I Can’t Believe the Amount of Outrage There has Been Over Commercials

It seems like everyone is offended by all the Super Bowl commercials this year. First of all… get over yourselves. Secondly, how did you make it through the game with so much butt hurt?

Here’s the latest one coming under fire, and I actually have something to say about it.

Since the folks who read this blog aren’t members of the perpetually offended, you probably didn’t see what was so damn offensive about this ad. So I’ll tell you. 9/11.

Apparently, everyone is upset because Colonial Williamsburg used 9/11 to sell something. Oh the horror.

UNIONLet’s see. Colonial Williamsburg is in place to teach about a significant portion of our history. It does the job well, even if there is a bunch of high end modern shops at the end of the road. If you’ve never been to Williamsburg, it is full of historic buildings and people in costume playing characters to teach folks about the pre-revolutionary period. And having been there in the past several years, I should have seen the butt hurt coming after hearing how offended people were by the part Union Jack, part US Flag that was up around the town… and that was a real flag that was a necessary part of their teaching (and at least half the people who were offended didn’t know it was the Union Jack and were butt hurt because they thought it was the Confederate flag… which didn’t exist during the time period Williamsburg focuses on).

The commercial in question was showing significant events in US history to prove their point and position in the world (which I assume is part of why they were all played in reverse). Like it or not, 9/11 was part of our history. US history contains a lot of good, but also a lot of bad events.

My opinion? It most certainly did belong in that ad. I thought the ad was extremely well done and was a great ad. 9/11 was a significant piece of our history, not just because of the actual events, but how drastically the country changed after it happened. I don’t view it as them trying to capitalize off of that one event. They were using the entire history of the US – as a whole – to draw people to look even further back into our history by connecting it to recent history… and please come visit us to do so.

Let’s face it, not a whole lot of people pay attention to our history that far back these days. I know from my personal experience, it was hardly touched when I went to school. My history education was very poor anyway and I am almost completely self taught on history. A lot of people want to study WWII, but not a grand majority goes back much further. This is why people don’t know what WWI was about, or why people forget that honoring our Revolutionary War Vets is also important. If it wasn’t one of the “big” wars, no one cares. This ad was saying that our country has a rich history of good and bad and we need to see it all… and go back further. And they wanted to get as much of the most significant pieces in there. 9/11 was significant in a lot of ways. And it fit in to the ad well.

Good job, Colonial Williamsburg. I hope it triggers some more interest in our distant history by connecting it to recent history.

Bloomberg says he’s eyeing 2016 run

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said publicly for the first time that he is considering a 2016 presidential run.

Bloomberg told the Financial Times for a story published Monday that he was “looking at all the options” regarding a bid.

“I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters,” Bloomberg told the newspaper, saying the public deserved “a lot better.”

The New York Times reported last month that Bloomberg was considering a third-party presidential bid, suggesting he could spend at least $1 billion on the uphill fight.

That report says Bloomberg set a deadline of early March for exploring a potential bid, and has asked aides to draw up plans for a potential independent campaign.

“I’m listening to what candidates are saying and what the primary voters appear to be doing,” Bloomberg told the Financial Times.

Source: Bloomberg says he’s eyeing 2016 run | TheHill

I’d say he doesn’t have a chance in Hell, but I said that about Bernie Sanders. We have just enough morons in this country with a voter registration card that anything is possible.

Imagine if this jack wagon gets to choose up to three Supreme Court judges!

Where Have The Pro-Gun Democrats Gone?

When it comes to the partisan nature of the gun rights issue, one day was particularly memorable to me. Before the state legislative elections in Tennessee in 2000, I went to a scheduled meeting with the speaker of the House, Jimmy Naifeh, who was a Democrat. He was a very partisan guy to say the least, and immediately greeted me for the first time by asking, “So, you’re that boy with the National Republican Association, eh?” His bluster took me aback for a moment, but I responded with a smile and told him that I was actually with the National Rifle Association.

I asked him why he’d say something like that, and he responded by claiming that the NRA only supports Republicans in the state elections that mean so much to him. I went out on a limb to some extent, but I had just completed the NRA-PVF Political Preference Chart announcing all of the candidates supported by NRA-PVF and was reasonably certain of the bold claim I was about to make. I told him it would surprise him to know that we had endorsed more of his Democrat assembly members in contested general election races than we had Republicans. He laughed and proceeded to use some colorful language to suggest that I had to be full of it. I told him I’d bring him the evidence.

