Posts Tagged ‘handguns’

Outrage: Left Shows Why They Absolutely Cannot Be Trusted To Be Anything Other Than Fascists Even As They Call On Us To Surrender Our Arms

December 27, 2012

It was Christmas Eve, but liberals were neverthelesssssss – because they are serpents – trying to prepare the way for the coming big-government beast of Revelation.

Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners’ Names and Addresses
By Colleen Curry | ABC News Blogs – Mon, Dec 24, 2012

A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.

The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper’s decision to make the information public.

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!” said commenter Curtis Maenza.

“How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families…,” wrote commenter George Thompson.

All of the names and addresses were compiled through public records. The paper also requested the information from Putnam County, which is still compiling the records for publication, according to The Journal News’ website.

In a statement to ABC News, The Journal News said its readers “are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods,” because of the conversation about gun control on its website after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., last week.

“We obtained the names and addresses of Westchester and Rockland residents who are licensed to own handguns through routine Freedom of Information law requests. We also requested information on the number and types of guns owned by permit holders, but officials in the county clerks offices in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties maintained that those specifics were not public record,” the statement read.

“New York’s top public-records expert, Robert Freeman, disagrees,” it added.

The paper declined to answer further questions about the map.

Try to imagine the outcry had a rightwing newspaper published the names and addresses of all the homosexuals.  Batter up, gay bashers: here’s where they at.  Go bash them and if they’re hiding out you go bash their cars and vanalize their homes.  Imagine if they had published the names of all the anti-gun zombies and made sure the public understood that these were the people trying to take away the security of their homes and threatening their families.

You know whose names WEREN’T in “the list” that liberals leaked hoping that other liberals would target these families with vandalism and other forms of intimidation?  Criminals who don’t bother with laws and who want to prey like the coyotes they are on defenseless homes and families.

The message of the left is this: surrender your guns to us or we will demonize you and expose you to physical assault and vandalism until you do.  And what they just screamed is that we need guns more than EVER to protect oursleves from these fascists for whom our God-given constitutional rights are nothing.

The fascist left – more technically known as the Democrat Party – have done this trick repeatedly.  They used the exact same tactic to target law-abiding Americans who exercised their free-speech rights to support Proposition 8.  Democrats blacklisted businesses, publicly boycotted them, publicly disgraced them and privately vandalized them.  To quote the exact words of the party of hell: “there will be hell to pay.”  And the party of hell knows how to unleash hell on their enemies (defined as anybody who disagrees with them).

Democrats and liberals are people who feel that “free speech” only applies to THEM.  If you are a conservative, they feel righteous to shout you down.  They feel righteous to go into churches and universities and shout down their opponents.

Democrats are Nazis who have already murdered more than nine times more babies in America than Germans murdered Jews in Germany.  If you are a Democrat, you will one day stand before a just and holy God and answer – while the fire and smoke of God’s wrath billows from His throne – for YOUR part in the murder of 55 million of the most innocent of all human beings.  And eternity isn’t long enough for you to suffer: you will burn for a trillion times a trillion times a trillion years for every nanosecond of each one of those lives you viciously snuffed out with your vote.

Did I say “vote”?  Democrats point at the Constitution and say that the right to vote is somehow sacrosanct.  They conveniently forget that the right to keep and bear arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”  And yet these same future citizens of hell tell us WHILE THEY’RE URINATING ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT that it is somehow a terrible thing to so much as ask for an ID in order to vote.

Does it matter to them that far more people have been murdered – because, for instance, the Nazis were elected to power by voters – by votes than have been killed in America by armed crazies???  Of course it doesn’t.  And that’s because “Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party” – and a perfect synonym for “Democrat Party” today is “National Socialist American Workers Party.”  And that’s because, just like the Nazis, modern Democrats are socialist to the core and modern Democrats demagogue “workers” the exact same way the Nazis and the Marxist communists did before them.

