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.
On this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we counter the establishment’s narrative on the conflict in Syria and the flashpoint of Daraa, a town near the Syria-Jordan border where the CIA, working with the Muslim Brotherhood, attacked police and set the stage for a conflict that has so far claimed the lives of more than 400,000 Syrians. The proxy war is designed to take down a secular government and replace it with a Salafist principality controlled by the Brotherhood, a longtime CIA and British intelligence asset.
Something about this definitely does not look natural… It certainly wouldn’t be the first time strange things have been found on Mars.
Jan 3, 2017
Here’s yet another curious find on the surface of the red planet. It looks like three towers spaced equidistant from one another in the same pattern as the pyramids at Giza or the belt in the constellation Orion.
Here’s the original YouTube video from user Mundodesconocido discussing the find:
Investigating on some Mars images, we have recently found a row of huge towers located in the Martian area of Terra Meridiani. Due to their peculiar features, we believe that they have an artificial origin. In the following video, we will show you all the amazing information, evidences as well as animated 3D models that will allow you to evaluate correctly the information we propose.
And here’s another one more to the point with the specific picture from the NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor: MOC (Mars Orbiter Camera).
They do look kind of familiar in a way.
Thoughts? Something about this definitely does not look natural…
Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time strange things have been found on Mars, anyway.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Don’t forget to boycott everything Israeli. Wait until the Chinese steal the plans and make the drones cheaper! Don’t feel bad, as the Israelis probably “stole” the technology from the Americans anyway.
by Bob Yirka
January 4, 2017
(Tech Xplore)—Israeli aeronautics firm Urban Aeronautics has announced to the press that its Cormorant drone, named after the aquatic bird, has successfully passed another milestone—flying itself over uneven terrain. The company reports that the 1,500-kg drone is able to carry a 500kg load a distance of 30 miles while traveling at speeds up to 185 km/h and at altitudes up to 18,000 feet.
The drone, which is approximately the size of a car and formerly called the Air Mule, has been in development for about 15 years and is meant to be used for search and rescue missions in the aftermath of a disaster or on the battlefield, shuttling cargo or troops in and out of places where planes and helicopters cannot fly. Unlike other aircraft, it is neither a plane nor a helicopter; instead, it has internal rotors and duct fans housed in shields to prevent damage, which allows the craft to take off and land vertically and to dart around in various directions once airborne—reps for the company claim that its unique abilities will soon allow the drone to fly between buildings or under power lines, for example, and into areas that have been contaminated with chemicals or radiation.
Jan 3, 2017
With each passing day, the anti-Russian hysteria in the western world is becoming more absurd and outlandish. For the last few months, we have been told that Russia has been the nefarious force behind numerous political developments over the past year, with the omnipresent Vladimir Putin portrayed as some sort of evil mastermind who possesses superhuman powers, able to control the people of all nations at will.
In the US, after the success of Donald Trump in the presidential election, various individuals and organizations have blamed the election result on Russian hackers. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and certain elements in both the CIA and FBI have been at the forefront of peddling this narrative, with the mainstream media only too happy to regurgitate these baseless claims.
As is the case with numerous other allegations levied against the Russian government, zero evidence has been provided to the public that proves Russia meddled in the US election. In fact, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, has categorically stated that the Russian government was not the source of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) leaked emails which WikiLeaks published back in July.
Yet despite the lack of evidence, the Russian meddling narrative continues to be pushed by many, most notably the US President. The US has just announced that in retaliation for supposed Russian meddling in the election, 35 Russian diplomats will be expelled, two Russian facilities in the US will be closed and more sanctions will be imposed on Moscow.
Russia is not just being blamed for meddling in the US presidential election however, but also for the outcome of the June referendum in Britain over membership in the European Union (EU). Speaking to the House of Commons in mid-December, the ardent remain campaigner and Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, hysterically tried to argue that Russian hackers were responsible for the British people voting to leave the EU (emphasis added):
“I don’t think we have even began to wake up to what Russia is doing when it comes to cyber warfare. Not only their interference – now proven – in the American presidential campaign, [but] probably in our own referendum. We don’t have the evidence yet, but I think it is highly probable.”
