Mike Bloomberg Action Figure

(Billions sold separately)

Quote du jour

"The best known socialist in the country is a millionaire and has three houses."

-Mike Bloomberg

Bloomberg Gothic

This Is Beyond Ridiculous. Why The Hell Do I Still Live Here?

by Andrew Roman

______________

Popcorn May Be Next

If oversized cups of sugary drinks (those larger than 16 ounces) really are a scourge to the health and well-being of a gluttonous, overweight citizenry (as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) – I mean, if they are really contributing in such an adverse way to the overall condition of the population to the point that the confiscation of liberties has become necessary (again, as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) - then wouldn’t it be prudent, nay imperative,  to simply make them  illegal?

This is a legitimate question, not incendiary finger-snapping blog rhetoric.

Seriously, what would be the rationale for not making them illegal, based on the objective from on high? That soda is only bad for us in big cups as opposed to multiple smaller-sized cups? Or bottles? Or cans? 

If our lives are really at stake here, how can these overseers of all that is good and righteous not ban these immoral body-bloating concoctions?

As it stands right now, should the City of New York bend over, grab its ankles and accept His Royal Highness Michael Bloomberg’s big-cup ban, we the people will still be able to recklessly poison ourselves by cleverly purchasing two sixteen ounce cups of sugar-filled beverages (which, as a product of the New York City Public School System, brings me to a grand total of thirty-two total ounces of sugary drinks, if I’m not mistaken) …or even three cups (forty-eight ounces of sugary drinks) …or ten cups (one hundred sixty ounces).

Why then do it at all (if our well-being is really the issue)? Surely, Blunderberg’s health minions have considered this calamitous  reality, troubled as they obviously are with the health of New Yorkers.

How serious can the New York City Politburo really be about our collective physical states if it is still within our power to legally pour as many ounces of Dr. Pepper into our gobs as we like, albeit somewhat inconveniently in several containers as opposed to one?

Indeed, the Big Apple – or better yet, the Controlled-Portion-Apple – has, out of whole cloth, given itself the power to care about us so much - to do that which is for our own collective good - that it can literally tell a privately-owned entity that it is no longer allowed to sell a perfectly legal item in a perfectly legal manner to law-abiding Americans.  And they do so based on the deadly marriage of dimwitted emotion-based logic and big government liberalism.

Spare me the hackneyed, knee-jerk, ridiculous claims that overweight people are such a burden to the health system that it has become obligatory to curb our liberties.  Is it really the contention of big-government, soft-tyrannical types that skinnier people would bring down costs of health care for everyone across the board in such a way as to legitimize such an unheralded power-grab?

How does that work exactly?

Do people who are not obese and live longer visit their doctors less and require less medication over the course of their lives? Really? Skinny people don’t suffer from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pneumonia, ulcerative colitis, migraines and Parkinson’s as much as Pepsi drinkers? So, the majority of people in hospitals, emergency rooms, rehabilitation centers and clinics are undisciplined Slurpee guzzlers?

Doesn’t it stand to reason that if someone lives to be 95 instead of 75, he or she will have twenty more years on this earth to suffer illnesses, require medical attention and break down like everyone else? Do skinnier people simply keel over dead when their time is up, out of the blue, from a perfectly healthy state? Don’t most people deteriorate toward the end of their lives, requiring doctor care, medicine and extensive tests regardless of how old they are when the end comes? 

Let's for a moment, look at the zealotry of the anti-smoking crusaders.

If, for example, 50,000 people die annually, as is the contention from anti-smoking warriors, due to second-hand smoke, why would these nanny-staters complain about rising costs? These people are dying, aren’t they? They can’t be a drain on the health care system if they’re dead, can they? And if more people are dying annually from simply being around smokers than die in auto accidents, isn’t it obvious that smoking, too, must be banned outright?  (Maybe autos should be banned as well, no? Maybe breathing.)

I'm not pro-smoking, by the way. I'm pro-liberty.

Personally, I haven't had a regular soda of any kind for years and haven't smoked a cigarette since 1998. These are my choices, not Mayor Bloomberg's choices. 

If the freedom to choose the Big Gulp is really contributing to the escalating costs of health care and the deteriorating quality of life in the City of New York as claimed, then isn’t it incumbent of the East Coast Kremlin to banish all sugary drinks, period? How can something so important and so critical be instituted conditionally? Do they not care enough?

