I mean, Real Tolerance

by Andrew Roman

_____________

By all accounts Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was a rousing success across the land. In fact, it looks like it was a record setting outing.

And it had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

There were some minor protests, sure….but rallies comprised mostly of ignorants and spoiled-brats who have no clue what real discrimination or oppression is only make me chuckle  – that is, until they start defecating on police cars and sleeping in public parks adorned by urine-soaked Che Guevara t-shirts.

Prior to yesterday's sensational free-market referendum on free speech and religious liberty, I listened intently to public officials condemn Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s support of traditional marriage. 

I assure you, the dazzling irony of all this was not lost on me.

It is the mantra of those who suddenly become Constitutional warriors and brand themselves "offended" whenever a Christmas Tree is lit in a public setting, a cross appears on a city seal or the ten commandments are within view of a courthouse: It is a "violation of the separation of church and state." It doesn’t matter what the “it” is; as long as the “G” word is in the mix, it is a gross violation of everything this country really stands for: freedom from God and religion in a public setting.

Then exactly how do Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Philadelphia City Council Member James F. Kenny, and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (among others) justify their remarks as publicly elected officials against the beliefs of Mr. Cathy? Haven't they quite literally combined church and state by using the pulpit of their elected office to condemn a private citizen's religious convictions?

Councilman Kenney, for example, is actually sponsoring a bill that condemns the intolerance of Mr. Cathy, saying biblical beliefs of this sort (supporting the traditional definition of marriage) cannot be tolerated. Said Kenney: “My effort is to allow people to understand that in certain segments of corporate America there are folks who are using their dollars to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination." (Note the obligatory dig at "corporate America). He also said that people who are opposed to same sex marriage need to understand that there are consequences to those beliefs.

Mr. Kenney is an elected official.

I’m confused.

Don’t these purveyors of universal tolerance and group hugs represent the governments of their respective cities? Aren’t they overstepping their boundaries as defined by their own twisted understanding of the first amendment? Aren’t church and state supposed to be separated at all times?

Seriously, if this constitutionally mandated “separation” applies to such things as barring the word “Christmas” in public schools, shouldn’t it also apply to a body of government and how it is allowed to conduct itself regarding a man’s personal opinion on the definition of marriage?

I emphasize that this is Mr. Cathy's personal opinion…

So, what happened to the separationists on this one?

It must be that “living, breathing constitution” thing we keep hearing about.

Are one's personal beliefs now to be as relevant – or perhaps more relevant – than one's actions in the public arena?

These enlightened lefty types seemingly want the Chick-Fil-A chain punished…not because of the way it conducts its business or treats its customers, but because of the religious beliefs of its big boss.

Let’s be clear … Mr. Cathy did not speak negatively about gays. In fact, his franchise (employing over 50,000 people) has an actual standing policy of welcoming and treating all customers equally and with respect in all of their establishments, regardless of the race, creed or sexual orientation.

Horrible, I know.

There is no – repeat no - policy against gays at Chick-Fil-A …or anyone for that matter. By all accounts, Chick-Fil-A conducts its business admirably, and their customer service is excellent. Everyone – from cross-wearing Sunday-schoolers to pentagram adorning goth chicks - is welcome in all of their stores.

That is Chick-Fil-A policy.

On the other hand, Mr. Cathy’s personal religious beliefs are not franchise policy….and he certainly should be entitled to them without having to worry about the heavy hand of government bullying him or affecting the future prosperity of his company with threats.

If Mr. Cathy, for instance, said that married gay people were not allowed in any of his stores or that homosexuals were required to pay higher prices if they wanted to patronize his menu, then yes….his religious beliefs could be reasonably construed to be belligerent, if not hateful. If he posted signs in his establishments quoting biblical verses condemning homosexuality, then yes….one could reasonably conclude that Chick-Fil-A was institutionally anti-gay.

But nothing of the sort has happened.

Not even close.

His store is as accessible to everyone as, say, JCPenney - a store which has used a same-sex couple in a Father's Day ad. (I'm still trying to calculate how many Republican politicians have vowed never to allow a JCPenney in their jurisdiction again).

Elected officials have no moral right or constitutional authority to make things more difficult for Chick-Fil-A to set up shop in their town based on the personal religious convictions of its owner. Politicians cannot, on one hand, blast the mingling of church and state while, on the other, use their position to pass resolutions condemning law-abiding privately owned companies whose owners express their religious beliefs.

