The City That Never Sleeps Hides From Snow
Jan 27, 2015 Political
Comrade Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City said it could be the storm of the century and told people to stay in. Don’t go out and don’t drive. If you drive, according to Governor Cuomo, you will be breaking the law and could face a $300 fine.
Chris Christie in New Jersey (a suburb of New York) closed ALL the roads because of the impending storm.
This will be historic with FEET, hear that, FEET of snow. Prepare now by getting what you need from the store and then going home and staying there.
And whatever you do DON’T drive.
Now that the storm had underwhelmed by dropping a mere pittance of snow (about 6 inches in New York) and missed areas like the Baltimore region nearly completely the aftermath shows that people are turning into wimps.
It is snow and places that have a cold winter usually get snow. Certainly people should have enough sense not to drive if the roads are bad or they do not have a vehicle capable of handling snow but to close down the city that never sleeps and to close roads across entire states is the nanny state dictating how people act.
They are turning people into wimps who can’t think for themselves and can’t decide whether or not to drive. No need, the government that decides on how much soda you can drink and bans trans fats has also dictated whether you can drive in the snow.
Doctors, nurses, EMTs, firefighters, those who care for others, police officers, all must go out. If you can’t drive then you walk if you are able or the National Guard picks up the mission essential and takes them to work. But if you are able to drive why should you have to resort to other methods?
Because the government said so. They need the streets clear so they can plow. Got it, but government is not usually an essential entity and while snow plows are essential to clearing roads many people are essential to the operation of a company or they are essential to the health care and protective services system.
We all can’t just take the day off because Comrade Mayor says to stay home.
Hey, for those who can telework or otherwise work from home then it makes sense. Unfortunately, not all jobs allow that luxury.
This is not to say that if one ventures out in a bad storm for a joy ride or non essential travel and gets stuck that there should be no consequence. They should pay to be pulled out and be fined if they hamper recovery efforts. However, they should be free to decide.
Americans should be ruggedly independent but are increasingly just dependent and that dependence is on government.
The hype by government officials is detrimental to good order. They screamed from mountain tops to stay in because of the historic storm. Now that it fizzled out people are less likely to heed warnings in the future. The mayor who cried wolf has seen to that.
People, use common sense and if you can stay in then do so. If you must travel then do so carefully and at your own risk.
But maybe there is an upside. Perhaps in a city that never sleeps people finally got some shut eye…
Sources:
Syracuse.com
Washington Times
New York Post
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: cried wolf, de blasio, freedom, historic, New York, snow, wimps
De Blasio And Sharpton Are Not To Blame
Dec 23, 2014 Commentary
A lot of finger pointing is going on right now over the murder of two New York police officers. Many folks point out that Mayor De Blasio and Al Sharpton fueled the flames of discontent and have blood on their hands or are responsible for the murders.
While it is true that these two (among many) are guilty of fanning the flames they are not to blame for the murders. The sole blame lies with the murderer who took it upon himself to pull the trigger.
I know it is common to point fingers and assign blame when these things happen but the reality is the person who actually did the bad thing is the one responsible. The liberals are very adept at assigning blame when things go badly and this is particularly true with regard to Sharpton and De Blasio. When a nut job shoots up a school these two join many other liberal morons to assign blame to firearms and the Second Amendment and then insist we need more gun control.
Second Amendment supporters rightly point out that responsibility lies with the shooter but the left will harp on more gun control. Even in this case the NAACP is out claiming the murders of the two cops demonstrates the need for more gun control. New York already has terribly strict gun control and it was made even tougher after the Newtown shootings.
Interestingly, Al Sharpton, who is ALWAYS ready to blame someone else, is claiming that he and the others are not to blame for this and that he is receiving threats because of the murders (Al claiming victimhood, say it isn’t so).
While I would not be upset if the reaper visited Sharpton I do not think he is to blame for these murders but I find it funny that when he is the one receiving the blame he immediately dismisses that thought.
Think about how Sharpton works. When a white cop shoots a black person it is societal racism and all cops are bad. The system is rigged. No matter what it is when things in society negatively involve black people Sharpton (the NAACP and other race organizations as well as the liberal overlords) blame everyone and everything else for the problem.
