1019 Brazos Street

Austin, Texas 78701



512/463-5650   FAX 512/475-2811

1-800/252-8683 (Toll Free)

SEE ALSO: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:


Electronic voting machines flushing vote down the memory hole

By David Knight |
Establishment politicians and press are outraged that Trump would question the integrity of their system.They say it undermines public trust in political institutions.Yet to see who is truly undermining public trust we need look no further than the people running the elections, who are shutting down election audit procedures, who stonewall and eject certified election monitors and who make any recording of malfunctioning voting machines a felony.One such person is Texas Director of Elections, Keith Ingram.
This story is specific to Texas, but the same tactics are used nationwide by both parties to exploit vulnerabilities inherent in electronic voting.
I went to the Texas Secretary of State offices to ask Mr. Ingram about specific procedural changes he has made in his four-year tenure and the changes he attempted to make in August that would have gone into effect this November.
With camera & mic in hand, we told the reception desk we were with the press and would like to talk to the Director about the election.
We were told to wait in the lobby and Mr. Ingram would be down.
You can see for yourself what happened when he saw the mic flag showing we were with Infowars.
The man running the election bureaucracy runs from questions.
So much for transparency and candor.
This unelected bureaucrat is tasked with ensuring that counties adhere to election law.
What follows are the specific actions taken by his office that waive requirements and undermine election integrity in Texas.
But before we get to specifics about his actions & his connection to the Rose Law firm in Arkansas, there are some general questions that should concern voters nationwide:
• Why would standards required by our elected lawmakers for election integrity be bent to the capabilities of vendors rather than require vendors to perform to the standard?
• Why would election procedures be waived and honesty and transparency sacrificed for the convenience of election workers & officials?
Burning The Paper Trail
In August 2016, Ingram, Texas Director of Elections, attempted to make last minute rule changes for the upcoming November 8 election that would eliminate crucial paper backup records for electronic voting.
His office issued new rules that would:
• Eliminate printing of paper audit logs that poll watchers are entitled to monitor at main tabulation computers.
• Eliminate printing of Early Voting Results tapes.
• Eliminate printing of ballot images for recounts.
Fortunately activists and some elected representatives got the proposed rule changes postponed, with a formal public hearing scheduled after the November election.
State Senator Don Huffines said “The state’s chief election officers must reconsider and redraft their proposed election rules to pursue more real-time paper records and backups, not fewer…The comfort & convenience of election administrators should not take priority over voters’ confidence and election integrity.”
But even though these procedures have been postponed, Ingram’s previous rule changes are still a cause for concern in the November election and have caused repercussions in two election cases currently being litigated. Here are some of the problems…
1) Waiver of laws requiring a Partial Manual Recount audit
Ingram waived the requirement to conduct a manual count in 1% of the election precincts or 3 election precincts, whichever is greater. This was waived in all 254 counties the day after the March 2016 Primary.
The timing is significant because during the primary there were 1,743 move votes than voters in Hill County in the Republican Primary. The margin of victory was 225 in Texas House District 8 that contains Hill County.
In calling for a criminal investigation, Ingram noted that it appears “6 or 7 voters voted more than once in the election and one voter voted as many as four times.” Yet he waived the partial manual recount audit requirement statewide and he has waived other audit and monitoring procedures.
2) Waiver of laws requiring printing of paper backup results tapes
Ingram’s waivers issued in 2014, 2015, and 2016, appear to be in direct contradiction of state election laws 65.004, 65.014, 66.022, 66.023, 66.024 and the Judges Handbook. These rules require –
• “Three original tally lists shall be maintained at the polling place to record the number of votes received for the candidates”
• “On completion of the vote count, the presiding judge shall prepare the returns of the election for the precinct” with “total number of voters”, “total number of votes” with the presiding judge signing each of the 3 copies to certify.
zero-tape-tally1Ingram also issued waivers for requirements that a “zero tape” be printed from the machines at the beginning of election day and a “tally tape” printed at the close of election. His letter states that “the process of printing of the zero tape and tally tape at each countywide precinct location could take hours in both the morning and the evening of election day.”
So expediency for election workers takes precedent over requirements enacted by the legislature for integrity of elections. And if a favored vendor can’t perform to the law, the law is waived.
