Dexter Taylor And The Rogue State Of NY

 Viva updates us on the conviction of Dexter Taylor:

Dexter Taylor @futureradiocast sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing "unlicensed weapons".

Can confirm the judge said in Court "Do not bring the 2nd Amendment into this court room. There is no 2nd Amendment here. This is Nw York" (paraphrasing from what was told to me).… pic.twitter.com/h0lUoZr1IB

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) May 15, 2024

I obliquely referenced this case in an earlier post where I asserted that the judge should have been, and should be, removed from the bench for stating that the second doesn't apply in NY state.

NYS has been a rogue state for a long time.  It was a failure of the Trump administration to not send the DOJ into NYC when they declared themselves a sanctuary city and started providing illegal aliens with IDs and other things. Fed law explicitly prohibits the harboring and providing services to illegal aliens and/or inducing them to stay. The govt of NY blatantly violated the law and because multiple people were involved (city council) they should have been prosecuted with RICO enhancements. Exactly what Dems are doing to Trump in Georgia.

Let the mayor and city council members make their immunity claims from a jail cell. 

NYC further disgraced itself with the medical segregation it imposed with nary a peep from the civil rights organizations and those who like to talk about who they marched with. It was surreal to walk along Queens Blvd and seeing signs in the door harking back to "Whites only" while seeing a smattering of folks sitting inside.  Or being stopped at the entrance to a casino by a black person no less, on some show me your papers shit.

Same people who have been saying that no person is illegal, walls don't work, etc. Like I said in my last post, they really don't mean it.

But back to Dexter. Dexter ordered gun parts online using his bank/credit card info. Had those delivered directly to his place of residence rather than an out of state address (wink...wink) and bringing it home. He then assembled these firearms for his own personal entertainment. As far as I know, those arms never left his apartment. I don't even know if they had been fired. They were not sold, nor advertised for sale. None of them were used in the commission of any crime.

The state of NY decided to raid his home because he had an "unlicensed firearm".  There is nothing in the constitution that says that you only have the right to bear "licensed" arms. I have said this before and I'll say it again, SCOTUS erred in a major fashion when it completely made up this "state interest" excuse to infringe on the right to bear arms.  It is a loophole large enough for an elephant standing on a T-Rex could get through. In essence Dexter was convicted of a crime against the state, not the people.

NYC said they got "guns off the streets". These guns were never "on the streets ".

NYS acted all indignant because he had 'an arsenal". 

And?

2A doesn't say the right to have a single arm. it says the right to bear Arms. Plural.

We the people can own as many arms (fire or otherwise) as we please.

This is why I have become a 2A absolutist. The scales have fallen from my eyes. 

NYS has become a rogue state. James got into office by promising to abuse the office. She is carrying out that promise and clearly has other accomplices.  But before we lay too much blame on James et al,  we need to hold the voters in NYC (who drive these elections) for this. Clearly Dexter's neighbors are good with the conviction, they handed it down.

COVID-19 And The End Of Innocence

 Below is RFK Jr. Discussing his change of heart in regards to abortion.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr Explains What Led Him to Reconsider His Position on Abortion

"My presumption was that no woman is going to deliberately carry a child for nine months and then two days before it's born, abort it. Who would do that? It could only be in instances where the… pic.twitter.com/4JnaM16j7R

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) May 14, 2024

I found this to be significant because I think it reflects a similar "realization"  I had come to due to the response to Covid: They never meant it.

So the pertinent part of JFKs comment was that he never thought that women would actually abort a none month old baby just days away from being born for reasons other than their health. That is, they would be dead otherwise. He said that data was brought to his attention that this DOES in fact happen. There are apparently not a few women who are having late term abortions when the baby is actually able to live outside the womb, just because.

Yeah, that's murder.

The issue here, for this post, isn't that this new information changed his mind, it is that he, along with many people who prior to 2020 could be said to be center left, didn't really understand or know that The Left really had some nasty things behind the mask. In 2020 they felt powerful enough to drop the mask and a lot of things were laid bare.

Like JFK, I was pro choice for only one reason, I did not believe the government should be involved in medical decisions of people. I assumed that was the position of the DNC. No. Actually these women in the DNC, and their male simps, really just meant they wanted to be able to murder their babies and fuck the rest of us.  When the jabs dropped, they quickly decided that the government dictating medicine was A-fucking-O-K.

I have not been pro choice since.

