Posts

WikiLeaks: Julian Assange Statement on the US Election (FULL LETTER)

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President. On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have. The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed. This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work. The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have poured over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment. We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election. At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us. We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it. That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public. This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either. Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know. This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so. The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential. Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists. In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate. WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them. We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work. WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism. Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public. Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned. By Julian Assange Source: CO
Sorry, but nothing matched your search criteria. Please try again with some different keywords.

Analysis: Why the Democrats are voting for Trump, and the Republicans for Hillary

Here we are one day before the election day in the United States, and we are also facing a very absurd political situation.

Apparently the members of the Democratic party are hoping that Mr. Donald J. Trump is going to win this election cycle and the members of the Republican party are hoping that Secretary Hillary Clinton is actually going to win on Tuesday’s election day.

Why this is happening ?

  • For example if Hillary Clinton wins, one half of her mandate she will have to explain that she didn’t leaked Top Secret government documents and she will face the opportunity to get an impeachment, just like the case with the former U.S. president Mr. Richard M. Nixon that happened 30 or more years ago. That’s why the democrats believe that maybe it is better for the Democratic party Hillary to lose these very dirty elections 58th elections in the U.S.
  • On the other hand the republicans are making their own political calculations, because if Trump wins “as he is” – no one can control him – with occasional “very crazy” statements, he can do a lot more damage to the Republican party that supported him if he wins.

This means if Hillary wins and she gets impeached after two years, at least in the next two upcoming presidential elections they will be a very serious favorite to win.

Now I ask this heavy question, do you think that the Jews and Israel are having their revenge on Hillary Clinton because she made some mistakes according to their estimations ?

vote-collage

Lifeinvader

You may not, except with linking the source, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.

VIDEO: #AskingPornStars: Sex Scene with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton

While at Exxxotica Chicago, SINN & SKINN took the opportunity to sit down with porn stars Kissa Sins, Julia Ann, Bella Rose, Uma Jolie, Abella Danger, Cali Carter, Adriana Chechik, Tasha Reign, Alexis Fawx, Adria Rae, Jillian Janson, Anikka Albrite, Sara Jay and Carmen Valentina and ask, “Which presidential candidate would you prefer to do a sex scene with: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (and what kind of scene)?”

 

“I don’t know. I’d probably like to fuck Hillary Clinton with a strap-on. She seems like she deserves to be punished” – Adria Rae

“I would do one with Donald Trump where I step on his balls for 45 minutes.” – Kissa Sins

“Probably Hillary because I think she can lick p**** better. She looks like a girl that could eat p**** good!” – Carmen Valentina

Source: Hush-Hush

As Promised, Wikileaks Just Killed Hillary – Her Career Is Over

WikiLeaks is destroying Hillary, and we love him for that.

He is doing great favor to America and he should get one of those medals of honor that heroes get from the battle zones.

Americans have new battle zone, and it’s the homeland, we are fighting with corrupted politicians who are selling America to the world!

According to Viral Liberty


 

Judicial Watch dropped a bombshell on Hillary Clinton’s campaign on Monday when they released 725 pages of new State Department documents that include damning exchanges with her top aide Huma Abedin.

The emails confirm that Abedin gave influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the then-Secretary of State. In most cases, the donors that were given this preferential treatment were handed it at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

The newly-leaked emails include 20 Clinton email exchanges that had previously not been turned over to the State Department, which brings the known total thus far to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).

One of the emails between Abedin and Band was an exchange in which Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton and had to go through the State Department in order to get one. Abedin told Band that when she went through the “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet.

However, the meeting was immediately set up 48 hours after Band himself intervened.

The Kingdom of Bahrain had previously given between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Source: BvaNews

Vote: Hillary Clinton to be Prosecuted ? Do you agree ?

When FBI Director James Comey told Congress that the FBI intends to review newly discovered emails in the investigation of Hillary Clinton, some observers speculated that the evidence could lead to federal charges against Clinton. According to former prosecutors and legal experts across the political spectrum, however, that is unlikely. While experts caution that it is hard to weigh the impact of largely unknown evidence, they say both the history of the FBI inquiry and the nature of the new emails make it unlikely that federal authorities would reverse course to charge Clinton. Read more: NBC

Should Hillary Clinton be criminaly prosecuted ?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

How will the Americans vote !? – Demographic Video Presentation

Video presentation of the candidates for US president 2016 and their supporters before the elections on 8th of November.


Give your support and Vote.

If you were to give your vote today - Who you will vote for ?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Hillary responds to creepy Joe Biden caught groping young women

As if the POTUS race could not get any creepier — we now have Mr. groping young girls, VP Joe Biden, come out against the words Donald Trump used.

Alex Jones illustrates how Biden, Hillary and Tim Kaine are some of the creepiest people around.

