…………………..What Did You Do?
In response to questions from AARP Bulletin, Hillary Clinton made clear her position that to be successful, policies for ending terrorism must include gun control for all Americans.
AARP Bulletin asked, “What would you do to address terrorism?”
Hillary offered several talking points on fighting actual terrorism, then she went there!
But I’m looking at violence broadly. … It’s also why I’ve advocated gun-safety reform, like comprehensive background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, closing the online loophole—because, you know, it’s not only terrorists we need to be worried about. Terrorism is part of it, but gun violence kills 33,000 Americans a year. … We’ve got to get serious about stemming violence and terrorism in every way we can.
Oh here we go again. First of all we have background checks, yes, even at gun shows. The only “loop-hole” is private sales. And are we not free to sell our property? Further, such “comprehensive” background checks would likely end up making loaning a relative or friend a firearm, or even allowing you to allow a friend to shoot your gun, or you theirs at a gun range. I would like Hillary to explain how that will reduce crime or stop terrorism.
Secondly, there is no online loophole. Yes, you can buy a firearm online. Yes it will be shipped to an FFL where you, again, federal law, must pass a background check. Several Democrats have made the false claim that you can buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house, that is simply untrue.
Thirdly, the majority, more than two-thirds of “gun violence” deaths each year are suicides. And murder rates, murder by firearm rates, violent crime rates, and accidental firearm deaths have been dropping steadily. In short Hillary is lying. And you must ponder why she is lying when she knows the facts I laid out as well as I do. You have to ask what her true motives are.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will participate in their first joint event as presidential candidates Wednesday night.
NBC News and MSNBC – along with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America – will host the the Commander-in-Chief Forum in New York City. It will be a one-hour forum where Clinton and Trump will answer questions about national security, military affairs and veterans issues in front of an audience mainly made up of 300 or so members of the military.
Matt Lauer – who is listed as a “notable past member” on the Clinton Global Initiative’s website – is moderating the forum. During an interview on MSNBC Wednesday, Lauer said he will not ask Trump and Clinton the same questions.
“I’m not going to be repeating the same questions, though some will overlap,” Lauer said. “The veterans will get a chance to ask these candidates their own questions.”
Lauer said that when he takes questions from the audience, he expects most of them to revolve around the system-wide failure of the Veterans Affairs program.
“Lack of treatment – that’s where I think they will focus their questions.”
Clinton will be asked questions first for approximately 30 minutes, then Trump will go on stage next.
I would remind you that this is the system Hillary and the Left would seek to implement when ObamaCare fails. These are the types of things Americans will have to endure. Just wait till the central planners really control our health care
A Canadian couple of 62 years hoped to spend the rest of their lives together. Unfortunately, they can now only see each other every other day due to being admitted into separate nursing homes.
For the last eight months, Wolf and Anita Gottschalk of Surrey, B.C have been forced to live apart. On top of their heartbreaking situation, the Gottschalks must endear tear-jerking goodbyes multiple times a week.
What could cause such a heartbreaking situation you ask? Well, just wait
A family member, usually their granddaughter Ashley Bartyik, drives the nearly one hour commute multiple times a week so that her 81-year-old grandmother Anita can see her 83-year-old grandfather Wolf, who has now been diagnosed with lymphoma in addition to his dementia.
“This is the saddest photo I have ever taken. As you can see they are both wiping away tears! But why? It was taken in Surrey at Yale road, a transitional facility for people waiting to get into nursing homes, that’s where my Opi is!” Bartyik, 29, began her Facebook post on Thursday, that’s been shared over 3,000 times.
“After 62 years together in marriage they have been separated for 8 months due to backlogs and delays by our health care system, whom have the power to have my grandpa moved to the same care facility as my grandmother. They cry every time they see each other, and it is heartbreaking,” she continued.
