A Small Update On Some Of The Fake News You Are Hearing

PJ Media posted a list today of the top ten lies the news media has told about President Trump’s response to the coronavirus. Please follow the link to the article to read the details–I am simply posting the list:

10. Trump downplayed the mortality rate of the coronavirus

 

 9. Trump lied when he said Google was developing a national coronavirus website

 8.  Trump ‘dissolved’ the WH pandemic response office

 7. Trump ignored early intel briefings on possible pandemic

 6. Trump cut funding to the CDC & NIH

 5. Trump ‘muzzled’ Dr. Fauci

 4. Trump didn’t act quickly and isn’t doing enough

 3. Trump told governors they were “on their own”

 2. Trump turned down testing kits from WHO

 1. Trump called the coronavirus “a hoax”

The sources for this misinformation vary. The sources include MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Joe Biden, and Michael Bloomberg. If you are still depending on these sources for accurate reporting, you are being mislead. The article at PJ Media lists the source for each lie, so you can see where the lies came from.

Meanwhile stay safe, and be careful who you listen to.

An Interesting Question

The Federalist posted an article today that asks an interesting question–“If Bloomberg Couldn’t Buy 2020, How Could Russia Buy 2016?”

The article quotes The Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway:

“We had years where people were saying a couple hundred thousand dollars in barely literate Facebook ads from Russians caused Donald Trump to win. Here you had a guy spend nearly $1 billion and he went nowhere. It’s a humiliating defeat for Michael Bloomberg,” she said.

Host Bret Baier drilled the point home: “So Russians influenced the election with $200,000, or $300,000 in Facebook ads? And Mike Bloomberg couldn’t get more than 50 delegates with $600 million dollars?”

“And this hurts Bernie Sanders’s message, too, because he likes to say the billionaires control everything,” Hemingway said. “Clearly Bloomberg having all this money didn’t do as much for him as Biden having the media and the establishment behind him. I would pick media and establishment over millions all day.”

If money could buy elections, we would have either President Jeb Bush or President Hillary Clinton. American voters do respond to ads, but they also have common sense.

The Field Narrows

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday.

According to Ballotpedia:

With both California and Texas—the two most populous states in the United States—holding their primaries on Super Tuesday, approximately 40% of the U.S. population has a primary event on March 3.[1] In total, 1,344 pledged delegates—34% of all pledged delegates—are at stake.

As of March 2020, the following six Democratic elected officials and notable public figures are running in the primary:

Today The Washington Examiner is reporting that Amy Klobuchar has dropped out of the race. According to The New York Times, she plans to endorse Joe Biden. So what is going on here. The Democrats are desperate to stop Bernie Sanders. I find it hard to believe that they think Joe Biden is a viable candidate, but the choices are definitely limited. If Joe Biden wins the nomination, I hope he can remember where he is and who he is debating if there are debates. Joe Biden needs to go home and enjoy his family; his gaffes are only getting worse.

 

I Totally Don’t Understand This

Yesterday Breitbart News reported a puzzling comment by House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat. Representative Clyburn was being interviewed on Fox Business Network by Neil Cavuto. The article includes part of the transcript of that interview.

The article reports:

NEIL CAVUTO: As you’ve been seeing with Michael Bloomberg, he’s been jumping in the polls on the heels of his very expensive, pricey ad buys if you include $125 million slated for Super Tuesday. Could you, would you back him?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN: I’m going to back whoever our nominee is — Absolutely.

CAVUTO: Even with the things he’s said about African-Americans? Does that bother you?

REP. CLYBURN: Not as much as what Trump has said about African-Americans. Anytime that I go to the polls, I’m considering positives and negatives on all candidates and I try to go with the one whose positives outweigh the negatives.

CAVUTO: Let’s leave the words aside, whether you like his style or not, tweets or not, or comments or not, he’s delivered the goods for a lot of African-Americans. Does he not with record-low unemployment levels?… You don’t think that’s something that’s constructive?

REP. CLYBURN: No, because it’s not true. I’m saying that the African American unemployment is not the lowest it’s ever been unless you count slavery… We were fully employed during slavery. So, it all depends how you measure this up.

This is how blind hatred affects judgement.

On February 7, 2020, CNS News reported:

Trump loves to boast and exaggerate, so it’s easy to throw out little “Pinocchio” ratings when Trump claims we have the lowest black unemployment rate in American history, since it’s only been measured since 1972. But it’s literally the lowest ever measured in American history. What the fact-checkers are doing is littering achievements with asterisks, trying to distract from the undeniable fact that unemployment is at record lows for blacks, Hispanics, women, the disabled and undoubtedly other groups Democrats claim to champion.

This is the link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website page that has all of the unemployment statistics. You can explore that page for pure numbers. We should all celebrate the fact that the Trump economy has been good to all Americans of all backgrounds.

This Could Get Interesting

Hot Air is reporting today that Everytown for Gun Safety, a Mike Bloomberg-backed gun-grabbing group, is setting its sights on Texas.

