From the WashingtonPost.com:
by Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger
The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.
The “Clinton Foundation“?
Do you think you might find this information on the Clinton Foundation site today, perchance?
$25 million dollars from the Saudis, whilst Hillary was Secretary of State.
Can anyone even remotely suggest a “conflict of interest” here?
In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.
Algeria. Of course. Such a pro-American government in North Africa. It is 99% Islamic.
Some of the donations came from countries with complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government, including Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.
Complicated. Right. Because Kuwait, Qatar and Oman aren’t Islamic.
Hell, ISIS isn’t Islamic, per Barack Hussein Obaka.
Further, another inconvenient fact:
Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Good for you, Chelsea. I have always advocated the inculcation of corruption of the innocents at the very earliest age. As I’ve said for years, “I’m either for less corruption or my greater ability to participate in it.” Good for you, Chelsea; you’ve started early.
The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.
Good for background. Only $2 billion dollars. Meh. Except: more than PETA. More than MoveOn.org, more than any Occupy movement.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the foundation had accepted new foreign-government money now that he 2008 agreement has lapsed.
Oh shucky-darn. The Clinton Foundation taking advantage of loopholes?
Foreign governments had been major donors to the foundation before President Obama nominated Clinton to become secretary of state in 2009. When the foundation released a list of its donors for the first time in 2008, as a result of the agreement with the Obama administration, it disclosed, for instance, that Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million.
Saudi Arabia contributed up to $25 million dollars to Hillary Clinton.
But then-Senator Richard G. Lugar (R-Indiana) said:
“The Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation,” he said then. “It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the secretary of state in relation to foreign givers or their countries.”
Potential problems, anyone? Bueller?
by Malia Zimmerman
California’s gun laws are among the nation’s strictest, but a looming decision in a federal lawsuit could effectively ban handguns altogether in the Golden State, according to plaintiffs who want a judge to toss out a state law requiring all new handguns to be equipped with technology that “stamps” each shell casing with a traceable mark.
The problem with the “microstamping” law, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 but only took effect in 2013, is that it relies on an unworkable technology, according to gun manufacturers and attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation. If guns without the technology can’t be sold in California, and gun manufacturers can’t implement the technology, the law is, for practical purposes, a handgun ban that violates the Second Amendment, goes the argument.
Thanks Arnold, you blubbering, steroid-ridden baboon. And all with an (R) at the back of your name, as in (R)apist, for screwing over our Second Amendment.
“This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market,” said Alan Gura, the lead attorney in Pena v. Lindley, filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation against the Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. “The evidence submitted by the manufacturers shows this is science fiction and there is not a practical way to implement the law.
It’s the same reason Ronnie Barrett refuses to sell or service his .50 caliber BMG rifles any more in California, whether they are held by private owners or law enforcement agencies. Ruger has already stopped selling semi-automatic handguns in Fornicalia.
Since the law took effect in 2013, no manufacturer has made a new firearm that complies with the requirement.Two major manufacturers, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., announced last year they would stop selling new firearms in the California market, and blamed the microstamping law. The technology has been demonstrated, but gunmakers say requirements that each new model, or even modification, must be re-tested for compliance makes the entire scheme unworkable.
When you, as a Leftist, hate guns, fear guns, and detest the thought of them in the hands of private citizens, you do your very best to eliminate them by any means possible.
This all dovetails. Why is there a push to control the internet? To silence DC pushback on various Leftist plans. Why is there a continuing and unrelenting tsunami to take guns from American citizens? Because, as with the internet, when you silence citizens you eliminate pushback. How do you guarantee the average citizen cannot “push back” against the government? You eliminate the Second Amendment.
Because when you eliminate the Second Amendment you will, by extension, help to eliminate the First Amendment.
Then you truly do have Serfs, Proles and Groundlings in the United States of America.
The Second Amendment doesn’t exist to protect hunters. If you believe that, you are a complete fool.
See anything like that recently?