Bill Clinton gets CAUGHT by Hillary Clinton checking out Ivanka as Michelle Obama suddenly realizes she’s not proud of her country anymore.
The first inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States was held on March 4, 1861, on the East Portico of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.. The inauguration marked the commencement of the first term of Abraham Lincoln as President and the only term of Hannibal Hamlin as Vice President. The presidential oath of office was administered to Lincoln by Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the United States.
This was the first time Lincoln appeared in public with a beard, which he had begun growing after being elected president, in response to a written request by 11-year-old Grace Bedell. This effectively made him the first President to have any facial hair beyond sideburns.
On Inauguration Day, Lincoln’s procession to the Capitol was surrounded by heavily armed cavalry and infantry, providing an unprecedented amount of protection for the President-elect as the nation stood on the brink of war. During the 16 weeks between Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 presidential election and Inauguration Day, seven slave states had declared their secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.
Train ride to Washington
An entourage of family and friends left Springfield, Illinois with Lincoln on February 11 to travel by train to Washington, D.C. for the inauguration. This group including his wife, three sons, and brother-in-law, as well as John G. Nicolay, John M. Hay, Ward Hill Lamon, David Davis, Norman B. Judd, and Edwin Vose Sumner.
For the next ten days, he traveled widely throughout the country, with stops in Indianapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany, New York City, and south to Philadelphia, where on the afternoon of February 21, he pulled into Kensington Station. Lincoln took an open carriage to the Continental Hotel, with almost 100,000 spectators waiting to catch a glimpse of the President-elect. There he met Mayor Alexander Henry, and delivered some remarks to the crowd outside from a hotel balcony. Lincoln continued on to Harrisburg. Then, because of an alleged assassination conspiracy, Lincoln traveled through Baltimore, Maryland on a special train in the middle of the night before finally completing his journey in Washington.
This is the face of a charismatic but incompetent failure that presided over the fall of the Democrat Party. He helped his party lose 919 State legislature seats, lose control of Congress, lose control of Governorships across the nation, and help usher in the Trump era.
And somehow, a day from now, 4 years from now, 20 years from now the Democrats will still look back at him as a hero.
For that we sincerely Thank You Obama!
Defying any sense of journalistic integrity and loyalty to the truth, the Washington Post did it again — publishing Fake News for clicks — which had the desired effect of worldwide outrage to suit a tightly-defined political agenda.
This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.
We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.
On Friday, WaPo published an article claiming President-elect Donald Trump fired Washington, D.C., National Guard Major General Errol R. Schwartz — just in time for the inauguration — and that he would be forced to leave his post as soon as the president takes the oath of office.
But that isn’t true.
“My troops will be on the street,” Schwartz told the Post. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He added he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”
WaPo’s erroneous reporting included a statement from D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who lamented, “It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment.”
“I’m a soldier,” the Post quoted Schwartz. “I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.”
But WaPo left out a number of critical points — and horrendously slanted the rest — about this “firing” of the head of the D.C. National Guard.
That D.C. position — unlike the equivalent for states — is appointed by the president, not by the Pentagon, as the Post suggested, nor by any branch of the military. Also, the article glaringly omitted any statement from the Trump transition team, an inexcusable offense, considering it later emerged Schwartz had been offered to keep his position through the end of Inauguration Day — it was Schwartz who turned down the offer, preferring instead to vacate the role at 12 noon, when Trump will be sworn in.
Of course, the blatant misinformation presented by the Post seemed so juicy, countless corporate outlets parroted the claim. Thus this Fake News rippled around the planet earning the scorn of millions who believed Trump must have lost all sensibility for firing a man who had diligently performed his duties since his appointment to the post by former President George W. Bush — during a potentially dangerous event.
This also spawned a number of rumors — with raucous protests planned for Inauguration Day, and the week before, why would the incoming president fire the man in charge of security? Isn’t this a preposterous decision on Trump’s part? What is Trump thinking?
Like previous viral stories — at this point, one would be hard-pressed to deem them ‘news articles’ — the Washington Post published faulty information and subsequently began backtracking.
Notably, in each case, after erroneous information went viral worldwide, edits after publication go largely unnoticed by most of the populace. While retractions and post-publication editor’s notes sometimes appear on WaPo’s articles they are orders of magnitude less popular than the original story and, in this instance, the firing of Schwartz story has only been appended in content — no editor’s note yet graces the top or bottom of the article. (The original version can be found here.)