Where does it stop?

Will all businesses in Boston now be surveyed so that their owners' positions on same-sex marriage can be ascertained?

What country is this?

This kind of intimidation from the powerful left defines modern liberalism.

Indeed, anyone can choose to patronize or boycott any establishment they choose. That is free market economics. But from what orifice do publicly elected officials pull out these “thought police” cards? Does it really matter what Mr. Cathy believes? What does his support of traditional marriage have to do with the way his company hires workers (many of which I presume are gay) or treats its customers? Cathy isn’t an elected official, is he? His personal convictions have no effect on whether or not same-sex marriage becomes legal in any given state. He hasn’t violated any discrimination law with respect to his business orhow it interacts with the public.

Remember, liberals believe all speech, expression and actions are fully protected by the first amendment … unless, of course, its coming from a Christian.

All of this begs more clarification. 

Why exactly are big-hearted, open-minded liberal mayors accepting of mosques run my Imams who denounce homosexuality then?  Or welcoming of blatant racist, anti-gay, anti-Semites (Louis Farrakhan, for example)?

Oh wait, Farrakahn is black … and not conservative.

Silly me.

Again I ask…which color of the all-encompassing rainbow flag of tolerance and unity represents Mr. Cathy?

And can liberals define the word “separation” for clarity’s sake?

It is worth noting that many of the people across the country who patronized Chick-Fil-A yesterday on what Dan Cathy himself is calling a record day said that they were actually in support of same-sex marriage...but equally in support of free speech.

Now, that is what I call genuine tolerance.

---

Some Exasperated Thoughts On The Constitutionality Of The Unconstitutional ObamaCare Monstrosity

Chief Justice John Roberts

by Andrew Roman

____________________________

I’ve spent the better part of twenty-four hours reading endless commentary from thinking, normally-coherent rightists who are trying to convince me, if not themselves, that John Roberts’ fundamental transformation of judicial review is actually a long-term win for conservatives and originalists. And even with my initial fiery emotions tempered a bit (although my outrage has continued to blossom), I just don’t get it.

I truly don’t.

I haven’t stopped shaking my head since 10:15 yesterday morning when the rulings came down.

From the pens and tongues of people I honestly respect, from George Will to Charles Krauthammer, I’m being told I need to step back, relax and try to see the silver linings in all of this madness - that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ObamaCare individual mandate as a tax, rather than a matter of commerce, is an historical victory – that yesterday’s debacle of a decision will limit future attempts to use the Constitution’s commerce clause as a vehicle for government expansion.

On that point, I concede they’re almost certainly correct.

But that’s where the whole matter should have ended – with five Supreme Court justices suitably upending any federal attempts at imposing a mandate that would compel us under penalty of law to have to purchaseanything. At that point, the men in black robes should have closed up shop, congratulated each other for defending the Constitution and individual liberty and gone home to watch reruns of Mad Men.

But they didn’t.

So, while the Constitution's commerce clause became that much more difficult for future legislators to use as a mechanism for government growth (we hope), it also became that much easier to levy taxes on both behavior and non-behavior. Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts - the swing vote - has set a new judicial standard. The federal government can now say we must purchase whatever it deems necessary, so long as the penalty for not doing so is called a "tax." The word "commerce" never needs to come into play. And while it's true that the feds have always been able to tax its citizens, no one could have imagined that this flimsiest of justifications would keep the individual mandate living and breathing - for now and for the future. 

As a consequence, the proverbial flood gates are now wide open – and just as we’ve seen here in that bastion of personal liberty, New York City (think cooking oil, cigarettes, 16-ounce cups of soda, etc), once the government reaches in and knocks over one domino, it will not stop until they're all toppled under the guise of doing whats best for us (at the expense of liberty).

Government never knows when to stop.

What that means is that those people who can afford to purchase health insurance, but choose not to, will be taxed. It also means that young people, say in their early twenties, who are healthy and choose not to be insured (as I did when I was that age), will also be taxed. The latter group, incidentally, will be facing increasing fines each year until it becomes less expensive for them to actually purchase the mandatory insurance, at which time the open arms of the government will be there waiting to take care of them.

Clever. yes?

And so it was that the Chief Justice of the United States tore a page from the 2012 edition of the “Activist Judges Handbook” and not only overstepped his bounds, but set a new kind of puzzling precedent.  

