Operation Mockingbird On Steroids—CGI Allows Mainstream Media to Make ‘Fake News’ in Real Time

Advancements in artificial intelligence and computer-generated imagery are creating new concerns about what the definition of “fake news” could become once mainstream media outlets get ahold of the latest technology—and it is all completely “legal,” thanks to programs such as Operation Mockingbird.

Although trust in the mainstream media has reached an all-time low, there is typically the general belief that—no matter how political pundits try to spin the soundbites—a video of President Trump talking, is in fact a video of Trump talking.

However, as Business Insider noted, recently released demos showing the power of CGI technology are serving as “a sign of what is to come.” This month, researchers from the University of Washington released a video titled “Synthesizing Obama: Learning Lip Sync from Audio,” in which they used AI to create a fake video of former President Obama speaking.

Advertisment

A similar study, titled “Face2Face: Real-time Face Capture and Reenactment of RGB Videos,” was published in March 2016 following a collaboration between researchers from Germany’s University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, the Max-Planck Institute for Informatics and Stanford University in California.

The researchers developed technology that “animates the facial expressions of the target video by a source actor and re-renders the manipulated output video in a photo-realistic fashion.” As a result, it gave them the ability to transfer the facial expressions on one individual onto the faces of figures such as Obama, Trump, and even Russian President Putin.

As the development of this technology continues, and its use becomes more mainstream, concerns grow over how it will make an impact, if and when it is used by the media. The lack of trust in the mainstream media is not unwarranted—especially when the media’s transgressions include things such as selling the American public the lies that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq before the Iraq War, and that the Syrian government attacked its own people using chemical weapons.

READ MORE:  Israel Joins US in Protecting Al-Qaeda, Attacks Syrian Military for Fighting Terrorists

As you may have noticed, many of the lies the mainstream media relays to the public are based on narratives that seem to go hand-in-hand with the desired policy initiatives sought by the United States government—and that link is not by coincidence.

As The Free Thought Project reported in October 2015, Operation Mockingbird—a CIA program that recruited journalists to gather information and to influence public opinion on behalf of the agency during the Cold War—is still alive and well in the U.S.

While the program officially lasted for about 30 years, its influence was evident in 2011 when a State Department official “planted” several “questions and concerns” with CBS News for a 60 Minutes interview with WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange. When the exchange was revealed to the public, CBS insisted that it asked the State Department for its input as a way to add “balance” to the program.

While Operation Mockingbird may have started out as one of the CIA’s many questionable programs, it received official approval from the U.S. government when it was legalized in September 2016. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General published a document titled, “A Review of the FBI’s Impersonation of a Journalist in a Criminal Investigation,” which showed the government’s approval for FBI agents impersonating journalists when conducting undercover investigations.

The fact is that no matter what the official title may be, the principles behind Operation Mockingbird are alive and well, and the continuing advancement of artificial intelligence technology raises new questions about how the manipulation of political figures will be used by the media to spread the government’s agenda.

READ MORE:  Stephen Hawking: Governments are Engaged in an AI Arms Race That Could Destroy Humanity

McCain Institute Donors Look Disturbingly Similar To Clinton Foundation - Soros, Teneo, Saudia Arabia...

Last fall, we spent a fair amount of time reading through John Podesta"s emails, courtesy of Wikileaks, and grew increasingly astonished with each passing day at the number of apparent conflicts of interest created by the Clinton Foundation which seemed to be nothing more than a front created for the Clintons to peddle their influence around the world in return for staggering "charitable" donations.

Take, for example, our posts which questioned whether the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, made very sizable contributions to the Clinton Foundation just so he could get an audience with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss his failed $9 billion joint venture with Kuwait.  Here are a couple of posts which provide some background:

Or, there was that time that Hillary was offered $12 million from Moroccan King Mohammed VI just to host her annual "Clinton Global Initiative" meeting in his country.

And don"t even get us started on Doug Band who spent years with the Clintons before starting his own "consulting" practice called Teneo (see:  Doug Band Exposes Foundation"s "For-Profit Activity Of President Clinton (i.e., Bill Clinton, Inc.)")