The article reports:

Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg-backed group that pushes for expanded background checks, red flag laws and other measures, is plotting what its political director calls an “unprecedented financial and grassroots effort” to flip the Texas House, defend vulnerable freshmen Democrats in Congress and help Democrats take congressional seats in the suburbs. A memo detailing the plan, the group’s biggest state investment to date, was shared exclusively with Hearst Newspapers.

“We believe that Texas, as it becomes younger and increasingly diverse, can be the next emerging battleground state with gun safety as the tipping point,” Chris Carr, the group’s political director wrote in the memo. “We believe there are opportunities to elect gun sense candidates up and down the ballot, from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress — and potentially even statewide.”

I will admit that I don’t know a lot about Texas politics, but it seems to me that the basic culture of Texas might make this planned gun grab a little more difficult.

The article concludes:

While Shannon Watts (founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group of activists affiliated with Everytown) uses hyperbole in comparing Texas to Virginia, she should know that Texas is not like most other states. There are plenty of Democrats in elected office who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are gun owners themselves. This is not as partisan issue as it is in other states.

“I would say anyone running for office in Texas should look to Virginia,” Watts said. “Six months after a shooting in Virginia Beach, all of the elected officials who refused gun sense were voted out of office.”

Everytown is supporting freshmen Democrats like my own congresswoman – Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, who is vulnerable. The district was a strongly red district – the reddest in Houston – and fell into Democrat hands for the first time in 2018 when she was elected. She is facing a tough battle to retain her seat. I’m counting on my district moving back into the red column in November.

Everytown is also planning to go on the offensive against Republican U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Michael McCaul, Chip Roy and John Carter, and it’s planning to spend big in districts left open by retiring Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Will Hurd.

As is said in Texas, come and take it.

Let’s hope Texas voters are awake enough not to repeat what happened in Virginia. One thing to keep in mind when looking at Virginia is that a lot of the Democrat candidates ran unopposed. Hopefully that won’t happen in Texas.

A Person’s Reputation Matters

Everyone has a reputation. You have a reputation among your close friends and among people who don’t know you very well. That reputation is based on observations of your honesty, integrity, character, and other personality traits. That reputation determines the opportunities and experiences that will be available to you. Occasionally people make decisions that seem odd in light of another person’s reputation. That has happened recently.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today noting a comment by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris upon hearing that Michael Bloomberg is considering Hillary Clinton as a possible running mate.

The article reports:

Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris fired a warning shot to Mike Bloomberg following Matt Drudge’s claim that Bloomberg was considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate.

“Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force…” Matt Drudge said.

DICK MORRIS: To: Mike Bloomberg: Before you put Hillary on your ticket, better hire a taster

The Clintons have never actually been convicted of a serious crime, yet they have a reputation that has followed them in their political career. The number of associates of the Clintons or people preparing to testify against them that have died under unusual circumstances is long. I doubt the Clintons will ever be convicted of anything, yet their reputation has followed them through the years. The fact that Dick Morris would joke about this (if he was joking) is telling.

The Search For Truth

If you are trying to find real news, I suggest that you explore One America News and NewsMax. The mainstream media has forgotten how to tell the truth. The Washington Examiner posted an article today titled, “Four major journalistic errors in just 10 hours.”

The article reports:

1. The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman, for example, tweeted the following falsehood at around 5:30 p.m. Monday evening: “Republican voter registration in NH is down roughly 20k voters from 2016 to now. It’s a reminder that Trump’s increased GOP popularity is in part because in some places, the GOP registration rolls have shrunk.”

This is not only false, but it has been debunked several times. At some point, repeating the lie becomes a choice.

2. “When I ask people if they’re voting for Donald Trump, I hear about their 401(k)s a lot,” she (MSNBC’s Katy Tur) said during a live broadcast from New Hampshire, “but there are those out there who don’t have a 401(k), and there are those out there who this economy is not really working for them.”

Tur added, “They might have a job, but it’s not a job that pays their bills. They can get a car, but it’s a loan that will take 30 years.”

I have no idea what she is talking about. I don’t think even she knows. (What else is new?) Car loans can take anywhere between 12 and 84 months to pay off. Who are these people agreeing to 30-year car loans? (Follow up question: Are they looking to finance a new car? No reason.)

3. Earlier that morning, CNN’s Cristina Alesci warned viewers to be wary of recently surfaced audio of 2020 Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg proudly promoting the stop-and-frisk policies he championed as mayor of New York City. After all, the CNN reporter claimed, as we don’t have the full audio of the former mayor’s remarks, we don’t have the full context. But this is not true. The full audio of Bloomberg’s comments has been available online since 2015.

“So, here’s the thing, important context here,” she said. “We don’t have the full tape.”