Similarly, I became a 2a absolutist. After all, once you realize the state would force you to take a medical treatment against your will and treat you like chattel. Then any reason it has to restrict arms of any kind being held by the public, is, in my opinion, null and void. It becomes very clear that the reason they want the public disarmed is so that they can aggress against them at will without fear of [armed] resistance.

Indeed much of the abuse seen since 2020 has been directly because none of the aggressing partied fear any consequences at all. 

Similarly we have seen what started out as "leave the gays alone." To now the state trying to tell citizens how they must address mentally ill people who think they are something they are not. The state has realized it can aggress against citizens at will and the order followers from the police on down, will do their bidding.

There are a lot of people saying that the 2024 election is going to be the decisive one and that the Republic is gone if Biden wins. While I agree that another Biden term would have grave consequences, any non-Biden term that does not severely punish those who have aggressed against the citizens since 2020, will not being doing what is needed.

The innocence is gone. The scales are off the eyes. The mask is off and broken.  Time to adjust accordingly, as JFK apparently has.

You Will Not Resist

 Not that I'm trying to make this the Tran Report, but this issue is perhaps the most blatant abuse of government authority since COVID. At least with the COVID nonsense you could see how someone could believe the propaganda. Most people don't know about viruses. They don't know about medicine and they implicitly trust their doctors. The tranny nonsense has none of these characteristics. Here the government is literally punishing people to enforce something that is obviously not true. 

In my last post I laid out the scheme and in this one I'm going to show The Stick. From Newsweek

More and more girls are refusing to play against boys (and men) and so the authorities have to make examples of them. Sure you can object to them playing, but you *will not defy us publicly*!

Five West Virginia middle-school track athletes who protested the participation of a transgender student in a recent competition have been barred from future meets and are now engaged in a legal battle with their school district that could end up at the Supreme Court.

On April 18, during the 2024 Harrison County Middle School Championships, the student athletes — all girls — made local headlines by stepping out of the shot-put circle, choosing to forfeit rather than compete against a 13-year-old transgender female. The silent protest came after a federal appeals court struck down part of West Virginia's transgender sports ban, allowing the 13-year-old in question to compete at her team's events.

First, per my rule, there is no such thing as a "transgender female". There is a man/male who thinks (or wants us to think) he is a female. In sports this is often a ploy for a under performing male to become a winner by competing against lesser competition. 

Note again that is was the "federal appeals court" that is setting the precedent.

"The students' protest, lasting about 10 seconds, was aimed at expressing their disagreement with the decision last month from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the state "Save Women's Sports Act" was a violation of the 13-year-old's Title IX protections, which ban sex-discrimination in schools.

Their protest has cost them a chance to compete in future events — a move that has now triggered a state lawsuit alleging infringement on their rights to free speech."

Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [My underlines]

The 14th amendment brings these down to the state level, meaning the punishment of these girls by the [public] school is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. Whatever the court thinks about Title IX, it does not supersede 1A.  

""The only thing this decision does is teach these children to keep their mouths shut and not disagree with what they saw as unfairness,"

 Exactly. They are using the power of the state to literally oppress girls.

"The ACLU of West Virginia, which was among the plaintiffs who filed the original suit when the Save Women's Sports Act was signed into law in 2021, has come out in support of last month's appellate court decision."

Yes, of course they did.

The Trans Precedents Continue Apace

 In a few of my videos I commented on the repeated rulings by judges across the country on "trans" issues. These rulings serve as precedents for future legal squabbles. It doesn't matter how illogical or wrong the rulings are. Once made, they can be referenced by other lawyers and few people or orgaanizations have the will or financial resources to take these up to SCOTUS who may decide not to hear the case. This strategy is obvious to anyone paying attention and it's not just the trans issue. So to be clear the program goes like this.

1) Find a case where the boundary can be pushed. For example, purposely aggravate a known Christian baker.

2) Sue him or her in a friendly venue or get the state itself to sue on your behalf (free to you!).

3) Drain the target of money leading to either their capitulation or loss of business/employment.

4) Set court precedence.

5) Rinse and repeat.

6) If by chance the case gets to SCOTUS and it is likely to be reversed, claim that the point is moot.

With that laid out lets examine the latest.

There is no such thing as "transgender healthcare". There is bodily mutilation at the request of mentally ill people and carried out by profiteering "doctors".

