See, this is what government does…

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

That’s right folks, it’s better to let people starve, especially after a natural disaster.  Honestly if anything I would be surprised if the reason it took 2 weeks to get the lights back on was the fault of the Mayors office.

Personally you folks in New York City elected the douche bag and have done nothing to reign in his tyranny.  On that front you deserve to starve.  I just wish that we could the nanny stateism he’s creating would stay well within your borders. 

Seriously, this is why natural disasters are getting bad on the recovery front.  Instead of doing the job that needs to get done, you have bureaucrats getting in the way claiming to be helping, when in reality people are starving to death.

h/t Uncle.

Bloomberg Wants You to Be A Victim

So Mayor Bloomberg Fat @$@! George, said the following recently which provides a very nice window into the mind of a crazy person:

“We appreciate the help,” Bloomberg said. “The National Guard has been helpful, but the NYPD is the only people we want on the streets with guns, and we don’t need it. There’s been one or two minor outbreakings, disgraceful though they may be, of looting reported in the paper, but the vast bulk of people are doing the right thing.”

Umm, evidently the mayor has missed the memo, actually multiple memos about how his police force aren’t some how magically superior than the rest of the public.  As a matter of fact, they have probably the highest incident rate in my criminal count currently.

Instead of accepting help to prevent looting and restore order, thus allowing his citizens to stop living in fear since he forcibly disarmed them, he says no, he wants only his paid thugs to be armed in the city.  Remember this man has his own private army to protect him and his family.

As for the comments about the National Guard allowing for a police state to occur within New York City, you haven’t been paying attention have you.  I have three words for those who think New York City isn’t a police state, “Stop and Frisk“.

The mayor that is more worried about big gulps and preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves unsurprisingly is actively preventing others from defending those same citizens.

Mr. Mayor, I suggest you recite the Scout Oath and Law, since it’s become blatantly apparent that you’ve forgotten it.  Not to mention I’m reasonably sure that you wouldn’t know a good turn if it hopped up and bit you square in the face.  Frankly sir, I wish you would just shut up and step down because between you and Michael Moore, you’re making the rest of us look bad.  Your statements and actions reflect on all of us and you would do well to remember your charge.  Here let me help you.

The Eagle’s Charge

The foremost responsibility of an Eagle Scout is to live with honor. To an Eagle Scout, honor is the foundation of all character. He knows that “A Scout is trustworthy” is the very first point of the Scout Law for good reason. An Eagle Scout lives honorably, not only because honor is important to him but because of the vital significance of the example he sets for other Scouts. Living honorably reflects credit on his home, his church, his troop, and his community. May the white of the Eagle badge remind you to always live with honor.

The second obligation of an Eagle Scout is loyalty. A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation. His loyalty to his troop and brother Scouts makes him pitch in and carry his share of the load. All of these help to build the loyalty which means devotion to community, to country, to one’s own ideals, and to God. Let the blue of the Eagle badge always inspire your loyalty.

The third obligation of the Eagle Scout is to be courageous. Courage has always been a quality by which men measure themselves and others. To a Scout, bravery means not only the courage to face physical danger, but the determination to stand up for the right. Trusting in God, with faith in his fellowman, he looks forward to each day, seeking his share of the world’s work to do. Let the red in the Eagle badge remind you always of courage.

The fourth obligation of an Eagle Scout is to be cheerful. To remind the Eagle Scout to always wear a smile, the red, white, and blue ribbon is attached to the scroll of the Second Class Scout award, which has its ends turned up in a smile.

The final responsibility of an Eagle Scout is service. The Eagle Scout extends a helping hand to those who still toil up Scouting’s trail, just as others helped him in his climb to the Eagle. The performance of the daily Good Turn takes on a new meaning when he enters a more adult life continuing service to others. The Eagle stands as protector of the weak and helpless. He aids and comforts the unfortunate and the oppressed. He upholds the rights of others while defending his own. He will always “Be Prepared” to put forth his best.