Alesci, who, by the way, is an alumna of the Bloomberg News empire, continued, “So, this is obviously snippets that have been released, the podcaster and the writer that released this sound is clearly a Bernie supporter, if you look at his twitter feed, he’s very anti-Bloomberg. He’s promoting a hashtag ‘#BloombergIsARacist.'”

A simple Google search brings up the full audio, which was posted shortly after Bloomberg delivered his address in 2015 at the Aspen Institute. Also, all that stuff about the alleged political affiliations of the person who posted the audio online Monday evening is irrelevant to the content of the surging 2020 candidate’s past remarks.

4. Lastly, and relatedly, there is NBC News’s Heidi Przybyla. She shared a conspiracy theory at around 7:30 a.m. alleging that the Kremlin is responsible for making the hashtag “#BloombergIsRacist” a top-trending news topic on social media. The hashtag, which is definitely organic, cropped up Tuesday morning following the release of the Bloomberg audio. Przybyla later deleted her tweet promoting the conspiracy theory, which she had not even bothered to double-check before sharing with her 145,000 Twitter followers.

All of that misinformation occurred within a 10-hour span. If you are depending on those sources for accurate information, you might want to reconsider.

The DNC Is Rigging The Results Again

Many of the Democrat party elite do not want Bernie Sanders as their presidential candidate. He is too far left of the average voter. The millennial generation loves him, but they are not known for their voter turnout. A Bernie Sanders presidential campaign might easily end up the way the George McGovern campaign ended. The establishment Democrats want to protect their party. However, Bernie is gaining in the polls and may win the first three primary states. So how do the people who formerly congregated in smoke-filled rooms to choose candidates deal with this problem? Easy–rig the system.

The New York Post reported yesterday that the Democratic National Committee has dropped the fundraising requirements that had kept Mike Bloomberg out of the presidential debates.

The article reports:

Until now, making the debates required some minimal success both in the polls and in raising lots of donations from several states — 225,000 donors, with at least 1,000 from 20 different states, for the Feb. 7 debate.

But Bloomy refuses to spend anyone’s money but his own: “I’ve never accepted a nickel from anyone,” as he wrote in a CNN op-ed, so “I’ve always been independent of the special interests.”

He’s also not even trying to win the earliest primary states — but has still soared to fourth place in national polls of Democrats’ 2020 contest. So he should clearly be onstage in the debates. It’s only fair for him, his rivals and the voters — who deserve to see all the top contenders face off against each other.

Then again, spending some of his own $60 billion has let him lap the field when it comes to advertising–he’s shelled out an unprecendented $278 million on ads since he entered the race in November, including $11 million for a 60-second Super Bowl spot.

His investment has paid off–he has moved into fourth place.

The article concludes:

We’ve been dubious about the DNC’s rules from the start — the way gazillionaire Tom Steyer, a total vanity candidate, gamed his way into the debates was a dead giveaway of poor design, as were the unwieldy 10-candidates-at-a-time early face-offs.

Some fix may still be in: The new rules, starting with the Feb. 19 Las Vegas debate, require a candidate to either 1) pick up a pledged delegate in the first two contests or 2) reach at least 10% in four DNC-recognized polls, or 12% in two “DNC-kosher” early-state polls.

That could limit the field to Biden, Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren — which would look like the DNC rigging the game for Biden.

Stay tuned. I can’t imaging Bernie Sanders supporters putting up with having the nomination pulled out from under them twice, particularly if a brokered convention somehow winds up with Hillary Clinton as the candidate. This could be very interesting.

When People Espousing Gun Control Know Nothing About The Subject

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about some recent statements by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat congresswoman from Texas.

The article reports:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) claimed to have held an AR-15 and immediately regretted it, saying it weighed as much as “10 boxes that you might be moving.”

Speaking to reporters last week, she added that AR-15s use a “.50 caliber” bullet that ought to be licensed.

“I’ve held an AR-15 in my hand,” she said. “I wish I hadn’t. It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving. And the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber, these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the streets.”

Being a skeptical person and not wanting to mislead readers of this blog, I weighed an AR-15 with a thirty-round magazine. It weighed less than my cat–about 10 pounds. (One of my cats is part Maine Coon and weighs about fifteen pounds. Note: It is definitely appropriate that someone writing a blog called rightwinggranny would have multiple cats!)  I would hate to be the moving company in charge of moving Representative Lee if each moving box only contains one pound’s worth of goods.

The article concludes:

The Washington Free Beacon made a SuperCut in 2018 of gun control advocates bungling facts about firearms, and it included many Democratic elected officials.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) remarked it was legal to “hunt humans” with high-capacity magazines, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg had to be corrected on the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) warned about “rapid-fire magazines.”

Why do Democrat lawmakers want to take our guns away? Why do they want to take our guns away while they continue to have armed security guards? Is it okay for them to defend themselves but not okay for the average American citizen to be able to defend themselves? Why are lawmakers reluctant to put armed retired military in schools to defend the children, instead leaving schools on the list of ‘soft targets’ for mass shootings? Are lawmakers aware that the Aurora movie theater shooter chose that theater because it did not allow its patrons to exercise their concealed carry right? These are the questions that should be asked of our lawmakers.