"A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that state health insurance plans must provide coverage for gender-affirming care in North Carolina and West Virginia. Trans advocates say it's a huge victory, especially since bills restricting the rights of transgender people have been on the rise in state legislatures."

Once again we see this at the federal judge level so that they can override the express wishes of the citizens of the state(s).  Also, there is no such thing as "gender affirming care". I'll pause here to once again admonish those of similar mind to reject these euphemisms. At all times and all places, reject this language. These crazy people win, in part, by defining the language and getting you to use it. Once you use it, you have already lost the argument.

"The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., issued its decision about two cases. One was brought by North Carolina state employees and their dependents who are transgender and were unable to get coverage for gender-affirming care."

And this is NPR. They have adopted the language, thereby validating it.  And note, the pattern as discussed above. Find a "victim" to make a case.

"The other lawsuit came from West Virginians who are transgender and on Medicaid. They could get coverage for some treatments — like hormones — but not for surgery."

They should get coverage for neither. If you want to voluntarily mess up your body do so. With your money.

"In oral arguments, the judges asked about mastectomies, as an example. Those are covered for patients with breast cancer, but they were not covered by the health insurance plans for transgender patients."

This is the part that bothered me the most. These judges actually let this argument go. A person with breast cancer has an actual deadly illness. Their body has a problem, not their mind. If untreated the cancer will kill the body regardless of the state of mind of the person. However. these mentally ill people have perfectly functioning bodies. They wish to harm their bodies.  There is no logical universe where these two things are remotely similar.

"In an 8-6 decision, the majority of the 4th circuit decided that these patients were entitled to health insurance coverage for their care. Judge Roger Gregory, writing the majority opinion, called the denial of coverage "obviously discriminatory.""

The only health insurance claim these people are entitled to is mental health coverage as they are mentally ill. That is all. It is not "obviously discriminatory". Each of the 8 judges should be removed from the bench.

"West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey had defended his state's decision not to cover gender-affirming surgeries in Medicaid. Morrisey responded to the loss in a statement, saying: "Decisions like this one, from a court dominated by Obama- and Biden-appointees, cannot stand: we'll take this up to the Supreme Court and win.""

 

Just as I laid out earlier, resources wasted having to run up the court system. And be sure, getting SCOTUS to take up the case is not a sure bet. Also note the total fail on the part of Patrick Morrisey. He used the term "gender-affirmig" in his commentary. By embracing the term he is admitting there is some valid medical practice called "gender affirming care". If such a thing exists then you have NO grounds to deny coverage. Patrick SHOULD have rejected the term and called it what it was, bodily mutilation. He should have further stated that the state of West Virginia will not pay for bodily mutilation.

"The policies in question have already changed, Borelli notes. Both state health programs have had to cover transgender health care since lower federal district courts ruled in favor of the patients in 2022, she says.

Now that the appeals court has issued its decision, Borelli says it sets an important precedent and other states across the country should pay close attention."

Like I said. Set the precedent. 

"Lawyers for North Carolina and West Virginia had argued that the coverage denials were based on saving taxpayer money, not bias."

This is a totally dumb argument and why they will fail until they tackle the very concept. Too many so called "conservatives" are afraid of being called an "ist" or "phobe" and so make up ridiculous arguments.

NY: The Commie State

 The running joke is Commie-fornia. I think NY, specifically NYC is giving California a run for it's money. NY is becoming a singular example of what happens when there are no personal consequences for illegal, unconstitutional and immoral behavior by government agents.

Lets start with Latitia James who campaigned on corrupt use of her public office. She campaigned on getting Trump and has proceeded to do so. And while she is not the only agent to violate Trump's civil rights via lawfare she serves as THE example. In a properly functioning federal DOJ, James would have been plaed under investigation as soon as the charges were filed. She would have been charged with violating Trump's civil rights as in America, supposedly, crimes are investigated and suspects prosecuted rather than people targeted by the state to make up crimes to charge them with.

Consider judge Engeron. How does a judge come to the conclusion prior to the trial? That such a thing can be done in America where guilt is to be determined by a jury AFTER a trial, his behavior, and indeed the law that allows such activity ought to have gotten an express lane to SCOTUS where a unanimous vote nullifying the law AND removed the judge from office would be rendered.

Not to be outdone, another judge in NY actually said, in public and on record, that the second amendment does not exist in NY state or her court.  How exactly does this judge still have a job? How is it she was not immediately removed from office and her law license revoked? How is she not currently on trial for violating the civil rights of the defendant? How is she literally not having to consider 'learning to code" for the rest of her life as her law degree is worth less than the toilet paper she wipes and flushes with?

