Say hello to the new the New York Transportation Hub aka Bug Palace, a public extravagance that cost taxpayers a whopping 4 billion dollars.
Inspired by Lego Bionicle?
4 billion dollars of mostly empty space
But of course their liberal mayor needs MORE MONEY.
Even though New York suburbs pay some of the highest property taxes in the nation that isn’t stopping NYC mayor Bill Blasio from proposing a new tax on mansions….because he needs the money. This is the same mayor that openly spent 16 million protecting illegal immigrants because US citizens need to be further taxed to defend non-citizens.
In the establishment media we constantly see comparisons of the US murder rate to that of Europe with the implication being that our gun laws are to blame. Liberals continually project a narrative where “gun crime” is the problem and that the guns themselves are to blame for Euro/US differences in homicide rates. Never in the establishment media will you see a breakdown of state or racial differences as this would undermine the insinuation that gun ownership correlates with higher than average homicide rates. If gun access is in fact the problem then should we not see higher than average rates compared to Europe across all states and racial demographics where access is equal? The reality is that the liberal narrative of the guns being the overwhelming correlation breaks apart when this question is investigated.
If we look at Chicago murder statistics from 2016 we see that there were 6 cases where the assailant was White/Other. This is quite shockingly low given that there were 803 total homicides in Chicago for 2016. Given the Chicago White population is around 1.2 million this puts the average at less than 1 per 100,000 which is less than that of France.
Though some may find this hard to believe it isn’t far from this report that shows the White NYC murder rate to be 1.3 per 100,000 which is about the same as Ireland.
It is clear that the liberal narrative of guns being the problem is disingenuous when murder rates differ wildly across state and demographic lines. If the mere existence of guns were the problem then US/Europe differences should be consistent.
It’s a statistical fact that a pool in the home is more likely to lead to accidental death for children under 14 compared to having a gun in the home. This was first pointed out in Freakonomics but here is a complete breakdown of the statistics.
Anyone looking to ban guns needs to first look at America’s unhealthy obsession with pools.
Of course pool nuts in pool-crazy states like California won’t face the facts because they are on the teat of the pool industry lobby. They won’t face basic facts like how owning a pool increases your odds of drowning by over 5000% compared to a basketball court.
Gun owners can at least claim that their guns can be used in self-defense but what does a pool offer other than family enjoyment or being able to cool down on a hot day? You don’t need either and there are civilized first world countries like Sweden where pools are rare. So why are we allowing these hedonistic Roman era child killers to be legal in our modern society?
Paranoid pool owner nutcases think we want to take their pools away. That’s just paranoid political rhetoric. What we want to do is fill in most pools with concrete and then only allow some pools to be built using specifications and only after the applicant has gone through a full background check and has proven competency in pool knowledge and safety. That’s what we call a common sense fair compromise. Here is a picture of what a common sense safety pool looks like:
Call your local political official today and ask what they are doing to help stop assault pools. No one needs an assault pool and owning one makes you a stupid and hateful person. Let’s stop these horrible pool nuts keep killing our children. Children or pools, which do you want to save?
A friend of mine was recently talking about supporting the libertarian candidate for president but I’m not sure he or even most people are aware of how crazy the libertarian party actually is.
From their own platform:
Repeal all drug laws creating “crimes” without victims
That means legalizing flakka. Read about this drug crime that supposedly didn’t have any victims:
A 19-year-old Florida State University fraternity brother allegedly stabbed a couple to death then tried to eat part of one victim’s face – possibly after taking the synthetic drug Flakka, PEOPLE confirms.
If you want to make a libertarian squirm just ask them why they think it is a good idea to legalize flakka or crack. Ask they why we should let corporations sell flakka en mass and increase the potency while dropping the price (the natural result of legalizing any drug).
The libertarian ideology at the core is mostly wishful thinking just like liberalism. To believe that our society would be better with Wal-mart selling flakka by the pound is truly delusional. But the libertarian must maintain this belief as it is a core tenet mandated by the ideology. Once people start questioning core components of libertarian thought like open borders, dissolving all environmental regulations or legalized crack the entire ideology becomes suspect.