Similar to the narrative that Russia meddled in the US election, Bradshaw’s accusation is backed up by no evidence, as he himself admitted in his outburst. Contrary to Russian meddling, the facts prove that leaders of various other powers interfered in the Brexit vote, albeit unsuccessfully managing to sway the British people.
The German Chancellor for instance, Angela Merkel, publicly urged the British people to vote to remain in the EU, and emphasised the consequences of a Brexit vote. But Merkel’s interference in the referendum was nothing compared to the degree to which Barack Obama attempted to influence the British public.
The US President used his visit to Britain in April to engage in a total media blitz, throwing his weight firmly behind the remain campaign. Obama penned an article (or his speechwriters did) for the Telegraph, in which he strongly argued that Britain was best served remaining in the EU. Obama reiterated his position in a press conference with the then British leader, David Cameron, stating that:
“The Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming referendum here on whether or not the UK should remain part of the European Union. Let me be clear, ultimately this is something that the British voters have to decide for themselves. But as part of our special relationship, part of being friends, is to be honest, and to let you know what I think; and speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the United States because it affects our prospects as well. The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner; and the United Kingdom is at its best when it’s helping to lead a strong Europe. It leverages UK power to be part of the European Union. As I wrote in the op-ed here today, I don’t believe the EU moderates British influence in the world, it magnifies it.”
Contrary to Obama and Merkel however, the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin refrained from taking a public position on the matter. In the words of the BBC journalist, Steven Rosenberg, Russia said “absolutely nothing” during the entire referendum debate in Britain. All the politicians, intelligence agencies and journalists who are peddling the Russian meddling narrative, need to spend more time studying the facts than spreading fake news.
With permission from Shepard at
“The former speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert, admitted to raping children…”
With permission from
by Jack Burns
Jan 4, 2017
Pizzagate, the fabled rumor of child sex slaves being held in Washington, DC pizzerias caused quite a controversy in late 2016.
But as we embark into 2017, the idea of those in power participating in this gruesome habit is not far-fetched at all. In fact, as we will show, it’s disgustingly common.
Pizzagate was preceded by talk a former U.S. president with the surname Clinton had a close relationship with billionaire pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.
As the alleged conspiracy theory goes, Clinton allegedly took numerous flights on the “Lolita Express” (Epstein’s private jet) to “orgy island” (Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean) to engage in sex with underage girls.
The FBI has evidence that Hillary Clinton also visited the island.
But no sooner did the controversy begin than it was immediately rejected by the mainstream media, seemingly replaced still unproven statements the Russians had attempted to cyber-hack the presidential election of 2016.
The attention span of Americans was then redirected by press conferences, some led by President Obama himself, claiming the consensus of the intelligence community agreed the Russians engaged in cyber-attacks intent on helping Donald Trump become the next president.
One could say a pattern has now emerged with how the mainstream media deals with stories it does not want to investigate or have uncovered: Reject, Replace, and Redirect. All of which leads us back to Pizzagate, and the question of whether or not the rich and powerful, politically elite, are engaged in sex with children.
While Pizzagate itself may not be a provable idea, to dismiss it like it is impossible is simply irresponsible — especially given the history of people in authority in this country.
Are the autocrats somehow morally immune from lewd acts from children? Do they somehow possess moral superiority over the clergy, the military, the police, or teachers?
Absolutely not! But if the mainstream media continues to reject, replace, and redirect attention away from the question, Americans will never know the truth.
Public servants are to be held to a higher standard. But across all aspects of our society, public servants everywhere have engaged in sex with children. Americans are very familiar with the early 2000’s scandal that plagued the clergy, especially within the Catholic Church.
