January 3, 2013

Hypocrisy: Gun Owner Outing Newspaper Hires Armed Guards

-By Warner Todd Huston

The Journal News of West Nyack, New York, doesn’t want fellow New Yorkers to be allowed to own guns and what better way to show support for its stand against guns than to hire armed guards to patrol its offices?

The suburban Westchester Journal News made itself the center of a controversy by publishing the names and addresses of thousands of New York’s legal gun owners in an interactive map on its website. It was an attempt to intimidate law-abiding citizens into giving up their Second Amendment rights. The map was accompanied by an article supportive of “a raft of new gun laws” at the state and federal level.

In response to the paper’s invasion of the privacy of New York’s legal gun owners, several bloggers decided to create an interactive map of employees of the Journal News.

The paper then moved to up the ante and announced it would publish even more names and addresses of New York’s law abiding firearm owners.

In the meantime, however, it appears that the Journal News has decided to indulge the famous leftist concept of “for me but not for thee” by hiring armed guards to protect its offices against imagined rogue gun owners who might attack the paper.

The Rockland County Times reported on Tuesday that the Journal News had hired RGA Investigations, a private security company, to patrol its offices.

These guards “are armed and will be on site during business hours through at least January 2, 2013,” Rockland Times reports.

Dylan Skriloff, the Rockland County Times’ associate publisher & editor-in-chief, notes the obvious point saying, “Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.”

Clarkstown Police say that Journal News editor Caryn McBride had “previously reported a large amount of negative correspondence in response to the media outlet’s publication of local gun permit holders.” McBride gave police an email from “an unknown subject” who McBride said threatened the paper.

Police reminded the Journal News that an email is not an actual offense.

Locals aren’t standing idly by. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association has called for a boycott of the Journal News’ advertisers.

Singling out Best Buy, CVS, IKEA, and Target for special attention, the group asked citizens to state that “you will no longer patronize any advertiser who uses Gannet (the Journal News’ parent company) until and unless that advertiser withholds further ads until Gannett takes down the pistol licensee Web page and ceases attacking lawful firearm ownership. In particular, contact advertisers with whom you do business, and who may know you personally.”

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 4:00 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Activist Journalism, Anti-Americanism, Bill Of Rights, Constitution, Gun Control, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, News, U.S. Constitution, Video, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Reminder: Sen. Feinstein Said She Wants All Guns Banned

-By Warner Todd Huston

One of the lines that many progressives and TV talking heads are reiterating is that no one really wants to take away Americans’ guns. Senator Dianne Feinstein apparently missed that directive. She admitted as far back as 1995 that she does, indeed, wish to take everyone’s guns away from them.

In a 1995 broadcast of CBS’ 60 Minutes, Feinstein made the obvious admission saying she would love to have instituted an “outright ban” on all guns.

Feinstein was the driving force to the failed and now lapsed, 1994 “assault weapons” ban and it was upon her success at getting the law passed that she made her admission.

“If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

This is not the way many lefties are trying to sell their latest attempts at gun banning, of course. Led by President Obama, the late tactic is to claim that no one really wants to take away guns and that any claim to the opposite is just “fearmongering.”

In 2008, President Obama went out of his way to tell the nation that he “believes” in the Second Amendment.

I, I, just want to be absolutely clear, all right? So I don’t want any misunderstanding, when, when y’all go home and you’re talkin’ to your buddies, and they say, “Aww, he wants to take my gun away.” You’ve heard it here; I’m on television, so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in peoples’ lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away… But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one because it just ain’t true. It ain’t true.

U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D, Ariz.) also uses this tactic.

“I think the majority of the American people want us to have a rational discussion that protects their fundamental rights and the Second Amendment, but also protects the public safety. I don’t that’s a contradiction,” Grijalva said in July.

This talking point is echoed by many in the media. During his “townhall” event on CNN a few weeks ago, Piers Morgan made the claim that he believes in the U.S. Constitution and doesn’t support taking all guns from every American despite his constant refrain that guns need to be banned.

U.S. News writer Susan Milligan agreed saying in November that there is “no evidence” that any one wants to take away American’s firearms.

The sentiment is also deployed by small, local papers like that of the Albany Herald who’s Carlton Fletcher scoffed at the notion that anyone wants to take away guns.

“Despite what the latest ultra-right-wing posts assure you is happening even now as you’re reading this, President Obama and the United Nations are not putting the finishing touches on their nefarious plot to ‘take away our guns,’” Fletcher wrote in September.

Vice Magazine also recently engaged in this subterfuge. “Basically no one wants to take anyone’s gun away, at least not in America,” wrote Associate Editor Harry Cheadle in June.

Even the extremist, left-wing media-watching group, Media Matters, proclaimed any thought that liberals want to take guns away is nothing but “fearmongering.”