A scary one.

John Roberts, in his attempts to keep the court from “legislating from the bench,” did precisely that. He quite literally rewrote the law, miraculously preserving the federal mandate for health insurance by calling it a “tax” – even though no such language existed anywhere in the bill’s 2000-plus pages, nor was it sold that way by any breathing Democrat. Even Ted Kennedy, before he relocated to the Mary Jo Kopechne Hall of Ultimate Justice,  never argued for this legislative depravity as a tax. It would have unquestionably died a quick death had it been presented that way.


(Radio talk-show host Mark Levin points out that in the early days of the ObamaCare debate, there were Dems who actually talked about this legislation being similar to the social security tax. Levin notes, however, that it wasn't too long before they completely backed away from using the "t" word. His Landmark Legal Foundation actually filed briefs with the Supreme Court explaining in detail why ObamaCare was categorically not a tax).

What is most infuriating about all of this is that we (by “we” I mean those of us who revere and respect the Constitution) had this thing defeated. This thing was a dead duck. Justice Anthony Kennedy was with us all the way. 

How often does that happen?

It turns my stomach thinking about how close we were to killing this disaster.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

We actually had Kennedy.

He was one of the four dissenting justices who correctly asserted that the entire ObamaCare bill was unconstitutional. 

It was in the bag. 

Even John Roberts agreed that as a matter of justifying the mandate under the commerce clause, ObamaCare didn’t cut the constitutional mustard.

But then Roberts decided that he’d try his hand at writing law instead of interpreting it. From out of thin air, it occurred to him that the bill’s individual mandate also functioned as a tax – that somehow, the high court was magically obliged to treat it as a tax, although it wasn’t meant as one. All the lefty big guns – Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, et al – never used the word tax in selling this garbage to the American people. The President himself went as far as rejecting the notion on numerous occasions. So, rather than use the Constitution itself in conjunction with the actual text contained in the ObamaCare bill to correctly and completely put the kibosh on this unprecedented overreach of government, Roberts constructed, out of whole cloth, a way to keep the bill alive. He made the rationale used in passing “Roe vs Wade” look like a civil traffic dispute. He went beyond checking the emanations and penumbras cited by the Warren Court way back when for justifications. He literally stuck his hand into a black judicial void and yanked out the word “tax.”

It was as if it was the Chief Justice’s mission to save this wretched piece of legislation any way he could.

The fact that no one along the way – whether it be in state court, circuit court, whatever – ever viewed the ObamaCare penalty as a tax was irrelevant to Chief Justice Roberts. Thus, the constitutionality of the individual mandate as a "tax" is all his doing, effectively rendering him the author of the bill. 

But the fact remains that ObamaCare was not passed as a tax. It would never have become law as a tax. 

No matter how you slice it, ObamaCare is a deception of the highest order, not to mention a tax increase the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Victor Davis Hanson writes that “rationalizing defeats is no way to learn from them.”

He’s right.

Andrew McCarthy writes: “ …even if the Court is correct that, under its jurisprudence, the mandate that undergirds Obamacare can be sustained as a tax, it is surely intolerable for the Supreme Court to aid and abet Congress and the president in the commission of a massive fraud: upholding as a tax something they swore up and down was not a tax — allowing them to enact as a tax something that would never have passed if honestly presented as a tax, allowing them to escape accountability for passing a massive tax increase."

He’s right.

Bill Bennet, on his talk show this morning, pointed out that if Barack Obama is re-elected and appoints liberal justices to the court, the entire commerce clause "victory" means absolutely nothing.

He, too, is right.

As expected, the spiking of the White House football was swift .... and flat out nonsensical. Yesterday, the President said: “In doing so, [The Supreme Court] reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America – in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.” 


What on God's green earth is he talking about?

Where exactly is this fundamental principal “affirmed?” In what document? As part of what doctrine?  Taking a page from the “Roberts Handbook of Incoherent Jurisprudence Rationalization,” the President has literally made this up ... and there isn't a mainstream media news person who will call him on it.

In his opinion, Justice Roberts wrote: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

That is true, of course, but it is his job to defend the Constitutions from obvious violations, just as he and four other justices did in shooting down the mandate that compels the people of the United States to engage in commerce under the Constitution's commerce clause. 