A tiny union shut down two of the largest ports in the nation last month during the busiest period of the year.  That strike cost the U.S. economy a billion dollars a day for a total of $8 billion that America will never get back.  And now Obama’s union thugs are about to exploit the system again on the other side of the country.  Because they are fascists nation wide.  As godawful terrible as Obama’s abject failure of leadership to preside over an actual deal regarding the fiscal cliff is, it is still just a drop of piss in Obama’s urine ocean of the ruination of America.

There are workers who would count their blessings to earn a THIRD of the salary and benefits of these union thugs; but businesses are as helpless against union terrorism as Democrats want to make the rest of America against criminals who know we’ve just had all our guns taken away.

Democrats can stomp all over the Constitution and still deceitfully call themselves champions of “freedom”; Republicans can’t even politely ask for IDs as Democrats exploit the same electioneering tactics that gave Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood and a fascist constitution based on sharia law.

It’s too late now; Democrats WILL take our rights to bear arms away because that will be essential to the beast of Revelation to come so his big government can utterly crush an unarmed and defenseless people.

The agenda of the Democrat Party is the agenda of Romans chapter one.  And God is damning this land even as He allows the world to have the Antichrist that it wants so damn much.

This has been God damn America for the last four years.  And we aint seen nothin’ yet.  Things will get worse and worse under this president; but he is a man who spent the last four years blaming everything on George W. Bush and is already showing that he will spend the next four years blaming everything on Republicans.  It’s all the House’s fault, Obama will say; forget the fact that when things went to hell under George W. Bush, Democrats dominated not only the House, but the Senate as well.

God said to America, “You don’t need Me; you’ve got Obama now.”  But wait, like in the game shows, there’s more: there’s four more years of abject God-damn-America misery cynically exploited by one of the most skilled demagogues in history.

Obama is going to exploit the impossible demands he gave to the House Republicans who also won the 2012 election by retaining control over the House and the purse strings that go WITH winning the House.  But he’s a liar;

I wrote an article well over a year ago titled, “Why I Call Barack Obama A Fascist.”  And that only scratches the surface of what we’ve seen from the left ever since.  The Antichrist to come will have the big government liberal system in the history of the world: he will so take over the economy that no man can buy or sell without a government-mandated mark.  Liberals will take over the economy just as they always dreamed of doing – and then use that power to crush anyone who gets in their way just as they always dreamed of doing.

Obama has publicly demonized so-called “assault weapons” as “weapons of war.”  It’s a rhetorical ploy intended to suggest the question, “Why does anybody need a weapon of war?”  It omits the FACT that WHAT THE HELL WERE GUNS WHEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENSHRINED US WITH THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR WEAPONS OF WAR???

Should our military lose the right to keep and bear those arms?  Should the Navy SEALs surrender their assault rifles?  How about the FBI and the police?  Why should THEY be allowed to carry such “weapons of war”???  Based on Obama’s rhetoric, aren’t our police at war with America?  If these guns are so evil, how are they not warping the souls of our military and our SEALs and our police officers???

If you’re going to suggest to me that our military and our police need to have those weapons to deal with evil people, well, dumbass, so the hell do American citizens.  We need to not only protect ourselves from violent criminal predators, but we need to protect ourselves from the fascism that Democrats are now shrouding every aspect of America with.  We need to protect ourselves against “the lists” that Democrats are publishing to target us.

A pissed-off Connecticut lawyer just published the names and addresses of all the fascist journalists who published the names of the people who legally owned guns in its New York coverage area.  I wonder if any of them are scared about what could happen as angry people try to take vengeance.  And I wonder if any of them realize that what they did is utterly and completely evil because THAT’S exactly what they were trying to do in publishing the names and addresses of gun owners.

Ultimately the left is going to win this political war that will result in the extinction of America.  And the reason is that – one lawyer aside – the right simply will not stoop to the vicious and vile level of the left.  No conservative newspaper will publish the names and addresses of anti-gun people and invite the ensuing carnage.  We’re just not that despicable or that evil or that depraved.  That’s why the left is going to win.  And that’s why the beast will be here soon.