Senator Feinstein, though, is far more direct. This attempt to hide the left’s true motives is not a tactic that she bothers with. Feinstein is quite open: Her goal, like that of the rest of the left in America, is to undermine the Second Amendment and take away all Americans’ right to own firearms of any kind.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 3:42 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Bald-face lies, Barack Obama, Bill Of Rights, CNN, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Fraud/misrepresentation, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Gun Control, House, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, News, Propaganda, Property Rights, Senate, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, political suicide, progressivism

Trackback URL:

How Liberals Skew the Gun Debate

-By Warner Todd Huston

Along with a news-free interview with President Obama, this weekend’s Meet the Press on NBC also gave us two fine examples of how the gun-banners in the Old Media establishment skew the debate, not to mention how clear it is that they simply have no grasp on the issues, perhaps purposefully so.

During the panel discussion of the previous week’s news as host David Gregory steered the discussion to gun control, he turned to Jon Meecham, former top man at Newsweek and current contributing editor to TIME Magazine, both flailing magazines.

Meecham gave us a great example of how the far left rhetorically skews the debate to make its own side the “common sense” side while portraying anyone in opposition as outsiders, nuts, and extremists.

I worry that our attention span on these things is so limited. You had to bring up the question of guns as the president was laying out his second term agenda. It is one of these cultural, political issues where you have a ferociously well-organized opposition and a more diffuse common sense broader population and I think that’s where the tension is.

Notice how Meecham paints the “ferociously well-organized opposition” as being separate and distinct from the “common sense broader population.”

In other words, Meecham is saying anyone that supports the Second Amendment is part of a tiny number of “ferocious” and well-organized people while most Americans are “common sense” supporters of gun banning.

This is, of course, nonsense. The NRA has 4.3 million dues paying members. The group also has millions more supporters that don’t pay dues but still essentially support the NRA’s efforts. This great membership is hardly the idea of a small number of gun supporters standing against the vast majority of gun banners that just aren’t organized well enough to oppose the NRA that Mecham is trying to promulgate.

In fact, a recent poll found that the National Rifle Association is more popular with Meecham’s “common sense broader population” than the media is!

A few minutes later gun banner Tom Brokaw thought he had a brilliant point saying that we should have “clubs” where guns can be fired but where the guns remain permanently for storage.

Look, there’s gotta be limits of some kind. I’ve even talked to people who are gun owners saying, why couldn’t you have a club where they actually own the assault weapons and if you want to shoot it for target practice you have to go to the licensed club, get the gun, shoot it, and the check it back in.

This is what they do in England, for instance. If you want to enjoy target practice you go to a club, but the gun can never leave the club unless it goes to a police station. British citizens are not allowed to store their firearms in their own homes.

But, then again, the Brits have no right to self-protection like we do in the United States. Brokaw showed that he clearly has no idea what the Second Amendment means, how it works, or what its history is. After all, if you cannot actually own your gun and store it in your home where you can get hold of it in emergencies, you are necessarily barred from being able to “bear arms” as the Second Amendment maintains.

The Second Amendment is not an assurance for hobbyists. It is a guarantee of a civil right.

Finally, throughout the panel segment the participants continued to say “assault weapon” as if it described a single, quantifiable thing. It isn’t and that is the biggest problem with this debate. The term “assault weapon” is practically meaningless but is bandied about as if it is a term of defined meaning.

This Meet the Press panel clearly showed how the left media attempts to skew the debate coupled with an entire lack of understanding of the issues.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 3:18 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Activist Journalism, Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Bill Of Rights, Constitution, Gun Control, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, NBC, NRA, News, Polls, Propaganda, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, progressivism

Trackback URL:

Marine Tells Di Feinstein, ‘No Ma’am’ Over Gun Grabbing

-By Warner Todd Huston

Joshua Boston, a retired Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, has a message for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) concerning her newest gun banning bill. Corporal Boston says, “No Ma’Am.”

Boston posted an open letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN’s ireport site on December 27 to let DiFi know that he, at least, would not submit to the government denuding him of his Second Amendment rights.

Boston informed Sen. Feinstein that he will not register his weapons nor does he believe the Senator or anyone else in government has the right to require him to do so. Boston also scoffed at someone proclaiming “the evil of an inanimate object” even as she bestows upon herself the ability to carry a gun in contravention to her own proclamations.

“I am not your subject,” Boston insists. “I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.”

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

Mr. Boston’s message intrigues and he has even more to say than his open letter reveals. I took the occasion of his open letter to reach out to this brave member of our military. Here is our conversation:

Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?

Joshua Boston: I’ve been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the “loopholes.” So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they’re being told by the media about these “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.

I’m sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It’s hypocritical.

WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?

JB: Looking at the founder’s times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.

WTH: Do you support concealed carry laws?