 

Also, Michelle Obama hosts an event for rappers who promote rape

Read more at: InfoWars

I’M VOTING NAKED Madonna strips NAKED as she joins Katy Perry in nude voting

THE stars just keep stripping off for Hillary Clinton… and this time its Madonna’s turn.

Yesterday it was fellow global superstar Katy Perry , who shared a video of herself completely nude to encourage to register to vote in the US Presidential election

madonna-main-1024x538

Today, Madonna has jumped on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and shared a snap of herself with no clothes on, captioning the saucy pic: “Im voting naked with Katy Perry!!

Vote for Hillary. She’s the Best we got!

In the picture you see the Queen of Pop from the nose down to her cleavage, and she is wearing a glistening grill in her teeth.

Madge also shared a photoshopped picture of herself with Hillary between her legs.

madonna-naked-instagram-hillary-clinton

The 58-year-old captioned the cheeky pic: “Living For Hillary Yes I vote for intelligence. I vote for equal rights for women and all minorities.

“Women Run the World now they have to get out and start supporting one another.

“No more misogynist feminists! No more mysogony. Get out and Vote (sic).”

The star also lashed out at Donald Trump in defence of her pal Rosie O’Donnell, who was attacked once again when he faced off against Hillary in their presidential debate on Monday night.

Sharing an image of the pair in their 1992 movie A League Of Their Own, she wrote “Mess with my girl Rosie and you’re messing with me!!! Cruelty never made anyone a winner.

The star joins pal Katy Perry in getting “nude for Hillary”.

Yesterday Katy shared a light-hearted clip on her Twitter page where she turns up to vote in the buff, but soon runs into trouble when the police turn up to arrest her.

She finds herself in the back of a police car next to a fellow naturist voter.

The superstar is a prominent Hillary supporter and said she’s going to use her body as “clickbait” in the daring video.

Source: politicstodayusa

Donald Trump will Legalize Marijuana !?

Legalize Marijuana?

Touchy subject but I’m going to tackle it! I wonder how many people actually support legal marijuana in some form or the other?

Decades of research point to a variety of medical uses for this unique compound.

THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the most recognized ingredient in cannabis. It is best known for causing the high that you get from using marijuana.

As a result, THC has also caused the most controversy surrounding the plant’s medical use, with many health professionals citing the high as a drawback.

Economically legalize marijuana

marijuana

All eyes were on Colorado to gauge the impact of the country’s first-ever state law to tax and regulate the sale and private use of marijuana for non-medical purposes. January 1, 2015, marked the first anniversary since marijuana became available for purchase for adults 21 and older in Colorado. For over two years, the state has also allowed adults to possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana.

What’s happening with tax revenue, crime rates, marijuana arrests, the economy, youth prevention and traffic safety? What’s working and where is their room for improvement? What effect is marijuana legalization having on neighboring states and throughout the country? Will Colorado’s legalization law have a ripple effect on the rest of the nation?

Here’s what we know so far: According to the state’s department of revenue, the first ten months of legal marijuana sales have resulted in nearly $40 million in tax revenue. Denver saw a decrease in violent crime rates in the first 11 months of 2014. Statewide traffic fatalities continue to decline, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation. Upwards of $8 million has been allocated to fund youth education and drug prevention efforts. And the state is enjoying economic growth and the lowest unemployment rate in years.

Jon Gettman’s 2007 study “Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws” found that the U.S. marijuana industry is a $113 billion annual business that costs taxpayers $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. Gettman, who has a Ph.D. in public policy from George Mason University, suggests that $10.7 billion could be saved each year from the country’s $193 billion in annual criminal justice expenditures if marijuana arrests – 5.54 percent of all criminal apprehensions – were stopped.

Last spring, more than 300 economists, including three Nobel Laureates, signed a petition supporting a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, who argued the government could save $7.7 billion a year by not having to enforce marijuana prohibition. The report also found that taxing pot at rates comparable to those levied on tobacco and alcohol could raise $6.2 billion annually.That’s a total of $13.9 billion in savings and income.

50a5067be30cf-image

Economist Stephen Easton penned an article in Businessweek that suggested the financial benefits of pot legalization may be even bigger than what Miron predicted. Eatson guesses that legalizing the drug could bring in $45 to $100 billion a year.

marijuana2

 

Taxing Medical Marijuana Brings in Cash!

Although the above numbers are all speculative and admittedly somewhat disparate, there are some actual, hard figures reported by states and cities that have had medical marijuana laws in effect for some years. In 2011:

Oakland, Calif., collected $1.4 million in taxes from medical marijuana dispensaries – nearly 3 percent of all business tax revenue. The state of Colorado collected $5 million in sales taxes from the medical marijuana business. Denver collected $3.4 million from sales tax, application and license fees for its medical marijuana dispensaries (of which the city has more of than it has Starbucks coffee shops). Colorado Springs, Colo., collected more than $700,000 in taxes from the marijuana industry. Oregon raised an estimated $6.7 million in taxes which it used to pay for other state health programs.