You deserve much credit for having achieved Scouting’s highest award. But wear your award with humility, ever mindful that the Eagle Scout is looked up to as an example. May the Scout Oath and the Scout Law be your guide for tomorrow and onward.

Yeah, about the only thing you’ve done in that charge is walk around with a grin that approximates Joe Biden’s smirk.  Honestly though that point is probably the least important of the points.

If you feel that you’re being courageous and doing the right thing here’s a pro tip: it’s not being courageous when others are dead and victimized for your decisions.  It is anything but courageous to tell someone they cannot carry arms in their own defense while paying someone else to carry arms to defend you.

Courageous in this day is standing up for individual liberties and rights from nanny statists like you who would rather rape and pillage the land for their own profit.

People of New York, remember your mayor would rather his men, one of which was recently arrested for planning a kid-napping where he was going to eat the victim, than have the national guard arrive and restore order.

When it comes time for reelection, you would do well to remember his behavior because he needs to be sent packing.

Quote of the Day – Say Uncle (8/3/2012)

The real outrage in this is that two elected officials threatened the president under color of law for expressing his views. That’s what you should be mad about. I’ll continue my boycott of Chicago and MA.

Say UncleChick Fellatio
August 3, 2012


[The other day Popehat posted a link on twitter and I had the urge to comment but let it subside.  My main contention with the linked content was this though:

Don't you dare say that you're just supporting Dan Cathy's freedom of speech and religious expression. While there may be some of you who actually do care about the First Amendment working for everyone, I would like to know where you were when:

At which point he goes into a list of places that have been boycotted for their views one way or another.  I have to disagree and here's why.

I, like most American's, only become involved when I feel that something affects me.  I didn't see the LGBT community come and participate with the Starbucks buycott for example.  I'm sure there was overlap as I know that Gay Cynic probably participated but as a whole the groups are not tied together at the hip.  I would in general do my best to support someone, but I will not expend energy in going out of my way as I will with places who forbid concealed carry for example.

What has happened here is that a large number of people are supporting Chick-Fil-A, not because of the owners stance on Gay marriage.  That is an entirely separate debate and my position can be summed thusly:

The state has no business being involved in marriage.  As for the legal rights provided by marriage between partners, who cares if they're both male or female.  Everyone deserves the same legal rights and it is no one's business to judge anyone else for their choices.

Moving on though this situation was aggravated by two political individuals.  Namely the mayors of Chicago and Boston.  These two individuals attempted to use the force of state to punish a company and its owner for voicing their opinion.  While I disagree with that opinion, they had every right to say it without the threat or use of force from government.  That is the problem, these politicians were using government to silence speech.  It wasn't a separate part of the public attempting to shame the company for their opinion, it was the state.  The fact that they were using government to influence or control speech is a blatant violation of the first amendment and is worthy of note because what is to stop either of them saying I cannot conduct business because of my outspoken support of the second amendment?  It doesn't have to even be about the second amendment though, it could be anything they disagree with.

I am by no means the only one with this view as well.  This is very much a free speech issue because the state should not be allowed to disallow businesses from operation based on the opinions and speech of their owners or employees.

I live in Washington and there is no Chick-Fil-A out here.  Overall I probably wouldn't go if there was, but given the behavior of a few tyrannical politician's I would give patronage just to show my support.  That's exactly what those politicians did by doing that.  They drove people to patronize that business merely because the government was intimidating them. -B]

Morons of the male persuasion

Bloomberg is such an asshole!

Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.

Really?! Blocking the accessibility of formula to new mothers?  For some women, they are not able to produce milk with their pregnancy.  Some, even though they are producing, aren’t producing enough colostrum and therefore are starving their child.  I wonder if they will charge the mother with child abuse if the pharmacy is closed and the baby wants to feed?

Legislative fiat and nanny statism does not change biology or the way the real world works.

Women don’t need a lecture about choosing formula over breast-feeding.  Breast is not always best.  Especially since not every mother produces enough milk.  My husband was raised on formula because his mother was unable to produce milk as he was born by C-section.  A friend of mine didn’t produce milk for her child and didn’t realize it until she had starved her child for a day not knowing she wasn’t producing enough milk.

