Michael Bloomberg is notorious for wanting to protect us… from ourselves… at any cost (to us, of course, not to him). It’s for your own good, is Bloomberg’s sometimes hidden message that he passively-aggressively bleats to us, often with profound exasperation.
Barack Obama is basically a better spoken, bi-racial version of the same man and more and more people are starting to understand this. And they don’t like it.
On Friday, President Obama spoke to us about surveillance as though we were precocious children. He proceeded as if widespread objections to his policies can be dispatched like a parent answers an eight-year-old who has formally protested her bedtime. He is so proud that we’ve matured enough to take an interest in our civil liberties! Why, he used to think just like us when he was younger, and promises to consider our arguments. But some decisions just have to be made by the grownups. Do we know how much he loves us? Can we even imagine how awful he would feel if anything bad ever happened while it was still his job to ensure our safety? *
Ignore the questionable use of “precocious” in the block quote above and concentrate on the main point: like Bloomberg, Obama lives inside a profoundly thick bubble which protects him from the daily toils and troubles of living in the real world. And from within their respective bubbles, both men are able to promulgate decisions that their true minions tend to describe as wise, necessary, mature, thoughtful, compassionate, and the likes. The law of the land? Meh… it means what the ruling class wants it to mean.
$13,000 copper bathtubs? Sorry; for me and not for thee. Rides on military-air for my dog? Come on… you know such things aren’t for ordinary citizens. Why? Because, Mike and Barry said so, that’s why. After all, You people aren’t ready to decide such things for yourselves.
Meanwhile, pro-freedom is not one of the terms commonly used to describe the myriad Bloomberg and/or Obama initiatives.
(It’s a sobering thought to ponder we might actually get the government we deserve.)
And what about that asterisk is the first block quote?
*Alas, Obama-as-daddy-figure isn’t even wise and measured with his heavy-handedness, like Cliff Huxtable. Instead, America is stuck with one of those control-freak dads. It’s as if, instead of the girl in the No Doubt song not being allowed to drive late at night, she can cruise as needed, but with a location tracker. Plus her dad hacking into the email of every boy in her social circle — not that he has time to read most of their private communications, but who knows what might one day come in handy? Did I mention she’s now 31, and tried to get a restraining order, only to have a judge throw out the case because she couldn’t prove dad was still listening?
We used to frequently say, “It’s a free country.” Now, it’s become a Mike Bloomberg/Barry Obama “Do as I say and not as I do” world.
The President just knows that if we could only get more people on “good government jobs,” all would be well in America. Others think he’s mistaken. A few recent and notable chronicles of public service:
We have GaffeMaster Flash spending $1 million a year of other people’s money just for his weekend trips.
There’s The Nanny taking along a police detail—and paying for it with other people’s money—when he vacations in Bermuda… or anywhere else. Oh, and they take their guns—and likely their Big Gulps—naturally. Do as I say and not as I do and all that.
State troopers in Texas perform a full body cavity search on a pair of women. The taxpayers are responsible for both the troopers’ salary and the subsequent lawsuit. The alleged crime driving the requirement for a full body cavity search? Throwing a cigarette out of their vehicle.
Government d-baggers in Colorado (and elsewhere) drive businesses that makes things people want out of state due to the crafting of idiotic laws (with legislatures and governors that match). Remember, Obamacare fully funds any and all libotomies.
Don’t forget EU bureaucrats going all Steve Miller, that is, they take the money and run… for re-election and/or re-appointment. (This is a story about Angela and frau Lagarde, two old people who wanted to go full retard…)
Yes, they’re here from the government, they’re glad to see you, and they’re here to help.
Soda-sovereign wannabe Michael Bloomberg, having been literally (Biden-speak) set in the corner to wear the dunce cap of democracy by the judiciary, brings to mind another failed politico with the stench of chronic overreach on his breath, Al Gore, AKA, The Goreafice.
Ergo, the correct answer to the SAT-like analogy question of the day is this: Michael Bloomberg is to small sodas as Al Gore is to manmade global warming.
The overarching philosophy for both men is from the progressive playbook: people are too stupid to make their own decisions and as such, government should make those decisions for them. Exceptions include government condoned abortions and/or homosexuality.
Because the people take offense at having their freedoms overtly restricted, progressives have to take misleading positions, quibble, or lie to get their control agenda to work.
And in other breaking news, the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.
(New York, PMNS)
Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, today requested additional drone support from the Department of Homeland Security. His rationale is that more surveillance, along with air strike capabilities, might be needed to enforce his ban on large, sugary drinks.
