This is the face of a charismatic but incompetent failure that presided over the fall of the Democrat Party. He helped his party lose 919 State legislature seats, lose control of Congress, lose control of Governorships across the nation, and help usher in the Trump era.
And somehow, a day from now, 4 years from now, 20 years from now the Democrats will still look back at him as a hero.
For that we sincerely Thank You Obama!
Defying any sense of journalistic integrity and loyalty to the truth, the Washington Post did it again — publishing Fake News for clicks — which had the desired effect of worldwide outrage to suit a tightly-defined political agenda.
This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.
We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.
On Friday, WaPo published an article claiming President-elect Donald Trump fired Washington, D.C., National Guard Major General Errol R. Schwartz — just in time for the inauguration — and that he would be forced to leave his post as soon as the president takes the oath of office.
But that isn’t true.
“My troops will be on the street,” Schwartz told the Post. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He added he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”
WaPo’s erroneous reporting included a statement from D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who lamented, “It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment.”
“I’m a soldier,” the Post quoted Schwartz. “I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.”
But WaPo left out a number of critical points — and horrendously slanted the rest — about this “firing” of the head of the D.C. National Guard.
That D.C. position — unlike the equivalent for states — is appointed by the president, not by the Pentagon, as the Post suggested, nor by any branch of the military. Also, the article glaringly omitted any statement from the Trump transition team, an inexcusable offense, considering it later emerged Schwartz had been offered to keep his position through the end of Inauguration Day — it was Schwartz who turned down the offer, preferring instead to vacate the role at 12 noon, when Trump will be sworn in.
Of course, the blatant misinformation presented by the Post seemed so juicy, countless corporate outlets parroted the claim. Thus this Fake News rippled around the planet earning the scorn of millions who believed Trump must have lost all sensibility for firing a man who had diligently performed his duties since his appointment to the post by former President George W. Bush — during a potentially dangerous event.
This also spawned a number of rumors — with raucous protests planned for Inauguration Day, and the week before, why would the incoming president fire the man in charge of security? Isn’t this a preposterous decision on Trump’s part? What is Trump thinking?
Like previous viral stories — at this point, one would be hard-pressed to deem them ‘news articles’ — the Washington Post published faulty information and subsequently began backtracking.
Notably, in each case, after erroneous information went viral worldwide, edits after publication go largely unnoticed by most of the populace. While retractions and post-publication editor’s notes sometimes appear on WaPo’s articles they are orders of magnitude less popular than the original story and, in this instance, the firing of Schwartz story has only been appended in content — no editor’s note yet graces the top or bottom of the article. (The original version can be found here.)
Any news organization actually practicing journalism would tell you this is egregiously irresponsible.
Except, it’s beginning to appear the Washington Post publishes misinformation and Fake News intentionally — knowing any subsequent disputation of its claims won’t gather as much steam as the original publication.
A distinct reason exists why this would be the case — Brandolini’s law.
“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it,” Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant, keenly observed in 2013 — the Post knows this, and has been manipulating public perception exactly this way.
It was, after all, the Washington Post who initiated the altogether ironic war on Fake News — first turning from journalistic duty in the publication of several items blaming disinformation for the downfall of, well, nearly everything.
WaPo published an ‘article’ about supposed blacklist of over 200 outlets a nascent and seemingly prepubescent website, PropOrNot, had decided were Russian propagandists — linked either directly to the Russian government or had haplessly joined the effort by reporting Fake News during the election.
Literally nothing in that Post article was true. None of the claims were backed by evidence, no research or investigation had been performed, nothing. WaPo just printed the claims of PropOrNot and inserted plausible deniability by failing to link to the list or site. A subsequent retraction at the top of the page was akin to plugging a crack in a dam that’s already burst — damage to many reputable and award-winning outlets listed had already been done.
Previously:
RED ALERT: Head Of DC National Guard Removed From Command During Inauguration
An unbelievable though ostensibly well-meaning law in California took effect at midnight January 1st. Unfortunately, the bill could have some very unpleasant consequences for the very group it seeks to protect. SB-1322, authored by State Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and passed by the California legislature’s Democratic “super majority” in September, essentially legalizes the prostitution of minors. According to the text of the legislation, while “existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution” the bill “would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions.” The bill also allows police to take a minor caught violating into temporary custody only if leaving the minor unattended poses an immediate threat to their health of safety. Another controversial California law that targets prostitution has also taken effect. SB-1129, authored by Bill Monning (D-Carmel), repeals mandatory minimum sentences for prostitution offenses – further decriminalizing the practice for both adults and minors.
The author and supporters of SB-1322 have argued that legislation would improve the minors’ chances for rehabilitation by taking them out of the juvenile detention system and instead place them in the care of Social Services. Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), who voted for the bill, said that “this is the beginning of us thinking differently about the problem.” Though the premise that the children are victims and not “prostitutes” in the same sense as an adult is sound, decriminalizing the practice for minors is, instead, more likely to empower those who exploit them. As the LA Times noted, the legislation “would prevent law enforcement from helping vulnerable children who often don’t see themselves as victims, run away from unsecured shelters and remain tied to their traffickers through complicated psychological and emotional bonds.” Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley also expressed such reservations about the measure, saying that “it just opens up the door for traffickers to use these kids to commit crimes and exploit them even worse.”
Another problem with the bill is its dependency on the state’s social services as a solution to the problem of child prostitution. California’s social services are notoriously under-funded after the state’s budget crisis led its government to cut over $1 billion in program funding. $121 million of those cuts directly targeted child welfare and foster care. This bill has legalized child prostitution without offering any alternative programs or funding to help “rehabilitate” young victims of sex trafficking and will only further This bill has legalized child prostitution without offering any alternative programs or funding to help “rehabilitate” young victims of sex trafficking and will only further overburden state-run child welfare programs.
“Right now the best way to get these young women help, the best way to rescue them from this lifestyle is by keeping law enforcement involved through the ability to arrest,” said Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto). “Maybe in a few years from now, when we are doing better job at both the state and local level, we will better equipped and ready for this bill because services to young women will be readily available. But we are not there yet.”
Though the bill may have been well-intentioned, its consequences are more likely to harm, rather than help, the state’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens.