A sickening pattern emerged of discovery, cover-up, and re-assignment of rapist priests within the church. Lawsuits by victims led to millions being paid out by the dioceses, and official apologies from the church.
Countless Catholics, so repulsed by the child sex abuse by priests, fled the church to mainly Evangelical houses of worship, having lost all faith in their religious establishment.
Teachers are not immune either. Who could forget Mary Kay Letourneau, Debra Lafave and others who all made the perp walk across our television screens having been found guilty of violating the sacred trust of parents who allowed their children to be in their care?
Their years of education, status within the community, was not enough to afford them even the slightest measure of protection from prosecution, or public scrutiny.
Police officers are no different, often using their badges to get into the pants of teens and children. As The Free Thought Project has extensively reported, officers all across the country have engaged in their pedophilic desires to have sex with children.
A school resource officer was arrested for having sex with a student, and still another was arrested for raping boys. These officers of the peace were more interested in getting a piece than they were protecting their victims from known pedophiles.
Judges aren’t immune either. The chief U.S. district judge in Washington, D.C., Richard W. Roberts, resigned after allegations emerged he’d raped a 16-year-old repeatedly while she was a witness at a trial involving the man who shot Hustler Magazine founder Larry Flynt.
Roberts was a civil rights attorney at the time, and was later appointed as a judge by former president Bill Clinton.
“The suit claims that Roberts used that access to deceive Mitchell and her parents into trusting him. After gaining their trust, he drove her to a hotel, where he forced her up to a room and raped her, the suit alleges,” according to NBC News.
As TFTP reported, Arkansas judge Joseph Boeckmann resigned after it was revealed he’d lessened the sentences of several male defendants in exchange for sex. At least one of the victims was a teenager.
It’s not just American politicians either. Last month, we brought you the story out of Norway, whose authorities seized the largest amount of child pornography in the country’s history! A whopping 150 terabytes were confiscated, the equivalent of over 35,000 child-porn DVDs!
The investigation quickly led to arrests of, “51 people, all men, are so far involved in the case. 24 of them come from Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane. 26 come from other areas of Norway, from Southeast to Finnmark in the north.
Among the accused offenders, there is also one Swedish national. Two politicians, one Labor politician from Oslo and a former national Progress Party (FrP) politician from Eastern Norway are involved in the case.”
So if the clergy, the teachers, the police, and the judges aren’t immune from sex scandals involving minors, why is it the mainstream media seems to treat congressmen and women like some sort of a protected class, shielding them from any real investigative journalism into their deviant sex practices?
Think about it.
Did any MSM source look into the “Lolita Express”, “Orgy Island”, or interview Clinton about alleged trips taken with a known pedophile? Not one. Is it because they’re afraid they may end up in a body bag, or somehow lose their jobs in journalism?
The former speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert admitted to raping children and was subsequently sentenced to 15 months in jail.
The MSM seems perfectly content with letting disgraced congressmen former House Speaker Hastert and Anthony Weiner fill that story role for the moment. Weiner, supposedly engaged in a sexting relationship with an underage teenager from North Carolina.
Given the sheer numbers of pedophiles in power, it would be downright irresponsible to assume there are no more politicians hiding thier sick habits behind the confines of marble buildings.
Will 2017 be the year that some form of Pizzagate gets revealed as truth and not just mere fodder for conspiracy theorists? Only time will tell.
For now, alternative media will continue to receive each allegation of sex with children by Washington’s elite as serious as it views badge abuse, and government corruption.
But we cannot help but believe the dam is about to break on the scandals along with the MSM’s practice of rejection, replacement, and redirection. It’s time for someone to blow the whistle, for the sake of the children.
Before you so easily dismiss it, listen to the following words from Jessa Dillow-Crisp, who recently testified at the Colorado State Capitol, during Human Trafficking Awareness and Advocacy Day, about the horrible experiences that she had in her past.
