Terror Returns to NYC

When IRA terrorists came within seconds of killing Margaret Thatcher with a bomb at the Grand Hotel in Brighton back in 1984, they addressed their failure with an ominous message:  “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once.  You will have to be lucky always.”

Yesterday, when an Islamist who had pledged allegiance to ISIS plowed a rental truck into dozens of bicyclists and pedestrians on the West Side Highway in Manhattan, a similar message was clearly conveyed:  New York City’s luck had finally run out.

Although there had been attempts—a truck bomb that failed to detonate in Times Square, a plot to set off explosives in the subway system—terrorists had not successfully carried out an attack in New York since the twin towers of the World Trade Center fell on September 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.  That’s a remarkable record, considering that New York has always been the jihadis’ number one target, and stands as a testament to the tireless work of the FBI and the NYPD, whose constant vigilance has been key to preventing disaster.

There is, however, only so much that can humanly be done—so it was inevitable that at some point, someone would succeed in unleashing death and destruction on the streets of New York once again.  This time, eight people have been killed—all because they chose to be out on those streets, enjoying a beautiful day with friends and family, when evil happened upon them.  It’s the same horror we saw unfolding in London not so long ago, and in Berlin before that, and in Nice before that.  Even the method was the same—a truck used to run people down.  Decidedly low-tech, the crudity of the attack was matched only by its effectiveness.

And therein lies the real terror.

How can authorities prevent anybody from renting a large vehicle and doing this?  The brutal truth is that they can’t.  That’s why ISIS encourages those it inspires to carry out such attacks.  They’re easy and unpredictable—certainly not as spectacular as a 9/11, but they also don’t require any planning, funding or expertise to carry off.  Literally anyone can do it, and it only seems as if more and more are.

So again, what can be done?

Sayfullo Saipov, the man who carried out yesterday’s murder spree, was originally from Uzbekistan, and was here on a “diversity visa” he won in a lottery.  Lucky him—but not so much for his victims.  Maybe we can start there, and ask ourselves how wise it is to give a random visa to someone from a part of the world filled with people who hate America.

That alone won’t prevent all terrorism, but at least it’ll be less likely.

BREAKING: NYC Central Park Statue of Christopher Columbus Vandalized #SOMETHINGISCOMING

A famous statue of Christopher Columbus was vandalized on Tuesday morning, the morning of the city primary election, with its hands painted with red paint and the message “HATE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED” and “#SOMETHINGISCOMING” forewarning future incidents.

The message of #somethingiscoming was on the bottom.

A Central Park observatory official speaking on condition of anonymity said this probably happened between 2am and 5am because the spray paint on the hands was still sticky at 7am.

Photo credit: Eric Dixon / The New Americana

H/T: The New Americana

Apparently Mayor Bill de Blasio Likes To Nap At Work

Is this some sort of new, 21st century office routine I’ve yet to hear about?

According to former aides, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio takes daily naps in his office.

The Democrat does not even show up to work on time to begin his sleep fest. After his morning exercise, the mayor arrives at City Hall an hour after the standard workday is supposed to begin and immediately goes to sleep on his couch.

“He would arrive at 10:00am after working out and then would be napping,” according to one ex-staffer.

de Blasio also seems to have no shame in the routine. His habit is “pretty widely known within the building.” He uses a newspaper to cover his face and block those pesky office lights from disturbing his slumber.

“He would tell his front-office staff: ‘Don’t bother me for the next 30, 45 minutes. I’m going to take a nap,’” a source told the New York Post.

Former staffers also complained about de Blasio’s sleeping habits affecting work flow. They said it became hard to get things done when their boss was constantly unconscious.

“We couldn’t plan our days that first year at City Hall. Regardless of what you think of [previous Mayor Michael] Bloomberg, that guy was professional. Now, we’ve got this incompetence,” the anonymous source mentioned.

de Blasio, leader of America’s largest city, has been guilty of sleeping during busy workdays for many years now. A staffer for his successful 2009 campaign for public advocate claims he would leave in the middle of the day to get shut eye – even as his team was working around the clock.

“Two o’clock, 3 o’clock would come around, and he would go home and take a nap,” the source stated.

News of the mayor’s sleeping routine has caught the eye of his political adversaries.

Sal Albanese, de Blasio’s Democratic opponent for the upcoming mayoral election, said revelations about his naps are proof that he is “lazy.”