The murder of these two New York police officers was the act of one person. It matters not what influenced him or why he did it the fact remains HE alone is responsible for doing it.
The sad thing is these murders could very well result in more police involved shootings. Think about it for a moment. The cops in New York and around the country are going to be even more vigilant. They will be on high alert and will respond even more quickly to perceived threats. Any item in a potential threat’s hands will look like a gun or other weapon and the cops will shoot first and ask questions later. How many people will get shot by police simply because they did not want to take a chance, in light of this incident, that the person with whom they interacted was a crazed cop killer?
How many people who might have a legitimate beef with the police and their tactics will be dismissed because of the acts of this lone gunman? People have a right to protest (so long as they are peaceful and do not infringe on the rights of others) but how many of these people will be dismissed, harassed or associated with the cop killer simply because of this one person who murdered cops?
There are about 40,000 police officers in New York City. It is likely they will close ranks and go into protective mode so as to avoid more of these incidents by crazed people.
There are certainly bad cops and they need to be rooted out. Part of the problem is that the good cops remain silent and the legal system is set up to protect its own so it is very difficult to get rid of those who should not be cops. The act of this lone gunman however, will put this issue on a back burner and the focus will be on the cops who are now victims in the issue.
There are very few instances where citizens should shoot police officers (sorry but cops are not the absolute good in the world and people have rights they are allowed to protect) but those cases would be rare (though not as rare as they should be) and the absolute reality is murder is wrong no matter who does it (cop or civilian alike).
Al Sharpton and Bill de Blasio are terrible people but they did not pull the trigger. Neither is fit to lead and no one should pay attention to them but they did not murder those cops.
Keep that in mind when there are discussions on gun control following a school or other shooting. The only one responsible is the shooter.
Ironically, the person who murdered those cops did so to avenge the deaths of two minorities at the hands of the police and in so doing he murdered two people who were minorities.
As an aside, gun control does not work and this was shown once again with the murders of these officers. New York has strict gun laws and the person who shot the cops should not have had a gun, but he did because criminals will always get guns.
Perhaps if the police unions and appointed police officials did not support gun control there would be a hell of a lot more armed good guys on the streets to help ensure safety (more good guys with guns is a force multiplier).
Al Sharpton is a reprehensible person and he is quick to blame everyone for problems. Michael Brown was a thug who robbed a store and attacked a cop but to Sharpton it was the system and the racist cops who are to blame. No, Brown is solely responsible for what happened to him just as the shooter of the cops is the person solely responsible for that crime.
De Blasio is equally reprehensible and his disdain for the police is not appropriate for someone who is supposed to be a leader (New York deserves who it elected though) but he did not commit the crime. He will be the first to blame others when things go badly but that is what separates most in society from his ilk.
It is called responsibility. These folks have none and they don’t expect it in others.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: blood, cop murders, de blasio, liars, liberals, New York, sharpton
Why Waste Money For Body Cameras?
Dec 4, 2014 Commentary, General
B. Hussein Obama is looking to provide federal money (read taxpayer money) to equip police departments across the nation with body cameras that are worn by police officers so that everything they do (every encounter) is recorded.
It is not the place of the federal government to be doling out our money for things that affect state and local law enforcement. If individual states or localities want these cameras then they should pay for them. Federal tax dollars do not belong paying for these things but that is an issue for another day.
For today I am wondering how Obama or anyone else thinks cameras worn by police officers would make a difference. I have no issue with police officers wearing body cameras though I fail to see what value they have.
Let me explain. The body camera would record what the officer and the person with whom that officer interacted did. It would show who did what and it would either corroborate or refute the stories of the participants. So far that all seems good and who could argue with that? Hell, if Officer Wilson had been wearing a body camera we would know exactly what happened between him and Michael Brown.
But would it have mattered?
[note]In Ferguson it would not matter. People were looking for a reason to riot and loot and cause mayhem. They would have done the same thing if Wilson had been indicted. The race pimps and the Media stoked that fire real good.[/note]
A camera in the Ferguson case might have shown Wilson to be lying but would it have resulted in an indictment? Given the evidence presented in the absence of a video I feel he should not have been indicted but I also know, based on cases where video IS available, he would likely not have been indicted even if the entire encounter had been recorded.
