Hillary Clinton’s email could be far worse for national security than Edward Snowden’s leaks were alleged to have been

-

In the months following the Edward Snowden disclosures of NSA surveillance procedures, hysterical establishment hawks chose to warn of the potential damage to national security from the leaks, instead of condemning the blatantly unconstitutional violations of American citizens’ privacy. Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed Snowden had helped terrorists by releasing that information. As it turns out, the private email servers she was keeping for State Department communications may have been even worse.

Not only were her unarchived communications in violation of 20-year old federal records regulations, they were also terribly, horrifically unsecure.

The government typically uses military-grade certificates and encryption schemes for its internal communications that designed with spying from foreign intelligence agencies in mind. But the ClintonEmail.com setup? “If you’re buying jam online,” says Hansen, “you’re fine.” But for anything beyond consumer-grade browsing, it’s a shoddy arrangement.

Today in Liberty: Email Scandals, Threats to Signature Legislation, and Netflix’s Discovery That Big Government Is No Friend

bcchillary

Plenty of red meat in the news these days, from Hillary Clinton’s homebrewed email server to the US Ambassador to South Korea getting slashed in the face. Taken individually, these stories are just a fun diversion as part of surprisingly full news cycle. Taken together, however, they represent a potential sea change in how government functions — and how citizens and voters are reacting to it. Not surprising that things are changing in the time of NSA data gathering, a newly confident Russia, and the (continued) rise of the brutal Islamic State. So here’s a rundown for those seeking the little glimmers of liberty buried under the chaos.

CPAC happened last week and there was an air of excitement and momentum surrounding the incredibly deep GOP field leading into 2016’s presidential election. Scott Walker has ramped up his game and Jeb Bush tried to make the case that he’s not just the guy the Democrats would love to see make a run. And Rand Paul, as he usually does, won the straw poll largely due to the contingent of young voters who attend the annual gathering. A really great thing in fact because it means the millenials may actually be migrating to the right at a greater clip than anyone knew. But while Rand won the youth, social media and news data says that Scott Walker’s the one to watch…for now:

UPDATED: When Child Protective Services becomes Child Abductive Services

.

UPDATE: The story here, which was previously just Reason posts based on personal emails, has been fully confirmed. Unfortunately that confirmation came in the form of a Maryland CPS ruling against the parents for “unsubstantiated child neglect”. The Meitivs are now on a 5-year probationary period, during which any further unsupervised activity by their children could lead to additional charges.

It’s generally agreed that playing outside is good for kids. Fresh air, sunlight, exercise, social interaction are all vital for proper childhood development. However, a growing herd of nanny-statists within the government, specifically state Child Protective Services agencies, have decided that playing outside without direct supervision is so dangerous that it would be better if children weren’t raised by their own parents. They risk turning our children into a generation of physically stunted, psychologically addled wards of the state. But for their own good!

Republican Presidential Candidates are Being Asked the Wrong Question on Weed

-

A common question of potential Republican presidential candidates for 2016 at CPAC this year was whether they support Colorado and other states partially legalizing recreational marijuana. They have mostly given the right answer, but to the wrong question.

In a Q&A following his CPAC speech, Ted Cruz was asked and answered thusly:

I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy. If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.

Jeb Bush answered similarly:

I thought it was a bad idea, but states ought to have that right to do it. I would have voted no if I was in Colorado.

It’s 2015. Almost no one thinks states don’t have the right to legalize marijuana if they so choose. And since they’re Republicans, none of the candidates who were asked about it actually support the legalization itself, just the right to do so. That’s not newsworthy. (The worthless question could have something to do with the affable rube who asked it.)

If we really want to get to the heart of the issue, reporters and debate moderators are going to have to start asking a different question:

Kasich-Appointed Ohio Judge Who Misunderstands First Amendment Whacks Geauga County GOP Official with Gavel

[Editor’s note: This post originally appeared on George Scoville’s blog.]

