Gifford’s and Husband exploit Newtown and Gun debate

Written By: Deprecated User

The MSM would have us think that the Gifford’s are good people that want to help in the gun debate, that is why they created the American’s for responsible solutions and PAC. However, a quick check of the registration date of their organizations domain name shows a date of January 4, 2013. Just 3 days later their site was up and running and taking donation. It was also just in time for the Gifford’s to exploit the victims of Newtown and create a media buzz. In August, Giffords formed Gabby PAC, an organization to support border and veterans’ issues. Records show it raised less than $30,000 and spent less than $15,000 during the election season. Giffords’ candidate committee still has $333,000, though it’s unclear whether that money can be transferred to her newest endeavor. So it would appear that what we have here is a couple that is desperately looking to line their pockets by exploiting the current gun debate.

18 thoughts on “Gifford’s and Husband exploit Newtown and Gun debate”

  1. Profit from tragedy
    This is all about making money. These folks will be securing their financial futures with these PACs. If you think otherwise then you fell for the “banana in the tailpipe” my friend.

    1. Gifford’s register Gun Organization for only 1 year
      The “Americans for responsible solutions” domain name was registered for only 1 year. That is the minimum amount of time and costs approx. $10.00. I guess they didn’t want to risk any of their own money registering it for 2 or 5 or 10 years (the other options). It’s easy to spot exploiters.

  2. the point?
    This is really silly logic. Yes after the tragedy, one that had significant media attention and was especially horrific, the Giffords decided to take action.

    Similarly, after 9/11, which wasn’t the first terrorist attack but one that had significant media attention and was especially horrific people started to take action on terrorism. It would be great if our government wouldn’t need a Sandy Hook to take gun control and mental health seriously the same way it would have been great if the government took national security a bit more seriously before 9/11.

    I’m not saying the Giffords are genuine in their concern about gun control… I don’t know (though I would hesitate before questioning the motives of someone who is likely permanently disabled after being shot in the head.) But the pure fact that they started the PAC and campaign directly after Sandy Hook says little about their motives.

  3. Oh really?
    You mean like how Robert Cox put up a map of Journal news employees, attracted blood thirsty extremists from all over the country, and then made up a fake matching donation scheme to try to get people to send him money? And asking them to try to locate the Bonnanos for him? Is that what you mean by “exploiting Newtown and the gun debate”?

    1. The joke that is the Journal News
      Is the reason you’re so upset is the fact that It took me 10 minutes to check out the WhoIs database to find out this info and another 15 minutes to research their other failed attempts to start a not-for-profit and in so doing have given the public more information than the Journal News reporters have done? This is supposed to be your job. Going beyond the superficial story, not taking public figures words as facts but going deeper to see what they are really up to. Jounalism is dying in the USA but it never was present at Gannet.

      1. That doesn’t answer my question.
        The reason I’m so upset is that you’re a complete hypocrite. I’m not a fan of the Journal News, but to support the actions of Bob Cox and vilify the actions of Gabrielle Giffords pretty much gives you zero credibility.

      2. Low information reporter?
        I made no claim of support for Robert cox and I am just stating facts about when the Giffords registered their latest not-for-profit, when the site was up and running and how they responded to Aurora, the timing of their visit to NewTown and the past failed Not-for-profits. When you weigh the entirety of the information I feel it is clear that the Gifford’s are exploiting Newtown for personal gain. They had an opportunity to create their gun organization last year but choose what was then the “hot” topic, borders. They could have started it after Aurora but they choose to only send a tweet. They started it a day before her Newtown Visit. Do your job a shed light on what is probably self-serving actions by public figures. PS, your reading comprehension isn’t too good.

      3. I have perfect reading comprehension.
        My reading comprehension is so good, in fact, that I can clearly see when someone is dodging what has been asked of them.

  4. What’s the difference?
    The Aurora shooting at the movie theater only garnered a ‘tweet’ from Gifford’s husband. No visit, no follow up no nothin’. The Newtown shooting has staying power, children, it sparked a debate. The Gifford’s saw dollar signs and quickly created Americans for responsible solutions, put up a website, contacted news orgs and public relations people and the very next day they were in Newtown raising funds. Seems pretty clear what the motivation is.

    1. Giffords & Husband Exploit Newtown and Gun Debate
      To begin, I think you have a distorted view of people’s motivation. You sit at your computer and portray yourself as someone with insight? Do you possess some miraculous view into what is in another’s mind? You have clinical experience in determining what drives people to do what they do? Do you have a medical degree in mental health? Have you spoken with either Ms. Giffords or her husband? Do you have any contemporaneous reports or interviews by any media person of the Giffords? Or is this just your gut feeling? Ms. Giffords was shot in the head and nearly killed in an attack not unlike what happened in Newtown. That gives her the right to speak out and take action. Mental health studies indicate it is totally normal for a person who has experienced a similiar event to relate to others who have. You automatically assume anyone who speaks out against something you apparently favor [unfettered access to guns] has a self-serving financial motive, that it is based in wanting to help solve a crisis. Like many, you have little in the way of facts to substantiate such an asinine claim. You go after a victim? Genius.

