WaPo issues correction as story claims more people killed in school shootings than in military

The Washington Post has been forced into making several corrections to a story claiming that the number of people killed in US schools this year was double that of those killed serving in the military.

READ MORE: ‘Door control is the real issue’: Twitter reacts to Texas high school massacre

The newspaper revised the piece after it emerged that reporter Philip Bump had based his findings on incomplete figures gleaned from Department of Defense press releases. The story has since been updated with new information provided by the website ‘Task & Purpose.’

The new figures added an extra seven fatalities to the total of military fatalities, meaning that – while the number of people killed in school shootings is still quite shocking – it is by no means “double” the number of those killed while serving in the military.


“The figures for 2018 do not suggest schools are more dangerous than combat zones. After all, there are more than 50 million students in public elementary and high schools and only 1.3 million members of the armed forces,” the story reads.

The story added that members of the military are around 40 times more likely to be killed than a student in a school shooting, representing a revision of the original piece, which put the rate at 17 times more likely. The revision has sparked a mixed reaction online. The original report was shared widely on Twitter, with a number of liberal commentators seen to regurgitate the false claim.


READ MORE: Tucker Carlson goes bananas after ex-cop claims AR-15 can shoot 150 rounds in 15 seconds (VIDEO)

Critics were quick to brand the report “fake news” and claim it as an example of perceived anti-gun bias by the liberal media. Others were more philosophical, saying that while the reporting may have been incorrect, the real numbers remain startling.




Claims Trump is actively courting, stoking white resentment

 | Infowars.com – APRIL 17, 2018

A columnist for The Washington Post who left the Republican Party after Trump secured the party’s nomination in 2016 blasted those who voted for him as “immoral and un-American,” claiming the party “has become the caricature the left has always said it was – the party of old white men.”

After viewing a photo depicting President Trump and the Republican Party’s congressional leadership in the aftermath of Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) announcement that he will retire at the end of this term, Washington Post RINO columnist Jennifer Rubin remarked to Politicothat the party “has become the caricature the left always said it was—the party of old white men. And that has become more so in the age of Donald Trump, when he is actively courting and stoking white resentment.”

Such a strategy is, according to Rubin, “a dead end because it’s immoral and anti-American to base an entire political movement on one racial group and it’s a dead end because that’s not America and [what America] is becoming.

Before Trump, Rubin argued, being a conservative meant embracing American exceptionalism, forceful moral leadership of the world (read foreign intervention), and promotion of the free market.

Not fit just to criticize Trump and his supporters, she also lambasted Republican leadership in Congress for going along with Trump and his agenda.

“Republicans have permanently eliminated themselves from credibility to govern,” she said. “You can’t be willing to sacrifice core American values for the sake of a tax cut and be deemed to be worthy of trust going forward.”

While it seems that, in the age of Trump, Rubin does not have much to inspire her in the political world, she did cite one example (a rather ironic case given she claims to be a conservative): the high school students who, with the not-so-secret support of far-left organizations supported by globalist billionaire George Soros, mobilized in the aftermath of the shooting in Parkland, Florida to demand more gun control.

“It is a remarkably idealistic generation. What motivates these people is not tax policy, is not party economics or party foreign policy; it’s issues that have a moral and a value-laden core,” Rubin said. “They look upon environmentalism as a moral issue, as a moral cause. They look upon guns as an issue of [whether] we as a society value children.”

Her comments during the interview with Politico are nothing new, as Rubin has regularly criticized President Trump as “an arrogant fool” and  “flat-out racist.” She also accused him of promoting “authoritarianism, narcissism, and racism.”

Rubin penned a piece in May 2016, after Trump won the Republican nomination, announcing her break with the party. Like others in the Republican Neocon establishment, she claimed the party had left her behind when it embraced Trump’s message of nationalism and populism.



6:00 AM PST 12/20/2017 by Stephen Galloway

“We have to decide when we take to the ramparts,” the Oscar-winner tells THR, noting that he would not attend a screening of his new film at the White House if invited.