Republican mayoral candidate Nicole Malliotakis spotted de Blasio outside City Hall and offered him a Red Bull. Despite her insistence, the mayor declined the pick-me-up.

“I said, ‘Mayor, I got you a Red Bull to keep you up during the work day,’” Malliotakis explained.

“I’m just trying to help him out so he can stay awake during the day — and doesn’t even need those frequent naps,” she added.


Queens Woman Confronts Bill DeBlasio in the Most New York Way Possible

As New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio gave a press conference in the Whitestone neighborhood in Queens last week, a 63-year-old woman got out of her car to berate the mayor over his treatment of police officers, and the confrontation was the stuff that Hollywood screenwriters wish they could invent.

“You let your police officers down!” Hizzoner’s perhaps fiercest, most fearless foe — a silver-haired firebrand named Vickie Paladino — shouted, jumping out of her car to berate him after noticing him giving a press conference in her Whitestone neighborhood.

“And your country down!” Paladino railed, with so much force that the mayor ran away from her and took refuge in his chauffeured car.

It was the fourth day of the mayor’s “City Hall in Your Borough” swing through Queens, and he’d just finished telling reporters about $16 million in new funding to fix city sidewalks damaged by tree roots.

The mayor began walking toward her.

Then — maybe realizing he was about to walk into a PR buzzsaw — he spun on his heel and hurried back to the safety of his car.

After DeBlasio told his security staff to attend to Paladino and the motorcade left, the fearless woman continued her tirade to the lingering press.

I’ve had it with de Blasio, I’ve had it with the way he’s running the city…Our tax dollars paid for this mayor to go to Germany to protest against our country, ok? That $18 million that he wants to spend on trimming trees, let him put it in our police officers’ pockets. Let him take care of the police officer that was assassinated – that he chose that particular day, without telling a soul, that he was leaving to go to Germany. He ran away.

It’s time he starts to pay attention. This is a big show; this means nothing. He could have sent anybody here to tell us about our trees. Again, I’ve lived here for 63 years. De Blasio, be a mayor; don’t talk to me about trees, talk to me about protection of our city, of our citizens, and what you’re going to do for your police officers because you left them high and dry on more than one occasion. [I] can’t wait for election day. Buddy, you are out.

Paladino’s beef stems from the mayor’s attending the G20 summit in Germany rather than attending the funeral of a police officer who was murdered while on duty. The New York Daily News reports that DeBlasio did spent some time with the family of the slain officer at another time.

In a world of “she persisted” female heroines, Paladino would be a superstar had she done this to a Republican mayor. But because she confronted a liberal Democrat, she’ll be a footnote, a trivia question. But the world needs more women like Paladino to speak up against leftist lunacy.

During NY Gay Pride Parade, Nikki Haley Subjected to Leftist “Civility”

When they say they want “acceptance” and “tolerance,” you should always be prepared to read between the lines.

To the LGBT community, it will always be “Tolerance for me, but not for thee.”

Hypocrisy is, after all, considered a virtue on the lunatic fringe.

On Sunday, New York City held its Pride Parade.

That wouldn’t be pride in the resilience of the human spirit, pride of actual accomplishments, or pride in anything that would otherwise move the nation to a higher level of achievement and general well-being.

It’s a celebration of what goes on in their bedrooms – something homosexuals used to adamantly insist that we stay out of.

And they’re nasty about it.

Case in point would be the treatment of the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

Leaving lunch on Sunday, with her young son in tow, Haley says she was subjected to boos and “hateful things” by the revelers.

Our country used to be better than this, Ambassador. I fear we have long since lost the high ground, due to the twisted ideology of social justice warriors, who have strategically placed themselves in media and academia.

After sending her tweet, almost as if to prove my point, the cackling, hate-filled masses responded:

“Well, Nikki Haley opposes trans protections, tried to oppose SSMs from other states, and now works for Trump,” Zack Ford, LGBTQ editor at Think Progress, tweeted. “So yeah, she was booed.”

No, Zack. She was appointed by Trump. She works for the United States.

“Good,” Eleanor Saitta tweeted. “Until you stop threatening to destroy our lives, you shouldn’t have peace in public.”

If somebody believing in the sanctity of marriage could destroy your lives, you had pretty weak lives, to begin with, so maybe you should fix them.

“It’s not wrong at all,” another Twitter user noted. “This day is for gay PRIDE, not for people who actively work to oppress gay rights.”

If gay PRIDE is the equivalent of hateful rhetoric, then shouldn’t being gay be treated the same as a hate crime?