If proper procedures had been followed to ensure that the machine was at a zero state, instead of waived by Ingram, the Hill County issue of 1,743 more voters than votes would not have happened. The vendor in Hill County, ES&S eventually identified the source of the extra votes saying “An audit of the log report from the central paper ballot scanner showed that the hard drive had not been properly cleared of all ballots cast before scanning Early Voting or Election Day ballots…There are established election protocols which should be followed to prevent this type of reporting error.”
But the Director of Elections is waiving those “established election protocols”. Ingram’s waver of legal requirements & his improvised solution of “printing a zero tape at the county warehouse prior to election day” opens the door for error and fraud.
3) Ignoring laws requiring printing of legally sufficient ballot images for recounts
The Secretary of State Election Division claims that “cast vote records” are equivalent to “ballot images”. As you can see, the cast vote records are very different from ballots and are not uniquely numbered.
The Texas Constitution, Article 6 – Suffrage, Section 4 says “In all elections by the people, the vote shall be by ballot, and the Legislature shall provide for the numbering of tickets and make such other regulations as may be necessary to detect and punish fraud and preserve the purity of the ballot box.”
Yet the machines by vendors Hart InterCivic and ES&S, certified by Ingram, do not provide uniquely numbered ballots per state recount laws and don’t provide other components of a legal Texas ballot.
4) Ignoring laws that allow poll watchers to monitor all election activities such as the printing of paper audit logs for computerized result tabulation
Texas Election Code, Sec 33.056 says a “watcher is entitled to observe any activity conducted at the location at which the watcher is serving.”
Affidavits from two official poll watchers for a candidate in Dallas County (with official Poll Watcher signed forms) detail how they were “repeatedly obstructed from monitoring multiple election activities at the Dallas County Central Counting Station such as ballot scanning, vote transfer, ballot transfer, computer activities, ballot tabulation, and viewing the elections computer line printer.” They state that they were “repeatedly treated disrespectfully, obstructed and blatantly ignored” by the election officials, and voting machine vendor before being thrown out after the officials spoke with the Texas Secretary of State Elections office.
Hostility to election monitors, like Ingram’s refusal to answer our questions, destroy the public’s confidence in the honesty of the process — and rightfully so.
Ingram’s Connections To Arkansas, Kutak Rock, Rose Law Firm & Hillary Clinton
According to a public information request of Ingram’s Secretary of State personnel file, Ingram left private practice and moved to Little Rock Arkansas, taking a job with the law firm, Kutak Rock, LL. At Kutak Rock, he worked under the managing partner, Gordon Miller Wilbourn who had been a partner with Hillary Clinton, Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas in the 1990’s. The Wilbourn family is a large donor to the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Ingram left Kutak Rock to return to Texas when he was hired by Gov. Rick Perry’s appointment office in 2008 to oversee statewide political appointments for various courts, boards & commissions.
Ingrams’s career moves are interesting. In just 10 months, his journey from private practice in Texas through Arkansas Clinton-cronies and back to Texas government resulted in pay cuts with each move and his salary being cut in half. In 2012, Ingram, was promoted to Director of the Election Division in the Texas Secretary of State’s Office where his salary was still 40% less than private practice.
Ingram’s determination to remove paper trails and auditing procedures for electronic voting is even more troubling when we look at his connections to big Clinton donors.
Establishment Of Both Parties Don’t Appear To Want Election Integrity
In one lawsuit contesting election results for Austin City Council, the County could not produce ANY ballot images as required by law to conduct a recount. Computer logs had multiple “corruption/invalid” errors. During discovery it was learned that the computer counted more votes than registered voters in 10 of the 12 precincts forming the district. One precinct had 100% voter turnout, another was just 2 registered voters shy of 100% in spite of only 32% and 17% county-wide turnout in the general and runoff elections.
The County Democrat Party has financed legal opposition to the lawsuit and a Republican judge claimed there was no evidence for election irregularities.
There are some positive developments, however. The Republican judge has now been voted off the bench of the solidly Republican County and state legislators have taken up the question of election integrity that has so far been ignored by Governor Abbott’s office.
State Senator Bob Hall said, “Due to an increasing number of complaints, it is time for the Texas Elections Division Office to take immediate and decisive action to rescind all waivers issued by that office…and instruct all Texas counties using electronic voting systems to consistently adhere to all election laws…”
Voters, regardless of political affiliation, should reject policies and personnel that compromise honest, transparent elections. For example, Chambers County in Texas recently announced electronic voting would be suspended until the glitches affecting voting machines could be corrected. It’s time to remove Keith Ingram as Texas Director of Elections and replace easily hacked electronic voting machines with paper ballots.
13--Legal Texas Ballot Example 2014