Tom Hanks plays famed newspaper editor Ben Bradlee in Steven Spielberg‘s upcoming drama The PostHere, the two-time Oscar winner discusses the man he plays (and also knew); the issues the film raises; and why he would refuse to go to the White House for a screening of his movie.

When did you first read the script?

I read the script independent of Steven [Spielberg]: “Oh, Steven’s interested in this? Oh, sure! I’ll read it, haste-post-haste.” I said: “Well, look, this is ridiculously timely, and the even better part of it is: this is the story of the week that [Washington Post publisher] Katharine Graham became Katharine Graham.” It had a very human element to it. I felt immediately that this was not just going to be a museum piece, but it was going to get into very, very human details of essentially these two people — Graham and Ben Bradlee. He had a love for the woman, because he had this great empathy for what she had been through. He had great respect for the class that she demonstrated through her entire life. But [he also] had a very strict determination of what a newspaper’s job was. Ben knew the role of the Fourth Estate in society. So, all that stuff put together, I thought, was a pretty prescient story. It had an awful lot of parallels to 2017.

What was your first conversation with Steven about?

Steven’s first thing, as I recall, was: “I want to know more about the Pentagon Papers themselves. I want to know what is in them. And we’re going to have to figure out a way to make them understandable to the audience.” From that came meetings with [the original whistle-blower] Daniel Ellsberg to fill out more of those details: What was in the Pentagon Papers? And what was really at stake in regards to the First Amendment, and how that played out in the newsroom, [with] a bunch of personalities who were slathering to get to the truth?

Amy Pascal, Kristie Macosko Krieger, Meryl Streep, Steven Spielberg and Liz Hannah


Steven Spielberg and Meryl Streep on Trump, News and Why ‘The Post’ Had to Be Made Now: “Everyone I Know Is Scared”

What surprised you about Ellsberg?

He was in the Marine Corps. He had been to Vietnam. He knew Henry Kissinger. He knew everybody. He wasn’t just some anonymous guy who worked at the RAND Corporation. He had firsthand knowledge of what was going on. He was not just a whistle-blower who had seen pieces of paper and snuck them out to a copy machine.

You knew Ben Bradlee?

Bradlee had this very specific, almost contrary view: that Washington, D.C., was not just this one-business town. He viewed Washington as being not one of the most important cities in the world, [but] the most important city. He said: “You don’t get it. We’re covering the stories that are changing the world, regardless of what The New York Times puts in it.” When he saw that The Times had this blockbuster of a story about how the American people had been lied to by trusted officials since before World War II, he was saying: “How come we’re not doing our jobs? Why the fuck don’t we have this story?” And then, of course, the Nixon administration, the Justice Department, says: “If you print these papers, you’re going to be traitors,” which complicated absolutely everything, because it happened in the week that the Washington Post went public. And who was going to be running it? Well, it turned out to be Katharine Graham, if she had the guts.

Did you ever meet her?

I met her. I’m not kidding. I met her the day before she died at that big conference up in Sun Valley, Idaho. There was everybody from guys who run every industry in the world as well as the president of Mexico and some guy from Russia who ended up getting tossed in jail. I was at a big table for lunch with [her]. And we talked about movies and popular culture and what have you. It was very pleasant. I was very much aware that she was Katharine Graham, and the last time we saw her, we said, “So long,” and went off to something else, and she drove off in her golf cart and she passed away that evening or the next morning.

Was she frail?

No, she didn’t seem frail. She was in her 80s, so there’s a reason you had a golf cart. You don’t want to have to walk two-quarters-of-a-mile in order to get to the next seminar. She seemed incredibly sharp, just filled with personality. Curious. Interested. I guess anybody else would say that she had slowed down some, but I just saw a very vivacious older woman.

Did you spend time at the Post for the movie?

We went down together one day just before we started shooting. Meryl [Streep] was there and Steven and [producer] Kristie Macosko Krieger. I think Amy [Pascal, who also produced] was along as well. We went down and had a very nice tour. It’s a very different building now, like walking into a high-tech demonstration. But we did meet people who had worked with Ben.

What did you find out that helped shape your performance?