And just like the Jews found themselves with no way to defend themselves against socialist Adolf Hitler when he began implenting his Final Solution, those left behind to face the Antichrist won’t have guns to protect themselves against the  most evil regime the world will have ever seen.

Interestingly, Obama has twelve armed guards protecting his daughters.  You get to protect your daughters with harsh language.  As long as none of it offends a liberal.

Also interestingly, it will be interesting to see which homes get targeted in the future: the ones where the robbers know the owners are armed and can defend their homes or the ones where the robbers know that the victims are unarmed and defenseless.

Advertisements

New York Times Rips Obama on Character

July 5, 2008

When the New York Times rebukes the most liberal senator in Congress and the Democratic nominee for president, you know he’s got a problem with his base.

It is painfully common knowledge that Barack Obama has shifted dramatically in his policies to position himself as a liberal-moderate. Every politician tends to shift policies during the course of a campaign, but Barack Obama has reversed himself more quickly and more dramatically than any candidate in modern history (even John Kerry, whose “I voted for that bill before I voted against it” remark defined him as a serial flip-flopper). And Obama’s reversals are particularly glaring given his arrogant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, smarmy self-serving rhetoric that he would be different and above it all when it came to such political tactics.

His abandonment of his public campaign finance pledge by itself proves that Barack Obama is not a candidate for the people, but rather a candidate for Barack Obama.

Many of his reversals have come at the cost of liberals, who want the most liberal Senator in the country to become the most liberal President in American history. They feel betrayed. So perhaps it should come as no suprise that the quintessentially liberal New York Times would take Obama to task for his betrayals.

I cite the entire July 4, 2008 New York Times editorial in its entirety:

July 4, 2008
Editorial
New and Not Improved

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Too late: Obama has already begun his maneuvering to reverse himself on the biggest “big question: of all; Obama has backed off his previously iron-clad pledge to cut-and-run in Iraq within 16 months. Hillary Clinton – who had a more moderate and cautious approach to Iraq that hurt her in the liberal-oriented Democratic primaries, claimed that Obama would do exactly what he is in fact doing now. Obama said time and time again that “I will bring the troops home in 2009,” but he is now hedging behind the disclaimer that he will only do so with the military commanders’ blessing.

Obama promised he would pull out of Iraq within 16 months dozens of times without caveats when he faced a liberal electorate; now he is deceitfully “refining” his position in order to pander to the more conservative overall electorate. John McCain, by contrast, has been absolutely firm and absolutely clear on his Iraq position even when it cost him politically. He publicly and repeatedly urged President Bush to send more troops into Iraq in a surge campaign when the situation in Iraq was difficult and vulnerable, and when even Republicans were beginning to waver in their commitment to Iraq.

The New York Times makes it quite clear that they wanted this guy to win. They thought he was different, but he is revealing that “hope” and “change” was never anything more than a rhetorical ploy.

I would argue that Barack Obama truly is different: he is the most cynical presidential candidate in history. The man who got his start in politics by stabbing Alice Palmer in the back to become a state senator is revealing his true character. This man – who used byzantine legal tactics and insider personal relationships to invalidate the voters’ will and keep a candidate off the ballot who had previously won her district with 87% of the vote, and who literally threw his own grandmother under the bus for the sake of political cover – is showing that he will betray anyone and anything to obtain personal power.

The Latin description for Obama is Hypocriticus Maximus. I have seen that in this man with crystal clarity ever since the day his church’s incredibly radical theology was revealed. Liberals and Democrats have repeatedly complained about “guilt by association,” but tell me when you have ever seen a major candidate for president ever having had such “associations.” And when these associations are exposed, he dismisses one longstanding friendship and relationship after another as he continues his climb to the top.

I use the word “cynical” – which the New York Times itself uses to characterize Obama – because only an incredibly cynical man would attack the modern political apparatus even as he uses that same apparatus to maximum personal advantage; only the most cynical candidate would claim to be so different from any politician who has ever come before when he is anything but.