We Are Change was recently the subject of a Snopes hit piece, which was used to justify the idea that alternative media are wrong to be concerned about certain provisions within the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act—which President Obama covertly signed into law over the Christmas holiday.

First of all, Snopes referred to We Are Change as one of numerous “small web outlets” that dared to question the latest NDAA. They failed to acknowledge the fact that between website visits, YouTube views and social media reach, WRC reaches millions of people each month. Our website features stories with exclusive interviews and authoritative sources, proving that We Are Change is made up of a team that does its research—unlike Snopes.

What Snopes did next is what they have been doing for years: cherry picking information and failing to cite the full information and its sources, which just so happens to be a section of the bill itself and a senator and U.S. representative. Really?

While Snopes was correct when it noted that the website YourNewsWire.com has a reputation for posting unreliable content, they were wrong to include We Are Change in the same group.

In the article quoted by Snopes, which was one I wrote on Dec. 24, they pulled the following:

“This bill will “Criminalize ‘Fake News, Propaganda’ on the Web,” a key piece of legislation meant to crack down on free speech and independent media. In Layman’s terms, the act will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems “propaganda.” The next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund “counter propaganda,” to make sure the government’s approved stories drown out alternative media and journalists who question the status quo.

What does that mean for you if you are an independent journalist or blogger? … it means that for simply writing this and asking questions and pointing out that Obama always signs these bills around the holidays like I did in this poem, if I am accused of “fake news” or propaganda, I could face criminal charges.”

The problem is that when they cited my work, they failed to cite the link that was embedded in the text: “Criminalize ‘Fake News, Propaganda’ on the Web.”

This article was written by our intrepid reporter Cassandra Fairbanks and was subsequently the background to the claims I made in my own article. The claims made were from the bill itself, and the story included direct quotes from U.S. Rep Justin Amash and an aide to Sen. Rand Paul:

Under “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries,” the bill seeks to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”

It lists media manipulation as: Establishment or funding of a front group. Covert broadcasting. Media manipulation. Disinformation and forgeries. Funding agents of influence. Incitement and offensive counterintelligence. Assassinations. Terrorist acts.”
“The frightening attack on speech and independent media was opposed by only 30 members of the House, including Tulsi Gabbard, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash — who stated that he fought against it.”

“As long as the government engages in intelligence activities that violate our rights secured by our Constitution, any Intel Authorization bill should be opposed,” Justin Amash told Sputnik News.

The bill must now pass through Senate, though a senior Rand Paul aide has told Sputnik News that the Senator is currently holding the intelligence bill for several reasons — and that they are looking at this specific issue very closely.

Further, Snopes failed to mention that the egregious “Russian propaganda” list released by the Washington Post was released two days later after this bill was drafted in the senate. Zerohedge noted the conspicuous timing.

The claim that this list is reliable has since been retracted by the Washington Post because the website PropOrNot, which compiled a list of over 200 websites that allegedly spread Russian propaganda, provided no proof to to back up the creation of their list.

PropOrNot is also the same website that was connected to Ukraine when they tweeted out a video of the 1940s Ukrainian fascist “Heroiam Slava!” salute.

PropOrNot’s list included We Are Change, and a number of other significant alternative media outlets. So yes, Snopes, that’s how the signing of this bill threatened alternative media. Because we were all already previously ill-labeled “Russian Propaganda” otherwise known as “foreign propaganda.”

The section of the Snopes article that mentions “foreign propaganda,” failed to acknowledge the fact that any media outlet can be egregiously labeled “foreign propaganda” and punished accordingly.

“While both contained provisions related to foreign propaganda, only one, the NDAA, was signed into law before Christmas 2016. It contained a section (originally introduced as separate legislation called the Counter Disinformation and Anti-Propaganda Act)”

It is also important to note that Snopes published the article in question under their “staff” account so that no one person could be legally liable for the content.

What does this expose?

It exposes that Snopes A.) selectively cherry picks facts at their own leisure to support their bias, or B.) does poor research, or C.) all of the above.

