This will excite all numerology believers. You have to admit that this is a weird “coincidence”. Trump could not plan for this. Unless he is the antichrist of course.
This will excite all numerology believers. You have to admit that this is a weird “coincidence”. Trump could not plan for this. Unless he is the antichrist of course.
The Obomber just does not get it. You’d think a Nobel Peace prize winner would at least attempt to look the part. Pathetic.
Let’s all thank the Gods of reason that Putin is at the helm on the other side.
As a deterrent against “Russian aggression.”
(ANTIMEDIA) Lithuania has confirmed the presence of U.S. special forces inside its territory, stating the deployment’s purpose is to train local forces and act as a deterrent against Russian aggression. Supposedly, Vladimir Putin has been deploying nuke-ready missiles in the Russian province of Kaliningrad, an area that borders Poland, Belarus, and Lithuania. This move has prompted the neighboring Baltic states to become “highly concerned” about Russian military activity.
“The United States was the first to offer additional safety assurance measures to the Baltic countries following the deterioration of the security situation in the region after the annexation of the Crimea,” Lithuanian Defense Ministry spokeswoman Asta Galdikaite told local media on Tuesday, as reported by International Business Times.
Russia has made it clear that its deployment of missiles is a deterrent against NATO expansion along its borders. It is effectively a cat-and-mouse game that continues to be played with catastrophic consequences.
“Why are we reacting to Nato expansion so emotionally? We are concerned by Nato’s decision-making…We must take counter-measures, that is, strike with our missile systems the targets that in our opinion begin to threaten us,” Putin said previously in an interview with Oliver Stone last November.
Come spring of this year, NATO is expected to send battalions of 800 to 1,200 troops to each of the Baltic States and Poland. The mainstream media has even dubbed NATO’s recent buildup the alliance’s “biggest military buildup on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.” Even Great Britain will be sending fighter jets, as well as troops to Romania in order to counter Russia in the region.
Speaking at a conference in Sochi, Putin previously said it was “stupid and unrealistic” to think Russia would attack anyone in Europe. His American counterparts are well aware of this but press on with NATO’s expansion, anyway. Why?
Russia has intervened in the Middle East and made the U.S.’ role as both caretaker and destroyer of the Muslim world largely redundant. Russia has been a spectacular caretaker and destructive force in the United States’ place, relentlessly bombing al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Aleppo into submission — and killing civilians in the process. Now, there are real hopes that a lasting peace deal might actually form in Syria, a development Washington had no hand in producing.
We’ve all seen this story before, except this time it is being done more overtly as NATO desperately runs out of options.
In 2013, Obama vowed that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, needed to be punished for his alleged use of chemical weapons (the evidence pinning Assad’s forces to the attacks was dubious at the time). Russia intervened, foiling Washington’s plans for regime change. Not long after, the United States went to work and plotted to topple Viktor Yanukovych’s government in Ukraine, which was ultimately replaced by neo-Nazis and, eventually, Petro Poroshenko, who worked as a “Ukraine insider” for the U.S. State Department.
In essence, Russia’s actions, which are interfering with Washington’s plans in the Middle East, attract unwanted activity across its borders — a harsh truth that Russia will have to accept if it is to have a say in global affairs.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange made his first video appearance in months, emerging in an interview with Sean Hannity to state, again, unequivocally, leaked documents did not come from Russian hackers.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange came forward after a long period of silence for a video interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity — in particular, to decimate claims leaked emails from the Democratic establishment had been hacked and provided by Russian government actors.
“The narrative has begun that, in fact, the U.S. government is accusing Wikileaks of having received materials from Russia and Russia’s cybercriminals with the political agenda of influencing the election. And obviously they’re talking, not just about the John Podesta emails, the DNC emails, but in other ways. I’ve asked you before, I’ll ask you again today — did Russia give you this information, or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity asked.
“Our source is not a State party,” Assange told Hannity, once again confirming assertions he and Wikileaks have made on previous occasions. “So, the answer for our interactions is ‘no.’”
Continuing, he explained the political establishment has attempted to distract from the revelations in the leaked documents — which exposed the true words of Clinton and others in her campaign,
“And the American public read that information, true information, and said, ‘We don’t like these people.’ And then voted accordingly.”
Rather than acknowledge the breadth of corruption and behind-the-curtains nastiness on display in the documents, the establishment has attempted to conflate Wikileaks with Russians hacking the election — an accusation Assange explained amounted to bait-and-switch, as,
“Even Obama has had to admit that there was no hacking of U.S. voting machines.”