Now, an exclusive report on the "McCain Institute" published earlier today from the Daily Caller (DC) has us wondering who else in Congress might just be running miniature Clinton Foundation-ish organizations and enriching their personal families in the process. 

As the DC points out, the McCain Institute"s donor list looks eerily similar to that of the Clinton Foundation. 

In addition to the "who"s who" of massive corporate donors (Chevron, Cisco, FedEx, Wal-Mart...), many of which were also large contributors to the Clinton Foundation, the McCain Institute counts many other more "questionable" donors, including Saudi Arabia, Teneo (Doug Band"s firm) and George Soros, among its largest. 

As the DC points out, one such "questionable" donor that took interest in the McCain Institute was OCP, S.A., a Moroccan state-owned phosphate company.  Ironically, OCP just happened to also be a "major sponsor" of the Clinton Global Initiative where Bill was a featured speaker.

It accepted more than $100,000 from OCP, S.A., a Moroccan state-owned phosphate company operating in the Western Sahara, territory which Morocco seized in 1975. The North African country has since occupied the region by force in defiance of U.N. resolutions and legal declarations by other international bodies.

Morocco has come under criticism from human rights groups that the government violates basic human rights and that its state-owned companies subject its workforce to gruesome conditions while exploiting the disputed territory’s natural resources.

The Western Sahara holds half of the world’s phosphate reserves. Used to make fertilizer, phosphate is called Morocco’s “white gold.”

OCP also was a major sponsor of the CGI meeting, and Bill Clinton was the featured speaker.

And then there is the Pivotal Foundation...

The McCain group has also accepted at least $100,000 from the Pivotal Foundation, which was created by Francis Najafi who owns the Pivotal Group, a private equity and real estate firm.

The Pivotal Foundation has in the last three years given $205,000 to the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), which has been a vocal advocate for the Iranian nuclear deal the Obama administration negotiated.

The NIAC web site claims the group “is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening the voice of Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between the American and Iranian people.”

But NIAC President Trita Parsi has long been an advocate for Iran, including demanding in May 2017 that President Donald Trump and officials in his administration “cease questioning the integrity of a (nuclear) deal.”

The NIAC is “Iran’s lobbyists in Washington,” charged Aresh Salih, the Washington representative of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan. “People inside of Iran know them as their lobbyists in Washington, D.C.,” Salih told TheDCNF.

The NIAC does not file as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, nor does it register as a lobbyist with Congress.

...not to mention Soros and Teneo who apparently gave all their money to the Clintons and could only afford a $25,000-$99,999 donation to McCain.

Not surprisingly, pretty much everyone who understands these "charitable fronts" think they"re a bad idea...afterall, we sincerely doubt that random Moroccan fertilizer companies suddenly performed random searches for charities of interest and just happened to settle upon both the Clinton Foundation and the McCain Institute.  No, we suspect they are looking for more from these organizations than just a tax deduction and a "warm and fuzzy" feeling in their hearts.

“This is a very real conflict of interest,” Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, told TheDCNF. “This is the similar type of pattern we received with the Clinton Foundation in which foreign governments and foreign interests were throwing a lot of money in the hopes of trying to buy influence.”

Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, told the DCNF that accepting contributions in the name of a sitting senator like McCain raises troubling issues.

“In terms of the ethics of it, it does raise a broad question of people trying to get good will with the elected official,” he said. “From a personal standpoint, I’d rather not see these entities exist.”

Of course, the real question is just how many congressional representatives have managed to setup similar organizations that we"re not even aware of yet.

Would You Quit Your Job to Build a School in Nepal?

Via The Daily Bell

After a nerve-racking, jam-packed five-hour bus ride on a careening mountain road in the Nepalese countryside, I was seriously doubting my life choices. I had quit my job, moved my stuff back home with Mom and Dad, budgeted my modest savings for the next five months, and now I was in the middle of a remote town by a river with an over-stuffed backpack.