14 Cast_Vote_Record_Travis_County_NP


Published on Nov 1, 2016
The facts continue to mount which prove more and more that not only is election fraud possible, but it's happening at the will of Hillary Clinton.

Texas Election Officials Harass Reporters 
for Exposing Election Fraud!




When Dom Raso talks about a very real threat facing Americans today — that of radical Islamic terror — he's accused of fear-mongering. But the threat is real, of course, and Dom says we can either prepare for it by arming and training ourselves, or we can ignore it and pretend that restricting the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizen will eliminate the threat.

"How A Pro-American President Fights ISIS"
If we had a president who believed in the Second Amendment, here’s what Dom Raso says that president would say to our fellow Americans about the threat of radical Islamic terror. Unfortunately, we'll never hear that speech from Obama. So it's up to us to arm and train ourselves and take the responsibility of protecting ourselves and our loved ones into our own hands.

Watch more episodes of Commentators on NRATV:


Christian Charity Forfeits Federal Food in Favor of Faith
Christian Charity Forfeits Federal Food 
in Favor of Faith
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“We don’t force our faith on anybody else,” Chuck Wingate, executive director of Bethesda Mission, told “But we find the whole idea that the government’s going to come in and tell us what we can and cannot do in our own facility to be out of bounds, especially in matters of faith.”
Wingate, who says his Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ministry serves 100,000 people a month, was referring to a new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation forbidding recipients of USDA food from requiring “a beneficiary to attend or participate in any explicitly religious activities that are offered by the organization.” A USDA press release stated that the rule was established pursuant to an executive order issued by President Barack Obama and would “provide new religious liberty protections for beneficiaries of federally funded social service programs.”
Bethesda, which has been helping the poor and homeless in the Keystone State capital for nearly 102 years, formerly received about 1,000 pounds of USDA food per month via the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank. But given the choice between taking Uncle Sam’s freebies and continuing to offer thanks to God before serving meals, the mission’s leaders decided on the latter.
“We can no longer take the food on principal [sic] because prayer is an integral part of everything we do at Bethesda Mission,” Scott Dunwoody, the shelter’s vice president of business development, told Harrisburg’s WHTM-TV.
“The USDA revised regulations regarding this food distribution to say that no religious services or religious activities could occur during the distribution of the food,” Wingate told “Well, we pray before meals, so if there’s a meal being served — and we serve 3,000 meals a week — if there’s a meal being served with USDA food somewhere in it, then we would be prohibited from praying. We just said ‘nope’ that’s too onerous for us and we’re not going to continue to accept the food if that’s a condition of receiving it.”
Many religious charities are now faced with the same dilemma as Bethesda. So far, few seem willing to cut the umbilical cord to Washington — or perhaps they long ago made the necessary compromises to get USDA comestibles. Jennifer Powell of the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank told PennLive that “only a handful” of the bank’s 900 program partners have chosen either to stop taking the USDA food or to change their practices — by, say, conducting prayers outside the room in which the food is served — to fall in line with the new rule.
Eric Saunders, executive director of Harrisburg-area New Hope Ministries, told PennLive his ministry didn’t need to change its practices because they have never required people to participate in prayer or a religious service in order to obtain food. “When the new rule came out,” reported the website, “Saunders said he simply reminded staff to make sure any religious activities were done at a different time or place from when people were being served.”
Bethesda doesn’t require participation in religious activities, either, but anyone there for a meal is going to be in the presence of an audible prayer. This, apparently, does not comport with the Obama administration’s definition of religious freedom, whereby passively causing someone to hear a prayer before giving him free food is unacceptable but forcing a Christian charity or business to pay for contraceptive coverage for its employees is worth defending all the way to the Supreme Court.
Saunders said of Bethesda, “I have a lot of respect for them and the principled stand they took.”
Bethesda will probably not be hurt much by declining the USDA’s food. Although 1,000 pounds a month sounds like quite a bit of food, it really only amounted to about 0.5 percent of the food distributed by the shelter, according to Wingate. He claimed the announcement has already led to an increase in donations to the ministry. In addition, Powell said the food bank has plenty of other food the mission could use.
All of these problems could have been avoided, of course, if the federal government had not strayed from its enumerated powers under the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is the government delegated the authority to distribute food, no matter how noble its intentions may be in doing so. As James Madison, the father of the Constitution, so eloquently put it, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Charities, especially Christian ones, ought also to be mindful of the fact that the “free” food they get from Washington and other levels of government is paid for by the expropriation of the citizenry; “Thou shalt not steal” contains no exceptions for either government or charities. Furthermore, they should recognize that by accepting the government’s largess, they are also accepting its control, even to the point of denying their faith. It may be more cumbersome and less reliable to subsist on voluntary contributions, but it is the only sure way to maintain a charity’s religious character over the long run.
Bethesda Mission
PO Box 3041
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Phone: 717-257-4442
Fax: 717-257-5486
Executive Director – Chuck Wingate
Phone: 717-257-4442 ext. 226
V.P., Business Development – Scott Dunwoody
Phone: 717-257-4442 ext. 229
(For help with charitable bequests, planning your giving or charitable gift annuities)
Director of Community Relations – Ken Ross
Phone: 717-257-4442 ext. 223
(Media inquiries, Newsletter requests, request a Tour of our facilities, or to schedule a speaker)
Volunteer Coordinator – Deb King
Phone: 717-257-4442 ext. 222
(volunteer opportunities)
Director of Human Resources – Kathy Geyer
Phone: 717-257-4442 ext. 225
(employment opportunities)
Donor Services Dept.
Phone: 717-257-4442 ext. 240
(Questions about your donation or mailings)
 Men’s Shelter, Medical/Dental Clinics & Donation Center
611 Reily Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102
Women’s Shelter
Youth Center
1438 Herr Street, Harrisburg, PA 17103
Rural Outreach
5 Pleasant View Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Administration Offices
2101 N. Front Street, Building 1, Suite 300
Harrisburg, PA 17110


