Releasing Names Of Gun Permit Holders Endangers Public, says New York County Clerk
Americans have a new hero today. His name is Dennis Sant. He is a man who stood up and said, no, this is not right.
A New York county clerk justified his refusal to release the names and addresses of handgun permit holders to the same newspaper who published the names of other gun owners in another country.
He said, "it would give stalkers and thieves a convenient roadmap to target potential victims -- and determine whether they have a gun."
"This certainly puts my public in danger," Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said Thursday following a news conference in which he was backed by the county executive and other elected officials.
The Journal News, which serves New York City's northern suburbs, created citizen outrage last month when it published clickable online maps with the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties.
The Journal News does not care if a citizen's safety becomes jeopardized, And it works either way, the Journal News handed robbers and burglars a detailed map on which houses they could hit and find guns, or the houses of those now known to be defenseless.
When the newspaper requested the same information from Putnam, Dennis Sant initially said the county needed more time to fulfill the request.
Dennis Sant balked entirely this week, saying the law gives him the prerogative to refuse to release public information if it endangers the public.
Judges and police officers could be targeted by the people they put behind bars, he said. People with orders of protection have expressed concern to him about would-be attackers finding them through the database.
And yes, there are women who are thought to be armed so to protect themselves and their children. If this data is released, it may expose the truth that they may be unarmed to violent former husbands and boyfriends who would love to find out such information so that they could go and do harm upon those women and children.
Yes, Dennis Sant has become one of my heroes!
While anyone can come into his office and file the necessary paperwork to request information on individual permits, Sant said the difference is that the Journal News plans to publish the information in a way that makes it accessible to everyone, instantaneously.
"First of all, it tells criminals who doesn't have a gun," he said. "It gives a burglar or it gives a thief a map."
The Journal News' database and accompanying story, "The Gun Owner Next Door," was supposedly published as part of the newspaper's coverage following the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.
But that doesn't pass the sniff test, it smells too fishy. After all, they are a paper known to have an anti-gun agenda. And honestly, if they are so concerned about public safety - why have they never listed known Child Molesters and Convicted Rapists? Because that doesn't fit their agenda!
Some readers say the paper unfairly stigmatized gun owners, branding them in the same way as if they were outlaws and law violators or some sort of sex offenders that the community needed to be warned about.
The newspaper says it received threats and has posted armed guards at its offices.
I'm hoping they post armed guards at their homes as well.
Maybe those who work for the Journal News now have to hire guards to escort their children to school or their families to work or the market? Maybe the Journal News employees who thought it was OK to target law abiding citizens has to now protect their homes from vandals or arsonists? Maybe they now understand how it is to live in harms way?
Journal News Publisher Janet Hasson did not respond to several requests for comment Thursday but has issued statements previously standing behind the newspaper's project and maintaining residents have a right to see such public information.
Diane Kennedy, president of the New York News Publishers Association, said she reached out to Hasson offering support. Imagine that!
Janet Hasson puts folks in the community in danger, and Diane Kennedy who is the president of the New York News Publishers Association says she is reaching out to Hasson to offer her support.
She said editors may debate whether the Journal News should have published the database, but they fully backed the newspaper's right to access public records under New York's Freedom of Information Law. If the issue went to court, she said, member newspapers would file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Journal News.
"It's really clear cut," Kennedy said. "The existing law doesn't have exemptions in it. It says this information is subject to FOIL."
No surprise to anyone, another newspaper sides with Hasson and Kennedy, Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union in Albany, N.Y., said : "There is a broad consensus that the kind of resistance to the FOIL application that we're seeing in Putnam County is intolerable."
My friends, conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms, principles and rules, understanding what is legal may not be what is right.
I guess this is just more proof that those without conscience will support others of the same ilk.
And yes, newspapers wonder why they are dieing across the nation in huge numbers. With their circulation is at an all time low, most Americans see newspapers as out of touch or arrogant.
The Journal News proves they are definitely out of touch with the desires of their community. And yes, all their community wants from a newspaper is to be informed - not be an informer for criminals and other crazies who would do harm simply because they now have an address they didn't have before.
People are fed up with newspapers forcing their leftist ideology on their customers. People do not see newspapers as a guardian of freedom fighting for the people, but instead as an abuser who is in fact fighting against the best interest of the people.
The denial of similar information to The Wall Street Journal by New York City's police commissioner led to a case that in 1981 was decided in favor of the newspaper.
But Dennis Sant says that times have changed.
"The technology today is so different," he said. "I'm looking forward to the opportunity of bringing to the magistrates that this is not 30 years ago."
Yes, Dennis Sant is a real American hero for taking a stand against what is not right. He is a hero for standing up to a big money politically connected newspaper. He is a hero for doing what is right for his county!
FBI: More Killed With Hammers, Clubs Than With Rifles
January 3rd, 2013
Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14th, Democrats are making reinstatement of the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" a major priority for the 113th Congress.
This is ddespite factsthat show relatively few murders are committed with rifles such as the ones that would be banned.
From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles of any sort, reports Breitbart.
There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records.
In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.
“While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.”
Yet, Democrats want to go after rifles - especially black rifles they term assault rifles.
Technically, an assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or 3 round burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
Assault rifle should not to be confused with assault weapons. Assault rifles are the standard military service rifles in most modern militaries around the world. The term, assault weapons, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle.
They are not the same because the military style assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, while the assault weapon only cosmetically looks like an assault rifle.
Think of it like this President Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States and a great leader.
There are many reasons he was a great leader, but mostly because he lifted the nation's spirit and instilled pride in Americans. Comparing President Reagan to President Obama is like comparing a real leader to a wannabe who only looks the part.
One writer wrote about the 1994 gun ban this way, "Supporters of the assault weapons ban use emotion to convince the public that there are many rapid-fire weapons easily accessible to dangerous persons who use them frequently to kill and wound large numbers of people. Factual evidence does not support this claim."
"Those who oppose this ban should promote greater exposure for people who use firearms of all kinds for self-defense. Everyone understands and can empathize with the person who used a firearm, especially a semi- automatic military gun, to defend against looters during riots, hurricanes, and other disasters, or to defend one's home against invasion by criminals."
This all holds true today. Like back in 1195, studies today reveal similar findings in that only a small number of crimes involve the use of weapons classified as "assault weapons."
But again, the problem is being sidestepped as no one is focusing on the root cause - and instead are focused only the effect.
The cause is violent movies like the Dark Knight Rises which implanted the idea of a mass murder in a theater in the mind of the Aurora Colorado killer. He saw it done in that movie and decided to recreate it.
The murderer in Newtown Connecticut, was known to have spend an enormous amount of time playing ultra-violent video games. And yes, I can't help but wonder about the connection there?
If Democrats want something to ban, go after the root cause of the problem - and ban extremely violent movies and video games that are the inspiration for such acts of horror.
THIRD SHOT! Unions look for benefits from Obama re-election
Going into his second term, President Obama may find himself more beholden than ever to America's labor unions, even as their membership continues to decline -- lately, to just 11.8 percent of the workforce.
The unions, as in 2008, contributed heavily in manpower and money to Obama's election this year. The president, in return, has made a point of supporting them -- like with his post-election visit to the Daimler Diesel Plant in Dearborn, Mich., on Dec. 10.
"You only have to look to Michigan where workers were instrumental in reviving the auto industry to see how unions have helped build not just a stronger middle class but a stronger America," Obama said.
But Obama could be going against the legislative tide. The president's dilemma was demonstrated in the fact that a day after that visit, the union stronghold of Michigan became the 24th state to pass a right-to-work law preventing unions from demanding dues from workers.
Hampered in the states by right-to-work momentum -- and in Washington by a divided Congress, and abroad by low-cost competition -- the unions may see limited options on the part of the president to reward them. But they still expect some payback.
"There are things a president can do alone, and we will be expecting that leadership from President Obama," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in the immediate aftermath of Obama's re-election victory.
Trumka may have been referencing the Obama administration's enthusiasm for new federal regulations and executive orders, some of which have benefited unions and penalized non-union employers.
More than 5,700 new regulations have been posted in the last 90 days alone.
Whoever says Unions are for American Workers is dead wrong!
Union leaders like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka have also been exploring other options that address the fundamental realities of globalization that have decimated U.S. manufacturing.
"The way to do it, from a union's perspective, is to raise those workers' pay around the world," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi.
U.S. unions are trying to do just that, laying the groundwork, as Trumka said last year, "to protect workers from Detroit to Juarez and Shanghai to Bogota."
Getting foreign governments and multi-national corporations to agree is, admittedly, a long-term strategy for labor organizers. But as standards of living increase in those third world countries, union organizers hope so too will workers' thirst for greater protections.
The most recent high-profile union fight has involved dockworkers all along the East and Gulf coasts.
They had threatened a strike at 14 ports stretching from Massachusetts to Texas - but a 30-day contract extension agreed to by dockworkers, shippers and port operators last Friday temporarily averted the shut-down.
Mediators have said the major sticking point -- over fees paid to longshoremen based upon the weight of each individual container -- has largely been resolved. But they would not describe how it was resolved, as negotiations continue.
Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as pollutant in Virginia
Virginia officials scored a key victory Thursday in their battle with the Environmental Protection Agency over what EPA critics describe as a land takeover.
U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady in Alexandria ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate stormwater runoff into a Fairfax County creek as a pollutant.
O'Grady sided with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which challenged EPA's stormwater restrictions
"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says the ruling could ultimately save Virginia taxpayers more than $300 million.
The EPA, citing an abundance of stormwater runoff, had proposed a plan that Virginia officials said could cost homeowners and businesses their private property.
The EPA contended that water itself can be regulated as a pollutant if there's too much of it. Imagine that would you. The EPA contends that rain water can be regulated as a pollutant if they feel there is too much of it.
Some would call this one stupid statement, and they'd be right. But also, others would call this a lame ass way of grabbing power - and yes, they'd be right as well.
The EPA says heavy runoff is having a negative impact on Accotink Creek and that it has the regulatory authority to remedy the situation - even though it is not their jurisdiction.
Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, argued what the EPA has proposed is "illegal," and he's not alone in the fight.
As surprising as it may be, Ken Cuccinelli was joined in the lawsuit against the federal agency by the Democrat-controlled Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.
In legal filings, the EPA says that its plan is "in harmony with the broader purposes" of the Clean Water Act, including "reducing the water quality impacts of stormwater."
Federal Judge O'Grady did not agree, saying, "EPA may not regulate something over which it has no statutorily granted power... as a proxy for something over which it is granted power."
He continued, "If the sediment levels in Accotink Creek have become dangerously high, what better way to address the problem than by limiting the amount of sediment permitted in the creek?"
"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.
"EPA was literally treating water itself -- the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect -- as a pollutant," noted Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
"This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement. And it was likely to do more harm than good, as its effectiveness was unproven and it would have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars Fairfax County was already targeting for more effective methods of sediment control."
I'm not going to lie, it is very nice to see the EPA get put in their place. They are a rogue federal agency with way too much authority. The EPA is directly responsible for farmers losing farms, ranchers losing herds, agriculture progress being stifled, and American manufacturing disappearing.
Al Gore Sells His TV Channel To Radical Muslim Anti-American Al-Jazeera
Well, Glenn Beck tried to buy it but Al Gore supposedly said no because Beck is a Conservative.
And you know Al Gore? He was once the Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away as they say.
He's also the guy who pulled one of the biggest scams on the American people - and in fact, some say the entire world with his Global Warming hoax.
If you don't remember that, how about the fact that he contested the 2000 Presidential Election when he loss to George W.Bush? Yeah that's him!
Mister Leftist, our little Al Gore, the man who would be King if he could - but couldn't get 'er done.
Well, now Al Gore has sold his enemic television channel to a group of radical Muslims who own Al-Jazeera. The same Al-Jazeer who supported our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same guys you proclaimed the 9-11 terrorists as heroes to Muslims everywhere.
Their Pan-Arab news channel has struggled to win space on American cable television. But now, thanks to Al Gore, they have now acquired Current TV - boosting Al-Jazeer's reach nearly ninefold to about 40 million American homes.
With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that co-founder Al Gore couldn't make relevant.
The former vice president confirmed the sale on Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV's mission "to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling."
In other words, Muslim Propaganda!
The Wall Street Journal said that Al-Jazeera "became famous in the U.S. about a decade ago when its Arabic-language outlet aired videos of Usama bin Laden in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks."
The network is based in Qatar, an oil producing country, and is state-funded.
Back in 2006, Al Jazeera talk show host (and former CNN International journalist) Riz Kahn wouldn’t call either Hamas or Hezbollah "terrorist organizations" during an interview. “I’m not one to judge,” Kahn said.
In 2008, the network celebrated the birthday of a released terrorist who had shot and killed one Israeli and then beat to death a 4-year-old Israeli girl.
The network doesn’t call out Arabs for crimes either. In 2011, even liberal Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart criticized the network for ignoring the attack in Egypt on CBS News reporter Lara Logan.
But lefties love Al Jazeera. The network gained a bigger name for itself covering Arab Spring and is also the outlet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “real news” back in 2011.
The acquisition lifts Al-Jazeera's reach beyond a few large U.S. metropolitan areas including New York and Washington, where about 4.7 million homes can now watch Al-Jazeera English.
Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, plans to gradually transform Current into a new channel called Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now and hiring more journalists.
Al-Jazeera spokesman Stan Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English's website is from the U.S.
Al-Jazeera has long struggled to get carriage in the U.S., and the deal suffered an immediate casualty as Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation's second-largest cable TV operator, announced it is dropping Current TV due to the deal.
"Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible," the company said in a statement.
Previous to Al-Jazeera's purchase, Current TV was in 60 million American homes.
In 2010, the network's managing director, Tony Burman, blamed a "very aggressive hostility" from the Bush administration for reluctance among cable and satellite companies to show the network.
Now before you write and ask if I made that up, please don't. I can't help it if jerkweed liberals are still blaming Bush years after he left office. That is a quote from the news article reporting this.
Al-Jazeera is anti-American. Anyone who has doubts should contact Dave Marash, a former "Nightline" reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington. He said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.
Current TV was political talk television with a liberal bent. Among the ultra-leftist who worked there was Al Gore who worked on-air as an analyst during its recent election night coverage.
Former New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Cenk Uygur are currently its lead personalities. Current signed Keith Olbermann to be its top host in 2011 but his tenure lasted less than a year before it ended in bad blood on both sides.
Current has largely been outflanked by ultra-left MSNBC in its effort be a super liberal alternative to the leading cable news network, Fox News Channel.
The sale of Current TV and the taxes paid on that say are another issue that's being talked about. It appears that founder Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, is expected to post $114 million in revenue in 2013, according to research firm SNL Kagan.
Some reports have it that Al Gore was or is right now trying to get out of paying the steep taxes incurred by delaying the sale date. Imagine that.
A liberal not wanting to pay taxes? I thought they love paying taxes.
I guess they only want you to pay taxes, while they try to weasel out of it.
Story by Tom Correa