Mike Bloomberg would prefer if New Yorkers got robbed. Repeatedly. To him, anything is better than protecting yourself with a gun. How do I know this? I mean besides Mayor Mikey’s fanatical devotion to repealing the Second Amendment? Because NYC resident George Bardwil pulled a gun on a would-be robber, and Bloomberg’s Storm Troopers promptly arrested him on an illegal weapons charge.
A Manhattan millionaire faces three years in jail for drawing an unlicensed gun on a burglar inside his home.
George Bardwil, who owns linen company Bardwil Home, was in his E Street apartment when an intruder came into his home in January… Bardwil, 60, threatened the intruder with a loaded .40 cal Sig Sauer. The man fled and Mr. Bardwil called the police.
After showing the cops footage from his home surveillance cameras, they arrested him under suspicions of owning an illegal firearm…
Of course they didn’t arrest the burglar. That would require them to do actual police work. Terrorizing law-abiding citizens in their own homes is much easier. And a lot more fun.
What if this man had followed the law? What if he had been disarmed? What if the burglar had assaulted or killed him? Could he, or his family have sued nanny Bloomberg for forcefully disarming him? I wonder also if it ever occurred to the gun grabbers like Bloomberg that having citizens like this man actually benefits New York? Of course not, they hate individualism and anything that upholds Individualism. They are enemies of liberty and it is a black mark on the voters of New York that they would have elected a would be tyrant so many times.
And we should defend that against all its enemies. Martin at What Would the Founders Think uses Nanny Bloomberg as an example of an enemy of liberty
In this particular case, New York State Judge Milton Tingling ruled that the Mayor of New York and the Board of Health had far overstepped their bounds of authority.
The rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it. Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened drinks.
…
It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the rule.
In other words, it’s just plain ludicrous and devoid of rationality.
That it is. If Bloomberg, or any other Statist can ban certain sizes of “sugary drinks”, what is next? Certain size steaks? Certain sized portions of BBQ? Maybe certain pies or cakes? Statists like Bloomberg are fanatical, their thirst for power is never sated. there will always be “something else” to ban, or limit, and of course, it will always be “for our ow good”. Martin knows this as well as I do
Personally, I don’t drink soda, but somehow manage to carry around a few more pounds than is good for me. I eat more than my body requires. But that’s my business. Choices have consequences – it’s not the government’s job to make sure that all my choices meet with the approval of a “public servant.” He may have been elected mayor, but he wasn’t elected God.
But never fear, Bloomberg is here to save the estimated (who’s estimate?) 5,000 New Yorkers who die every year because they are too fat. His office wasted no time in announcing via twitter,
We plan to appeal the sugary drinks decision as soon as possible, and we are confident the measure will ultimately be upheld.
and
We believe @nycHealthy has the legal authority and responsibility to tackle causes of the obesity epidemic, which kills 5,000 NYers a year.
Gosh, what was this judge thinking! How dare he stand in the way of this selfless billionaire mayor and the Department of Health!
Folks, freedom is too precious to waste, or cede without a fight. Statists like Bloomberg who want to tell us what to eat, and other Statists who wish to tell us what we can read, watch on TV, say, and when we can display our faith, or what type of gun we can own, or what size magazine, or what kind a car we can have are just as dangerous as Bloomberg. The choice is clear, our liberty, or a Nanny State?
I usually say that we have enough laws on the books, but, laws like this? Rock on!
Down South, lawmakers in Mississippi have passed a bipartisan so-called “anti-Bloomberg bill.”
The legislation — currently awaiting a signature from Republican Gov. Phil Bryant — prohibits counties, cities, and towns from mandating that nutrition information be posted, restricting the size of food portions, or preventing “consumer incentive items” (like Happy Meal toy, club memberships, products associated with the purchase of food) at restaurants, food establishments, and vending machines.
You’d think under a crisis like Hurricane Sandy, Bloomberg could let up on the food nanny stuff. But oh no. As victims of Sandy starve, Bloomberg is banning food donations from all government-run homeless shelters. Why? Because they can’t verify the salt and fat contents.
Yes, really.
So you see, you might be starving to death. But under Bloomy, at least you won’t get fat! That’s something to be thankful for. Right?