That Ben loved the day. He loved the power. There’s a moment where he would come by and say: “Ah, the fun.” We put that into the movie. “Ah, the fun.” It was fun to put out this newspaper. It was a blast. Based on some other stuff that I saw, he [also] said, at one point: “You have to get it right. Because if you set it down in type at midnight and it goes out at 4 o’clock in the morning, you have to eat it for the next 24 hours. You can’t just issue a quick walk-back. You have to explain that you got it wrong, why you got it wrong, and then you have to set it right.” And he never wanted to be in that position. He also owned the room when he walked into it. He was an extremely confident guy; he was aware of his physique. He knew how he filled out not only his wardrobe, but the room that he was in. And they all, quite frankly, loved him. Even when it came to bitter fights with him. He was supremely honest and demanding of himself, as much as anybody else.

What’s the significance of this story today?

When you’re not just celebrating the nostalgia of history, it comes down to human behavior. And human behavior never changes. It’s always the same. Vanity of vanity, nothing new under the sun. The Nixon administration tried to stop the story from being published. They took on the First Amendment by saying: “You can’t tell that story, and if you do, we’re going to threaten you.” That is going on, of course, right now.

In what way?

There’s a number of ways that you can assault the First Amendment. Back in 1971, it was done in such a boldfaced way that a newspaper, The New York Times, was stopped from publishing a story. And it was threatened; anybody who was going to try to publish that story was going to go to jail for treason. Treason, my friend. That’s the stuff that goes on with tin-pot dictators and communist tyrants and third-world banana republics. [But] I’d have to say, as Steven Spielberg said: “The truth is making a comeback.”

What troubles you about the way the press is treated today?

There used to be this concept, [as the later Senator] Daniel Moynihan used to say: “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” Facts are irrefutable. Well, it turns out people are saying: “No, facts are not irrefutable. We can decide whatever facts that we want, that we would like.” Right now, without a doubt, there are people in power trying to — if not quash or stop the right to publication, [then at least] denigrate it to the point [where] they are saying there is no truth to it whatsoever. And there are stories out there that are the truth, [in] organs of the Fourth Estate like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

If Donald Trump wanted you to screen this movie at the White House, would you go?

That’s an interesting question. I don’t think I would. Because I think that at some point — look, I didn’t think things were going to be this way last November. I would not have been able to imagine that we would be living in a country where neo-Nazis are doing torchlight parades in Charlottesville [Va.] and jokes about Pocahontas are being made in front of the Navajo code talkers. And individually we have to decide when we take to the ramparts. You don’t take to the ramparts necessarily right away, but you do have to start weighing things. You may think: “You know what? I think now is the time.” This is the moment where, in some ways, our personal choices are going to have to reflect our opinions. We have to start voting, actually, before the election. So, I would probably vote not to go.


Trump’s agenda continues moving forward, to the chagrin of the deep state

 | Infowars.com – DECEMBER 19, 2017

A op-ed columnist for The New York Times praised the numerous organizations coordinating the nationwide “resistance” to President Trump, arguing Trump has “done more to spur progressive political organizing than Bernie Sanders, George Soros and Saul Alinsky combined.”

Michelle Goldberg, a leftist columnist for The New York Times, gleefully recounted a series of “victories” earned by the nationwide resistance to President Trump, beginning with the citizens “coordinated by groups like Indivisible, MoveOn and the Working Families Party” who “flooded congressional town halls to demand that their representatives save the Affordable Care Act.”

Despite repeated efforts by conservative Republicans in both houses of Congress, measures repealing Obamacare repeatedly failed in the Senate in the face of unanimous opposition by Democrats along with a handful of Republicans.

The closer than expected special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional district to succeed Tom Price, who had resigned to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, was fueled by “the energy of the district’s previously apolitical suburban women” galvanized by their “disgust for Trump.”

Despite raising more than $23 million, Democrat Jon Ossoff was defeated by Republican Karen Handel in a loss deemed“demoralizing” by The New York Times, with Democrats “left to wonder if the intense anti-Trump passion visible in protests, marches, money and new volunteers isn’t just some theatrical, symbolic, abstract thing.”

