The Ukraine Meddled in the Presidential Election of 2016.

Forget about Russia. It all started in The Ukraine. Paul Manafort worked for the Party of Regions and their candidate, Yanukovych, who won. The other side was Timoshenko, Rick Davis (Manafort’s old partner), McCain, CIA, State Dept, DOJ, George Soros, and a new player, Hunter Biden.
Follow the bouncing ball, with me, for a Reader’s Digest version of the fake Russia Hoax, and very real, horrifically damaging, Ukrainian interference.
  1. The Ukraine Crisis Media Center was founded by Soros in March 2014. This organization is the Ukraine’s version of Media Matters.
  2. Serhiy Leshchenko was a Ukraine Member of Parliament.
  3. NABU, The Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bureau is formed and the Exec director is Artem Sytnyk.
  4. Another NGO was founded by Soros called the AntAC (Anti-Corruption Action Centre). They received 1.7 million in funding, about 1 million from USA Depts of State and DOJ, and 290K from Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation. THIS is the org that the Obama Admin worked through.
  5. NABU and the Obama government were working closely with Soros NGO Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC) in Ukraine, as John Solomon reports on The Hill. When Ukrainian prosecutors investigated AntAC over a missing $4.4 million in U.S. funding, they were told to stand down by Obama officials. —- this is the missing money for Joe Biden’s son. Biden’s son was coordinating activity in The Ukraine for the Obama Admin.
  6. AntAC (Obama administration and George Soros) pushed a Ukrainian investigation into then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities in Ukraine – WITH HELP FROM THE FBI, according to John Solomon from The Hill.
  7. On March 21, 2017, Leschenko and Sytnyk, hold a press conference at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, alleging Manafort took 12.7 million in illegal payments from Ukrainians and made a claim of a “black cashbox ledger”.
  8. Leschenko gave the info to Alexandra Chalupa, a DNC operative who worked with Hillary. Both Chalupa and Arepovitch, the CEO of Crowdstrike, are connected to a hard left authoritarian fascist group in The Ukraine.
  9. April 28, 2016 – Chalupa and Isikoff, a Yahoo Reporter who was deeply involved with Christopher Steele, etc, held a press conference in Washington, DC, and invited 68 Ukrainian journalists and distribute the dirt on Manafort. The program was called Open World Leadership Center, held at the Library of Congress, and again, connected to George Soros.
  10. NABU and the Obama Admin worked closely with Soros NGO AntAC. When Ukrainian prosecutors investigated AntAC over a missing $4.4 million in U.S. funding, they were told to stand down by Obama officials. Again, this is all tied to Hunter Biden and the missing 3 million dollars from Burisma holdings. “When the new prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko went to meet Obama Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, he says he was stunned when the ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.”
11) Chalupa received detailing of the payments from Leschenko. Payment detail from 2007-2012 lists advertising, computers, polling, consultant fees, etc. NONE OF THE PAYMENTS OR Manafort’s signatures WERE EVER CONFIRMED.
12) Chalupa also passed the Black Ledger info on to Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, who passed them on to staffer Nellie Ohr. Ohr passed the info on to her husband Bruce Ohr, Epoch Times reports.  On May 30, 2016, Nellie Ohr sent an email to Bruce Ohr and Justice Department staffers under the subject line “Reported Trove of Documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions’ ‘Black Cashbox.’”— which means they were investigating Paul Manafort prior to the July 31, 2016, inception of “Crossfire Hurricane”.
13) Isikoff broke the story on Yahoo on Aug. 18, 2016, one of the first public mentions of purported “collusion with Russia” by the Trump team. Manafort had to step down as Trump’s campaign manager the next day.
14) In addition, Leshchenko served as a direct source of information for Fusion GPS—and their hired researcher—former CIA contractor Nellie Ohr. Yes, Nellie received info from Ukrainians, directly or via Fusion GPS, to influence a Presidential election. 
15) “Ohr told congressional investigators on Oct. 19, 2018… When pressed, Nellie said she recalled them “mentioning someone named Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian.” She later admitted she knew of Leshchenko prior to her time at Fusion as he was a “very well-known, Ukrainian, anti-corruption activist”……. Leshchenko had adopted a strong anti-Trump stance (because Trump wanted to pursue a more friendly relationship with Russia). And remember, Putin is a nemesis to George Soros.
16) Remember when Manafort was charged with witness tampering, by the Mueller Special Counsel? Well, Manafort’s daughter’s phone was hacked and a text message was discovered. “….. it was reported by Politico in late February 2017 that a hack of the phone belonging to one of Manafort’s daughters revealed a text containing a blackmail threat that Manafort has attributed to Leshchenko. It’s not known with any certainty who actually sent the text, which contains an attachment that references “the Yanukovych accounting book” and lists an email address for Leshchenko.” Hmmmm…. “not known with any certainty” but Manafort received additional charges because of the text.
17) Leschenko and Sytnyk are found guilty. “…. December 2018, a Kyiv court ruled that Leshchenko, along with NABU Director Artem Sytnyk “acted illegally when they revealed that Manafort’s surname and signature were found in the so-called “black ledger” of ousted President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions,” the Kyiv Post reported on Dec. 12, 2018.”
18) Leschenko and Sytnyk interfered in an American election. ” The court noted the material was part of a pre-trial investigation and its release “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”
THERE’s your interference!
Leschenko and Sytnyk —->>>to Alexandra Chalupa —->>>>David Isikoff at Yahoo AND Glen Simpson at Fusion GPS —–>>>> Bruce Ohr —>>> FBI
A little more on Chalupa, because what she did was so brazen, given what we know now, about Russian meddling.
” Just days prior to Manafort’s hiring, on March 24, 2016, Chalupa spoke with the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Valeriy Chaly, and told him of concerns she had regarding Manafort. “
She talked directly to the Ukrainian Ambassador?
Are you kidding me?
That would be like Jared meeting Kislyak at the Russian Embassy or calling Lazarov, the Russian foreign minister.
” According to Politico, the day after Manafort’s hiring, Chalupa provided a briefing on “Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia” to the DNC’s communications staff. Notably, “with the DNC’s encouragement,” Chalupa asked the Ukrainian Embassy staff to attempt to arrange an interview with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and have him discuss Manafort’s ties to former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. “
Are you kidding me? That would be just like Manafort/Bannon/Jared/Don Jr. requesting a meeting with PUTIN – DIRECTLY.
” The Ukrainian Embassy reportedly declined the request….” because it would have been illegal and considered meddling in a foreign election for the Presidency of the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT Chalupa did begin to work with reporters who were researching Trump AND various staff members at the Ukrainian Embassy.
” Andrii Telizhenko, who worked in the Ukrainian Embassy under one of Chaly’s top aides, Oksana Shulyar, has repeatedly stated that Chalupa was working closely with the Ukrainian Embassy to obtain information on Trump”
There’s our proof.
Chalupa worked directly with Ukrainians, received something of value, illegally, which meddled in an American election for the Presidency of the USA.
Three backup source articles for reference if the reader chooses to explore further the deception of the Clinton Campaign of 2016.