JB: I hold a CHL with the state of Texas. I would prefer there not be a bureaucratic apparatus whose hoops I have to jump through so that I may defend myself should the need ever arise outside of my home. Who are these legislators to tell me that I may not defend myself outside of my home because they don’t have my fingerprints on file?

WTH: Do you believe in any sort of gun restrictions?

JB: The only gun restriction I would favor is one in which only VIOLENT felons are prevented from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Other than that, why does the government or the police need them if I am not allowed to have one?

WTH: Some liberals say regular Americans shouldn’t be allowed to have guns because they aren’t trained. As a trained member of the military yourself, do you think average citizens have the ability to use guns correctly?

JB: Despite the training I received while in the Marines, I am a regular American. I am not exceptional. I am not superior. I am an American just like any other citizen. I’ve seen “average citizens” use guns extraordinarily efficiently when I go to the range. This is because they are responsible people who seek knowledge when they don’t know something. So yes they have the ability, and they should be able to purchase whatever weapons they deem sufficient for their needs.

WTH: Some people fear that government will use the military to forcibly disarm the public if gun banning laws get passed. What is your sense of your fellows in the armed forces. Do you think they’d follow orders to forcibly disarm the public?

JB: In my 8 years of service I could probably count on one hand the number of people that I met who would forcibly disarm the American public. The vast majority of American service members that I know and that I served with recognize that the Constitution is what we pledge to obey.

WTH: Do you feel that there will be any retaliation by the Marines for having posted your reply?

JB: I was honorably discharged on July 31st of this year. I’d certainly hope they wouldn’t “retaliate” in any way because I am doing my civic duty and keeping myself informed. I think that would go against our motto: “Honor Courage and Commitment”

WTH: Any other thoughts?

JB: I just hope that our elected representatives do not vote for this heinous attempt to make me and my fellow Americans defenseless against predators and criminals.

We salute Joshua Boston and hope that he is not uncommon among the members of our illustrious armed forces.

Below is the full text of Corporal Boston’s original open letter:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 2:19 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Bill Of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Despotism, Fascism, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Gun Control, House, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Interview, News, Patriotism, President, Senate, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, Veterans, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, military, political suicide

Trackback URL:

Unhinged Liberal Calls For New Agenda On Guns, Proposes Violence Against Gun Owners

In Atlas Shrugged (a book I have yet to read and a movie I have yet to watch), character Henry Reardon states “If you think you have the right to use force against me, bring guns.” Here’s a liberal who seems to want to use force

(The Blaze) In an opinion column published in the Des Moines Register on Dec. 29, columnist Donald Kaul is uncensored in his disdain for the Second Amendment and anyone who values their right to bear arms. In his column, he calls for a full repeal of the Second Amendment, advocates for violence against Republican leaders “until they see the light on gun control” and declares the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization.

The piece, titled “Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns,” seems to have been inspired in part by the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn. where shooter Adam Lanza opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School, killing 20 children and six adults. Lanza also killed his mother before he began his shooting spree at the school.

From that column

The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.

That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

Well, if Liberals like Raul want to repeal the 2nd, first they should try reading it and understanding it, because it is all about guns and Right of The People to own one, not just for home defense, not just for hunting and sport shooting, but as protection against the government. Pre-Revolution the British colonial government attempted to take all guns away from the Colonists. And said militias did generally bring their own guns to the fight.

Scratch that, the first thing liberals should do is give up their own guns and make sure all their body guards are disarmed. All of them, from useless idiot Democrat supporters to limo liberals like Michael Moore and Hollywood celebs to elected officials all the way up to Obama. Walk the talk.

If memory serves, Communists around the world killed almost 150,000,000 people. American communists were working hand in hand with the Soviet Union, attempting to undermine the United States.

And then Raul proposes murder and vicious punishment against gun owners and Republicans. Typical liberal, reverting back to their violent roots, which always seethes underneath their veneer of peacefulness.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:48 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Activist Journalism, Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Bald-face lies, Bill Of Rights, Communism, Constitution, Democrats, Gun Control, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, Liberal World, Media Bias, NRA, News, Stupidity, U.S. Constitution, Unhinged, anti-Liberty/Freedom, government media, liberalism, progressivism

Trackback URL:

Priorities: Obama Used Autopen To Sign “Fiscal Cliff” Legislations

Roughly since mid-November (NMP) Obama has been Cranking up the pressure on passing “fiscal cliff” legislation. He’s been excoriating Republicans. He made dire predictions. He came out to make statements and Blame Republicans. Of course, he himself created a situation whereby the deal was done after the last minute. Nor did he excoriate Harry Reid for refusing to allow a vote on Obama’s fiscal cliff plan. But, we were told how super duper massively important this legislation was. So, how did he sign it? The Washington Post tells us in a story that is web-only

The hard-fought legislation that allowed the United States to avoid the “fiscal cliff” was signed into law on Wednesday by autopen, the White House said, less than a day after being approved in a contentious vote in the House of Representatives.

