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

A New Dimension In Meddling

Mayor Bloomberg is at it again. The New York Post reported yesterday that the Mayor is asking New York City hospitals to lock up the baby formula so that more mothers will breast-feed their babies.

The article reports:

Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.

I support breast-feeding. I think it is a good idea. All my children were breast-fed and all my grandchildren were breast-fed. There is a history of milk allergies in my family and that seemed like a logical preventative measure. It seems to have worked. However, forcing women to do something they may not want to do because the Mayor thinks it’s healthy is a horrible idea. What if Mayor Bloomberg wakes up one morning and decides we should all eat seaweed for a week? Where will he draw the line?

I have no problem encouraging new mothers to breast-feed their babies. In 1970, when my first daughter was born, I was the only breast-feeding mother in the hospital. By 1974, when my third daughter was born, there were more babies breast-fed than formula-fed. I think the way to get mothers to breast-feed their children is to give them as much information as possible about the benefits. The new mothers are the ones who need to make the choice–not the government.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Letting People Go Hungry Rather Than Taking The Chance That They Might Eat Something Unhealthy

The New York Post reported today that New York City Mayor Bloomberg is blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.

The article reports:

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.

The new policy ends the custom of houses of worship in New York who routinely donate food to the homeless shelters.

The article reports:

 For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation.

They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it — I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.

DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.

I appreciate the Mayor’s wanting to make sure everyone gets healthy food to eat, but it seems as if the choice here is whether people in the shelters get healthy food or very little food. The government interference in this matter prevents the churches from providing the charity that is part of their mission. The government needs to step aside and let the churches help.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Tradition Under Attack By The Board Of Health

Ducks playing in the fountain at the Peabody H...

Image via Wikipedia

On Wednesday the New York Post reported that Matilda III, the current Algonquin Hotel feline, has been leashed and banished to behind the Algonquin’s check-in desk, or out of sight on a higher floor. I will admit to being a cat lover, and I was totally offended by the fact that Mayor Bloomberg’s Department of Health decided that Matilda III is a health hazard. I can think of nothing more relaxing than checking into a hotel away from home and having a friendly cat to pet.

Upon reading this story, I immediately called my sister in Memphis to see if the ducks were still allowed in the Peabody Hotel. I wondered if the insanity had spread. The Peabody ducks have been in the hotel in Memphis since the 1930’s. The Algonquin has had a cat roam it’s lobby since 1932. My sister assured me that the ducks were still in residence at the Peabody and believed that they would be permanently housed there because the South understands the concept of hospitality.

If New York City wants to be tourist attraction, they need to preserve their tourist attractions. Matilda III was one of those attractions.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Homeland Security’s Worst Nightmare

Yesterday the New York Daily News posted a story about the arrest of a suspected terrorist. The terrorist, Jose Pimentel, was an American citizen, inspired and guided by the internet, and was a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki.

The article reports:

Pimentel, who went by the alias Muhammad Yusuf, told an informant posing as an Al Qaeda sympathizer he would show “there was mujahedeen in the city ready to fight jihad here.”

When the police arrested Mr. Pimentel, he was about an hour away from successfully finishing a powerful pipe bomb.

Mr. Pimentel is an American citizen who was born in the Dominican Republic.

The article reports:

“I don’t know anything,” said his uncle Luis Severino, adding that his nephew moved in with him about two years ago after getting a divorce. “The only change I noticed in him is that he started following the Muslim religion.”

Mr. Pimentel is described as a ‘lone wolf’ in terms of terrorism. A lone wolf is difficult to detect because theoretically he is the only person aware of the terrorist plot he is planning. However, in the age of the internet, I am not sure there really is any such thing as a lone wolf terrorist. At some point, Mr. Pimentel began reading the on-line Al Qaeda magazine INSPIRE. When he was caught, he was using a bomb-making recipe he found in the magazine. Without the inspiration and instruction found on the internet, I am not sure Mr. Pimentel would have been radicalized. The other question I have in this case is, “What mosque did Mr. Pimentel attend and what was taught at that mosque?”

We have always had violent people among us–the unibomber comes to mind–but we seem to be dealing with a different sort of danger here. If we have mosques in this country teaching violence, we need to know where they are and keep an eye on the people who lead them and the people who attend them. I sounds to me as if this was a man who went through a divorce and was searching for his purpose in society. He found it in the idea of blowing up his fellow Americans. We need to look at how he arrived at that point and see what can be done to prevent others from taking that journey.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Wasn’t Like They Were Consuming Transfats Or Smoking

Rudy Giuliani

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s New York Post posted a commentary on why Mayor Bloomberg in New York City finally decided to evict the Occupy Wall Street protesters who had taken over Zuccotti Park. Things had truly gotten out of hand–some of the occupiers had contracted scabies, lice and various lung ailments. It was not a healthy place. It kind of makes you appreciate the luxuries of civilization.

