Bill Clinton gets CAUGHT by Hillary Clinton checking out Ivanka as Michelle Obama suddenly realizes she’s not proud of her country anymore.
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.”
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.
Last week, a study published in Science and Nature Medicine revealed that transfusing young mouse blood into old mice can actually prevent the symptoms of aging. This groundbreaking discovery could lead to medical breakthroughs and the development of new medicines. However, a report from the Vice health news outlet “Tonic” has pointed out far more sinister applications for this knowledge.
Rich, old people want to use the blood of the youth in order to live longer. pic.twitter.com/sfVZBWbLjG
— TONIC (@dailytonic) January 5, 2017
It was suggested in the report that aging elites are using the blood of young people as a type of youth serum.
A similar claim was made by journalist Jeff Bercovici last year, after he conducted several interviews with Silicon Valley aristocrats including Peter Thiel, and learned about a transfusion procedure called “parabiosis,” where the blood of young people is used to prevent aging.
“There are widespread rumors in Silicon Valley, where life-extension science is a popular obsession, that various wealthy individuals from the tech world have already begun practicing parabiosis, spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood, and repeating the exercise several times a year,” Bercovici reported.
In his article, Bercovici also expressed concerns about a developing black market for young people’s blood.
I know it sounds too outrageous to be true, but these horrific practices have been commonplace among aristocrats in various different cultures throughout history. In most modern cultures, mass murder and human sacrifice still takes place out in the open under the cover of warfare, while many argue that cannibalism also still takes place, but behind closed doors.
It is only in the past few hundred years that the practice of cannibalism among royals has not been publicized. In Europe, around the time of the American Revolution “corpse medicine” was very popular among the ruling class, Charles II even brewed his own.
Dr. Richard Sugg of Durham University has conducted extensive research into the practice of corpse medicine among the royalty.
“The human body has been widely used as a therapeutic agent with the most popular treatments involving flesh, bone or blood. Cannibalism was found not only in the New World, as often believed, but also in Europe,” Sugg said.
“One thing we are rarely taught at school yet is evidenced in literary and historic texts of the time is this: James I refused corpse medicine; Charles II made his own corpse medicine; and Charles I was made into corpse medicine. Along with Charles II, eminent users or prescribers included Francis I, Elizabeth I’s surgeon John Banister, Elizabeth Grey, Countess of Kent, Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, William III, and Queen Mary,” he added.
If this wasn’t strange enough, the current royal family of England are direct descendants of Prince Vlad III Dracula of Wallachia (modern Romania). This was the sick and depraved ruler, Vlad the Impaler, who was known as a butcher and who eventually became the inspiration for the most famous vampire stories in history.
Mark Passio and other speakers and whistleblowers at this year’s Free Your Mind Conference are some of the only researchers who delve into these deep topics.
Of course, the recent reports do not point to any specific person or provide any evidence of people who are drinking blood to prevent aging. However, the science is now there and there is a historical precedent for aristocrats being involved in these types of activities.
Absolutely stunning and something we always suspected – A leaked audio of Secretary Kerry reveals Obama intentionally allowed the rise of ISIS!
From Conservative Treehouse:
There are moments within investigative research when your jaw can stand agape as you recognize the scope of what you are reading or hearing. A brutally down-played audio of Secretary John Kerry is just such an occasion.
♦ In August of 2014 President Obama (wearing a tan business suit) gave a press conference where he stated he “did not have a strategy” against ISIS. –Video Link–
♦ Two months later, in October of 2014, Josh Earnest gave a press conference where he stated: “Our ISIS strategy is dependent on something that does not yet exist” –Video Link–
However, on September 30th 2016 the New York Times quietly released a leaked audio recording of Secretary John Kerry meeting with multiple factions associated within Syria.
When you listen to the audio recording it becomes immediately obvious what was going on when both of those 2014 statements were made by the White House. In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to over 5 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.
This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans. What the recording reveals is substantive:
♦ First, only regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.
♦ Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.
♦ Thirdly, in order to facilitate the two objectives, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.
Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully before continuing. Because this audio (below), along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.
The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.
When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria. For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.
The revelations within this leaked audio are simply astounding. The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:
[…] Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.
This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmets, a pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)
Listen to the audio.
Key Kerry moments at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.
The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria. Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:
This elevates Obama and all those complicit to war criminal status worthy of prosecution.
Could this apply?
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Along with Obama and Kerry, Representative Adam Kinzinger, Senator John McCain, and candidate Evan McMullin could be sent away for this too.
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.
Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-week strike on Wednesday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency talks with ISIS have so far failed to produce an agreement.
The unrest began last Tuesday when ISIS announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death would be cut by 25% this February from 72 to 54. A spokesman said increases in recent years in the number of suicide bombings has resulted in a shortage of virgins in the afterlife.
The suicide bombers’ union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs (B.O.O.M.) responded with a statement saying the move was unacceptable to its members and called for a strike vote. General Secretary Abdullah Aloud Bang told the press, “Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don’t ask for much in return but to be treated like this is like a kick in the groin”.
Speaking from his shed in Tipton in the West Midlands, ISIS chief executive Aisheet Mapants explained, “I sympathize with our workers concerns but ISIS is simply not in a position to meet their demands. They are simply not accepting the realities of modern-day Jihad in a competitive marketplace. Thanks to Western depravity, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife It’s a straight choice between reducing expenditures or laying people off. I don’t like cutting benefits but I’d hate to have to tell 3,000 of my staff that they won’t be able to blow themselves up.”
Spokespersons for the union in the North East of England, Ireland, Wales and the entire Australian continent stated that the change would not hurt their membership as there are so few virgins in their areas anyway.