It had all started with an application to help rebuild a school in Nepal that had been destroyed by the 2015 earthquake.

And now I was finding my way an hour up the road, across a suspension bridge, and on top of a farming terrace, where I discovered an international coalition of kind-hearted volunteers taking part in a ceremony. The village of Nagpuje was celebrating the anniversary of its school. I looked around and saw temporary learning centers and CGI structures. I was moved by the celebration, but it also struck me that this was the entire extent of the village’s development.

In the coming days, I would wake early, labor all day with my soon-to-be-family, and settle by the fire with a warm cup of tea, reflecting on our day’s work. We moved rocks, dirt, and cement, all of the necessary simple tasks. We soon learned and started trying our hand at carpentry, bending and cutting rebar, and manually mixing concrete. The project was lead by engineers, both domestic and foreign, who employed local masons from the village in which we were staying. It was clear that there was an efficient plan with effective measures; and I had the privilege of helping.

All Hands

The Internet is inundated with charitable causes to which you can donate. And while a donation is admirable, there is a slight visceral shortcoming in the satisfaction of helping. For some, a monthly subscription to a charity works. For others, myself included, there is a need to go somewhere and help in order to know for certain the effects of my individual contribution.

When you research different types of international volunteer organizations, two things become apparent. In order to be involved, you either need a specific skill or vocation, such as nursing or engineering, or you can pay money to be a part of a program.

I was discouraged. I was just a guy in his mid-20s with a film degree (read: broke) and arguably no valuable skills. But then I discovered All Hands Volunteers – a non-governmental organization specifically to do with natural disaster response and recovery; everything from tsunamis to earthquakes, and much more.

When their founder David Campbell created this organization, he had one simple goal: No matter the qualification or skill set, find average people who have a desire to make a difference in the world. All Hands Volunteers runs on grants, partnerships, and donations. They don’t charge incoming volunteers to participate. All they ask is that you set up a personal fundraising page. You work 6 days a week, and in return, All Hands provides you with:

– Room and board (meals provided 6 days, meal options always near).

– Insurance.

– Spontaneous entry and flexible length of stay.

– Genuine work that needs doing.

– Authentic cultural experiences (even and especially in state-side projects).

Generally speaking, it makes sense to charge incoming volunteers, especially if they’re spontaneous. It takes money to keep people fed, continue work on the project, make sure facilities are kept up, etc. But despite the cold hard logistics of this business model, All Hands breaks the mold. They instead rely on the raw power of human generosity.

Were it not for a steady stream of donations, this NGO might not have a place in the world. Behind each carefully selected mode of operation, there is a reliance on the decency of the average person. Not to mention, this past year All Hands spent over 84% of its budget directly on its programs, with administrative costs just under 8%. You can view their financials here.

So I decided to apply.

The Work

Soon I was leading teams of people in the day’s work, directing workflow and working in tandem with Nepali masons. We hardly shared a language, but through working together, we came to know our shared responsibilities, and how to help each other accomplish our goal: to build a school that could withstand an earthquake.

With each passing day, I became a little closer to the local community. From the shopkeepers to the farmers, to the children who would pass by our worksite every day, waving and shouting “Namaste!” at the top of their lungs. Little did they know that they were providing a boon of motivation of a spiritual scope. Whenever we got sore, or tired, or when manually mixing concrete in the hot midday heat became too difficult; whenever we felt our strength waning with the setting sun, there they were, doing nothing other than just being kids. That was always enough.

As much as I grew to understand Nepali culture in an authentic way, I also learned so much about the world through other international volunteers. I’ve worked with people whose religious and political views are diametrically opposed to my own. We were able to learn from each other, entertain debates both serious and capricious, and learn about each other’s cultures. They were engineers, yoga teachers, travelers, students, and business owners. They were young, old, experienced, wide-eyed and determined. They were, and are, truly brilliant.

Our mission in Nagpuje, Sindhupalchowk is complete. We built two schoolhouses, a functioning bathroom, a DIY no-budget playground, and a community water tap, complete with a partition wall so women can bathe in privacy. Our goals were made manifest by the strangest group of misfits we’d ever have the pleasure of being a part.