“But … the main focus for most Americans is that, they are being told by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, by the President of the United States, there are the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et cetera, that in fact,” Hannity asked, “that Wikileaks was working with the Russian government to influence the election. Is that true in any way, shape, matter, or form?”
“No, it is absolutely false,” Assange replied, “and, if you read their statements carefully, you’ll see they don’t actually say that. They kind of mention one fact here, and one fact there, and nothing else.
“In the most up-to-date information, the twenty-ninth of December, where the FBI, DHS, White House, et cetera, made a statement, what is completely absent — from all those statements — is Wikileaks. Totally absent. So, what’s going on?
“I believe two things are going on. Number one, they don’t have the evidence that Wikileaks is involved in that way. Now, why am I confident about that? Because there is one person in the world — and I think it’s actually only one — who knows exactly what is going on with our publications. And that’s me.”
Asked whether he could state “unequivocally” the information published by Wikileaks did not come from any person associated in any way with the Russian government, Assange stated,
“We can say, and we have said repeatedly over the last few months, our source is not the Russian government, and it is not a State party.”
Hannity then directly requested clarification for several accusations bandied about by the United States political establishment, asking if Assange had ever conversed with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to which he replied flatly, “No.”
“Have you ever talked to any of his surrogates?” the host continued.
“Have you ever talked to Donald Trump?” Hannity asked, addressing suspicions Wikileaks had acted on behalf of the billionaire businessman’s campaign.
“Any of his surrogates?”
“Not one?” Hannity prodded.
“No,” Assange firmly responded.
“There was some report you might have talked to someone who was not associated with the campaign, Roger Stone?”
“No. That’s false.”
Claiming The Russians hacked anything has been largely a creation of the corporate press and politicians, and, as he explains, Obama is “acting like a lawyer,” and “If you look at most of his statements, he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say that WikiLeaks obtained its information from Russia, or worked with Russia.”
Addressing one of the most frequently touted ideas that leaked documents influenced the election in order to sway the election for Donald Trump, Assange noted it would be impossible to tell for sure, but,
“If it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz — their true statements is what changed the election.”
Discussing millions of documents hacked by the Chinese, about which the aforementioned parties and the Obama administration have selectively chosen not to focus, Hannity asked whether Assange felt the move was intended to “delegitimize Donald Trump — what’s your interpretation of that?”
Assange explained, “It is exactly what it is designed to do … If you look at what the allegations are, they don’t mention Wikileaks, for the 29th, they don’t mention our publications. Our publications had wide uptake by the American people. They’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that’s been presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious: they’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They’re going to try — they are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate” president.
The Wikileaks head went on to explain the Democratic Party continues to attempt “short term wins” in such criticisms, while ignoring the factual substance of leaked documents — and the American people “want as much true information as possible.”
Wikileaks has been vilified for not releasing documents pertaining to Trump or his campaign — but, as Assange has repeatedly contended, no such documents were provided to the publisher.
“If the information you had was about Donald Trump and his campaign,” Hannity asked, “would you have equally released that?”
“Yes,” Assange responded without hesitation. “Absolutely.”
Murray, Assange’s associate — and former intelligence officials entirely unassociated with Wikileaks — have suggested the documents were leaked by a disgruntled party inside the Democratic establishment. On that topic, after Assange noted the perfect record Wikileaks has maintained in regard to authenticity of documents and refusal to expose the identity of sources, Hannity asked, since the leaker was not Russian,
“Can I ask … take it one step further. Can you say that the source was within the United States?”
After a frustrated pause, Assange replied, “I don’t want to constrain whether it was someone inside the United States, in the DNC, in the service providers that provide for the DNC, or outside, et cetera. I think that we have already pushed it quite a lot … more than we would like, by saying it was not a State party.”
But speaking out with that qualification had been a necessity as “there was a serious attempt to distract from the content of our publications with this Russian narrative.”
On the joint report from DHS and the FBI, Assange noted the tools provided as loose evidence of Russian hacking are commercially available — to anyone — and nothing laid out by the agencies evinced solid proof.
Additionally, Podesta’s careless choice of “password” for his password, and his staff’s erroneous assertion the infamous phishing email he received was legitimate, Assange said,
“This is something a fourteen-year-old kid — a fourteen-year-old kid — could have hacked Podesta that way.”
On the topic of corporate media’s lack of coverage of the content of the leaked documents — and exposed collusion with the Clinton campaign — Assange described the American mainstream press as “ethically corrupt.”
Despite allegations Assange and his organization had been somehow motivated to influence the election in favor of Trump, he noted,
“My motivation, for twenty years — ten years with Wikileaks — is to publish true information that is otherwise unassailable.”
