A civil libertarian analyzes the election

Thanks to long-time reader Todd for linking me to the “Best article I’ve read on the election so far.”  It’s indeed an outstanding analysis, connecting the Trump election to England’s Brexit vote as a long-overdue reaction of ordinary people to the clueless, corrupt, and condescending rule of a political elite, as embodied in Hillary Clinton.

The article, excerpted and linked after the jump, is worth reading in its entirety just for that analysis.  But what further interests me is that it is written by independent journalist and civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald.  He is a conduit for Julius Assange and Wikileaks, which proved so damaging to the Clinton campaign.

What is the connection, do you think, between the Wikileaks ideology of undermining the establishment by exposing its secrets and that of Donald Trump?  Wikileaks publishes hacked documents in the name of civil liberty.  Is the Trump movement an expression of civil liberties? [Read more…]

Assange blocked from internet, so supporters bring down US sites

Wikileaks has been releasing hacked e-mails embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, so–surprise!–the head of that enterprise, Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, has had his access to the internet cut off. In retaliation, his supporters are hacking into major American service providers, bringing down major sites, such as Amazon, Twitter, PayPal, Reddit, and more.

Assange, who can’t leave the embassy lest he be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges, is telling his supporters that they have made their point and should call off the attacks, which have mainly affected the East Coast.

We depend on the internet, but how fragile it is!

[Read more…]

What we learn from John Podesta’s emails

The emails regarding Hillary Clinton being released by Wikileaks are not from her illegal secret server that she used as Secretary of State.  Rather, they are hacks of the emails of John Podesta, her campaign chairman and longtime henchman.

In them, Podesta and scores of campaign operatives and other correspondents discuss things like the inner workings of the Clinton Foundation, how to co-opt Bernie Sanders and his supporters, collusion with journalists, and other topics embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats.

After the jump is an account of a remarkable exchange in which Podesta writes about subverting Catholicism so as to make it accord with the Progressive cause. [Read more…]

“You need both a public and a private position”

Some of Hillary Clinton’s hacked e-mails released by Wikileaks include transcripts of paid speeches she gave to big corporations.  What she says in those confidential closed-door speeches–for example, calling for open borders and more free trade, saying the banks aren’t really responsible for the 2009 financial collapse–is often at odds with what she says in her presidential campaign.

Remarkably, one speech quite frankly explains the discrepancy.  She says, “you need both a public and a private position.”  One for public consumption and the other for what you really believe.  So she is admitting that what she tells voters is not what she is actually going to do!

At every debate, every interview, every campaign speech, every time she opens her mouth, someone should ask her, “Is that your public or your private position?”

[Read more…]

The Democrats’ embarrassing e-mail leaks

Someone hacked into some 20,000 e-mails from members of the Democratic National Committee, and they have been posted on Wikileaks. They reveal embarrassing details about how the party officials were trying to rig the primaries for Hillary Clinton.  This included a plan to use Bernie Sander’s religion–he is a Jewish agnostic–against him.  (See the article excerpted and linked after the jump.)

The Wikileaks searchable DNC site is here.

Here is a list of some of the more embarrassing e-mails.

Wikileak’s Julian Assange, who also posted Clinton’s State Department e-mails, is promising more damaging leaks, part of a “Hillary Clinton project.”

UPDATE:  DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was supposed to have a big role at the convention, has resigned over the revelations.  The Democratic leadership is said to be in “disarray” over the e-mail leaks.

[Read more…]

Betraying Great Britain

A bombshell comes out of Wikileaks.  The Obama administration turned over secrets about England’s nuclear arsenal to the Russians:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website. . . .

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

via WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets – Telegraph.

One might say, but these are our missiles we are giving to the Brits.  No, when we give them to the Brits, they belong to them.  And, at any rate, if our allies don’t want the Russians knowing something and have directly refused our request for permission to disclose it, sheer respect for the other nation would mean we should act accordingly.  How can this be anything but betrayal?

This is only the most serious example of a long list of diplomatic disrespect of Great Britain ever since the Obama administration took office.  Why are we doing such things to  our closest and strongest ally?