"That it’s a phony political ploy is evident from the fact that the bill would only apply to California residents. Nonresidents would be exempt. Nonresidents such as criminals, illegal immigrants, out-of-state terrorists, gang members and convicted felons “can bring ammunition into California all they want,”"
California’s Anti-gun Prop 63 Likely to Pass
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s (shown) campaign to run for something (either governor of the state or for Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat when she retires) in 2018 is likely to get a significant boost when Proposition 63 passes next month. Prop 63 won’t do anything to restrict criminal gun violence, but it will raise him from obscurity, provide his campaign (which he announced in February last year) with mailing lists and funding sources, and propel him into national prominence.
In other words, Prop 63 is all about Newsom. As sponsor of the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment bill, Newsom has taken plays from the Brady anti-gun playbook and sold them to the California low-information voters, who are being influenced by the bill’s support from Senators Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, various mayors, and three of the state’s largest newspapers. At last count, more than 90 percent of Democrats and a hefty majority of Republicans support the bill.
The bill, which Newsom calls his “Safety for All” measure, would, he says, “help save countless lives.” Its primary focus, according to Newsom, is on ammunition: It would, effective January 1, 2018, require purchasers of ammunition to undergo background checks and have the sale recorded permanently onto a new database maintained by the California Department of Justice. If a seller sells more than 500 rounds in any 30-day period, he would have to become a licensed ammunition vendor and would be forced to sell ammunition only face-to-face, not by mail.
In addition the proposition would create a “new court process … for the removal of firearms from individuals upon conviction of certain crimes” according to the state’s voter information guide. In addition, it would ban the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That guide goes on to parrot the traditional anti-gun promises of similar bills:
Proposition 63 will improve public safety by keeping guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands. Law enforcement and public safety leaders support Prop. 63 because it will reduce gun violence by preventing violent felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining and using deadly weapons and ammo.
That it’s a phony political ploy is evident from the fact that the bill would only apply to California residents. Nonresidents would be exempt. Nonresidents such as criminals, illegal immigrants, out-of-state terrorists, gang members and convicted felons “can bring ammunition into California all they want,” according to Kim Rhode. Rhode, a six-time Olympic medal winner in the shooting sports and an honorary life member of the National Rifle Association, added: “This tells you how fundamentally twisted this proposition really is. It will cause the police and the state to divert resources to monitor law-abiding citizens [who] are not causing any problems, but will do nothing to stop criminals.”
Rhode is joined by numerous individuals and groups who see the bill for what it really is, including 10 professional law-enforcement associations and John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation:
This law would make criminals out of people who are morally blameless. These are special taxes and background checks on ammunition, just to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. It’s an assault on the Second Amendment.
Agreeing with Malcolm’s assessment of the bill’s malevolent results is Michele Hanisee, president of California’s Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County:
For one thing, this initiative would do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring ammunition, guns, or large-capacity magazines. But it would make it prohibitively difficult for responsible gun owners to obtain ammunition for sport and home defense.
As prosecutors, we would enthusiastically support any proposed law that promised to be a realistic tool against gun violence. But Prop. 63 is simply bad public policy. Its passage would have zero effect on criminals — other than to encourage them to commit more crimes. At the same time, it would criminalize the conduct of ordinary citizens.