And what of those people who are thin and healthy who wish to have a 64-ounce Coke at a venue like Yankee Stadium? Setting aside the immediate benefit to the state of being able to collect more tax money from the guy forced to buy three sixteen-ounce sodas instead of one, is the New York Politburo going to assert that this infringement on choice – which libs are always championing when it comes to being able to scrape away inconvenient embryonic tissue in the womb – is still for his own good? Does King Bloomberg know better what is better for this man's body than the man himself?

Obviously he does, because as expected, the Apple Health Police are now looking to expand their reach into our private lives by targeting such society-crippling pleasures as popcorn, milkshakes and specialty coffee drinks.

From MYFOX.com:

The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.

The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens.  They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city.  It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.

Did you catch that? The government would "allow" refills. How sporting of them. How generous.

Who the hell are these people to tell us what we can and cannot choose? And under what authority do they claim to be able to do it? Whim?

Seriously, I dare them to try and take away my wife's daily 32-ounce Iced Mocha Latte. I double-dare them.

It’s funny, tragic and sad at the same time….

The Occupy Wall Street types spent months on end living like unkempt hobos in the park, defecating on police cars, disrupting businesses, screaming and yelling about the tyranny of corporations and free markets. They marched, protested, attacked and broke laws to rail against the oppressions and injustices of capitalism. Yet, there isn’t a single corporation in all of America with the power to come to your home and take away your liberties. No bank, retailer, investment firm, restaurant chain, automobile manufacturer or oil company can show up on your doorstep and make you less free.

Not one.

Only government can do that.

-

Greta Hawkins, Public Schools and Banning Patriotism

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

----------------

Greta Hawkins, Principal, P.S. 90, Brooklyn NY

This is one of those "Proud-To-Be-A-New-Yorker" moments we sing about around the camp fire.

Approximately ten miles from where I live is P.S. 90, the Coney Island elementary school that has been thrust into the national spotlight thanks to Greta Hawkins, the school’s principal. She’s the educator who, just in the nick of time, walked in on a kindergarten class rehearsal of the Lee Greenwood song “God Bless The USA” (also known as “Proud To Be An American”) slated to be performed during the school’s commencement ceremony on June 20^th. Instinctively recognizing the imminent danger to the children, Hawkins heroically extinguished the looming threat by putting a halt to the proceedings, ordering the song be removed from the program, thus sparing the group of unknowing five-year olds any further exposure to pride and patriotism.

Initially, the cultural heroine of South Brooklyn nixed the song for fear of triggering a wave of inferiority complexes - not to mention wounded self-esteem and offended sensibilities - among those people of “other cultures” attending this particular American public school located, peculiarly enough, in America. Indeed, Hawkins’ keen awareness, razor-sharp instincts and unbridled compassion quite literally saved the offspring of immigrants from having to withstand pro-American sentiment on American soil.  

As expected, Hawkins has been soundly lambasted for the move which, as of today (by conservative estimates), has spared countless developing school age kids any positive impressions of the nation that has welcomed their families with open arms … and that number continues to grow.

Defending Hawkins is Jessica Scaperotti, a spokeswoman for New York’s Department of Education, who offered yet another explanation for the Greenwood song’s banishment. She said that Hawkins found the song’s lyrics a little too “grown up” for five-year olds. Thus, some of the more difficult age-inappropriate imagery, conjured up by such tortuous phrases as: “I’d thank my lucky stars to be livin’ here today” and “From Detroit down to Houston, and New York to L.A. Well there’s pride in every American heart,” will not be given an opportunity to confuse and frighten the children.

At first, as an alternative, the certain-to-be-a-kindergarten-sing-a-long-classic by pop phenom Justin Beiber called “Baby” was to fill the Brooklyn auditorium with its more embracing, family-friendly, unambiguous age-appropriate lyrics: “Are we an item? Girl, quit playing. We’re just friends. What are you saying?” and “Baby, baby, baby oooh. Like baby, baby, baby nooo. Like baby, baby, baby oooh. I thought you’d always be mine.”

But alas, that plan, too, has been scrapped, according to His Most Exalted Highness, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and New York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott . Said Walcott: “Now as far as Justin Bieber, I understand some of the issues people raised. It’s my understanding that song will not be part of the ‘moving up’ ceremony as well . . . I support our principals along that line."

