NFL Bans Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad
Dec 3, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
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.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: colion noir, daniel defense, guns, hypocrisy, nfl, personal protection, responsibility, sex, super bowl
Obama’s Contradictory Message To Students
Sep 8, 2009 Political
Today Barack Obama gave a speech that was sent to many schools across the nation. Certainly other presidents have spoken and had the speech watched in schools as when George H W Bush spoke at a school and it was carried by the MSM which allowed schools to watch it on broadcast TV. Obama directed his speech to all schools. There is a difference in methodology and intent. As an aside, Democrats launched investigations when H W Bush gave his speech. Now the uproar by parents is described as an Animal House food fight.
The message delivered by Obama was pretty benign though it did have a subtle political subtext. There were items that were disturbing but for the most part it was a rah rah speech. It disturbs me that Obama wants people to do well in school so they will benefit the nation because it smacks of statism. You do well for yourself as an individual and to become a productive member of society. He could have left out all the hot topics but he mixed them in in such a way that they appeared benign though it is not unlikely he was working to make millions of little community organizers..
The real issue is that Obama implored children to do something he does not believe in. Obama told them that the responsibility for success is ultimately on them and that they need to work hard to achieve. He told them that they needed to do well and be responsible for themselves so that they can achieve.
Obama does not believe in personal responsibility and his whole adult life involves having the government take care of people. He does not tell people to be responsible for their own health care management and to cut the luxuries out of their lives or to pay their medical bills over time. He does not tell auto companies (or any other company) that they need to be responsible or suffer failure. No, he bails them out. He uses taxpayer money to assist them instead of letting them fail should they be unable to compete. In everyday life Obama feels that you are not responsible for your actions and that government must be there to ensure that things are fair and the playing field is level.
Perhaps Obama should reflect upon what he told the students and start expecting that same behavior from the people in this country who want a free ride on the people who produce. Maybe instead of working to ensure all people are covered at the expense of those who pay taxes, Obama could require people to be responsible for their own lots in life. Maybe Obama could implore the members of Congress to start taking responsibility for their jobs and stop trying to become the big nanny state where government provides for everyone at the expense of the achievers.
How much different would things have been if candidate Obama had told people that they needed to be responsible for their lives and that ultimately it fell on them? Instead, he spoke about how he would lower the oceans and how people would pay less for their houses and gas. Peggy the moocher summed up the feelings of many when she said that Obama will make sure her house payments and gas are paid for. Too many people expect the government to be there to hand them everything they need.
Where is the speech telling them to be responsible? Where is the speech telling people that if they signed contracts to buy houses they could not afford they deserved to lose them? Where was the speech telling people that if they made bad investments they deserved to lose their money? Where was the speech telling GM that if it could not run a profitable business then it deserved to go belly up? Where was the speech telling bank and Wall Street executives that if they ran their companies into the ground with risky schemes then they deserved to go under? These things would have demonstrated a belief in responsibility.
Since Obama has never been responsible for much of anything it is easy to see why he does not expect other adults to be. Government will be there to do it for you because the Community Organizer in Chief will make it so.
The speech to the school children was nothing like those he gives to the American public and was contrary to his actual beliefs.
If Obama actually lived by what he told the children (and held Congress to the same standard) then we would not be in nearly as much trouble.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Obama, responsibility, school children, speech
Free Choice isn’t Always the Right One
Jun 16, 2009 Political
There is an assault on our rights of free choice here, in the name of health care, as the government is busy making a list and checking it twice- they’re darn sure going to ensure that you are nice, because liberal busybodies that they are, they just have to get in your face with their version of “what is right” in their minds. They might be right in their intent, but we are Americans, and we should still have the option to make “bad” decisions. This is a part of freedom, as well as a necessary part of a learning curve.
One of the most persistent parts of this assault on our freedom of choice has been the battle against tobacco. Tobacco has been the boogeyman since 1964, when the Surgeon General came out with the report linking tobacco with lung cancer, emphysema, and other side effects and diseases. In addition, this product is addictive, with nicotine the primary drug in the tobacco, so it becomes extremely difficult to rid oneself of the habit.
This business, however, is legal, much as the liquor business is legal, and the tobacco business employs millions of people throughout the growing, packaging, and shipping process. People for whom tobacco has been a way of life for literally generations. It’s all they do- all they know how to do.
Lord, the whole state was built on tobacco,” Roddie Hancock, 56, a cafe owner in Bailey, said as he swatted flies buzzing over the counter where he sold bread pudding and chew bread. Hancock grew up on a small tobacco farm and picked leaves as a child. He said folks here “don’t want the government having anything to do with tobacco.”
To make this point, Sharp, who is president of the North Carolina Agribusiness Council, traveled to Washington two weeks ago. He said he was shocked to hear that people deluged politicians’ offices urging passage of the bill to highlight the health effects of smoking.
“Even in the caves of Afghanistan, they understand that cigarettes can be dangerous,” Sharp said. “Everyone knows that.”