That night in my hotel room, I nervously tallied the endorsed Democrats and Republicans. To my relief, I was right—and the margin was not razor thin. I wrote the speaker a memo detailing the endorsement numbers and submitted it to his office. To his credit, he apologized to me a few days later and said he was pleasantly surprised by NRA’s clearly non-partisan actions in the elections, at least in his state. What I had told him during our earlier discussion was true—we supported candidates solely based upon their track record with regard to support for our God-given right to arms.

Like many others at that time, he later took the discussion to NRA’s action in national elections. He said that NRA predominantly supported Republicans. This was during the epic presidential battle between Al Gore (a Tennessean) and George W. Bush, and many policy makers in Tennessee, including the speaker, were hot about NRA’s support of Bush.

Of course, in reality it wasn’t even a close call. Bush talked about preserving and strengthening gun rights, while Gore regularly yelled from the campaign stump about the need to ban affordable handguns that helped to protect the less affluent urban dwellers most likely to be targeted by violent criminals. He pejoratively called them “Saturday night specials” and “junk” guns. Most of his fellow democrats in Tennessee thought that he had lost his mind.

At the time, any honest person would understand why the national candidate endorsement numbers looked the way they did. The official policy platform of the National Democratic Party talked about “common sense” and “reasonable” gun regulations that needed to be implemented. That they were anything but “common sense” and “reasonable,” and would affect only the law-abiding, was of no consequence to them. The platform of the National Republican Party was 180 degrees opposite. It took a stand in support of our freedoms.

Unfortunately, the pro-gun rights Democrat seems to be a vanishing political species. I’m not sure what happened or where they have gone, but it can’t be because there’s more violence in the country. Despite what we might believe based upon today’s media coverage, there is not. The United States has not experienced lower homicide and general violent crime rates since the 1960s, when pro-gun Democrats were common. The trends since the crime highs of 1991 have been truly astounding. This is all reported by the FBI.

Today I’m left watching Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders try to out-extreme one another on the campaign trail. I can’t help but be utterly dumbfounded. Since when did any political party in America think it was acceptable to have its figureheads talk about outright gun confiscation (Australia-style) and government-sponsored bankruptcy of every gun retailer, distributor and manufacturer on the planet (repeal of PLCAA)? The only way they could get a little more honest about their agenda is to state in simple terms that there will be no more guns for Americans—none—if they have something to say about the matter. Sounds extreme? Sure it does, but it’s true.

I miss the days when there were many Democratic candidates for the NRA to actively support. As lobbyists, we knew our jobs were always easier in the places where we could count on bipartisan support. Those days might still exist in a few states and congressional offices, but they are apparently numbered even there, and it’s truly unfortunate.

Source: America’s 1st Freedom | Where Have The Pro-Gun Democrats Gone?

It’s true, they used to exist. And out here in the real world that isn’t made up of politicians who only hear what they want to, there are still many, many Democrats who do not support further gun control. While working in the gun stores, I can tell you from first hand experience that the clientele was a mixed bag of political beliefs as well as genders, sexual orientation, races, ages, and religions. There was a time when I found myself voting for a pro-gun Democrat politician every so often, because I take candidates for who they personally are and not what their party stands for.

The NRA has, in fact, backed Democrat candidates when their pro-gun stance was better than that of the Republican. But in recent years, it is apparently cool to be anti-gun if you are a Democrat, because the hipsters think guns are taboo. They forget the hipsters are far less likely to vote than older generations, and hipsters go for the more extreme. So if you are not extremely crazy enough on the left, the hipsters aren’t going to vote for you anyway.

It’s Not Just Goldman Sachs: Here’s The FULL List of Paychecks Hillary Collected From Wall Street

In total, Hillary raked in $21,667,000 on the speaking circuit.

Source: It’s Not Just Goldman Sachs: Here’s The FULL List of Paychecks Hillary Collected From Wall Street | The Sean Hannity Show

Bill Clinton just reminded voters of how important it is to avoid voting for his wife

“One of the reasons you ought to vote for Hillary is the next president’s going to get between one and three appointments to the United States Supreme Court, and we can change a lot of that,” former President Bill Clinton told a crowd last week.

Source: Bill Clinton just reminded voters of how important it is to avoid voting for his wife – Personal Liberty®

There it is, folks. That is why this election is so important, and why choosing not to vote is not an option. Jesus isn’t going to come down from the heavens and run for president of the USA. So suck it up and get your ass to the voting booth.