Emphasizing he has no party political agenda, he added,
“We believe that the best type of government comes from a government that is scrutinized by the people, when they have true information about how governments and major corporations, other power actors in society, are behaving.”
Assange has been confined for years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under threat of extradition to the United States — effectively making him a political prisoner. But vociferous anti-Russia rhetoric and allegations Russian hackers provided documents to Wikileaks forced Assange to come forward — first in an interview on Hannity’s radio program, and then this face-to-face interview — to call out the claims as hollow and baseless.
Although mainstream media has parroted these allegations against Russia, perhaps hearing Assange’s words in this rare appearance will help quiet the new Red Scare propaganda — and bring logic and common sense back to the table.
Yo world, just default on those immoral loans. What will the Federal Bank do, send in the American troops? At least we would see some honesty on who owns what in this corrupt world.
|Rank||Country||STOCK OF NARROW MONEY||Date of Information|
|1||European Union||$7,165,000,000,000||31 December 2013|
|2||China||$6,176,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|3||Japan||$5,131,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|4||United States||$3,022,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|5||Germany||$1,923,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|6||France||$1,079,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|7||Italy||$1,026,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|8||Spain||$745,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|9||Korea, South||$604,200,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|10||Canada||$568,800,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|11||Switzerland||$508,200,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|12||Taiwan||$462,500,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|13||Netherlands||$405,700,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|14||India||$370,500,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|15||Saudi Arabia||$305,500,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|16||Venezuela||$273,800,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|17||Sweden||$271,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|18||Hong Kong||$254,300,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|19||Australia||$223,200,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|20||Luxembourg||$218,400,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|21||Norway||$200,300,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|22||Mexico||$194,800,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|23||Austria||$193,900,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|24||Belgium||$181,500,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|25||Poland||$177,400,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|26||Denmark||$151,900,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|27||Russia||$151,500,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|28||Ireland||$140,900,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|29||Czechia||$124,900,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|30||United Arab Emirates||$124,400,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|31||Finland||$121,400,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|32||Singapore||$113,500,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|33||Turkey||$107,100,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|34||United Kingdom||$106,700,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|35||South Africa||$91,720,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|36||Pakistan||$89,300,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|37||Greece||$86,690,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|38||Algeria||$86,430,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|39||Brazil||$85,640,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|40||Malaysia||$83,970,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|41||Indonesia||$76,500,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|42||Portugal||$72,290,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|43||Morocco||$71,580,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|44||Egypt||$66,490,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|45||Israel||$63,410,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|46||Vietnam||$62,920,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|47||Philippines||$56,560,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|48||Iraq||$55,360,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|49||Argentina||$52,300,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|50||Libya||$51,230,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|51||Thailand||$49,270,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|52||Hungary||$46,140,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|53||Nigeria||$43,620,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|54||Slovakia||$43,000,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|55||Chile||$39,880,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|56||Iran||$38,440,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|57||Romania||$36,060,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|58||Qatar||$34,870,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|59||Colombia||$32,820,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|60||New Zealand||$31,580,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|61||Kuwait||$30,950,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|62||Peru||$29,860,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|63||Angola||$25,270,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|64||Bangladesh||$21,440,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|65||Bulgaria||$20,090,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|66||Ukraine||$19,680,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|67||Lithuania||$19,400,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|68||Cuba||$18,910,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|69||Slovenia||$14,390,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|70||Oman||$13,960,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|71||Jordan||$13,920,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|72||Burma||$13,800,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|73||Malta||$12,870,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|74||Tunisia||$12,610,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|75||Ethiopia||$11,970,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|76||Estonia||$10,960,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|77||Latvia||$10,300,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|78||Croatia||$10,110,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|79||Guatemala||$10,050,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|80||Kenya||$9,927,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|81||Ecuador||$9,527,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|82||Sudan||$9,511,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|83||Bolivia||$8,946,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|84||Kazakhstan||$8,933,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|85||Bahrain||$8,762,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|86||Cote d’Ivoire||$8,516,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|87||Panama||$8,215,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|88||Macau||$7,623,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|89||Trinidad and Tobago||$7,422,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|90||Uzbekistan||$7,162,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|91||Afghanistan||$6,644,000,000||31 December 2014 est.|
