NY, NJ bomb suspect

So we have a terrorist “suspect” who was 1)known to authorities before, who was apparently 2)a bomb maker, who was 3)from Afghanistan and who was 4)not on a terrorist no-fly list. His name is Ahmad Khan Rahami …. not Stanley Loner Jones.

But the Clinton News Netwrok’s problem was with Trump mentioning “bombing” after the incidents occurred. Again, what we do know seems as troubling as what we don’t know.

Tweet of the Day

UPDATE: he was just “struggling to fit in”

The lesson is: when you come from Afghanistan — just struggling to fit in in America — you return to Afghanistan multiple times, then come back and start building and setting off bombs. Entirely a natural progression based on America and their ability to fit in.

‘Fitting in,’ like other Americans, now means bomb skills and blowing things up . Sounds just like every other American I ever ran across — regardless where he comes from. Geesh, what else is there to know?

Now if we could just start to profile screen for people just looking to fit into America.

NY gets punked

New York, you’ve been punked.

Sponsored by the folks who are going to correct and fix our climate.

Climate of denial. Superstorm of massive disinformation.

News Alert:
Death of the live shot in NY for Tuesday, canceled due to lack of interest.

Not to worry, the science is still “settled”. The debate is still over.

Welcome to AmeriKa

Where in government’s infinite wisdom it sets up drug-free zones around schools, to protect children and toughen penalties, but where a teacher is shooting heroin in the faculty lounge they can’t figure out what to do about it !

Ladies and gentlemen, you have just entered the twilight zone.

And the answer to poor schools and education will always be “Mo’ Money”.

By Leonard Sparks
Times Herald-Record
Published: 2:00 AM – 02/20/14
Last updated: 4:43 PM – 02/20/14
FALLSBURG (NY)— Two days after news broke that police were investigating six teachers and an aide after twice finding heroin and paraphernalia in the faculty men’s bathroom at Benjamin Cosor Elementary, Fallsburg’s school board faced questions from angered parents.
About 100 people showed up for Wednesday evening’s board meeting, which was moved to the auditorium at Fallsburg Junior/Senior High School to accommodate the crowd.
Many criticized the administration’s decision to withhold information about the first of the two discoveries, which occurred just before winter break in December.
Others criticized the district’s unions for teachers and aides, and called for the suspension of the seven faculty members until they reversed their refusals to provide urine samples to police.
Dawn Ciorciari of Hurleyville kept her 5-year-old daughter home from prekindergarten on Wednesday and said she felt uncomfortable sending her to school on Thursday.
“It’s really sad to me that I had to sit her down this morning and say something about drugs,” Ciorciari said of Wednesday’s decision.
The Fallsburg administration, the Fallsburg Teacher’s Association and the Fallsburg School-Related Professionals union have come under fire over the investigation, which began in December.
A quantity of heroin and several needles were found in the faculty restroom at Cosor the Friday before the Dec. 23 winter break. Then, sometime between the morning and afternoon of Feb. 11, a school staff member reportedly found a heroin baggie.
Camera footage was used to identify eight people who used the bathroom before Monday’s discovery, police said.
One, a contract employee providing occupational therapy, voluntarily gave a urine sample. The others — the six teachers and the aide — got legal representation and refused requests for urine samples, police said. /… Continue

“All of your comments are valid….and I can assure you that we are taking everything quite seriously”. 

Help me….since December the person is using the Faculty Lounge for a shooting gallery, in an elementary school….”seriously“? You are kidding, aren’t you?

RightRing | Bullright

Bang! Editor fired after publishing gun-owner map

Released addresses of permit holders, then hired armed guard herself

WND

The Journal News of New York published an interactive map of permitted gun owners.

The editor of the New York newspaper that created a furor by publishing the names and addresses of gun-permit owners suddenly is out of a job.

According to the Rockland Times, a competitor to the Gannett-owned Rockland County Journal News, editor Caryn McBride is among the casualties of a recent purge at the Journal News.