President Obama, who interrupted a family vacation here to oversee the cliff negotiations in Washington, returned to Hawaii on an overnight flight that arrived early Wednesday. He spent the day working out a local gym, golfing and dining with first lady Michelle Obama and some friends at a favorite Honolulu restaurant, Alan Wong’s.

In between, Obama reviewed a copy of the cliff legislation, titled the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012,” and directed that the original — still in Washington — be signed by autopen.

It tells you where Obama’s priorities lay in that he couldn’t wait to receive a copy of the legislation and sign it in Washington. Nor could he be bothered to even read it on the long taxpayer funded flight back to Hawaii. Nor even read it first thing in the morning. No, he waited till he fooled around while on vacation, and could not be bothered to actually sign the legislation.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:10 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, Government incompetence, News, President

Trackback URL:

January 2, 2013

Illinois Set to Ramp Up Extreme Gun Banning Law

-By Warner Todd Huston

Illinois is the only state in the Union that does not allow some sort of concealed carry statute for its law-abiding citizens. Illinois is also home to the city with the highest murder rate in the country. And yet, the Land of Lincoln is set to ring in the New Year with a new gun banning law that is more extreme than any yet instituted.

Illinois State Senate President John Cullerton (D, Chicago) is going to try and push through a new “assault weapons” ban in the Illinois legislature’s upcoming lame duck session that is so extreme that even some antique guns will be banned.

The Illinois State Rifle Association reports that Cullerton’s bill will ban pump action shotguns, semiautomatic pistols and rifles, and even antiques rifles like the M-1 Garand, the rifle used by U.S. troops in World War Two. (The M-1 Garand has only an 8-round, clip-fed ammunition system.)

According to the source, the bill would not include any grandfathering and would require Illinois gun owners to turn in their guns to the Illinois State Police where they will be destroyed.

“If [Cullerton] is successful at doing so,” the ISRA says, “nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.”

This bill would be in contravention to both the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions as well as a recent decision by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that warned the state legislature to correct its illegal ban of concealed carry permits already on the books.

In early December, the Seventh Circuit said that the ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional.

“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” the judges ruled.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook crimes, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn renewed his call for an “assault weapons” ban. Senate President Cullerton seems poised to help the Governor with that effort.

The few remaining gun manufacturing businesses in Illinois are considering a move to other states and if that happens hundreds more jobs will be lost to Illinois, a state already in the top ten of states with the highest unemployment in the country. One such company has already left the state for Iowa taking 24 jobs with it.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 11:31 pm | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Bill Of Rights, Constitution, Democrats, Despotism, Domestic Enemies, Fascism, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Governor, Gun Control, House, NRA, News, Senate, State Government, Supreme Court, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, political suicide

Trackback URL:

Obama: “I Will Not Negotiate Over Debt Ceiling”

Der Fuhrer has spoken

(Slate) In a brief address Tuesday night, President Obama saluted the passage of a fiscal cliff deal that the White House had negotiated with the Senate. Then he fired a warning shot at Congressional Republicans, saying he won’t tolerate another down-to-the-wire battle over the debt ceiling this spring.

“I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up,” he said. “If Congress refuses to give the U.S. government the ability to repay these bills on time, the consequences for the global economy would be catastrophic—far worse than a fiscal cliff.”

He concluded by calling for a 2013 marked by “a little bit less drama, a little bit less brinksmanship,” and suggested the government “not scare the heck out of folks quite as much” the next time it has a major fiscal debate.

As it stands, the fiscal cliff deal is expected to add $4 trillion to the US debt over the next decade per the CBO (said debt hit $16.4 trillion on Monday). And it breaks down to $41 in tax increases for every $1 cut. Quite a far cry from the $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases Obama was yammering about out on the campaign trail, eh? Unfortunately, there were 51% who were just too moronic to understand that the man is a liar.

Said deal includes all sorts of perks, such as an extension of a Hollywood tax incentive. And does nothing to reduce, or even control spending. But, let’s face it, elected Republicans allowed Obama to run them over, with the help of the compliant liberal media. But, now Obama and the Democrats own this economy lock, stock, and barrel. Whatever happens, it’s theirs.

What’s next? Well, we have the aforementioned debt ceiling ~~debate~~ fight. We also have

2. Sequester: The so-called sequester is a series of automatic cuts in federal spending that will reduce the budgets of most agencies and programs by 8% to 10%.

Which really only amounts to about $110 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to Central Government spending, and

3. Continuing Budget Resolution: The federal government works on a fiscal year that starts every Oct. 1. Problem is it has been years since it actually enacted a real budget on time.