“I was a little girl and was sexually abused by family members. I had to pose for pornographers and was sold to countless men on a daily basis,” she said.
To make matters even more hopeless for the woman, she was unable to report the abuse or go to the police because there were a number of police officers who were actually involved in the kidnapping and abuse.
“There was gang raping, the police officer who handcuffed me and raped me, told me I would be put in jail if I opened my voice,” she said.
“I had somebody very close to me tortured and she eventually died in front of my eyes. This stuff happens and I’m here to tell you the reality of its existence.”
With permission from
by Justin Raimondo
Jan 4, 2017
“It wouldn’t be a bad opening for a Tom Clancy novel about the Cold War” – that’s how the Los Angeles Times described the sequence of events leading up to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats (“spies”) and the latest face-off between Washington and Moscow. Indeed the whole episode of has about it a fictional aura, which is, after all, only appropriate, since the entire basis of this latest cold war drama is pure invention.
The Russian “spy nest” had supposedly been in use since 1972 – but our Keystone Kops were just now getting around to dismantling it. Oh well, better late than never! It’s a 45-acre compound on the Maryland shore, about 60 miles from Washington, a place where Russian diplomats went to relax with their families: neighbors said they never saw anything the least bit off, and that the Labor Day picnics to which they were invited featured plenty of really good vodka. The head of the town council, a retired Marine, told the Los Angeles Times: “They’re good neighbors, and have been the whole time they’ve been there.” On New York’s Long Island a similar scenario unfolded: an estate long the site of Russian diplomats relaxing with their families is raided by the feds, and impounded, while baffled locals look on.
It’s all part of the security theater performed by Obama’s dead-enders, as they do their best to cast a long shadow over the incoming Trump administration. And like any performance, it comes with a little booklet explaining the provenance of the piece, in this case a “report” reiterating in a most unconvincing manner the assertions we’ve been hearing since Election Day: that Trump’s victory was the culmination of an elaborate Russian conspiracy, a remake of “The Manchurian Candidate,” only this time with computers.
And just to add a little extra frisson to the mix, as the clock ticked toward 2017 the Washington Post ran a story alleging that those omnipotent Russkies had hacked into Vermont’s electricity grid – and were about to turn out the lights! Except they didn’t, they weren’t, and it was all a bit of that “fake news” WaPo has been warning us about. The “Russian malware” was found on a laptop that wasn’t even connected to the internet. And it wasn’t Russian malware, it was Ukrainian.
Oh, the drama! Except there wasn’t any – at least, not enough for a Tom Clancy novel. Instead we saw a series of anti-climaxes: no break into the grid, no evidence of a Vast Russian-Trumpian Conspiracy (as promised), and no Russian retaliation for the expulsion of their diplomats. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he would ignore the childish antics of the outgoing administration and instead wait for the adults to enter the room.
You could hear the gnashing of teeth in Washington, D.C., all the way to California.
Oh, but that didn’t mean the propaganda campaign abated. We haven’t seen one like this since the march to war against Iraq in 2003: the entire media-governmental-academic axis has been spinning full thrust in an effort to convince us that the President-elect of the United States won his office by dint of a foreign power’s exertions. It hasn’t worked: the public doesn’t believe it. Indeed, by reiterating this nonsense 24/7, the “mainstream” media is making itself more an object of derision than it already is: even Mrs. Clinton’s partisans think they’re biased.
My favorite part of this whole business is the role being played by Donald J. Trump. Unlike some of his spokesmen, and of course very much unlike the media, the President-elect has refused to swallow this Putin conspiracy theory for so much as a single minute. He’s shown more understanding of the difficulty of attributing cyber-attacks than most reporters, and he’s been skeptical from the beginning of the idea that it was the Russian state that hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails. In response to the latest barrage of hot air that’s slowly hardening into “fact,” Trump had this to say:
“’I just want them to be sure because it’s a pretty serious charge,’ Mr. Trump said of the intelligence agencies. ‘If you look at the weapons of mass destruction, that was a disaster, and they were wrong,’ he added, referring to intelligence cited by the George W. Bush administration to support its march to war in 2003. ‘So I want them to be sure,’ the president-elect said. ‘I think it’s unfair if they don’t know.’