Still, it remains unclear why the Beiber song was scrapped at all since the song makes no reference to the country, God or patriotism.

Strange.

It is also unclear why so many people, including members of those "other culture" families who are obviously unaware that they are being affronted by the controversial pro-USA composition, are insisting that the song be reinserted back into the program.

The fact is, Principal Hawkins has clearly made it her life’s goal to protect the fragile self-images of the children placed in her charge; and although her courageous attempts to end the daily reciting of the Pledge Of Allegiance and the singing of “America The Beautiful” a couple of years ago proved unsuccessful, her continued refusal to simply stand up as a sign of respect during these daily rituals (she is a Jehovah’s Witness) continues to be not only a reaffirmation of unflappable integrity, but a true inspiration to five-year olds long disgusted with these oppressive and insulting practices. After all, if she doesn’t participate, why should anyone else have to?

This, indeed, is the embodiment of leadership.

However, despite Hawkins' attempts at instilling a little dose of enlightenment on the future leaders of tomorrow, we can surely expect the feeble-minded among us today to unleash their poison arrows on her ... and, indeed, they have.

Her 2010 reprimand from the New York Department of Education for calling the school “racist” should not be taken out of context by ill-informed detractors, basement-swelling blog-jockies and hate-mongers. And although she did say, “I’m black. Your previous principal was white and Jewish. More of us are coming,” expect flag-waving smear-merchants to twist those words entirely out of context for their own benefit.

Other complaints about Hawkins – including her threatening to report parents of misbehaving students to the Administration for Children’s Services, her under-reporting of safety incidents, and her refusal to account for nearly four thousand dollars of Title I parent involvement funds from the previous school year – should not, and do not, reflect on her excellence as an educator and protector of the innocent.

As a side note, John Lennon’s “Working Class Hero,” to the surprise of many, is among those songs not scheduled to be performed at the ceremony.

---

The King Wants Your Big Gulp

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_______________________

Yes, liberals live (and love) to ban things. If they could, they'd ban more. It's that we're allowed to do so many things and make our own choices that causes them so much distress. And in circumstances where an outright ban isn't possible (e.g, guns), they are madly infatuated with imposing restrictions. Modern liberalism has shown us that the road to Utopia - ever under-construction and always under-funded - is more easily navigated when those who know what is good for us (and the Earth) remove these hazardous obstacles. 

For instance, if the planet could communicate directly with us (outside of the melting glaciers and mounting polar bear corpses), no doubt she would breathe a much-needed sigh of relief now that the Los Angeles City Council has banned plastic bags from super markets. The environment-crippling single-use plastic bag is slated to be replaced with that dinosaur of free-market-transport: the paper bag ... which, incidentally, was replaced many years ago by the very same plastic bags that are now being banned from use.  Something about saving the earth, if I recall. The ban is intended to reduce the amount of garbage in landfills, cut back on litter and show the environment some love.

But facts are pesky things. They can burst blissful bubbles and annoy the self-congratulatory well-intentioned.

Plastic bags make up less than one half of one percent of all garbage in the State of California.

Plastic bags make up a full one percent - that's one part out of a hundred - of all litter nation-wide.

These same plastic bags make up nearly two percent of all plastic debris found on beaches or in the oceans.

That we have anything left alive in our seas is astonishing.

Let us not forget about the jobs that could potentially be lost domestically thanks to the ban. Yes, plastic grocery-store bags are manufactured right here in the good old U-S-of-A.  And what of the inescapable trouble that will arise from those disgusting  bacteria-laden reusable bags that are now being pushed by environmentalists?  (Most of them are made in China, by the way). Would you put your peaches in one of those things?

To hell with those perfectly sanitary,  fish-killing, dump-filling, beach-trashing, dog-poop-picker-uppers! I demand my right to acquire E.coli while saving the planet!

Next, a riddle...

If a million people tried doing serious damage to the environment by getting together, say in Central Park, and pressing a million asthma inhalers simultaneously into the air, how many holes in the ozone layer could be created? How many species could be eliminated from an already fragile collection of eco-systems teetering on the brink? How many degrees could surface temperatures across the globe by ratcheted up? What would the caribou death count be?

Thank goodness that these noxious threats to the ozone layer are being phased out. 

