I am sure this will infuriate a LOT of people. But when you look at the way things went down, it proves in today's modern world, "second amendment remedies" are not needed to take down a tyrannical government.
The 2nd amendment reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In the last 18 days, we saw that a well regulated militia is NOT necessary to secure a free state. It has proved the reasoning behind the second amendment to not be needed, because we live in a different world now.
What we have seen happen is that information, not guns, is the ultimate weapon against an unfair or tyrannical government, and non democratic government's are fully aware of this. In Iran, you do not hear about a crackdown on weapons, you hear about a crackdown on the spread of information and communication.
The internet has become the most powerful tool in the world, capable of anything.
With the ability to instantly spread information to everyone in the entire world, guns and force are powerless.
If we ever faced a situation anything like what we just saw happen in Egypt, we could accomplish the same thing, without a single shot being fired.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Bobby V dessert Grab
2 weeks ago my friend sent me an email. Bobby Valentine would be doing a fundraiser in Ridgefield, at my regular bar, as a bartender. Cool!
So, time goes by, and then the day comes yesterday.
I went over to the bar, and talked with the owners, who I know, and they said to get there early because it was going to be packed.
When work ended, I ran home, got my mets hat, a sharpie, my camera, and of course, my wife.
We head out to the bar, and by the time we get there (early, 6pm) the bar stools were all taken, but we got the best table in the place. Time goes by and Bobby is walking around, serving some drinks and talking to people.
I decided to wait until after we ate to try to talk and meet him. Big mistake.
By around 730 when we had finished eating, the place was packed… People kept trying to use half of our table, but then my friend showed up and covered the rest of the table.
We had a few drinks, and then I convinced our waiter to get Bobby to come over! He did his job, and received a tip for it.
Finally, we got to meet with Bobby V. I shook his hand, he signed the hat, but then a VERY odd exchange happened.
I told him that I really enjoyed his documentary about his time in Japan. He responded with “you guys look like you are MTV age, have you heard of……..” We do? I am almost 30! MTV? Anyway, I said to him “well, not really anymore, MTV isn’t the same as it used to be.” Not a big deal, and we kept talking for a bit.
Then, out of nowhere, he reached over, grabbed a piece of our dessert, dunked it in Ash’s ice cream, took a bite……. then asked if he could have some!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
I brushed it off as nothing, but on the inside I was dying to pull a Larry David. “Yes, you can have some, but you should have asked first, and then took some.” I wanted to say that SOOOO bad.
I still can’t believe he did that.
Anyway, it was a fantastic time, but the dessert grab will be the thing I remember the most.
So, time goes by, and then the day comes yesterday.
I went over to the bar, and talked with the owners, who I know, and they said to get there early because it was going to be packed.
When work ended, I ran home, got my mets hat, a sharpie, my camera, and of course, my wife.
We head out to the bar, and by the time we get there (early, 6pm) the bar stools were all taken, but we got the best table in the place. Time goes by and Bobby is walking around, serving some drinks and talking to people.
I decided to wait until after we ate to try to talk and meet him. Big mistake.
By around 730 when we had finished eating, the place was packed… People kept trying to use half of our table, but then my friend showed up and covered the rest of the table.
We had a few drinks, and then I convinced our waiter to get Bobby to come over! He did his job, and received a tip for it.
Finally, we got to meet with Bobby V. I shook his hand, he signed the hat, but then a VERY odd exchange happened.
I told him that I really enjoyed his documentary about his time in Japan. He responded with “you guys look like you are MTV age, have you heard of……..” We do? I am almost 30! MTV? Anyway, I said to him “well, not really anymore, MTV isn’t the same as it used to be.” Not a big deal, and we kept talking for a bit.
Then, out of nowhere, he reached over, grabbed a piece of our dessert, dunked it in Ash’s ice cream, took a bite……. then asked if he could have some!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
I brushed it off as nothing, but on the inside I was dying to pull a Larry David. “Yes, you can have some, but you should have asked first, and then took some.” I wanted to say that SOOOO bad.
I still can’t believe he did that.
Anyway, it was a fantastic time, but the dessert grab will be the thing I remember the most.