“He added: ‘And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.’
“When asked what he knew that others did not, Mr. Trump demurred, saying only, ‘You’ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.’”
The national security “Deep State” has naturally been opposed to Trump: his “no-regime-change” “America First” foreign policy would effectively put them out of business. However, that doesn’t mean the intelligence community is uniformly anti-Trump: far from it. Indeed, there are those who believe that the DNC/Podesta hacks were the work, not of the Russians, but of some inside our own intelligence community who were loath to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. And there is a whole school of thought, including Craig Murray, former UK diplomat, who maintain that the “hack” was in reality a leak, and that it came from American insiders rather than via the GRU. Murray is quite close to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: asked to comment on Murray’s statements, Assange said “I don’t want to go there.” Assange has stoutly denied any Russian involvement in the publication of the DNC/Podesta emails.
Is Trump about to blow this whole phony “Putin did it” scam wide open?
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
What we are seeing playing out is the reaction of the swamp creatures as Trump proceeds to drain their natural habitat. That screeching roaring sound you hear is their collective outrage as the implications of Trump’s triumph become apparent.
So get out the popcorn, and put your feet up: the entertainment is about to begin!
The sad truth is that the fashion industry is torturing and murdering innocent animals and destroying the environment in the process. A recent PETA video exposes the terrifying reality behind many designer leather items.
Society not only considers it ‘normal’ to own leather products, but also encourages consumers to buy them because leather is considered a high quality material, one that only people with “higher statuses” can afford. In particular, crocodile skin has been a fad for a long time in the leather industry, as many luxury brands will make leather handbags, watches, shoes, belts, and other clothing items out of it.
The PETA video below features footage inside multiple crocodile farms in Vietnam. In the video, you can see that the crocodiles are still alive while being cut open and skinned. In fact, crocodiles can live for multiple hours after being skinned alive. One of the farms featured is one that provides crocodile leather for Louis Vuitton, which is often viewed as a symbol of prosperity, but should really be viewed as a symbol of cruelty.
Crocodiles aren’t the only animals to be tortured, skinned alive, and forced to endure a slow and painful death. Leather can be made from a variety of animals including the more obvious choices of cows, pigs, goats, and sheep; exotic animals like alligators, ostriches, and kangaroos; and even house pets such as dogs and cats. You may be thinking, “I’d never wear leather from cats and dogs!” However, ask yourself these two questions: What makes dogs and cats so different from other animals and how would you even be able to distinguish between leather made from a dog and leather made from a cow?
No, North America doesn’t kill dogs and cats for leather, but they do import leather products from China, where cats and dogs are killed for their meat and then skinned for leather. In fact, most leather actually comes from China or India and there’s no way to determine where (or whom) your leather is coming from (source).
“…Meanwhile, US State Department spokesman John Kirby claimed the “defense relationship between the United States and the Philippines remains very, very strong.”
What world does Mr Kirby live in? Seriously? Methinks American politicians are starting to believe the nonsense their mouth spews. No Mr. Kirby, the defense relationship is not very, very, strong. The US is losing the Philippines and many more countries will follow. The world is sick of your lies USA.
An anti-submarine destroyer and a sea tanker dock at Manila’s South Harbor, in what can change regional dynamics to the detriment of the United States.
Two Russian warships have docked at a port in the Philippines, potentially foreshadowing an era of enhanced military ties between Manila and Moscow as a gap widens between the Philippines and the United States.
Russia’s anti-submarine destroyer Admiral Tributs and sea tanker Boris Butoma docked at Manila’s South Harbor on Tuesday for a week-long visit.
During the stay, the military authorities of the two countries intend to discuss joint measures to combat terrorism and piracy in the region, RT reported on Wednesday.
