Trump: "I Would Never Use an Image From 9/11 to Crassly Further My Campaign!"*

Donald Trump got rave reviews from his last debate performance when he gave a quiet tribute of sorts to the spirit of New Yorkers after 9/11 as a rebuttal to Ted Cruz's characterization of "New York values". Since then, he has tweeted pictures of the rubble at the World Trade Center to buttress his argument. Only it's as phony as a three dollar bill.

The aftermath of 9/11 caused many Americans to come together in a spirit of co-operation. There was a sense of true bi-partisanship, outwardly anyway, for a brief time on Capitol Hill. But this does not characterize the values of Washington, D.C. Nor does that brief moment of togetherness in NYC in the aftermath of the attack characterize that city.

Big cities tend to lean Left. Look at LA, or Seattle, or Chicago or San Francisco, or to the Mother-of-All Left leaning big cities...New York City. Invoking the camaraderie that followed 9/11 to mask the typical "New York values" which Trump himself said were being pro-abortion, anti-gun and pro liberal politician, is crass exploitation.

The fact that the MSM is swooning over his response just makes him look more like...a Democrat.

*Note: Not a real quote.

Beverage Suppression Day in the "Dehydrated Apple"

Reader Bobby writes:

"... tomorrow is Beverage Suppression Day in NYC. No more large, sweet beverages in the Big Apple. Is Big Apple even an appropriate nickname anymore? Apples have sugar. Shouldn’t the government be promoting medium- or small apples?"

I've taken your "Big Apple" question to heart, Bobby. Perhaps now, given the reduced size of beverages in NYC, we should call it, "The Dehydrated Apple"?



Update: A state court judge has halted Drinkmageddon for at least the time being. Based on his reasoning, I would expect the judge's ban not to be overturned. The law was too arbitrary in who was and was not exempted from the law and which sugary drinks were and were not exempted.

In halting the rules, Judge Tingling noted that the incoming sugary drink regime was "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences" that would be difficult to enforce with consistency "even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole."

"The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the rule," the judge wrote.

Under a first-of-its-kind prohibition approved by the city Board of Health last year, establishments from restaurants to mobile food carts would have been prohibited from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 oz. After a three-month grace period, the city would have started fining violators $200 per sale.

The city rules, set to take effect on March 12, didn't include convenience stores, such as 7-Elevens, and supermarkets, both of which are regulated by the state government.

Again, a hat tip to Bobby for keeping us on the cutting edge here.

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.

---