Because the Senate refuses to pass a budget, one of their legally required duties.

And now Obama’s back to Hawaii, costing the taxpayers more money so that he can take a planet killing fossil fueled flight to resume his 1%er vacation.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:02 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Congress, Croney Capitalism, Debt ceiling, Democrats, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, GOP, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Hollywood, House, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, National Debt, News, Political chameleons, President, RINOS, RNC, Republican, Republicans, Senate, class warfare, government media, government waste, liberalism, pork spending

Trackback URL:

Guns Are Good For Journal News But Not For Those Whose Addresses They Published

If you’ll remember, The Journal News published a Google map containing the names and addresses of those in 2 NY counties who have handgun permits. This was purely done in an attempt to shame and expose those who expressed their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course, what it did was tell criminals which homes they should not rob, namely those with guns. But, what about The Journal News itself?

(Rockland County Times) Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.

A Clarkstown police report issued on December 28, 2012, confirmed that The Journal News has hired armed security guards from New City-based RGA Investigations and that they are manning the newspaper’s Rockland County headquarters at 1 Crosfield Ave., West Nyack, through at least tomorrow, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.

According to police reports on public record, Journal News Rockland Editor Caryn A. McBride was alarmed by the volume of “negative correspondence,” namely an avalanche of phone calls and emails to the Journal News office, following the newspaper’s publishing of a map of all pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester.

Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

There you go. She was concerned with safety, so she hired people packing guns. Which is the primary reason law abiding citizens obtain a handgun permit and purchase a handgun, for safety. And here’s some serious sarcasm from one of comments by Cody Allen

I do not see how they justify armed guards. Newspaper offices should be gun free zones. They simply need to develop a plan in which a code red blue or whatever is issued. Employees should close their doors and hide under their desks. Do not open the doors or come out from under the desks until a police officer comes into the room to tell you your(sic) safe. Impress on them the importance of being quiet. The police response time should be within minutes and given this plan the odds of a particular employee being killed is minimized.

Liberals like McBride expect Other People to be disarmed and to depend on police showing up after the crime, but, for themselves? Armed guards. Humorously, many of the same people they exposed in their map are probably law enforcement and employees of the company they hired as security.

Weasel Zippers calls this “assploding irony”.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 6:33 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Activist Journalism, Gun Control, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, News, Property Rights, liberalism

Trackback URL:

January 1, 2013

Bank of America Sues Customer, What Happened to Acting Like Humans?

-By Warner Todd Huston

It is well noted that we live in an overly litigious society. But one small company in Las Vegas isn’t just knuckling under the thumb of a big corporation and the hammer-fist of another big lawsuit.

Instead, the small business is taking the revolutionary view that big business should treat its customers as human beings. This small firm is speaking out and urging face-to-face discussions instead of a constant deluge of lawsuits.

Galaxy Gaming of Las Vegas – the world’s second largest developer, manufacturer and distributor of casino table games and enhanced casino systems – had been dutifully paying on its mortgage on its offices but out of the Nevada desert sky, as far as they were concerned, the small firm suddenly learned it was being dragged into court with its mortgage holder, Bank of America, demanding payment in full of its loans.

Robert Saucier, CEO of Galaxy Gaming, has decided to try a different tact in this discussion. Instead of just slinging charge and counter charge in court, Saucier published an open letter in a newspaper to ask Bank of America to just deal with him face-to-face, like a human being.

In the open letter published in the Charlotte Observer — where Bank of America is headquartered — Saucier urged his company’s former “financial partner” to settle their differences.

Saucier says, “We took this step because what Bank of America is doing through its lawsuits against our company is truly an unfortunate, rash and reckless decision that won’t do anything to resolve our differences and let both sides get back to growing their businesses.”

Saucier points out that his firm never missed a single loan payment so the notice of the lawsuit was a major surprise to him. Galaxy Gaming owes Bank of America $1.1 million, and has monthly payments of $9,159 and a balloon payment of $1 million in 2017.

So, why is Bank of America suing? The October lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court charges that in 2007 Galaxy Games made false statements about its ownership when it took out the business loan. Even though no payments were ever missed, the bank says it was the victim of allegedly fraudulent transfer of assets from a limited liability company to Galaxy Gaming.

Galaxy said in its letter, “While, we were troubled by the chaotic nature of B of A’s affairs and the reality that the building was suddenly underwater, we sustained our commitment to you and faithfully made each and every payment as agreed.”

Saucier said his company’s loyalty “was not returned.”

“Imagine our shock and disbelief when we discovered that your bank filed a lawsuit against our company, pertaining to a ‘performing’ loan,” Saucier wrote. “This action was without any justification and is damaging to our good name.”

