Are Americans Waking To The Truth About Guns? We Sure Do Hope So.

Polls Show Majority of Americans View NRA Favorably, Don’t Want New Gun Controls, and Recognize Right-to-Carry Makes Us Safer

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2015

 More

Earlier this month, we brought attention to Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about how the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and just how wildly of step her view is with that of the American people. Polling data released this week from Gallup and ORC International/CNN further underscores the chasm between Clinton’s anti-gun rhetoric and the views of most Americans.

During the October 13 Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton proudly declaredthe NRA as one of the political enemies she is most proud of. A Gallup poll conducted October 7-11 asked “Is your overall opinion of the National Rifle Association very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable?” Repudiating Clinton’s radical answer, 58-percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of NRA.

Moreover, in a piece accompanying the results, Gallup notes that the recent data shows “the highest recording of ‘very favorable’ opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989.” Broken down further, 56-percent of self-described political “moderates” had a favorable opinion of NRA. Among the non-gun owners polled, more held a favorable view of NRA than an unfavorable view. Recent measures of Clinton’s overall favorability, and that of her party, are significantly lower.

As for the overall state of the American public’s willingness to embrace new gun controls, those numbers aren’t encouraging for the candidate either. An ORC International/CNN poll conducted October 14-17 asked respondents “Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?” 52-percent answered that they oppose stricter laws. One wonders how lopsided the results would have been if respondents were asked if they support a Clinton-endorsed gun confiscation scheme.

Last May, at the national conference of the National Council for Behavioral Health, Clinton targeted the Right-to-Carry during a question and answer session. Clinton remarked, “We’re way out of balance. I think that we’ve got to reign in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.” Clinton went on to further proclaim the dangers of people “carrying guns in public places.”

October 7-11, Gallup asked respondents “Suppose more Americans were allowed to carry concealed weapons if they passed a background check and training course. If more Americans carried concealed weapons, would the United States be safer or less safe?” 56-percent of those polled responded that more people exercising their Right-to-Carry would make the country safer. Among independents, that total was 59-percent.

Sophisticated gun control supporters are aware of this political reality, and therefore try to obscure their true goal of civilian disarmament whenever possible. In recent days, at least one member of the anti-gun press, Paul Barrett of Bloomberg Businessweek, has taken issue with efficacy of Clinton’s direct attacks on NRA. Whatever Clinton’s current strategy might be, her position on the topic is now, and has been, abundantly clear and is fiercely at odds with the American people.

More Influence Buying By Countries. This Time It Is The British.

Clintons' charities got £50million of British aid cash: UK government accused of trying to buy influence with US power family

• The charity's board includes former president Bill and candidate Hillary  
• It has had £48.9million from the UK - more than £20million last year alone 
• Critics say its a symptom of controversial pledge on foreign aid spending
• Some claim charity is inefficient and taxpayers could simply be funding management charges 

By DANIEL MARTIN and GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 18:53 EST, 24 July 2015 | UPDATED: 08:20 EST, 25 July 2015

 
 
 
 
 

3.9kshares

528

View comments

Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money has been siphoned through charities linked to Hillary Clinton, it emerged last night.

British politicians – including Gordon Brown – stand accused of diverting huge amounts of cash through the organisations after falling under the spell of the US presidential candidate and her husband Bill.

At least £50 million of taxpayer-funded foreign aid money has gone to Clinton charities, which are at the centre of allegations in the US that foreign governments used donations to buy influence.

The UK is one of the biggest donors, handing over more than £20 million last year alone to the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), an organisation chaired by former President Bill, 68, and whose board includes the couple's daughter Chelsea, 35. Since 2011, a total of £48.9 million has gone into the coffers of this charity alone.

+1

Controversy: At least £50 million of taxpayer-funded foreign aid money has gone to Clinton charities, which are at the centre of allegations in the US that foreign governments used donations to buy influence

Tory backbenchers say the revelation is symptomatic of the fact that the Department for International Development has so much money to spend that large amounts have to be simply handed to global charities, often leading to huge amounts of waste.

The Clinton charities are involved in running projects receiving some £107 million from DfID since 2009 – although not all of this money went to their organisations.

But critics are concerned that waste at CHAI is so high that British taxpayers may end up paying millions of pounds of management charges – money which they say would be much better spent on front-line disaster relief.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• Five airlines under investigation for price gouging after...Barack Obama's plea for UK to stay in the EU infuriates Tory...

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Share

Britain spends £12 billion a year on overseas aid, thanks to a new law which commits the Government to spending 0.7 per cent of national income on international development.

CHAI spends its funds on improving the treatment of HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis in the developing world, mainly in Africa.

But a new book claimed that foreign governments and individuals received favourable treatment from the US government in return for donations to Clinton family charities. The revelations have proved an embarrassment for Mrs Clinton, 67, who has moved to distance herself from the charities.

DAVE'S LAST-MINUTE £415MILLION HANDOUT JUST TO MEET 0.7% FOREIGN AID SPENDING TARGET

Aid officials wrote a cheque for nearly half a billion pounds to an international charity in a desperate effort to meet David Cameron's spending target, it emerged last night.

The extraordinary sum was rushed to the Swiss-based Global Fund with only days left to go to ensure the Government met its controversial pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on aid.

It meant Britain ended up providing more than a fifth of the organisation's total budget – twice the planned scale of donation, it was claimed last night.

The Global Fund pays its 600 staff an average salary package of almost £130,000, and has also recently commissioned an expensive new lakeside headquarters in Geneva. The body was set up by the G8 to fight Aids, tuberculosis and malaria.

Details of the enormous pledge in December 2013 were made public in a National Audit Office report.