A judge has recently ruled that NYS can tell Verizon (and I assume other providers) to charge low income residents $15 for broadband. Really? Since when do we have state agents dictating the prices businesses charge for goods and services? The state has an interest in preventing gouging. The state can, unfortunately tax a business to operate in it's jurisdiction. The state can choose to use money it collects from citizens to subsidize the cost of a good or service, but since when does it have the right to say "you must charge this"? Since when is the state a business partner of a private entity?

I'm sure there are answers to those questions but that there are illustrates how far down the socialism slope NYS has gone down. 

 

AI generated

 

Lastly, I'll revisit the congestion pricing issue because that one really, reaaaaly bothers me. There are various road tolls out there. The justifications for these tolls were to pay for the construction of said bridges or roads. Then it was said that they continuation of said tolls were to maintain those roads. Personally, I think there should be no tolls whatsoever. It is generally known how much it costs to maintain x amount of road and bridges. After all, these agencies budget and forecast all the time.  Implement a tax that covers that cost and everybody pays in. Yes, everyone benefits from the roads whether they drive on them or not. Mail delivery, food delivery, furniture, etc. all travel on various roads many citizens may never ever see in their lives. Chip in.

The point here is that, if there was and is to be a toll, it was paid for by the people who were using the service. I use the bridge, I pay the tax. Fine (this is not a piece advocating taxes). I hate when road tolls are increased but at least I know I'm paying for the good and service.

NYC congestion pricing completely abandons this principle. Drivers are not being asked to pay a toll in order to maintain or even pay for new infrastructure THEY USE. They are being asked to pay an exorbitant amount of money to pay for services and goods used by other people who DO NOT pay for the services and goods paid for by drivers.

I do not use mass transit. The times that I have used mass transit, I have paid my fare. I use the service, I should pay for it. That is fair. If the service is being run below what it costs to maintain and upgrade it, then either the fare is too low or the state agency responsible for it is not properly funded.

Unlike the roads, mass transit does NOT benefit everyone. Food does not travel on the bus or subway. Nor does furniture, fuel. In general, mass transit benefits businesses that are able to have employees shuttled from various areas to and from their offices. Don't believe me? Next time you're in NYC or even outer suburbs, see how many people are on the busses during the week and then look at how many people are on the busses on the weekends.

When the state closed up shop during COVID, MTA finances fell into deep hole as ridership became simply homeless people "enjoying" the newly empty trains. 

Congestion pricing is how NYC figured it could kick it's affordability problem out a few more years. It knows full well that it cannot raise fares to where they would need to be to make the MTA profitable enough to do what it needs to do, so it figured that drivers could be milked instead. The whole "pollution and congestion" angle was just to get the liberals on board. Drivers in NY already pay high fees to register their vehicles every two years.  They pay gas taxes. Then IF they drive into manhattan on a weekday, they usually have to pay for parking unless they are smart enough to sleuth alternate side of the street parking and figure out where and when to get free street parking. Of course this pisses off residents.

But returning to the issue, this is the first time I can think of, where one class of NY residents will be asked to pay a tax for a service they did not use. I think that is a very dangerous trend. I think congestion pricing should have been struck down on that principle alone.  Nobody would accept going to a store and being made to pay for someone other person's goods. This is exactly what is being done here. 

Wait until those people traveling the Queensbridge get their bills for the 3 block drive between the bridge and the nearest highway. Wait until they drop the speed limit to 20MPH and those fines get racked up. Wait until the other tolled bridges have the tolls go up to match the cost of the congestion zone.

They'll still vote for the Democrats who did it to them.

The Chun Li Argument

One after the other, 'Western" institutions continue to beclown themselves as they bend to the cult of trans. The IOC is the latest to ruin its reputation:

A groundbreaking study that was sponsored by the International Olympic Committee and released late last week sought to compare a range of athletic abilities between trans athletes and their cisgender counterparts.

You'll see MSNBC using the propaganda language of "cisgender". 

"But the study that the IOC commissioned, and the University of Brighton conducted, found that while trans women are stronger in some respects, like grip strength, cis women have stronger lower bodies. The study also found that trans women have a similar bone density as their cis women counterparts, which rebuts a frequent refrain from conservatives who’ve argued otherwise to justify banning trans girls and women from sports."