We need stricter gun laws. This PROVES it 100%
Here it is. Exactly what people who don't like guns have been saying, and exactly what pro-gun people deny deny deny.
This is exactly why we need stricter gun laws.
________________________________
How difficult is it for criminals, the mentally ill, and drug abusers to buy guns in Arizona?
We sent undercover investigators with hidden cameras to find out, and the answer is: not difficult at all. Just 15 days after the horrible tragedy in Tucson, our investigators found that people who may be prohibited by federal law from purchasing guns can nevertheless buy them as easily as a hamburger with fries at the local McDonald's.
The investigators visited a Phoenix gun show as a follow-up to a 2009 undercover investigation we conducted at gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada. In that investigation, we found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns - no questions asked.
The investigation sought to answer two simple questions:
First, how easy is it to buy a gun without a background check?
It's easy. At the gun show, an investigator bought - with no background check - a Glock 19 with an extended magazine, similar to the gun Jared Loughner allegedly used to kill six and wound 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Unfortunately, under current federal laws, that sale was legal.
The second question we ask was would private sellers sell guns to people who said they probably couldn't pass a background check?
Again, the answer was yes. An investigator bought two handguns from two different private sellers, even after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check.
________________________________
Now, you are probably saying to yourself... this is bullshit, some stupid liberal setup job, right?
WRONG.
The investigation was conducted by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
But article is probably some liberal making up most of it.
WRONG.
The article is written, with many more details, by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
But who believes it? There isn't a video
WRONG.
The video is attached at the top of the article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/undercover-at-an-arizona_b_81638 1.html
Tell me again we don't need stricter gun laws.....
This is exactly why we need stricter gun laws.
________________________________
How difficult is it for criminals, the mentally ill, and drug abusers to buy guns in Arizona?
We sent undercover investigators with hidden cameras to find out, and the answer is: not difficult at all. Just 15 days after the horrible tragedy in Tucson, our investigators found that people who may be prohibited by federal law from purchasing guns can nevertheless buy them as easily as a hamburger with fries at the local McDonald's.
The investigators visited a Phoenix gun show as a follow-up to a 2009 undercover investigation we conducted at gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada. In that investigation, we found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns - no questions asked.
The investigation sought to answer two simple questions:
First, how easy is it to buy a gun without a background check?
It's easy. At the gun show, an investigator bought - with no background check - a Glock 19 with an extended magazine, similar to the gun Jared Loughner allegedly used to kill six and wound 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Unfortunately, under current federal laws, that sale was legal.
The second question we ask was would private sellers sell guns to people who said they probably couldn't pass a background check?
Again, the answer was yes. An investigator bought two handguns from two different private sellers, even after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check.
________________________________
Now, you are probably saying to yourself... this is bullshit, some stupid liberal setup job, right?
WRONG.
The investigation was conducted by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
But article is probably some liberal making up most of it.
WRONG.
The article is written, with many more details, by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
But who believes it? There isn't a video
WRONG.
The video is attached at the top of the article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/undercover-at-an-arizona_b_81638 1.html
Tell me again we don't need stricter gun laws.....
Friday, January 28, 2011
President Obama. I like you, but you are as dumb as rocks on this specific topic
As usual, anytime Obama takes questions from the internet, 1 question trumps all others.... by a lot.
Yesterday, Obama did Youtube Q&A. 77,551 questions were submitted and then voted on which should be asked.
Out of the top 100 vote getters.......... ALL, I repeat, ALL were about marijuana and the war on drugs. (and 198 of top 200)
You can see proof of that here...
http://blog.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ask-Obama-1-50-TN.gif
http://blog.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ask-Obama-51-101-TN.gif
So, since the top 100 questions were all about the same thing, for some reason, he got asked only 1 question on the topic... and true to form of almost every single well-known politician, they are dumb as rocks when talking about it....
here is a link to the audio clip
http://stash.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-responds-to-YouTube-Drug-War-Que stion-LoQ.mp3
An ex-police office, who spent years on the front lines of the drug war got to ask the question..
The question posed to the president specifically asked him whether all drugs should be legalized and regulated, "thereby doing away with the violent criminal market as well as a major source of funding for international terrorism."
"I am not in favor of legalization," Obama said in response. But he said he thinks Americans should look at drugs more as a public health problem than a legal issue.