Passage of Proposition 63, which now appears to be certain, will turn out to be a two-fer: 1) a further infringement of precious rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the citizens of California, and 2) a boost from obscurity to national prominence the highly popular former mayor of San Francisco and current radio host who has his eyes set on 2018 political opportunities.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Responding to a chorus of protests and complaints, Defense Secretary Ash Carter has suspended collection of repayments of enlistment bonuses made to members of the California National Guard. Carter has also directed that a review be made of the process that led to members of the California Guard being given bonuses to reenlist, only to have the Department of Defense demand repayment of the bonuses.
Carter called the process “unfair to service members and to taxpayers,” and said he has ordered the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to “suspend all efforts to collect reimbursement from affected California National Guard members, effective as soon as is practical.”
“This suspension,” Carter added, “will continue until I am satisfied that our process is working effectively.”
“I’m glad the Pentagon came to its senses,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said, in response to Carter’s statement. “Congress will continue to work on any reforms necessary to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
Jeff Miller, a Florida Republican, and chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, was not as charitable as Ryan, however. He denounced Carter’s response as “weak and ham-handed,” pointing out that the moratorium will not cover potential problems outside California.
Miller added, “Carter seems to have no plan to make those who’ve already been forced to pay back their bonuses whole, and by focusing only on the California Guard, he is ignoring what media reports indicate could be a national problem. Once again, it seems Congress will be forced to fix a problem that the Obama administration created but refuses to fully address on its own.”
During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the California National Guard offered soldiers thousands of dollars in bonuses to entice them to re-enlist. It was at a time when the military was having difficulty meeting its recruiting goals. It is estimated that the bonuses were given to almost 10,000 soldiers, in amounts of $15,000, or even more.
David Cloud of the Los Angeles Times explained the problem to National Public Radio (NPR). The bonuses were paid to encourage soldiers to sign up for another tour in the Army, generally for an additional six years. “They were being paid at a time when the California Guard desperately needed soldiers to fill the ranks of units going to Iraq. So they were more generous than usual.”
Unfortunately, many soldiers given bonuses did not qualify under the rules used at the time. Then, many years later, the Pentagon conducted audits and demanded the soldiers who received the payments pay them back — with interest.
“This story has made my blood boil,” said Bill Hahn, vice president for communications with The John Birch Society (parent organization of The New American magazine), making specific reference to a woman — a master sergeant — who went to Afghanistan after getting a $15,000 bonus. Susan Haley’s entire family served in the Army, and she had served 26 years in the military herself. After all of that, she received notice — while caring for her son, another soldier who had lost his leg in Afghanistan — that she owed thousands of dollars to the Pentagon.
“I feel totally betrayed,” said Sergeant Haley, a native of Los Angeles. Haley is presently sending the Pentagon $650 each month — a quarter of her family’s income. Haley is worried that she will have to sell their home to repay the bonuses. “They’ll get their money, but I want those years back,” Haley said, referring to the additional six years she spent in the military as a consequence of the bonus she is now forced to repay.
A former Army captain, Christopher Van Meter, expressed similar sentiments: “People like me just got screwed. These bonuses were used to keep people in.” Van Meter has been forced to refinance his home mortgage to pay the $25,000 in re-enlistment bonuses the Army insists he should not have received. During the extra time he spent in the service, he was thrown from an armored vehicle turret, after the vehicle detonated a buried roadside bomb. He received a Purple Heart for his injuries.