According to Goldberg, the intense anti-Trump passion is not theatrical or abstract, as “Democrats have triumphed all over the country, as Trump’s approval rating keeps sinking.”

The so-called “progressive” (read Socialist) Working Families Party “endorsed 1,036 candidates in 2017” while “almost two-thirds of them won.”

“Inasmuch as Trump is able to force his agenda on an unwilling nation, it’s because of a breakdown in democracy that renders many members of Congress heedless of their own constituents,” she declared.

Goldberg’s suggestion does not hold weight when matched against a breakdown of the 2016 election result by Congressional district. If each Congressional district was represented by a person from the same party as the presidential candidate who won the district, Republicans would hold a majority of seats with 230, while Democrats would still be in the minority with 205 seats.

Despite the efforts of leftist organizations, their allies in the mainstream media, and the deep state to stop Trump’s agenda, he has continued to make progress, much to their chagrin.

“But while Trump has given his followers the liberal tears they crave, that victory contains the seeds of its own reversal. Trump has done more to spur progressive political organizing than Bernie Sanders, George Soros and Saul Alinsky combined,” Goldberg concluded. “The president once warned that if he fell, he’d take the entire Republican Party down with him. Thanks to the Resistance, he might still have the chance.”

Washington Post reporter apologizes for tweet on crowd size at Trump rally


Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel issued an apology to President Trump on Saturday for tweeting a photo of an empty arena before a Trump rally in Florida that had been taken hours before the event started. 

Weigel responded minutes after a tweet from Trump, who said he had “put out a phony photo of an empty arena hours before I arrived.”

Screen Shot 2017-12-09 at 5.00.17 PM

Weigel said he took the tweet down after Daily Mail political editor David Martosko told him he had gotten it wrong.

“Sure thing: I apologize. I deleted the photo after @dmartosko told me I’d gotten it wrong. Was confused by the image of you walking in the bottom right corner,” he tweeted.

Screen Shot 2017-12-09 at 5.01.34 PM

Trump’s attack and Weigel’s subsequent apology come less than 24 hours after Trump ripped CNN and ABC for putting out incorrect reporting that they later apologized for.

Trump had referred to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross as a “fraudster” at the rally a week after Ross falsely reported that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had directed Trump to contact Russian officials during the campaign.

ABC later corrected the report.

“They took this fraudster from ABC, they suspended for a month. They should have fired him for what he wrote. He drove the stock market down 350 points in minutes,” the president said Friday. “I said to everybody, get yourself a lawyer and sue ABC News.”

Trump also took aim at CNN after the network was forced to make a correction on Friday regarding documents Donald Trump Jr. received from WikiLeaks.

“Oh thank you, CNN, thank you so much. You should have been apologizing for the last two years,” Trump said to laughter and cheers in the audience.


DOJ & FBI must explain why they refused to reveal reason Mueller kicked anti-Trump agent off Russia investigation after being subpoenaed, he says

PJ Media – DECEMBER 3, 2017

In what appears to be an orchestrated leak, both the Washington Post  and New York Times reported on Saturday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed an FBI agent from the Russia collusion investigation in July over anti-Trump text messages. And the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is ready to slap contempt of Congress citations on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray because they have been keeping that information from his committee since August.

Peter Strzok is considered one of the agency’s “most experienced and trusted counterintelligence investigators,” according to the Times. Interestingly enough, he also played a critical role in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation. He exchanged the anti-Trump text messages with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.

Is this starting to sound like a soap opera? It gets better.

The Post reported that Strzok and Page exchanged text messages that “expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”

Strzok’s transfer to the FBI’s human resources department in July was an obvious, eyebrow-raising demotion that attracted the attention of the House Intel chair.

Rep. Devin Nunes told the Washington Examiner that his committee has been trying to get that very information for months — only to be stonewalled by the FBI.

Enraged, Nunes is now demanding that the FBI and Department of Justice explain why they refused to reveal the reason Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation, after being subpoenaed and repeatedly asked about it.

According to the Examiner’s Byron York, “the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago.”