Why Didn’t The New York City Police Department Follow The Law?

Yesterday The New York Post reported that Jeffrey Epstein, after being labeled a Level 3 sex offender in 2011, never once checked in with city cops in the eight-plus years since a Manhattan judge ordered him to do so every 90 days — and the NYPD says it’s fine with that. What?

The article reports:

After being labeled a worst-of-the-worst, Level 3 sex offender in 2011, Epstein should have reported in person to verify his address 34 times before he was arrested Saturday on federal child sex-trafficking charges.

Violating requirements of the state’s 1996 Sex Offender Registration Act — including checking in with law enforcement — is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison for a first offense.

Subsequent violations carry a sentence of up to seven years each.

But the NYPD hasn’t required the billionaire financier — who owns a $77 million Upper East Side townhouse — to check in since he registered as a sex offender in New York over the controversial 2008 plea bargain he struck in Florida amid allegations he sexually abused scores of underage girls in his Palm Beach mansion.

Michael Bloomberg was the Mayor of New York in 2011. In 2014, Bill de Blasio became Mayor. Did they make this decision or did the police chief make this decision?

The article continues:

That was the same hearing where, in a highly controversial move, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office tried to argue on Epstein’s behalf that he should be deemed a low-risk Level 1 offender, which would have exempted him from the reporting requirements.

The DA’s office has said that the prosecutor in that case — Jennifer Gaffney, who quit last year — “made a mistake” and that DA Cyrus Vance Jr. was unaware of it at the time.

In March, an NYPD spokeswoman told the Washington Post that Epstein never checked in following Pickholz’s ruling. Asked repeatedly about that admission this week, the NYPD declined comment.

Asked about her ruling, state court spokesman Lucian Chalfen said Pickholz “stands by what was said in court, on the record, at the hearing and has had no further role in any type of enforcement. That’s not the court’s role.”

In addition to verifying a sex offender’s address, the 90-day check-ins allow cops to take a new photograph if the offender’s appearance has changed, so it can be updated online.

The NYPD cop assigned to monitor Epstein has repeatedly complained to Vance’s Sex Crimes Unit that Epstein wasn’t in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But prosecutors told the cop to merely send Epstein a letter reminding him of his reporting requirement.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is fascinating. One wonders how much money changed hands and to whose hands it went to keep this man from having the meet his legal responsibilities in New York City.

Do We Really Want To Do This?

On February 15th The Washington Examiner posted an article with the following headline: “‘Medicare for All’ would require obesity laws.” I wonder if the few Americans who actually support the idea of ‘Medicare for All’ understand that would be part of the deal (along with drastic increases in taxes, long waits for medical care, and a reduction in the quality and quantity of medical care available).

The article notes:

At 36.2 percent, the American obesity rate is the 12th-highest in the world and first among OECD countries. Of every European nation with universal healthcare, only the United Kingdom (27.8 percent) and Hungary (26.4 percent) come within 10 percent of the American obesity rate.

In Germany, France, Portugal, and Sweden, the national obesity rates are 22.3 percent, 21.6 percent, 20.8 percent, and 20.6 percent respectively. And in Denmark and Italy, fewer than 20 percent of people are obese.

Like it or not, we live in a country where ordering a salad at a fast food place often costs more than ordering something less healthy. Unless Americans are willing to change their eating habits significantly, Medicare for All would be a disaster.

The article concludes:

The country under single-payer will make former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s soda taxes and food-nannying look like child’s play. Everything from your sugar consumption to your alcohol would become a matter of public regulation, and the public would not only have the power but also the moral right to regulate how people live.

Of the 2.6 million deaths in the U.S. per year, 300,000 are caused by obesity. It’s one of the single greatest drivers of avoidable healthcare spending, costing the country around $200 billion annually.

Progressives may call this fat-shaming. But it’s really just public health and economics.

Keep your hands off my Bo-Jangles!

Do You Need Two Sides To Debate An Issue?

Do you need two sides to debate an issue? Evidently NBC News doesn’t think so. Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about the debate on climate change.

The article reports:

NBC News has decided that climate change is no longer an issue that has two sides.

Sunday’s episode of “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd featured an hourlong panel with lawmakers and scientists about the consequences of climate change. But at the start, Mr. Todd said his show is “not going to give time to climate deniers” and went on to inaccurately characterize the nature of the climate debate.

“Just as important as what we are going to do is what we’re not going to do,” he said. “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period.”

“We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,” Mr. Todd added. “The science is settled even if political opinion is not.”

Skeptics about some of the most alarmist climate-change scenarios drawn by former Vice President Al Gore and other Democratic and left-wing politicians bristle at the word “denier,” claiming it implies parallels to people who claim the Holocaust or the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks didn’t happen.

