Hillary Just Got Caught On Tape Revealing What She REALLY Wants To Do To Guns In America

Hillary Clinton, speaking at a recent private fundraiser in New York, stated that the Supreme Court got it “wrong on the Second Amendment.” She also told listeners that, if she is elected as president of the United States, she will go after the NRA.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the Supreme Court case Clinton was apparently referring to was District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court struck down a DC handgun ban. In the case, which had a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals have a fundamental right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment. This contrasts with the liberal view that the Second Amendment right to gun ownership only applies to militias.

Clinton also said that she would “do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence,” referring to the NRA.

Clinton thought it is “despicable” that individuals can openly carry semi-automatic rifles.

She stated: “The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable.”

Clinton also said: “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s legislative division, responded to Clinton’s comments: “Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it. The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment. A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”

What do you think of Clinton’s comments?

Bernie Sanders’ America

(Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared at VisionAndValues.org.)

The raucous welcomes and thundering applause that have greeted America’s newest (and oldest) political rock star, the septuagenarian Bernie Sanders, have launched a cottage industry of puzzled pundits trying to figure out the source of his appeal. Of course it’s his ideas, his supporters have insisted, perhaps as well as his presentation style, which issues from an agreeable set of features topped by undisciplined strands of white hair, giving him a sort of aged, professorial look of a speaker waving his arms while hurling his points across the lectern before the class ends.

So, what has he been proposing, as he continues to cleave chunks of supporters from Hillary Clinton’s troubled political base? Quite a few things, actually. He wants to centralize the current healthcare system even more than the Affordable Care Act did by having the federal government guarantee health care for all under a single-payer system. Social Security would receive a big increase, along with more funds for rebuilding roads, bridges, and airports, and significant amounts of taxpayer moneys to defray the expenses for “free” college attendance, paid family and medical leave, youth job initiatives, child care, and pre-K programs.

Read: Did She Ever Take Econ 101?

Read: Did She Ever Take Econ 101?

What is the price of all this over the next decade? A cool $18 trillion, which also would raise government spending from about 20 percent of the GDP to 30 percent in its first year of implementation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. No matter; Sanders continues to fill stadiums to overflowing, with cheering crowds clamoring for more, more, more. More “free” stuff, more security, more continuous peace of mind.

Which brings us to our main point, which is that there is something unsettling about all this, about the whole Sanders phenomenon, which has cast a spell on perhaps 20 percent of Democrats—not a small amount, by any means. And it simply is this: Sanders appeals to many of those who are quick to blame distant “evil-doers” for their difficulties—big banks, greedy corporations, bad billionaires, or the capitalist class as whole—while the politicians they have supported over the years get off with nary a soupcon of doubt. Further, Sanders’s enthusiastic supporters want everything immediately, regardless of the consequences, costs, the future, our children and grandchildren, or even America’s constitutional system.

I believe all of this distills to an approach toward life that literally can be best described as infantile. What is infantilism? Merriam-Webster defines it as “retention of childish physical, mental, or emotional qualities in adult life,” which admittedly is not too helpful. But in its political context, I think the meaning becomes clearer as one considers proclivities to shun responsibility, blame others, be obsessed with the present and abjure the future, avoid painful decisions, and, frankly, try to escape from any unpleasant reality. Indeed, anyone who has raised children and grandchildren is familiar with these characteristics. The political expression of an infantilized population is what for the past half century or so has been termed accurately as the nanny state.

To all this, of course, one could respond, so what? Perhaps America should become more like Europe, especially if enough of our citizens vote to move in that direction. The problem with this answer is that Europe has prospered from the military largess of America for so long, and Europeans have been so infantilized by their welfare states, that they no longer seem to have the will to live or to think much beyond the present. European birth rates, for instance, are so low that several countries on the continent are in a population death spiral.

Read: Is Europe Losing Control of its Borders?

Read: Is Europe Losing Control of its Borders?