Estimates for Washington: $2 billion in tax revenue will be raised over the next five years; for Colorado: $600 million in taxes and savings over the same time period.

Clinton’s stance, that she will not legalize marijuana. CEO of XEROX Ursula Burns participated in a Q&A with Clinton which later leaked. Ursula used Wall Street jargon to cover her use of the word “weed”. Clinton Campaign staffers have worked on removing these speech excerpts, and this was one of them:

URSULA BURNS: SO LONG MEANS THUMBS UP, SHORT MEANS THUMBS DOWN; OR LONG MEANS I SUPPORT, SHORT MEANS I DON’T. I’M GOING TO START WITH — I’M GOING TO GIVE YOU ABOUT TEN LONG-SHORTS.

HILLARY CLINTON: EVEN IF YOU COULD MAKE MONEY ON A SHORT, YOU CAN’T ANSWER SHORT.

URSULA BURNS: YOU CAN ANSWER SHORT, BUT YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT LETTING ANYBODY ELSE KNOW THAT. THEY WILL BET AGAINST YOU. SO LEGALIZATION OF POT?

HILLARY CLINTON: SHORT IN ALL SENSES OF THE WORD.”

Hillary Clinton is bankrolled by big pharmaceutical companies.

In the infographic below by OurAmazingWorld.org it shows the comparison of each candidate of the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton of course, being number one and Donald Trump being the very last.

Big Pharma

One of the main reasons the United States hasn’t legalized marijuana is due to the big power pharmaceutical companies have in our government. Once marijuana is legal, these companies will need to react to new forms of competition.

Donald Trump is pro-marijuana and promises to let states decide on legalization.

For marijuana supporters, the thought of voting for a Republican is bizarre. Donald Trump is the only hope for legalization. He stated recently that he wants to see it legalized and dealt with state by state instead of federally.

Trump’s whole movement is about Making America Great Again and recreating the culture of positivity all Americans once shared.

So if the legalization of Marijuana could help bring in billions of revenue, and can also help millions of patients, why is Hillary Clinton so against it? Simple Hillary Clinton is tied into the FDA scam of America a legalized marijuana would be very bad for the big drug companies!

Just think of the money America could make from taxation of legal marijuana. The money America would save on menial marijuana arrests and imprisonment, the court costs, the jail stays, that would add up real quick. Think about the money it would save instead of the high-priced pharmaceuticals used now, and a share of those high-priced pharmaceuticals are paid for by the government, through free medical insurance. It’d be like a booster jump-start to our economy.

But for me, it’d have to be the medical use that would be oh so important. I’ve watched several videos where children actually stop having life changing seizures time and time again. Or how cancer patients get an appetite or stop throwing up after treatment.

Did you ever stop to think maybe God put this plant here for a reason? Doesn’t the bible tell us in Genesis 1:29 King James Bible.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you, it shall be for meat.

There was never any mention of marijuana in the Bible. But many assume it’s a sin. But then again the Bible has been interpreted so many ways, and no one man will ever know the true meaning of everything in the Bible. God said as much.

So are the Hillary Clinton’s of the World worried it’s immoral, or less money in their pockets?

Let’s see, Hillary clearly is for late-term abortion, or as I call it murder, and she clearly supports gay marriage, which the Bible tells us is an abomination of God.

I’m thinking it is the Big Money Pharmaceuticals in her pocket! How about you?

Source: Beverley Russell Trumpville Report

Hillary Clinton lashes out at Matt Lauer with profanity-laced Tirade (Video)

The watchtowers.com reported: According to an email forwarded to us late last night, which originated from a Comcast email address, the technical crew for NBC which produced the event is now speaking out about what took place moments after Clinton walked off the set – a massive profanity-laced tirade aimed at NBC’s host, Matt Lauer.

It turned out that Clinton had been fed all the questions for approval in advance of the forum. But then, after the approval, Matt Lauer had had a change of heart and he started his questioning with an unapproved line concerning Clinton’s use of an illegal private server for her sometimes classified, work-related emails.

According to a Comcast official (the parent company of NBC Universal) who apparently was quoting those on the set: “When Matt posed the one legitimate question about the FBI investigation concerning her homemade server and the unsecured emails, we could see she was beginning to boil.” According to an NBC Associate Producer of the Forum, as soon as Clinton got off the set, she exploded.

“Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant, and the screaming started.”
“She was in a full meltdown and no one on her staff dared speak with her – she went kind of manic and didn’t have any control over herself at that point.”
“How these people work with this woman is amazing to me. She really didn’t seem to care who heard any of it.”
“You really had to see this to believe it. She came apart – literally unglued; she is the most foul-mouthed woman I’ve ever heard … and that voice at screech level … awful!”
“She screamed she’d get that f…..ing Lauer fired for this.”

Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said:

“If that f – – – ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished…and if I lose it’s all on your heads for screwing this up”

Read more at (Link: thewatchtowers.com)