It should also be noted, as a matter of Constitutional rights, that the law as it stands now would effectively drown religious institutions – like Catholic or Jewish schools as well as affiliated hospitals - with fines (I should say, taxes) unless they relent to offer insurance and services that violate the teachings and doctrines of their particular faiths.

That's not going to go over too well.

First Amendment anyone?

Incidentally, I’m curious…. What kind of “tax” is the ObamaCare bill exactly? As explained by Mark Levin on his radio program yesterday, this is a very important and relevant question in justifying the bill's constitutionality. Is it a direct tax, as expressed in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of The Constitution? Is it an income tax, as expressed in the 16^th Amendment? Is it an excise tax?

As Levin explains: “It’s not a direct - or capitation - tax. It’s not an excise tax. It’s not an income tax. And you know what John Roberts says in response to all that? ‘Oh, let’s stop fiddling around with labels.’ Excuse me? It’s not fiddling around with labels. We’ve got all kinds of case law on how crucial it is.”

But it gets even more convoluted.

There is a statute called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. Enacted in 1867, it essentially keeps people from being able to take the federal government to court “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” In other words, we cannot sue the feds simply because we don’t wish to pay taxes. Chief Justice Roberts cited this statute in his opinion yesterday, saying that because the writers of the ObamaCare bill did not call the individual mandate a "tax" (rather a “penalty”), the Tax Anti-Injunction Act is not applicable here, and thus it will not be considered a tax in this context.

Follow me here ..... Chief Justice Roberts initially wrote that the “penalty” for not having health insurance isnot a “tax.” It’s merely a good old-fashioned penalty.

Roberts writes: “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”

So, it's not a tax.

So far so good?

Got that?

It’s not a tax.

That is, until we get a little further in his opinion.

That’s when it suddenly becomes a tax.

He writes: “It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax. But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.

“While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful,. neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur­ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.”

Did I read that correctly? 

"...neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur­ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.”

My Lord, isn’t that enough?  

What???

What planet is this?

Incoherence, thy name is Roberts

-

This Is Beyond Ridiculous. Why The Hell Do I Still Live Here?

by Andrew Roman

______________

Popcorn May Be Next

If oversized cups of sugary drinks (those larger than 16 ounces) really are a scourge to the health and well-being of a gluttonous, overweight citizenry (as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) – I mean, if they are really contributing in such an adverse way to the overall condition of the population to the point that the confiscation of liberties has become necessary (again, as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) - then wouldn’t it be prudent, nay imperative,  to simply make them  illegal?

This is a legitimate question, not incendiary finger-snapping blog rhetoric.

Seriously, what would be the rationale for not making them illegal, based on the objective from on high? That soda is only bad for us in big cups as opposed to multiple smaller-sized cups? Or bottles? Or cans? 

If our lives are really at stake here, how can these overseers of all that is good and righteous not ban these immoral body-bloating concoctions?

As it stands right now, should the City of New York bend over, grab its ankles and accept His Royal Highness Michael Bloomberg’s big-cup ban, we the people will still be able to recklessly poison ourselves by cleverly purchasing two sixteen ounce cups of sugar-filled beverages (which, as a product of the New York City Public School System, brings me to a grand total of thirty-two total ounces of sugary drinks, if I’m not mistaken) …or even three cups (forty-eight ounces of sugary drinks) …or ten cups (one hundred sixty ounces).

Why then do it at all (if our well-being is really the issue)? Surely, Blunderberg’s health minions have considered this calamitous  reality, troubled as they obviously are with the health of New Yorkers.

How serious can the New York City Politburo really be about our collective physical states if it is still within our power to legally pour as many ounces of Dr. Pepper into our gobs as we like, albeit somewhat inconveniently in several containers as opposed to one?

Indeed, the Big Apple – or better yet, the Controlled-Portion-Apple – has, out of whole cloth, given itself the power to care about us so much - to do that which is for our own collective good - that it can literally tell a privately-owned entity that it is no longer allowed to sell a perfectly legal item in a perfectly legal manner to law-abiding Americans.  And they do so based on the deadly marriage of dimwitted emotion-based logic and big government liberalism.

Spare me the hackneyed, knee-jerk, ridiculous claims that overweight people are such a burden to the health system that it has become obligatory to curb our liberties.  Is it really the contention of big-government, soft-tyrannical types that skinnier people would bring down costs of health care for everyone across the board in such a way as to legitimize such an unheralded power-grab?