The article continues with the supposed justification for not allowing a second opinion:

Mr. Todd’s panel Sunday had non-scientists offering their opinions, including California Gov. Jerry Brown, Rep. Carlos Curbelo and potential Democratic presidential contender Michael Bloomberg.

“We need to stop covering the debate and start covering the story so that people see that this is real, and so that politicians take a more pragmatic approach and find solutions that are actually achievable,” Mr. Curbelo said about the one-sided discussion.

Other politicians applauded the well-parametered show, with Sen. Bernie Sanders who took to Twitter to offer “congratulations to Chuck Todd and Meet the Press for holding a serious discussion about climate change.”

“Will this be a breakthrough moment for mainstream TV?” the Vermont socialist asked.

How can it be a serious discussion if one side is censored?

Just for the record, below is an illustration of the Scientific Method as found at Science Buddies:

I don’t see anything on there that says don’t let anyone who disagrees with you speak!

Priorities Matter–Even With Private Money

Obviously anyone making a donation to an organization might put strings on that donation. Sometimes those strings make sense; sometimes they don’t. The students march on Washington to promote infringing on the Second Amendment is not really a student-led movement–there is a lot of money coming in from private sources.

A website called Constitution.com posted an article on March 1st that goes into some of the history of the funding of the students.

The article reports:

On February 28, BuzzFeed came out with the actual story: Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying in Tallahassee, a teacher’s union organizing the buses that got the kids there, Michael Bloomberg’s groups and the Women’s March working on the upcoming March For Our Lives, MoveOn.org doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, and training for student activists provided by federally funded Planned Parenthood.

The president of the American Federation of Teachers told BuzzFeed they’re also behind the national school walkout, which journalists had previously assured the public was the sole work of a teenager. (I’d thought teachers were supposed to get kids into school, but maybe that’s just me.)

In other words, the response was professionalized.

The article continues with some of the other groups involved in funding other protests:

…major players and organizations — including Everytown, Giffords, Move On, Planned Parenthood, and the Women’s March LA — told BuzzFeed News they are helping the students with logistics, strategy, and planning for next month’s March for Our Lives rally and beyond. Much of the specific resources the groups are providing to the Parkland students remains unclear — as is the full list of supporting organizations — but there are broad outlines.

Giffords, an organization started by former US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that fights gun violence, is working with Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America to plan the main march on Washington — as well as sister rallies across the country…

Everytown for Gun Safety — bankrolled mostly by Michael Bloomberg — recently secured a $1 million donation from entrepreneur and philanthropist Eli Broad.

MoveOn said it will encourage its millions of members to follow and promote the March for Our Lives movement on social media and attend the rally next month. The group said it had offered support in organizing logistics such as security and portable toilets, but it is unclear if the students have taken them up on their offer.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood said the group is “teaching and hosting trainings” for young activists across the US “to keep momentum going so they don’t get burned out.”

…In addition to the millions of dollars raised by A-list celebrities including Oprah, George and Amal Clooney, Steven Spielberg, and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the March for Our Lives GoFundMe page has raised an additional $2.7 million as of Tuesday.

Now contrast that with what is going on in Baltimore. On January 9th, The Baltimore Sun reported:

Hundreds of students, parents and teachers poured into the Baltimore school system’s headquarters Tuesday night to question officials about plumbing and heating problems that left students shivering in class — or out of school altogether — since returning from winter break.

Families stood outside the North Avenue headquarters with signs that read “Don’t be cold-hearted” and “40 degrees is inhumane” as the city school board met inside. Parents urged accountability from school board members and accused them of ignoring problems facing city children.

On March 7th a website called bluntforcetruth reported:

The Baltimore city school system could not heat the schools this past winter.

Parents stormed the school system headquarters in January to demand the schools raise the temperature in the classrooms.

But that didn’t stop Baltimore Mayor from offering to send 60 busloads of kids to an anti-gun rally in Washington DC later this month.

Mayor Catherine Pugh announced at the Tuesday rally that the city will send 60 buses to the march against guns in Washington DC. later this month. The broke city will also provide food and free T-shirts.

The Mayor has stated that the expenses involved were paid by private donors and therefore are not related to the financial problems that the schools are currently having. I would like to suggest that if private donors are willing to pay for the students to go to Washington to protest the Second Amendment, shouldn’t we ask the private donors to help with the expenses of making the schools a reasonable place for the students to learn?

I guess indoctrinating our students is more important that providing enough heat in the classroom for them to learn–particularly to leftist activist groups.

Losing Your Rights In Your Own Home

Fox News posted an article in late June (I missed it. Sorry) about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio‘s plan to end smoking in apartments. That’s right, if you are renting an apartment in New York City, you would not be allowed to smoke in your apartment.