Libertarianism is not the answer to liberalism. It’s just one form of wishful thinking replacing another. The key to undermining liberalism is through rationalism. Libertarianism is not rationalism. Rationalism means questioning the merits of all sides and taking as many views as possible for issues like drug law. Simply taking the view that they are all bad is not rationalism. That’s a simplistic and childish avoidance of a complex issue. I understand how the two party system can frustrate people but voting libertarian is not the answer.
Well 60 people were shot in Chicago over the 4th of July but the mainstream media doesn’t seem to care. Black Lives Matter and other left-wing organizations don’t seem to care either but they are now busy protesting the Baton Rogue shooting of 1 Black man.
Though the video of the Baton Rogue is unsettling I don’t think the officers should be charged with homicide. If an armed felon is resisting arrest and has ignored repeated warnings the police shouldn’t be expected to make sure an actual hand is on the gun before using lethal force. A gun can be drawn and fired in less than a second so we can’t expect officers to wait until the barrel is pointed at them.
But with that said I think the officer panicked which unfortunately happens in this type of a situation. Shooting the suspect multiple times was not needed and though they are trained to shoot center mass until the threat is resolved but perhaps the policy should be changed for this type of a situation so an arm or shoulder shot is attempted first. I realize it is unrealistic to expect police officers to aim for limbs in normal shootouts but at a point blank range it wouldn’t be difficult.
I often see Chicagoans trying to downplay the violence as only being on the South and West sides.
Well this is a disingenuous statement because as you can see from this 4th of July homicide map that there is no East side:
Which parts of Chicago are safe? Most of it is clearly a warzone unless you count the outer burbs.
Speaking of the burbs that is where this anti-gun group decided to hold a protest. Funny how they are protesting a family owned gunshop in safe suburban neighborhood instead going into the areas where the killings are happening. Like the Federal Government these people don’t want to face the reality of the situation and instead try to pretend that it’s simply the existence of guns that are the problem. There are counties where most people own guns and yet do not have homicides on the 4th of July. In fact you can find small towns in the USA where most people own guns and yet there isn’t a recorded homicide. Trying to blame the guns is disingenuous and these protesters are cowardly for not even trying to get close to where the violence is actually occurring.
I’ve never understood how liberals can believe that abortion is an unrestricted right even though it isn’t mentioned in the constitution, while they view the second amendment as something that is subject to restrictions based on their whims and emotions. The press is currently celebrating the Texas abortion ruling while at the same time demanding new restrictions on guns. Have they not read the constitution? The “shall not be infringed” is very clear while there isn’t one word on abortion. But in the liberal mind a 9 month abortion is a constitutional right while it’s perfectly fine to create new restrictions for gun owners as California is currently doing.
I actually don’t think abortion should be illegal. My take is that the women that get abortions are disproportionately liberal and they would probably just go to Canada or Mexico if it were illegal in the US. So while I’m fine with it being legal I also think it is incredibly deluded to believe that abortion is a constitutional right that should have fewer restrictions than guns, even though the people that wrote the constitution stated in plain English that the second amendment is not to be infringed.
If you talk to liberals about this contradiction you will find that they don’t have an answer which isn’t surprising since liberalism as an ideology isn’t thought out. It’s more of an metropolitan egalitarian cult that serves as a religion for urban Whites. It borrows heavily from Marxism which was never fully thought out either. Liberalism relies heavily on an emotional adherence from its followers and breaks apart under the critical analysis. Though I’m sure liberals will assume I am trying to promote conservatism but in reality I would like to see more independent thinking and outside the box solutions. I would like people think about these issues for themselves not fall into what is really illogical group think.
Listen to Charles Rangel openly state that he should have armed protection but not the people he serves.
This was during an interview on the “Cops on Call” corruption scandal in NYC.
Rangel has been dubbed one of the most corrupt politicians in congress and has admitted to many charges including occupying four separate rent controlled apartments which are supposed to be for families that cannot afford market rates.
Predictably the MSM is not reporting his comments.