Whether or not President Obama's EPA is aware that people who use these over-the-counter inhalers actually release the chemicals contained in them into their own bodies and not into the atmosphere is unclear at this time.

Not to worry, though. Prescription inhalers cost at least three times as much as the over-the-counter variety being banned.  After all, asthma sufferers were looking for ways to spend more money on their life-saving medications, weren't they?

There is solace in knowing the carbon footprint of the United States will be that much smaller.

Here in New York City, where banning things is a way of life, our King - Michael Bloomberg, his most exalted majesty - has once again kicked aside an obtrusive roadblock on the path to sweet Utopia by telling us yet again what is good for us. (If not for him, how many dead would litter our streets like so many banned plastic grocery bags?)  Recall, he rescued us by banning certain cooking oils in privately owned restaurants. (Yes, in privately owned restaurants). He banned smoking in bars. (Yes, in privately owned bars). He has waged war on salt, forced calorie counts to be posted in restaurants, usurped the will of the people by thumbing his nose to term limits, extended the welcome mat to  illegals, and rejected the real purpose of government  - that is, to protect freedom Rather, he has used elected office as a platform to hoist personal feelings about the morality of health upon the rest of us.

The King has proposed - and will almost certainly get - a ban on all sugared drinks in containers that measure larger than sixteen ounces.

This is not a joke. It isn't a Rush Limbaugh parody, a Saturday Night Live bit or a Mad Magazine spread.

Michael Bloomberg, from on high, has decided that it will be illegal - yes, illegal - to fill a cup larger than sixteen ounces with non-diet soda and other sweet drinks in any of the five boroughs of New York City.

Illegal.

Say goodbye to super-sized sodas. Say goodbye to choice. Say goodbye to liberty. Say goodbye to sanity.

Say howdy to more big, intrusive government.

Say hi to unabashed liberalism.

The Bloomberg ban would affect restaurants, street carts, delis, movie theaters, stadiums and arenas. Yes, that means that it will be against the law to buy a 32-ounce Mountain Dew at Yankee Stadium to wash down my Nachos, but perfectly fine to buy seven beers before the first pitch is ever thrown.

 Such thinkers, these liberals.

The ban wouldn't apply to diet drinks, fruit juices, booze or even milk shakes - because it is common knowledge that large quantities of ice cream and whole milk are better for you than a jumbo Coke .

To be fair, the ban would not include bottled soda in grocery stores and convenience stores, but would wipe out the famed Big Gulp.

I  can see it all now.

The scene is a 7-11 convenience store somewhere near Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. It's lunchtime. A pickup truck packed with construction workers pulls up. Out come four hungry, thirsty he-men. One of the guys, parched from a hot summer's morning of work on the new office building across 4th Avenue, grabs a Big Gulp cup and places it underneath the dispenser at the soda machine. His arid throat tingles as he anticipates the rush of icy cold Coke about to pour in, squelching the burn of his thirst, soothing his overworked body.

As the man's Big Gulp cup - built for 32 ounces of pure refreshment - fills past the half-way point with frosty Coca Cola, three red lights suddenly emerge from the front of the machine and begin flashing in rapid sequence. The machine immediately shuts itself down as two iron-pronged grills slam down in front of the dispenser. An alarm sounds. The store clerks quickly put on their protective eye gear  and duck behind the display of black-and-white cookies. Customers scatter.  A woman screams.  

The store's front door is bolted shut as a nine inch thick steel titanium bar is lowered from behind the portrait of Mayor Mike Bloomberg above the lottery ticket wheels. Simultaneously, two metal rods project from the sides of the soda machine, expanding themselves toward the Big Gulp cup from either direction until they penetrate the cup, piercing the skin, causing the Coca Cola to empty into the overrun pan. The straws and cup lids are electronically sealed behind bullet-proof glass from a remote location. The Slurpee machine melts into a pool of molten metal.

Before he can process all that has happened, the thirsty man is surrounded.  In an instant, someone starts reading him his rights as his wrists feel the cold steel of the cuffs clenching down. It's all over within thirty seconds, and it's all for his own good.

Voices within the store begin to buzz: "Shoulda went with the diet" ..... "It's really for the best."  A couple of the older men - grizzled nanny-state veterans -  reflexively suck in their guts as they watch the man escorted from the premises. "I don't touch the stuff anymore myself," one says to another.  "Does he want to die young or something?" another one nervously asks out loud. An old lady in a rocking chair chuckles uncontrollably. Some begin looking around, anticipating an appearance from King Mike himself. "Another life saved!" someone calls out from just beyond the rotating sausages. "It's for our own good," a mother of nine affirms.