The article reports:

The mayor’s administration is planning to pay four health-advocacy groups $9,000 apiece to press landlords and developers to prohibit lighting up in their apartment complexes so neighboring tenants don’t breathe in secondhand smoke, according to the New York Post. The city has already banned smoking in bars and restaurants, workplaces, sports venues and parks, but has not moved against smokers who practice their habit in the privacy of their own homes.

City health officials emphasized the initiative is voluntary — at least for now.

“Everyone benefits from smoke-free housing. Residents enjoy breathing cleaner, healthier air in their homes . . . while owners see reductions in property damage and turnover costs,” a Health Department spokesman said.

Dozens of buildings containing hundreds of apartments have already kicked the habit, according to the Health Department. The de Blasio administration is actually accelerating an initiative started at the tail end of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s tenure.

I need to make a few things clear here. I am a non-smoker–I never smoked. I grew up in a blue haze in a house with two heavy smokers (both of whom died as a result of smoking-related illnesses). I really hate the smell of cigarettes and love the fact that I no longer have to smell cigarette smoke in restaurants. However, smokers have rights, too. If someone wants to smoke in the privacy of their own apartment, it bothers me that a law could be passed that would make that a crime. I thought Republicans were the people always being accused of wanting to make laws about what people did behind closed doors.

I agree with the idea that if a landlord wants to make his apartments smoke-free, he should be allowed to do so. Hotels have smoke-free rooms. The rooms stay cleaner, and it cuts down on the fire hazard of someone falling asleep while smoking. However, this should be the choice of the individual landlord–not the city government.

Meanwhile, many states are moving to legalize marijuana as they limit the rights of tobacco smokers. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Unfortunately, This Didn’t Come From A Satire Site

As the debate on fracking continues, the discussion coming out of New York State has gotten ridiculous. I guess the political left is desperate to frame every issue as a ‘war on women‘ issue that can be used to help Hillary Clinton in her quest for the presidency.

The Washington Times posted an article yesterday about the debate on the impact of fracking.

The article reports:

A key figure behind New York’s statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing says that losing out on oil and gas jobs is no big deal because the industry only creates work for women as prostitutes and hotel maids.

In an April 6 lecture at the University of Pittsburgh, biologist Sandra Steingraber of New Yorkers Against Fracking described the fight over oil and natural gas development as a feminist issue.

“Fracking as an industry serves men. Ninety-five percent of the people employed in the gas fields are men. When we talk about jobs, we’re talking about jobs for men, and we need to say that,” Ms. Steingraber says in a video posted on YouTube by the industry-backed group Energy in Depth.

“The jobs for women are ‘hotel maid’ and ‘prostitute,’” she says. “So when fracking comes into a community, what we see is that women take a big hit, especially single women who have children who depend on rental housing.”

What about single women who get paid more because the economy in the area begins to grow and employers pay more because their profits increase? What about the fact that cheaper energy costs will help single women balance their budgets?

The article refutes the claim that women will not benefit from fracking:

Supporters of the industry swung back by citing a 2014 report from the American Petroleum Institute, which found that women filled 226,000 oil, gas and petrochemical industry jobs, or 19 percent of those jobs.

The article lists some of the arguments the opponents are making–even going so far as comparing fracking to rape. If this is the level to which the opponents of fracking have stooped, I wonder if they actually have any scientific evidence to back their concerns.
Please follow the link above to read the entire article. When you find out which groups support biologist Sandra Steingraber of New Yorkers Against Fracking, it is easy to understand why she is saying the things she is saying.

The Proof Is In The Pudding

On November 24, The New York Post posted a story about some comments made by former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani.

The article reports:

Giuliani was over on “Meet the Press” — opening up on Michael Dyson, a Georgetown University professor and frequent critic of policing practices in Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere in America:

“Ninety-three percent of blacks are killed by other blacks,” Rudy barked. “I would like to see the [same] attention paid to that, that you are paying to [Ferguson].”

“What about the poor black child who was killed by another black child?” Giuliani asked. “Why aren’t you protesting that? White police officers wouldn’t be there if you weren’t killing each other.”

Even if you don’t like what he said, Mayor Giuliana has a history of successful crime prevention.

The article reports:

The city’s murder rate began its dramatic decline during Giuliani’s early months in office, accelerated during the remainder of his mayoralty — and continued to fall during the ensuing 12 years as Mike Bloomberg more or less unapologetically continued Giuliani-era policing strategies.

…In Ferguson, the police force is overwhelmingly white. In New York, the department has been majority-minority for some time now, yet that fact generally is lost in the debate — which almost always revolves around race as it relates to enforcement, and only rarely as it involves victims and victimizers.
The fact is that crime attracts cops — that’s the point of a police force, after all.

Hard-charging cops can be abrasive, and that’s something officers everywhere need to work on — but in the end the issue must not be cops, but rather crime.

Rudy Giuliani’s point, not to put words in his mouth, seems to be this: If a fraction of the energy that now goes to demonizing cops was devoted to condemning crime and criminals, some real progress might be made.