|92||Lebanon||$5,998,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|93||Dominican Republic||$5,986,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|94||Ghana||$5,736,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|95||Azerbaijan||$5,612,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|96||Costa Rica||$5,273,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|97||Syria||$5,254,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|98||Yemen||$4,993,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|99||Sri Lanka||$4,963,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|100||Papua New Guinea||$4,936,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|101||Nepal||$4,762,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|102||Mozambique||$4,758,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|103||Bosnia and Herzegovina||$4,554,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|104||Serbia||$4,535,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|105||Tanzania||$4,457,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|106||Senegal||$4,264,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|107||Cyprus||$4,031,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|108||Uruguay||$4,022,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|109||Paraguay||$3,974,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|110||Cameroon||$3,691,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|111||Jamaica||$3,542,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|112||Bermuda||$3,374,000,000||30 September 2014 est.|
|113||Iceland||$3,314,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|114||Brunei||$3,310,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|115||El Salvador||$3,253,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|116||Congo, Republic of the||$3,131,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|117||Albania||$3,054,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|118||Namibia||$2,583,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|119||Mali||$2,573,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|120||Mauritius||$2,547,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|121||Eritrea||$2,386,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|122||Honduras||$2,326,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|123||Belarus||$2,301,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|124||Gabon||$2,251,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|125||Benin||$2,172,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|126||Burkina Faso||$2,124,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|127||Zimbabwe||$2,112,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|128||Georgia||$2,063,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|129||Uganda||$2,043,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|130||Fiji||$1,931,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|131||Equatorial Guinea||$1,888,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|132||South Sudan||$1,873,000,000||31 December 2013|
|133||Barbados||$1,831,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|134||Macedonia||$1,797,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|135||Guinea||$1,658,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|136||Chad||$1,604,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|137||Cambodia||$1,602,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|138||Niger||$1,508,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|139||Madagascar||$1,375,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|140||Turkmenistan||$1,326,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|141||Zambia||$1,288,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|142||Suriname||$1,231,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|143||Botswana||$1,223,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|144||Congo, Democratic Republic of the||$1,213,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|145||Moldova||$1,188,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|146||Djibouti||$1,182,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|147||Aruba||$1,151,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|148||Armenia||$1,149,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|149||Togo||$1,140,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|150||Laos||$1,132,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|151||Nicaragua||$1,093,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|152||Haiti||$1,073,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|153||Rwanda||$1,013,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|154||Kyrgyzstan||$928,200,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|155||Mongolia||$844,400,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|156||Tajikistan||$773,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|157||Belize||$764,300,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|158||Montenegro||$749,000,000||31 December 2011 est.|
|159||Bhutan||$669,900,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|160||Guyana||$631,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|161||Maldives||$623,000,000||31 December 2013 est.|
|162||Cabo Verde||$557,500,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|163||Malawi||$512,300,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|164||Seychelles||$492,700,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|165||Liberia||$458,400,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|166||Sierra Leone||$458,400,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|167||Guinea-Bissau||$454,800,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|168||Solomon Islands||$405,700,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|169||Burundi||$397,700,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|170||Timor-Leste||$397,700,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|171||Central African Republic||$340,900,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|172||Lesotho||$340,600,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|173||Cayman Islands||$334,300,000||31 December 2008|
|174||Vanuatu||$320,900,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|175||Swaziland||$304,600,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|176||Saint Lucia||$284,800,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|177||Gambia, The||$275,400,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|178||West Bank||$265,500,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|179||Antigua and Barbuda||$257,100,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|180||Saint Kitts and Nevis||$231,200,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|181||Grenada||$201,100,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|182||Micronesia, Federated States of||$196,000,000||31 December 2013 est.|
|183||Comoros||$169,000,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|184||Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||$162,200,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|185||Samoa||$116,500,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|186||Tonga||$101,800,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|187||Dominica||$96,590,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|188||Sao Tome and Principe||$63,820,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|189||Cook Islands||$38,990,000||31 December 2011 est.|
|190||Anguilla||$25,980,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|191||Montserrat||$17,640,000||31 December 2015 est.|
|192||Bahamas, The||$2,051,000||31 December 2015 est.|
Meet the entire Snopes ream. She has accused him of hiring prostitutes from the moneys they get from the site.
The co-founders of Snopes, a site tapped by Facebook to be the arbiter of “fake news,” stand accused of a variety of unsavory practices that call into question whether the site is as “scholarly and reliable” as it claims to be.
New accusations against the well-known fact-checking website Snopes suggest that the site’s management are not as “reliable” as they would have you think, drawing into question whether the public can ever be assured Snopes’ “checked” facts are accurate at all. Snopes made headlines just a few weeks ago when Facebook announced that Snopes, along with four other left-leaning news organizations (ABC News, Associated Press, Factcheck.Org, and Politifact). Snopes, along with these other groups, will be given the authority to mark content posted to Facebook as “disputed,” which would then allow such content to be buried without any transparency as to why the content was labeled disputed in the first place. However, these latest accusations against Snopes, laid out in their entirety by The Daily Mail, suggest that Snopes left-leaning “fact checking” should be the least of our concerns.
