What Happens When Legislation Is Rushed Through
Jan 19, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
By now most people know what happens when legislation is rushed through because we have the glaring example of Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it and things come to light each day. Hell, Obama said there was nothing in Obamacare to prevent doctors from asking about guns in the home but he must not have read the thing because there is (page 2308). A section dedicated to the rights of gun owners prevents such questions and prevents establishing databases.
The state of New York enacted even tougher gun control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. The legislation was rushed through as New York Governor Cum-o waived requirements (calling it an emergency) so it could pass and be signed quickly. The first problem is that there was no emergency that required waiving the three day legislation requirement (there were no school shooting rampages in New York) and it is obvious this was done for political reasons. Cum-o wanted to get it passed before opposing views could be presented and he wanted to sign it quickly to avoid a rush on gun purchases.
This is all about controlling people and not addressing the issue of criminals using guns illegally to do things that are against the law. Keep in mind that every time someone uses a gun to commit a crime he is already breaking a bunch of laws. The reality is that liberals want to take guns away so they can impose tyranny on the country. Unarmed people are slaves and the Democrat Party is the party of slave owners.
The problem NY faces is that the legislation was rammed through so quickly that there was no exemption on the size of magazines police officers can use. This means that police officers will be in violation of the law.
I am not opposed to that as I do not believe that the police should be allowed to have higher capacity magazines than law abiding citizens. In fact, since we all know that these laws only affect the law abiding, the criminals will be the only ones with higher capacity magazines. This is something that has not escaped the notice of the police in NY:
State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he’s going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, “You can’t give more ammo to the criminals” WABC
This statement is a direct admission that the new law will do NOTHING to prevent criminals from keeping higher capacity magazines. It is an admission that the law will only affect the law abiding. It is an admission that the goal is to disarm the law abiding and an admission that criminals do NOT obey the law.
How many NY police leaders stood with Cum-o and agreed with him? How many are OK with law abiding citizens being shackled while criminals are left untouched? How many realize that the law they want an exemption to will affect people the way they want to avoid?
This law should not be amended unless the amendment is to repeal it. The police in New York should suffer the same fate as those they are supposed to serve. There is no reason for the police to have more ammo than the average citizen when we all know the criminals will always have more and that the police will arrive afterthe crime has been committed.
MOLON LABE
Related Items:
Obama regime does not have time to enforce current law
Will the GOP cave on Second Amendment?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: ammo, exemptions, governor cum-o, gun law, lies, New York, police
We Definitely Need Campaign Reform
Jun 15, 2012 Political
I know that all presidents have done it and I have never liked it so this is not a partisan position but will seem so because Obama happens to be the one abusing things right now. That thing that bothers me is where a president combines an allegedly official visit with a campaign visit so that the taxpayer gets stuck with a portion of the bill.
I am not the only one who thinks this is wrong as Democrats were all against it when George W. Bush did it and Republicans are against it now that Obama is doing it. The difference is, my position does not change based on who is in office.
It is absolutely criminal that taxpayers foot the bill for a portion of a trip designed to raise campaign cash simply because an “official” stop was included.
Since Barack Obama happens to be the current occupant of the White House and since he has campaigned more than the last six presidents combined, it seems fitting to point this rape of the taxpayer out.
Obama attended a swanky fundraiser in New York (and snarled traffic) where he raised millions of dollars. One would think that a campaign that can raise millions of dollars would be able to pay the bill for the trip but part of the bill will be paid for by taxpayers because Obama stopped at the World Trade Center site.
There is no doubt that if Obama did not have two fundraisers in New York he would not have made the trip to the WTC site.
I think that all politicians should be forced to separate fundraising trips and official trips so that they cannot be done at the same time. They need to pay the full cost of their campaign events.
This means all politicians, regardless of party.
It is sickening that taxpayers foot the bill for politicians who rub elbows with wealthy donors. How disingenuous is it for Barack Obama to go to New York and discuss how he is fighting for the middle class at an event that costs more to attend than most people in the middle class make in a year? How many of the middle class were greatly inconvenienced so Obama could attend this fundraiser?
Obama is out of touch. He thinks the private sector is doing fine because the private sector he knows is the one where his well heeled contributors live and where he parties.
The country is not better off now than it was when he took office and his policies have done nothing to get the ship on course. Instead, he points fingers, lies, and spends other people’s money.
This is why it should surprise no one that he is spending taxpayer dollars to campaign.
They all do it because they all like to spend someone else’s money.
Hell, he is so used to spending other people’s money he recently forgot to pay for his meal…
Enough is enough.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: fundraiser, lies, New York, Obama, private sector, reform, taxpayer
Bloomberg Sours On Sugary Drinks
May 31, 2012 Political
Looks like Nanny Bloomberg in New York is at it again. The guy just can’t resist butting into people’s lives because for some reason he thinks it is his duty to decide what people need to be healthy. He has already decided that certain things that are bad for folks can’t be used or served in New York restaurants and now he wants to ban drinks with sugar that are larger than 16 ounces.
That’s right, Nanny Bloomberg wants to make it illegal to serve drinks containing sugar that are larger than 16 ounces in most venues in the city.