The report said 17 journalists were among a total of 26 staff members at the Journal News who were let go.

It was the Journal News that in 2012 published the names and addresses of all gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties under the headline “Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?”

The Times said police reports showed McBride had called the Clarkstown Police Department to notify them of a flood of angry phone calls and letters the newspaper received after it published the map.

The Rockland editor said she felt threatened by the complaints, but local police didn’t believe there was a credible threat. McBride and other executives then decided to hire armed guards to protect their property, the Times reported, “causing an uproar due to the perceived hypocrisy of the avowed anti-gun editors hiring gun-toting men.”

More http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/bang-editor-fired-after-publishing-gun-owner-map/?cat_orig=us

Kids, don’t try that at home….they are professionals!

Safe Act…give me a break!

It is just possible that government has invented something new, “safe-free zones.”
I’ll name it that and save them the trouble.

What is safe about the SAFE Act?

“To protect” is the idea. But don’t expect your rights to be secured inside.

Safe, safety

Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound. 3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet. 4. Affording protection: a safe place.

Safe-free zones is kind of an oxymoron, but that is the result of Cuomo’s “Safe Act”.  Or you could call them rights-free zones.

Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights.
Safety would be government securing our God-given rights as a priority.

Instead, when they use the word “safe” or safety, it often means “now we are going to limit your rights.” It is not a zero sum game.  Securing rights now means taking away people’s rights. So lawmakers had to use the acronym “SAFE” for gun control. That doesn’t make it so.

 
Enter Governor Cuomo:
NY Governor Cuomo is deliberately using “Safety” as a political device. They should outlaw cars because there people can be killed in cars. No? Maybe you should be prohibited from speech in a movie theater because people have screamed “fire” or created panic. How about we ban some words because they can be used a certain way? (too late…) How about we prohibit assembly because it can turn into a riot?

When did people’s rights become such a threat to government? On the contrary, government has become a threat to our rights. Why should taking away rights make you safer?

But the real crux of the problem is someone who is tasked to preserve and secure our God-given rights, is directly trampling on them. At the very same time he is trying to promote late-term abortion – a gruesome act according to anyone with eyes to see.

Would he regulate and ban scissors because they are used in abortions? I’m serious. Even the pro-life Right is not asking for that. They don’t even blame those vacuums and suction hoses. But Cuomo actually wants to protect and legalize late-term abortions, and even let them choose the means.

So Cuomo is on a mission and the objective is to restrict, limit and destroy our rights. The other is to give even more power to the government, to track people and mine information from them, then use this information in any way they see fit against them.

All that in his agenda under the guise of “Safe”. Know this, you will not be “safe” from the ever-encroaching government or its burgeoning bureaucracy. You are not meant to be. Thus, you will not be safe or secure in your possessions or papers. You’re security and freedom is a disposable commodity to Cuomo and the Left. That “freedom” is a threat to our government and others, in their minds. How else could you explain their actions?

Government’s purpose is apparently not to protect our God-given freedom, but to usurp and abolish it. They have taken that to be their priority in doing so under this “safe act”. The Safe Act is the biggest contradiction and oxymoron I think I have ever seen. The only question for them now is where do they go from here?

Why did they have to name the freedom robbing law the “Safe Act” rather than the Freedom Abolishing Act? Then they could have even used the acronym FAACT. And the fact is they are taking freedom and liberty and burying them as deep as they can, under whatever they can, supposedly to create Safety. Only they could have thought of it.

If Obama calls his signature healthcare takeover an “affordability” act when it drives up costs, then using that standard Cuomo has declared his candidacy.

We know the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What about others?

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How about the Fifth amendment?

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

How about the fourteenth Amendment:

(Sec. 1) – No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

WND – “Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#dZHPcmhSYv4hOmGR.99

H/T to Pepp for pointing out that article in a comment on a prior post.

Remember when Hillary and others declared abortions should be safe, legal, rare. “Dr.” Gosnell destroyed her notion as the bologna it is.

