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?
----

Corporations, Occupy Wall Street and Sweet Irony

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

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

Here’s a fact: American corporations –whether run by people with left leaning views (Ben And Jerry’s) or right-leaning views (Home Depot) – cannot show up at your front door and take away your constitutional rights. They cannot crush your liberties, confiscate your property, incarcerate you, threaten you or make you do anything you don’t want to.

That’s what government is for.

Corporations cannot, for instance, intimidate private property owners by saying there will be hell to pay if those owners decide they might like to tidy up their own properties currently being occupied by whiny, spoiled-brat, soulless, narcissistic, bottom-feeder scumbag protesters in Che Guevara t-shirts and grey-haired pony-tail types in dull tie-dyes.

That’s what New York City elected officials are for.

Here’s another fact, as pointed out by Dennis Prager on his radio program yesterday: History has shown, unequivocally, that anti-rich movements – no matter where they may they have occurred in this world, say, over the past hundred years or so (and well beyond that) - have resulted in nothing positive for the poor. Absolutely nothing.

When, asks Prager, has blaming the rich ever helped the poor?

It should be noted that these “down with the rich” movements have resulted in multiple instances of dictatorship and genocide (see Communism).

If someone could please cite the instance (or instances) when a society has thrived after a capitalist system has been removed, I would be most appreciative.

Just asking.

We constantly hear from these protesters and their supporters how the country is being taken over by corporations, but are never told how exactly this is happening.

What does that mean exactly?

How is America being “taken over” by corporations?

In what way?

I'd love someone to explain it to me.

And isn’t it funny how for all their griping about corporate-this and greedy Capitalists-that, these aimless unwashed, selfish parasites always seem to gravitate toward these evil centers of capitalism – bright lights, high-energy, hustle-and-bustle – places that were built by free markets? New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles – these are not exactly granola-crunching back-to-basics communes.

These are supply-and-demand epicenters.

As Rush Limbaugh pointed out last week, there were more people waiting on line for the new iPhone in Manhattan than there were protesting the "corporate fat cats" poised to make profits off of them.

City after city across the country – with their coffee bars, music shops, universities, parks, hookah joints – are swarming with express-yourself-any-damn-way-you-want artistic-types. These people don't exactly live in tent villas in the outskirts of these cities roasting pine cones, bathing in the creeks. Musicians, poets, activists, actors, political morons, university-brainwashed drones - they continue to flock to these places that would not exist if not for capitalism.

It’s where the electricity and Mac Books are.

That the current financial woes were not – repeat not – set off by the all-encompassing, generic boogie-man “Wall Street,” but rather by an ever-growing, ever-intrusive, finger-in-the-pie federal government, seems to be irrelevant to the excrement living on the streets of New York (and elsewhere).

Where is the Occupy Rich Rap Stars movement?

Or the Occupy George Soros movement?

Or the Occupy the Union Fat Cats movement?

Or – dare I say it – the Occupy Oprah movement?

In reality, there is no real clear objective or purpose in these Occupy Everything movements. There is nothing unifying these protesters except hatred for this country and its institutions. These are intellectually illiterate radicals, acting purely on emotion. They are incoherent, disarranged misfits hell-bent on making others suffer with them. Whenever they are asked what their purpose is, they recycle vague bumper sticker twaddle, without a clue as to what they are saying or why they are saying it. 

It just sounds good.

They are jealous, angry malcontents demanding things from everyone else, never considering what they might be able to give of themselves to improve whatever conditions they're protesting. The irony is that these squawking drones have been programmed to do exactly what they accuse “Wall Street” of doing – namely, get whatever they can get from everyone else at any cost. They are programmed to ask for - and expect - something for nothing. By virtue of their existences, they are entitled. They measure worth only in how things affect them personally.

Indeed, while they stand tall about taking from those who have (i.e., distributing other people’s wealth), they say they may have to get tough now that thieves are infiltrating their “camp” in lower Manhattan and stealing their stuff.

Sweet irony.

One gal complained that someone stole her expensive laptop.

From the New York Post:

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

Crafty cat burglars sneaked into the makeshift kitchen at Zuccotti Park overnight and swiped as much as $2,500 in donated greenbacks from right under the noses of volunteers who’d fallen asleep after a long day whipping up meals for the hundreds of hungry protesters, the volunteers said.

“The worst thing is there’s people sleeping in the kitchen when they come, and they don’t even know about it! There are some really smart and sneaky thieves here,” Terrie said.

“I had umbrellas stolen, a fold-up bed I brought because my back is bad -- they took that, too!”

Security volunteer Harry Wyman, 22, of Brooklyn was furious about the thievery -- and vowed to get tough with the predatory perps.

“I’m not getting paid, but I’m not gonna stand for it. Why people got to come here and do stupid stuff? All it does is make people not wanna come here anymore,” Wyman fumed.

Getting tough? Not going to stand for it? Stupid stuff?
 

I'm trying not to laugh.

 

How in the world can anyone associated with these protesters be taken seriously when they complain about the lack of civility taking place down there? Are they serious? Is it any less civil than sleeping, defecating and urinating in a public setting? Is it any less civil than disrupting the lives of everyone else who live and work in the area? Is it any less civil than going into privately owned establishments and causing disruptions to the point where the police are needed to remove them? Is it any less civil than their selfish disregard for the ever-escalating costs to the taxpayers? Is it any less civil than the profanities being lodged at people trying to go about their business, the anti Semetic signs been waved, and the public displays of sex?

 

Yes, irony, thy name is Occupy Wall Street.

 

Besides, why would anyone occupying Wall Street care if a laptop was stolen? Or money? Or anything?

Perhaps their call for the redistribution of wealth is selective.

