Hillary Clinton went out of her way to remind gun owners why they should do everything in their power to keep her out of the White House.
In an email sent out by her campaign on Sunday, Clinton touted her plans to fight for gun control and “take on the NRA”. Reminding voters of her vocal criticism of the gun rights organization on the campaign trail as well as her support for the 1993 Brady Bill, she promoted herself as the “champion” that liberal Democrats need to push gun control through and implored them to rally behind her.
Of course, attacking the NRA wasn’t enough for Hillary: she also slammed the Republican-led Congress for not passing expanded background checks and other anti-gun pieces of legislation in the email. All in all, the email serves as a reminder to conservatives why they need to keep her from becoming president.
Turn to the next page to learn more about Hillary’s email:
The Washington Free Beacon investigates:
A number of Hillary Clinton’s top lobbyist bundlers, who have raised millions for her presidential campaign, either directly represent foreign entities or work at firms that represent foreign entities, according to documents from the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Unit.
Tony Podesta, owner of the Podesta Group and brother of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign, is a top bundler for Hillary for America. Podesta has bundled $267,835 in contributions to date. Podesta was hired to work on behalf of Saudi interests.
Saudi Arabia has built an extensive lobbying and public relations presence in the United States, the Washington Post reported in April. It has also supplied the Clinton Foundation with millions. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million.According to this story, these highly paid lobbyists also represent powerful interests in Russia, Turkey, Japan and Mexico.
So how would these interests somehow influence a Hillary Clinton administration’s decisions about the Turkish dictatorship and its NATO membership? Or the strengthening of America’s southern border?
Even liberal Democrats surely must ask themselves how this influence could impact Clinton’s promises on progressive causes? Won’t she be more beholden to these foreign powers than to the people at home?It’s just another reason that Hillary can’t be allowed to win in November.
She will need a bigger gunnysack for all her c**p.
BUT the country don’t want to take on the NRA…. ONLY hillary & obama does,,,,, Tell you anything ?????????
Ha!Ha!
tell that to the Hillary clintin supporters, they are still behind her dispite the oblivious evidence against her
Astonishing! The NRA consists of nominally 5 million, law-abiding American citizens who believe in the right to Keep and Bear Arms, believe in the U. S. Constitution, and commit no crimes. The candidate that the liberal socialist, communist moronic, traitors support to be the “president” of the United States openly declares those 5 million Americans to be the “enemy”. Consider these things as those of you are busy hating and condemming the NRA, the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment: A few things you might consider while you’re busy condemning and hating the NRA, and the 2nd Amendment. Variously, according to the FBI, the CDC, the Information Bureau of the DOJ, since 1993 gun ownership in the United States has nearly doubled, while over the same period if time gun crimes have decreased nearly the same amount. Show me one NRA member who has committed a mass shooting. Show me one ad where the NRA has advocated the killing of anyone, even an anti-gun moron. The NRA does not sell or promote selling of firearms. The NRA encourages safe use of firearms, and the right afforded by the U.S. Constitution to keep and bear them. Your screeds/statements are long on emotion, and short on facts. As you continue hating the NRA, hating the 2nd Amendment (therefore, the U.S. Constitution), hating firearms, and hating the people who legitimately own and use them, you might also consider the following:
1) Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.
2) A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy discovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.
3) The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.
4) Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws…with just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.
5) The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.
6) The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000.
7) Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.
8) Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.
9) The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011.
10) Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?
11) The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
12) The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
13) The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.
14) The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
15) Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.
16) The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As written about recently, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“. If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.
17) After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries.
18) According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered.
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
She’ script write these words but that’s all she will do. Say anything to get a vote. Incompetent , clueless and psycho liar
What isiot would vote for “No Borders”,,,”Damn the Cops”….and “No Guns”…… NOT a good party platform !!!!
A HEX ON THIS CORRUPT WOMAN !
From: Hillary Clinton To: Robert Russo Date: 2012-10-02 00:05 Subject: BENGHAZI WAS OBAMA’S 3 AM CALL Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:05 PM To: ‘[email protected] Subject: Fw: Fwd: Benghazi was obama’s 3 am call Pis print.
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05796209 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: H
From: Cheryl Mills [mailto: Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 08:27 PM To: H Subject: Fwd: Benghazi was obama’s 3 am call cdm Begin forwarded message: From : Caitlin Klevorick < Date: October 1, 2012, 8:10:03 PM EDT To: Cheryl Mills Subject: Benghazi was obama's 3 am call • GLOBAL VIEW • October 1, 2012, 7:17 p.m. ET Stephens: Benghazi Was Obama's 3 a.m. Call Libya was a failure of policy and worldview, not intelligence. Why won't the Libya story go away? Why can't the memory of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff be consigned to the same sad-and-sealed file of Americans killed abroad in dangerous line of duty? How has an episode that seemed at first to have been mishandled by the Romney camp become an emblem of a feckless and deluded foreign policy? The story-switching and stonewalling haven't helped. But let's start a little earlier. The hour is 5 p.m., Sept. 11, Washington time, and the scene is an Oval Office meeting among President Obama, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi has been under assault for roughly 90 minutes. Some 30 U.S. citizens are at mortal risk. The whereabouts of Ambassador Stevens are unknown. What is uppermost on the minds of the president and his advisers? The safety of Americans, no doubt. So what are they prepared to do about it? Here is The Wall Street Journal's account of the meeting: "There was no serious consideration at that hour of intervention with military force, officials said. Doing so without Libya's permission could represent a violation of sovereignty and UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05796209 Date: 11/30/2015 inflame the situation, they said. Instead, the State Department reached out to the Libyan government to get reinforcements to the scene."• So it did. Yet the attack was far from over. After leaving the principal U.S. compound, the Americans retreated to a second, supposedly secret facility, which soon came under deadly mortar fire. Time to call in the troops? "Some officials said the U.S. could also have sent aircraft to the scene as a 'show of force' to scare off the attackers," the Journal reported, noting that there's a U.S. air base just 450 miles away in Sicily. "State Department officials dismissed the suggestions as unrealistic. 'They would not have gotten there in two hours, four hours or six hours." The U.S. security detail only left Washington at 8 a.m. on Sept. 12, more than 10 hours after the attacks began. A commercial jet liner can fly from D.C. to Benghazi in about the same time. All this is noted with the benefit of hindsight, and the administration deserves to be judged accordingly. But it also deserves to be judged in light of what it knew prior to the attack, including an attack on the mission in June and heightened threat warnings throughout the summer. So how did the administration do on that count? "That the local security did so well back in June probably gave us a false sense of security," an unnamed American official who has served in Libya told the New York Times last week. The logic here is akin to supposing that because the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center failed to bring down the towers, nobody need have been concerned thereafter. But let's still make allowances for the kind of bureaucratic ineptitude that knows neither administration nor political party. The more serious question is why the administration alighted on the idea that the attack wasn't a terrorist act at all. Also, what did the White House think it had to gain by adopting the jihadist narrative that a supposedly inflammatory video clip was at the root of the trouble? Nobody can say. All the administration will acknowledge is that it has "revised [its] initial assessment to reflect new information that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack." That's from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. It suggests that our intelligence agencies are either much dumber than previously supposed (always a strong possibility) or much more politicized (equally plausible). No doubt the ' administration would now like to shift blame to Mr. Clapper. But what happened in Benghazi was not a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of policy, stemming from a flawed worldview and the political needs of an election season. Let's review: The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration's concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan "sovereignty" and the need for "permission." After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05796209 Date: 11/30/2015 defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration's reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it's time to blame the intel munchkins and move on. It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obama took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it.