The open letter also points out that Bank of America itself is being sued by the U. S. Department of Justice for more than $1 billion and accused of serious crimes by federal prosecutors. “Perhaps this is why B of A has set aside as much as $42 billion in company assets strictly for litigation purposes,” the letter says.

“We do not have that luxury. Indeed, our total revenues are less than your personal compensation package,” Saucier says.

Saucier feels that Bank of America should just take a step back from its immediate resort to a lawsuit and deal with his company fairly. Doing so, he offers, would show Bank of America that there are solutions that don’t have to go through a phalanx of lawyers and costly court actions.

“Menacing lawsuits can only contribute to suppressing potential growth, destroying good jobs and stifling the entrepreneurial spirit that B of A is supposed to support,” said Saucier. “Litigation – whether against us or against B of A – should always be a last resort and never a first option.”

Saucier ended his letter hoping that Bank of America would choose to remember and reassert one of the company’s own published Core Values: “We are aware that our decisions and actions affect people’s lives every day.”

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 11:09 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under News, Property Rights, corporatism

Trackback URL:

NY Paper Doubles Down: Publishing More Gun Owner’s Names and Addresses

-By Warner Todd Huston

The New York newspaper that drew criticism for publishing the names and addresses of hundreds of legal gun permit holders is doubling down by publishing the personal information of even more law-abiding gun owners.

To great criticism, the Journal News published an interactive map showing the names and addresses of the legal gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties just before Christmas.

Now the paper has announced it will next publish the names and addresses of permit-holders in Putnam County with an eye toward eventually politicizing the names and addresses of every gun owner in the state.

The Journal News has defended its controversial violation of the privacy of New York’s legal gun owners by claiming that since the records are open to the public to find in government archives, they should be allowed to publish all the names and addresses.

New York State Senator Greg Ball slammed the Journal News, saying that the paper is treating law-abiding citizens like “sex offenders.”

“The asinine editors at The Journal News, have once again gone out of their way to place a virtual scarlet letter on law abiding firearm owners throughout the region. The immediate elimination of the information posted on the Journal News Website is the only way we can ensure the safety and liberty of these New Yorkers,” said Mr. Ball in a statement. “This is clearly a violation of privacy, and needs to be corrected immediately. The same elitist egg heads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual predators.”

Others have said that the paper has put the lives of the state’s gun owners in danger by giving criminals a virtual map to their homes.
Several laws are being prepared in the state capital in Albany to make the names and addresses of the Empire State’s gun owners private.

Al Tompkins of the Florida-based Poynter Institute criticized his fellow journalists in New York for the publication of the gun owners’ names, worrying that this abuse of government open records would end up hurting the standing of open records laws with voters and politicians alike.

“I suspected that legislative backlash might follow, and it would be a worse mistake than publishing the data,” Tompkins said of the possible harm to such laws.

A similar situation threatened in Illinois in 2011. The Associated Press had asked anti-Second Amendment State Attorney General Lisa Madigan if it could publish the names and addresses of registered gun owners in Illinois; she agreed and ordered the state police to turn over the records. But the police refused to do so and pleaded with the state legislature to craft some legislation so that they wouldn’t have to.

Illinois State Senator Kirk Dillard obliged and a law was quickly written and passed to prevent the state from publicizing the names and address of Illinois gun owners. Even Illinois’ anti-gun governor saw the sense and political need to sign the bill.

Florida and Tennessee also protect the personal information of registered gun owners.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 9:15 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Activist Journalism, Gun Control, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, News, liberalism

Trackback URL:

‘Unbearable, Rambling, Tedious’: Daily Beast Slams Sean Penn’s ‘Journalism’

-By Warner Todd Huston

Right of center Americans have been ridiculing the vacuity of Sean Penn for years but he’s had his critics on the left as well and the Daily Beast recently joined that small group of left-wing sources critical of Penn with a devastating piece lambasting Penn’s pretensions at being a social commentator and journalist.

There is no doubt that Penn is a skilled actor. He’s turned out some wonderful performances over the years and deserves acclaim for it. But his penchant to support murderers, oppressors, and dictators makes of him a clown of the first order in his off-screen life.

For the left-leaning Daily Beast, Michael Moynihan was sharply critical of both Penn’s self-assigned label of journalist and his cozying up to oppressive dictators and did so in no uncertain terms at that.

Of Penn’s bloviating as a self-proclaimed journalist, Moynihan was unsparing.

Reading Penn’s journalism is not unlike consuming a [Fidel] Castro speech: it’s unbearably long, always rambling and tedious, and frequently incoherent. Take this latest dispatch from Penn’s Huffington Post blog, where he coughs up this furball: “Ostreicher, whose innocence was maligned by an arrest where only vague illusions to money laundering have been shown to be fabricated by corrupt officials within the Bolivian judiciary, whose motivation has proven to be extortion.”

