The NFL allows all kinds of ads during the Super Bowl. Some are for erectile dysfunction and a lot for alcohol, particularly beer. There are sexually suggestive ads and there are ads that support things like gun control. Some teams in the NFL even promote things like Obamacare.
But the NFL has standards don’t you know. The NFL will not allow ads that do not meet their standards, such that they are. Yes, while the NFL allows ads FOR gun control and that show scantily clad women serving beer to men who take pills for erectile dysfunction one thing the NFL will not stand for is an ad that promotes self defense.
Daniel Defense has an ad that shows a veteran talking about his responsibility to protect his family. A gun is never mentioned though a picture of one appears at the end in the Daniel Defense logo.
This is apparently too much for the NFL, an organization that has a whole lot of violent law breakers smashing each other for our entertainment. Colion Noir has this to say about it:
Noir is absolutely correct in his assessment. No one with a half a brain who sees the commercial can disagree with it but the NFL will not allow it.
I can understand the desire of the NFL to have standards but it is hard for it to make a case when it allows questionable ads and when it books halftime shows that should come with parental warnings.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 30, 2013 Political
Oops, looks like the reality that it had to be passed to see what was in it has struck home for members of Congress and their staff members with regard to Obamacare. Remember that Nancy Pelosi famously stated that they needed to pass the bill to see what was in it. No one read the 2000 plus page bill, a bunch of shady deals were made to get this thing passed, and Obama signed it with a big smile.
He was happy that he screwed America and that government took more control over our lives.
The problem is that members of Congress and their staff must be part of the Obamacare exchanges and there is NO mechanism in place for their employer (the taxpayer) to pay the employer portion of health care premiums. People are working furiously to find some way to allow this to take place but so far there is no solution to a problem the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pointed out not long after the bill was signed into law.
Congress now looks to Obama to make some administrative announcement to “fix” this problem. The Legislators do not want to change this via legislation because it will be seen as hypocrisy by the public. You see, the public is stuck with all the bad stuff in the law and can’t simply change or make a new law to help themselves. Congress wants to avoid looking like hypocrites.
Ironically, this is the reason the provision is in the law in the first place. Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, proposed this part of the legislation to ensure that members of Congress and their staff were held to the same standard as constituents. There is speculation that Grassley never thought it would pass but that Democrats did not want to look like hypocrites so they allowed it.
Now they are stuck with it and they are whining. When 70% of the nation opposed this it was no big deal because our betters knew what was best for us. We had to shut up and eat our peas. We had to watch as they played games, lied and made backroom deals to get this passed and we had to watch them smile as it was signed into law even as we continued to oppose it.
They did not mind all of us having this forced upon us but now that they are stuck and there appears to be no way out they are in full fix it mode.
Screw them. Let them have to pay 100% of their health care costs. Let them be forced to eat their peas. Let them have to do what they do not want to do like the majority of us who have opposed this monstrosity since its conception.
No special treatment for these pukes. If you don’t want it to apply to you then repeal it or defund it.
God help them if they refuse to repeal or refund and then work a deal to get a break for themselves and their staff. It will not be pretty when 2014 rolls around.
This is what happens when government involves itself in areas where it does not belong. This is what happens when they engage in social programs that enslave the people. This is what happens when they act in haste.
Now they are caught up in the web they set up and they do not like it.
I guess they should have read it first.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 30, 2013 Political
Liberals are well known hypocrites. They pass laws that do not apply to them, they pass feel good legislation and then balk when they are affected by it or they do things counter to what they said is best for the rest of us. Some anti gun liberals have concealed carry permits or armed guards or both. These people do not bat an eye at imposing gun control to keep the population disarmed while they carry a firearm for protection or are escorted by armed police officers. Michael Bloomberg, the idiot from New York, is one such hypocrite.
In California two supporters of a homeless bill of rights, legislation that negates many of the vagrancy laws, have been caught having the police shoo “homeless” people from their neighborhoods and places of employment.
People from Project Veritas pretended to be homeless and did everything allowed under the legislation (sat, loitered, begged) in front of the home of one of the sponsors. They were there for a while and nothing happened. Not long after the politician backed out of his driveway and drove past them the police arrived and told them they could not be there.
They were also at the government building where one (or both) work and they were accosted by officers from the DHS. The police state is alive and well as the DHS police threaten them and violate their rights.
This is typical behavior from the brown shirts in the police state and it is typical behavior from liberal politicians.
They pass feel good laws and all is fine unless it affects them. If they are bothered by what they impose on everyone else they call the police and have you harassed.
The video highlights the hypocrisy.
Ironically, the DHS officers demand to see what is on the camera as if it is illegal to record in public. All this from workers at an agency that wants more video surveillance cameras to record everything we do.
We need more recording of what the people who work for us are doing. Hell, the recent number of murders at the hands of police officers is justification for everyone to record.
And for the absolute defense of the Second Amendment.
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 7, 2012 Political
Barack Obama said he was against super PACs and their involvement in American politics. He excoriated the Supreme Court for its decision in the matter of political donations during one of his State of the Union Addresses. In 2010 Obama said that PACs were a corporate takeover of our Democracy (we have a Republic). Here is what he had to say about it:
“The worst thing of all they don’t have to reveal who is having to pay for them.” Obama said, criticizing Republicans for “keeping the American public in the dark.”