Everyone, including Sharp. He said he quit smoking five years ago — it was too unhealthy and expensive — but still keeps a black ashtray on his desk, next to the adding machine and jar of blister-fried peanuts.
washingtonpost.com
Tobacco is already taxed beyond belief, and the mindset regarding the tax is a bit troubling- people who advocate the tax say that it will cut down on smoking, and cause people to quit, which means less tax money for the government coffers- so how will they make up for the shortfall? In addition, we as a people are losing the right (some would say good to this) to make bad decisions- this is a necessary part of freedom here- not everyone is capable of making the right decision. It might even be said that what is right for one is not right for another.
While I personally have quit cigarettes four years ago, after having tried for forty years, I still have a problem with the government coming in and saying that they care about the people while taxing the snot out of a legal product.
The $89 billion tobacco industry will be required to disclose the ingredients in cigarettes and other tobacco products and will face severe limitations on how they are advertised and promoted.
The legislation stops short of allowing the FDA to prohibit tobacco or to eliminate nicotine, the addictive drug in tobacco.
Congress has been battling for more than a decade over regulating tobacco, coming close several times but faltering in the face of procedural hang-ups or opposition from the tobacco lobby or the White House. Over the years, changing social attitudes toward smoking have helped transform the suggestion of regulating tobacco from controversial to common sense.
washingtonpost.com
Next, will be the hamburger and fries you like to eat, and of course, the amount you eat. What you eat will become more healthy, whether you like it or not. Obesity will be the next target, possibly with some tax on certain foods on a menu. If you exceed a certain amount of calories, you get a food tax above and beyond the present sales tax. Or if your body fat index exceeds government guidelines, you pay more for health insurance. We already have this with regards to smoking tobacco, and your obesity will play into insurance costs.
What a shame- look, as I have said, I quit smoking, but I do like to eat, and sometimes I like to eat cheeseburgers and fries- should I be penalized for choosing this legal food? We should still have the freedom to do so without governmental interference. The same should be true with smoking- yes, it is a bad even harmful habit, it is distasteful and, as my daughter observed, stinky- but it is still legal, and the free market should make the decision on this product.
Restaurants should be able to decide whether they are smoking or non- their patrons will make the decision for them, and economics should dictate what bars and restaurants do in their business. People should retain the right (or the stupidity) to make bad decisions- this is how most of us learn in life. Very few people actually learn from the mistakes of others, and so what this becomes is a constant Darwinian “learning curve”- if your mistake is not too severe, you survive and learn.If the government keeps you from making these mistakes, you might never learn from them.
And that’s no way to become adults in this world- you have to learn what it is you have done wrong, before you can do it right.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: freedom, government interference, responsibility, taxes
Print This!
Jun 3, 2009 Political
I can’t believe Hussein has the gall to ask for more than six billion more dollars for transportation costs related to ongoing projects, simply because the federal gasoline taxes won’t cover the bill. This is due mostly to the economic decline that his party began, but he apparently doesn’t know this, because he has never held a real job, where he had to adhere to a budget, or be responsible for employees under his watch.
It’s no wonder that he thinks that all he has to do is print more money, despite warnings from the Chinese, for whom debt is a serious obligation. Somehow this hasn’t translated into anything Hussein has yet to understand, hence the request for more money.
” We’ll just print it, the Chinese were just kidding, besides I am Barak Hussein Obama and I transcend all- They will bow before me soon.” It would sure seem that these must be his thoughts- because what he is doing isn’t rational, in the least.
The Obama administration is warning lawmakers that the trust fund that pays for highway construction will go broke in August unless Congress approves an infusion of as much as $7 billion.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said at a hearing Tuesday that the administration has told senators the Federal Highway Trust Fund will need an estimated $5 billion to $7 billion to keep current construction projects going.
The California Democrat said another $8 billion to $10 billion will be needed to keep the fund solvent through the year ending Sept. 30, 2010.
Transportation Department spokeswoman Jill Zuckman confirmed those figures.
“The administration is working closely with Congress to solve this difficult problem and ensure that states have the resources they need to maintain our roads and highways,” Zuckman said.
chron.com
I want to speak for a minute about the state’s role in roads and transportation. The federal government has, through the years, insidiously slithered into the states’ domain, by offering first money for assistance, but then insisting on control of the projects. This is wrong- I might see that the Interstate system could be federalized, as it assists in interstate commerce, but state roads should be state controlled, with absolutely NO federal interference.
The states know best what suits their states needs than the Feds do, and that is just a logical fact, not to mention that this interference violates the Tenth Amendment regarding States Rights. Still, that hasn’t stopped them before.
Now, here comes a tax increase- yet another, on top of all the other tax increases that liberal socialists say are not true- and this “non-existent” tax increase will hurt the poor the most.