Got that? Canada’s health care system, which the Left raves about is causing this anguish because, central planning. This is where Collectivism will take us. This is what happens when we reject individualism and individual liberty. This is what happens when people become numbers, which is exactly what the Left dreams about. This is what Hillary will implement if she possibly can.
Still think it does not matter if you do not vote? Think again!
Sorry, I was on Twitter. I felt it was necessary to dispel the widely-held myth, adored by #NeverTrumpers, that somehow attacking Trump relentlessly does not aid Hillary Clinton, and that they are not choosing Hillary Clinton by choosing to be NeverTrump.
All choices have consequences. By supporting Trump, I am responsible for the consequences of a Trump victory – and those consequences could indeed be dire.
But a childish morally-unserious fantasy has infected the #NeverTrump not-so-intellgentsia, that they can agitate for Hillary Clinton – by relentlessly disparaging Trump – and somehow, they are not responsible for the consequences of the Hillary presidency they are bucking for.
They’ve dreamed up this self-pleasing, responsibility-evading dreamscape in which those who plump for Trump are responsible for the outcomes of a Trump presidency, but, for no explanation thusfar discoverable, they are not responsible for the outcomes of the Hillary presidency they’re agitating for.
I tried to explain to them that there is no such thing as a consequence-free choice – all choices have consequences, both on the upside and the downside – and both the upside and downswide consequences must be considered by any adult, intellectually-serious person in making his choice.
But they like this idea that, like little children, they are free to gambol and play in the fields and this does not even perturb the leading edge of a butterfly’s wing, and so they just keep teling me “No you’re wrong” without saying why I’m wrong.
Which, seriously, is a rather important part of any argument beginning with the words “You’re wrong.”
I ask people: When you knocked Obama in 2012, and wrote posts and comments noting his flaws, did you think you were doing nothing to improve Mitt Romney’s chances of winning the presidency?
If so– why the fuck did you bother?
Of course, this is silly; everyone knows that when one buys ads attacking a candidate, one is helping that candidate’s opponent win.
The #NeverTrumpers are filling their blogs, magazines, and Twitter timelines with nonstop political advertising (free) against Trump, and maintain, just because they say so and because it pleases them to think so, this does exactly nothing to help Hillary, and they are therefore not responsibe for her election.
Or let me put it this way: I am not hoping for Trump to get into some serious international snafu by supporting him. Yet I know that is a very real possibility if he’s president.
Should this happen, I can’t just say “But I didn’t want trump to screw up so badly.”
People would say – no, but you knew the risks in supporting him, and you supported him anyway; you are therefore morally responsible for this.
Yet the #NeverTrumpers claim that the obvious, inescapable outcome of their position – that Hillary Clinton will be the president – is not their responsibility, just because they didn’t intend that as a pirmary matter.
No, but they were completely aware it was the natural and inevitable consequence of their position.
So why would a Trump supporter be responsible for a foreign policy catastrophe he didn’t even know for a fact would happen, when a #NeverTrumper claims to be innocent of the Hillary Presidency they know beyond a shadow of any doubt is the direct and inescapable consequence of the NeverTrump posiition?
They’re responsible for it. They don’t want to be, but they are.
I don’t particularly want to be on the hook for a Trump presidency, but, being a morally serious person who has not yet delegated my thinking to the Twitter Hivemind, I recognize that by taking the action of lending him my support, I am responsible for the conseqyences of that act.
Why do the childish #NeverTrumpers mewl that they, alone in the universe, are not responsiblee for the consequences of their own choices?
I understand the #NeverTrump impulse. I’ve expressed it myself. After Trump’s boorish, vulgar, half-insane attack on Cruz’s wife, I announced “I’m done” with Trump and vowed to never vote for him.
I understand #NeverTrump, emotionally. I think there’s merit in the position.