How does that work exactly?

Do people who are not obese and live longer visit their doctors less and require less medication over the course of their lives? Really? Skinny people don’t suffer from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pneumonia, ulcerative colitis, migraines and Parkinson’s as much as Pepsi drinkers? So, the majority of people in hospitals, emergency rooms, rehabilitation centers and clinics are undisciplined Slurpee guzzlers?

Doesn’t it stand to reason that if someone lives to be 95 instead of 75, he or she will have twenty more years on this earth to suffer illnesses, require medical attention and break down like everyone else? Do skinnier people simply keel over dead when their time is up, out of the blue, from a perfectly healthy state? Don’t most people deteriorate toward the end of their lives, requiring doctor care, medicine and extensive tests regardless of how old they are when the end comes? 

Let's for a moment, look at the zealotry of the anti-smoking crusaders.

If, for example, 50,000 people die annually, as is the contention from anti-smoking warriors, due to second-hand smoke, why would these nanny-staters complain about rising costs? These people are dying, aren’t they? They can’t be a drain on the health care system if they’re dead, can they? And if more people are dying annually from simply being around smokers than die in auto accidents, isn’t it obvious that smoking, too, must be banned outright?  (Maybe autos should be banned as well, no? Maybe breathing.)

I'm not pro-smoking, by the way. I'm pro-liberty.

Personally, I haven't had a regular soda of any kind for years and haven't smoked a cigarette since 1998. These are my choices, not Mayor Bloomberg's choices. 

If the freedom to choose the Big Gulp is really contributing to the escalating costs of health care and the deteriorating quality of life in the City of New York as claimed, then isn’t it incumbent of the East Coast Kremlin to banish all sugary drinks, period? How can something so important and so critical be instituted conditionally? Do they not care enough?

And what of those people who are thin and healthy who wish to have a 64-ounce Coke at a venue like Yankee Stadium? Setting aside the immediate benefit to the state of being able to collect more tax money from the guy forced to buy three sixteen-ounce sodas instead of one, is the New York Politburo going to assert that this infringement on choice – which libs are always championing when it comes to being able to scrape away inconvenient embryonic tissue in the womb – is still for his own good? Does King Bloomberg know better what is better for this man's body than the man himself?

Obviously he does, because as expected, the Apple Health Police are now looking to expand their reach into our private lives by targeting such society-crippling pleasures as popcorn, milkshakes and specialty coffee drinks.

From MYFOX.com:

The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.

The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens.  They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

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.

"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city.  It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.

Did you catch that? The government would "allow" refills. How sporting of them. How generous.

Who the hell are these people to tell us what we can and cannot choose? And under what authority do they claim to be able to do it? Whim?

Seriously, I dare them to try and take away my wife's daily 32-ounce Iced Mocha Latte. I double-dare them.

It’s funny, tragic and sad at the same time….

The Occupy Wall Streettypes spent months on end living like unkempt hobos in the park, defecating on police cars, disrupting businesses, screaming and yelling about the tyranny of corporations and free markets. They marched, protested, attacked and broke laws to rail against the oppressions and injustices of capitalism. Yet, there isn’t a single corporation in all of America with the power to come to your home and take away your liberties. No bank, retailer, investment firm, restaurant chain, automobile manufacturer or oil company can show up on your doorstep and make you less free.

Not one.

Only government can do that.

-

Greta Hawkins, Public Schools and Banning Patriotism

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

----------------

Greta Hawkins, Principal, P.S. 90, Brooklyn NY

This is one of those "Proud-To-Be-A-New-Yorker" moments we sing about around the camp fire.

Approximately ten miles from where I live is P.S. 90, the Coney Island elementary school that has been thrust into the national spotlight thanks to Greta Hawkins, the school’s principal. She’s the educator who, just in the nick of time, walked in on a kindergarten class rehearsal of the Lee Greenwood song “God Bless The USA” (also known as “Proud To Be An American”) slated to be performed during the school’s commencement ceremony on June 20^th. Instinctively recognizing the imminent danger to the children, Hawkins heroically extinguished the looming threat by putting a halt to the proceedings, ordering the song be removed from the program, thus sparing the group of unknowing five-year olds any further exposure to pride and patriotism.