…If and ONLY when the government declares it one.

How about a “Give Me a Break Act”, sound too corny?

Right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness now means restricting your second amendment. A government of, by, and for government for the the protection of same.

Marriage…or whatever

The problem is very simple. I know, most people here know this but I’ll say it anyway. The word that is all the rage and the crux of Leftists’ argument is “marriage equality” But is that true?

That is a subjective term.(for their purposes) It means whatever the user wants it to mean. Marriage equality is defined by the user. Marriage equality for the bigamist is marrying a harem. Marriage for someone else is something else. Do I see them define what “marriage equality” means? Of course not, it is as intentionally vague as most language the left uses.

So it will be up to the person to claim what “marriage” or “marriage equality” is to them. A person wants marriage equality, which to him/her means marrying whatever they want or choose to. Then to deny them that is to deny them equality. But the minute anyone draws a line that it (equality) applies to gays but not others, then they will no longer be standing for “equality” will they? They will be denying someone else their right to “equality”. Get it? When society tries to say it can not apply here or there, then bye-bye equality.

The people who adopted that term as their political lingo will have to apply it to wherever someone demands their “marriage equality” — whatever that means to them. Therefore, there cannot be any laws against the outliers, because that would not be equality and be denying someone equality. So there cannot ever be equality until everyone gets what he/she/it demands. (which by my calculation is the second Tuesday of never) — unless you think it is possible to grant every possibility.

Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (

The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. I couldn’t marry another man. My wife couldn’t marry another woman. Nor could I marry a cow either. See that is the thing, we are under the same rules.

On the other hand, what they want is to expand the definition of marriage. And yes, it does affect us all, since we are all afforded equal protection of the law. So in effect, they are changing the definition for everyone. It shall mean whatever you want it to mean.

However, no one was denying them the right(s) of marriage, same as the rest of us have. We have that equality now. They are about changing the definition not about “equality”.

But under their newfound definition of equality, no one could be denied the institution of marriage — however one wants to apply it or interpret it. That is what they are asking. It is not about “equality”, it is about ever-expanding definitions of what marriage IS. Remember Bill Clinton: “it depends what the definition of “is” is“. That’s what they are saying.

So all the talk about equality is just that, talk. But no one bugs them about the specious arguments, though they will attack Christians for making a case for the conventional marriage definition. Doing that is supposedly taboo.

Under their ever-expansive definition(s), there are no parameters. It shall mean whatever a particular person wants it to mean. We don’t offer that option in other places either. Remember, they say it is only about equality.

Digging deeper

Now people can say why does this matter because “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”, as Jefferson said? It could be more relevant now than you thought.

This week the NYT took it on itself again to be the teller of all things and frame the political debate. But they framed it using the Methodist Church in their cross hairs. Why this is a central issue at all is because of a prominent retired Methodist pastor who performed a same-sex wedding for his son in NY, back in October 2012. Now the Times zeros in on him.

He happens to be the former Dean of Yale and Drew Universities, and presently professor emeritus of theological ethics at Yale. So they found a pastor with plenty of credentials and bona-fides to press the issue of same-sex marriage. That is what this is about, not just allowing same-sex marriage but having it approved by clergy and institutions of the church.

For long the general conference of the Methodist Church did not permit pastors to perform such weddings. They still don’t. But that did not stop this activist, academic, pastor from acting on his own. It gets worse though, because of his explanations. He said he wanted to perform the wedding because it is his son, and he said he had no intention of acting in civil disobedience by doing it. And he said that when there is a rule that is not right, and you cannot change it, then you break it. All this rationale flowed from him as his reasoning for doing it. Then there was the quiet reprimand he received which asked him to apologize and promise not to perform them again. He rebuffed that offer. Now he is in clear defiance.

The problem is that all those reasons don’t jive. He was not doing it for civil disobedience, then pretty much admits he was. As well as saying if you don’t like the rule then you break it.(is that what we are taught) I can’t imagine this flying in either Yale or Drew for professors underneath him. Does he tell them to ignore what rules they don’t like? No, of course not. But for him this is his reasoning. Defy the authority of the church which ordains him as a minister.