Bloomberg has not considered that people might just buy two smaller drinks or that they might just start taking sugary drinks to work instead of buying them. His solution though, for any potential loss of sales is to raise the price of the smaller drinks.
Yeah, that typical liberal response to economics is sure to have more folks buying smaller drinks.
People could always take sugar packets with them and buy unsweetened coffee or tea (hot or iced) and add their own sugar. People could take a 32 ounce container and buy two 16 ounce drinks and combine them. People can find all kinds of ways to avoid this stupidity.
That matters not because Bloomberg is convinced this will curb obesity which has evidently not been affected by his ban on trans fats. If this passes (and it will since the people who decide are appointed by him) what will happen when obesity rates do not fall? Will Nanny require everyone to attend morning exercise sessions? Will he ban motor vehicles so people have to walk? One can only guess how oppressive a tyrant will get.
Bloomberg is infringing on the right of the people to engage in commerce as they see fit. He is preventing people from eating and drinking what they want to eat and drink. If they want to eat and drink unhealthy items it is their business and not his.
Bloomberg is not in favor of a free America and the people who put him back in office have only themselves to blame.
I want to know what Nanny Bloomberg will do if people just decide to stop buying drinks in the city. What will he do if people buy packaged drinks at the grocery store and take them with them to work or when they are out and about.
One would think that a place that is losing people to other states because of the anti freedom policies (like what to eat or drink and oppressive taxes) would try not to tick off even more people.
Then again, we are talking about Bloomberg and he is a moron.
In related news the songs Pour Some Sugar on Me by Def Leppard and Sugar Sugar by the Archies will no longer be allowed to air in New York and the official song of the once great city will now be No Sugar Tonight by The Guess Who.
I find it ironic that the Statue of LIBERTY is located in New York…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: food ban, freedom, nanny bloomberg, New York, sugar, sugary drinks, trans fats
People Vote With Their Feet
May 30, 2012 Political
New York has lost residents whose income amounts to almost 46 BILLION dollars as people vote with their feet to avoid taxes. New York has lost millions (if not billions) in tax revenue because people got tired of forking over their hard earned money to pay for ever increasing social programs and union payoffs.
New York saw a net outflow of about 1.3 million people, about half of whom moved to Florida. Yes, Florida has nicer weather but, more importantly, it has no state income tax and it has no estate or inheritance tax.
New York is not the only state that has seen a decrease in population as other heavily taxed states have lost citizens as well.
Additionally, Florida is not the only state that has seen an inflow of people. The states of Arizona and Texas, both low or no tax states, have seen an increase in residents particularly from California.
People who are able to move from high tax states do so. Those who will not move are either unable because of finances or their jobs or are on the welfare rolls.
From 2000-2010 the states of Texas and Florida have seen a net increase of nearly a million people each, many of whom left their high tax states for tax relief.
Yes, the people have figured that they can’t effect change at the ballot box so they must vote with their feet and move to where they get to keep more of the money they earn. You can only rob people so many times before they decide to pack up and go.
Maryland is seeing this kind of movement as it continues to raise taxes on everything possible. The Democrats in charge, led by Martin O’Moron, think the money belongs to them and that the people should be happy they get to keep some of it.
This will continue to happen until the states change their positions. Look at what Scott Walker is doing in Wisconsin. He brought them to fiscal sanity (and the liberals want to remove him and go back to the losing policies that caused their problems).
We can’t vote with our feet at the national level unless we give up citizenship and that is not an option, at least not for me. The change there must come at the ballot box and we must replace Obama, the liberals and the RINOs.
It is November or never.
Until then, look for Texas and Florida to keep gaining Congressional seats while New York and California continue to lose them.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: california, florida, liberal, migration, New York, Obama, taxes, texas, vote
Another Tax In New York
Aug 26, 2010 Political
It is not exactly a new tax but it is one that has not been enforced in the past. A New York bagel shop franchise has been told by the politicians that it has not been paying its bagel tax. A tax that has not been enforced requires bagel shops to charge a tax for any bagel that it slices or is consumed on its property.
The state sent a tax bill for what it figured the shop owed and then told it to start charging the tax. This new tax has outraged bagel consumers who thought the shop was squeezing customers. The shop had to post signs to explain the tax and what had happened.
I bet a lot of people will get bagels to go from now on.
I am not sure of the law but if the shop is required to charge if it cuts the bagels maybe it could put one of those safety bagel cutters on a counter an let people cut their own. A lot of risk involved with that since people could get hurt and sue.
I think I would offer little containers of cream cheese and sell the bagels uncut to go. This would allow people to protest the tax and still get their bagels.
This is not about the 8 cents it costs per bagel. This is about the continual tax burden placed on people. New York taxes everything it can so much so that people are leaving for other states. If this state (and indeed all states particularly those run by Democrats) could manage their budgets effectively it would not need to keep adding taxes upon taxes to make ends meet.
It boils down to the fact that states (and the federal government) spend more than they receive and they spend much more than they should. They need to cut spending and eliminate all these nuisance taxes.
It comes down to fiscal responsibility.
No matter how you slice it.
Source:
NBC New York
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bagels, fiscal irresponsibility, New York, taxes