Initially, the cultural heroine of South Brooklyn nixed the song for fear of triggering a wave of inferiority complexes - not to mention wounded self-esteem and offended sensibilities - among those people of “other cultures” attending this particular American public school located, peculiarly enough, in America. Indeed, Hawkins’ keen awareness, razor-sharp instincts and unbridled compassion quite literally saved the offspring of immigrants from having to withstand pro-American sentiment on American soil.  

As expected, Hawkins has been soundly lambasted for the move which, as of today (by conservative estimates), has spared countless developing school age kids any positive impressions of the nation that has welcomed their families with open arms … and that number continues to grow.

Defending Hawkins is Jessica Scaperotti, a spokeswoman for New York’s Department of Education, who offered yet another explanation for the Greenwood song’s banishment. She said that Hawkins found the song’s lyrics a little too “grown up” for five-year olds. Thus, some of the more difficult age-inappropriate imagery, conjured up by such tortuous phrases as: “I’d thank my lucky stars to be livin’ here today” and “From Detroit down to Houston, and New York to L.A. Well there’s pride in every American heart,” will not be given an opportunity to confuse and frighten the children.

At first, as an alternative, the certain-to-be-a-kindergarten-sing-a-long-classic by pop phenom Justin Beiber called “Baby” was to fill the Brooklyn auditorium with its more embracing, family-friendly, unambiguous age-appropriate lyrics: “Are we an item? Girl, quit playing. We’re just friends. What are you saying?” and “Baby, baby, baby oooh. Like baby, baby, baby nooo. Like baby, baby, baby oooh. I thought you’d always be mine.”

But alas, that plan, too, has been scrapped, according to His Most Exalted Highness, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and New York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott . Said Walcott: “Now as far as Justin Bieber, I understand some of the issues people raised. It’s my understanding that song will not be part of the ‘moving up’ ceremony as well . . . I support our principals along that line."

Still, it remains unclear why the Beiber song was scrapped at all since the song makes no reference to the country, God or patriotism.

Strange.

It is also unclear why so many people, including members of those "other culture" families who are obviously unaware that they are being affronted by the controversial pro-USA composition, are insisting that the song be reinserted back into the program.

The fact is, Principal Hawkins has clearly made it her life’s goal to protect the fragile self-images of the children placed in her charge; and although her courageous attempts to end the daily reciting of the Pledge Of Allegiance and the singing of “America The Beautiful” a couple of years ago proved unsuccessful, her continued refusal to simply stand up as a sign of respect during these daily rituals (she is a Jehovah’s Witness) continues to be not only a reaffirmation of unflappable integrity, but a true inspiration to five-year olds long disgusted with these oppressive and insulting practices. After all, if she doesn’t participate, why should anyone else have to?

This, indeed, is the embodiment of leadership.

However, despite Hawkins' attempts at instilling a little dose of enlightenment on the future leaders of tomorrow, we can surely expect the feeble-minded among us today to unleash their poison arrows on her ... and, indeed, they have.

Her 2010 reprimand from the New York Department of Education for calling the school “racist” should not be taken out of context by ill-informed detractors, basement-swelling blog-jockies and hate-mongers. And although she did say, “I’m black. Your previous principal was white and Jewish. More of us are coming,” expect flag-waving smear-merchants to twist those words entirely out of context for their own benefit.

Other complaints about Hawkins – including her threatening to report parents of misbehaving students to the Administration for Children’s Services, her under-reporting of safety incidents, and her refusal to account for nearly four thousand dollars of Title I parent involvement funds from the previous school year – should not, and do not, reflect on her excellence as an educator and protector of the innocent.

As a side note, John Lennon’s “Working Class Hero,” to the surprise of many, is among those songs not scheduled to be performed at the ceremony.

---

The King Wants Your Big Gulp

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_______________________

Yes, liberals live (and love) to ban things. If they could, they'd ban more. It's that we're allowed to do so many things and make our own choices that causes them so much distress. And in circumstances where an outright ban isn't possible (e.g, guns), they are madly infatuated with imposing restrictions. Modern liberalism has shown us that the road to Utopia - ever under-construction and always under-funded - is more easily navigated when those who know what is good for us (and the Earth) remove these hazardous obstacles. 