David and Barbara Mikkelson, co-founders of Snopes and now ex-spouses, are going through a nasty divorce that has aired out much of the couple’s past and present shady dealings as well as demonstrate that Snopes management is hardly professional. The Daily Mail reported that “They are accusing each other of financial impropriety, with Barbara claiming her ex-husband is guilty of ‘embezzlement’ and suggesting he is attempting a ‘boondoggle’ to change tax arrangements, while David claims she took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas.”
Barbara, in court filing accused her ex-husband of “raiding” Snopes’ accounts while also embezzling “$98,000 from our company over the course of four years.” David, now the CEO of Snopes, also stands accused of using website funds to pay for prostitutes and female escorts, one whom became his wife last month and is now one of the website’s fact-checkers despite her minimal experience in the field and her politicized past.
Legal documents, as well as past interviews, also show that the Mikkelson’s formed Snopes by using a fake identity. After the former couple met on an online message board in the early 90s, they created a fake organization called “The San Fernando Valley Folklore Society” in order to get a better response from sponsor companies. David Mikkelson confirmed this when he told the LA Times in 1997 that “When I sent letters out to companies, I found I got a much better response with an official-looking organization’s stationery.”
Beyond the Mikkelsons’ unsavory financial and immoral dealings, also of concern is the extreme greed court documents expose as a major motivator for the Snopes CEO. One of the disagreements between the Mikkelsons involved David’s salary: “David wanted his salary raised from $240,000 to $360,000 – arguing that this would still put him below the ‘industry standards’ and that he should be paid up to $720,000 a year.” The greed-tinged legal battle does not end there. In fact, it has been so vicious that the former couple fought over the arbiter assigned to settle disputes. At least one arbiter suggested that another arbiter get involved due to all the “sub-battles” that appeared relating to the ongoing war over Snopes finances.
However, probably the most concerning revelation from the airing-out of Snopes’ dirty laundry was David Mikkelson’s admission that Snopes’ “fact-checking” operation was highly disorganized. When contacted for comment by the Daily Mail, Mikkelson – who is legally unable to comment on his legal dispute with Barbara – revealed that there is no “standardized procedure” in place for Snopes fact-checking as “the nature of this material can vary widely.” However, there is “editorial oversight” so not article published is the work “of a single person’s discretion.” More concerning, however, is that there no “set requirements” for the fact-checkers themselves. Mikkelson said, “Accordingly, our editorial staff is drawn from diverse backgrounds; some of them have degrees and/or professional experience in journalism, and some of them don’t.”
It is certainly concerning that Snopes, set to make a large sum of money for its “fake” news vetting arrangement with Facebook, is so beset with problems. Its “fact-checkers” can’t agree, they once used a fake organization to appear professional, and they are in a bitter battle over every cent of the site’s money. If money if the chief motivator of Snopes’ administration, how can anyone be sure that their “checked” facts are accurate?
A new study reports depression should be considered a systemic disease, not just a mental illness, as it can affect the entire body.
An international team of researchers lead by the University of Granada has scientifically proven, for the first time, that depression is associated with important alterations of the oxidative stress, so it should be considered a systemic disease.
The results of this work, published in the renowned Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, could explain the significant association that depression has with cardiovascular diseases and cancer, and why people suffering from depression die younger. At the same time, this research may help finding new therapeutic targets for the prevention and treatment of depression.
The lead author of this work is Sara Jiménez Fernández, PhD student at the UGR and psychiatrist at the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Unit at Jaén Medical Center (Jaén, Spain). The co-authors are the UGR Psychiatry professors Manuel Gurpegui Fernández de Legaria and Francisco Díaz Atienza, in collaboration, among others, with Christoph Correll from the Zucker Hillside Hospital (New York, USA).
A study with 3961 people
This research is a meta analysis of 29 previous studies which comprise 3961 people, and it’s the first detailed work of its kind about what happens in the organism of people suffering from depression. It studies the imbalance between the individual increase of various oxidative stress parameters (especially malondialdehyde, a biomarker to measure the oxidative deterioration of the cell membrane) and the decrease in antioxidant substances (such as uric acid, zinc, and the superoxide dismutase enzyme).
The researchers have managed to prove that, after receiving the usual treatment against depression, the patients’ malondialdehyde levels are significantly reduced, to the point that they are indistinguishable from healthy individuals. At the same time, zinc and uric acid levels increase until reaching normal levels (something that does not occur in the case of the superoxide dismutase enzyme).
Source: Manuel Gurpegui Fernández de Legaria – University of Granada
Image Credit: Image is in the public domain.
Original Research: The study will appear in Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.