In Nepal, it’s common to refer to everyone by a family name. Everyone is either a sister or brother, father or mother, aunt or uncle. It was this passive reinforcement that these relationships became real for me. Even though our hearts soared seeing these massive structures we built with our own bare hands, we were sad. We knew we had to leave, that’s just the nature of it.

After bidding farewell to many a volunteer, it was finally our turn. We celebrated a final night with many families in the village. We ate, sang, danced, drank, played with the kids late into the night. The following day was surreal for everyone. Our base was deconstructed. The villagers had to get used to our absence just as they got used to our presence.

But as we walked down the mountain, we could see from the far end of the path a bright, beautiful school. No matter where the road lay ahead of us, we all knew precisely what we left behind. Through nothing other than our own determination and willingness to help, we made lives measurably better. The feeling of accomplishment was so rewarding; the finest thing for which to live.

The results are fascinating. This organization attracts people from all around the world who fulfill a singular goal with a team of people. Not for pay, but for the intangible value that comes with making a genuine difference. Volunteering is only the illusion of selfless activity; the volunteer ends up receiving not just a broadened perspective, but also a changed life. In giving freely, you can reach out and hold a universal purpose: to aid the safety, growth, and development of the human race.

It’s very easy to be cynical in a 24-hour media cycle, where we are barraged by the conflict and turmoil at home and abroad. It’s even easier to make a positive change as an individual. It’s legitimately at our fingertips. If you are curious about doing something like this for yourself: this is your invitation.

The world is waiting to become a better place thanks to you.

ISIS Video Unveils New Weaponized Drone Program

In new video footage circulating around various social media sites, ISIS supporters have been openly boasting about a weaponized drone program which the terrorist organization has been using to target Iraqi forces in Mosul.  While the video appears to be, in part, CGI-enhanced propaganda, other portions reveal actual IED attacks on armored vehicles and human targets.

Below are highlights from the video:

Most important moments from #ISIS very recent media from Ninawa featuring VBIEDs & its first attack drone ever bombing the #Iraq|i army.. pic.twitter.com/RsnHPqQ6I1

— Rami (@RamiAILoIah) January 24, 2017

While Major General Gary Volesky, commander of the 101st Airborne division, described the ISIS drone program as nothing more than "commercial, off-the-shelf kind of things," their unsophisticated aerial IED attacks have nevertheless resulted in numerous injuries including a reporter and cameraman working for a U.S.-funded media outlet last week in eastern Mosul.  Per  PJ Media:

A reporter and a cameraman for U.S.-funded Al-Hurra were injured last week in an ISIS drone attack on eastern Mosul.

Iraq"s defense ministry announced that their forces are in control of eastern Mosul -- a city divided by the Tigris River -- and have begun planning operations to retake smaller but more densely populated western Mosul.

In mid-October, just after the Mosul operation began, Maj. Gen. Gary Volesky, commander of Combined Joint Forces" Land Component Command for Operation Inherent Resolve and commander of the 101st Airborne, told reporters that ISIS drones were in use.

The general described them as "really, a lot of commercial, off-the-shelf kind of things we"ve seen" -- though they"re "clearly not the capacity or capability" that the coalition has.

One scene from the video also reveals a coordinated effort between IED drone strikes and suicide bombers on the ground.

The video uses photography from another drone to show a weaponized drone flying toward its target, and cameras on the weaponized drone itself show the impact from dropping an IED on a group of people in a street. When vehicles start to respond to the scene, a suicide bomber in a car drives in and detonates in a follow-up attack.

ISIS continues to show a variety of other explosive drops from a drone"s vantage point, mostly targeting individual parked vehicles or small groups of people.

The blasts produced by the explosives are akin to grenades, appearing to inflict some injuries when aimed directly at people but seeming to have little effect when dropped on tanks.