94 thoughts on “The Ukraine Meddled in the Presidential Election of 2016.

  1. Thanks Daughn!! I LOVE Reader’s Digest version…Great write up and easily understood!! Creepy Uncle Joe Is NOT GOING TO Run…Except from the coming Indictments…Bwahahaha!!!

    Liked by 15 people

  2. Looks like the Ukraine Russian connections were supposed to be a fire hose or BIG $$$$ profits into the pockets of Democrats and their families/cronies.

    Liked by 10 people

  3. Looks like the DNC/RINOs/Uniparty were partnering with Ukraine to impact the 2016 election.

    McCain family to support Biden. Of course they are.

    I hope President Trump’s declassification exposes despicable John McCain’s contemptible collusion and criminal actions.

    Liked by 17 people

  4. Look at the numbers.
    $12.7MILLION/2BILLION = .00635
    That means The Ukraine is missing 2 billion dollars, but has only investigated 6/10th’s of 1% of the money.
    Does ANYONE believe this would be the most important 6/10th’s of 1% on the planet?
    Does anyone think Manafort worked for free, from 2007-2012?
    But The Ukraine is not investigating their Supreme Court Judges? Other major dignitaries? Politicians? ONLY the payments surrounding Paul Manafort?
    Where’s the Suspicious Cat?
    Are we expected to believe…….. the former First Deputy Head of the Security Service of Ukraine Viktor Trepak, who claims that he handed over documents confirming illegal payments of cash by the Party of Regions to a number of former and current senior officials…… the one who kept the “black ledger”……… for years……. only turned it over for some altruistic sense of human well-being……. months before Manafort became influential………. and Trepak did this for free?
    At that point, no one really knew who Manafort was.
    And the worst possible person in this 2 billion dollar swamp was Paul Manafort? Who only made 12 million over 6yrs?
    No way.
    Ohhhh, and the signatures and payments were not confirmed?
    But the press conference was given at a “foundation” sponsored by Soros and the Obama Admin?

    We need an army of suspicious cats.

    Liked by 16 people

      1. It cracked me up when Uncle Joe threw is hat into the ring ( of fools) , not that he has a chance in h3ll of getting the nomination.
        “Just another brick in the wall” for POTUS Trump in 2020!

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Does the mysterious Weiner laptop have any emails from HRC and her assistant Huma Abedin that involve Ukraine?

    Liked by 15 people

  6. well I do believe the whole humpty dumpty wall, house and garage is about to go tippy tippy over into a world of hurt for everyone involved. I pray that no names reputation as a wonderful almost god like figure is finally erased from history and his true reputation as an evil, petty tyrant is all that remains at the end of all this.

    Liked by 16 people

  7. The name of the country is Ukraine.

    NOT “The Ukraine” If you want to really get off on a bad foot with Ukrainians, just ask them what part of The Ukraine they’re from.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. We fought this fight months ago.
      I was informed, “The Ukraine”, cuz I called it “Ukraine”
      Just please, don’t call me “late” for dinner.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. I remember answering a question about this maybe a week ago; I forget who asked. If you’re that person and you’re thinking of that conversation, and understood me to say “The Ukraine” was correct, then I apologize for the miscommunication.

        Gratuitous extra information (because otherwise you’d wonder what happened to the real SteveInCO):

        It made some sense to call it “the Ukraine” when it was part of another country, like “the South” and “the Midwest” do here. Indeed, I recall hearing once that “Ukraina” might derive from an old Slavic term for “borderland” so “the borderland” would make sense. Except that those languages don’t use articles (a, an, the) anyway!

        Liked by 11 people

      2. “We fought this fight months ago. I was informed, “The Ukraine”, cuz I called it “Ukraine” ”


        I usually try to cover all the bases, calling it “Ukraine the Ukraine”.

        ‘Cause I’m a people-pleaser 😁

        Liked by 7 people

        1. I call it “The Other White Russia”. So far, that has never failed me in remembering the presence of corruption and repression, although there does tend to be more of the former and less of the latter, compared to the other other White Russia. 😉

          Liked by 9 people

          1. It should be noted that the entirety of Russia became “Russia” because they were associated with the “Kievan Rus”. Not the Moscow Rus or the Tsaritsyn Rus — the Kievan Rus. So Russia (the country) is named after a group in its former province’s capital — when the former province wants independence.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. I had a similar issue with Canadans.

      They kept insisting they were Canadians, but I said how can that be true, unless their country was called Canadia? But they insisted that their country was actually called ‘Canada’ (they also claimed Canada was not still a British colony, despite the Oath of Office pledging undying fealty and boot-licking to the Lizzy the queen-mum, but that’s a whole other story).

      It’s very confusing.

      So I got out my trusty thermapolis (it’s like a thesaurus and a world map) to see for myself, whether those things were so.