Or how about this stew of words, which is apparently related to the shootings in Newtown, Conn.: “This can, and is, being very easily exampled with newly invigorated discussions with attention on the recognition and treatment of mental health, and certainly that is a priority. And to be responsible to that priority, we too have to recognize its applicability to the mental health of our American community at large.”

As a wordsmith, Sean Penn wields his keyboard as if using a sledgehammer to chisel glass.

What is worse, of course, is the illiterati that treat Penn as if he is a real writer worthy of reading. When Penn goes off on his idiotic forays lionizing brutal dictators Fidel Castro and the evil clown in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, too many left-wing dupes like Bill Maher or Charlie Rose fawn over Penn as if he’s a sage for the ages instead of the clumsy penned commie simp he is.

Moynihan also lambasted the dimwitted actor for his love of the world’s murderous oppressors. He scoffed at actor Josh Brolin’s foolish claim that Sean Penn is a smart and “curious” man, for instance.

“This is exactly backward. If anything, champagne chavistas like Penn suffer from a distinct lack of curiosity, mixed with a heavy dollop of Hollywood orientalism,” Moynihan scoffed.

Sean Penn has made a fool of himself pretending he is a writer and many on the left understand that even if they don’t want to be the ones saying so in public, it really is the truth.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 8:54 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Activist Journalism, Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Despotism, Hollywood, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, News, Totalitarianism, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Obama to David Gregory’s Rescue

-By Warner Todd Huston

Last Friday NBC’s David Gregory announced a surprise visit by President Obama for the weekend’s Meet The Press.

Gregory made the announcement on his Twitter account saying, “Excited to announce that President @BarackObama will be my exclusive guest this Sunday on @MeetthePress.”

This reverses Gregory’s announced vacation. He was not scheduled to be on this weekend.

Host Gregory has been under a cloud of controversy since his December 23 gun stunt. During last Sunday’s broadcast Gregory broke Washington D.C.’s strict gun banning laws when he brandished an illegal 30-round rifle magazine on the air in the D.C. studios.

So what gives? Why did the President suddenly appear on Meet The Press? Could it be to help Gregory out of his troubles? This is obviously a presidential back patting for Gregory so that maybe the D.C. police will back off.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 8:41 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, NBC, News, government media

Trackback URL:

David Brooks: This Fiscal Cliff Deal Is Rather A Crapburger, Eh?

The NY Times’ resident “conservative” (who resembles a conservative about as much as Nancy Pelosi) offers up a nice summary of the fiscal cliff deal.

Another Fiscal Flop

After first expounding that the public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product went from around 38 percent in 1965 to 74% now, that it could hit 90% in a decade, and 247% in 30 years, he notes that while some may talk about Doing Something, no one does, and this deal doesn’t deal with it at all. Then we get

President Obama and Speaker John Boehner both earnestly wanted to achieve these things. But the deal we are heading toward is discouraging. Yes, the deal does raise $600 billion in revenue over 10 years from a tiny sliver of the population (compared with the $8 trillion in new debt likely to be accrued over that time).

Remember when Obama called half that debt unpatriotic? Then increased the debt by $6 trillion?

But the proposal is not a balance of taxes and spending cuts. It doesn’t involve a single hard decision. It does little to control spending. It abandons all of the entitlement reform ideas that have been thrown around. It locks in low tax rates on families making less than around $450,000; it is simply impossible to avert catastrophe unless tax increases go below that line.

Along with raising the income tax rates on $400k individual and $450k joint filers to 39.6%, along with moving the capital gains rate to 20% from 15% for those same earners. Unemployment insurance would be extended for a year with no offsets. The “sequester” would be put off for 2 months, which is a whopping $110 billion in cuts. The estate tax would go up to 40% from 35%. Deductions for high earners would be limited. The wind farm tax credit is extended, as well as many other “green” energy tax credits. And lots of other tax credits, both individual and corporate. Know what’s not included? And spending reductions. And spending reforms. And acknowledgement of the severe federal government spending issues.

Whom should we blame for this? Again, we should not blame Obama and Boehner. In their different ways, they and a number of other people in the Congress are trying to find a politically palatable way to deal with these hard issues. They got what conditions allowed.

No, David, there’s plenty of blame for both, along with Senate Democrats, though Obama gets the lions share, since he was unwilling to live in the real world and make substantive changes as he drives America into a coffin, along with Democrats, who said that ever “safety net” program was off the table.

Ultimately, we should blame the American voters. The average Medicare couple pays $109,000 into the program and gets $343,000 in benefits out, according to the Urban Institute. This is $234,000 in free money. Many voters have decided they like spending a lot on themselves and pushing costs onto their children and grandchildren. They have decided they like borrowing up to $1 trillion a year for tax credits, disability payments, defense contracts and the rest. They have found that the original Keynesian rationale for these deficits provides a perfect cover for permanent deficit-living. They have made it clear that they will destroy any politician who tries to stop them from cost-shifting in this way.