Word of the messages and the affair were news to Nunes, even though the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago. The committee’s broadly worded subpoena for information related to the so-called Trump dossier went to the FBI and DOJ on Aug. 24. In follow-up conversations on the scope of the subpoena, committee staff told the FBI and DOJ that it included information on the circumstances of Strzok’s reassignment.

On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee’s request for information about Strzok.

In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.

On Nov. 20, the committee again requested an interview with Strzok. (Three days earlier, on November 17, Strzok met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.)

On Nov. 29, Nunes again spoke to Rosenstein, and again discussed Strzok.

On Dec. 1, the committee again requested to speak with Strzok.

The FBI and blew Nunes off only to leak about the demotion to the Post andTimes on Dec. 2. In both papers, unnamed federal law enforcement officials explained why the feds were reluctant to share the information.  The Post reported that “there is great concern that exposure of the texts they exchanged may be used by the president and his defenders to attack the credibility of the Mueller probe and the FBI more broadly,” and the Times reported that “the existence of the text messages is likely to fuel claims by Mr. Trump that he is the target of a witch hunt.”

If the shoe fits.

Some might say that the attempt to hide the text messages looks like an indication of consciousness of guilt on the part of Mueller and his team.

At any rate, Nunes is seeing red.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” he said in a statement Saturday afternoon. “This is part of a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this committee’s oversight work, particularly oversight of their use of the Steele dossier. At this point, these agencies should be investigating themselves.”

Now Nunes says the DOJ — after stonewalling for months — is suddenly willing to meet some of the committee’s demands for information.

“The DOJ has now expressed — on a Saturday, just hours after the press reports on Strzok’s dismissal appeared — a sudden willingness to comply with some of the committee’s long-standing demands,” Nunes said in the statement. “This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction.”

According to the Examiner, Nunes has “instructed committee staff to draw up a contempt of Congress citation for Rosenstein and for FBI Director Christopher Wray.” The chairman has given the FBI and DOJ until the end of December to meet all the committee’s outstanding demands — or else he will take action on the citations.



Bilderberg attendees likely violate Logan Act by colluding with foreign agents

 | Infowars.com – DECEMBER 1, 2017

The Washington Post is claiming former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn violated the Logan Act, an accusation they’ve never made against Bilderberg attendees, including WaPo owner Jeff Bezos who attended in 2013.

In fact, media bosses routinely attend the annual Bilderberg conference, including Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait who’s been at least 16 times, yet not only do mainstream reporters downplay Bilderberg, they also never consider that US attendees are likely violating the Logan Act just as they’re accusing Flynn of doing now.

The Logan Act is a centuries-old law aimed at keeping private citizens out of foreign affairs,” wrote the Washington Post. “Flynn was a private citizen in December of 2016, and in Friday’s guilty plea, he basically admitted he urged the Russian ambassador not to retaliate after President Obama announced sanctions to punish Russia for meddling in the presidential election.”

Bezos is also a private citizen, and he has attended Bilderberg, where over 130 of the world’s top tech elites, bankers, politicians, ambassadors, royalty, media owners and intelligence agents – foreign and domestic – meet in secret for four days without an official record taken of the proceedings.

The concentration of politicians and business leaders has meant the organization, founded at the Bilderberg Hotel near Arnhem in 1954, has faced accusations of secrecy,” reported the Business Insider in 2013 in a rare mainstream article on Bilderberg. “Meetings take place behind closed doors, with a ban on journalists.”

“We suspect the agenda (how the US and Europe can promote growth, the way ‘big data’ is changing ‘almost everything’, the challenges facing the continent of Africa, and the threat of cyber warfare) has been somewhat re-arranged as market volatility picks up and the status quo begins to quake once again.”

In other words, Bezos met with foreign leaders to talk about foreign affairs, so if WaPo wants to start accusing people of violating the Logan Act, it should start with its owner.

This hypocrisy is a symptom of how the mainstream media paints false narratives to distort public opinion, which is expected given how the majority of media corporations are owned by transnational monopoly men like Bezos who rely on mass media to “sell” their collectivist vision for the world.