      Albania –> Albanian (not Albanan)
      Algeria –> Algerian (not Algeran)
      Armenia –> Armenian (not Armenan)
      Australia –> Australian (not Australan)
      Bolivia –> Bolivian (not Bolivan)
      Bosnia –> Bosnian (not Bosnan)
      Bulgaria –> Bulgarian (not Bulgaran)
      Cambodia –> Cambodian (not Cambodan)
      Colombia –> Colombian (not Colomban)
      Estonia –> Estonian (not Estonan)
      Ethiopia –> Ethiopian (not Ethiopan)
      Georgia –> Georgian (not Georgan)
      India –> Indian (not Indan)
      Latvia –> Latvian (not Latvan)
      Liberia –> Liberian (not Liberan)
      Lithuania –> Lithuanian (not Lithuanan)
      Macedonia –> Macedonian (not Macedonan)
      Romania –> Romanian (not Romanan)
      Slovakia –> Slovakian (not Slovakan)
      Tunisia –> Tunisian (not Tunisan)
      Zambia –> Zambian (not Zamban)

      There are LOTS more, that’s just a sampling. So it appears that when a nation’s name ends in ‘ia’, the term for the people of that nation is the same word, with an ‘n’ added to the end of the word.


      And it likewise appears that when a nation or region’s name ends in ‘a’, the term for the people of that country or region is the same word, with an ‘n’ added to the end of the word.

      For example, people from America are called Americans, NOT Americians.

      Here are more examples, there are LOTS of them:

      Andorra –> Andorran (not Andorrian)
      Angola –> Angolan (not Angolian)
      Botswana –> Botswanan (not Botswanian)
      Burma –> Burman, also Burmese (but not Burmian)
      Cuba –> Cuban (not Cubian)
      Dominica –> Dominican (not Dominician)

      Grenada –> apparently Grenada cheats and has it both ways, Grenadans OR Grenadians

      Guatemala – Guatemalan (not Guatemalian)
      Jamaica –> Jamaican (not Jamaician)
      Kenya –> Kenyan (not Kenyian)
      Libya –> Libyan (not Libyian)
      Malta –> Maltin or Maltese (not Maltian)
      Rwanda –> Rwandan (not Rwandian)
      Samoa –> Somoan (not Somoian)
      Sri Lanka –> Sri Lankan (not Sri Lankian)
      Tonga –> Tongan (not Tongian)
      Uganda –> Ugandan (not Ugandian)
      Venezuela –> Venezuelan (not Venezuelian)

      So when a People are called ______ans, it is because the country from which they hail has a name which ends in “a”.

      So it naturally follows that Canadans are from Canada, and Canadians would be from Canadia:

      Canada –> Canadans (not Canadians)

      Canadia –> Canadians (not Canadans)

      Somehow, I suspect this is all the Queen’s fault… she’s even on their money, you know… 😁

      Liked by 9 people

        1. Hopefully there’s a good explanation for the linguistic inconsistency, which someone is hastily scribbling down in WordPress as we speak, to be posted any moment now.

          But until then, it’s like a license to have fun 😁

          Liked by 7 people

      1. You think the pronunciation of where they’re from is A big deal?
        Try asking a Canadian if they are American?
        It’s like they got bitten by a wasp as they insist they are from CANADA,NOT, AMERICA.
        To which I politely ask when did Canada not be part of America?
        Like, hello, the continent of North America.
        They’ve got a chip on their shoulders.

        Liked by 6 people

        1. Huh, I had just the opposite experience from my Spanish teacher in 9th grade. She insisted that everyone who spoke Spanish in Central and South America were ‘Americans’.

          It’s almost like the aspiring people in the bad part of town want to be associated with the working class in the business district, but the people in the Great White Hamptons… don’t. 😁

          Liked by 6 people

        2. Some manifest it the opposite way.

          They’ll say they are Americans (or “North Americans”) and insist we have no right to appropriate the word “America” for ourselves, and call us “United Statesians.”

          It is a valid point–we never really had a “place name” that was uniquely ours. “America” applies to the entire New World, talking about the US as if it were “the” America is ambiguous. Once upon a time, it wasn’t uncommon for Europeans to call the United States “Fredonia” just to have a name that “works” like “France,” “England,” and “Germany” do. I’ve also seen “Usonian” (from US).

          Liked by 6 people

          1. So let’s see: we call the French Republic “France,” the Federal Republic of Germany “Germany”, the Republic of Italy “Italy” and the Czech Republic “the Czech Republic.”

            Somehow we don’t have a short word for the land, like, “Czechia.” The Czechs actually tried to get us to start calling it “Czechia” informally, but it never caught on and I think they gave up. The other half of the former Czechoslovakia, however, is called “Slovakia” when we aren’t calling it the “Slovak Republic.”

            Liked by 5 people

            1. “Somehow we don’t have a short word for the land, like, “Czechia.” The Czechs actually tried to get us to start calling it “Czechia” informally, but it never caught on and I think they gave up.”


              I could have told them that would never work.

              If they wanted to Westernize it, they should have gone with Czechland. 🙂

              Liked by 5 people

          2. “It is a valid point–we never really had a “place name” that was uniquely ours. “America” applies to the entire New World, talking about the US as if it were “the” America is ambiguous.”


            That was basically the argument my Spanish teacher made in 9th grade.

            So I raised my hand, and I asked her point blank: If I was in any other part of the world, and told someone I was an American, would they think I was from Mexico, or Brazil, or Guatemala?

            Or would they know, without any doubt, that I was from the United States of America?

            She gave me ‘that look’ — part annoyance, and part grudging appreciation, usually accompanied by drawing a breath in preparation to reply, and then stopping short, as it dawned on her that once again, this wasn’t going to work out they way she anticipated.

            She gave me ‘that look’ a lot, because I was always asking questions she didn’t have answers to — or the obvious answer exposed the flaw in her argument… 😁

            Liked by 8 people

            1. (Taking a guess at the era-the Reagan years?)