"When you think about other damaging activities in our society -- smoking, drunk driving, making sure you're wearing seat belts -- you know, typically we've made huge strides over the last 20, 30 years by changing people's attitudes," he said. "On drugs, I think that a lot of times we have been so focused on arrests, incarceration, interdiction that we don't spend as much time thinking about how do we shrink demand."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-drugs-20110128,0,5921264.story
SHRINK DEMAND????
Mr. President.... in the exact same way that people did not stop drinking alcohol during prohibition... people will NEVER stop smoking marijuana. It has been used since the dawn of time, and will be used forever more.
You can let criminals control that market or you can do the sensible thing and begin regulating it.
Yesterday, Obama did Youtube Q&A. 77,551 questions were submitted and then voted on which should be asked.
Out of the top 100 vote getters.......... ALL, I repeat, ALL were about marijuana and the war on drugs. (and 198 of top 200)
You can see proof of that here...
http://blog.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ask-Obama-1-50-TN.gif
http://blog.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ask-Obama-51-101-TN.gif
So, since the top 100 questions were all about the same thing, for some reason, he got asked only 1 question on the topic... and true to form of almost every single well-known politician, they are dumb as rocks when talking about it....
here is a link to the audio clip
http://stash.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-responds-to-YouTube-Drug-War-Que stion-LoQ.mp3
An ex-police office, who spent years on the front lines of the drug war got to ask the question..
The question posed to the president specifically asked him whether all drugs should be legalized and regulated, "thereby doing away with the violent criminal market as well as a major source of funding for international terrorism."
"I am not in favor of legalization," Obama said in response. But he said he thinks Americans should look at drugs more as a public health problem than a legal issue.
"When you think about other damaging activities in our society -- smoking, drunk driving, making sure you're wearing seat belts -- you know, typically we've made huge strides over the last 20, 30 years by changing people's attitudes," he said. "On drugs, I think that a lot of times we have been so focused on arrests, incarceration, interdiction that we don't spend as much time thinking about how do we shrink demand."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-drugs-20110128,0,5921264.story
SHRINK DEMAND????
Mr. President.... in the exact same way that people did not stop drinking alcohol during prohibition... people will NEVER stop smoking marijuana. It has been used since the dawn of time, and will be used forever more.
You can let criminals control that market or you can do the sensible thing and begin regulating it.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Michael announces he is NOT running for Senate in 2012
Some of you may not know, but I have made it known since 2008 that I would do all I could, if not run for senate myself, to defeat Joe Lieberman in 2012.
Well, today, finally, Joe has decided to sit down. Joe Lieberman will not be running for reelection in 2012.
Because of the massive financial hit I took during the recession, having not yet fully recovered (but well on my way) Joe deciding not to run.... and to spend more time with my family, I will not be running for Senate in 2012.
I thank you all for your support, and please keep an eye open for me in the coming years.
Well, today, finally, Joe has decided to sit down. Joe Lieberman will not be running for reelection in 2012.
Because of the massive financial hit I took during the recession, having not yet fully recovered (but well on my way) Joe deciding not to run.... and to spend more time with my family, I will not be running for Senate in 2012.
I thank you all for your support, and please keep an eye open for me in the coming years.
Friday, December 17, 2010
With a change of a word, it changes everything.
To prove my point, I have removed the congressman's name, and replaced a few pronouns in the article...
In the 1980s, he was a prominent fundraiser for MUA, The Muslim United Army that raised money for Pakistan and was suspected of running guns into Pakistan, too. Indeed, *****'s rise to prominence within the Pakistani-American movement was predicated upon his support for MUA at a time when New Yorkers were softer on terrorism than they are now. MUA helped win ***** his seat in Congress, making him, in some respects, the terrorists' Man in Washington. ...
In 1982 he told a pro-Pakistan rally in Nassau County, New York, that "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against imperialism in the streets." That same year, a MUA bomb killed eight people in London's Hyde Park. Two years later, the MUA almost succeeded in murdering the British prime minister.
Surely there would be outrage...
Now here is the real story...