To my chagrin I learned firsthand in Tennessee last year exactly how selective judges can be when interpreting laws or ethics rules that apply to them, or when someone challenges how they use their powers. A recent story out of Ohio shows this phenomenon isn’t limited to the Volunteer State.

Best Supporting Actress Patricia Arquette Gives Best Performance Yet: Using Oscar Speech to Rant About Mythical Wage Gap

arquetteoscars

In a world…where women and children are being raped and slaughtered in Africa and the Middle East, where young girls are being abducted and enslaved to serve as international sex toys for wealthy lechers, leave it to Hollywood to use the biggest platform in the world, an audience of hundreds of millions globally, to bring awareness to an urgently important fairy tale.

When Patricia Arquette won the award for Best Supporting Actress for her 12-year long performance in Boyhood, she immediately went to the script, reciting a speech from a folded piece of paper. She thanked her fellow nominees, cast, crew, and her family, then, appearing to be auditioning for a role as Meryl Streep’s understudy, got confusingly political.

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

The reaction has been predictably swift and emotional, with little data to back it up. That’s because there isn’t any.

Green Energy, Corruption, Reform Conservatism, and the Size of Government

Why It’s Okay for Obama to Say “Islamic Extremism”

Intolerance will not be toleratedMuch hay has been made over the Obama administration’s stubbon refusal to label any act of terror an incident of Islamic extremism or its perpetrators radical Muslims. As the ISIS conquest of the Middle East escalates, this exercise in political correctness has reached farcical levels.

In a Wednesday speech about “radical extremism”, the president again refused to properly identify what kind of radical extremism he was discussing. But he was very clear (after you let him be) about who he was not discussing.

Well yes. That’s exactly what “Islamic extremism” means. Literally. Otherwise we would just call it “acts of Islam”. Which would, of course, be silly.

Obama Strategically Waits for the Middle East to Catch Up to Civilization

modern medieval

Despite already having the ability — as he has been more than willing to mention — to wage war without asking for Congressional approval, President Obama nonetheless is trying to get a new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) passed on The Hill, something that is proving controversial to both sides of the aisle.

From a three-year limit to a check on launching “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are calling Obama’s proposal either too restrictive or too broad — but few are calling it just right.

Those on the right wonder if the three-year time frame — which will bleed over into the term of the next president — doesn’t tie the hands of the executive office (bearing in mind Obama has made great use of that same executive privilege he would limit after he leaves office). It also turns our engagement in the region into a very dispassionate drone war, assuming we still have an interest in the region at all. Those on the left actually — oddly — argue the exact opposite: that the new AUMF gives the president too much power to say how and who we fight.

If You’re a Gun Owner, and You Live in New Jersey, I Have One Suggestion: Move

keepandbeararms

New Jersey, or New Germany, as my friend from the Garden State likes to call it, just ruined another innocent man’s life. Steffan Josie-Davis is the latest victim of New Jersey’s archaic gun laws.

Steffan was just a young man trying to make an honest living. In 2013, Steffan was working as an armed security guard. As you might expect, the security company provided him with a handgun – a 9mm Smith and Wesson - for work.  

According to the article, Steffan was in his garage inspecting some of his gear before work when his 6-year-old sister came into the garage. Not wanting her to see the gun, Steffan placed it in his glove compartment. However, before he left, Steffan forgot to remove the gun from this glove compartment.

Shortly after he left his apartment, Steffan was pulled over by the police for suspicion of an expired registration. When Steffan went to retrieve the registration from his glove compartment, he found his gun. He immediately informed the officers of the situation. The officers took his gun, gave him two tickets for the vehicle, and then informed Steffan that he could pick up his gun at the police station the next day.

When Steffan went to retrieve his gun from the station, he was promptly arrested by officers and charged with felony possession of a firearm – a crime that carries a five-year minimum jail sentence.

Let that sink in. This young man was subject to a five-year jail sentence for just possessing a firearm. Unfortunately, this type of nonsense is to be expected from the unjust New Jersey justice system.

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.