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.

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 ...

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

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)

If you vote Trump, Obama is going to let the migrants in

The United States under president Obama’s wish would like to take 30% (percent) more refugees in 2017. This information was pass trough the Congress on Tuesday 25th of October from top administration officials, they are calling for the American people to do more on the global stage in the time when many voters are unwilling to accept the current pace.

obama-trump

This announcement looks like designed to boost Barack Obama’s hand for the next week, when he is scheduled to be a host at the summit of the U.N. General Assembly, discussing about international national leaders to start acting on the global refugee crisis.

In the US however, his refugee targets are likely to rise controversy again on the ability of the United States to accept and absorb new coming migrants – refugees especially from countries where terrorist cells and networks are operating to put insurgents into the refugee streams.

jeff-sessions-feature-hero

“The common-sense concerns of the American people are simply ignored as the administration expands its reckless and extreme policies”

Said Senator Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration.

Also Secretary of State John F. Kerry informed the congressional leaders, including Homeland Security and Human Services administration officials that part of the official consultation process must take place before the target gets into effect.

He also warns that he will let more of them if the Americans vote for Trump or Trump is being elected.