And while the "ISIS drone program" is unlikely to reach a level of sophistication required to take out armored vehicles anytime in the immediate future, Former US special forces officer, Mitch Utterback, said that the aerial IED attacks can nonetheless be very effective in targeting specific, unprotected high-ranking officers.  Per the Daily Mail:

Former US special forces officer, Mitch Utterback, who discovered the devices, told the Mail: ‘Iraqi forces are very, very concerned about these.

‘My concern is them being used to target specific, high-ranking officers who are leading the ground combat against Islamic State.’

He said the devices’ electronics had been modified to release grenades.

The drones can drop a single 40mm rifle grenade - which could kill or injure within a five meter radius, he added.

‘With the precision guidance of the camera, they can and are used to directly target troops in the open’ he added.

Of course, while this low-level technology may not be incredibly effective on the battlefield just yet, we suspect it"s only a matter of time until it"s used to target crowded streets in the major metro areas of the U.S. and Western Europe.

A Violent Inauguration? A Call For Peace On Inauguration Day

Submitted by David Battistella

 A Violent Inauguration? A Call For Peace On Inauguration Day

Now that all attempts to delegitimize President Elect Trump to this point including failed recounts, the constant drum beating about popular vote victory, intimidation, bullying and desperate pleas to the Electoral college and the attempt at cold War 2.0 have failed, will inauguration day be the last stand? Now even millionaire Catholic socialist filmmaker Michael Moore is leveraging a Trump presidency to catapult himself back into relevance while his home state is already feeling the benefits of the Trump effect.

Moore has already shown up to Trump tower with his trademark (and tired) Roger and Me shtick and he is a leading voice in calling for civil disobedience protests, a whole hundred days of them, starting on inauguration day. While this is probably a key way to gather material for his next film about how awful America is, he left out a key word in his call to action - peaceful.

While Michael Moore is calling for civil disobedience, many signs are pointing to the possibility of violent protests. All this while President Elect Trump is already putting jobs back into Moore’s home state of Michigan and the country is already seeing some signs of being hit with the Trump’s economic defribulator. What a sad pair Moore and Rosie O’Donnell make, leading the charge!

I’m sure Mr. Moore would be on his soap box had Obama done anything this useful for Michigan in the last eight years, but alas, we seem to have become so attached to identity politics that we can no longer celebrate the good even when it directly impacts issues like jobs, the one issue Michael Moore staked his entire career on back before his net worth took him into the one percent.

Meanwhile at DNC headquarters, Donna Brazile has it backwards, it’s Democrats who have a great chance to move back toward their roots and embrace Americana again by getting behind proposed initiatives that might help the American worker and stimulate a browbeaten economy.

In any case, it seems definite that there will be a wave of protests on January 20th as Americans who oppose this presidency rightly should exercise their right to free speech. The larger question though is whether those protests will turn violent and turn inauguration day into an international spectacle. This might not have a desired effect on the rest of the world.

Violence is a line, which when crossed, catapults the violent aggressor into another category beyond how civilized democracies should operate. When it comes to debate and protest I can listen to and follow any discourse, weigh the arguments and always respect a peaceful protest process. The moment that process turns to violence, looting, destruction of property, injury to peace officers and civil unrest; (to me at least) the messenger is no longer playing by the rules of a peaceful democracy. They have, in effect, suspended some of the rights afforded them and their expression of free speech.

When mired in violence respect for any cause is lost or eroded. Engaging in violence, violent behaviour and destruction of property is the moment where we move out of the realm of what civilized, peaceful democratic process is about. Think Gandhi when trying to understand how much power lies in peaceful, well reasoned, organized protest movements. Think bullying and terrorism when this important step is bypassed and a violent mob rule takes over. Smashing property is not going to garner respect. It might make a good news hit for CNN, who most probably will be looking for the violence at every turn and rebroadcasting it as the main story.

One thing is almost certain, that if there are violent outbursts during the Trump inauguration, there is a high degree of probability that the violence will be blamed squarely on Donald Trump. The logic for this might be that somehow Donald Trump, by just being Donald Trump, is enough of a reason to become violent and in some twisted form of reason, that violence would become acceptable under the circumstances. Perhaps they are mad at Russia too.