-

New York City's Gone Mad . . . Again

New York's King Michael Bloomberg

By guest blogger Andrew Roman

Not that I should necessarily expect any different, but I admit to being somewhat astounded at the persistent descent into head-scratching inanity that has shaped and defined post-Giuliani New York City in recent years.

Indeed, New York City's tried and true liberalism is a given. To say the Big Apple leans left is to say that water has a certain dampness to it. Those glorious days of the 2004 Republican Convention, when the streets were teeming with throngs of folks from the right-of-center, are but a smile on my face that liberals who pass me on the street don't understand.

But run-of-the-mill, everyday, big-city liberal buffoonery is not quite the same as full-fledged, red-light, big government, multicultural leftist absurdity.

This city has, in a couple of words, gone mad.

Or, perhaps better stated, its leadership has.

It wasn’t enough that its billionaire Mayor (with his own Obama-light messiah-complex) decided to usurp the will of the people by thumbing his nose at term limits. Only he could save and run the city the right way ... and he told us so.

It wasn’t enough that privately owned establishments, like bars and restaurants, were banned from allowing smoking on their premises. After all, matters of health are now moral issues ... and health trumps liberty. (Am I the only one who still finds it astonishing that one cannot smoke in a bar in New York City?)

It wasn’t enough that an all out government offensive against salt – wonderful, flavor-bringing, taste-enhancing, complementary, lip-smacking, i-love-liberty salt – became a major crusade for Big Apple big government. After all, only government regulation can save us from our greedy, taste-bud indulging selves.

It wasn’t enough that privately owned restaurants were told what oils they could and could not cook with. Thanks to the warm, nurturing hand of government, it's only a matter of time before our government-defined quality of life is enhanced exponentially because of the expunging of evil trans fatty oils.

It wasn’t enough that Mayor Bloomberg actually renamed a street in Queens after a career criminal (Sean Bell). (Yes, that was the Reverend Al Sharpton casting his overseer's shadow on the whole affair).

It wasn’t enough that New York’s illustrious mayor actually invited illegal aliens to come to the sanctuary city of New York to forget their troubles. Said the Mayor: "People who are undocumented do not have to worry about city government going to the federal government."

Dandy.

He literally said that tourists and businesses should avoid Arizona and come to New York instead: "People from around the world may think twice before visiting Arizona and subjecting themselves to potential run-ins with the police ... We’re happy to have those businesses and tourists come here."

It wasn’t enough that immediately after the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square, Bloomy reflexively said the perpetrator was probably an opponent to ObamaCare. After all, knee-jerking toward a conservative scapegoat is less hazardous to one's health than, say, suggesting that it might have been a Muslim.

It isn’t enough that Wal Mart is still not allowed to open a store in this city, despite New York being part of the liberty-loving, free-market-based nation called the United States of America. There literally were rallies in front of City Hall in Manhattan against Wal Mart setting up shop anywhere in the five boroughs.

It isn’t enough that this state inexplicably forbids mail ordering cigarettes from other states despite New York being part of the liberty-loving, free-market-based nation called the United States of America. I'd love someone to explain that one to me.

It isn’t enough that the Mayor of New York supports the construction of the Ground Zero mosque in the name of tolerance and religious freedom, even though the matter has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with rights. It has to do with doing what's right. There is simply no moral justification for constructing a mosque and Islmaic cultural center in the vicinity of Ground Zero when there are a plethora of other locations on which to do so.

It isn’t enough that one of our Senators is Chuck Schumer.

But it only gets better.

Late last month, after a series of violent acts were perpetrated against Mexicans in the Port Richmond section of Staten Island, the Consulate General of Mexico in New York City, said that he will be assigning his own people to patrol the streets of the borough.

His own people.

That’s right … A foreign diplomat will be posting security personnel on the streets of an American city to protect Mexican “immigrants" against Americans.

If ever there was anything that could be extracted from the "You Cant Make This Stuff Up" file, this would be one.

John M. Annese of SI Live writes:

“We will act decisively in order to protect our citizens and will actively promote that those guilty of these vicious attacks are brought to justice expeditiously. We are working hand-in-hand with local authorities on all levels,” said the Consul General of Mexico in New York, Rubén Beltrán in a statement emailed to an Advance reporter.

“In response to the escalating violence against Mexicans in Port Richmond, Staten Island, the Consulate General of Mexico in New York is posting personnel that will remain in the borough until further notice. This, in order to safeguard their rights and effectively assist and provide information to the Mexican residents of this area,” Beltrán wrote.

Beltran, the counsel general of Mexico, condemned the latest spate of alleged Staten Island bias crimes. Back in April, Beltran appeared with Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Borough President James P. Molinaro in the aftermath of several other incidents that occurred at the time.

The Mexican diplomat also called upon local authorities to “conduct a thorough investigation” of the alleged hate-crime cases. He also offered “extensive cooperation and all the necessary support to ensure that justice is served.”

"Decisively?" What exactly is that supposed to mean? He spoke with almost as much authority as the Mexican President did earlier this year when he came to America to tell us how horrible this country's immigration policy is.

To begin with ... violence against innocents is never acceptable, no matter the victim. It goes without saying.

But the irony here is that when one of our own state governments finally elected to take "decisive action" to protect its citizenry - specifically, Arizona's passage of its controversial illegal aliens law - cries of racism and racial profiling immediately echoed across the map. Such a law could only be born of racism and intolerance, so we were told by the compassionate masses.

Thus, based on the lamestream media's absolute lack of coverage or commentary on this particular Staten Island matter, it is apparently no problem for foreigners to come here and protect foreigners, but it is unacceptable for Americans to protect Americans from foreigners.

Nice.

Of course, to be fair, the people who were attacked on Staten Island could very well be legal.

The real question is: How do these Mexican patrollers know whom to protect? Wouldn't they, by definition, have to "profile?"

-