Some asshat politician who doesn’t understand biology or the medical sciences has no business telling me, my doctor, or any one else what is best for me or my child.

This is one big reason why I don’t want to be in a hospital when I have kids.  I don’t need some moron telling me what to do with my own body!

If you’re female and work in his office, do the rest of us of the female gender a big favor and kick him right between the uprights.  Then again I’m reasonably sure he’s lacking functional equipment down there which is why he’s spouting off about shit he doesn’t know about.

h/t Weer’d

You all Thought I was Kidding Didn’t You?

You probably thought my whole Good and Bad post on the soda ban was an over exaggerated joke right?  Well I wasn’t laughing that much as I did the images and rightfully so it appears.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

“The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

Seriously?  Milk is bad!?  While I’m not one to wish violence upon anyone.  If you happen to see any of these individuals and you happen to land an egg on them, their vehicle, or other wise audibly and visually display your displeasure of their being tyrants, you will get my standing ovation.

Seriously, what has broken in American society so badly that people think they have a right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot eat.  What the !@#$ is wrong with you asshat’s in New York.  Evidently 46% of you love your tyrant overlords.  If you don’t want it, don’t order it or eat it.  You do not need the force of the state to do this, and you have no right to force your will upon others.  Period!

My suggestion to those in New York, either stop it now or kiss your freedom good bye.  You’re already not really American any more, if they can tell you what you can’t eat, next they will be telling you who you can and cannot date, how many children you can have, they will control your life.  That is their goal.  I understand that our side of this issue does everything to restrain themselves and avoid the cartridge box, but this overbearing control does beg the question, when should we shoot back?

Bloomberg* disarmed all his slaves constituents and has provided such a maze of firearms laws one must be anointed to have one.  Other than voting the tyrant out of office what other actions can be taken?  Even if you vote him out, how do you undo the damage.  Even more than that though, if you do nothing, the tyrants know they can get away with this type of behavior.

*From now on I’m referring as Bloomberg as Fat Fuck George, because him and that asshole of a tyrant that was the King of England in the late 18th century would have gotten along quite well.  And well I feel no need to hide or obscure the truth.

On that Soda Ban…

So Phil over at RNS stumbled across and laid out a bunch of petty tyrants talking about how great the soda ban is.  I sparked the beginning of what became the reclassification of the term “New York Reload”.

Now supposedly this ban doesn’t affect places that sell things like grocery’s and convince stores unless they fall under the purview of the “health department”.  I.E. this mainly affects fountain drinks.  I don’t care, and the whole thing is absurd, especially when in light of the following: Continue reading

Red Light Cameras

So reading through the blogosphere yesterday Uncle posted about someone getting 5 red light tickets, but they weren’t his.  I had meant at the time to do a blog post on the subject but never got around to it.  Uncle’s post gave me renewed vigor.

Red light cameras strike a special nerve with me.  The arguments for their use are much like the arguments for gun control, it makes everyone safer.  The actual numbers from the field though show the complete opposite however, again, just like gun control.

My mom got a red light ticket back home.  It was actually her vehicle in this instance.  A couple weeks later some friends of hers who live out of town called and asked about the same intersection.  The interesting thing though about these tickets is they were for turning right on red, which is legal at that intersection.

As it is a sequence of still photographs as opposed to video, you can not defend yourself by showing you came to a complete stop.  You’re stuck paying the ticket.  Ahh, a ticket, maybe it is done for revenue.  Camera tickets are not reported to insurance companies or otherwise scored in your driving record.  It’s the equivalent of getting a parking ticket(California and Oregon excluded).  You are requested to pay this please for doing X, it’s a penance, except they’re charging people now a penance for something that is legal.  I voiced my displeasure by preaching to the choir and then it happened.  An article was posted in the town paper from where I grew up.  I read the article and damn near had an embolism from my blood pressure going through the roof.