In the 1980s, he was a prominent fundraiser for Noraid, the Irish-American organization that raised money for the IRA and was suspected of running guns to Ulster, too. Indeed, King's rise to prominence within the Irish-American movement was predicated upon his support for the IRA at a time when New Yorkers were softer on terrorism than they are now. Noraid helped win King his seat in Congress, making him, in some respects, the terrorists' Man in Washington. ...
In 1982 he told a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, that "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." That same year, an IRA bomb killed eight people in London's Hyde Park. Two years later, the IRA almost succeeded in murdering the British prime minister.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/17/peter_king_terrorism/inde x.html
_______________________
Is there a difference in the two stories?
Both are about a man supporting terrorists fighting against a countries government.
I think they are exactly the same...
In the 1980s, he was a prominent fundraiser for MUA, The Muslim United Army that raised money for Pakistan and was suspected of running guns into Pakistan, too. Indeed, *****'s rise to prominence within the Pakistani-American movement was predicated upon his support for MUA at a time when New Yorkers were softer on terrorism than they are now. MUA helped win ***** his seat in Congress, making him, in some respects, the terrorists' Man in Washington. ...
In 1982 he told a pro-Pakistan rally in Nassau County, New York, that "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against imperialism in the streets." That same year, a MUA bomb killed eight people in London's Hyde Park. Two years later, the MUA almost succeeded in murdering the British prime minister.
Surely there would be outrage...
Now here is the real story...
In the 1980s, he was a prominent fundraiser for Noraid, the Irish-American organization that raised money for the IRA and was suspected of running guns to Ulster, too. Indeed, King's rise to prominence within the Irish-American movement was predicated upon his support for the IRA at a time when New Yorkers were softer on terrorism than they are now. Noraid helped win King his seat in Congress, making him, in some respects, the terrorists' Man in Washington. ...
In 1982 he told a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, that "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." That same year, an IRA bomb killed eight people in London's Hyde Park. Two years later, the IRA almost succeeded in murdering the British prime minister.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/17/peter_king_terrorism/inde x.html
_______________________
Is there a difference in the two stories?
Both are about a man supporting terrorists fighting against a countries government.
I think they are exactly the same...
Friday, November 5, 2010
I am absolutely disgusted with all who reported or believed the Obama "India Trip" story
Seriously, anyone who believed this crap is full of BLIND HATE.
First of all, how dare Rush, Hannity, Bachmann, and anyone else inside the united States be willing to "report" this story with fact checking, or at least trying to find a RELIABLE source is a complete douche, and should be banned from journalism.
It is despicable to report anything about or government without, say, a source from the government at the very least.
Secondly, again, anyone who believes the President (ANY president) would take a large chunk of his entire navy, have a kilometer long tunnel be built in 1 hour by the military, and spend more on a weekend trip per day then we spend for an entire war, is full of UNABASHED, blind hate.
Thirdly, WHO THE HELL CARES??? So long as the President of the United States has full and similar protection as previous presidents who took similar trips, it doesn't matter what it costs, it is OUR PRESIDENT.
Hating the President of the United States of America so much to just believe anything you hear, no matter how outrageous it is, is not a problem with Obama, it is a problem with YOU.
You need to check your brains, start using some reasoning and that common sense you all speak so highly of, and realize it is not healthy or sane to think like this.
/end rant.
First of all, how dare Rush, Hannity, Bachmann, and anyone else inside the united States be willing to "report" this story with fact checking, or at least trying to find a RELIABLE source is a complete douche, and should be banned from journalism.
It is despicable to report anything about or government without, say, a source from the government at the very least.
Secondly, again, anyone who believes the President (ANY president) would take a large chunk of his entire navy, have a kilometer long tunnel be built in 1 hour by the military, and spend more on a weekend trip per day then we spend for an entire war, is full of UNABASHED, blind hate.
Thirdly, WHO THE HELL CARES??? So long as the President of the United States has full and similar protection as previous presidents who took similar trips, it doesn't matter what it costs, it is OUR PRESIDENT.
Hating the President of the United States of America so much to just believe anything you hear, no matter how outrageous it is, is not a problem with Obama, it is a problem with YOU.
You need to check your brains, start using some reasoning and that common sense you all speak so highly of, and realize it is not healthy or sane to think like this.
/end rant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)