The article reports:

An administration source insisted that Bloomberg gave the go-ahead to roust the protesters because of “an accumulation of things” — including concerns that the park became a firetrap and that protesters were planning to build wooden structures to prepare for winter.

But sources familiar with Bloomberg’s decision said he also was concerned with public health.

The article further reports:

And Hizzoner didn’t like being called out by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani for his inactivity.

A couple of weeks ago, Giuliani said that he would never have tolerated people sleeping in the park and that the city should kick the protesters out.

I suspect a lot of New York City residents and people who work in the city miss Mayor Giuliani.
Occupy Wall Street had one valid point–the economy is in bad shape and people are having a hard time being upwardly mobile. Unfortunately, they were protesting the wrong people–they should have camped out outside the White House and Congress–that is where the regulations and tax policy that is crippling our economy is coming from. At any rate, it’s time for the protesters to go home and become productive members of society. If they don’t like the way things are, they need to find a constructive way to get involved and change things–but they should get their facts straight first.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Wall Street Journal Understands Financial Things

Logo of the Federal Housing Administration.

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an editorial updating what is happening with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It seems that we have not yet learned our lessons about these two organizations.

Florida Republican Bill Posey and New York Democrat Gary Ackerman are asking fellow members of the House of Representatives to sign a letter supporting an amendment to an appropriations bill recently passed in the Senate. The amendment will increase the mortgage limits that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration can insure from $625,500 to $729,750.

The article concludes:

There’s talk now that the House and Senate will convene a conference later this week to negotiate the final details on the appropriations bill that includes the loan-limit hike, without the accountability of so much as a floor debate or a hearing. That would confirm that, for all its reform talk, the current House majority is little better than the one that disgraced Republican principles in 2005-2006.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday reporting on Mayor Bloomberg’s addressing the Occupy Wall Street people and explaining how federal policies caused the housing bubble. Mr. Morrissey reports on Mayor Bloomberg’s statements:

By this time, everyone should be aware of the federal policies that precipitated the housing bubble and its collapse — the push by Congress and two administrations to push higher-risk lending in order to expand home ownership, as well as the effort by Congress to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to spread that risk through mortgage-backed securities.  While Wall Street made the situation worse by developing risky derivatives on those securities and failed to recognize the risk inherent in the securities themselves, the collapse wouldn’t have occurred at all had the federal government not intervened to distort lending for their own social-engineering goals.

It is becoming very obvious that establishment Republicans are not really very different from the Democrats that got us into this mess. There is only one solution–elect tea party candidates who will not be swayed by the Republican establishment. As long as the current Republican leadership is in control, there will be no change in Washington.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Federal Government Did Something Right !

Yes, the federal government did something right–they turned down Mayor Bloomberg’s request to bar New York City food stamp recipients from using their food stamps to buy soda and other sugary drinks. I appreciate the compassion that Mayor Bloomberg has for those using food stamps–but these are grown-ups–the government has no business trying to control their diets. This is another example of the government giving someone money (or the equivalent) and then trying to control the person because the money was accepted.

The article reports:

Dr. (Thomas A.) Farley (New York City’s Health Commissioner), who said he was “very upset” by the decision, said that it “ really calls into question how serious the U.S.D.A. is about addressing the nation’s most serious nutritional problem.”

In October, city and state officials proposed a two-year experiment to see if the prohibition would reduce obesity among people who buy their groceries with food stamps. Dr. Farley said that about 57 percent of adults in the city and 40 percent of the children in its public schools were overweight or obese, and that obesity was especially rampant in low-income neighborhoods. Limiting consumption of sodas and other drinks with high sugar content, he argued, could help reverse that trend. 

Just because these people are on food stamps, they shouldn’t be used as guinea pigs to confirm some bureaucrat’s theory on why people are overweight!

The article reports Mayor Bloomberg’s statement regarding the federal decision:

“We think our innovative pilot would have done more to protect people from the crippling effects of preventable illnesses like diabetes and obesity than anything else being proposed elsewhere in this country — and at little or no cost to taxpayers,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement. “We’re disappointed that the federal government didn’t agree, and sorry that families and children may suffer from their unwillingness to explore our proposal. New York City will continue to pursue new and unconventional ways to combat the health problems that hurt New Yorkers and Americans from coast to coast.” 

We need less government–not more!

Enhanced by Zemanta