Those who question the program’s validity will admit that there does seem to be a relationship between the cameras and the safety of people. Unfortunately, some politicians and pundits are inserting a “but …” and making claims that just are not true.

After my initial rage subsided I decided that I needed to bitch beyond the choir, to the no talent ass clowns politicians pushing this garbage.  After forwarding the article to “The Short Lady with the Grey Hair” she decided to send a letter as well.  Here is a copy of my letter for the internet to retain for all eternity.

Mr. Lewis,
There are some other issues you do not cover in your statement regarding photo enforcement at intersections.

As the rates of people committing infractions drop, revenue decreases.  Revenue is needed to maintain and operate the cameras.  As that revenue drops either the cameras are no longer maintained, or things are done which produce false positives to create revenue.  In either case people are or can be falsely cited for infractions.  Examples of this are ticketing everyone who turns right on red even though it’s legal.  As it is only pictures, NOT video it is impossible to prove guilt using them, however in a court room the images are looked at as divine judgment of guilt.

I will not argue that they can help decrease accidents, however accidents are caused by people blowing lights as through traffic.  Making a right hand turn on red is perfectly legal unless specific sings are in place to indicate otherwise.  However when I hear of different individuals getting a ticket for something perfectly legal at the same intersection is shows corruption and greed within the system.  It displays the real need for these cameras is to increase revenue.

Mr. Lewis, the facts of how these cameras are used and operated, coupled with the difficulty in defending yourself from a ticket for a legal procedure indicates a gross abuse by the local government against it’s citizens as well as visitors.  I grew up in Auburn and remember it prior to it’s explosion to it’s current state.  There is a reason I now live in a town with not a single stop light.  However when I talk to friends and relatives who still remain in the area about getting a ticket for turning right on red, where there is no indication it is illegal to do so, it makes me disappointed to say I grew up in Auburn.  It makes it obvious that Auburn’s intention with the system is not to increase safety, but rather to increase revenue by false citations to the citizenry.  Eventually the locals will know not to turn right on red, but what about people from out of town visiting.  Couple that with the distance and you have a guaranteed payout.

This is completely independent of the fact that the idea of red light and speeding cameras are grossly Orwellian in nature and indicate a subservience of the public to the state.  In our “free” republic, people are elected to represent the will of the public, not do as they wish.  When issues are brought up it is your duty as a public servant to address them.  That includes saying you made a mistake instead of continuing to push public policy to preserve your public image.  I would suggest finding a local scout organization and sitting through the “citizenship” merit badges.  The questions of efficacy in this instance I do not feel center around preventing accidents, but whether those who are ticketed have actually committed a crime.

Sincerely,

Barron Barnett
Eagle Scout, Troop 401 (2001)
Graduate AHS, 2002

I haven’t seen or heard a reply and I’m sure it was probably just tossed the garbage.  So instead it will be placed on the internet, for all to see and enjoy.  This will also provide another case for others who find themselves in the same predicament to use in support of their case when fighting a ticket ill gotten penance required by the force of government.

The Saga Continues

Mayor Daley unveiled his new set of laws to infringe and deny a specifically enumerated right today. Let’s break down the bullets one by one.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

How does one move the weapon to and from the firing range? Furthermore why can a homeowner not carry a firearm on his own property? How does one even bring the weapon home after purchase if it is not allowed outside the house? There may be exemptions in his ordinance, however knowing Daley and his previous history I doubt it. Also, with the lack of gun shops in the area, one will have a difficult time obtaining a weapon.

Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

The one gun per month limit is totally arbitrary and without basis. If you limit people to one gun per month, why not one book per month or one vehicle per month? Limiting law abiding persons from buying something makes absolutely no sense. Criminals have already gotten a large supply of firearms into a city where they were previously totally outlawed; limiting purchases changes nothing for the criminals. Even more than that, what qualifies the weapon as having been disabled? Is it just simply removing the firing pin, fully disassembling the weapon, or permanently doing damage to the weapon? A homeowner should be able to have as many weapons as they desire at their disposal. They might want to keep one in their bed room and another hidden in their living room where they spend most of their time. What does the limit of one firearm do other than harm the law abiding because criminals ignore it anyway?

Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

So you can be killed while trying to get to your weapon in an emergency. Defensive weapons need to be kept at the ready. If you’re leaving your property, then yes properly store them, the same goes if you have small children. However there are other methods that can keep a weapon at the ready and out of the hands of a small child.

If you say BS and that is merely just endangering the child because they will get curious and do something stupid here is my personalized response. I grew up in a house with a rifle on the wall, I remember it distinctly and cannot think of a time I looked at the wall and didn’t see it there. I still have that rifle today and it is kept in my safe because I have a different ready rifle for serving the same purpose. The magazine was always loaded and a round in the chamber. My parents were never concerned because they raised me around firearms, taught me proper handling, and made sure that my curiosity was always satisfied in a proper and safe manner. Kids do stupid things because their parents attempt to hide and shield them from it. All this does is prevent the child from knowing, understanding, and learning proper and safe gun handling. Education is the best solution to any problem. If you disagree, look at sexual education. Abstinence only education obviously doesn’t work, a proper rounded education works. That includes touching the subject everyone would much rather avoid. Furthermore, it was that training and education that probably saved my life when I was at a friend’s house in 4th grade and he pulled out his dads rifle. After slapping the muzzle away he said, “Don’t worry it’s unloaded.” I asked, “How is anyone supposed to know that,” and then racked the bolt. At which point I left immediately and walked home. I never went over to his house again. Later in class he asked why I left, I told him, and low and behold during the conversation it was discovered he knew where dad’s rifle was, but not how to handle it. He was curious about it and thought I would be curious too. His lack of education from his parents, coupled with unsatisfied curiosity became the classic story book of disaster that is used by the gun control crowd to say we need to keep guns away from kids. How does prohibition of something stop curiosity? That’s right it doesn’t, that action actually makes it worse.

Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

There is nothing wrong with training but the truth of this measure is to prevent people from getting licensed to have a firearm. If no new ranges can be built, and existing ranges are limited to police officers, where are prospective citizens to go to satisfy your bureaucracy? Oh that’s right out of the city costing them more money and time, and also requiring the probable precursor of private transportation. If you want this restriction, you need to provide the means for it to be readily obtainable. Saying you can have a firearm if you do X, Y, and Z and then outlaw W which is required by X isn’t really lifting the ban now is it? It is shielding the idea of the ban behind bureaucracy.

Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

Is there a method of having this right restored? This section is a sympathy token to make people against this law look bad. However most of those same prohibitions are actually already on the books. So why add them again? Instead enforce the laws you already have on the books. The more serious problem with this is that often the legal system is abused and people’s rights are affected unjustly.

Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

No, no, and HELL NO. This is a presumption that all gun owners are going to be criminals. Canada has already discovered that their registration is a huge waste of resources and is totally unsuccessful. Even more than that though, this is the primary reason why the Jew’s in the Attic test was invented! All that does is provide a list of who to disarm prior to the roundup for the concentration camp. With what happened after Katrina, that idea requires a serious go to hell message to be sent. Daley would in no way shape or form miss an opportunity to abuse his citizens like the way New Orleans did.

Still, the mayor, whose office is trying to craft an ordinance that will withstand legal challenges, had to back off some provisions he’d hoped to include, including requiring gun owners to insure their weapons and restricting each resident to one handgun.

No he’s not. What he’s doing is crafting a piece of legislation which is still violating people’s rights and doing it in such a way that it will take years to get through the courts. Mayor Daley and crew receive no punishment when they pass a law that violates someone’s rights. They do it because they can and there are no repercussions to those involved. Someone needs to be charged and thrown in prison over that last piece of legislative crap as well as this one. It is a lack of accountability that is allowing these atrocities to continue. It’s high time we find a way to add serious accountability to those who pass illegal laws.