 There are no such things as "trans women". There are men/males and women. Men have, as a group, greater grip strength than women. Hence males have an enormous advantage in things like dead lifts and pullups.

Below is a chart of the average difference between men and women (adult human male and female. respectively):

 

 

 You'll note that the maximum average female grip strength happens between ages 30 and 34. This maximum is dwarfed by males in this 65-69 age range. Even though this is well known in the relevant fields, the IOC actually trying to argue that it's not a big deal.

Per the greater leg strength, here's a piece from PubMed from 2021:

The aim of the present investigation was to compare male and female resistance trained athletes in absolute and relative strength and power performances. Firstly, women had lower maximal strength values when compared to men at bench press (−59.2%), squat (−57.2%), deadlift (−56.3%), and mid-shin pull (MSP, −53.2%). In addition, lower levels of power were detected in females in both the upper (−61.2%) and the lower body (−44.2%). This is consistent with previous studies [5,6] that reported similar differences between men and women in the upper body. The same authors however, reported that women were only 27% less strong than men in lower body strength. The larger differences found in the present investigation between male and female athletes may be related to the strength assessments performed. Some of these maximum strength assessments (e.g., deadlift 1RM), are deeply influenced by the upper-body strength [34]. These findings indeed, are similar to those previously reported for powerlifters of both sexes [35,36,37]. (My underlines)

 27% less strong that men in lower body strength.

Oh.

And that lower body performance is "deeply influences by the upper body strength".

Oh. So like, it doesn't matter if women are built like Chun Li, they are STILL at a competitive disadvantage. 

The 35 trans athletes had to have completed at least one consecutive year of hormone replacement therapy.

35 athletes were on drugs that would have gotten them banned if they hadn't claimed being "trans". How about they test some post op?

"It’s just one study, so we should avoid drawing grand conclusions from it, but, at the very least, the study shows that the bodies of trans women who’ve been on at least one year of hormone replacement therapy are very, very different from cis men’s bodies."

We all know that the actual attempt is to have men who claim they are women compete in women's sports  who have NOT have any surgeries or hormones. 

Aside from that, I'm all here for when these men get brittle bones and have massive breaks during their competitions.

Also, notice that none of these folks are making what should be the obvious accompanying argument: Women on hormones (and surgeries) are not at a disadvantage when competing against men.

NYC Gets Its Bridge Toll

 For those of us with memories that go beyond last week, we know that NYC has been trying to put a toll on the Queensboro bridge for quite some time.  For example

:

"The East River bridges between Queens and Manhattan have been free since 1911. And business, civic and political leaders stood in the shadow of the Ed Koch-Queensboro Bridge on Sunday demanding that it be kept that way..."

 “Tolling the East River bridges would be devastating for Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island residents,” Weprin said in a statement issued by his office. “The people who rely on these bridges are a diverse group of New Yorkers who are trying to make affordable choices in this city and any future transportation plan for New York must take into the account the needs of outer borough residents.”

That's from 2017. Here's 2015 from the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — Reviving a congestion-pricing idea that has been rejected before, an influential transportation coalition proposed implementing tolls for all cars that cross 60th Street in Manhattan and the free bridges spanning the East River...

The new toll of $5.54 each way with E-ZPass would be charged to drivers crossing 60th Street on every avenue, northbound and southbound, from the West Side Highway to FDR Drive. It would also apply to four major bridges owned by the city: the Queensboro, Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. That matches the current toll fare on the Queens Midtown and Brooklyn Battery tunnels. Metered taxi cabs would be exempt from all tolls.

Each time this came up Queens polls rejected the plan. Now under the congestion pricing, they got their toll. I don't think outerborough citizens realize what is in store for them in about two months. From the Gothamist:

The MTA has sold congestion pricing as a simple tolling scheme: $15 during the day for vehicles that enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. Drivers are exempt from the tolls if they stay on the FDR Drive, West Side Highway and Battery Park Underpass.

But about two months before the MTA hopes to flip the switch and begin tolling, the agency has confirmed it’s not quite that simple.

Ye olde..bait and switch. Let me give you a scenario that was sold to us. Say you live in NJ and you want to go to JFK. The most direct route would take you over the GW Bridge. That's a $17 toll as of this post. Then down the FDR to the triboro bridge. That toll is currently $9.11 for non NY residents. 

Each way.

We haven't discussed gasoline.