Can you imagine if Bernie Sanders got to pick three Supreme Court justices?! The hell he’d rain down on this country would last generations and there would be little we could do to stop it or reverse it. Reversing it would be take decades. There is a strong possibility your grandchildren’s great grandchildren would still be suffering from that. And Hillary wouldn’t be much better. This country would changed for the worse; your Constitutional rights would suddenly be verboten, but you’d have all the high taxes and free crap you could ever want. Everything liberals love would suddenly be a human right you have to pay for for them, and if they didn’t like it it would be outlawed.

Get off your ass and vote.

More: NRA to spend ‘significantly more’ fighting Clinton/Sanders, over $20M – Next president “gets Supreme Court”

NH Poll: Trump +16, Kasich in 2nd, Jeb Bush Surging

The latest Monmouth University poll of New Hampshire shows Donald Trump continuing to lead the GOP field by a double-digit margin.

The poll, however, shows a very tight race for second place, with Jeb Bush surging 9 points since Monmouth’s last survey in January.

Trump leads the field with 30 percent support, essentially unchanged since Monmouth’s last poll in early January. Ohio Gov. John Kasich is second with 14 percent support, also unchanged since early January.

Sen. Marco Rubio has 13 percent support, up just one point in the last month.
Sen. Ted Cruz has 12 percent, down just two points since the beginning of the year.

The momentum seems to be with Jeb Bush, who has surged 9 points in the last month. Bush has moved from 4 percent support in early January to 13 percent support today. He is tied with Marco Rubio for third.

Considering the poll’s 4.4 percent margin of error, New Hampshire currently has a four-way race for second. Kasich, Rubio, Bush and Cruz are all well positioned to finish runner up in Tuesday’s primary. Chris Christie is much further back with just 6 percent support, down slightly since January.

Source: NH Poll: Trump +16, Kasich in 2nd, Jeb Bush Surging – Breitbart

Hey, New Hampshire… the adults are trying to get people like Bush and Kasich out of the race as soon as we can. You aren’t helping, and you need to put down the drugs before you screw the country up.

This Supreme Court case may end up banning “assault weapons” COMPLETELY

Via Jazz Shaw at HotAir:

While it’s not a done deal yet, there’s a good chance that we may finally be receiving a final decision from the Supreme Court on the question of so called “assault weapons” bans. Back in December, gun rights activists were largely disappointed when SCOTUS decided they would not hear an appeal to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, allowing a lower court ruling in favor of the law to stand. At the time, I speculated that they were waiting for more lower courts to weigh in on similar challenges around the country to see if there was some sort of consensus or if the states were divided and in need of clarification from above.

 This week that question may have been answered. The 4th Circuit, hearing a Maryland case, went the other way, overturning a ban on AR-15 style rifles and expanded capacity magazines. (Baltimore Sun)

“In a 2-1 decision applauded by gun rights advocates, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that the semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned by Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act “are in common use by law-abiding citizens.” As a result, they don’t fall under the exception to the right to bear arms that applies to “unusual” weapons such as machine guns and hand grenades, the court said.”

 The court hasn’t given a final ruling on “assault weapons” but they have provided some limits to Second Amendment rights in the Heller decision when it comes to “unusual” weapons. The original candidate for that classification was the short barrel (or sawed off) shotgun, but it also included weapons of war such as grenades and rocket launchers. The 4th circuit has wisely recognized that a semi-automatic rifle – particularly one already owned by tens of millions of Americans who break no laws with them – are hardly unusual. And as we’ve discussed in the past, not only is the typical AR-15 with a .223 round a relatively underpowered varmint rifle, it’s rarely used in homicides. The Slate author is quick to note Hillary Clinton’s favorite talking point about 33 thousand people killed by firearms, but purposely ignores the specifics when it comes to the rifles under discussion. Roughly two thirds of those firearms deaths were suicides, but of the 8,124 homicides committed in 2014 using firearms, the FBI reminds us that the number killed by rifles of any sort was a pittance.

The actual number of killings done with AR-15 style rifles is more likely in the dozens. If the Supreme Court chooses to hold to their own previously stated standards, the term “assault rifle” should be done away with entirely and these weapons should be looped in with the rest of the firearms in widespread, legal, safe use.

Believe it or not, we shouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court were to vote in favor of gun rights in this case. In the most recent landmark case on gun control, D.C. vs Heller in 2008, the Court voted 5-4 in favor of striking down D.C.’s handgun ban. So-called “assault weapons” are involved in fewer crimes than handguns, so if the court is consistent, it’s going to have to vote similarly – even if Obama doesn’t like it.

Source: This Supreme Court case may end up banning “assault weapons” COMPLETELY – Allen B. West – AllenBWest.com