There are ample cases on the internet where police officers are recorded clearly violating the law and the rights of citizens. There are videos of officers shooting people (and dogs) for no reason. These police officers who are armed with batons, heavy flashlights (that can be used as a baton), Tasers, pepper spray and a firearm need only say they feared for their lives and they are deemed to have been justified in their actions even though these actions are taken against people who are UNARMED (since that seems to be a buzz word in the Brown case). I know I have said that unarmed does not mean harmless and I have seen plenty of videos where offices were perfectly justified in shooting unarmed people.
In those cases it is usually pretty clear. In those where the outrage is present it is usually obvious that the officer used excessive force. In these cases, where it is all caught in video, the officers are not indicted and are deemed to have acted appropriately and “within their training and department guidelines.”
So would a body camera make a difference?
The city of New York is having its turn at outrage over a Grand Jury decision. In this case an officer was not indicted for the death of a person who resisted arrest, was encountered by the officer and taken down. The guy ended up dying and it was all recorded. In the recording the person is taken to the ground and placed in some kind of choke hold and he is heard gasping and wheezing and saying that he can’t breathe. At what point does it become obvious the guy is in distress?
If this were a lone cop (the suspect was quite large) one might conclude that he did not let go because that could have been a ruse to attack the officer. But there are several other police officers present. All the cop on the ground has to say to his fellow officers is grab his arms guys, sir I am going to let you go so you can breathe but if you resist we will be right back where we started. With several other cops present there was no reason for this. [Please police officers save your righteous indignation and don’t waste my time telling me how tough it is on the street. Four or five armed to the teeth guys can handle a man who is having trouble breathing and who is NOT fighting. If not, turn in you badges.]
“All over America, cops are getting away with this,” added 22-year-old Demetri Green. “They’re the real gang in New York City. They’re the real gang in this county.” New York Daily News
[note]In my opinion there was no need to begin with. This man was accused of selling untaxed cigarettes. Was it OK for him to die because he was allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes? It is not like this guy committed some violent felony and his resistance was non violent. He was simply accused of selling something the state did not get a cut of.[/note]
In my opinion those who said Trayvon was shot for carrying Skillets (Skittles to the literate among us) and that Mike Brown was shot for walking in the street are idiots and ignored the facts in the case. Both of the people killed in these cases were VIOLENT. They were attacking someone. The guy in New York was not attacking anyone. He was selling an untaxed tobacco product.
The question should not be whether the officer followed procedure it should be was his response appropriate for the infraction and was the result of his actions an acceptable consequence of the person’s crime. In other words, was too much force used for a guy allegedly committing a non violent crime? Hell, they don’t treat people carrying small amounts of marijuana in New York the way they treated the victim here and he had a LEGAL product when the police killed him.
Given the video that shows the entire episode (the video came from a bystander) and given the reality that a lot of force was used for a non violent crime and given the man can be heard gasping and wheezing and saying he could not breathe and given the medical examiner ruled this a homicide a reasonable person could conclude that the officer went overboard and caused this man’s death. The Grand Jury did not see it that way and refused to indict.
It is rare for a police officer to go before the Grand Jury for these things and it is rare for any officer to be found guilty of a crime when he uses force while doing his job even if it is clear that what he did was wrong (and would be illegal if we did it). This is true even when video evidence is present.
So I ask, what good would body cameras do?
[note]It seems to me the cameras would only beneift cops. They could prove a citizen’s claim of abuse, foul language, or racial bias was untrue (as happened recently). Since clear video evidence of police wrong doing does not hold them accountable it is unlikely their own recordings would…[/note]
It will be interesting to see what happens in Ohio where it is obvious a cop murdered a child. The kid was playing with a toy gun and the police were called. When they arrive one of the Miami Vice wanna be cops shoots the kid dead seemingly before the police car comes to a stop. If this guy is found to have acted appropriately then maybe we really do need to burn the place to the ground and start over…
Related:
Obama Body Cam Request Takes a Hit
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abuse, body cameras, ferguson, lies, murder, New York, Obama, ohio, police excessive force, protests
New York Plan Shows Why NOT To Go There
May 7, 2013 Political
Governor Cuomo of New York will launch an ad campaign in other states touting the benefits of locating businesses in the Empire State. Cuomo’s ads will air outside New York and feature the voice of actor Robert DeNiro telling folks that New York is on the rebound.