And just like that, life returns to normal in the Brooklyn 7-11.

One of the men from the pickup truck buys two 16-ounce cups of icy cold Coke without incident. Another buys a 20-ounce bottle of Pepsi from the cooler, while the third says he is going to the Baskin Robins  across the street for a large ice cream soda.

Now seriously....

Is this idiocy really about health? Does anyone in their heart of hearts genuinely believe this entire power play is about curbing obesity?

What's to prevent people from buying multiple cups of smaller sized soda? What's to keep people from their free refills in fast food joints? If this is really about cutting back on fat, why not just close down the bakeries?  Or put restrictions on the number of Kit Kats allowed per household? Or limit potato chip consumptions to one bag a week. Or pizza delivery to two medium pies every ten days? Or mandate that no one within the five boroughs can sit down to watch any television program with less than two vegetable servings and a fruit platter?

There is so much asininity in this proposal that environmentalists would have me hung for the amount of trees it'd take to supply the paper I would need to list the ways.

People are living longer than ever before. And if you properly adjust statistics by taking away those that die in car accidents and are murdered , the United States has the highest life expectancy on Earth.

In reality, this is a freedom-curbing intolerable intrusion into our lives that has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with improving the health of our citizenry. Ultimately, regardless of intention, this is only about expansive government. It is about making the individual even smaller in the shadow of a growing state. It is about shrinking liberty. It is about the right of the people to be able to make personal choices that were never intended to  the fall under the awning of the power of government.  Free people must have the right to make these decisions themselves, good or bad. Indeed, choices have consequences, but none so menacing as  allowing government to take away - ban - things it deems as a "public concern."

Where is the line?

Where does it stop?

Human beings just don't know when to say when.

C.S Lewis wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Go ahead and redefine the millennia-old definition of marriage. Please feel free to terminate as many unborn children as you wish.  Hand out condoms to school children as you see fit.

But don't you dare put seventeen ounces of Sunkist Orange in a cup in this city.

Incidentally, today is the 75th Annual National Donut Day in New York.

That's right, National Donut Day.

Our Majesty-In-Chief will be out and about today celebrating this internationally heralded health food, culminating in a proclamation letter written by ... himself.

Can a Boston cream donut even fit in one of those Big Gulp cups?
----

New York's Same Sex Marriage Law and Libertarians

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_________________________

As the State of New York officially starts recognizing same-sex marriage - and as libertarians and liberals alike continued to sing the praises of the triumphs of liberty - I remain befuddled.

My general opposition to same-sex marriage aside, I cannot help but be puzzled at libertarian support for the redefinition of marriage as it came to pass here in New York.

A few weeks ago, the Mercatus Center - a libertarian think tank at George Mason University – ranked the state of New York dead last in its “Freedom in the 50 States” index. The authors of the report even used the phrase “by far” to show how deep into the cellar the once most-populous state in the nation has descended.

Its contentions were based principally on the Empire State’s sickening levels of taxation.

That higher taxes always mean increased levels of government spending cannot logically be disputed by anyone who claims to be on a first-name basis with their own brains. More government spending - and by natural extension, increased intrusion and control - definitionally means more government.

Period.

How can one deny it?

It's like denying the dampness of water, the uselessness of Keanu Reeves as an actor, or, if you're a liberal, the certainty that the planet is teetering on disaster because of man-induced climate change.

As talk-show host and author Dennis Prager often says, the bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Indeed, bigger government means less liberty. Again, by definition. (I needn't explain this to conservatives or libertarians). It simply isn't possible for an ever-more intrusive, powerful governing body to spawn more freedom.

How would that work exactly? What model is there to base that fantasy on?