Moscow has also expressed willingness to conduct joint military drills in the region with Philippine forces in the future.
“In the future, maybe we can have military exercises so we can help you and share with you our knowledge to deal or solve the problem with piracy and terrorism,” said Rear Admiral Eduard Mikhailov, the Russian Navy’s Pacific Fleet deputy commander, at a Tuesday press briefing.
Mikhailov, who is leading the Russian naval delegation to Manila, said Russia can be instrumental in developing the Philippines’ naval capabilities in the future.
“The Russian Navy can help with different equipment, which we can demonstrate to you right here, or in the future in the sea during the military exercises, and also at exhibitions,” he said. “From our side, we can help you in every way which you need.”
The Russian official hoped for regional military collaboration also involving China and Malaysia.
“We really hope that in a few years, the military exercises, for example in your region, in the South China Sea, will [involve] for example, not only Russia and Philippines, but Russia, Philippines, China, and maybe Malaysia together.”
Ties between the Philippines and its long-term military partner and ally the US have deteriorated considerably in recent months. Under President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines has downgraded military ties with the US over American criticism of the president’s trademark war on drugs. For its part, the US has been withholding aid to the Philippines — financial and otherwise — further angering a fiery Duterte.
The Tuesday docking of the Russian warships was the third time overall that a naval group was visiting from Russia. It was the first time, however, that such a contingent was paying a visit during Duterte’s term.
In a state visit to China last October, the Philippine president said he planned to forge closer ties with Russia and China.
New alliances in Asia, once full-blown, are most likely to mean less room for American maneuvering in the region, a staple of US foreign policy over the past decades. The US has been seeking to keep a foothold in the region by, among other things, inserting itself into regional disputes — including a row in the South China Sea that involves the Philippines and China — and conducting patrols away from American mainland.
That prospect would be particularly significant for a US that attempted a “pivot” to Asia, where it stressed American strategic interests lay.
In November last year, the Philippines’ Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana paid a state visit to Russia in a bid to explore prospects for bilateral military-technical cooperation. During that visit, both countries expressed willingness to finalize a joint agreement on defense cooperation.
On Monday, the Philippines’s incoming ambassador to China said his country planned to move away from its long-time ally, Washington, toward Beijing.
Reacting to the news of the Russian navy’s arrival in Manila, meanwhile, US State Department spokesman John Kirby claimed the “defense relationship between the United States and the Philippines remains very, very strong.”
Jan 4, 2017
Finland has become the first country in the world to pay a basic income to randomly picked citizens on a national level in an experiment aiming at dismissing poverty, motivate people to join work force and decrease unemployment.
The experiment is conducted with 2,000 randomly picked unemployed participants between the ages of 25 and 58. For two years, participants from different parts of the country will receive an unconditional monthly tax-free basic income of 560 euros ($586).
The plan aims to find ways to reshape the social security system in response to changes in the labour market, according to the website of the Social Insurance Institution or Kela, which manages the project. It also seeks to reduce the bureaucracy and simplify the complicated benefits system, Kela says.
The scheme, which was launched on January 1, hopes to create an incentive for more Finns to work, since the fear of losing welfare benefits make many citizens act picky about the job they would accept.
Many Finns stay out of the job market for years as they do not want to lose their welfare benefits.
Professor Olli Kangas from Kela says that there are many incentive traps in the present system that are caused by a number of income-tested benefits paid on top of each other.
“In the current system with many strictly income-tested benefits, people may end up in situations where work does not pay enough, making them reluctant to get back to the job market with short-term or low-income jobs” he told Al Jazeera.
“There is also the bureaucratic hassle that makes people afraid to take short-term jobs. They are afraid that they might not be able to claim again their benefits after their contract is terminated and their employment is over.”
Kangas said that the participants will be monitored on to what extent, if any, they will change their labour market behavior when they get unconditional income: Will they stay unemployed or use it as an incentive to start working?