As bad as that is, I can’t say that the UM Church position and reaction was much better. Though they gave him the opportunity to say he would not do it again and he wouldn’t. But he is not doing it for civil disobedience? Oh really! That means he is not in compliance with that rule and who knows what other rules he cares to take issue with? Must be this is what theological ethics teaches?

So anyone can see this is not just about gay-marriage etc. It is about a whole lot more.
referrence article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/nyregion/caught-in-methodisms-split-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

These are pertinent excerpts from the piece.
Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.
“I was inspired,” Dr. Ogletree said. “I actually wasn’t thinking of this as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”
In late January, Mr. Paige and Dr. Ogletree, accuser and accused, met face-to-face in an effort to resolve the dispute without a church trial. Mr. Paige, who declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings, asked that Dr. Ogletree apologize and promise never to perform such a ceremony again. He refused.
“I said, this is an unjust law,” he recalled telling Mr. Paige.

He siad he did it in response to his son, but refusses to say he would not do it again? And he claimed he wasn’t thinking of civil disobedience when doing it, but that is exactly how he rationalizes it.  Are all those reasons hard to accept?

“Dearly beloveds, we are gathered here together to join the church to same-sex marriage. Any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.”

Cuomo seeks to lift late-term abortion restrictions

NY Governor Cuomo wants to do all he can to restrict the rights of gun owners in his empirical state, though he wants to expand the right of women to kill their babies.

 

In my mind’s eye, I think therefore I am. 

And he is willing to rewrite laws in order to expand killing babies, as something worthy of defending and preserving — sort of like what he is supposed to be sworn to do for the Constitution. He apparently is sworn to protect killing babies.

On his other hand, Cuomo is out for every restriction and ban he can get to infringe on the second amendment rights of people. Can’t get enough of that, fast enough.

Here is NYT covering his latest abortion “protection” maneuvers. (excerpts)

“ALBANY — Bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is putting the finishing touches on legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.

New York legalized abortion in 1970, three years before it was legalized nationally by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Cuomo’s proposal would update the state law so that it could stand alone if the broader federal standard set by Roe were to be undone.

“Why are we doing this? The Supreme Court could change,” said a senior Cuomo administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the governor had not formally introduced his proposal.

But opponents of abortion rights, already upset at the high rate of abortions in New York State, worry that rewriting the abortion law would encourage an even greater number of abortions. For example, they suggest that the provision to allow abortions late in a woman’s pregnancy for health reasons could be used as a loophole to allow unchecked late-term abortions.

I am hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation that is less needed or more harmful than this one,” the archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, wrote in a letter to Mr. Cuomo last month. Referring to Albany lawmakers in a subsequent column, he added, “It’s as though, in their minds, our state motto, ‘Excelsior’ (‘Ever Upward’), applies to the abortion rate.”

National abortion rights groups have sought for years to persuade state legislatures to adopt laws guaranteeing abortion rights as a backup to Roe. But they have had limited success: Only seven states have such measures in place, including California, Connecticut and Maryland; the most recent state to adopt such a law is Hawaii, which did so in 2006.  “

Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/nyregion/cuomo-bucks-tide-with-bill-to-lift-abortion-limits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Swampland @ Time.com explains:

New York is one of the latter, with few abortion restrictions and greater access to the procedure than nearly any other state. Gov. Andrew Cuomo reportedly wants to widen access even further and has proposed rewriting a state law that now limits abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy to women whose lives are in danger. Cuomo’s proposal, as reported by the New York Times, would also allow abortions after 24 weeks to protect a woman’s health. According to the New York Times, Cuomo wants to ensure wide access to abortion in New York state is on the books in case the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/19/what-andrew-cuomos-abortion-proposal-says-about-access-in-2013/#ixzz2PWPVco2w

So he is willing to go to lengths, and prepare for any eventuality to “protect” abortion, just in case killing babies falls out of favor with SCOTUS. And he wants to make sure that late-term abortion is protected, even expanded. This is the reasoning of a Liberal mind. Preserving Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness apparently means protecting killing babies. Yea, and that is worth preserving. Enumerated rights, not so much.