In one of NYC’s darkest hours, with resources stretched thin in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is showing his priorities with a ban on food donations to homeless shelters. No, not because of food contamination, but because the city can’t properly assess salt, fat and fiber in donated food and thereby ensure starving people are getting the optimal levels of nutrition. Can’t have dumpy-looking homeless people on the streets! We knew Bloomberg was a health nut, but maybe he’s just anti-food? Maybe put this one to a vote — it’s hard to imagine what harm fresh soup and bagels (two items that have already been turned away) could do to a hungry person.
Fanaticism is a dangerous thing, especially when you combine it with Little Man Syndrome and a runaway ego
(CNSNews.com) – New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg indicated that illegal border crossings from Mexico into the United States have been non-existent for a “long time.”
Speaking at an Aug. 14 immigration-related panel discussion in Boston sponsored by the New England Council, New York City’s independent mayor advised illegal immigrants that they should not waste their time and risk the dangers of crossing the desert to illegally enter the U.S. Instead, he said, they should fly in with a visa and overstay their allowed time of admission.
Jerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal, the event’s moderator, asked Bloomberg, “My son is a physics major down the road at Brown University, if you let in a lot of foreign science, technology, and engineering [majors], aren’t you diluting his job market? And my sister lives in Amarillo, Texas, and they’re very worried about waves coming up north over the border there. What are you going to tell them?”
“Number one nobody has come across the border in a long time,” responded the mayor. “I mean we spend a fortune on technology, and if you want to come to America illegally, don’t waste your time going across the border and through the desert. It’s dangerous. Just get on an airplane, fly here, and overstay your visa. We have absolutely no ability to track who you are and get you back.
A noble venture Bill, of course Liberals, well, most of them will not listen, and the gun grabbers who lie about “assault weapons” and everything else in the gun debate will not stop lying. As Bill puts it
And make no mistake: what these tools really want is gun proscription and confiscation. Bloomberg, Obama, and the Brady Gang of Gun Banners may talk about “sensible gun control laws,” but what they are after is complete eradication. Because that is the only possibility they can see to answer their biggest problem: the places where guns are banned in America have some of the highest gun homicide and other crime rates in the nation.
At Captain’s Journal, Glen has a great case for NOT banning guns, as the Left wishes to do.
Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings:
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
And what of Great Britain, which also banned guns?
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Got that? The U.S. is not even close to those nations. Yet the Left continues to lie and say we are “the most violent” nation.
Sebastian, at Shall Not Be Questioned has a cool graphic explaining that the AR-15 is just a rifle
I found one of them peddling this bit around, so like a grade school teacher, I have marked it up in read and corrected the ignorance, inaccuracies, and distortions:
When I first heard about the latest inanity from Mayor Nanny State up in New York, I was not shocked, or surprised. This is simply Bloomberg being Bloomberg. He is an ego maniac who wants to run everyone else’s life, so this type of thing is par for the course. The reactions from Conservatives did not surprise either. The Right, and Libertarians soundly criticized the ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces in theaters, restaurants, and ballparks. We ripped into this ban for its absurdity, we ripped Bloomberg for his absurdity, again, no surprise.
The thing that I wanted to see was the reaction of Liberals to this ban. And, while some lampooned it, others went right into Liberal mode, meaning they were simply orgasmic that another agent of government was trying to be their mommy and daddy.
Take Gayle King, of the CBS Morning Show, called, oddly enough This Morning, boy those cats at CBS are creative, for example. King and her guests had some revealing reactions Via Newbusters
WAXMAN: You know what? I think – you know, I’d rather have people do it on their own, but if people need a road sign, why not? You know, I think — you know, I’m kind of happy that someone’s making a stand here, because I think that it’s empty calories. It’s not what we should be eating or drinking in our lives.
What? Who needs a road sign to know that over consumption of sugar laden drinks is NOT good for the waistline? EVERYONE knows this, they have for years. Yet here is a Liberal who thinks that we dumb Americans need a road sign! Waxman by the way is a chef in New York
KING: All right-
ROCCA: He’s making us healthier. I don’t love the nanny state, but I love ‘nanny’ Bloomberg. (Rocca and King laugh)
How is Bloomberg making anyone healthier? Seriously, how? The ban does not stop anyone from getting two, or more 16 oz drinks, Bloomberg himself said that! It does not ban sodas over 16 ounces in many other places, yet Rocca “feels” warm and fuzzy because now his “daddy”, the government is making him healthier.