There are strong arguments but less evidence, we hope that we can contribute to evidence-based policy making, he added.
According to the plan, the 560-euro basic income will be part of the general unemployment benefit the participant receives when he or she is unemployed.
However, the participants will continue to receive the basic income even if they start working, although they will lose the rest of their unemployment benefit at that point.
Consequently, when the participant gets a job, he or she will receive both the salary and the basic income. And he or she will continue to claim other income-based benefits such as housing or childcare in line with his or her income, like every other citizen.
Daniel Wallenius, a 27-year-old student from Oulu, believes the basic income is a good initiative and it is likely to create incentive for more employment in Finland, but the way it is implemented is not efficient to achieve this goal.
“It will certainly act as an incentive for people to accept low-income jobs and part-time jobs. It will increase the amount of money people have available while working in such jobs,” he told Al Jazeera.
“However I am critical how this experiment is tested because the participants still have to claim other social benefits such as housing income. And that pretty much cancels the principle of basic income. The fact that it is only tested on the unemployed also cancels the very same principle.”
Jere Ranta, a game programmer from Helsinki, believes that the basic income is beneficial particularly for people who intend to become entrepreneurs.
“This ensures a basic level of income even on uncertain times while people begin their careers as young entrepreneurs,” 35-year-old Ranta told Al Jazeera.
He added: “Since there are other social security benefits for unemployed people anyway, the overall result of this initiative would be to motivate people towards working or starting new businesses using this money rather than not working at all. It will also reduce the overall bureaucratic paperwork and expenses for citizens.”
According to Heta Muurinen, there is large public support for the scheme, but the current model has been heavily criticised because its budget is small and the target group is limited.
“The group that would really benefit from basic income are small scale entrepreneurs, freelancers and others in precarious positions as they do not often get social benefits or are afraid to lose them. For them, basic income would be a safety net that could encourage them to take risks, be more creative and go for start-ups,” the 41-year-old information officer told Al Jazeera.
“Ethically, sufficient basic income system would be more humane and less humiliating than the current benefit system.”
The basic income experiment is one of the key projects formulated in the programme of Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipila’s government.
The plan will be implemented through 2017 and 2018 and the results will be evaluated in 2019.
Finland had an unemployment level of 9.4 in 2015, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU.
The basic income has been an issue of discussion in recent years. Swiss people rejected a basic income plan in a referendum last year. Scotland plans to test basic income at a local level in Fife and Glasgow later this year.
Follow Umut Uras on Twitter: @Um_Uras
Source: Al Jazeera News
Jan 4, 2017
an organization that until recently you may have never heard of, but is now poised to make a powerful influence on your life. Why? The multi-billion dollar corporation and CIA data mining operation Facebook has decided to enlist the help of the International Fact-Checking Network in its quest to eliminate “fake news” (i.e. enact censorship through the backdoor). Those aware of the current psychological operations will know that the entire Russian propaganda and fake news themes are stealthy ways for the establishment to stifle dissent. They are whipping the public up into a frenzy about purported Russian hacking and Russian interference without a shred of credible evidence, all the while scaring people into thinking they need some “independent” arbiter (outside of themselves) to decipher and decide what is real and what is fake. It’s the ultimate perception grab; they want you to hand over your power and let your perception be dictated by them. Now, Facebook has announced it will be using the International Fact-Checking Network and other 3rd party fact-checking organizations to weed out all the fake news. Is the International Fact-Checking Network poised to become some kind of Ministry of Truth as Orwell wrote about? Who funds the organization and how does its check its facts?
The IFCN openly states that it is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and that:
“… Poynter’s IFCN has received funding from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Duke Reporters’ Lab, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations and the Park Foundation.”