“The issue of obesity in the city has reached epidemic proportions and we need help with food policing resources we can’t ourselves afford,” Bloomberg said at a press conference Monday morning. “People need to understand this is for their own good and that portion size is not some sort of Constitutionally protected right.”
After Bloomberg finished, mayoral spokesman and Wall Street veteran Henry Brinks-Sachs addressed reporters and said that Bloomberg would need an additional seven drones with upgraded sensors (synthetic aperture radar, infrared, and full-motion video) and that at least four of the drones would require a full weapons load. “The mayor knows that people need help in meeting our goals for portion sizes,” Brinks-Sachs said, “and that massive retaliation is a proven obesity deterrent. Once we have enough drones for 24-hour ops, we can expand into neighboring areas, to help those who cant, or won’t help themselves against these beelzebubish Big Gulps.”
Critics of Bloomberg’s new policy quickly voiced their displeasure. Michael Spinks, a member of Citizens Against Drone Death said, “Bloomberg’s overreach and arrogance on this is typical. You’d think after he inadvertently destroyed Al Sharpton’s headquarters last week with that drone-delivered Hellfire missile, he would have learned his lesson.” Sharpton has remained silent on the issue pending a settlement and a possible run for mayor himself. He is said to be in mourning following the death of seven staff workers at his Harlem headquarters including confidant Tawana Brawley.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is expected to approve Bloomberg’s request sometime this week.
(Joy Acton-Carnish and Philip Xerxes of the PMNS Newark translation enclave helped cut and paste this article.)
Please pray for the surviving victims and the families of the victims of the tragic mass-murder in Newtown, Ct.
And after you’ve prayed, consider the following:
- Why is it these murderers do their horrific acts and then off themselves? Why don’t they just commit suicide and spare everyone else the grieving and pain?
- Why is it that criminals ignore and evade gun-control laws?
- Why is it these murderers go places where they’ll be largely—or completely—unopposed by citizenry who are exercising the right to bear arms? (Perhaps because the madman’s goal is to inflict maximal mayhem—but why?—and he still possesses plenty of rationality.)
- Why is it these criminals are men, usually young men?
- Is Michael Bloomberg the most predictable anti-gun/anti-free speech/anti-freedom troll in America?
- Has mental illness been sufficiently wished away or thought to be medicated away so as to let dangerous citizens walk the streets?
- Since a man knifed 22 people at a school in China, will the Chinese Communist Party be talking about new knife controls?
- Should parents consider both homeschooling and concealed carry to the maximum extent practical?
Now that you’ve pondered such things, please keep praying. Thanks.
Nanny FLOTUS Michelle Obama has spoken and she agrees our greatest national security threat is obesity.
On a related front, nanny NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is battling drinks larger than 16 ounces.
And under Barack Obama’s incredible nanny-like leadership, more Americans than ever, 46 million, are receiving food stamps and the Administration wants even more to
go on the dole sign up for this important safety net program.
See if you can tease out the disconnect in the great nanny state’s iron logic. I think it’s how it manages to hit the intersection of irony, cluelessness, hypocrisy, and I-know-what’s-good-for-you elitism, that is, do as I say and not as I do; pay as I say and not as I pay.
Hypothesis: idiots with initiative are among the most destructive things known to man.
Background: I’d like to say I’m pro-choice. On Big Gulps.
That is, keep your hands off my Big Gulps, my Slurpees, and my Starbucks Trentas.
Story: Michael Bloomberg is pro-choice on killing the unborn; he’s anti-choice on Big Gulps. And he has initiative.
“I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody’s willing to do something about it,” Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show.
“I would criticize the federal government for not doing anything,” the health-conscious Bloomberg added on WOR radio’s John Gambling show. “I would criticize the state governments for not doing anything, but in the end, it’s the cities that do things.”
Even if Bloomberg has a point—which he doesn’t—does he have the right?
And then there’s the issue of discretion. Maybe the Big Gulp ban should only be applied to people of size. After all, why should we all be denied the pleasures of a Big Gulp?
Finally, there’s also the issue of alternative foods. Maybe Bloomberg’s nanny state can limit fat people to one four ounce serving of high-fiber sauerkraut daily until they meet his honor’s body-fat standards. Then those formerly fat will be allowed to live responsibly—defined as however Bloomberg sees fit—in New York City.
First, where are the lawsuits to make Bloomberg pay for this insanity? Next, with friends like Bloomberg’s government, who needs enemies? Finally, is this the government the people of New York want?