The real threat of violence is not purely blowing smoke. Check out Carl Rove talking about inauguration day security threats in 2008 and how staff security clearances played an important role with a serious threat. Zoom up to the 6 minute mark.

But I’d like to offer another suggestion though, and I know I am speaking in hypotheticals here, but any violence around inauguration day speaks squarely to the current lack of top leadership. President Obama’s passive-aggressive, fence-sitting, double-speak stance, through both his words and his omission, lends quiet support and encouragement and has contributed to creating a climate where violent protest is acceptable behavior. How well off would we all be if The outgoing President would renounce violence nearly as fast as Democrats demand renouncements and retractions on any number of issues.

Obama said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests. So, I would not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I wouldn’t advise them to be silent.”
 
The President of the United States would not advise them to be silent? Really? So what is the take-away here when this prevailing attitude come straight from the top of the alt-left.

It’s precisely this kind of murky messaging that well funded and radical organizations use as a battle cry and even permission to turn civil disobedience and peaceful protest into intimidating, violent outburst ultimately designed not to be heard but really designed to silence others. Do these protesters not have to be extremely careful in not becoming exactly what they oppose? Folks who engage in violence need to take a very hard look not only at what they are fighting for, but exactly how they are fighting for it.

I’ve never heard the current President clearly (I mean in non wishy washy terms) renounce the use of violence, rioting, looting and destruction of property after recent cop killing and protests in major US cities. This includes the murder of Police officers (remember when we used to call them "peace" officers). His is more a conciliatory tone, an understanding of the frustrations of what arrises, but saying nothing firmly to denounce violence and encourage a deeper thinking and peaceful way forward. This kind complacency might lead to things like dead police officers in Dallas and riots in other US cities.

Obama said, “In a movement like Black Lives Matter, there is always going to be some folks who say things that are stupid or imprudent, or over-generalize, or are harsh (edit) and I don’t think that you can hold well-meaning activists who are doing the right thing and peacefully protesting responsible for everything that is uttered at a protest.”

This opinion is dangerous, more dangerous than saying nothing at all. Essentially it is saying, go ahead and organize and if something happens so be it, the leadership is not responsible for anything done, said or perhaps for violence that "breaks out”.

Should violence occur on inauguration day, a story which will emerge and quickly spread internationally will be one of a divided America, an inauguration with a violent and extreme reaction to a “divider president”, Donald Trump. But it is not Donald Trump who has been sitting in the seat of power over the past eight years using veiled encouraging statements like this to his SJW audience;  that one falls squarely into the lap of the sitting president.

But in the end would violence and disruption amount to Trump’s violent entrance? Or would this be Obama’s violent exit, a stain on his scandal-free war-time Presidency?

It’s an important narrative to watch and one the MSM will ultimately need to take a great deal of responsibility for. If the MSM want to restore their place in the public trust, perhaps they should be the first to renounce any violence around the Inauguration, rather that rebroadcast it ad nauseum.

To me, any story which emerges which is not a peaceful transition and inauguration of newly democratically elected Donald Trump, (if things turn violent and we pray it does not) falls at the feet of the outgoing President and his slurping lapdog, aka the MSM.

President Bush had eggs hurled at his limo on inauguration day, which of course made it into a Michael Moore film. However, as the Obama’s have expressed, the Bush family were nothing but gracious and welcoming when their time in the White House had come to a close. Can we really say the same now while every possible barrier has been put up by a sore loser campaign a party and a President who struggles with narrative and his legacy by planting the protest seeds in the form of executive orders and last minute actions and disruptions designed as trip wires to the front door of the White House?

Cue the next narrative, “we tried real hard and we forced laws through” by abusing Presidential executive orders with "a pen", but now Trump and the Republicans (who happened organize themselves well enough to to win power across the important houses of government at every level) just want to change all the good we tried to impose through executive action.