              Back then, when traveling abroad, you didn’t have to tell anyone you were an American- they just knew it!

              Liked by 4 people

      2. Interesting catch. “Canada” breaks a rule few would notice if not pointed out to them.

        Of course in the second part you mean “ends in -an without an I before it” 😀

        More gratuitous factoids (because otherwise someone would ask me what I did with the real SteveInCO):

        Speaking of Armenia/Armenian, an Armenian surname is identifiable by ending in “-ian” and thus rhyming with “Armenian.” One exception: “Cacatian” is actually from (if I recall) the Phillipines; though a lady I knew with that name actually fooled Armenians, at least until they saw her Asiatic features.

        Two very different countries can share the same monarch, and it has happened often enough that they call it a “personal union.” Back in the days of absolute monarchies that usually didn’t last very long; one of the countries would break away or try to break away and eventually be forcibly made part of the other country; or they’d end up uniting. An example of the first case is Russian and Poland during the 1800s (Tsar Alexander I made king of Poland after the Napoleonic wars, Poland tried to break away several times and was eventually fully incorporated into Russia, losing its monetary system, etc.) An example of the second was England and Scotland, with the same king, uniting in the early 1700s to form the United Kingdom. (Later Ireland was brought in, too.) Canad(i)a, Australia, etc. are ruled by different legislatures than the UK, and the Prime Minister of England has no say as to what happens in Canad(I)a. The only thing they have in common is that monarch.

        That being said, Anglophone Canad(i)a was largely founded by loyalists fleeing the United States at the time of the Revolution–the Francophones never wanted to join the United States (they feared we wouldn’t tolerate French; the Brits did tolerate it) and weren’t happy with us trying to force them in during the Revolutionary War.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. “Interesting catch. “Canada” breaks a rule few would notice if not pointed out to them. ”


          I can’t help it.

          Inconsistencies, flawed reasoning, fallacies, non-sequiturs, contradictions, linguistic anomalies, et al., stand out to me like flashing lights.

          It doesn’t always prevent me from making my own — which is why I always want people to attack my argument and show me where I’m wrong, which helps me to make it better — but it stands out (to me) in the writings of others.

          Sort of like proofreading. It’s easy to proofread someone else’s work, but more difficult to proofread your own.

          Liked by 6 people

            1. “Italian” breaks the rule too…sort of. In Italian, it is “Italia” not “Italy.”


              Then it appears Italy does not break the rule, but conforms to it:

              Albania –> Albanian (not Albanan)
              Algeria –> Algerian (not Algeran)
              Armenia –> Armenian (not Armenan)
              Australia –> Australian (not Australan)
              Bolivia –> Bolivian (not Bolivan)
              Bosnia –> Bosnian (not Bosnan)
              Bulgaria –> Bulgarian (not Bulgaran)
              Cambodia –> Cambodian (not Cambodan)
              Colombia –> Colombian (not Colomban)
              Estonia –> Estonian (not Estonan)
              Ethiopia –> Ethiopian (not Ethiopan)
              Georgia –> Georgian (not Georgan)
              India –> Indian (not Indan)
              Italia –> Italian (not Italan)
              Latvia –> Latvian (not Latvan)
              Liberia –> Liberian (not Liberan)
              Lithuania –> Lithuanian (not Lithuanan)
              Macedonia –> Macedonian (not Macedonan)
              Romania –> Romanian (not Romanan)
              Slovakia –> Slovakian (not Slovakan)
              Tunisia –> Tunisian (not Tunisan)
              Zambia –> Zambian (not Zamban)

              Liked by 1 person

            1. It might seem that way, but it doesn’t, because I’m accustomed to the idiosyncrasies. It’s only when the idiosyncrasies are violated that I notice them. 😁

              Liked by 2 people

        2. “and the Prime Minister of England has no say as to what happens in Canad(I)a. ”


          Right, the Queen does.

          This whole idea that the queen is a figurehead without any real power is laughable. As always, whenever in doubt, follow the MONEY.

          And the lawyers who wrote the Oaths of Office for Canadia, New Zealand, Australia (and probably others) weren’t just accidentally using the same very specific language pledging fealty to a foreign leader on a lark… yet people seem to want to convince themselves otherwise.

          It’s a remarkable thing really, to simply ignore the plain language and assume it means anything other than what it actually says. Like some kind of mass-hypnosis trick.

          How does anybody think words to the effect of “I pledge to lick the dirty leather sole of your boots until you command me to stop, or until all the skin on my tongue is gone, whichever comes first” is just some kind of quaint figurative but non-binding language that doesn’t really mean anything?

          As sure as you are breathing, you can be sure that oath means E X A C T L Y what it says.

          The same people who think the Prime Minister is independent of or autonomous from the queen are the same people who think Hussein (not to mention nearly all of the other Western ‘leaders’) wasn’t a puppet.

          It may be that the queen herself is someone’s puppet. I don’t know how high it goes, but the public faces of most governments (including ours, until Trump) aren’t even mid-level managers in the greater New World Bloviator scheme of things.

          The Puppet-Masters don’t have enough respect for us to ‘give’ us anyone qualified to run a Popsicle stand, that’s how we ended up with the Hussein, and how France ended up with Macron, and how Canadia ended up with Princess Justina Trudope, etc.

          Those clowns couldn’t even carry Trump’s jockstrap.

          The Puppet-Masters have been mocking us.

          So we sicced Trump on their asses.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Never claimed the PM of england was independent of the Crown.

            Only the Crown can declare war, at least in the UK. I imagine it’s the same in Canad(i)a.

            My point was that the parliament in England cannot make law in Canad(i)a; that’s up for Canada to do. Yes, the Crown wields enormous power too–but at least Parliament can’t meddle in Canad(i)a like it did in the 13 (future US) colonies.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Here is the Prime Minister’s oath:

              “I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.”

              Each of those words has a meaning in Law, in real Law, Law which is much older (and superior to) statutes, codes and legislation.