WAXMAN: No, no. I one hundred percent agree. (laughs)
KING: Yes. Listen, I’m all for anything that’s going to make us healthy. Thank you, Jonathan.
AGAIN! This law will “make us healthier” somehow. I suppose King never thinks that anyone can control what they consume? Again, I work in the restaurant business, I have for a long time, most people today, without ANY law dictating what they can and cannot drink, chooses diet soda, or sweeten their tea/coffee with non-sugar sweeteners. Also a lot of folks opt for veggies or salad over fries. And again, no law requires this act. They actually do it for themselves! Imagine that!
Now, to another reaction, from a New York Times columnist, Frank Brunni who, despite admitting the absurdity of this law, is all for it!
WHILE Michelle Obama focused on carrots, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg brandished a stick. It’s what we deserve. Cry all you want about a nanny state, but as a city and a nation we’ve gorged and guzzled past the point where a gentle nudge toward roughage suffices. We need a weight watcher willing to mete out some stricter discipline.
Ah yes, we the people deserve to be punished by our betters in government, right Frank? No matter how ABSURD the law punishing us is apparently
It’s in many senses an absurd and random gesture. A merchant could still peddle a 20-ounce milkshake with more calories than a Coke. A customer could still buy two 16-ounce Pepsis, using tandem vessels and two straws to do the work of one supersize abomination. There are many vendors unaffected by the proposed ban, and there’s a wide world of caloric villains untouched. Man cannot balloon on Mountain Dew alone.
So, here Brunni admits that the law does not really do one damn thing to fight obesity. Yet, he is absolutely delighted over the law, why you ask? Simple, because it makes Liberals like Brunni feel good! Liberalism is largely a feelings driven ideology, and Brunni is a perfect example of this.
The proposed ban is also an act of government control and regulation that makes no small number of people squeamish. Should we not have the liberty to ingest what we elect to ingest, and to decide whether the pleasure is worth any ill effects? Are we not capable stewards of our own welfare? In general, yes, but the government has taxed cigarettes to high heaven, as a means (successful) of steering us away from them, and made it illegal to partake of many recreational drugs. Like those substances, heavily sugared soft drinks are wholly unnecessary and are implicated in health problems that wind up affecting all of us, not just the individual suffering from them. Food ceased to be a frontier too far when the fraction of American adults who qualify as obese climbed above one in three.
And, there he goes again. The Collectivist heart is revealed in those last two sentences. Liberals believe we must not allow individual liberties to stand in the way of the collective good!
Bloomberg: One doughnut won’t hurt you, but 17 ounces of Coca-Cola will.
What a control freak! Is he deranged? Seriously, is he? What mentally stable person would say what this fool just said? Do I really have to add that Bloomberg is our Marxist Moron of the day?
The gun-grabbing Mayor Nanny Bloomberg! Doug Powers documents Bloomberg’s latest trip into the Pit of Eternal Liberal Stupidity!
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote an op-ed in the New York Daily News that goes for a record in misguided problem solving. In the article, Bloomberg calls for more gun laws that would accomplish little except take guns out of the hands of non-criminal legal gun owners. Then Bloomberg virtually admits (unwittingly, of course) that people who follow the law and possess firearms legally aren’t the problem:
Every one of the criminals who has shot at our police officers possessed his gun illegally. Every one.
Good grief! It is true that stupid should hurt. Bloomberg would have a headache that 1,ooo,000 Excedrin could not cure.Powers notes,the absurdity of Bloomberg’s”logic”
He destroys his own argument in a single sentence. “Problem: Criminals shooting at police officers. Solution: Keeping guns out of the hands of people who don’t shoot at police officers.”
Would Bloomberg be happier if the people who shot at cops possessed their guns legally? At least then his argument might make at least a modicum of sense.
As bad as Bloomberg is, the idiots in New York that continue to vote for him are even worse. Why do they keep voting AGAINST basic liberties? I suppose I should bestow upon these pinheads, who have no earthly clue what the Hell freedom is, a Marxist Moron Award of their own.
