Saturday, May 14, 2016

Unsafe At Any Speed: HillaryEMail

Clinton E-mail Trove Likely in Russian Hands | Frontpage Mag:
The mainstream media had sought to protect Hillary Clinton from revelations about Guccifer’s role in the hacking of her private e-mail server as long as it could. For example, NBC News reporter Cynthia McFadden had interviewed Guccifer from a Bucharest prison and elicited Guccifer’s first-hand account that Hillary’s server was “not safe at all.” NBC sat on this interview for more than a month. Only after Guccifer was extradited to the U.S. and appeared to be of interest to the FBI did NBC have to acknowledge the potential importance of what Guccifer had to say regarding Hillary’s unsafe server.
The repercussions of Hillary Clinton's "Not-So-Private" Email Server continue to resound,    Even though the  MSM gratuitously maintains its private job as Protector to the Queen, unsympathetic news/opinion websites dig deeper and discover increasingly ominous suggestions that her arrogance and self-perceived "I'm So Special I Don't Need To Obey The Rules" attitudes may have undermined the security of the United States.

If she is so mindful of her Liberal Preference as a candidate, how would she fare as the Leader of the Free World?

Barack Obama, you may soon be demoted to: "The SECOND Most Dangerous American President".

Hat Tip: Claire

The Force is weak in this one

It's pretty obvious the guy isn't married.
And we now know why.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

PBS, "Armed in America" ... fair and balanced? You decide.

PBS, ‘Independent Lens’ to cover gun violence with special 2-night event | Newsday:

 “Armed in America” is theme for “Peace Officer,” “Armor of Light” Network says it is not taking an editorial stand on issue On Monday and Tuesday, PBS will devote most of its prime-time schedule to a two-night event built around the theme “Armed in America” as part the service’s ongoing coverage of gun violence. Two films under the “Independent Lens” banner will air, followed by town hall discussions moderated by former ABC News correspondent Michel Martin (now weekend anchor of NPR’s “All Things Considered”). (Both town halls were taped April 27 at Northland Church in Longwood, Florida.

PBS swears that it's not going to take an 'anti-gun' stance during these presentations.

I don't have television, or I would watch this just to hoot at their 'balanced presentation'.

But SOMEBODY ought to watch it!

When they call it "gun violence",  you can assume it will be talking about "Bad Guns!" and not about "Bad Social Violence".

And little time will be spent talking about the sociological aspects of violence; instead, they WILL be talking about Gun Control.

Because I gave up my television 20 years ago, if someone can find an online version of this 'series', I would be interested in watching what PBS has to say.

THIS is what Hillary WANTS?

 Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump echoed conservative media and the National Rifle Association by baselessly claiming that Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton wants to “abolish the Second Amendment” and “take your guns away.”
In fact, Clinton says that Second Amendment rights can be "protected" while the government also implements"common-sense" measures like universal background checks to keep guns from dangerous people.
As usual, the Left Wing Media torques the rhetoric to make their "presumptive candidate" look good ;; at least, as good as she can be made, considering that she is (a) a politician, and (b) a DEMOCRATIC politician, and (c) ergo, a liar.

In point of fact, Hillary actually said:

You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, [and] the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws. In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of…weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach–more of a permitting approach ...
[emphasis added]

The Australian Gun Control Law Banned and Confiscated Guns!

The Australian "Gun Buyback Program" wasn't presented as an option: it was mandatory.

Australians  complied because they were required to, by law.  They didn't do this because it was their choice!   And receiving $500 for a firearms which might have cost you thousands of dollars was not appreciated as "a good price".

(THIS is what Hillary wants?)

Reason Magazine noted that
As a result, concluded one academic assessment, "Suicide rates did not fall, though there was a shift toward less use of guns, continuing a very long-term decline. Homicides continued a modest decline; taking into account the one-time effect of the Port Arthur massacre itself, the share of murders committed with firearms declined sharply. Other violent crime, such as armed robbery, continued to increase, but again with fewer incidents that involved firearms."
The thing which DID decrease in Australia was that fewer (as in "NONE") of Australia's honest law-abiding citizens had the means to protect themselves against' violent felons .. felons who had NO problems acquiring firearms!

England has had fewer murders by firearms; however their rates of violent crime has soared because, again, criminals no longer feared The Armed Citizen.  Hell, you can't even use a kitchen knife in London to defend yourself against a home invasion!

So let's go back to the  original statement by the egregious JULIE ALDERMAN:


Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nominee, wants "to take your bullets away." He made the remarks during a May 7 rally in Washington state, according to CNN. From the CNN report:
Julie Alderman called that "a lie" by Donald Trump.

But is it?
Not if you accept that Hillary was sincere when she embraced the Australian Example..

Let's go back to Australia, whose firearms laws are so cherished by The Hillary::

Who can possess ammunition?
Section 65(3) of the Firearms Act 1996 prescribes that:
A person must not possess ammunition unless the person is:
  1. The holder of a licence or permit to possess a firearm which takes that ammunition, or
  2. They are authorised to possess the ammunition by a permit.

What requirements must be met to purchase ammunition?

Sections 65 & 45A of the Firearms Act 1996 prescribe that ammunition for a firearm may only be sold to a person who produces at the time of the sale:
  1. Identification showing the name and address of the purchaser, and
  2. A current firearms licence or permit for a firearm that takes the type of ammunition being purchased, or
  3. A permit authorising the person to purchase the ammunition.

THIS is the model which Hillary Clinton thinks is "... a good example"?

(THIS is what Hillary wants?)