      1. Gifford’s Register domain name Jan 4th 2013.
        Just 4 days before her appearance in Newtown. Did she and her husband just have a epiphany? They registered the domain name jan 4th, had the site up and ready for donations 3 days later and went on a pr campaign to raise donations in Newtown on Jan 8th. She also attempted to create a non-profit a year earlier for other issues but it failed miserably. You can choose to ignore the facts but these are the facts. Facts you did not read about in the MSM. They are looking for a big payday and with no shortage of idiots they will probably do as well as Al Gore’s global fear tour. They are exploiting the tragedy at Newtown. They did not create this organization last year when they were looking to start a non profit. They did not start it after Aurora, they did it last minute, real fast to take advantage of Newtown.

      2. Anonymous and dumb
        Criticizing Giffords and not Bob Cox does not mean one lacks credibility. That kind of Goebbels speak leads me to believe you ARE a journalist. Saying you’re not a “fan” of the Journal News does not give you instant credibility either. That line is usually used when one IS a fan or IS affiliated with something. Tom is criticizing an elected official and her motives. Remember “Bush is a terrorist, the war was for oil and Haliburton, Bush lied, etc….” Did anyone ever get in the mind of Bush? You didn’t mention Bush, but I’m pointing out the fact people criticize government officials all the time. The fact Giffords was shot does not place her outside that realm. Anonymous wrote: “Ms. Giffords was shot in the head and nearly killed in an attack not unlike what happened in Newtown. That gives her the right to speak out and take action.” Tom never questioned Gifford’s right to speak out and take action (again, Goebbels in action). Further, Gifford’s had the right to do that even before she was shot, genius. Anonymous wrote: “You automatically assume anyone who speaks out against something you apparently favor [unfettered access to guns] has a self-serving financial motive, that it is based in wanting to help solve a crisis.” Actually, he’s just referring to Giffords, not anyone. Where is it apparent Tom favors unfettered access to guns? Can you read his mind? A private citizen can question a public official and his/her motives. You’re letting your emotions take over. Now, where does the connection with Box Cox and his publishing of names come in? Bob is a journalist. I know that will make you squirm, but he’s more of a journalist than anyone at JN. The JN posted the names of legal permit holders. In response, Bob posted names of legal journal news employees. Bob is not an elected official.

      3. Oh, Bob is a journalist?
        How strange, he refers to himself as a blogger. I guess my neighbor, who has a blog where she posts photos of her dogs in funny outfits, is a journalist too! Can’t wait to deliver the good news.

        The bottom line is, you can’t post on this site about anyone exploiting Newtown and the gun debate without being a major hypocrite. Bob is not a journalist nor is he a public figure, but he has certainly exploited this situation in a much more disgusting way, not for any charity or betterment of the community, but for more “hits” and some cash in his pocket. It is sad that you are too blind and ignorant to see that.

      4. The difference between journalists and bloggers
        Bob is very careful to ensure that he is called a blogger and not a journalist because journalists are held to higher standards than bloggers. Do your research dummies.

      5. higher standards?
        You can search the web and find differing opinions. I personally think Bob does a much better job at reporting and investigation than most of the media out there. Are journalists really held to a higher standard? What is that standard? Truth? Ignoring stories about local government corruption; is that journalism? If you do extensive investigation and report on corruption, you’re just a blogger? You’ve done the research, now give me an answer dummy.

      6. Laws
        The same laws do not apply to journalists as do to bloggers. That’s why Bob is able to get away with what he does. I would have a lot more respect for Bob and what he does exposing corruption if it weren’t for the other things he does, like implicating innocent people in New Rochelle in relation to criminals, being completely unwilling to hear opposing points of view or to ever admit any wrongdoing, and being so blindly in pursuit of his own agenda that he seeks to exploit national tragedies. The Journal News map was almost a good thing, until he snuck in that plea for bounty hunters to track down the Bonnanos and the fake contribution matching. That’s the kind of scumbag bottom feeding that tells me a lot more about Bob than his supposed efforts at bettering New Rochelle.

      7. How strange!
        The link I posted that leads to several instances Of Bob’s internet bullying and stalking behavior has been removed! What a strange glitch! So Bob thinks it’s ok to post personal information about everyone else but not himself. It’s almost laughable.

Comments are closed.