I don’t know. I’m just bouncing ideas out there to run in the same vein as the thinking held by these stalwart activists.

Their problem seems to be that Haley, as former governor of South Carolina, held views they disagreed with (The Horror!).

In 2013, she fought a federal lawsuit that sought to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“The citizens of South Carolina spoke … they spoke something that I, too, believe, which is marriage should between a man and a woman,” Haley said, the paper noted. “I’m going to stand by the people of this state, stand by the constitution, I’m going to support it and fight for it every step of the way.”

She was doing her job, and also being open about her own feelings on the issue. That’s what she’s supposed to do. It’s what she was elected to do – represent the people of South Carolina.

Does that make her a bigot?

No. It does not.

This is the same Nikki Haley that spoke out in April against the atrocities being committed against gay men in Chechnya.

“We continue to be disturbed by reports of kidnapping, torture, and murder of people in Chechnya based on their sexual orientation and those persecuted by association,” Haley wrote in a statement. “If true, this violation of human rights cannot be ignored–Chechen authorities must immediately investigate these allegations, hold anyone involved accountable, and take steps to prevent future abuses.”

It is one of the most vigorously pushed fallacies of the left, and the foot soldiers of liberalism that you must comply in thought and deed, with no variation, with every position they hold, or else.

Ambassador Haley did not deserve to get booed and heckled for her beliefs about marriage, any more than she deserves to be booed and heckled for who appointed her to her current position.
She’s an individual, not a cog in a machine.

If New York’s gay community want respect, but are unwilling to show even the most basic measure of respect to a U.S. ambassador, as well as a mother in public with her child, they shouldn’t be upset when others view that behavior and reject the notion of meeting them halfway on issues that matter to them.

Amazon Books Hopes Its Stores Don’t Go Route of Past Booksellers

Amazon Books is slated to open its first brick-and-mortar store in New York City on Thursday. This will be the seventh physical store in the United States, with other locations in San Diego, Seattle, Chicago, Massachusetts, and Portland. Other stores are slated to open in the following cities: San Jose, CA; Walnut Creek, CA; Paramus, NJ; Bellevue, WA; and another location in NYC.

The NYC store is centrally located in Columbus Circle. Like other stores, this Manhattan location will use millions of customer ratings and reviews to help guide customers with a unique, Amazon-esque shopping experience. Here’s more on the store concept:

The store — which sells mostly books and some electronics, like the Amazon Echo — doesn’t have traditional price tags, and with the exception of new releases, it stocks only books that have an average online rating of four stars or above.

If you look closely at the new store, you’ll see that it resembles Barnes & Noble’s layout. Unlike Barnes & Noble, however, each book for sale is accompanied by an Amazon review coupled with its average online rating and the number of times customers have reviewed the book. There’s another caveat for any prospective Amazon Books customer: you won’t see traditional price tags on items there. Visitors to Amazon Books will have to make their purchases using through an Amazon Prime account, notably through their smartphones. Non-Amazon Prime members will have the option to pay for purchases using credit or debit cards.

“We had an opportunity to create a new kind of store and create a different experience in a physical world. Our special sauce is knowing the reading habits and passions of a city through our Amazon.com data,” said Jennifer Cast, the vice president of Amazon Books, to Business Insider in March.

In February 2016, a mall executive speculated that Amazon may open 300-400 brick-and-mortar stores–although Amazon hasn’t confirmed these plans. Amazon isn’t only experimenting with book stores. It has also set its sights on a grocery store concept in Seattle, Washington.

Amazon is positioned to do well as a company going forward. However, will its book store concept go the way of Borders Books or Family Christian Stores? Or will it use its prowess to outlast past booksellers and use existing tools in place to thrive in an every-changing technological world?

Reading a book has evolved from the early days of Johannes Gutenberg revolutionizing the printing press to reading e-books on a Kindle or iPad. Some believe books are totally and utterly obsolete–as one NYC school trashed all of its books citing how “outdated” they were compared to new technology. How sad. Perhaps Amazon’s efforts will bring about a resurgence of brick-and-mortar book stores? Let’s hope so.

Samantha Bee’s Husband Fights Against Greater Integration in Their Local Public School

Can you imagine if a Republican in the South warned against forcing integration “down people’s throats”? That is exactly what New York City Public Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña did in an effort to move an Upper West Side public school to a new location next to a public housing project. The school is 75% white and Asian with only 13% of students on the free lunch program. That 13% number stands out because the school is in a neighborhood where 48% of residents are low income.