According to some industry sources, the recent drop in the number of suicide bombings has been attributed to the American Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Many Muslim Jihadists, after seeing a picture of her, believe she must be a virgin, and have reconsidered their benefit package.
Um… I am pretty sure we are now in the twilight zone.
Back in September of this year, Angela Merkel wanted to bring refugees into work faster so she suggested rewriting their Syria drivers licenses into German.
In an interview, the Federal Chancellor revealed her integration plans for refugees. They are to be used, among other things, as motorists.
According to Angela Merkel, the rapid integration of refugees can only be achieved if they do a job as quickly as possible during an interview with the rbb Inforadio. Special regulations are to be developed for implementation. The CDU chairman said: “Many are still waiting for integration courses. To this extent, I believe that we must have a longer breath, but at the same time be prepared to develop practical solutions. ”
According to the plans of the federal government, the economy is to be more active, so that refugees are employed more quickly. To this end, the chancellor met on Wednesday with representatives of large companies, which are part of the initiative “We”, among others Tui, Daimler and Bosch. Angela Merkel looks for Refugees job opportunities in the transport sector:
“We have recently discussed in the Cabinet that the rewriting of a Syrian license in a German 500 Euro costs. And of course, a refugee does not immediately 500 euros. So maybe a loan program helps. If you deserve it, you can repay this 500 euros, you are always looking for drivers. “
On Monday, one of Merkel’s Trojan Horse Jihadis slammed a truck into a crowd and killed 12 Christmas shoppers and injured about 50 more in a terrorist attack aimed at ending public celebrations of Christmas. Their plan is to end Christian holidays and replace them with theirs.
Germany elected someone who serves the Radical Islamist invaders, not Germans.
What’s next accelerated Airline Pilot licensing and certification?
What’s really happening in Syria? Hint: Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the Mainstream Media have been lying to us.
Eva Bartlett is an independent journalist from Canada. She has traveled to Syria many times to investigate human rights violations and terrorism against Syrians. What she has found out is a truth completely opposite of what the Mainstream Media and governments claim, i.e. “Fake News”.
During a United Nations press conference, Bartlett sharply criticized Western governments, particularly the United States, for their efforts to effect regime change in Syria. Contrary to the Western narrative, she said, the people of Syria do not want a regime change. During her travels to and around the country, she had talked to Syrians, who widely expressed support for President Bashar al-Assad, whose army is battling a number of Western-backed terrorist groups.
Watch the video below to hear the true about what is really going on in Syria.
This is what a real journalist looks like. You forget that living here in the US!
Western mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian war is “compromised” as their local sources are “not credible” and, in the case of Aleppo, not even there, a Canadian journalist said in an emotional speech at the UN.
“I’ve been many times to Homs, to Maaloula, to Latakia and Tartus [in Syria] and again, Aleppo, four times. And people’s support of their government is absolutely true. Whatever you hear in the corporate media is completely opposite,” Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist and rights activist, told a press conference arranged by the Syrian mission to the UN.
“And, on that note, what you hear in the corporate media, and I will name them – BBC, Guardian, the New York Times etc. – on Aleppo is also the opposite of reality,” she added. The mainstream media narrative, she argued, is meant to mislead the public about what is really happening in Syria by demonizing President Bashar Assad’s government and altering the facts on Russia’s support for Damascus.
Bartlett’s statements did not seemingly play well with everyone in the room. A reporter from Aftenposten, Norway’s largest print newspaper, challenged her and demanded Bartlett explain what she thought was the “agenda” of Western mainstream media. “Why should we lie, why the international organizations on the ground should lie? How can you justify calling all of us liars?” he said.
Bartlett, who has been covering Syrian events for several years since the outbreak of the civil war, noted that while there are “certainly honest journalists among the very compromised establishment media,” many respected media agencies simply seem to avoid doing a fact-check.
She then asked her Norwegian colleague to name humanitarian organizations operating in eastern Aleppo. As the Aftenposten reporter stayed silent, Bartlett added that “there are none.”
“These organizations are relying on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR], which is based in Coventry, UK, which is one man. They’re relying on compromised groups like the White Helmets. Let’s talk about the White Helmets,” she went on.
Members of the controversial group “purport to be rescuing civilians in eastern Aleppo and Idlib … no one in eastern Aleppo has heard of them.” Meanwhile, she noted, “their video footage actually contains children that have been ‘recycled’ in different reports; so you can find a girl named Aya who turns up in a report in say August, and she turns up in the next month in two different locations.”
“So they [the White Helmets] are not credible. The SOHR are not credible. ‘Unnamed activists’ are not credible. Once or twice maybe, but every time? Not credible. So your sources on the ground – you don’t have them,” Bartlett concluded.
A journalist from Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera took a more measured tone and asked Bartlett to explain the difference between the Western and Russian media coverage, saying that Russian television channels report on humanitarian efforts and reconciliation instead of overt naming and blaming.
“You ask why we aren’t seeing this,” Bartlett said. “This relates to the other gentleman’s question about why most of the corporate media are telling lies about Syria. It’s because this is the agenda; if they had told the truth about Syria from the beginning, we wouldn’t be here now. We wouldn’t have seen so many people killed.”
Not only has Trump’s victory turned America around (it’s certain, even though he’s not in office yet), but Syrians can finally have their home, neighborhood, city, and country back.
Here are some updates from the Aleppo liberation from the Obama/Hillary/Kerry-backed ISIS terrorists. Residents are overjoyed.
— maytham (@maytham956) December 17, 2016
If this is true, it’s is CHILLING! It means that all the Syrian refugees coming here and migrating throughout Europe are being dispersed for a reason. Can you say Trojan Horse?