Any news organization actually practicing journalism would tell you this is egregiously irresponsible.
Except, it’s beginning to appear the Washington Post publishes misinformation and Fake News intentionally — knowing any subsequent disputation of its claims won’t gather as much steam as the original publication.
A distinct reason exists why this would be the case — Brandolini’s law.
“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it,” Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant, keenly observed in 2013 — the Post knows this, and has been manipulating public perception exactly this way.
It was, after all, the Washington Post who initiated the altogether ironic war on Fake News — first turning from journalistic duty in the publication of several items blaming disinformation for the downfall of, well, nearly everything.
WaPo published an ‘article’ about supposed blacklist of over 200 outlets a nascent and seemingly prepubescent website, PropOrNot, had decided were Russian propagandists — linked either directly to the Russian government or had haplessly joined the effort by reporting Fake News during the election.
Literally nothing in that Post article was true. None of the claims were backed by evidence, no research or investigation had been performed, nothing. WaPo just printed the claims of PropOrNot and inserted plausible deniability by failing to link to the list or site. A subsequent retraction at the top of the page was akin to plugging a crack in a dam that’s already burst — damage to many reputable and award-winning outlets listed had already been done.
What are they planning?
The Army general who heads the D.C. National Guard and has an integral part in overseeing the inauguration will be removed from command effective at 12:01 p.m. Jan. 20, just as Donald Trump is sworn in as president.
The head of the District of Columbia National Guard has been ordered to step down immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Maj. Gen. Errol Schwartz will be stepping down at 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, just after Trump is sworn in, Maj. Byron Coward, a guard spokesman said.
Schwartz, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, told The Washington Post in an interview “the timing is very unusual” but that he’s following orders.
Unlike the commanders of state-level National Guard units, the head of the District’s National Guard serves at the pleasure of the president. At the time Schwartz departs, he will be in the midst of commanding thousands of Guard troops from the District and around the country who are providing support for the inauguration.
“My troops will be on the street,” he said in an interview, according to the paper. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He went on to say that he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”
Phil Mendelson, the D.C. Council chairman, criticized the move.
“It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment,” Mendelson told The Post. He added that Schwartz’s sudden departure will be a long-term loss for the District. “He’s been really very good at working with the community, and my impression was that he was good for the Guard.”
The Post reported that there have been contradictory stories about the behind-the-scenes developments leading to the decision. A person close to the Trump transition team reportedly said transition officials wanted to keep him, but the Army pushed for a replacement. Schwartz reportedly said the orders came in an email from the Pentagon. He will be replaced by a brigadier general at 12:01 p.m.
This is highly unusual!
Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz may be a good guy who will properly respond to insurrection and shut down a criminal anti Trump DC riot by paid Soros/Clinton agitators.
His replacement may let it grow to a disaster.
From Gateway Pundit:
FAKE NEWS: WaPo Did Not Tell Whole Story on DC National Guard Chief’s Resignation
The Trump administration told FOX News of Friday the story is a crock.
Schwartz was offered to stay on his post until after the Inauguration but decided to quit during the ceremony and then he ran to the press to complain.
According to FOX,
“The Trump Transition team reportedly offered to let him keep his job until the ceremonies were over. Maj. Gen Schwartz refused. It appears he would rather argue his would rather argue his case though in the press.”
Nearly 60 years ago, an episode of a TV showed called “Trackdown” told the story of a man named Trump who warns people that the world will be destroyed and that only he can save them… by building a wall.
Check out the video below to see the bizarre coincidence for yourself:
Decades before The Simpsons predicted a President Trump, an obscure CBS Western from the 1950s called Trackdown featured a man who claimed he could prevent the end of the world by building a wall. The man’s name was Walter Trump, and he shares a number of similarities with the president-elect.
As pointed out by Snopes, in the episode “The End of the World,” which aired on May 8, 1958, the mysterious Trump was a confidence man, decked out in a cultish robe, who arrived in the town of Talpa and, “tells the townspeople that a cosmic explosion will rain fire on the town and that he is the only one that can save them from death.” The wall he wanted to build was designed to keep out certain doom, of course, but his mere presence arouses suspicion from some of the locals.
Trump’s plan never comes to fruition, and he’s eventually brought to justice by the show’s hero, Texas Ranger Hoby Gilman, for grand theft and fraud. YouTube user Marcy Brafman uploaded portions of the episode on November 4, 2016, just four days before the presidential election.