The law that authorizes federal highway programs is due to expire at the end of September, but the issue hasn’t been on Congress’ front burner. There is a consensus among transportation experts and lawmakers that there will have to be some form of a tax increase — always unpopular, but especially so in a recession — to make up for the lower gas tax revenues and to address a backlog of crumbling and congested highways, bridges and public transit systems.
Two congressionally mandated commissions have called for an immediate increase in the gas tax. The first commission, which issued its report in early 2008, recommended a 40-cent per gallon hike. The second panel, which issued its report earlier this year, recommended the tax be increased 10 cents per gallon for gas and 15 cents per gallon for diesel, and that both be indexed to inflation.
The two panels also said fuel taxes are not a sustainable source of revenue over the long term as drivers shift to more fuel efficient vehicles. Both panels recommended Congress find a new revenue source to pay for highway and transit programs.
chron.com
And guess how the new way these brainiacs are going to choose to tax us on fuel as our vehicles begin to be more fuel efficient? Ooohhhh, wait for the tingle down your leg- they want to track your mileage, and probably also track your whereabouts. Big Brother Hussein, oh Boy! I can hardly wait.
Their top recommendation was to tax motorists based on how many miles they drive. That would require equipping cars and trucks with devices that use GPS technology to record not only how many miles the vehicle was driven, but whether the driving occurred on interstate highways or secondary roads and whether it was during peak travel periods. The device would calculate the amount of tax owed and the bill could be downloaded.
A mileage-based tax system would take about 10 years to implement.
chron.com
Yea, I am sure that this is NOT the Change most of the people voted for. I think it is probably fortunate for Hussein that fewer people are reading the papers these days. This way he might be able to fool the people long enough to shackle the people with GPS monitoring of their cars , then their person- who knows how far this could go.
And still the liberal socialists will excuse their exalted leader for destroying this country.
They have Brains You Don’t Use. That should be their real slogan.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: debt, energy, government intrusion, responsibility, sanity, state's rights
Get Ready To Be Gagged
Apr 29, 2009 Political
Ooh, today, the Congress is set to vote on a new Hate Crimes Bill, and the convoluted language in this one really takes the cake. It is the true first step to abridging your right to free speech, and it should make you madder than anything else this boneheaded administration has proposed so far.
What, in effect this bill does is hold, for example, a minister liable for the sermons he preaches. Oh yeah, that’s right- this takes on free speech AND religion at the same time in a patented end- around that this idiot administration is rapidly becoming famous for.
An example here would be a minister speaking out against homosexuality, and someone in his congregation going, after the sermon and spray painting a sign demeaning homosexuality. This would lead to criminal charges against not just whoever painted the sign, but also the minister, who would face, because it is a hate crime, an additional TEN years in prison. This is nothing more than a naked attempt to gag free speech, and stifle religious thought, all in one bill. They should call it the Taliban Omnibus Bill.
Listen up, all you liberal mush brains. The First Amendment not only gives the right to free speech, but implied in that amendment is the right to offend people with that free speech. Not everyone will like what you say, but you DO have the right to say it, at least for now. This is why the KKK and Black Muslims can say inflammatory things- their right to free speech cannot be stifled just because you do not agree with what they say.
In the pulpit, the right to free speech is combined with the freedom of religion- if you do not agree with the religion, you may leave the church. You have that freedom- the church has the freedom to preach as they will, without government interference.
This is as wrong- headed as attempting to hold handgun manufacturers responsible for the shootings that happen in this world.
This is another blatant attempt to socially engineer our world, and shrink our rights. Because these liberals believe that the Constitution is “a Living Document”, they believe that the rights contained therein are malleable, and subject to change. Listen up, Dummies- the only way to change the Constitution is by an Amendment, which requires three fourths of the States to ratify the proposed changes. This is the only way to change it, but this bunch of morons feels that they can slide a bill through and fundamentally alter free speech through the legislative process, bypassing the process needed, because these ethically “challenged” people know that they can’t win with the process our forefathers put in place. Three quarters of the States would not ratify this retarded bill- it, like much of this administration’s legislation, goes against rational thought.
First- a Hate Crimes Bill? I pretty much believe that any crime has an element of hate to it. You will never hear that someone loved someone else to death- not literally. This is an oxymoronic bill, and all it does is make the liberal mokes feel good, but not much else except restrict our rights.
You know, the one thing that liberals never talk about is personal responsibility. You know what that is, right? It is when you own up to your actions, and don’t blame it on society, your inner child, your abusive past, a bad hair day, or the fact that the government didn’t prevent you from doing what you did. Be a real person and admit to your actions. If you can’t do that, your parents didn’t do their job. The government, however, can not, nor should it act as your parent. If you can’t be an adult, and do adult things in an adult and responsible way, why should we coddle you?
This bill would be the legislative equivalent of communistic thought control, and should scare the heck out of anyone who loves our country, because if this bill passes, our freedoms just got smaller and more restrictive.
That should never happen.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: first amendment, hate speech, responsibility