A blizzard baby delivered inside the lobby of a snowbound Brooklyn building died after an emergency call of a woman in labor brought no help for nine excruciating hours.
The baby’s mother, a 22-year-old college senior, was recovering Tuesday night at Interfaith Medical Center, where her newborn was pronounced dead at 6:34 p.m. on Monday. That was 10 hours after the first 911 call from the bloody vestibule on Brooklyn Ave. in Crown Heights.
“No one could get to her. Crown Heights was not plowed, and no medical aid came for hours,” said the student’s mother.
By the time a horde of firefighters and cops finally trooped to her aid through snow-covered blocks, the baby was unconscious and unresponsive, sources said.
Details of the tragedy emerged as the abominable snowstorm continued to wreak havoc across a city still digging out from the wintry blast. Some of the other blizzard horrors include:
In Queens, a woman tried to reach 911 operators for 20 minutes Monday and then waited for three hours for first responders to arrive. By then, her mom had died, state Sen. Jose Peralta’s office said.
Laura Freeman, 41, said her mother, Yvonne Freeman, 75, woke her at 8 a.m. because she was having trouble breathing. When the daughter couldn’t get through to 911, she enlisted neighbors and relatives, who also began calling.
One of the callers reached an operator at 8:20 a.m., but responders stymied by snow-clogged streets didn’t reach the Corona home until 11:05 a.m., said Peralta, who wants the death investigated.
“The EMS workers walked down the block trudging through snow,” Freeman said. “They tried. I could tell by the look on their faces. I really would just like [Mayor] Bloomberg to admit that there were casualties.”
A woman in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, was forced to spend the night with her dead father after the medical examiner’s office took more than 24 hours to claim his body. Ismael Vazquez died at 10:31 a.m. on Monday, and the 82-year-old man’s body remained in his bed until 1 p.m. yesterday. His daughter kept vigil in the living room.
“This is New York City, and I’m a New Yorker, and this is not the first storm we’ve ever had,” said Florence Simancas, 51, holding back tears. “Somebody dropped the ball … big-time.”
A Brooklyn woman was left sobbing at a Bay Ridge bus stop yesterday when the driver said there was no way to get her to a doctor’s appointment in Bensonhurst.
“Please help. I have a doctor’s appointment that is important and I can’t get nowhere,” 64-year-old Ludmila Kowalow said. “I don’t know what to do,” she added, throwing her hands in the air.
A 76-year-old Bay Ridge heart attack victim nearly died when an FDNY ambulance became stuck in a snowbank, but he was rescued by a gang of good Samaritans lugging him through the unplowed streets on a sled fashioned from a gurney.
“My husband could be dead right now,” said Lucy Pastore, whose husband, Salvatore, was in stable condition at Lutheran Medical Center. “The mayor acts like this is a minor inconvenience. Makes me sick.”
Still, nothing approached the tragedy of the newborn on the busiest day for 911 calls since Sept. 11, 2001.
The pregnant woman was walking from her home to the nearby hospital in the still-swirling snow when she ducked into the building lobby, unable to make it any farther.
The young woman had not told her family she was pregnant – she didn’t want to disappoint relatives – or that she and her college boyfriend had decided to put the child up for adoption.
An 8:30 a.m. 911 call was made, with the caller saying the birth wasn’t imminent, a Fire Department source told the Daily News. The call received a low priority, and the city unsuccessfully tried twice to contact the caller during the next few hours, the source said. A second, more urgent 911 call at 4:30 p.m. reported the woman was bleeding and the baby was crowning – and the call was upgraded to level two, the source said.
An hour later, the NYPD contacted the FDNY/EMS to report the baby had been delivered but was unconscious. Cops cut the umbilical cord and tried to revive the newborn, police source said.
The call was then upgraded to level one – highest priority – and an FDNY crew arrived in 12 minutes, sources said. EMTs were on the scene at 6 p.m.
“The mayor was spouting nonsense to say Crown Heights was plowed. It wasn’t,” the woman’s mother said. “No one could get to her … any other day she would have gotten to a hospital.”
darcprynce
Dave C
Gatordoug