              In the same way that our Constitution (which is based on Common Law) is superior to any statute, code or legislation.

              The above referenced sentence is only a small part, the entirety of it should make someone blush with embarrassment or boil over with rage (or both).

              It’s unbelievable.

              As in, nobody would believe it, if they didn’t see it with their own eyes and hear it with their own ears. So here you go. Listen carefully. Listen to these words, they could not be more clear, swearing repeatedly his personal fealty to the woman, queen Elizabeth, personally, and to keep SECRET anything and everything which might ever be discussed with her.

              Isn’t that convenient…

              This same oath is taken by the Prime Minister of New Zealand and Australia, and who knows how many so-called ‘former’ colonies.

              Imagine for even one second if an American said those words.

              Now imagine for one second if ANY leader of ANY ‘independent, sovereign nation’ said those words.

              It couldn’t possibly happen.

              I don’t know what spell has been cast over the world to darken their eyes to the plain language and meaning of words.

              All of those words have very real meaning, and used together, in the expression of those thoughts, has a very real meaning.

              And how anyone can interpret those words to mean anything other than what they plainly say and mean, is a mystery to me.

              Liked by 2 people

        3. James Charles Stuart (June 19, 1566 – March 27 1625), was King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England. The only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, he was the King at the time of the Gunpowder Plot with Guy Fawkes, and is responsible for the King James version of the Bible.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. One branch of my husband’s family tree descends from “United Empire Loyalists” who fled America after the Revolutionary War. In Canad(i)a having UEL as a distinction is an honor. Ironically, my maiden name comes down from a patriot who signed up on April 19, 1775 & eventually became a Captain in that war & climbed to a General later on…He helped to secure a very large portion of land from the Indians for Massachusetts, land that was later part of New York.

          The UEL ancestor crossed the St. Clair River from Canada to Michigan & became a big deal in mining, banking, irrigation, railroads, & shipping in several states. There are locations named for him in Michigan, New Mexico, Idaho, & Colorado. His descendant was a governor of New Mexico & considered for Vice Presidential candidate with Teddy Roosevelt. His grandson-in-law (also my husband’s ancestor) was descended from the Governor of Colorado.

          The fascinating life & times of J(ames) J(ohn) Hagerman were shared autobiographically here:

          Click to access J.J.Hagerman_autobiography.pdf

          There are more links to his history here:

          Funny how enemies can become friends & contribute to the very fabric of our society!

          Liked by 1 person

            1. If memory serves Hagerman Pass in CO was named for Percy Hagerman, my husband’s great-grandfather. He was a founding member of the 14,000 club–mountaineers that first summited peaks over 14,000 feet. We have a lithograph by him as he was also an artist in addition to a sports & businessman…


              hopefully the image shows:
              “Percy Hagerman
              Hagerman’s Peak, 17 prints
              signed and dated lower left”
              data from the website featuring that image

              Liked by 2 people

  8. Great write-up!

    A) they ALWAYS accuse their adversaries of what they themselves are doing


    B) everything we know, even now, is not even the shadow of the tip of the iceberg — ALL of this is so much bigger than most people are willing to even consider.


    C) why is Soros still a free troll, living under a fancy bridge?

    At best — very best, most generous and conciliatory scenario — he should be given the Manafort treatment, have his home raided, arrested, ALL of his assets seized, and kept in solitary confinement.

    If there was any actual system of JUSTICE, he would have a bag put over his head, flown to GITMO, be tried for crimes against humanity, and executed.

    And yet, he and his entire global criminal organization is free to keep on doing whatever they want, to whomever they want, affecting the fates of nations and BILLIONS of human beings all over the world.

    And never any explanation WHY.

    Nobody ever even asks the QUESTION.

    Liked by 15 people

      1. “It seems to me someone just did. 😀”


        Well sure, but I always do.

        The problem is that nobody with access to the world stage — none of the daytime soap opera actors and actresses who put on our scripted daily Kabuki Theater — ever do.

        Liked by 5 people

        1. FYI:
          Those from the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan are referred to as YOOPERS (as in UPers).

          The rest of them, in order to “show” where they are from, will hold out their left-hand, palm facing away, fingers together, thumb sticking out, and with their right index finger, point to where, on the “map” of the lower Peninsula, they hail from!

          Liked by 4 people

          1. Yep, I was aware of the term Yooper!

            The left handed variant, of course, for Trolls, is to use the palm of the right hand and point with the left index finger.

            Yeah, I don’t come from Michigan but I guess I identify more with the Yoopers.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. I remember seeing some print magazines from the UP (might have been called “Yooper”).

              Story in there about an area whose name I don’t recall, but but began with an “I”.

              Residents began seeing illegal aliens moving in, and noticed an uptick in crime.

              As responsible citizens, they organized themselves and formed a neighborhood watch group -and called it the “I(whatever the name was) Neighborhood Security.

              They ordered hats and jackets for the newly formed group.

              Navy blue with gold lettering: INS

              The crime disappeared-along with the illegals!

              A hardy bunch, them Yoopers!


              Liked by 3 people

  9. And, Daughn! Did you see this from the John Solomon story?

    “Vachon (a spokesman for Soros) said Soros wrote a sizable check from his personal funds in fall 2017 to a new group, Democracy Integrity Project, started by a former FBI agent and Senate staffer Daniel Jones to continue “investigation and research into foreign interference in American elections and European elections.”  

    So Diane Feinstein’s staffer, Dan Jones was also involved!!!

    You have done great work, Dawn! If one reads your links after your abbreviated version, it all becomes so clear!!

    And your disclosure of Crowdstrike being involved with Chalupa and the rest of the Russian Hoax crowd is amazing!!!

    Liked by 10 people

  10. I LOVE your Reader’s Digest version–so much easier to understand, thank you!
    I would like POTUS and Putin to put their heads together at some point and solve the Soros problem…that man has had his filthy fingers in too many places to suit me.