While Obama has professed a peaceful transition his actions speak much louder. Pushing American troops the the Russian border, looking the other way on Isreal, giving himself and his VP presidential medals, last minute actions on monuments and National Parks, that pen sure has been busy Mr. Constitution. It does not seem that the Obama’s are exiting with the same kind of grace of presidents past and if Washington, NYC or any other major city do turn violent on inauguration day you could chalk it up to inaction and statements that do nothing to encourage a peaceful process. Michelle Obama"s loss of hope is a great example. Maybe she is being honest, but gracious, classy, supporting peaceful process, um, no.

Add to this the whole Russian spy narrative as a reason Hillary Clinton failed (not that she was outworked or anything). Now that this narrative is being embarrassingly debunked and turned into another colossal failure the next narrative/target is the FBI through a DOJ probe. It"s not into Hillary Clinton’s fast-and-loose home server, open for the world’s lamest hackers to access top state secretes by not going through official channels, but rather, the FBI departments who wanted to investigate her while she was Secretary of State selling off bits of America to the highest donor to CGI and the Clinton foundation.

What message does this all of this ultimately send?

With January 20th days away this is just a heads up to what the world hopes for out of days like this in American politics. The world looks to America to promote and preserve peace and stability.

America must represent a proactive attitude of peace, hope and prosperity. America needs to project this to to the world and be the leaders of a new global movement. No person knows how this Presidential term will turn out, but it can start on a correct path with a peaceful transition and the peaceful inauguration of a new Presidency.

Americans owe a peaceful transition to themselves, to the world and to its tattered Democratic party. However bruised, the Democrats are Americans, who with their fellow Americans, need to roll up their sleeves and get back to a work within balanced and fair democracy based on principles and ideas established in America and based on its constitution which is admired the world over.

This week and the entire lead up to the transition needs to be about peace and prosperity.

Peace is in your hands America, and that non-violent peace starts with the American people participating in a peaceful process.

The Clinton Foundation Is Shutting Down The Clinton Global Initiative

In a "mass layoff" event reported late last week by the Department of Labor, the Clinton Foundation announced it would lay off some 22 employees at the Clinton Global Initiative, which attained notoriety during the John Podesta leaks, when the various details of the fallout between between CGI head Doug Band and Chelsea Clinton were revealed; it also emerged that long-time Bill Clinton friend Band was soliciting donations for Clinton through his PR firm, Teneo in an sordid example of "pay for play" which most of the mainstream media refused to cover, especially after Band emailed Podesta "If this story gets out, we are screwed."

Filed as mandated by the Department of Labor"s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN notice, on January 12, the Clinton Foundation"s Veronika Shiroka advised the DOL that as part of a "Plant Layoff" it would layoff 22 workers on April 15, with reason for the dislocation stated as "Discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative." The layoffs are part of the Clinton plan put in motion ahead of the presidential election, to offset a storm of criticism regarding pay-to-play allegations during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

As the Daily Caller notes, the layoffs were reportedly announced , ahead of Clinton’s stunning loss to President-elect Donald Trump. Many other employees had already begun looking for or accepting other jobs at that time, as it had become clear the future of the initiative was in doubt. It’s unclear how many of the once 200 strong staff might remain at the Clinton Foundation in some other capacity.

As a reminder, while the FBI has cleared Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing regarding her use of a private email server, a parallel probe into the Clinton Foundation regarding allegations of corruption is still ongoing.

The decision to sunset the Clinton Global Initiative reportedly set off a dispute within Clinton Foundation circles regarding the best way to handle the fallout from the allegations. Some complained the layoff process was “insensitively” handled, Politico reported, while others took issue with the optics of allowing anyone with the Clinton Global Initiative to stay on.

And while CGI is now officially being "discontinued", the same fate likely awaits the Clinton Foundation itself following news in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton"s loss to Trump that Australia has cut its donations to the foundation to $0, while the far more generous Norway likewise slashed its donations by 87% as the political cout of the "charitable" organization dried up and as the opportunity for any future "quid pro quo" is now effectively gone.