“We cannot allow a corporate takeover of our democracy,” Obama added, vowing to fight this type of advertising. “Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us is stopping it.” he declared.
“Millions of Americans are struggling to get by and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising,” Obama added, “Their voices should be heard.” [emphasis mine] Washington Examiner
Obama said our voices needed to be heard and that the challenge was for every elected official to defend the infusion of PAC money or to join Obama in stopping it.
Looks like the Won, the messiah, the change we can believe in has changed his mind on the subject.
In a change of position, Barack Obama’s reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. CNN Political Tracker
In a change of position, well he did promise us change.
Obama is now playing the game he said he opposed. He is getting involved in the super PAC game in order to raise money for his reelection effort. His minions (and no doubt his toadies who will read this) claim that he needs to do this because of the large influx of money from super PACs on the Republican side.
Obama is doing this because he needs more money and that is supposed to make it OK. The same argument could be made that those who do not oppose super PAC money take it because they need the money to get elected. They too are outgunned (David Axelrod said there is an “array of guns pointed at us” so is this a violent metaphor we can use to blame him if there is violence?) by the people who they are running against. Democrats get large amounts of money from donors (despite the claims of small donors there are lots of big name and big money donors) and they use that money for Democrats to get elected.
A few years ago when Obama was getting boatloads of money for his campaign would he, Axelrod (or any other Democrat) have accepted the excuse from John McCain that he had an array of guns pointed at him so he needed to take PAC money? Hell no! They would have screamed what Obama said in 2010 about corporations taking over our Democracy.
But since Obama wants the money it is now OK to be involved with super PACs.
Here is a video of Obama slamming John Edwards for claiming to be against this kind of money but taking it. Obama says that you can’t just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Mr. Obama, you are now taking the money when you claim to be opposed to it. You can’t talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Obama is a hypocrite. I know that liberals will defend this position because they will claim lil’ Barry has to keep up with opponents but that does not make it right. He said he was against the money so he should not take the money.
Then again, this is the guy who said that George Bush was unpatriotic and demonstrated poor leadership for adding trillions of dollars in debt to the country and then promptly added 5 trillion dollars of debt to the country.
If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you were not a racist you must vote against him in 2012 to prove you are not an idiot.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 11, 2011 Political
The funny thing about people who love gun control and continually ignore the Second Amendment is that while they do not want us to be able to protect ourselves they are always on board with having their own protection. We have seen several liberals who think that all guns are bad and that people should not be allowed to carry them only to have it revealed that they have permits and carry handguns. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are two that come to mind. Then there are those like Rosie O’Donnell who don’t want to allow you protection but are wealthy enough to hire armed body guards.
The sleaziest among us are politicians who tell us how safe society is and that we do not need weapons of our own while they enjoy armed protection that we provide. The leaders in Congress have security details and the security for the president is out of this world. One might think that it is necessary and maybe so but why does a president need security in Chicago or in DC? These places have some of the most stringent gun control in the country and yet these people travel with armed men.
We all know why. Gun control does not work and when law abiding citizens are disarmed the only people who have guns are criminals (which makes those of us who can’t afford armed guards, prey).
The Governor of Maryland is one of these morons who says that all is fine and that we need tough gun control (read that as infringing on Second Amendment rights) because it makes society safer. He has a state police detail of about six armed officers who keep him safe.
We pay his salary and we pay for his protection. What makes him better than the rest of us?
The biggest hypocrite is Richard Daley, the recently retired Mayor of Chicago. This moron has been against gun ownership all his life and he has worked very hard to violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The unconstitutional gun laws in Chicago were struck down by the Supreme Court so Daley went to work and set up roadblocks that make it nearly impossible for a resident to get a gun much less carry it. There is no way anyone could call what Chicago does, reasonable.
Daley is retired** and get this. While he does not want the people of Chicago to keep and bear arms he wants an armed protection detail to look out for him. Daley wants a team of armed men paid for by the taxpayers to keep him safe while he has done everything in his power to keep the people of Chicago from being able to protect themselves. He has made them less safe while demanding they pay for his safety.
Now that is first class hypocrisy and it smacks of liberal elitism where this schmuck thinks he is better than the average guy (read this as those who pay his salary and for his protection) and that he deserves better protection than the people who actually pay the salaries of the police officers of the city.
Do you think any average citizen in Chicago could request and get an armed detail to provide a safe environment?
I think the people of Chicago should use whatever legal means are available to keep Daley from getting protection. He should be in the exact same position as everyone else.
He should be just as vulnerable as those whose Constitutional right he has violated.
Perhaps if these politicians were to get a dose of the real world they would wise up.
Perhaps not, especially liberals, but at least without armed protection he has the same chance of being murdered as the next guy.
That, after all, is a level playing field and we all know how much liberals think that all things should be fair and equal for everyone.
Until, of course, to comes to their lives. Then they like things tilted in their favor.
People of Chicago, just say NO.
** Daley leaves office on 17 May
Never surrender, never submit.