For a change, Brooks makes sense. There are too many voters who want their free stuff, their free Obamaphone, free healthcare, their free welfare, their free everything paid for by other people. There are too many moochers, that 47% who have a net zero federal liability on income tax. Too many who vote themselves money. Too few politicians stand up against this notion, and too many run on giving free stuff. And we have a president who is the king of free stuff. And too many voters who have no business voting. They do not know the issues, and, really, if someone is living off the teet of the government, in most cases they should not be voting.

Oh, and David? We can blame the media, especially your newspaper, for railing against any and all substantive changes that reign in the debt and spending, other than jacking up tax rates.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:59 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Congress, Debt ceiling, Democrats, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, House, John Boehner, Journalistic Prostitution, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, National Debt, New York Times, News, Politics As Usual, RINOS, Republicans, Senate, Socialism, Taxes, class warfare, entitlements, government media, government waste, liberalism, pork spending, progressivism

Trackback URL:

A New Year’s Prediction Challenge For Climate Alarmists

Happy New Year’s! Welcome to 2013! And one year closer to End Of Life As We Know it. 2150 and 2200 are fast approaching, the primary dates that the climate alarmists always want to use to denote when Earth is going to burn, baby, burn in fire, dan dan daaaan, fire, dan dan daaaaan.

New Year’s is usually a time when we make resolutions which we abandon when we realize that chocolate, bacon, and beer are great (and bacon cooked in beer and covered with chocolate!) In the blogosphere, we often make predictions for the New Year. Instead, how about a challenge?

For a long time, the alarmists have been making predictions as to what the climate will do. They say in 10 years, 50, 100. Instead, why not, say, make predictions for……2013! What I want for them to do, from the biggest of big climahypocrites, such as Al Gore, James Hansen, Barack Obama, and Leonardo DiCaprio, to the smallest climate dupes, is tell us exactly what the climate will do this year. For some of these questions, I’m using the USA, but, alarmists from around the world can use their own country/region, if they like:

What will the average temperature of the Earth be for 2013? Most scientists place it at 59 degrees F (15 C). How far above, or below, will it be?
What will the average temperature be for the USA? The rough average for the USA is 53 F.
How many tropical systems will there be in the Atlantic? How many will hit the USA?
What will the four seasons do in 2013? Warmer, colder, hotter, wetter? Tell us
What will each month look like in the USA? How about in your home state?
Which months will be above average, and which ones below, temperature wise?
What states will have big floods, and during what months?
What will tornado season look like?
How many destructive thunderstorms will there be, and in which states?
How many “extreme” weather events will there be?
How much ice will the poles gain/lose?
Will the Arctic be ice free this summer?
What will the average precipitation be for your home city? Average temperature? Average low’s and highs?
How many earthquakes will there be (since, apparently, climate change/globull warming creates earthquakes)?
Pick an island, and tell us how much the sea will rise around it.

There are many, many, many more questions that can be asked, but, I know what the alarmists are thinking: “Teach, that is weather, not climate! I refuse to participate!” Ah, but, what, exactly, is climate? Let’s pull a couple good definitions

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time
Climate is the average weather conditions at a particular place over a long period of time. Climate is the long-term predictable state of the atmosphere. It is affected by physical features such as mountains, rivers, positioning of the globe, plateaus, deserts, depressions and much more.
The general or typical atmospheric conditions for a place and/or period of time. Conditions include rainfall, temperature, thunderstorms, lightning, freezes, etc.

Notice, “long term predictable.” Weather and other natural forces create climate. And right now the alarmists are saying “but, Teach, one year is not considered to be a “long period of time!”” Well, you have plenty of data available for the long term, and, with all your vast knowledge of what the climate is doing, due to man’s release of greenhouse gases, surely you alarmists can make predictions for 2013 based on that long term data, and be mostly correct, right? Surely, you aren’t afraid to make predictions for this year, and tell us what the climate during 2013 will do, right? But, you have to make your predictions, and can’t go back and change them up as the year goes on. And at the end of the year, we will see how well you have done.

Plus, all you Warmists are now blaming every single weather event, whether it be hot, cold, wet, dry, on “climate change”, a completely unscientific phrase. You’re also blaming every geophysical event, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, on “climate change”.

Any alarmist up for the challenge? And no cheating by reading the Farmer’s Almanac, which tends to be right way more than the Met, NASA, UN IPCC, and other alarmist groups are. Forget about your PR blitzes, “spreading awareness” campaigns, your advocacy, your stunts, and tell us what will happen. If you’re correct, for a change, maybe people will start to believe you again.

Oh, and a second challenge: