Another Reason Liberals Make Me Laugh

Neither side has cornered the market on hypocrisy.  The conservative kind embarrasses me, because that’s my team and I can’t defend it. The liberal variety, on the other hand, makes me laugh — at them, not with them.

Remember the suburban New York newspaper, the Journal News – the paper that printed the names and addresses of area residents with gun permits?  Well, the Journal News got a lot of flak for their anti-gun stunt, a lot of phone calls and emails that the paper found threatening.

So what did the Journal News do in the face of so much criticism?  It hired security guards to protect its offices and its employees.  Security guards … with guns.

Get it?  The journalists at the newspaper believe that guns are bad if they protect you … but they’re good if they protect the people at the Journal News – even though they don’t like guns.

Then there’s President Obama.  After the terrible tragedy at Newtown he was asked if having armed guards in schools was a good idea.

“I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” he said. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

So he’s not keen on guns in schools to protect somebody else’s kids, but perfectly fine with guns in schools protecting his kids — which is exactly how it works since his daughters not only have armed Secret Service agents watching out for their safety … but the school his daughters attend also has armed guards on duty to protect the children.  But that makes sense, I guess, because special kids go to that school.

And finally, we have Al Gore, a textbook liberal who thinks the rich need to pay their “fair share.”  Except for one liberal:  Al Gore.

As you know by now Mr. Gore sold his stake in Current TV to al Jazeera for somewhere between $70 and $100 million.  But he wanted to close the deal by midnight on December 31, 2012 – to avoid the higher tax rates that went into effect on January 1.

As the philosopher Jane Addams so elegantly put it:  “The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself.”

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Reality Based Media

    How is the President even remotely a hypocrite? All Presidents have Secret Service protection for their kids. It’s a completely different situation. As for hypocrisy, Bernie, you wouldn’t have even written this if GWBush was still President. Embarrassed for yourself yet?

  • Bob Hadley

    You’re a petulant petuna! Petulence is one of the last lines of defense against an invasion of an ideologue’s safe little world. You whine that I’m bothering you. But I don’t force you to misread my posts and I don’t force you to react. You ought to learn personal responsibility for your own decisions instead of blaming others.

    The militia act of 1903 established two militias – an organized militia (the National Guard) and an unorganized militia – consisting of all able-bodied, non-conscientious objector adult males under a certain age (I think it’s 45). The unorganized militia is not a WELL-REGULATED militia or even a regulated militia, although it is subject to regulation when called. I don’t recall the act saying anything about the 2nd Amend. or not disarming “the people.” Be so kind as to cut and paste the reference.

    The Founding Fathers did not explain what they wrote. They set forth general principles and requirements. They did not attempt to define or narrow their terms, however.

    But, just to humor you I’ll climb into your little world for a moment. You obviously think the 2nd Amend was intended literally – no more and no less. OK. That means the gov. cannot restrict the right of the people to bare arms – period, end of discussion. The seriously mentally ill and violent felons, heck even 5 year-olds, are part of the people. So the feds cannot restrict their right to bare arms under your reading of the 2nd Amend. And what are “arms”? The Founders didn’t say. You say arm are the implements that an infantry soldier has, but that’s not in the COTUS or even in the Federalist Papers (unless I missed it).

    Lets don’t stop at the 2nd Amend. The 1st Amend. says that the feds cannot abridge our right to free speech or to the right of peaceful assembly, no more and no less – period, end of discussion, right? OK. So I can go into any congressional hearing or any federal court proceeding and say anything I want in any manner I want without interference from federal law. Right?

    I know, you say this is ridiculous. And it certainly is. But this is how you apparently take the COTUS. If you take the COTUS literally, saying that its provisions are clear and not open to interpretaton, then this is your end result: absurdity.

    You need to step outside of your own subjectivity to learn the difference between opinion and statement of fact. I learned that in 7th grade, in a government run school.

    In one of the federalist papers it said that federal court system would by the final arbiter of any disputes. There certainly are legitimate disputes as to what the 2nd Amend. means. That same Federalist Paper (#10?) says that the federal courts are set up to be independent of public sentiment or passions.

    • gray_man

      it’s understandable. if you can’t understand it go get your mommy to explain. millions have no problem understanding it. the deficiency is you.

      • Bob Hadley

        “dude you don’t need to convince me why you will turn your arms in like a little sheep”

        “…millions have no problem understanding it. the deficiency is you.”

        First, when you have to make thnigs up to support your views, it’s past time to reflect on your views. I know it’ll be scary, but i know you can do it. (HINT: I did not say anything about turning in my arms.)

        When you talk about “understanding it” I assume you’re refering to the 2nd Amend. or the entire COTUS. Oh but I do understand it. And many miillions more understand it differently than you. A solid majority of NRA members support common sense laws like universal background checks and limiting magazines to 10 bullets.

        I notice you did not attempt to address any of my points in my previous post. I’ll accept that as a tacit admission that you realize you’re wrong but are too cowardly to admit it.

        • gray_man

          Baaah, go turn your guns in sheep. That’s your bottom line. Sit back and admire yourself, your not really a coward when you turn your guns in. In fact your really a hero, to stand up to all those horrible gun people.

    • gray_man

      dude you don’t need to convince me why you will turn your arms in like a little sheep. Baaa, all the way to the police station. I don’t care. then go home and tell your children why cowardice is not really cowardice, it’s being smart. then live with yourself.

  • Bob Hadley

    You can tell me all day that your interpretation is not an interpretation. You can also tell me all day that 2 + 2 = 5. In both cases, your wind is for naught. Only a fool would believe that the interpretation yuo put forward is an interpretation. It certainly isn’t the word of God.
    BTW, the Federalist Papers advocated ratifying the original COTUS. The 2nd Amend. had not been drafted at the time. And think it was James Madison who said in the federalist papers (I forget which number) that a bill of rights was not necessary to the COTUS.
    And don’t forget a couple of the Fedralist Papers stated the federal courts were to be the final arbiter as to federal disputes.

  • Tim

    Phil, how incredibly wrong you are about everything.

  • Switchlight13

    Hypocrisy: Obama is “skeptical that putting more guns in schools would solve this problem.” ..EXCEPT when it comes to the armed Secret Service and his daughters.

  • Switchlight13

    I’ve wondered why a Mulatto like Obama would emulate his worthless POS father who abandoned his white mother when Obama was just 2 yrs old and died while drunk driving in Africa. Probably so he could squeeze his way into Harvard under the racist Affirmative Action Program. Guess Americans are too dumb to connect the dots.

  • Boehnerific

    When I want a good laugh, I turn on Fox News…

    • Switchlight13

      I turn on MSNBC to get my laughs. I love watching Matthews get that tingle up his leg when he sees his cult leader Obama. Lesbian Rachel Maddow is good for grins and giggles as well.

  • Wheels55

    The entire problem is with politicians, on all sides. Buying votes by spending our tax dollars is the way it goes. No surprise that voters like the government handouts, especially with economic uncertainty. Most Americans these days just don’t have the intestinal fortitude and self-respect to take care of themselves during tough times. This isn’t because we have changed genetically, but because public opinion says it is now OK to hold your hand out.

  • Switchlight13

    Hypocrite and Obama rubber stamp Elizabeth Warren didn’t list herself as a “minority” in the Senate Directory. Guess there’s no “bennies” to be gained by lying about being an Indian as she did to gain access to Harvard. The Left is so despicable.

  • Souvoter

    Hyprocrits are a dime a dozen!!!!!

  • annykat

    This is getting old. Same old crap. They tell us what to do & not do but, they do the opposite. Becoming a nanny state.

  • I Hate Fascists

    So that makes Liberals 3 Conservatives 0. And you said neither side has cornered the market on hypocrisy! By golly I guess that makes you a hypocrite Bernie!

    • Switchlight13

      I hate Communists.

      • gray_man

        I Hate Fascists, isn’t smart enough to know that Fascism comes from the left.

  • Hojo

    Americans, whether well versed politically or not, are looking for leadership, not politics, up to a point. If the Republicans had truly offered up a leader, and not a perceived elite, we would be in the WH.

    Republicans, though, are only looking at the results the Dems have and want to model that, instead of bringing true leadership and a strong moral compass.

    I believe that some of the handout class, do not want to be there and would step out and be productive, given the chance. We need to speak to that more.

    • gray_man

      “I believe that some of the handout class, do not want to be there and would step out and be productive, given the chance.” of course they would except libs enable them to stay where they are. What are their incentives? They make more money on the dole.

      • Switchlight13

        99 weeks of unemployment with the one year extension equals 3 years. Why work? EIC = Pay no taxes yet get a refund. Why work? Reward of welfare, Medicade, WIC, free breakfast/lunches, crazy checks…why not have more illegitimate spawn (future parasites and inmates)?

        • Wheels55

          No one welfare program seems to be enough to keep people unemployed. But add up unemployment benefits with Section 8, child care programs & no income taxes and you have the incentive to not work unless you make at least $60,000.

  • Switchlight13

    Obama and the other corrupt crooked dirt bags in the White House would love to have a unarmed populace left to the tender mercies of the gang bangers, his Chicago homies, MS13 and those who support Obama but hate all that is American. The chickens will, as always, come home to roost..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Ivie/821714719 Charles Ivie

    I fail to understand the surprise when liberal hypocrisy is revealed. The entire liberal pantheon of heroes consists of hypocrites in one form or another, it is a characteristic of liberal-progressive thinking to live by a double standard. Because they believe in the legitimacy of an intellectual elite and because they consider themselves to be part of that elite they are convinced that one set of rules applies to them while another set applies to “the great unwashed”. It is that mass of “proles” as Orwell called them, that do not understand the purity of liberal thought and therefore are not fit to live by the rules for the truly enlightened.
    Considering this it is understandable that many of the outsiders consider liberal-progressive thinking a mental pathology.

  • FloridaJim

    The stories on liberal hypocrisy are never ending. For every Al Gore there is a Jane Fonda, for every Fonda there is a Chuck Schumer….you get the idea. Hypocrisy seems to flood the liberal camp and they seem immune to their own hypocrisy.

  • gray_man

    “The conservative kind embarrasses me, because that’s my team and I can’t defend it.” Then you need to learn the issues Mr. Goldberge, because the conservative view is very defendable.

  • Speaking truth to power

    Mr. Goldberg, you owe President Obama an apology, at the very least for your comments about his daughters and the Secret Service. The Secret Service protected the Bush twins while they were at their schools (and on their drunken sprees as well), but you made no mention of that. President Obama did NOT say that it was OK for only his daughters to be protected by the Secret Service — they come with his job! Your bias is clearly showing!

    • gray_man

      Wrong, obummer will use this to disarm the public. What the bushes did is irrelevant. That’s called a straw man.

  • leftydon

    what if the journal news printed the names and addresses of all those receiving
    unemployemnt, food stamps or welfare. every lib would be up in arms.

  • frank e.

    I have so many thoughts about all this nonsence. Just let me say this country needs major change or we will no longer be the country we are used to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

    “fair share”? got newz 4 ya: the tax code, even the one GOP like, is still an attempt at (trumpets)….FAIRNESS. (yeah, that 39.6% really is a disgrace).

    • EddieD_Boston

      You’re right, 39.6% isn’t a disgrace. However, spending is out of control and unsustainable and once again you’re taking your eye off the fastball.

  • phil

    Nailed it again, Bernie. Beautiful.

  • jazzdrums

    the majority in this country and the majority of the obama electors have no idea what is going on. you can tell them anything and most important they expect you to give them everything…..!!!!

  • Iklwa

    Yes, the way I understand it, the school where the Obamas
    have their beautiful (and I do mean that sincerely) children enrolled have nine
    (9) armed guards on duty at all times regardless of who is in attendance.

    It doesn’t surprise me at all that the liberal Journal would
    subject innocent, law abiding citizens to possible public scrutiny by having
    the concealed weapons permit holders’ names published and yet they would be the
    first to protect those currently on prescription medication for mental health
    reasons…you know, the ones we really SHOULD be looking out for.

    Maybe, just maybe we should have a national data base to
    share that info with firearms dealers when someone submits a background check
    for a prospective firearms purchaser.

    Naaah, we know that’ll never happen because a third of the
    nation is already on some sort of drug or another for some sort of mental
    problem whether real or imagined.

    Maybe all prospective voters be subjected to the same background
    including mental heath status.

    Would that be unfair to liberal democrats?

    It may be the end of the democrat party as we know it!

  • EddieD_Boston

    Thank God for the Founding Fathers and the Electoral College or Gore would have been president.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YMJUHF4UNZWSLIDRXPSSTOHA3Q Shane

    Yes, liberals are hypocrites, but the liberal MSM largely covers up their mistakes.

    • gray_man

      It takes hypocrites to cover hypocrites.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1775150241 Bonnie Thomas Usrey

    The Liberals make me laugh too. The funny one I enjoyed this weekend is the surrogates out and about saying that Obama will nominate Chuch Hagel for Secretary of Defense and that would be “bipartisan! ” Chuck Hagel the Anti-War RINO whose beliefs are more in line with John Kerry, who was for the War before he was against the War, and also a Vietnam Veteran who trashed the US and his fellow serviceman when he got out.
    Obama isn’t happy with just “winning” He likes to stick his finger in the eyes of Republicans when ever he can by “taking in” one of our own, like Robert Gates and Richard Lugar at the end of his career. I also think it’s funny, that when the Liberals are trying to shore up their credibility on some ridiculous issue or policy, the will tout that some promininet “Republican ” like Colin Powell agrees with them. Or bring up Abraham Lincoln who was also a Republican!

  • http://twitter.com/TeachESL TeachESL

    I knew there was a reason I fell in love with him when I was 17 and he was 18!

  • William L. Wilson

    Poor Al Gore–he just cant’ seem to win. I would have almost been worth it to have him as President for the entertainment value. If he had won, I’m almost certain that Obama would have never had a chance.

    Come to think of it, Obama’s provides pretty good entertainment. If might even be funnier if our country and welfare wasn’t on the line.

  • jimzien

    1 trained marksman stationed inside the front door of each of America’s ~100,000 public schools from 7 AM to 3 PM, 5 days per week, for 180 school weeks per year at, say, $15/hour (Walmart sales associate x 2) would bring the national education sector armed guard tab to $2.2 billion dollars annually (not including private schools — they’d be on their own). Are you willing to sponsor a Congressional bill to fund that, Bernie?

    • Switchlight13

      Yes, eliminate the Medicade and WIC “reward” for having kids out of wed lock. The group that has a 73% out of wedlock birth rate costs us 30 Billion a year in Medicade medical bills & WIC subsidies. After the school guards we would still have 28 billion to play with. Obama’s kids have ARMED Secret Service agents in their school but he denies our kids armed school protection.

      • jimzien

        Well, let’s hope you’ll never have to call on the Medicaid program for support. It’s the primary source of medical assistance for over 55 million low-income and disabled Americans, providing health coverage to those who would otherwise be unable to obtain health insurance.

        Medicaid Enrollment 2011
        (Millions)

        Aged 65 and Over………………………………. 5.1
        Blind and Disabled……………………………… 9.5
        Children………………………………………….. 27.8
        Adults……………………………………………… 12.8
        Territories………………………………………….1.0
        Total…………………………………………… …..56.1

        WIC is administered by the states for the benefit of married as well as unmarried parents with children determined to be at “nutrition risk” by a health professional or a state or locally trained health official. The program serves 53 percent of all infants born in the US (total outlays $4.6 billion in 2011). The average monthly WIC benefit per recipient is $45.

        • Switchlight13

          What didn’t you understand about the 73% group? You know, high school drop out 350lbs Big Mama and her 5 illegitimate kids from 5 different men. The group with grand mothers in their mid thirties. Liberals are so naïve.

          • jimzien

            And your getting your data where? Oh, wait, I see, it’s only the “non-Hispanic black” folks you’re concerned about:

            Unmarried Childbearing
            (U.S. Data ~ 2010 )
            http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf

            >Number of live births to unmarried women: 1,633,471

            > Birth rate for unmarried women: 47.6 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years

            > Percent of all births to unmarried women: 40.8%

            The proportions of nonmarital births vary widely among population sub­groups. In 2010, these proportions were 17 percent for Asian/Pacific, 29 percent for non-Hispanic white, 53 percent for Hispanic, 66 percent for Alaska Native, and 73 percent for non-Hispanic black births.

          • jimzien

            P.S. By count, the unmarried group that galls you to the exclusion of others accounted for 458,637 of the 1,633,471 out-of-wedlock births in 2010. The other 1,174,834 — 72% of the total — would seem not to match your profile of “high school drop out 350lbs Big Mama and…5 illegitimate kids from 5 different men…with grand mothers in their mid thirties.”

    • begbie

      No congressional bill needed. Leave it to the states or the localities to decide how to pay for it, if the public in those states and localities want it. There’s no reason to involve congressional legislation. Federal overreach in state matters is part of our country’s overall problem.

      • jimzien

        I don’t know which state you live in, but mine (Vermont) was $176 million in the hole last year. In FY 2012 the budget shortfall for all states combined was over $100 billion dollars.

        • begbie

          I’m in Virginia. While we’re unfortunately getting bluer, we are still fiscally better off than most of the country. I would suggest you move your children, as I would, if you recognize your states failure to balance it’s books. It’s hard to do but it’s the cold truth. I would suggest Nebraska, the Dakotas, Utah or Texas.

          It is not the fed’s responsibility. While it might be more convenient, all you’re doing is giving them your state’s sovereignty.

          • jimzien

            The the choice is crystal clear, then — or should I say, slick.The 2012 shortfalls of your favorite move-to states:

            Texas: $9 billion
            Virginia $2 billion
            Utah: $390 million
            Nebraska: $166 million
            S. Dakota: $127 million
            N. Dakota: $0 (thank you Bakken Shale oil field)

          • gray_man

            which is still better then most of the country. that was the point.

          • Begbie

            Percent to GDP is important, not the dollar figure.

        • http://www.facebook.com/walter.mattson.39 Walter Mattson

          Many states are going under but that isn’t an excuse for doing something positive to protect school children. Texas for example has taken the initiative to allow teachers to be trained in the safe use of fire arms and will permit them to carry them so they can protect their class. Some other counties in other states are doing the same thing. Israel allows teachers to carry and use guns. It is a personal matter and doesn’t cost the state or federal government anything. Most solutions to problems should be decided by the local governments and tax payers. The federal government will make the wrong decision and when they do decide , the solution is costly and ineffective. Wake up America! The federal government is too large, not trustworthy, ineffective and too expensive. Why do we look for the answer from them? It is time to do our own solutions and reduce the federal government to the basics.

        • gray_man

          if you can’t get your state elected officials to control their spending, that is your weakness.

          • jimzien

            The mass deployment of weapons-bearing school guards or wide-scale arming of teachers and janitors is just never going to happen, people. Neither the Feds, nor the states (N. Dakota and Montana included) nor counties, cities or towns will dedicate the large sums of tax dollars required to finance such programs in the face of the no-new-taxes mantra of half the electorate.

          • gray_man

            who said anything about local governments paying to arm teachers and janitors? remove the asinine gun free nonsense and teachers and janitors will arm themselves if they so desire.

          • jimzien
          • gray_man

            there’s your problem, you seem to think I give a crap about ABC news. I never once suggested states or cities pay for it. I said over and over, get government out of it.
            You implied I wanted the states and local government to pay for. I did not.
            I just said that if you can’t control your own states spending problems, that’s your fault. Don’t hold me to your crappy standards.

          • jimzien

            Crappy old ABC produced the 20/20 report, however the experts involved in the armed invasion-reaction simulations were police academy instructors. In general police officials and other security industry experts reject the notion that civilians with guns enhance safety in schools.

            http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/arming_teachers.html

  • Bob Hadley

    Bernie,

    Either you’re leaving out important information or you’re attacking a straw man again. First, did the Journal News ever say it opposed armed security in schools, or anywhere else for that matter? I bet if a certain school had even one threat of violence, the Journal News would favor it having armed guards.

    Second, has President Obama or anyone else said that they disfavor armed guards in schools? You quote President Obama as saying that armed guards in schools is not the ONLY answer. That is a far cry from opposing the measure.

    As for his daughters having armed guards, President Obama has no choice. It comes with the job. And having highly trained and armed personnel guards watching over the president’s children is different from having, for example, a retired police officer armed and watching an entire school, especially one that is spread out and has many entrances.

    I don’t remember hearing anyone expressly opposing having armed guards in schools. I’ve heard gun control advocates express skepticism about whether it would actually help in all school. As far as I can tell, most have pointed out that a great many schools already have armed guards and that, if a school community decides an armed guard might help, then it’s fine with them.

    Yes, hypocrisy is rife – on the Left, on the Right and even in the middle. But let’s see some real cases.

    • gray_man

      Actually, quite a few have expressed opposition to arming guards at schools, you are just not paying attention. It is irrelevant if the Secret Service “come with the job”, obummer still doesn’t want you, the citizen, to have the same protection he and his family have.

      • Bob Hadley

        So you favor all 300 million plus Americans to have 24/7 secret protection service????????????

        • gray_man

          Don’t be ridicules. Get the government out of it. People can take care of themselves. Starting with a universal CCW, just like a drivers licence. I guarantee when some people start suing the s*** out of these places that allowed their children to get killed, this “gun free zone” nonsense will stop. I also guarantee, after one or two times of armed citizens blowing these scumbags away it will stop.
          Question: Why do you think these scumbags don’t attack police stations?

          • Bob Hadley

            “…obummer still doesn’t want you, the citizen, to have the same protection he and his family have.”

            You’re the one who’s being ridiculous. Are you saying that President Obama should or should not have the same protection as all other Americans? If President Obama should have the same protection as everyone else, then etiher everyone else should have 34/7 secret service protection or President Obama should have no specific protection.
            Moreover, I don’t see how you know what President Obama wants or does not want as far as secret service protection. Maybe you’re a mindreader.
            Your problem is that your emotions are overriding your logic. Doesn’t that make you a liberal? :)

          • gray_man

            You’re the one being obtuse, you either can’t read or are stupid. I never said obummer shouldn’t have protection, that comes with the job. But if you don’t know what the second amendment is about, then you need to go slap your teachers for a crappy education. Instead of defending this fool as he takes our country down the toilet, maybe you should clean the earwax out of your ears and listen to what your beloved savior has said all along and the dummacrats with him.

          • gray_man

            Alright, I don’t want to get in a pissing contest, and I apologize for being rude. The point I’m making however, is valid. Too many of the “protected” think they know so much more then the average citizen. The reality is the damn fools can’t even balance a check book (actually they can, they just refuse too). I don’t need their guidance on the cars I drive, the food I eat, The entertainment I go to, and protecting myself. Most of the scum (politicians, but then I repeat myself) who think they get to dictate to me about a personal firearm, have no qualms about themselves having guns and/or bodyguards. And I really hate hypocrites.

          • Bob Hadley

            “…obummer still doesn’t want you, the citizen, to have the same protection he and his family have.”

            “Most of the scum (politicians, but then I repeat myself) who think they get to dictate to me about a personal firearm, have no qualms about themselves having guns and/or bodyguards.”
            Apology accepted. Thanks.
            You made a bunch of points. I was addressing two of your points. First, you don’t know if President Obama or other politicians have no qualms about their security. Again, they have no choice. It comes with the job. Quit assuming.
            For example, the recently deceased Sen Inouye, after he became second in line of succession to the presidency if the president and the speaker were both killed, said it took him a long time to get used to his increased security.
            Second, President Obama and most gun control advocates are not for preventing you from having firepower for personal protection, unless of course you want to protect yourself against an invading horde of armed marauders.

            Much of what you say is based on emotion.

          • gray_man

            Sorry, your still talking nonsense.
            First: whether they are “comfortable” with their security or not is completely irrelevant, they still have it, and average americans don’t. That is not an assumption, that is a fact.
            Second: Not one of the politicians in this country are forced to be politicians. If it is too tough to do their job, then quit.
            Third: You don’t seem to understand your history or your facts. Gun control advocates have made it very clear that the goal is to get rid of ALL guns. Period. The incremental approach is how that is done, a little here, a little there.
            Forth: Who thinks they get to determine what kind of “firepower” I need for personal protection? The founding fathers of this country, who wrote the constitution, (you know – the supreme law of this country) thought that every citizen was entitled to have the same weapons as the infantry soldier. Hense “the militia”.
            Fifth: What is it about “The rights of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed that you, or they, don’t understand?
            Sixth: You also don’t seem to understand the purpose of the second amendment. It is to protect free individuals from a tyrannical government.
            Seventh: Everyone of those scum bags took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, and then half of them spend their entire carrier trying to destroy it.
            Not one thing I’ve said is based on “emotion” – that is straw man nonsense to make your argument sound more intelligent – nice try. But it doesn’t work with thinking people.

          • Bob Hadley

            I’m glad that you use the U. S. Consititution (COTUS) as a supreme authority. According to the COTUS the U. S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has the final say as to how to interpret the COTUS.

            In its Distict of Columbia v. Heller decision (the recent SCOTUS opinion interpreting the 2nd Amendment) the SCOTUS stated, “…nothing is our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitons on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualification on the commercial sale of arms.”

            In the same decision, the SCOTUS also stated: “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms….as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibitng the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”
            citations ommited

            The SCOTUS continued by saying that “…weapons that are most useful in military service–M-16 rifles and the like…” are not protected by the Second Amendment.

            You can declare your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment all you want, but what you say is not the the law of the land as provided in COTUS.

            In addition, in the Heller case the SCOTUS set forth three reasons for a WELL-REGULATED militia, as mention in the 2nd Amend., one of which was to protect against a tyrannical government. A tyrannical government, in this context, is defined in terms of the democratic process, not in terms of policies that you may detest. In other words, if President Obama ignored Condressional legislation and the SCOTUS’ decisions and declared martial law, then that would be tyrannical. The other two reasons are suppressing insurrections and defending against foreign invasion.

            You are free to try to influence the legislative and executive branches of gov., but you are not free to act on your own interpretation of the laws and constitutions if your interpretation is contrary to existing judicial interpretation.

            You are definitely basing your responses on emotion. At one end, you start with a conclusion you like and then seek justification. At the other end, you start with a fear and then look for justification of that fear. You are a thinking person, but at least on this subject your thoughts are apparently directed by your emotions.

            Few, if any, gun control advocates are trying to take away all handguns. That is a fear implanted by the likes of Wayne LaPierra, who make money appealing to your fear. But even they don’t say that gun control advocates are expressly trying to take away all guns. Rather, they use a “slippery slope” and “hidden agenda” argument.

            Even if gun control advocates were trying to take away all your guns, the SCOTUS’ opinion in Heller would prevent that.

          • gray_man

            Sorry, that is all fine and dandy, but the people who wrote the constitution would certainly disagree with that supreme court decision. Try reading the federalist papers. Apparently you are unaware of other bad decisions by the supreme court. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said the constitution is not a death sentence. It’s not just how i feel, but how millions of americans feel. The SCOTUS can say all they want to, but their decisions change. But they won’t be knocking on my door to take any guns from me, or millions of other american, who aren’t going to allow it to happen.

          • Bob Hadley

            Even in their lifetimes, when the Founding Fathers disagreed (even vehemetly disagreed) with the SCOTUS’ decisions, they recognized them as the final word pursuant to the COTUS. BTW, the Founding Fathers frequently disagreed with themselves, often vehemently. They fought like cats and dogs at the Constitutional Convention.
            The end product – the U. S. Constitution which you recognize as the supreme authority – is a compromise document. If you’ve read the Federalist Papers you’d know this.
            “Bad” SCOTUS decisions and “good” SCOTUS decisions are in the eyes of the beholders. That;s why we have the rule of law and court decisions. You say millions of American feel as you do. But many millions more feel differently. After all, we do live in a democratic republic.

          • gray_man

            many millions more? hardly. you seem to think because the SCOTUS rules everyone follows. apparently you haven’t been paying attention for the last 10 years, let alone the last two centuries.

          • Bob Hadley

            Ppular opinion and following the SCOTUS opinions are entirely different.

            The SCOTUS has the final word as to the interpretation of the federal laws and constitution. Its word becomes the law of the land, irrespective of whether it’s popular. This is in the COTUS.

            I was refering to many millions more agreeing with at least certain gun control measures than disagreeing. I base that on countless polls throughout the years. Pres. Clinton’s assault weapons bill had more support than opposition. In fact, former Pres. Reagan came out in support of the bill, shortly before falling from public view. As far as I know, this has nothing to do with the SCOTUS.

            You need to distinguish between process and end result. More than anything else, the COTUS sets forth a process to be monitored by the courts as the final arbiter. The end results of the prcoess are the by-products of the process. Certainly you know this from studying the COTUS and the Federalist Papers.

          • gray_man

            who do you think is going to take all these guns from people, that you seem to think everyone wants? I can see that you’ll give yours up no problem. I’ve been in the military 20+ years, the military won’t do it. The people in the military understand the constitution. The cops won’t do it. Oh there will be a few in both organizations who will, but the majority won’t. You can talk about the SCOTUS interpreting the constitution all you want. But we don’t need the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. The constitution doesn’t need interpretation. It was written simply and clearly for a reason. In case you haven’t noticed there are thousands of laws that don’t get followed in this country. When this economy collapses, and it will, those soldiers and cops will be worried about their families, not enforcing illegal laws.

          • Bob Hadley

            Two comments. First, I did NOT say that most gun owners want to or should give up their guns. You seem to have the “either/or” mentality: either I agree with your extreme views or I agree with the views of an opposite extreme. You’re obviously thinking of someone else, not me.

            Second, you finally admitted that you don’t believe in the COTUS, as set forth by the Founders. A key aspect of the COTUS is for the federal court system to interpret the COTUS. Although it was written clearly, it was also written generally. Reasonable people can and do interpret its provisions differently.

            You have the “my interpretation is the only sane one” mentality. A lot of other people, of various viewpoint, also have this mentality. That’s exactly why we need the court system. The Founders were wise to set up the courts as they did.

            You’re right, the SCOTUS does not create the law of the land. But the SCOTUS’ interpretation of the COTUS is the law of the land (as to the specific interpretation).

          • gray_man

            You contradict yourself as you write, and it seems to be some basic flaws in your understanding how things work. For example.

            ” Ppular opinion and following the SCOTUS opinions are entirely different.
            The SCOTUS has the final word as to the interpretation of the federal laws and constitution. Its word becomes the law of the land, irrespective of whether it’s popular. This is in the COTUS.”

            That is just not factually true. The lawmakers (the legislative branch of the government – congress) make the laws not the supreme court. The supreme court simply insures the laws they makes are constitutional.

            The people decide the law in this country and that is in the constitution. It’s called the 10th amendment. Jury nullification is in the constitution for a reason. Why do you think prohibition stopped? It was the law? Why do you think marijuana laws are changing? It’s the law? There are many cases of the people deciding the law, irrespective of the government. That’s how this country works.

            The oil industry and the firearms industry are probably the two most regulated industries in this country, I’m sure the auto industry is in there too.

            There are already hundreds of laws regulating guns. Criminals break laws, making more laws does not stop crime. And the people know this.

            The government is counting on uninformed sheep to quietly turn their guns in when told – and you probably will. The rest of us who actually know how this country is supposed to work, will stand up and say “enough”.

  • http://thecaptiansquarters.blogspot.com/ Capt-Dax

    Liberals Make You Laugh Bernie ? Tell me whats funny about TREASON ?

    We, the People of the United States of America, call for the immediate impeachment of President Barack Hussein Obama for High Crimes and Misdemeanors against the People, including the crimes of Dereliction of Duty, Treason,and Murder.

    All those who stand in defence of this Impostor are Treasonist !

    http://thecaptiansquarters.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-new-declaration-of-independence.html

  • rtencin

    If the NYT feels it’s so necessary to disclose gun ownership, instead of violating the rights of private citizens, they should publish a list of Senators, Congressmen/women and Gov employees that are packing. They’re on our dime and we have a right to know.

    • begbie

      I wonder if they ARE on the list. Somebody needs to research that and report!

  • http://twitter.com/BobMacchia1 Bob Macchia

    Bernie, you are great keep it going. Nothing but the real truth from you and I enjoy it.

  • Wheels55

    I don’t think the general public cares about hypocrisy. It seems the majority likes lies – because there have been plenty from Obama and gang.

    • begbie

      I agree. The founders didn’t count on public stupidity to win the day, especially in a republic such as ours. But in their defense, they certainly gave us the freedom to hang ourselves instead of tyrants doing it for us.

    • dang

      started with the seinfeld show, clinton. everything is relative now.

      • Count_ E_ Limerick

        Probably started with All in the Family,where the conservative dad is stupid and the lib son- in- law is so smart.

  • ksp48

    Algore goes way beyond hypocrisy. His partner went out of his way to voice approval of Al Jazera and its values. Values which include mass murder and barbarism. Not to mention world wide genocide of all Jews.

  • Al

    Great points Bernie. I know hypocrisy exists on both sides but for some reason the liberals hypocrisy is more arrogant in tone. For instance Obama is spending 4 mil in Hawaii on a luxury vacation after standing on the soapbox telling Americans that the rich need to pay their fair share. It doesn’t look right to me. They politicized the school shooting after innocent children were killed, but abortion kills thousands of babies a year. Al Gore is rich because his daddy handed the black oiled baton of millions made in the oil business yet preaches mother earth is dwindling because of to much pollution. Whatever, I sleep fine with my .40 cal by my bedside and love driving my Ford F250 guzzler. Like you I just laugh, because I know liberals bring nothing to the table that benefits others LIKE IT BENEFITS THEM AND THEM ONLY!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    Libtards are World Class Hypocrites while Repubs eat their young when they step out of line. Good Common Sense, upright Americans will never get to elected office until we realize we must not only profess Forgiveness and Redemption…we must Live It! Herman Cain was roundly thrashed because of a mistake he made, paid for and moved on in life. The country failed to elect a Good Patriotic TEA Party American who was the perfect antidote to the Marxist Dolt in the White House.

    Libtards cannot buy a Clue when it comes to what is best for America…but the Leftist Bastards certainly know how to Lie, Cheat, Steal and Defraud a Nation…not to mention kill good Americans (think Benghazi and Fast & Furious). They also can get votes from Low Information Voters, White Guilt Liberals, Dead People, Imaginary Voters and Illegal Alien Voters.

    The TEA Party must learn to beat the enemies of America at their own game and then fix the Voting problem to restore integrity to the system. We must eliminate the World Class Hypocrites known as Libtards.

    • http://twitter.com/BobMacchia1 Bob Macchia

      I agree 100%, I would have voted for Herman Cain in a heartbeat. This country has changed for the worse under this demonic administration.

      • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

        explain “demonic”. Unless you might be in the camp Obama is the anti-Christ. But why? Because he has offered good jobs-infrastructure bills to the obstructionists, plus an approx. 4 trillion $$$$ deficit reduction package which was also rejected? Because we are out of the Cheney-manufactured war in Iraq? Got BL after Bush II gave up in ’06? Told healthcare insurers to stop denying coverage to cancer patients WHO CAN AFFORD a premium? Reformed credit card, student loan, wall street practices? Had a record # of deportations? Are you an O’Reilly premium member?

    • dang

      libs and dems have had great moral and upright mentors like fdr, joe kennedy, jfk, eddie kennedy, gary hart, john edwards, bill clinton, john kerry, al gore, blogovich(sp), just to mention a few. not to mention the libs in hollywierd.

      • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

        you prefer Newt, Rush, Drudge, Coulter, Ingraham, McConnell, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Boehner,Tancredo, Palin, Alex Jones, Jeromes Corsi?? :)

        • gray_man

          Yes. Anyone with brains would.

        • john1gun

          Absolutely!

        • fitzsimmons Photography

          Damn right!!!

    • Lucky3511

      Libtards, personally I prefer Demoncraps

      • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

        why not take a creative writing course? “Libtard” is very tired by now, no. On the other hand, I’ve heard Libs use CON-servatives.

        • gray_man

          “Libtard” is very tired by now” – so is phil siiverman, and yet your still here.

    • begbie

      Jon Huntsman was a good man who never got a chance. And Mitch Daniels is a good man that knew running against Obama was a waste of time….the low information voters will vote for anything but qualifications.

      • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

        if Obama got four milion nore popular votes than Romney and twice in a row he got 51%, how LOW INFO. are Repub. voters? BY the way, when was a Confederate ever smarter than a Yankee? :)

        • gray_man

          If Obummer was so great, how come he got less votes from his own party the second time he ran?

        • Begbie

          Confederates and Yankees? Is this what you’ve gathered from the movies or are you about 160 years old?

      • gray_man

        I’m from Utah, Jon Huntsman was no conservative.

        • Begbie

          Never said he was. Just said he was a good man. I think we need to all be better about recognizing good people when we see them.

          • gray_man

            I’m not electing a “good man”, I’m electing someone who stands up for what I believe in. I’ve seen plenty of “good men” with the backbones of jelly fish.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1775150241 Bonnie Thomas Usrey

      Yes, Roscoe. I have always been dismayed at how Republicans “shoot their wounded” like Herman Cain, and others who have made mistakes or had lapses in morality (and got caught) But the Democrats bind up their wounds, stick together like glue, and defend, and forget the most outrageous behavior and ignore weaknesses and Canonize people like Bill Clinton!
      What ever happened to all those women who accused Herman of sexually harassing them? Does that one still live in David Axelrod’s Condo complex?

      • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

        Bill Clinton is now a very admired man by both parties and Cain is just another not-ready-for-prime-timer. Sorry. I liked Cain but…. >>> The many Tea Partiers at the Capitol, many of them voted out, are now nothing but footnotes on wierdness in this country. Yes, the far Left has a few bizarros.

        • gray_man

          “Bill Clinton is now a very admired man by both parties” – in your fantasies.

          • fitzsimmons Photography

            Phil, You’re making me laugh outloud now!!!!!
            Bill Clinton, the biggest misogynist in our lifetime.He messes with Monica Lewinsky and uses his power of the office to get what he wants….she goes into the sunset(reputation ruined) and he rises to elder statesman that the Dems elevate to save the party.They put him on the same stage where they parade Eva Langoria and Sandra Fluke and the Indian from Massachusets (all the abused women in America ) What???How can you not laugh at this?Where are the real comedians? The funny part is, the libs create this ‘war on women’ right? So who do they put on the stage during the convention to come in and save the Dems and Obama?? Bill Clinton!!!!!!! And did ANYBODY see the irony?Did the media? Did crying Chris Matthews? did Rachel Maddow? Did Williams? Did Anderson? Did Wolfe? No no no no No…Because everyone is so into the’ second coming’ of Obama that all are blinded and have lost their hearing and their minds…..The level of the liberal voter is on a par with the ‘Jersey Shore!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

      “Libtards”? Yes, William F. Buckley looks down and smiles. >>>>The Tea party is a front group for the KOchs who are present-day John Birchers who were segregationists. Called Eisenhower a Commee.

      • fitzsimmons Photography

        Wow! So glad you are old enough to vote!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

      No imaginary voters, pal. Studies have shown that 7 out of approx. 30 million votes are actually illegal. That’s all garbage and you know it. If there’s ANY VOTER CORRUPTION it’s with the voter purges in swing states.

      • fitzsimmons Photography

        You really did get off a spaceship didn’t you????

    • http://www.facebook.com/phil.silverman.9 Phil Silverman

      Respectfully, you are funny when YOU talk about low info. What about fast & Furious? It was an extension of a prog. developped by Bush II’s Att. Gen. and Obama had Holder put an end to it. Benghazi? Do you have all the facts? all we know is that the CIA was on the scene within 20 minutes and Security was reduced by Republican fund cutting. Ok?>>>>>Defraud? Hear about Cheney being allowed to run the country & CREATE a war for his ex-employer?>>>I’ll take “Lib-guilty” voters over SEGREGATIONIST voters.

      • gray_man

        George Bush did not start fast and furious. get your “facts” strait.
        The CIA was not on the scene within 20 minutes. Republicans did not cut funding for the security. You live in a fantasy world of the lefts making. I hope you enjoy your taxes going up, and loosing money, and more of your rights. It’s a hole morons like you dug for yourself, and you will sit stupidly in it wondering what happened.

      • fitzsimmons Photography

        Talk about uninformed? Everything you just spouted was all wrong….or in the real world outright lies. This is exactly how Obama got elected. He put out lies and the emotional dependent libs jumped on and repeated every word he said. Then the misinformation snowballed to hundreds, then thousands, then millions amd we now have the biggest, lying,narcissist we have EVER had running this country. George Bush shut down Fast and Furious and six months into his regime, Obama and Holder started it up. No one was on the scene at Benghazi but the terrorists. And those poor people didn’t see any help for at least seven hours.the former Seal went against orders and rushed in to help. He saved thirty lives I think and then was brutely killed. Ships off the coast of Italy could have been there with help but never got the order!!! And you again are wrong about the funding. Try getting your info in a place other than MSNBC!

        You guys are so obsessed with Bush,that your eveballs are ready to fall out. Funny how during his 2008 campaign Obama cried and screamed about Bush and his policies .But the’ hypocrite in chief’ has used everyone of Bush’s ideas and policies—-including reinstituting the Bush tax cuts……..The best one though is how Obama railed against Bush and his enhanced interrogation techniques(he called it torture) and instead of EIT Obama just uses the drone. He kills the terrorists, and everyone within a fifty mile radius. He thinks killing is better than EIT! !Ha Ha Laughingly,Suellen Suellen

  • Joel

    If the Journal News wants to protect the community, how about publishing the names and addresses of those with deadly infectious/ communicable diseases? They would never do that though. It’s about shaming and hating those who they characterize as “the other.”

    • Johnny Deadline

      Or what if the Journal-News provides the names and addresses of gay men? Gay men have a lower life expectancy than heterosexual men, so isn’t it in the best interest of the public to know who is gay and who isn’t? Funny where liberals draw the line on the public’s right to know.

  • Switchlight13

    Recent article in Russia’s “Pravda”: “These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare [sic] arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions”. (Even the Russians know we’re on the way out).

    • Johnny Deadline

      Russia is giving us advice about not giving up our guns, and the Chi-Comm’s dispense wisdom about dealing with our debt and capitalism. We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

  • rlpincus

    Don’t worry, Bernie. You’ve exhibited enough hypocrisy to keep me belly laughing for years.

    • begbie

      Example please….I’m not Bernie’s cheering section, but he gave examples.

    • JmThms

      Care to elaborate? Didn’t think so.

      • rlpincus

        Just read his first paragraph a couple of times.

        • begbei

          Ok….so? If you’re finding hypocrisy in the first paragraph, I would suggest you refer to the dictionary to review the meaning of the word.

          • rlpincus

            So hypocrisy among Bernie’s friends is just embarrassing, but hypocrisy on the other team gives him guffaws. Mitt Romney’s hypocrisies didn’t make Bernie laugh because Mitt is on Bernie’s team?

          • Patrick H.

            If that’s the best you can come up with,then I think Bernie’s okay.

          • rlpincus

            So I came up with Bernie being a hypocrite and you don’t like it?
            Or can’t understand it?

          • begbie

            Personally, it’s embarrassing to me because conservatives should know better. It’s expected that liberals will be hypocrites just as it’s expected that dogs will lick their butts.

            There’s no hypocrisy in Bernie’s first paragraph.

          • rlpincus

            Conservatives should know better? There is nothing about conservatism that helps people know anything better. Look at the insane responses on this thread, including a quote from Pravda.

          • begbie

            Yes, conservatives who take conservative principles seriously should know better. Study these principles, and so will you.

            And Pravda is right. The rights we have to own firearms has saved lives, and taken would-be criminals’ lives. Maybe the most important fact is that every country knows my neighbors and I probably have guns. This discouraged invasions from aggressor countries….think Japan. Think common sense. True conservatism is rooted in common sense.

          • rlpincus

            A perfect example. You think Japan didn’t invade the US because of gun rights? That is a preposterous distortion of history.

            Why claim the “study of principles” provides benefit when your own study of history produced the opposite?

          • gray_man

            Maybe, instead of running your mouth, you studied history, you would know that the supreme military leader of the Japanese Imperial Army,said that very thing.

    • ksp48

      I too long for examples. I don’t anyone is perfect or perfectly consistent, but if you are charging Goldberg with multiple examples of hypocricy, surely you should provide several.

    • dang

      bernie is not the potus, the veep, member of congress, a mayor, govenor. i guess you love to belly laugh and thats why you tune in to bernie. for bigger and deeper and longer laughs try cbs, nbc, abc, npr, npt, msnbc, and the lefties on fox news.

  • Vince Ricardo

    The schools in California could just hire Dianne Feinstein as a roving security guard, since she packs heat … or did, at least. I’m sure she wouldn’t try and get a second “assault weapons” ban passed while still carryin’ a concealed weapon. No, that would be too much hypocrisy. Liberals would NEVER double dip their hypocrisy. Also, the moon is made of cheese (American cheese, naturally).

  • Kathie Ampela

    Great article, Bernie! Staten Island is proposing an idea to put armed, retired, plain clothed cops in city schools. But the idea has been “dismissed” by anti-gun zealot Mayor Bloomberg…even as he surrounds himself with armed guards. The Nanny doesn’t consider the city’s school kids worthy of the same protections he gives himself.

  • SeattleSam

    Or as George Orwell put it, “All Animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

    • Switchlight13

      In one respect Col Colt made all men equal and the dirt bags in the White House hates that kind of equality.

  • jones.barry

    Bernie, you’re the best- I read “Bias” when it came out and thought, ‘why did it take so long for someone to say this?’ Keep up the good work.