Readers of the The Freedom Articles will probably recognize some names here that are an integral part of the New World Order. These include Google (driving the transhumanist agenda), Bill Gates (who has cropped up in the last 3 years to support vaccines, GMOs, Common Core and other NWO initiatives), George Soros (master manipulator behind the Ukraine coup of 2014, Black Lives Matter and other movements to disrupt the law and socially engineer society) and Pierre Omidyar (current owner of PayPal connected to the Military Intelligence complex via Booz Allen Hamilton). Soros owns and funds a slew of treacherous NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) such as the National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundations.
The International Fact-Checking Network has come up with a code of 5 principles by which it operates. Facebook said it will only work with 3rd party fact-checkers that are signatories to this code of principles, and that once one of these organizations decides that a particular story is fake, it will be flagged as disputed and “there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.” Here are the 5 principles:
Facebook has made it a prerequisite to be a signatory on this code of principles to become a Facebook fact-checker. However, on the very same page below the code of principles, there is a list of organizations that have already joined. They include ABC News and The Washington Post Fact Checker – 2 MSM outlets. The Washington Post was the paper that started all the nonsense about Russian propaganda with its own fake news report based on the dodgy research of PropOrNot (a report it later retracted)! Politifact and Snopes are also on the list, and although they are not MSM, their reputations are already quite tarnished due to their past shoddy fact-checking.
Does the group of NWO funders behind Poynter give you the impression that the International Fact-Checking Network will be independent? And moreover, even if they were granted some kind of “editorial independence” by their funders, would they have the desire and ability to become arbiters of truth on massive and complex subjects like GMOs, the New World Order, geoengineering, worldwide pedophilia rings, conspiracy and Satanism? How are they going to “fact-check” statements like “GMOs are not dangerous to human health”, “vaccines are safe and effective”, “there is no worldwide Satanic pedophilia ring”, “chemtrails do not exist”, “Morgellons disease does not exist”, “black military operations oversee mind control programs on the public” and “an interconnected web of hybrid bloodlines rules the world from behind the scenes”? Since many current topics lead back to fundamental issues like these, how are they possibly going to shed any light on these vast topics?
How can anyone expect them to be experts in these fields? How are they going to be able to do anything other than parrot the standard narrative on these topics, which they will get from some form of the MSM or “mainstream science” – the very same sources which advocate toxic-laden vaccines and synthetic pharmaceutical drugs as good for your health? How are they are possibly going to have the scope, breadth and depth of vision and perception that comes from studying these topics in depth for decades as many in the Alternative Media have?
Some commentators and journalists are making this issue into a left vs. right affair, claiming that the fact-checkers are left, liberal or progressive in their political leanings. While it’s true that Soros funds leftist movements, this whole issue is not really about left vs. right. It’s about free speech vs. censorship. The fact-checkers will of course have all sorts of biases in their viewpoints, which is why all opinions need to be fully aired so the truth can rise to the surface.
Imagine if everyone looked at every internet story – from the MSM and the Alternative Media alike – and asked with a critical eye: where’s your evidence and what are your sources? There would be no need for fact-checkers, because every reader would become a fact-checker. It would also destroy government lies right from the start (“the Russians are hacking us” and “the zika virus will kill you”), because they would never get a chance to take off.
The only way out of this is education. The only way people can know the truth is to read widely, inform themselves about the issues, discuss it over and over, get new perspectives, test things out in their own experience and make up their own mind. Blocking news stories and alternative perspectives will only hamper this (but then, censorship is the whole point of this exercise). Yes, hoax stories are annoying and clickbait headlines are irritating, but at some point, you have to trust that readers will begin to see through that crap and consciously choose which sites to read and which to shun. If a site keeps putting out lies and clickbait, at a certain point it will gain a negative reputation and get ostracized.
Collectively, we have to grow up and not expect or call for governments and other organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network to do our fact-checking for us. We have to do it ourselves. It is part of our spiritual journey to be able to mature to the point where we can discern truth from lies. When enough of us can do that, the world will know peace, for as Julian Assange says, if lies are used to start war, then truth can be used to start peace.
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.