Among other qualifiers to New York’s dubious distinction is the fact that the state has "the strictest health-insurance community-rating regulations in the country.” New York is also an anti-smoking zealot’s Xanadu. The strictest tobacco laws anywhere exist in New York. (That tobacco use has not been found to be an outright act of violence here is still perplexing). Mix in such acts of nanny-statism as mandating what oils restaurants can cook with, barely constitutional anti-gun laws, painfully excessive home schooling regulations, usurping the will of the people on term limits, banning smoking in privately owned bars and public parks, ridiculously stringent motor vehicle laws, rampant "Eminent domain abuse," and the almost obsessive war on salt by the likes of Michael “New-York-City-Welcomes-All-Illegals-To-Come-And-Stay” Bloomberg, and you’ve got a recipe for an ever-growing soft tyranny, a phrase that talk show host Mark Levin has popularized (quite accurately).

Yes, there is a totalitarian tendency in modern liberalism.

To the left, government knows best how to spend your money, feed you, teach you, medicate you, make health decisions for you, and so on. It’s the leftist's impulse to exert more influence in the everyday lives of its citizenry, because, according to them, they know best. That totalitarian inclination instinctively feeds the human being’s native longing for power and control, and helps to exemplify his inherent inability to know when to curtail that power when given more of it.

The term slippery slope comes to mind.

In other words, people just don't know when to stop.

That's why we create laws.

When this report was released last month, co-author Jason Sorens, a University of Buffalo political-science professor, offered an opinion as to how the State of New York could begin the process of healing its freedom-stifling wounds.

Legalize same-sex marriage.

Said Sorens, “"The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind," he said.

The passage of same-sex marriage here in New York continues to be touted as a win for not only supporters of redefining a millenia-old institution but of teeny-tiny-government libertarian types who equate allowing more people to get hitched with less government control.

Hail freedom!  Get out of our lives, you big ol' Government, you!

But this thinking is misguided and hardly libertarian.

New York's sanctioning of same-sex marriage has actually served as an expansion of the government's reach - something that is supposed to be an anethma to a libertarian. With the redefinition of marriage, government is now more involved in our lives.

And yet another powerful lobby has successfully buried its hooks into the soft, fleshy matter of the statehouse.

Where exactly do New York's elected representatives summon the arrogance to believe they can redefine the basic institution of society? What makes them competent enough to do so? Simply because they're elected? Because they say so? Because they want to? Because they feel like it? Beacuse someone has to? Because their collective wisdom exceeds all of the history of humanity that preceded them? Because a given special interest group knows how to bang their cans more loudly?

New York's elected officials have taken a page from Mayor Mike Bloomberg's totalitarian-light playbook. Remember when Mayor Mike decided one day that New York City's term limit law didn't suit him? So he said, in effect, "To hell with what the people want, New York needs me." Likewise, Albany is saying that because a group of people say life is unfair, it has the faculty and qualification to change - literally change - a millenia-old societal institution that transcends every culture and civilization.

Think about that.

That's not a recession of government power - that's a full-fledged expansion of its power.

What will government decide it has the power to change next? What will they decide they need to be involved in after this?

That the question is even being asked flies in the face of libertarian principles.

Twenty-five years ago, the very thought of two people of the same sex marrying was considered one of those, "Don't be ridiculous" notions. Today, proponents of keeping the definiton of traditional marriage in tact are called ridiculous and antiquated. Same-sex marriage is suddenly  - magically - an issue of equality, freedom and civil rights.

And where does it end?

Today, the thought of someone marrying, say, their goldfish or a cup of Snack Pack butterscoth pudding is one of those "Don't be ridiculous" notions.

But will it be in twenty-five years?

If you could go back in time a quarter of a century and tell the citizens of New York City that smoking would be banned in bars and taverns, or that the government would keep free citizens from using perfectly legal cooking oils in privately owned restaurants, they'd look at you as if you had a pulsating basketball-sized goiter growing out of your neck.

The fact is, the loss of liberty is incremental and often barely noticeable.

This is the slippery slope.

When does it end?

And because of the passage of same-sex marriage in New York without a referendum, how could a government ever say "no" in the future when some new special interest group with resonating garbage cans comes a-clanging, making a huge noise about wanting to marry their ink jet printers? Or a jar of pitted olives? Or a sister? Or a dog? Or whatever the hell he or she wants to join in matrimony?

On what basis could the government say "no?"

Is this what New York libertarians had in mind?

This is nothing but government-constructed relativism. That is supposed to be the antithesis of libertarianism.

Proponents of keeping the definition of traditional marriage as it has always been draw the line at one man and one woman. Proponents of same-sex marriage draw the line at two individuals, regardless of sex.

By definition, both discriminate. 