The next part they sourced exposes the latter as they forgot an entire paragraph and did what’s known as splicing to fit your narrative.

“What does that mean for you if you are an independent journalist or blogger? … it means that for simply writing this and asking questions and pointing out that Obama always signs these bills around the holidays like I did in this poem, if I am accused of “fake news” or propaganda, I could face criminal charges.”

The paragraph that they forgot before this one is the well-sourced proof that Obama has previously signed NDAA legislation with bundled bills before around Christmas and New Years.

“This is not the first time that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was used to disguise a piece of legislation. Back in 2012, Obama signed a law that allowed for the “indefinite detention of American citizens” without a judge or jury. Then in 2013, Obama signed an NDAA bill that packaged an end to the Smith-Mundit act that prevented the government from using propaganda against its own citizens enabling the government again to legally produce propaganda.”

So the original article looked like this..

Late Friday night, while Americans were distracted by the holidays, President Obama quietly signed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act into law, which authorizes a military spending budget of $611 billion, and includes the dangerous Counter Disinformation and Anti-Propaganda Act.
This bill, as we reportedly previously, will “Criminalize ‘Fake News, Propaganda’ on the Web,” a key piece of legislation meant to crack down on free speech and independent media. In Layman’s terms, the act will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems “propaganda.” The next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund “counter propaganda,” to make sure the government’s approved stories drown out alternative media and journalists who question the status quo.
The “right to free speech and freedom of the press,” is guaranteed by the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution. It is a foundation of American values, put in place by our Founding Fathers to protect our liberties, is now being endangered by this new law.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.”
This is not the first time that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was used to disguise a piece of legislation. Back in 2012, Obama signed a law that allowed for the “indefinite detention of American citizens” without a judge or jury. Then in 2013, Obama signed an NDAA bill that packaged an end to the Smith-Mundit act that prevented the government from using propaganda against its own citizens enabling the government again to legally produce propaganda.
What does that mean for you if you are an independent journalist or blogger? You can read more here, but it means that for simply writing this and asking questions and pointing out that Obama always signs these bills around the holidays like I did in this poem, if I am accused of “fake news” or propaganda, I could face criminal charges.
In other words the stage is now set for the U.S. government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the they deem to be “foreign propaganda.” The ministry of truth is setup. Welcome to 1984.

Remember, these are the same people that Facebook wants running the “ministry of truth.” They are the same people who want to selectively cherry pick facts to their pleasing, and fail to research deeper by clicking on the source links.

[RELATED: Shady ‘Fact-Checking’ Sources Snopes and Politifact DEBUNKED!]

What is the ultimate solution to combatting fake news? As NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden pointed out, it’s about individuals taking the time to do their own research and to think critically.

Readers should also always remember that fact-checkers and reporters will have some type of bias because they are human and have their own political beliefs. Most cannot distance themselves from these beliefs to report news—this includes Snopes’s lead political “fact-checker” Kim Lacapria, who is a “failed liberal blogger.”

But it’s not just Lacapria. Almost all of the writers churning out “fact checked” reports for Snopes have a liberal background, and many of them have expressed contempt for Republican voters. The Daily Caller reported that they could not identify a single Snopes fact-checker who comes from a conservative background.

Here at WRC, we try our best to not show any type of political bias in our reporting and to bring you nothing but the facts when reporting news stories. We aren’t funded by big donors like Snopes, and we don’t use our revenue money to defraud our website for hookers like David Mikkelson, the editor of Snopes (allegations of which, came from his ex-wife Barbara).

To Snopes, in the future, if your “staff” is going to take the time to include We Are Change in one of your alleged “fact-checking” missions, at least take the time do your research.

To anyone reading this story who is sick of the methods used by mainstream media outlets like Snopes and  their so-called “fact-checkers,” take the time to plug into alternative media outlets like We Are Change that are willing to research and to question the government’s narrative. Become a member on Patreon today for exclusive content.