Indeed, with their burgeoning Muslim citizens and refugees, countries such as Germany, France, and England are going to have to make serious existential decisions about defending their cultures, and more broadly, western civilization. And if Americans in larger numbers become more like Europeans, then who will defend the West against its adversaries? Worse, who will defend America?

The answer is, certainly not those who have succumbed to the siren song of Bernie Sanders’s political infantilism. America’s progress as a great country depends on those capable of making hard decisions and taking responsibility for them. Whether enough grownups will remain to lead our country throughout the 21st century is the most important question Americans face. Indeed, we’ll learn much about the answer in next year’s election.

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled “The Thirteenth Commandment.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Wow: Hillary Just Suffered A Huge Unexpected Campaign Blow, And Trump Could Get A Big Win From It

In a stunning move, the Teamsters Union wants to meet with Donald Trump before endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. The move is uncharacteristic of the Teamsters Union, which has historically endorsed Democrat Party nominees.

The union backs up their endorsements with millions of dollars of contributions to Democrats each year. In 2014, their budget for Democrats, Democrat Pacs, and Democrat candidates exceeded 3.6 million dollars.

The largest recipient of their political contributions is the Senate Majority PAC, whose purpose statement reads “Senate Majority PAC is fighting to take back the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate.” That’s what makes the union’s desire to meet with Trump perplexing.

Trump is running for the Republican Party nomination for president, so the decision of the executive board of the Teamsters Union to reach out to Trump before endorsing Clinton has many questioning their motives.

Trump has declared that he will unite the American people and “make America great again.” While the Teamsters Union is still deciding who they will endorse for president, from all appearances, and from their own statements, they’re considering Trump.

FOX News has learned exclusively the 26 member board decided unanimously to withhold a presidential endorsement… Union executives told me they want to sit down with Republican candidates, most notably, front-runner Donald Trump who has collaborated with unionized work forces across his real estate career.”

Recently, Rand Paul called Trump a “clown.” Apparently, the Teamsters Union does not see Trump as such; and if officially endorsed by the union, Trump will undoubtedly receive a boost from union voters.

With the potential for an endorsement from the Teamsters Union, Trump stands to gain more credibility with critics who may see him as divisive.

What do you think? Should the Teamsters Union endorse Donald Trump?

Exposed: The Establishment’s 2016 Election Strategy

The main objective of the political-media establishment and, in particular, Barack Obama is to prevent any post-election investigation of the rampant corruption in Washington DC.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans want to maintain their standing as permanent political elites, whereby they may continue to treat ordinary Americans as indentured servants and broker the tax revenues for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy donors.

It is clear that the Obamas and Valerie “Rasputin” Jarrett hate the Clintons and do not want to risk “payback time” from a vindictive and ruthless President Hillary.

The Obama strategy is to stretch out the homebrew server scandal to undermine Hillary’s campaign through a death by a thousand cuts. It has to be delicate surgery, something short of indictment and trial–which would likely implicate him–and something that would prevent retaliation from the Clinton camp, perhaps leaks of the Muslim or birther variety that we witnessed from them during the 2008 primary season.

Barack Obama has been secretly searching for a challenger to replace Hillary and is ready to endorse Vice President Joe Biden. But that backing comes with a price – Obama would select his running mate. The Obamas want a high-powered African American who can carry on the Obama legacy, and that choice is likely to be former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. In such a scenario, Biden would agree to not run for re-election, paving the way for a Patrick presidency.

Equally eager to avoid any corruption investigations, the Republican establishment has selected Jeb Bush, the candidate most likely to continue business as usual and not raise any embarrassing questions.

Jeb’s poll numbers are so anemic, however–an anticipated maximum of 15-20%–that the Republican establishment had to devise a plan that would keep Jeb afloat and gain enough primary victories in the key states to ensure his nomination. By splitting the vote amongst a number of other establishment candidates, the “Jebettes,” enough votes would be drawn away from any significant challenger. Ballooning the field with a large number of candidates has been a deliberate strategy, whereby Jeb could win–not by gaining support, but by fracturing his opponents’ support. The original cast of “Jebettes” was Graham (South Carolina), Kasich (Ohio), Perry (Texas) and Rubio (Florida), with further insurance policies in Virginia (Gilmore) and New York (Pataki).