The public school is a high performing public school to which a lot of rich, elite Manhattanites send their kids instead of paying for private school. But the school is in a cramped building and the school system wants to move it to a larger building. That building would be by a housing project and, as a result, would compel some rezoning that would diversify the student population.

You know who is opposed to this increased diversity?
Samantha Bee’s husband and probably Samantha Bee herself.

For those who have never heard of her, Samantha Bee is a smug liberal on TBS who denies there is a problem with smug liberals on television. She is also the woman who targeted a young man with brain cancer and claimed he had a Nazi style haircut.

I’m sure Jason Jones a/k/a Mr. Samantha Bee has reasons other than race. It could be as simple as the new location would be further from his home. But can you really imagine Samantha Bee or her husband, who worked for the Daily Show, ever giving a Republican the benefit of the doubt on this issue? And, as one parent notes, “the needs of the community outweigh my own personal convenience.” Not for Samantha Bee’s husband.

Again, the Chancellor of the public schools is opposed to forcing integration “down people’s throats,” which is exactly what every Supreme Court decision on school integration has done.

These people are amazing hypocrites.

NYC Wants Employers To Discriminate and Lie To Job Applicants

Every “how to interview” checklist includes a section on negotiating salary. The prospective employer asks you what you make, and you answer. Most of these guides advise you to ask for an amount irrespective of your current salary, but the amount you make now is certainly relevant to both you and your prospective employer. Except to liberals–they want the company planning to hire you to lie.

The New York City Council voted to ban the practice of employers asking employees what they currently earn. They join Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and Philadelphia in running your life and limiting your ability to negotiate your own worth.

The measure, aimed at tackling pay inequity, prohibits employers from asking the candidate’s current or former employers about salary, as well as querying public records for it, although applicants can volunteer the information if they choose.

Prospective employers can look at your social media history. They can view your tweets and Facebook posts, get a sense of your political leanings, and they can pretty well know what you make without directly asking you. But they can’t ask you to tell them.

My advice (no charge for this) is to tell them. See, nothing prohibits them from considering what they think you make in determining if they can afford you. But that’s not the reason these busybody liberals, who never tire of running your life, have forced employers to lie to you.

The thinking behind the new law is that when employers ask about an applicant’s salary history, they can end up perpetuating any discrimination that women or people of color may have faced in the past. When employers ask about current or previous salary, they can hear a number that “anchors” them, and then offer to pay some percentage more on a figure that could already be too low. “Being underpaid once should not condemn one to a lifetime of inequity,” James said in a statement.

Some employers use that “what you’re paid now” number to construct an offer, disregarding the reasons you say you’re worth more. Here’s more free advice: don’t work for a company that does this. It doesn’t take a law to follow this advice.

Employers will be incentivized to lie to applicants, telling them that industry salary data doesn’t matter (when it most certainly does), and that not disclosing your salary won’t affect current salary negotiations (when it most certainly will). They’ll also lie telling you that your background, including race and gender and education (which many times are linked), along with your social standing and political views have zero impact on their hiring decision.

Ever heard “we just don’t think you’ll be a good fit” as a rejection reason?

Asking an applicant’s current salary does absolutely nothing to eliminate wage gaps or discrimination. In fact, it highlights and perpetuates those differences. Let’s say a woman applies for job X and refuses to disclose her current salary. And a man applies for the same job and tells them he makes $100,000. Should they assume the woman makes $100,000 also? Or should they offer her the lowball just to see if she accepts it?

Is it fair that the man has a leg up on negotiations–even if the woman is more qualified–because he told them his current salary? Not hardly. What these moral magicians have intended to help reduce wage gaps in fact ensures they continue. Unless applicants are barred from telling prospective employers their salary, and the hiring managers are barred from negotiating a salary, it’s going to result in women (and other minorities) getting shafted worse than if they simply fess up.

But liberals don’t intend to leave this alone. They’d love to just mandate salaries, preferably set by some double-blind mechanism where neither the applicant nor the employer get to decide anything. Giving people a choice on what they’re paid or employers a choice on what to pay them is far too prone to inequity. And engineering outcomes is what liberals are all about.

Remember, this comes from the same group of people who tried to limit how much “sugary drink” you could purchase in one cup. To them, you’re not an individual. You’re a statistical cog designed to fill their desired perfect-world outcome.