    Liked by 11 people

      1. “I just realized that Soros could be tagged as another “state-like” actor, like Wikileaks. ”



        Soros the person, Soros the ‘business entity’, has more power, personally, than the majority of countries in the world today.

        He exercises more power than most sovereign states, without the obligations that come with maintaining a sovereign state, e.g., a professional military to guard and defend the borders, a sound currency system, a functional economy, minimal care for the serfs and peasants, etc.

        He has all of the upside of a sovereign state, without any of the downside responsibilities.

        He is, in short, a self-financing terrorist.

        And he’s not even self-financing, but always diverting taxpayer monies, through corruption, to his own NGOs and seditious organizations, so he doesn’t have to use his own money.

        He is a vampire, a leech, a parasite, who is ALLOWED to exercise unchecked power to topple governments, destroy entire economies and financial systems, and orchestrate the migration/displacement of tens of millions of Muzzies into Europe, just as he is orchestrating the 100s of thousands in ‘caravans’ to invade the United States.

        These are textbook acts of War, and crimes against humanity.

        He could easily be stopped. A special forces unit from Liechtenstein could eliminate him. A SWAT team from Missouri could do it. Soros is not even a microbe on a gnat, compared to the United States military.

        Yet there is never any explanation as to WHY he is ‘allowed’ to do continue wreaking havoc all over the world, with impunity.

        Nobody in the MSM dares even asks the QUESTION.

        And nobody in government ever does, either.

        It’s the 800 Lb. elephant that wears no clothes.

        Liked by 6 people

  11. Thank you for the succinct explanation. I tweeted it out.

    Dear God,
    I pray for justice to come! And, quickly! I would say something about hoping for public executions, but I don’t want to seem as if I am bloodthirsty. But I know You understand, Lord. Thank You. Amen.

    Liked by 8 people

  12. Great explanation! Please follow the “grand professor” of Ukrainian crime against the 2016 election – Lee Stranahan. He has been saying this stuff over and over since 2016 – he has much juicy on the Chalupa clan.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. FLEP, I was typing the post out, when Giuliani came on and started talking about Ukraine.
      Thought someone was looking over my shoulder, for a minute.
      Story is bubbling up. Good.

      Liked by 5 people

  13. I want to see Soros and his Get grabbed tossed on a plane and sent to Russia or Hungary to stand TRIAL.

    Then grab, at the same time, the Obamas and Clintons and ship THEM to Egypt to stand trial.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. The word of the day is treason. They really need to get theirs, not just prison or execution, but all asset forfeiture so that they cant give to cash they got to their families. No one benefits ever.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. scott467
    Was writing about the Prime Minister’s oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

    Here is some information people are unaware of that is very important given the Green New Deal crap. (It is a bit garbled and URLs are missing since it is from my old notes.)

    Richard Courtney in a wattsupwiththatDOTcom comment once mentioned that the Queen meets with the Prime Minister at the being of each year to go over the laws/bills purposed for that year. Any she does not like get NIXED and never come up for a vote. Unfortunately I did not keep a link to his actual comment and it was several years ago. It stuck in my mind because I had always though the Queen was just a figure head but she is NOT, she actually DOES RULE the UK.

    Also the Queen OWNS the land, and not the people occupying it.

    Who owns the world?

    The world’s primary feudal landowner is Queen Elizabeth II. She is Queen of 32 countries, head of a Commonwealth of 54 countries in which a quarter of the world’s population lives, and legal owner of about 6.6 billion acres of land, one-sixth of the earth’s land surface.

    This was reflected in a comment made by someone from Canada during the ‘Farm Wars’ and a discussion on Premises ID. She said Canadians do not own the land the Queen does.

    Premises ID is a VERY SNEAKY method to transfer ownership of US land to the government BTW.


    Is it ok to register your premises and is doing so harmless?
    Note the wording used in the NAIS documents about registering your premises. They put many of us on guard against NAIS. So the government data mined and signed up many farmers without their knowledge or permission and now refuses to delete them.

    Words have meaning and contracts use certain words to avoid confusion. The USDA wants you to register your premises because you have livestock (even one).You effectively become a sharecropper, with a clouded title to property. Substituting “premises” for “property” effectively renders property rights null and void. This use of a term (and its meaning, which is often not publicized) is no accident. Property is by far the most powerful legal term, but you can lose your property rights — your ability to admit or deny access, utilize your property, sell or mortgage it, etc., if you do not know the three meanings and the context in which they are employed. Calling the owner a stakeholder and the property a premises, leaves a gray area in property rights.

    According to the US Department of Agriculture, “The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises.”

    That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word “premises” under the “international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word “premises” includes a place and a “conveyance.” Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007 under Secy. of Ag. Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, is quoted as saying, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.”

     Stakeholder…..Stakeholders are NOT the owners of the property, legally they are those who hold the property until the owner is determined. The USDA is in effect “branding” or “marking” its property with its number beginning in 840 (the international code designating financial instruments belonging to the USA)

    Property – a.Something that is owned or possessed. Property may be real (land), personal, tangible (touchable), or intangible (such as the interest in a play or other creative work). – U.S. Treasury OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision, in charge of banks, savings and loan associations, etc.) b. the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing: ownership c. something to which a person has legal title
    Land – Real property or any interest therein.

    Premise is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person “leasing” it to another.

    Webster’s New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines “Premises” as the part of a deed or “lease” that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in “conveyance.”

    Webster then defines “conveyance” as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term “premises” and never mention “PROPERTY.”

    The effects of a permanently assigned federal number to your land and the usage of the word ‘premise’ instead of property is cause for serious alarm. Property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it and Property Rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
    Premise signifies a formal part of a deed, and is made to designate an estate; to designate is to name or entitle.  Therefore a premises has no protection under the constitution and has no exclusive rights of the owner tied to it.
    Would this property once it has a premise number, even be legal to sell? According to the NAIS document, the premises number stays with the land forever even if there are no animals on it. The inference does not matter if it is land with or without buildings.