Same-sex marriage advocates scoff at the suggestion that this opens the door to allowing such things as multiple spouses or sibling marriage, but on what grounds? Same-sex marriage has its limitations and discriminations, too, doesn't it? Why then is so called "gay marriage" discrimination acceptable and traditional marriage discrimination not?

Why are the inequalities and prejudices of permitting same-sex marriage okay?

And on what do same-sex marriage advocates base their matrimonial line in the sand? On how they feel? On what sounds good? How could they logically argue against a polygamists' movement? Or sibling love?

But what do I know? I've already been told on numerous occassions that I hate gays.

I can only hope my sister knows I don't hate her because of my opposition to sibling marriage.

-

The President, Constitutional Illiteracy And Ground Zero

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

The President supports the Ground Zero mosque

If New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a fool – and it’s hard to argue the point – then how exactly would (or could) one characterize President Barack Obama?

Be creative.

My bag of hackneyed adjectives has been raided so much during the first nineteen months of the Messianic Age that I’m left with nothing but literary lint and a deep aching for a “What Could Have Been” McCain presidency. (That’s pretty scary in and of itself).

Michael Bloomberg - sage, arbiter of social justice, salt and cigarette warrior – has openly supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center in the name of tolerance and acceptance, much to the delight of the New York Times. The irony, of course, is that such a center is needed least of all in America, the most accommodating and tolerant nation on Earth.

Bloomberg has carelessly and inappropriately yanked on the First Amendment as some sort of justification (and validation) for the Islamic Cultural Center’s construction two blocks away from the site of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history, an attack perpetrated in the name of Islam. The fact that the entire issue has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with religious freedom somehow escapes the billionaire three-term mayor.

It’s a point worth beleaguering.

Muslims are, in fact, perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs in the United States of America. That’s precisely what the First Amendment says. They cannot be denied the right to be observant Muslims. And, as has been noted endlessly, they can do so in any of the over one hundred mosques located in the Big Apple, if they so choose.

But King Bloomberg says the proposed Ground Zero mosque and cultural center must go up because the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom is on the chopping block.

It’s an argument that makes a lot of sense … if you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

Religious freedom isn't the issue here. There is no threat whatsoever - not a scintilla's worth - to the Constitutional right of religious freedom in the opposition to this mosque and cultural center.

This issue is about sensitivity, compassion and common sense.

It's also about the Mayor being terrified of enflaming Muslims.

New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg

You’ll recall Bloomberg is the same mayor who asserted that the Times Square bomber was probably a disgruntled opponent of Obama Care.

The Mayor doesn't seem to get the point that it is not unreasonable for people directly affected by the 9/11 attacks to object to a house of worship being constructed mere steps from the site of an act of unprecedented evil - a terrorist attack carried out by those who murdered nearly three-thousand innocents in the name of that particular faith.

But in Bloomy’s world, if people do object, it’s simply too bad.  Their objections are not to be tolerated.

It is up to them to adjust.

But now, into the ever-growing bouillabaisse of ignorance, insensitivity and stupidity – taking his rightful place along side the term-limit smashing mayor of New York - goes the young metrosexual from Chicago – our President - so enamored with intrusive government, so in over his head, so out of touch with the people he is charged to serve, that his incompetence in all arenas outside of the campaign-trail is (or should be) unquestioned among those who have functioning synapses.

On Friday, Barack Obama came out in favor of the construction of the controversial Ground Zero mosque.

Of course he did.

It’s Ramadan.

And while he would not participate in the National Day of Prayer Service at the White House in May, he did take part in an iftar dinner last week - the evening meal at which Muslims break their fast during the month of Ramadan.

Iftar is a religous observance ... and the White House was more than happy to host the event.

He, like Bloomy, went on to justify his position by (conveniently) referencing the country’s founding principals, saying:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

How exactly does one characterize a man who could make such a foolish statement?

How exactly is America’s commitment to religious freedom being compromised?

How is religious freedom in danger when the entire discussion is about one specific location in an area of Manhattan considered sacred to many – a war zone - where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam?

No one – repeat, no one - is calling for the removal of any already existing mosques in New York. No one is asking for any Islamic cultural centers – of which there are many in New York – to be shut down.

This is about the area in and around Ground Zero; a place where two tall towers used to stand, brought down in an act of war by followers of the very faith that did so in the name of that faith.