However, we have difficult choices to make. And difficult choices should be treated as what they are – difficult, hard choices requiring moral seriousness and rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
They should not be made – artificially and falsely – into easy-breezy decisions where one just says “I will do everything I can to make sure Trump is defeated, and I shall never give a thought to the prospect of a Hillary presidency, and I should never allow my shoulders to feel the burden of the consequences of the choice I am making.”
Real men – and tough-minded women – do not go fleeing tough choices by simply hallucinating an “Officer Dimes, please come and save me” miracle solution.
Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be president in November.
If you think Hillary would be a better president – or if Trump is so repulsive to you you cannot support him even if you think Hillary would be worse – fine. I respect your opinion.
We all have different brains. We all have different priorities.
But what I must insist you cannot do – what i will not permit you to do – is fantasize that while a Trump supporter is resonsible for the gaffes and disasters of a President Trump, you are somehow innocent of the purges and witchhunts of a President Hillary.
Trump supporters will own the consequences of a Trump presidency – and Hillary supporters, both those who declare it proudly and those who wish it secretly – own the consequences of a Hillary presidency.
Adults accept the consequences of their choices.
Only children run from them, or cross their fingers behind their backs and claim that’s a charm insulating them from the consequences of their choices.
Some decisions are hard. They should be respected as being hard.
And no, Officer Dimes is not coming to save you from the dilemma you face.
Media Bias: The Washington Post led its Monday paper with a story titled “How Clinton’s Email Scandal Took Root.” What it revealed was that, left to the mainstream press, the story might never have hit the ground.
No one reading the Post’s 5,000-word account can come away thinking that the Clinton email scandal is unimportant.
The FBI now has 147 agents chasing down leads. A key person involved in the scandal has been granted immunity. Hillary Clinton – who has already been caught in several lies – might be questioned by federal agents. There are fairly obvious violations of the law, even if it’s just those governing record-keeping. And there were, and continue to be, concerns that national security secrets were compromised, or at least casually disregarded.
The story details, for example, the many high-level security concerns that officials had about her use of a private BlackBerry to do her emailing, to say nothing of her homebrew email server.
Clinton got a warning from a State Department security official in March 2009 that “any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving emails, and exploiting calendars.”
Clinton responded that she “gets it,” but as the Post reports, she “kept using her private BlackBerry – and the basement server.”
The Post deserves credit for devoting so much space to summing the entire saga up. And for exposing something the reporter and his editors probably never intended: The media’s negligence as the scandal unfolded.
While the New York Times was the first national media outlet to write about Clinton’s use of a private email account last March, the Post summation makes clear that the mainstream press had almost nothing to do with uncovering the truth or advancing the story.
* The Post notes that it was a nonprofit group called CREW that first cracked the story open, when the State Department responded to its FOIA request for Clinton’s State Department email addresses by saying “no records responsive to your request.”
* The much-ballyhooed House Select Committee on Benghazi discovered her use of a private email account after demanding copies of her email traffic around the time of the attack on the embassy.
* Private cybersecurity firm Venafi discovered how Clinton’s email server had been unencrypted for months. The company “took it upon itself,” the Post notes, to publish its findings on its own website.
* The public release of all Clinton’s State Department emails resulted not from pressure from NBC News, CNN or the New York Times, but from a FOIA request by a startup online news site called Vice News.
* Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, has been more aggressive than any media outlet in going after Clinton’s records, and as a result uncovered several damning emails, including a chain of emails showing how her staff was “taking steps that would help her circumvent” Clinton’s own promise of openness and transparency.
* And where has the “telling truth to power” press been during all this time? Sure, they’ve been passively sharing information when it came out – although often grudgingly and dismissively. But there are few elements of it that reporters themselves were responsible for breaking.
Normally, with a scandal this juicy and involving a would-be president, reporters would be falling over themselves to “advance the story.” But “normal” never seems to apply when a scandal involves a Democrat.
The FBI has 147 investigators focused on the Clinton email case. One wonders how many investigative reporters the New York Times, the Post, and all the other big media outlets have.