The first problem with this is that the state is using money from the federal disaster aid sent to help those who were impacted by Hurricane Sandy. That money is supposed to help those people restore their lives and rebuild their properties. While many are still without a home or power the governor is taking money meant to help them and using it to lure business to the state.
This seems like a criminal act and should be investigated. The money sent to the state came from taxpayers all over the country and was designated for use in helping victims of the hurricane. Using it for any other purpose is wrong. Why would any business want to relocate to a place that does this kind of thing?
The next issue is the environment in New York. New York is a high tax state. Many wealthy people and a number of businesses have left the state because of its high taxes. Why would a business want to move to New York when states like Florida and Texas offer more tax friendly environments?
It is also important to note that New York is not a state where freedom is honored or protected by the politicians in charge. New York City has a mayor who thinks he should dictate how much salt and trans fats a person can eat and what size sugary drink they can consume. The state has recently enacted restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws (on top of already restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws) that infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
Why would any business want to go to New York knowing that the government there does not uphold the Constitution?
While it is true that some business owners might be anti gun and welcome that environment it is important to note that if the state is willing to ignore the Constitution with regard to gun rights then it will feel free to ignore other constitutionally protected rights. Once a business assumes all the costs involved in moving it will be held captive to a government that has no problem raising taxes and infringing on rights.
Businesses should consider tax friendly and freedom loving states instead of New York.
And Cuomo should be investigated for improper use of federal tax dollars.
Be wary business owners. The lure will be filled with honey but the result will be full of manure…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: business, constitution, cuomo, fraud, freedom, New York, taxes
Sweet! Judge Invalidates Bloomberg Soda Ban
Mar 11, 2013 Political
It came down to the wire. Tomorrow many businesses in New York City would have been required to stop selling large sized sugary drinks under rules from Nanny Bloomberg. A judge invalidated the law. It appears as if there is no problem with banning sugar but the implementation and penalties were all over the place.
In any event, the ban is not in place as of right now. This is a good thing and the only thing that would make it better would be for a judge to rule that it is none of government’s business what size sugary drink one consumes.
Bloomberg believes it is government’s business and that it has the right to tell a free people what and how much (of a legal substance) they may consume. This is an overreach because it is none of government’s business.
Of course, when people decide that government is responsible for health care then government can make the claim it can regulate what you do if it affects your health.
Free people can eat and drink what they want. If they get sick or die then that is on them. If insurance is a problem then charge them more for coverage if they are unhealthy. But they need to make sure that they are charging more for people who are higher risk and not just because they consume things that government or insurance companies do not like. There are plenty of healthy and active people who eat and drink what they want.
As an aside, ever notice government does not crack down on the size of containers that alcohol comes in? Perhaps it is because most of the politicians are boozers. No matter how you look at it a bunch of quart bottles of beer are much more harmful than the same amount of soda.
Back on point. Bloomberg has been running roughshod over New York for a while now and the sheeple there seem to bend over and take it without much of a fight.
Sure, some businesses found ways around the ban (like having customers add their own sugar to large coffees, etc) but that does not solve the problem of government overreach. Certainly government would eventually pass laws to address those methods of skirting the law…
Many other businesses spent quite a bit of money getting rid of stock that would be unlawful and in buying new glasses that met the new standard.
Those businesses should now sue the city for the costs they incurred because of the nanny state overreach.
Bloomberg is an idiot who needs to mind his own business. Free people can take their own decisions. We do not need morons in government telling us how to live our lives.
New York made a big mistake electing this buffoon. They made a bigger mistake by taking his abuse with little fight.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile and Bloomberg has taken many miles…
Funny, Bloomberg says it is not a ban but portion control. New York had a portion control with term limits on mayors. Bloomberg did not like that so he had it changed so he could run again. The portion controls put in place by the people were not to his liking but then again, he is a liberal elitist…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: bloomberg, freedom, invalidated, lies, New York, soda ban, sugary drinks