Protest looming

Filmmaker asks bishop to excommunicate Cuomo

WND – A faithful Catholic [Jason Jones] who is a human-rights activist and filmmaker has written a letter to the Catholic bishop in Albany, N.Y., asking him to excommunicate Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his support for abortion, which conflicts with church law.

The issue of pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic has arisen several times lately, including when both Vice President Joseph Biden and U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., accepted Catholic communion during their visit to the Vatican for the installation of Pope Francis.

From his letter:

Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese. The New York Times article notes that Cuomo is “bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion,” balancing the fight with “legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions….” Through his bully pulpit, Governor Cuomo is spreading a falsehood every bit as toxic as the racism once shouted through bullhorns in 1962 New Orleans.

And in doing so, Cuomo is positioning himself to promote these ideas across the nation. The Washington Post calls Cuomo’s legislation a move with “big implications for Cuomo’s political future” when considered “in the context of his potential presidential ambitions.” In other words, a self-proclaimed Catholic in your diocese stands on the verge of becoming a national champion of policies utterly incompatible with Christian values. And you, Bishop Hubbard, are in the happy position of being able to do something about it.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#DhiGJTyxvw8QyyPr.99

But he can’t get enough of grabbing gun rights. Those rights need to be squelched, restricted, stomped on, and undone if possible. Just don’ try to restrict late-term abortions.

The right to Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Nah, but what Americans want is an unalienable right to abortion — that’s what they care about.

H/T to Pepp for the information, WND.

Related:
    https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/ny-cuomo-and-gun-con-trol/

    https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/cuomos-gun-snitch-program-under-fire/

NY, Cuomo and Gun Con-trol

March 25, 2013 4:00 A.M.

Cuomo’s Shameful SAFE Act

Rushed law is bad law, even when it’s “for the children.”

By Charles C. W. Cooke — NRO

All things being equal, New York State’s infamous new gun laws will go down in history as a prime example of the folly of hysterical calls to action; and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who led the chase for the measures, will join them in disgrace. After 20 children were killed in Newtown, Conn., last December, progressives saw a golden opportunity to reverse the liberalizing tide of recent firearms law and leverage the national outrage in favor of long-desired gun-control codes. Freed by his reelection, the president declared, in an increasingly tiresome formulation, “Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love.” In Albany, it appears that the governor took him literally.

Legislation cast in the wake of tragedy invariably carries with it the stench of the mob, and when it’s contrived in haste to protect “the children,” this is doubly so. Parliaments and institutions might protect us from the sight of angry, rash, pitchfork-wielding villagers in search of blood, but, however sanitized our politics have become, the impulse of rabble-rousing politicos is the same: Something must be done, it must be done right this second, and all naysayers are on the side of the monster. Wise men understand this, and they act to cool passions. Andrew Cuomo, we have learned in recent months, is not a wise man. His signature now adorns a law that has proven unworkable from start to finish. Next time we are told that we cannot wait for democracy or reflection to soothe passions, we might remember the course that New York has taken.

In Newtown’s aftermath, reacting became synonymous with fixing the problem; expressing support for change was treated as if it were the same thing as preventing tragedy; and those who urged patience or reason were seen as siding with the devil — or, worse, the Second Amendment. These tendencies were widespread, but Cuomo’s rhetoric stood out in particular, ranging as it quickly did into the extreme. So grave was the new threat, Cuomo warned, that New York State should consider “confiscation” of “assault weapons,” or, if that was too drastic, it should enforce “mandatory sales to the state.” There had been, we were told, a “sea change” in America. From now on, everything would be different.

