Present law authorizes persons in control of property to post a notice that prohibits firearms on the premises. This bill imposes a duty of care on any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms whereby such person will be responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises and traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored. The duty of care created by this bill will extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.


http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1736&ga=109I

and similar signs about California being Mexican Territory, along with the large amount of Mexican flags/paraphanalia, help Trump?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437

They're literally channeling George Costanza as their new explanation


"Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, ‘cause I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time"

wait...no. This was from the letter

"Had Secretary Clinton known of any concerns about her email setup at the time, she would have taken steps to address them. She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries and senior officials."

to make national security a campaign issue.

Seriously?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-plans-major-foreign-policy-speech-in-california/2016/05/31/cf88c6c8-2768-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html

HRC campaign puts out this statement


"Had Secretary Clinton known of any concerns about her email setup at the time, she would have taken steps to address them. She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries and senior officials."


After months of claiming she followed the rules she now pretends she didn't know what the rules were

Any bets on whether or not they charge the Gorilla with kidnapping?

"I thought it was allowed"?
Did it not occur to HRC to ask the question about her e-mail account and server before using it? Clearly she's now saying she either didn't know the rules or wasn't clear on them.

It's the same evolving explanation we got on the classified information on her server. First it was "there is no classified information", then we got "I never sent or received any classified information" to "I never received anything marked classified"

This is why people distrust her. The truth doesn't need revision. Lies need revision and usually the revision happens after the first lie is caught.

Katie Couric has been caught with her finger on the delete button.

The Yahoo! News anchor's anti-gun documentary, Under the Gun, is now airing on EPIX. In it, Couric interviews some members of the gun rights group, Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL).

At a little over 20 minutes into the movie, Couric asks the group:


"If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

For the next nine seconds, the VCDL members stare at the ground in silence. Here's the footage:

Except now, The Washington Free Beacon has obtained the unedited audio from the actual interview that proves they were anything but silent in answering her query. Listen below as members of the VCDL shower her with answers for four minutes straight:






[link:http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/|

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House confirmed on Monday that Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, would not testify at a House oversight panel on Iran on Tuesday.
The panel had asked Rhodes to appear after a New York Times article had suggested that he had manipulated the public debate over the Iran deal.

Read more: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/national-security-adviser-not-testify-house-panel-white-202754165.html

---

Why? Other than the GOP making a big deal about it, if the deal was so good why not defend it?