For instance, if the planet could communicate directly with us (outside of the melting glaciers and mounting polar bear corpses), no doubt she would breathe a much-needed sigh of relief now that the Los Angeles City Council has banned plastic bags from super markets. The environment-crippling single-use plastic bag is slated to be replaced with that dinosaur of free-market-transport: the paper bag ... which, incidentally, was replaced many years ago by the very same plastic bags that are now being banned from use.  Something about saving the earth, if I recall. The ban is intended to reduce the amount of garbage in landfills, cut back on litter and show the environment some love.

But facts are pesky things. They can burst blissful bubbles and annoy the self-congratulatory well-intentioned.

Plastic bags make up less than one half of one percent of all garbage in the State of California.

Plastic bags make up a full one percent - that's one part out of a hundred - of all litter nation-wide.

These same plastic bags make up nearly two percent of all plastic debris found on beaches or in the oceans.

That we have anything left alive in our seas is astonishing.

Let us not forget about the jobs that could potentially be lost domestically thanks to the ban. Yes, plastic grocery-store bags are manufactured right here in the good old U-S-of-A.  And what of the inescapable trouble that will arise from those disgusting  bacteria-laden reusable bags that are now being pushed by environmentalists?  (Most of them are made in China, by the way). Would you put your peaches in one of those things?

To hell with those perfectly sanitary,  fish-killing, dump-filling, beach-trashing, dog-poop-picker-uppers! I demand my right to acquire E.coli while saving the planet!

Next, a riddle...

If a million people tried doing serious damage to the environment by getting together, say in Central Park, and pressing a million asthma inhalers simultaneously into the air, how many holes in the ozone layer could be created? How many species could be eliminated from an already fragile collection of eco-systems teetering on the brink? How many degrees could surface temperatures across the globe by ratcheted up? What would the caribou death count be?

Thank goodness that these noxious threats to the ozone layer are being phased out. 

Whether or not President Obama's EPA is aware that people who use these over-the-counter inhalers actually release the chemicals contained in them into their own bodiesand not into the atmosphere is unclear at this time.

Not to worry, though. Prescription inhalers cost at least three times as much as the over-the-counter variety being banned.  After all, asthma sufferers were looking for ways to spend more money on their life-saving medications, weren't they?

There is solace in knowing the carbon footprint of the United States will be that much smaller.

Here in New York City, where banning things is a way of life, our King - Michael Bloomberg, his most exalted majesty - has once again kicked aside an obtrusive roadblock on the path to sweet Utopia by telling us yet again what is good for us. (If not for him, how many dead would litter our streets like so many banned plastic grocery bags?)  Recall, he rescued us by banning certain cooking oils in privately owned restaurants. (Yes, in privately owned restaurants). He banned smoking in bars. (Yes, in privately owned bars). He has waged war on salt, forced calorie counts to be posted in restaurants, usurped the will of the people by thumbing his nose to term limits, extended the welcome mat to  illegals, and rejected the real purpose of government  - that is, to protect freedom Rather, he has used elected office as a platform to hoist personal feelings about the morality of health upon the rest of us.

The King has proposed - and will almost certainly get - a ban on all sugared drinks in containers that measure larger than sixteen ounces.

This is not a joke. It isn't a Rush Limbaugh parody, a Saturday Night Live bit or a Mad Magazine spread.

Michael Bloomberg, from on high, has decided that it will be illegal - yes, illegal - to fill a cup larger than sixteen ounces with non-diet soda and other sweet drinks in any of the five boroughs of New York City.

Illegal.

Say goodbye to super-sized sodas. Say goodbye to choice. Say goodbye to liberty. Say goodbye to sanity.

Say howdy to more big, intrusive government.

Say hi to unabashed liberalism.

The Bloomberg ban would affect restaurants, street carts, delis, movie theaters, stadiums and arenas. Yes, that means that it will be against the law to buy a 32-ounce Mountain Dew at Yankee Stadium to wash down my Nachos, but perfectly fine to buy seven beers before the first pitch is ever thrown.

 Such thinkers, these liberals.

The ban wouldn't apply to diet drinks, fruit juices, booze or even milk shakes - because it is common knowledge that large quantities of ice cream and whole milk are better for you than a jumbo Coke .

To be fair, the ban would not include bottled soda in grocery stores and convenience stores, but would wipe out the famed Big Gulp.

I  can see it all now.