SHOUTING his way through his State of the State speech on January 9, 2013, the governor outlined his thinking. “Guns impose huge economic costs, as well as [a cost in] lives,” he bellowed. “Fear of gun violence invades neighborhoods, causing disruptions in the normal rhythms of life, work, and school. That threat depresses property values and puts a drag on economic development.” This being so, and legislation being inescapable, there would be time for neither public input nor committee hearings. In a startling move, Cuomo issued a “Message of Necessity,” using a provision in the state’s constitution designed to permit expedited state action in a case of emergency. This gave Cuomo the power to suspend the usual democratic rules and charge forward.

He couldn’t allow public debate, he argued, lest it “cause a rush on the market of people who wanted to buy assault weapons.” He couldn’t allow the usual three-day waiting period between a bill’s being introduced and a vote’s being held, in case legislators asked difficult questions or tried to stall the measure. In a move that would have made Nancy Pelosi proud, Cuomo allotted state lawmakers mere minutes to read the bill before voting on it. Indeed, so aggressive were Cuomo’s tactics that the Albany Times Union, which was supportive of the basic thrust of the legislation, editorialized that he behaved like a man possessed of “a truncated view of the legislative process and a cynical view of representative government.” The governor disagreed: “If there is an issue that fits the definition of necessity,” Cuomo shot back, “I believe it’s gun violence.”

See complete in-depth article at NRO
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343805/cuomo-s-shameful-safe-act-charles-c-w-cooke?pg=1

The empirical governor sounds a lot like Barack Obama blaming the sequester for everything from his TSA and firefighter threats to airport delays and White House tour cuts, and then falsely blaming Republicans. Birds of the feather. Just throw it all in there.

Anyone willing to suspend Constitutional government for his agenda — or hold it hostage in Obama’s case — and incite panic amongst the people, is willing to say just about anything to defend it. (as we see from Obama)

Oh, he says nothing about the fears he caused by enacting the legislation and the process he employed to do it. That is the fear of tyrannical government that really disturbs people. That is the threat of deceitful, scheming, tyranny at its worst. Not to mention all the shouting he did along the way. Different indeed!

The fallout of his political maneuvering?

(NRO)Before the massacre at Newtown, Cuomo had an approval rating of 74–18. After he pushed the bill, it dropped to 59–28, still high but a dramatic drop. Among Republicans in the state, he moved from 68–18 to 44–43. Cuomo “was afraid of the public rising up — and the public has risen up,” New York Conservative-party chairman Mike Long says. “There are 52 counties that have introduced resolutions calling for repeal. There are 40 counties that have passed resolutions. Three weeks ago, citizens held the largest rally that ever took place in Albany: over 5,000 people.” By the time people took to the streets, a petition urging Cuomo to revisit the law had collected 83,000 signatures.

But who really cares about Cuomo’s political survival when he took a Samurai Sword to the 2nd amendment, the state constitution, and the bill of rights? How it is legislators could go along with his machinations is beyond reason. Are they really telling people that, like legislators in the federal District of Corruption, there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it? “By George”, I think they have!

I guess it is just too bad for the subjects of his Empirical State.
 photo Cuomo-Quote_zpsd8812bf4.jpg

So why does Obama need 1.6 billion hollow-point bullets? – Safety?

As it turns out, those people who “cling to their guns” are not so wacky after all. I’d vouch for their sanity over an out of control government any day. Interesting how both Cuomo and Obama fancy themselves as a model to others. And neither can ever be shamed out of office. We saw the same scenario with Clintons and it has only gotten (much)worse since.

It’s time we get familiar with the truth, so we know how it all went down.

Thanks to twg2a PitBull

THE WAKING GIANT

Never letting a good crisis go to waste, New York passed the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation in response to the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Not only are semiautomatic rifles such as the popular AR-15 banned, but citizens who own handguns are limited to only seven bullets.

These law-abiding, gun owning Citizens have had enough!

“JUST TELL US NOW WHAT THE PENALTIES ARE GOING TO BE WHEN WE DON’T COMPLY!!”

View original post