    The term premises as defined by Webster states: the preliminary and explanatory part of a deed or of a bill of equity [its being identified in the premises of a deed]  a. a tract of land with the buildings thereon, a building or part of a building with its appurtenances.

    Appurtenances – an incidental right (as in a right of way) attached to a principle property right and passing in possession with it. A subordinate part or adjunct. Accessory objects.

    With all the above defined, you can see why premises is the legal word of choice for the USDA. Premises in the legal sense defines a deed or bill of equity where there is more then one person that has legal access over the items. In this case real estate and a “deed” is given to the USDA. On the other hand, if property is used, it is defined as a sole ownership, no one else has legal claim to it but the person that owns it. Another key word in the definition of premises is appurtenances. As you can see it allows a legal right of way onto land by the parties entering into the contract.

    The 4th and 14th amendment protect our property rights under the constitution. Premises is a term used in contract you enter into to allow others ownership, much like a lease to an apartment or other real estate you may rent or occupy. Premises are NOT protected. The USDA knew exactly what they where doing. This is why Greg Newindorf in Michigan stood his ground, but had no say over what the USDA did in coming on his property/premises (ownership lost) or what they did in tagging and testing the cows (national herd) for TB.

    Congress in the past introduced bills that sought to authorize the “National Animal Identification System” (for example H.R.3691 on 3-11-2004; S.2070 on 2-12-2004; H.R.1254 on 3-10-2005, among others), all these bills stated “… and for other purposes.” Though these bills never became law, the USDA went ahead with the development of the NAIS, and made its 1st phase – Premises Registration – operational in June, 2005.

    “Perhaps the following quote from the United States Code, Title 31, Section 6305, regarding Federal/State “Cooperative Agreements” (such as Premise ID and NAIS’ implementation), will shed some light on this:

    (1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State, local government, or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; …

    The 25x’25 Initiative is sponsored by the Energy Future Coalition, a project of the UN Foundation

     “House Concurrent Resolution 25

    “The official title of the resolution [H. Con. Res. 25] as introduced is: “Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.”


    “American’s farms, ranches and forests – our working lands – are well positioned to make significant contributions to the development and implementation of new energy solutions. Long known and respected for their contributions to providing the nation’s food and fiber, an emerging opportunity exists for crop, livestock and grass and horticultural producers, as well as forest land owners, to become major producers of another essential commodity – energy.”

    There you have it: the “working land” of the United States is Development, in fact what we commonly refer to as our privately owned and operated farms, ranches and forests – it is YOUR LAND. Except for private treaty obligations or local laws governing real property, your land is beholden to nobody else. In light of the above resolution, is that about to change, though, especially in those situations where the land was “voluntarily” registered with and identified by the United States government?

    Do you agree with and support Congress’ missive that the working land of the United States (which includes YOUR land) “… should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States [by the year 2025] ” without having studied the facts and understanding the consequences or effects this may have on YOUR land? Did you have a chance at all to express your thoughts on the proclamation that “…our working lands are well positioned to make significant contributions to the development and implementation of new energy solutions …”. Are YOU ready to make such significant contributions? Or are there some other questions of the operative principle involved here – that need to be asked and answered, questions such as:

     Who sets the priorities, and quotas, over food, feed, fiber and fuel production? How much of the above production will be allocated to “voluntary” participation by way of registering your land,… Will farmers’ and property owners’ participation be policies the agency may enforce in the future.voluntary or mandatory?

     Is the goal of “25x’25” even realistic in light of Americans’ ever-increasing demands for energy, what is the source of the remaining 75% that needs to be produced? What are the long-term consequences of transgenic crops (i.e. ethanol-corn and biodiesel-soy) on the working land, soil conditions, conventional and organic crops? If 25% of our land is going to produce energy then “luxuries like pet horses must be done away with. The land must not be “wasted” producing food for a non food animal like horses. That also provides the reason for getting rid of pet cats and dogs.

    Why does the USDA want Premises ID

    Originally written to prevent government from trespassing on the people’s right to contract, the Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, that … “No state shall … pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts, …” It is this constitutional provision that allows the Federal government to implement Federal programs by using so-called “Cooperative Agreements” (basically, a certain type of contract) in lieu of legislation. Commencing in the late-1950s, the Federal government began to contract with other jurisdictions to implement Federal programs where Congress does not have legislative authority.


    Liked by 2 people

  16. Most interesting

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Liked by 1 person


    We should make shirts like that….its a twofer.

    Harkens back to 90’s Clinton slogan (Its the economy stupid) as apposed to “Muh Russia” and plays off the stupid way to refer to that former Soviet sate

    Liked by 1 person

  19. One NOTE on Ukraine and Alexandra Chalupa. Our article on Ukraine is very similar to Solomon save three points.
    1. Solomon reveals there was a Obama Admin meeting in old Eisenhower building in January of 2016. Wowwiieee. Started it all.
    2. Focus on Manafort disregard anything to do with Craig. Only leaked two pages of the “black ledger” from Yanukovych, Party of Regions, and Manafort was the ONLY name leaked. SUSPICIOUS CAT????
    3. Solomon claims the Ukraine Embassy had nothing to do with DNC in last paragraph. We have specific articles and quotes of Chalupa working with members of Ukraine Embassy.
    We are directly over the target!
    We are the news!

    Liked by 1 person

  20. “A little more on Chalupa, because what she did was so brazen, given what we know now, about Russian meddling.”

    “She talked directly to the Ukrainian Ambassador?”

    “Chalupa asked the Ukrainian Embassy staff to attempt to arrange an interview with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and have him discuss Manafort’s ties to former Ukrainian President Yanukovych.”

    “BUT Chalupa did begin to work with reporters who were researching Trump AND various staff members at the Ukrainian Embassy.”

    “Andrii Telizhenko, who worked in the Ukrainian Embassy under one of Chaly’s top aides, Oksana Shulyar, has repeatedly stated that Chalupa was working closely with the Ukrainian Embassy to obtain information on Trump”

    “Chalupa worked directly with Ukrainians, received something of value, illegally, which meddled in an American election for the Presidency of the USA.”