The scene is a 7-11 convenience store somewhere near Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. It's lunchtime. A pickup truck packed with construction workers pulls up. Out come four hungry, thirsty he-men. One of the guys, parched from a hot summer's morning of work on the new office building across 4th Avenue, grabs a Big Gulp cup and places it underneath the dispenser at the soda machine. His arid throat tingles as he anticipates the rush of icy cold Coke about to pour in, squelching the burn of his thirst, soothing his overworked body.

As the man's Big Gulp cup - built for 32 ounces of pure refreshment - fills past the half-way point with frosty Coca Cola, three red lights suddenly emerge from the front of the machine and begin flashing in rapid sequence. The machine immediately shuts itself down as two iron-pronged grills slam down in front of the dispenser. An alarm sounds. The store clerks quickly put on their protective eye gear  and duck behind the display of black-and-white cookies. Customers scatter.  A woman screams.  

The store's front door is bolted shut as a nine inch thick steel titanium bar is lowered from behind the portrait of Mayor Mike Bloomberg above the lottery ticket wheels. Simultaneously, two metal rods project from the sides of the soda machine, expanding themselves toward the Big Gulp cup from either direction until they penetrate the cup, piercing the skin, causing the Coca Cola to empty into the overrun pan. The straws and cup lids are electronically sealed behind bullet-proof glass from a remote location. The Slurpee machine melts into a pool of molten metal.

Before he can process all that has happened, the thirsty man is surrounded.  In an instant, someone starts reading him his rights as his wrists feel the cold steel of the cuffs clenching down. It's all over within thirty seconds, and it's all for his own good.

Voices within the store begin to buzz: "Shoulda went with the diet" ..... "It's really for the best."  A couple of the older men - grizzled nanny-state veterans -  reflexively suck in their guts as they watch the man escorted from the premises. "I don't touch the stuff anymore myself," one says to another.  "Does he want to die young or something?" another one nervously asks out loud. An old lady in a rocking chair chuckles uncontrollably. Some begin looking around, anticipating an appearance from King Mike himself. "Another life saved!" someone calls out from just beyond the rotating sausages. "It's for our own good," a mother of nine affirms.

And just like that, life returns to normal in the Brooklyn 7-11.

One of the men from the pickup truck buys two 16-ounce cups of icy cold Coke without incident. Another buys a 20-ounce bottle of Pepsi from the cooler, while the third says he is going to the Baskin Robins  across the street for a large ice cream soda.

Now seriously....

Is this idiocy reallyabout health? Does anyone in their heart of hearts genuinely believe this entire power play is about curbing obesity?

What's to prevent people from buying multiple cups of smaller sized soda? What's to keep people from their free refills in fast food joints? If this is really about cutting back on fat, why not just close down the bakeries?  Or put restrictions on the number of Kit Kats allowed per household? Or limit potato chip consumptions to one bag a week. Or pizza delivery to two medium pies every ten days? Or mandate that no one within the five boroughs can sit down to watch any television program with less than two vegetable servings and a fruit platter?

There is so much asininity in this proposal that environmentalists would have me hung for the amount of trees it'd take to supply the paper I would need to list the ways.

People are living longer than ever before. And if you properly adjust statistics by taking away those that die in car accidents and are murdered , the United States has the highest life expectancy on Earth.

In reality, this is a freedom-curbing intolerable intrusion into our lives that has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with improving the health of our citizenry. Ultimately, regardless of intention, this is only about expansive government. It is about making the individual even smaller in the shadow of a growing state. It is about shrinking liberty. It is about the right of the people to be able to make personal choices that were never intended to  the fall under the awning of the power of government.  Free people must have the right to make these decisions themselves, good or bad. Indeed, choices have consequences, but none so menacing as  allowing government to take away - ban - things it deems as a "public concern."

Where is the line?

Where does it stop?

Human beings just don't know when to say when.

C.S Lewis wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Go ahead and redefine the millennia-old definition of marriage. Please feel free to terminate as many unborn children as you wish.  Hand out condoms to school children as you see fit.

But don't you dareput seventeen ounces of Sunkist Orange in a cup in this city.

Incidentally, today is the 75th Annual National Donut Day in New York.

That's right, National Donut Day.

Our Majesty-In-Chief will be out and about today celebrating this internationally heralded health food, culminating in a proclamation letter written by ... himself.

Can a Boston cream donut even fit in one of those Big Gulp cups?
----