Last night a Department for International Development spokesman said the report concluded the timing of the donation 'made no impact on the scale of our investment'.

He added: 'With our support, the Global Fund will save a life every three minutes.'

In 2008, Mr Brown addressed a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton Foundation, the main family charity, revealed that the UK Government had been making donations since the following year – when Mrs Clinton took office as US Secretary of State.

The UK's donations to the Clinton charities took off after then International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell met Mrs Clinton at a UN summit in New York in 2010.

An examination of published payments over £500 made by DfID in 2014 reveals that CHAI received £20.2 million, with £4.8million spent up to the end of May this year. In 2013, £13.1 million was handed over, with £9.6 million going to CHAI in 2012 and £1.1 million in 2011.

Before this date there are no published figures. It is not known how much went to the Clinton Foundation.

Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, said: 'The fact we are spending more and more on aid when we are massively in debt is bad enough, but when it is being tossed away for vanity reasons to ingratiate UK politicians with the rich and powerful in the US … I think most people would find that distasteful and unacceptable.'

Jonathan Isaby, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'The ludicrous aid target means all too often DfID officials are desperate to spend money in any way they can, which is nothing more than irresponsible. We need DfID to provide far more transparency.'

A DFID spokesman said: 'The Department for International Development does not fund the Clinton Foundation. DFID does fund the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent NGO founded in 2010.' 

The Clinton Foundation said: 'All contributions from DfID have gone to CHAI. We can confirm that DfID donated to CHAI pre-2010 when it was part of the Clinton Foundation. CHAI is an independent, affiliated entity.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174033/Clintons-charities-got-50million-British-aid-cash-UK-government-accused-trying-buy-influence-power-family.html#ixzz3h2EyUuqf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Will RICO Get Bill And Hillary? What Are Dems Going To Do If Hillary Goes Down?

AIR CLINTON RICO EVIDENCE IN COURT, WATCHDOG DEMANDS

'Multiple acts of racketeering activity for bribery, money laundering, obstruction of justice'

Published: 17 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

 BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Subscribe to feed

• image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png
  
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     156

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/06/Clinton.png

A well-known Washington watchdog who has sued the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for allegedly running a criminal enterprise is telling a federal court it would be wrong to dismiss the case without even looking at the evidence.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch brought the complaint and now has filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

A federal court in Florida already has scheduled a trial for early next year.

“This is a classic RICO lawsuit,” Klayman argues in his newest filing, “Indeed … few people – if any – can even attempt to refute the hard evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation have over a 10-year history of actually selling government access and influence in exchange for hard cash to fill their coffers and the coffers of their foundation, which not coincidentally, as pled, does not operate as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization but instead operates as defendants Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own alter-ego in furthering their criminal enterprise.”

He said the case is about much more than access to hidden documents, which he is seeking.

“The production of documents at issue is relevant because they evidence a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … created and further by each of the defendants, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, acting in concert as part of a conspiracy, to extort hundreds of millions of dollars in money – that is, bribes – from individuals, entities and persons upon which the defendants have bestowed favors and gratuities, principally in the form of granting waivers to do business with Iran. ”

The allegations, he explained, set “forth all of the operative facts to plead a valid RCIO claim.”

You don’t have to wonder about Hillary Clinton any longer, read her words for yourself, in “Hillary Unhinged.”

He said the case “must proceed expeditiously” because of a discovery deadline of Sept. 28 and the trial date of Jan. 25, 2016.

“Defendants’ attempts to delay discovery are as transparent as their non-meritorious motions to dismiss. Needless to say, the court should not accept defendants’ lack of reasoned analysis of the factual content of” the complaint,” he wrote.

“It is simply too early to dismiss any portion of plaintiff’s claims where so much information is alleged to provide both notice and a likelihood that more material and predicate acts will be learned through discovery.”

The case brought by Klayman pleads “multiple acts of racketeering activity by travel in interstate or international travel for the purpose of bribery, money laundering and obstruction of justice.”

“These actions were done with the specific purpose of defrauding plaintiff and others out of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations.”

He alleges, for example, that Hillary Clinton “granted a waiver to Victor Pinchuk and his company Interpipe Group as an exemption from U.S. congressional sanctions against doing business with Iran.”

He alleges that was “as a quid pro quo for bribes disguised as donations made to The Clinton Foundation.”

He said the company “then, using the wires and mails and other illegal means fraudulently, donated $2.35 million to The Clinton Foundation.”

WND reported Klayman was urging the court to take physical custody of Hillary Clinton’s infamous private email server, because of the evidence it could contain.

In a supplement motion, Klayman said there was new relevant information to bolster his case.

Klayman submitted copies of a Washington Times report that the Clintons’ foundation “set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.”

Further, another article submitted by Klayman, from the Miami Herald, reported banks were paying huge fees to Bill Clinton for speeches at a delicate time.

“Many of the speeches and donations were made at times when the host banks were under Justice Department scrutiny. … All told, the same 11 banks have paid more than $81 billion – yes, that’s with a B – over the last six years to resolve federal investigations into alleged corruption,” the report said.

The case charges the Clintons schemed “to reap hundreds of millions of dollars personally and for their foundation by selling government access and influence.”

Klayman, for years a Washington watchdog, engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. Klayman also has taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States. Recently, he won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program and brought a case against Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order setting the case for trial comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, they were “broke,” Hillary Clinton has claimed.

But estimates are that since that time, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking. Speaking fees for Bill Clinton have been as high as $750,000.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with foreign governments making donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/air-clinton-rico-evidence-in-court-watchdog-demands/#L9kdf0JPusV6Mm1T.99