    Bu… bu… bu… but… Was there controlling legal authority??❓

    Because some of those things might look a little out of sorts. But, as we learned from an earlier case involving allegations of campaign finance violations, if there was no controlling legal authority, then basically it’s a gimme for Chalupa. /sarc


  21. Daughn, now that the Ukrainian connections are becoming more and more public (e.g. Hannity’s question to our POTUS asking if he will let the Ukrainians present their evidence of collusion with Hillary and Soros groups) we can appreciate more than ever your analysis. I read all your links from Epoch Times and John Solomon but, without your post categorizing the Soros groups, the good guys, and the bad, the other articles are not anywhere as understandable!! I feel so empowered now as I read the subsequent stories!!

    Nobody does it better than you!!! Thank you!!!! 👏👏👏👍👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸


  22. So I just finished your post & the comments to see if anyone referenced this important source:

    Using the search function there are 30 mentions of “Ukraine”, though the last couple are in comments…so here is a taste of what you can find at Ya’acov Apelbaum’s curtain shredding post!

    hopefully the image above will show, here is the caption “Alexandra Chalupa’s, Iryna Mazur’s, and Nancy Pelosi’s 2 degree linkage to the Sheikh Mansure Chechen Battalion fighting in Ukraine. Some of the rifles, scopes in the images are ITAR controlled.”

    caption for above image which hopefully shows “Ivanna Voronovych, a member of the Ukraine political network in DC, her linkage and her Cinderella transformation from a Kiev party girl to Nancy Peloci’s legislative aide”

    caption for above hopefully showing image & info leading to the below image: “Alexandra Chalupa, Melanne Verveer, and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur’s Ukraine linkages

    Alexandra Chalupa, Iryna Mazur, Natalia Budaeva, Ilya Zaslavskiy, Melanne Verveer, Nadia McConnell, and Lyudmila Vereshchagina US political linkage to the following organizations:”

    image doesn’t copy well, see Apelbaum’s post for detais…

    “Chalupa” shows up nearly 40 times in a document search here!

    here’s the caption/explanation for the above, hopefully visible, image: “Alexandra Chalupa’s and Iryna Mazur’s linkage and examples of their anti-Trump network activity”

    “In 2012, Steele did some work for the US state Department and was in communication with Winer and the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. This was done directly and through Sir Andrew Wood, who was the former British Ambassador to Russia and an employee of Orbis. Steele’s communications included over 100 reports on the Ukraine-Russia conflict. These reports were based on information from UK and Ukrainian government sources and contained political and financial data about Russian companies that was shared with Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.

    When questioned about Steele’s relationship with Jonathan Winer, Victoria Nuland said:

    “During the Ukraine crisis in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine, what was going on between them. Chris had a friend [Jonathan Winer] at the State Department and he offered us that reporting free so that we could also benefit from it.”

    In June 2018, Nuland also confirmed that Steele was invited to the State Department on October 2016 (just two weeks before the elections) to give a dossier briefing. The meeting lasted over 3 hours, and included a presentation, handouts, a Q&A, and representatives form several federal agencies.”

    If you haven’t yet reviewed the Apelbaum piece please check it out. I was quite blown away from the details & linkages he’s uncovered. So many tech savy people here at the Q-Tree could replicate much of his style of sleuthing using his shared methodology:

    “The Analysis: Methods and Tools
    The data collection and analysis environment was based primarily on open source tools. I’ve also utilized several commercial packages to fill-in the gaps in the framework. The following are the solution components:

    OS – Windows Server 2016
    Big Data Stack – Hadoop, Zeppelin, Kafka, Storm, and Spark frameworks
    Scripting – VisualBasic.Net and Python
    Speech to Text – Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API
    OSINT and Forensic Tools– Buscador, FOCA, Maltego, and Metagoofil
    Orchestration – Metasploit Framework with custom payloads
    Web Crawler and Scraper – RCrawler with an R package
    Network link analysis and Graph – Open Sementic Search with a Neo4J plugin
    Writing style analysis – JStylo-Anonymouth, stylo R package, and JGAAP
    Reporting – Microsoft Access 2016
    EXIF data viewer – Opanda PowerExif and Photoshop CS6 SDK
    IP Address and Port Verification – ViewDNS.Info (API edition)
    Face recognition, facial Indexing, image reconstruction, and object detection – Sentinel AI Platform
    Network device scanner – Shodan
    Network Mapper – Nmap

    The Analysis: System Architecture”

    “The Analysis: Data Sources
    To identify the entities and build the dossier network I’ve used the following publically available sources (see above architecture diagram for more details):

    Server and computer logs
    Network scans and maps
    Federal, state, media, and news archives
    Email, forum, websites, blog, and message archives and backups
    Publically accessible IoT devices and cams
    On-line image and file depositaries
    Social media postings by friends, neighbors, and family
    LinkedIn profiles
    Twitter profiles
    FB profiles
    Corporate and court filings
    Commercial BR sources”

    caption for above image: “An examples of FR matches for Mary Jacoby in on-line image and media searches”

    Anyway people with way more expertise than I in numerous arenas could really mine the material here!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Holy crap, Valerie!!
      This is terrific.
      Note to all: I’m drafting Valerie on my research team, asap.
      I will dig into this in the morning.
      Can’t thank you enough.
      (whaddaya mean Chris Steele had clients in the Ukraine and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) OMG.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. OK, but I learned about this from someone at CTH months back, who was posting an AmericanThinker post by Clarice Feldman, I believe. So the Only credit I might deserve is that of persistence…so thanks very much. I’m extremely glad that this is helpful for you!!!

        Here’s Clarice’s piece, I hope:

        Can you even imagine if the Q Treeper tech wizards each focused on a single piece of the puzzle or player in the coup attempt & used Apelbaumesqe techniques–ThermoNuclear War w/the good guys holding all the footballs!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s