How ironic that Barack Obama seems to agree.

Mayor Giuliani was successful in reducing crime in New York City. He created an atmosphere where criminals were prosecuted and punished for their crimes. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has seen criminal activity in racial terms–an early example of this was the refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation despite the video evidence that was posted on YouTube. Injustice triggers anger, regardless of which race is being treated unjustly. I think the President needs to remember that.

Roots–How We Got To Today

The government has reopened. I guess that is good news. But how did we get here, and are we headed here again in January? I am not a big fan of Michael Bloomberg, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn occasionally.

Politicker.com reports today:

Washington lawmakers finally reached a deal to re-open the government just hours before the debt ceiling deadline, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn’t celebrating yet.

“All of what they’re talking about is simply kicking the can down the road,” Mr. Bloomberg told Politicker this afternoon.

The mayor was responding to a request for his take not long before Republican lawmakers had officially conceded their fight. But Mr. Bloomberg, sounding confident a short-term deal would be reached, predicted another standoff soon.

The Senate has not passed or negotiated a budget since 2009. The House of Representatives is supposed to pass appropriations bills, and the Senate is supposed to vote on them, with the eventual result of a federal budget. Since 2009, the federal government has been funded by continuing resolutions (CR‘s) that kept the spending at record-breaking levels. We have wondered away from the Constitution, and it is costing us financially and it is damaging our country.

The war about the budget represented a battle between those in power in Washington and the rest of us. The proposal from the Tea Party Republicans asked that everyone be treated equally under ObamaCare–even Congress and Congressional aids. The proposal from the Tea Party Republicans asked to delay ObamaCare for a year because of the problems with the website and the negative impact it is having on jobs and the economy. Both of those proposals would have helped average Americans. The resistance came from Democrats and establishment Republicans. Both groups need to be voted out of office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does This Mean Mayor Bloomberg Will Put The Salt Shakers Back On The Tables At New York City Restaurants?

On June 21, a website called PreventDisease.com posted a story stating that there is no benefit in reducing salt intake and it may even be dangerous. In the past, New York‘s Mayor Bloomberg has attempted to limit the use of salt in New York City’s restaurants.

Now the Democrat food police (yes, I realize that Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican, but check the circumstances of his becoming mayor) have a new issue. First Lady Michelle Obama has been trying to change the lunch programs in our schools.

On Friday, Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line about the latest escapades of the Democrat food police.

The article quotes a Washington Times article:

“[Food service manager Nicky] Boehm and her staff worked hard to implement the new regulations, but there were just too many problems and too many foods that students did not like and would not purchase,” said Assistant Superintendent Chris Abdoo about the National School Lunch Program in a statement reported by EAGNews.org. “Students complained of being hungry with these lunches and the district lost money.”

The school system decided to instead create its own lunch menu for next year.

The district lost about $100,000 trying out the federal menu, which offered such meals as “part” of a chicken patty on a minicroissant, EAGNews.org reported.

Would that satisfy you? It would be really nice to see children eat better, but I am not sure that is something the government can accomplish. It seems to me that it’s not even an education problem. Most people over the age of twelve understand that eating fast food every night or living on potato chips and sugar is not a good idea. The only thing that will reduce the obesity rate in America will be American’s deciding that they want to lose the weight. It comes down to individual choice.

The ‘nanny state’ is not really helpful to anyone. As science changes regarding salt and other foods, the government may not be in a position to undo the regulations it set in place. We don’t always make the correct personal choices, but we all have the right to make those choices.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Payback Is Not Always Fun

As you read this, please keep in mind that the Daily Currant is a satirical newspaper–the article may or may not be true. The Daily Currant reported today that the owners of Collegno‘s Pizzeria refused to serve Mayor Bloomberg a second slice of pizza. The owners were protesting Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban, which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city.

The article reports:

Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.

Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered.

“Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?” Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.

 “I’m sorry sir,” he replied, “we can’t do that. You’ve reached your personal slice limit.”

 

I do have to admit that creating a personal slice limit might actually slow down the incidence of obesity in this county–it might also increase the number of people eating at home.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Finally–Someone With Some Common Sense

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling has blocked Mayor Bloomberg‘s ban on the sale of sugary drinks.

The article reports:

In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health‘s mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don’t include the authority to “limit or ban a legal item under the guise of ‘controlling chronic disease.’ “

The board may supervise and regulate the city’s food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken: According to Judge Tingling, the city must face imminent danger due to disease.

“That has not been demonstrated,” he wrote.

The ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces was to take effect tomorrow. Thank God for a judge with some common sense!Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Mess With My Pizza Order

Yesterday the New York Post posted an article about some of the consequences of Mayor Bloomberg‘s ban on serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. That ban means that when you call your local pizzeria for a delivery, that delivery cannot include the standard 2-liter bottle of Coke (which you can legally buy in the grocery store).

The article reports:

Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.