So in tolls alone your out $36 dollars. Now say you decide to not pay that extra $10 and spend your time going further south to the Queensboro bridge. It's "free" but you lose time and burn more gasoline. Your trip cost drops a whopping 47%. Do that enough times and you're saving quite a bit of money. So of course a lot of people make that decision. On a side note, using the Queensbridge during rush hour is, shall we say, a painful experience. When I did that commute, I found paying the toll on the triboro to be a decision that was better for my mental health.

I am also of the opinion that citizens should be able to cross into and out of any borough of NY without paying a toll. Back when the "outer boroughs" were NOT considered a part of NYC, I could see an argument for a toll. A bad argument to be sure, but I could see it. Once they were brought into the fold, I find such tolling ideas fundamentally contrary to free movement.

Anyway, 

Certain exits on both the Queensboro and Brooklyn bridges will be tolled differently. One route on the Queensboro Bridge avoids the toll, while some drivers crossing the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan will face an unexpected charge despite taking an exit for the FDR, which is exempt from the toll.

 You can read the entire article but I'll give my explanation here.

The Queens Bridge has NO direct on or offramps that puts you onto a highway like the Verazano or Brooklyn Bridges. The planners KNEW THIS and threw up a plate reader BEFORE any street that gives entrace to the bridge anyway.  When I saw it I knew there was going to be a problem. But the city continued to claim that people going to the bridges would be exempted.  Therefore I expected to see a reader at the entrance to either the upper or lower levels so that drivers who passed under reader one, would be read again at the bridge entrance and given a credit. However, if you didn't pass under reader two (within a specific timeframe), then you paid the congestion fee (which I disagree with anyway but that's another post). No such reader has been installed on the bridge. Therefore since you MUST pass "into the zone" in order to get onto  The Bridge (shout out to MC Shan) outbound, they have effectively tolled that bridge.

When it comes to inbound traffic, there is ONE way to avoid the toll. The upper level off ramp places traffic above the congestion zone. Currently  there is only ONE LANE functioning in that direction. 

One.

I can imagine everyone trying to avoid the toll by trying to get on the upper level, That will not work out for very long (I say no longer than a week). All other inbound lanes dump the driver in the zone with the closest being exactly 2.25 blocks into the zone. That 1/4 is the portion of block 3 that is within the zone before the gantry.  Yes, you will pay anywhere from $3 to $11 to drive 2 blocks to get from the bridge exit closest to the FDR to the FDR.

Yes, the planners in NYC new this and said "Meh. Too bad".

Now they did NOT have to do this at all. Since it is known by all the relevant parties that there is no way to get onto The Bridge, without entering local streets, they could have made a carve out so that the readers would be located on the southern side of the bridge access streets until 2nd avenue and then place them back on streets north of the bridge AFTER the entrance to the bridge from the affected streets. 

Similarly they could have made carve outs for the most direct routes from The Bridge to the FDR. For example the lower level exit that dumps at The Tram should allow vehicles to make the "U Turn" onto the same street the "earlier" exit. Of course the reason you cannot do this is because 1st Avenue is one way, in the opposite direction. Drivers so situated must go another block west, make the right turn, go another block, then make another right to go back east.

Again, it's not their fault. That's how the bridge was designed. How about some eminent domain and knock down those towers and build on and off ramps? Oh right. Too....rich?

I kid. Its not practical or necessary. This is a policy problem not a geography problem.

Speaking of, I understand there is a plate reader ON the FDR.

Why?

Well I believe that eventually they will collect on the FDR south of a certain point. Just like how the speed cameras were posted to, you know, save the children and are now 24/7 revenue generators. They will NOT be satisfied with bending drivers over for driving 2 blocks.

Of course NY residents, well some of them, will complain but they won't do anything about it. They voted in the people who made these decisions and they apparently like it.

They get taxed and are good with illegal aliens running up in their city and getting paid to be there. They're good with rising subway crime and having people who defend themselves or others get  arrested and prosecuted. They are good with fake trials of ex-presidents whom they don't like.

So they're good with this because I guarantee that not a single representative in Albany will lose their seat in the next election over this. 

I see reports of NYC residents complaining about the NJ plates and the lot. These dummies don't realize that the presence of out of state plates (that don't belong to residents) is a sign of money (and therefore tax revenue) INTO the city by people volunteering to come into NY. All that traffic equals money. No traffic means people are not coming into the city and spending money. 

Y'all may find out sooner rather than later how that turns out.