Unfortunately for the Republican establishment, Donald Trump transformed their grand strategy into a bridge to nowhere. And that is why they are so aggressively trying to get him out of the race, lately by leveraging the fluctuating popularity of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina as a counterforce to Trump.

The Republican establishment is composed of financiers, like Wall Street, banking interests, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and K-Street Lobbyists, who pay the Republican National Committee (RNC) and derive benefit from the policies created in Washington DC.  It is all part of a machine that tells Republican politicians what to do; the RNC is the Board of Directors, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are the managers, and the politicians are the employees.

The possibility of a President Trump upsets that cozy financial arrangement, where, like the Democrats, they would like to continue plundering the economy and bleeding white the American Middle Class.

The Republican establishment knows that it cannot control Trump, who may decide that investigations and prosecutions are in order, a possibility that strikes fear in the hearts of all the current holders of government-supplied and guaranteed “Get Out of Jail Free” cards.

The financiers, who every four years hire a President, are generally ambivalent about party affiliation and would be equally pleased from a cost-effectiveness standpoint with either a Hillary or Jeb presidency because they are really only distinguishable by a Y chromosome, whichever one of them has it.

Post-election, the Democrats will continue the relentless movement to the left; highlighted by their tribal politics, profligate spending and political correctness, all practiced until our economy matches that of Venezuela, the southwest is returned to Mexico, beheadings are declared a legitimate Muslim response to any perceived grievance, abortion is made mandatory, and a pedophile is appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Democrat dream is not a country, but a collection of simultaneous arguments, where all we have in common as Americans are our differences.

Regardless of who wins, the Republicans will simply follow the Democrats leftward, attempting to match their racial, ethnic, gender and Muslim pandering in the desperate hope that they can scrape together enough votes to maintain their position as the junior partner in a corrupt status quo.

Then again, a courageous outsider may win and expose the whole stinking mess.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Clinton Campaign Caught In Either Massive Coincidence Or Blatant Breaking Of Law

From all appearances, senior staff members from the Clinton campaign and from a super PAC supporting her candidacy worked together in their messaging regarding the candidate’s ongoing email controversy. The only problem is that federal election laws forbid candidate campaigns and PACs from “coordinating.”

During Hillary Clinton’s appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, campaign senior adviser and spokeswoman Karen Finney tweeted at 10:16 a.m.:

Less than 20 minutes later, Brad Woodhouse, the head of the pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record, tweeted the exact same thing:

The identical messaging did not stop with those two. Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen chimed in…

…as did Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm:

Breitbart reports:

The Clinton campaign recently claimed that it can coordinate somewhat, within the law, with Correct the Record when it comes to Internet postings. The Clinton camp thinks that it can comment on Correct the Record’s online content, such as its videos, without being guilty of illegal coordination. But the FEC has still yet to confirm that. And can the campaign and the super PAC literally use the same exact talking point, seemingly copied and pasted from one Twitter account to another?

During the course of the interview, Clinton seemed to contradict the messaging by agreeing with host Chuck Todd that the story is ongoing. “It is like a drip, drip, drip,” she said, adding, “I want these questions to be answered.”

By federal court order, the State Department is required to review and release emails monthly that are responsive to multiple FOIA lawsuits by Judicial Watch. The next batch is due to be released this Wednesday.

Clinton also told Todd, despite previous assurances to the contrary, that she cannot personally guarantee all of her work-related emails have been turned over to the State Department.

“I’m very sure that my attorneys did the most meticulous job that could have been done,” she said.

When the host questioned her about the recently released emails between herself and Gen. David Petraeus that were not previously turned over to the State Department, she admitted: “There was a transition period. I wasn’t that focused on my email account.”

She also could not guarantee that the FBI would not recover emails from her server that might raise more questions.

h/t: Mediaite.com