I’ve seen a lot of videos posted debunking the “Trump mocks disabled reporter” narrative, but this one is the best of the bunch. It not only shows HOW the accusation is false, but explains WHY the Mainstream Media was so desperate to push it.
It’s all a matter of how the Mainstream Media frames it…
“Trump mocks disabled reporter” is factually true. He did (by definition) mock a reporter, who is disabled. Though what the Mainstream Media frames and the public hears is “Trump mocked a reporter for his disability” which of course is false.
Cory Booker in 2016: ‘I Feel Blessed and Honored’ to have partnered with Senator Sessions on Civil Rights.
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who will break Senate tradition and testify against the confirmation of a colleague for a cabinet post, once praised GOP Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions for working with him to honor civil rights activists.
Booker will testify against Sessions’ confirmation as attorney general. He told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Monday night that he has serious concerns about Sessions’ civil rights record.
Just last year in February 2016, Sessions partnered with Booker to award the Congressional Gold Medal to those who participated in the 1965 Voting Rights March from Selma to Montgomery, Ala.
Ever since Donald Trump managed to win the US Presidential Election last month, the US establishment – which largely backed Hillary Clinton – has pounced on any and all opportunities to accuse a foreign power, namely Russia, of having “interfered” in the US election. Though such accusations have been proven to be based solely on speculation and not hard evidence, that hasn’t stopped the US political elite for crying foul for an act, they say undermines democracy in the worst way possible. Yet, absent from all of this post-election hysteria, is any mention of the US’ own well-documented practice of interfering with the elections of numerous foreign nations under the pretext of protecting or furthering US “interests” abroad.
Dov Levin, a political scientist at Carnegie Mellon University, amassed a database of US election interference abroad, which shows just how common that practice has been throughout recent US history. According to Levin’s work, the US interfered in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000. The definition of intervention used in the study was “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” However, other types of intervention in elections, such as US “assistance” in the electoral process via election monitoring etc, was not included. The incidents of intervention cited in the database were largely carried out in secret as only one-third of intervention efforts were carried out publicly. Methods included the dissemination of misinformation or propaganda, training one side in campaigning techniques, making threats against a particular candidate, threatening to withdraw foreign aid, and bank-rolling a particular candidate among others. In 59% of the cases examined, the candidate that had received US “assistance” emerged victorious, though Levin estimated that the average effect of “partisan electoral interventions” only swayed the vote by an average of 3%.
However, these incidents do not include those that have taken place over the past 16 years. Under Bush, election intervention was a common policy practiced jointly through regime change, as evidenced by Bush’s covert intervention in the Iraqi elections of 2005. In a 2006 interview, Hillary Clinton argued that allowing Palestine to hold elections was a mistake. “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” The same such interference continued later under Obama, such as in the 2015 elections in Haiti.
It is also worth noting that the report does not include the numerous military coups and regime change efforts the US has led in the same time period. Notable military coups of the past century include those which took place in Guatemala, Iran, and Chile – all of which were bank-rolled and executed with US military assistance. Regime change efforts continue to today, particularly in Syria, as US imperialism seeks continue to dominate all other nations in the name of “protecting democracy.” Though President-Elect Trump has pledged to not continue this long-standing practice, it remains to be seen if he will be able to resist the “deep state” or if he will be forced to serve its interests like the Presidents before him.
Germany funded the Clinton Campaign and therefore acted as an external influence during the Election.
Angela Merkel has been caught funneling up to $5 million of German taxpayers money to the Clinton Foundation in an underhanded effort to try to influence the U.S. Election.
Between July and September 2016, Merkel gave millions of German taxpayers money to the Clinton Foundation, according to German newspaper Die Welt.
In the latest list of donors published on the Clinton Foundation website, the name of Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU) appears among those which gave between $1 million and $5 million.
The Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU) transferred the money to the Clinton Foundation in the third quarter of 2016, at the height of Clinton’s campaign.
The German government has some explaining to do for the donation. Why would a Federal German Ministry support the election campaign of a U.S. presidential candidate? It seems German taxpayers unwittingly financed Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.
After receiving an overwhelming amount of down votes. they decided to hide the votes and disable comments.
List of celebrities that can’t accept the outcome of an election:
Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, James Cromwell, BD Wong, Noah Wyle, Freda Payne, Bob Odenkirk, J. Smith Cameron, Michael Urie, Moby, Mike Farrell, Loretta Swit, Richard Schiff, Christine Lahti, Steven Pasquale, Emily Tyra, Talia Balsam