It is not unreasonable for people to object.

You'll recall that the White House was originally silent on the matter, saying only that it was a local issue ... even though it was the United States of America, as a nation, that was attacked on September 11, 2001.

site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque

Now, with Ramadan upon us - and the Ground Zero mosque controversy ever-growing across the country - the President has done an about face and decided that the matter is, indeed, a national issue worthy of his commentary and Constitutional prowess ... even though (once again) this is not about the Bill of Rights or religious freedom.

It never has been.

The moment the government keeps anyone from being a Muslim, please call me.

The second anyone is denied the right to follow Islam, let me know. It'll make for a fascinating article.

Rather, this is a matter of spectacular insensitivity on the part of the pro-mosque contingent - including our Commander-In-Chief.

Why is it that the feelings, emotions and sentiments of those supporting this mosque and cultural center are the only ones that matter here?

If this really is an issue of tolerance, why are the wishes of the 9/11 family members (as well as a majority of Americans opposed to its construction) not tolerated?

And let's keep in mind that there is not a Muslim community in lower Manhattan, save for street vendors and cab drivers. The goal in constructing this facility is to create a Muslim community in that portion of the city so that, in part, the 9/11 narrative can be changed.

On Saturday, Bammy tried to backtrack a bit, doing his best to have things both ways, saying:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

You can't make it up.

Does he honestly expect us to believe that he was not endorsing the mosque and cultural center with his original remarks? That he was speaking in generalities? He specifically referred to the mosque in lower Manhattan in his comments on Friday, didn't he?

Come now, Mr. President.

Where in the Constitution is the expressed right to construct a house of worship anywhere anyone pleases?

What right is being infringed upon if construction is denied on that specific location? Aren't there over a hundred mosques in the city already?

Liberals are incredibly tedious, aren't they?

The real question is: Had America not been attacked on September 11, 2001, is there anyone who truly believes that this mosque and Islamic cultural center would still be built right there at the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory? (It might still be open had the building not been damaged by a wheel from one of the 9/11 hijacked planes).

And while many have not touched upon it, this is also an issue of national security.

The truth is, we would afford our enemies a sense of victory precisely because the mosque would go up within spitting distance of Ground Zero. The mayor said it himself … he supports this to show how tolerant we are. He, like so many on the Left, thinks this will impress the world - particularly Muslims - with American open-mindedness and acceptance.

What the Left doesn't comprehend - what they will never comprehend as long as they remain on the Left - is that our enemies don't see an olive branch. They see weakness.

Of course, after President Obama stepped away from his original statement about the mosque on Saturday, White House spokesman Bill Burton came out and said that Obama’s pullback was premature. The President, according to Burton, is “not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.”

Why should he?

Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas

President Obama continues to be in wonderful company. Support for the mosque has just come in from Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of the terrorist organization, Hamas – as if Saturday’s ringing endorsement from The Center for American Progress, a powerful leftist group, wasn’t enough.

Mahmoud al-Zahar said, "We have to build everywhere."

None of this is to be confused with yet another report from an “unnamed White House official” that the President made his support for the mosque public “purely on his own.”

Indeed, when the controversy was still a “local issue” – a position so drenched in stupidity as to be criminal – the President, at least, was out of the crosshairs of public sentiment.

Weak, but somewhat effective.

Now, with the Commander-In-Chief apparently taking it upon himself to let the world know that he endorses the construction of the mosque, stupidity (and downright ignorance) has been elevated to a new level at the expense of the citizenry he is charged to serve.

And no, he didn’t speak with Mike Bloomberg about this before hand either. It looks like Bammy did this all on his own.

Politically speaking, this is a disaster for The One.

Morally, he has hit rock bottom.

Tolerance is not caving into phantom visions of sugar-plum unity at the expense of the very real pain and suffering of 9/11 family members. Tolerance is not about crapping on Americans (like myself) who, to this day, feel the catastrophic effects of those attacks on our nation by people who did so in the name of that religion.

(I’ll keep repeating that until my fingertips explode)

It’s remarkably difficult to listen to rhetoric from proponents of the new Islamic cultural center about reaching out and building bridges when the moderate Muslims of the world who actually do renounce extremism remain silent and refuse to stand up loudly and proudly against terrorism with the rest of us.

This is not about legalities - about having the right to construct a mosque.

This is about what's right.