There is some serious food for thought in the fact that you can no longer get a 2-liter bottle of soda with your pizza. First of all, how many people are going to eat the pizza? If the entire pizza is going to be eaten by only one person, the large bottle of soda is the least of his worries. If the pizza is going to be shared, can we also assume that the soda is going to be shared? Therefore, how can the city know that any one person eating the pizza and drinking the soda will actually get more than 16 ounces of the soda? Therefore, the law probably should not apply.

The article further reports:

Families will get pinched at kid-friendly party places, which will have to chuck their plastic pitchers because most hold 60 ounces — even though such containers are clearly intended for more than one person.

Changes will be made at the Frames bowling alley in Times Square, where 26-ounce pitchers are served at kids’ parties, said manager Ayman Kamel.

“We’re going to try to get creative,” he said, noting drinks with 100 percent juice are exempt from the ban.

“We’re figuring out a way to have freshly squeezed juice for the birthday parties. We might have to raise the price about a dollar or so.”

At this risk of totally skewing the issue, what happens to bars that provide pitchers of beer to tables of patrons? Is beer subject to the same restrictions as soda? Does beer have sugar? Do the carbs in beer count as sugar? Has anyone ever been arrested for driving under the influence of Coca-Cola?

This ban is an exercise in stupidity and unintended consequences and needs to be repealed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Do Parents Have The Right To Know That The School Is Giving Their Children Drugs ?

The New York Post posted an article on Saturday (updated today) about a program in the New York City schools that provides high school girls with birth control pills–including Plan B (the morning-after pill).

The article reports:

Last September, the city revealed it had started giving out Plan B and other birth control in the nurses’ offices of 13 high schools. At the time, officials said 567 girls had gotten Plan B.

But the birth-control blitz was much bigger than the city had acknowledged. About 40 separate “school-based health centers” doled out 12,721 doses of Plan B in 2011-12, up from 10,720 in 2010-11 and 5,039 in 2009-10, according to the newly released data.

 About 22,400 students sought reproductive care from January 2009 through last school year, records show. Under state law, minors don’t need parental OKs to get contraceptives.

The article further reports:

The city says about 6,300 NYC girls under age 17 had unplanned pregnancies last year, and more than half had abortions. Of those who give birth, the city says, about 70 percent drop out of school, making their futures bleak.

Just for the record, the age of consent for sex in New York is seventeen. That means that the schools are giving out birth control to children who are not legally supposed to be having sex. So let me get this straight. There won’t be salt on my table at a restaurant in New York City because Mayor Bloomberg says it is bad for me. No restaurant can use transfat to fry food in New York City, and ‘big gulp’ sodas are illegal in New York City because Mayor Bloomberg says they are bad for me, but my daughter can obtain birth control or the morning after pill without my consent our without consulting me about any medical conditions that she may have.

The world has truly turned upside down.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Are More Than Two Sides To This Story

A website called Politicker.com posted a story about New York Mayor Bloomberg’s new initiative to limit supplies of prescription painkillers in the city’s emergency rooms. The idea of the initiative is to fight what the Mayor calls ‘a growing addiction problem in the region.’ On one level this makes sense–drug addiction is a growing problem, but beyond that, why are the Mayor and the City Council practicing medicine?

Having recently undergone some minor surgery, I understand that doctors and hospitals like to ‘manage’ the pain of their patients. That is very nice, but I really think we have become a nation of wimps. The day or two after surgery is generally tough, but to give a patient a two week supply of pain killers is questionable at best.

The article reports:

Mr. Bloomberg also argued the number of pain pills currently being prescribed had even contributed to an uptick in violent crimes outside of pharmacies from robbers looking to steal the drugs.

“You see there’s a lot more hold-ups of pharmacies, people getting held up as they walk out of pharmacies,” he explained. “What are they all about? They’re not trying to steal your shaving cream or toothpaste at the point of a gun. They want these drugs.”

This reminds me of the gun control argument–a government official is going to control the behavior of law-abiding citizens in order to change the behavior of those who choose not to follow the law. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?Enhanced by Zemanta

The Questionable Value Of Awards

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about a recent award received by former President Bill Clinton. The National Father’s Day Council has chosen President Clinton as a recipient of its Father of the Year award. Huh??!!

The article reports:

The not-for-profit group awards Father of the Year to “contemporary lifestyle leaders of our culture” and raises money for its philanthropic efforts. Past recipients from the world of politics have included Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo and his father, Mario Cuomo, and Rudy Giuliani.

John Edwards was given the award in 2007. I don’t mean to be difficult, but it would seem to me that in order to be “father of the year’ some degree of faithfulness and commitment to your wife might be necessary. If the group giving the award were truly encouraging family values, there are many political (and other) figures who better exemplify the total responsibilities of fatherhood.

Bill Clinton may be a wonderful father, but the example he set for his daughter of how a man should treat his wife is not one that should be applauded. That example is part of his legacy both as a father and a husband.

Enhanced by Zemanta