Robert Richmond, an Army sergeant, re-enlisted for $15,000 as a special forces soldier. In 2007, his company was deployed to Hillah, an Iraqi town 60 miles south of Baghdad. In this area — known as the “Triangle of Death” — a roadside bomb exploded, leaving him with permanent injuries to his back and his brain.
With the $15,000 unpaid “debt” on his credit report, he was turned down for a home loan in Texas.
The Army began to experience recruiting shortfalls during the second Bush administration and the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, forcing the Pentagon to resort to the most generous re-enlistment incentives in history. The recruiting and re-enlistment difficulties have continued into the Obama administration, causing some to address causes for the problem, and others to offer solutions.
National Guard units, such as those in California, have been activated more and more frequently in recent years, as the Pentagon has faced difficulty raising enough troops in the regular Army to handle the frequent overseas deployments in the administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. This in turn has led to more difficulty in filling the ranks of the various state units of the National Guard across the country.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious reasons for the reluctance of many to join the national armed forces or the National Guard units. But with the increasing political correctness of the armed forces (with training in such morale-damaging classes as “White Privilege,” the inclusion of women in combat roles and the lowering of physical standards to accommodate them, the push to allow for homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered soldiers, and the like) thousands more soldiers have opted for a different career.
With difficulties in raising enough soldiers through recruitment, some have advocated a return to the military draft. The draft ended in 1973, but at the urging of President Jimmy Carter, draft registration was reinstated in 1980. This became a minor issue in the presidential campaign of 1980, with Governor Ronald Reagan speaking out in opposition to draft registration. Since that time, there has been insufficient national support for reinstating the draft. But with the decline in recruitment, supporters of the draft have blamed the all-volunteer force.
If the country were to return to the draft, the question of whether women should be included in any conscription law would be raised. Recently, the U.S. Senate voted to include women in draft registration, but the Republican-led House of Representatives balked, narrowly defeating the effort by 217-203.
Presently, men must sign up for the draft within 30 days of turning 18. But with falling numbers of young men willing to join today’s military forces, for whatever reason, expect increasing pressure to add women to the draft registration rolls.   
In 1940, on the eve of a presidential election, President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, “I say to you again, and again, and again — your sons will never be sent to fight in a foreign war.” With the inclusion of young women in both the draft and combat, perhaps this should be updated to “Your sons and your daughters will never be sent to fight in a foreign war — but if they are, expect us to ask for their bonuses back.”


Published on Nov 1, 2016
At a recent press conference in Washington, DC Danney Williams asks Monica Lewinsky if he can borrow her infamous blue dress in order to get a DNA sample from former President Bill Clinton to conduct a paternity test verifying Bill Clinton is his father. David Knight interviews Danney Williams about his paternal quest to legitimize Bill Clinton is his father.

Published on Nov 1, 2016
Infowars reporter Millie Weaver interviews Danney Williams about his lifelong quest to legitimize his claim that former President Bill Clinton is his paternal father. At a recent press conference, Danney Williams asks Monica Lewinsky if he can borrow her infamous blue dress in order to get a DNA sample from Bill Clinton to conduct a paternity test to verify Bill Clinton is his father. 

Bill Clinton's Son Holds Explosive 
DC Press Conference
Published on Nov 2, 2016
Danney Williams, son of Bill Clinton gives a press conference at the prestigious National Press Club where he asks that Monica Lewinsky help him obtain a DNA sample to help prove paternity.




FBI Targets 5 Clinton Camp Cronies
Published on Nov 2, 2016
The FBI is now not only reopening the Clinton email server investigation but probing five Clinton associates.