Remember how The Journal News in Westchester, New York, deciding to publish, with an interactive map, all of the residences in Westchester and Rockland Counties where someone in the home has a pistol permit holders? William Teach has this amusing bit of karmic justice!
January 2, 2013 – 6:34 am
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.
More at the link. The Goose an Gander sauce picture is not from Mr Teach’s original. But it’s just more of what we’ve come to expect from our friends on the left: the rules they want to apply to others shouldn’t actually apply to themselves! I don’t see why they don’t just post some “Gun Free Newspaper Zone” signs on the streets approaching their building, knowing, of course, that such things would absotively, posilutely stop cold anyone who had any intentions of actually harming them!
Karen, the Lonely Conservative, normally writes short articles, primarily around news blurbs. She’s stepped outside of her usual pattern with a much longer original piece:
At this point I just have to laugh when I see the polls. President Obama has higher ratings than George W. Bush, even though most Americans see the best of times behind us. Thanks to the media there’s been a national disconnect with reality. Bush had his faults, don’t get me wrong, but all of those faults Obama doubled down on, with nary a peep from the press.
Big spending? Well, Obama has certainly trumped that. Over six trillion has been added to the national debt in the past four years. He’s light years ahead of Bush and he hasn’t even begun his second term. War? Obama loves war. We’ve lost more Americans under his “leadership” in Afghanistan than we did under Bush, but again, the media is oddly silent. At least Bush didn’t lead from behind or from a position of weakness. Weakness is Obama’s trademark. Why else would douchebags in Yemen be threatening our ambassador’s life? Because they know they can, that’s why! Oh, except for the way Obama uses drones as his own little video game system, where he blows up terrorists rather than capture and interrogate them. Drones are also being used here at home, but we aren’t hearing too much about that.
A lot more at the link.
The middle class will pay less, and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more. Let me give you one concrete example: the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. We’re arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 800 million — billion dollars of that goes to people making a minimum of a million dollars.
Patterico then noted that it was Vice President Biden who negotiated the $400,000/$450,000 threshold for the higher marginal tax rates, and he started from a lower figure. Your Editor thinks that it’s karmic justice for those people earning between $400,000/$450,000 and a million bucks who voted for President Obama and Vice President Biden to be facing higher taxes. We told everybody that the President was lying through his scummy teeth, and we were right all along.
From Donald Douglas:
From Douglas Gibbs, at Canada Free Press:
Barack Obama won the election of 2012 with a number of strategies in place, and the one that made the largest impact was his offer of the federal government as the giver of gifts from the treasury, at the expense of the producers in society. In other words, the redistribution of wealth. The liberal left calls this Social Justice. The Founding Fathers called it despotic and unconstitutional. Today’s conservatives call it communism.
Enough voters, however, have bought into the lie that only government must be the guarantor of social justice.
The concept of Social Justice begins with the claim that the government is simply seeking to achieve “fairness.” In this pursuit, the Democrats cry out that those with more must “pay their fair share” in order for the “less fortunate” to achieve equity in our unfair society. Equality and fairness. Sounds good to most. A tool used by the statists to achieve their big government aims, Social Justice is a myriad of entitlement programs we are told were designed to ensure those that are underprivileged are taken care of by government.
Social Justice is argued as being the responsibility of the government for reasons of morality. To not support social justice is to be immoral because that must mean you want the potential recipients of entitlement programs to suffer in their poverty. In reality, the statists are paying the poor to remain poor, not only to buy their votes, but to keep them under the control of the government.
More at the link. Dr Douglas asks, concerning the “general welfare” statement in the Preamble to our Constitution:
Should the “general welfare” be defined as promoting greater liberty for the individual to pursue material economic interests to the best of his or her ability, with the aggregate of those interests promoting the public good through increasing social prosperity? Or should the “general welfare” be defined as promoting ever increasing (re)distributive “welfare” programs as defined by the radical left’s entitlement ideology? As it stands right now, the latter definition is winning (and liberty is increasingly threatened).
It seems to your Editor that there is a difference in the Preamble, in which the Constitution is established to “provide for the common defense, (and) promote the general welfare,” as opposed to “provide the general welfare,” and that ought to make a difference, but it seems that it does not.
But, for the poor Obama voter, reality really does bite: they have chosen to protect a lifestyle of poverty, as long as the government continues to provide just barely enough to enable them to survive, as opposed to providing the opportunity for them to escape poverty, and join the working class. They voted for welfare, and welfare is what they have gotten. Karmic justice indeed!