It figures he’d pose in front of a flag neither he nor many NFL players stand for. (Mike Bloomberg for President/Facebook profile photo)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg on Thursday released his campaign ad set to air during the Super Bowl — a 60-second spot focused on gun violence,” Politico is publicizing in a free plug masked as news that probably ought to count as an in-kind contribution. “The ad, which will cost the former New York mayor more than $10 million to broadcast nationwide on Sunday, tells the story of Calandrian Simpson Kemp, a Texas mother whose 20-year-old son, an aspiring professional football player named George, was shot to death in September 2013 outside Houston.”
It’s not the first time the mayor of Everytown has relied on the big game to get out a slick “sports” message designed to swindle “the whole people” out of their birthright. He and then-Boston Mayor Thomas Menino donned trademarked NFL jerseys, meaning they must have had league blessing (they wouldn’t even let a host town use the term “Super Bowl”), to show everyone their huge “We Both Support the Second Amendment ‘buts'” back in 2012.
He even teamed up with Spike “Shoot Charlton Heston with a .44 bulldog” Lee and an NBA infested with the violence-prone to create another “public service announcement” – yet another piece of New York ad agency propaganda highlighting “its brave decision to speak out against gun violence [and chart] a new course in civic responsibility.”
Who talks like that but smooth con men…?
As for the NFL, it’s hostility to the Second Amendment is no secret to Americans who care more for the right of the people to keep and bear arms than they do for bread and circuses. League gutlessness, on the National Anthem and in its “Standard of Conduct” mandating player defenselessness, tells us all we need to know. The hiring of ex-ATF honcho and Fast and Furious cover-up king B. Todd Jones as special counsel for player misconduct tells us a bit more.
And lest we forget, it was not that long ago that NFL banned a Superbowl ad from Daniel Defense, even though no guns were shown and the company even agreed to leave out its logo (although perhaps offering to replace it with an American flag was a mistake). It evidently did not meet the high standards set by gun-grabbers Seth Rogan and Amy Schumer’s “beer lobby” Super Bowl ad, and you can still see what so offended League officials on YouTube.
About the only good news gun owners have seen involving the NFL in recent years is Georgia attorney John Monroe telling the Atlanta Falcons its public property release does not authorize it to ban guns.
Had Politico been interested in, you know, reporting instead of rewording Bloomberg PR points, it might have pointed out that the “star” of Bloomberg’s new Super Bowl video is a Moms Demand Action zealot given to absurdly ignorant assertions like “Give Teachers Guns, And More Black Children Will Die.” And while we can understandably sympathize with her loss, it would also be appropriate to clarify to those hearing only her telling of the story that her son had reportedly challenged a young rival to a fight and was killed by a lawless young thug illegally carrying an illegally-obtained handgun.
What “common-sense gun safety law” would have prevented that? And have we learned nothing placing our trust in letting self-styled “anti-violence advocates” define our freedoms?
There’s one other factor at play here, something I haven’t seen anyone pick up on except in an insightful piece by Christopher Bedford over at The Federalist.
“Simply put, the billionaire mayor gets a lot more for his money as a candidate than he ever could as a donor or even as the operator of a super PAC,” Bedford explains. “Then, there’s something campaigns have that no PAC has — and that’s access to the best rates the market has to offer.”
So basically, he’s committing “legal” campaign finance fraud if I’m reading this right. That would hardly be surprising for a maniac control freak whose entire gun scam relies on covering grassroots over with Astroturf and fooling enough of the people enough of the time.
Me, as informed as I try to stay on issues of importance, I have to admit that not a year has gone by in the past few decades where I actually knew who was playing in the Super Bowl in advance of the game — and sometimes even afterward. My own priorities have never had much use for “sporting purposes,” and even less for countrymen who place them above not only themselves but their posterity.
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
GOOD MORNING! A few weeks ago, a good friend relayed the following story to me: His son was playing basketball in their driveway with a couple of friends. At one point, his son took an inadvertent blow to his mouth and a tooth crown popped out. After a fruitless search, he went inside and told his mother.
My friend's wife went outside, took up the cause, and found the crown in no time. Their son said in astonishment, “Mom, I looked for 15 minutes but couldn’t find it - how did you find it so quickly?” She explained, “You were looking for a small piece of enamel, I was looking for $1,300 dollars!”
Understanding the true value of things and appreciating what you have is one of the keys to lifelong happiness. Unfortunately, the human condition makes this difficult to achieve. Our sages teach, “A person who has one hundred wants two hundred and person with two hundred wants four hundred” (Koheles Rabbah 1:13).
Empirically, it would seem that it doesn’t make a difference what sums we are discussing. Meaning, even if a person has one hundred million dollars he wants two hundred million; if he has two hundred million he wants four hundred million.
Honestly, is there a significant difference in one’s quality of life between having one hundred million dollars to having two hundred million?
Yet there is clearly an insatiable desire to accumulate ever more and more. This would probably explain why the world has about 2,500 billionaires (not surprisingly, New York City has the most billionaires of any city in the world with over a hundred). Unless one has acquired wealth the old-fashioned way – by inheriting it – there seems to be a powerful force driving one to continue spending energy, effort, and time working to gain more.
This week’s Torah reading teaches us a powerful lesson regarding wealth and also instructs us on how a person can know when they are satisfied with what they have. Seemingly, the goal is to know when you have enough, but this is obviously quite difficult to achieve. (Similarly, many people have the same issue when it comes to eating, how does one incorporate a habit that will enable them not to overeat?)
God decreed that Abraham’s descendants were to go to a land that was not their own and become slaves for four hundred years (Genesis 15:13). In the next verse, God promises Abraham that when his descendants leave the land of their bondage they will do so bearing great wealth. How did God fulfill this promise?
God pleaded with Moses that the Jewish people should ask their Egyptian neighbors for fine jewelry and clothes so that when they left Egypt they would have wealth (see Exodus 11:2). They did so and managed to accumulate significant going away presents (ibid 12:35-36). Yet according to our sages, all that they managed to get from the Egyptians as they were leaving paled in comparison to the booty they seized from the Egyptian soldiers who came to slaughter them but instead were drowned by God in the Red Sea.
Before we go on, I want to digress for a moment. In reading the above two paragraphs (or the original story in the Torah for that matter), one might walk away with the feeling that the Jewish people wrongly plundered the Egyptian populace. In fact, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 91a), this very accusation was raised before the court of Alexander the Great once he had conquered all of Eurasia.
The Jewish people were subpoenaed to answer the claim of the Egyptians that they stole their gold and silver upon leaving Egypt and never returned it. After all, the Egyptians had proof; the Jewish nation’s own bible corroborated their accusation!
Gaviah Ben Pesisiah, a sage who appears just this one time in the entire Talmud, gave the following answer: “You have a legitimate claim, for the Torah records that we left Egypt with much of your gold and silver.”
“But the very same Torah says that we were slaves for four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 12:40) – so in fact, we have a counterclaim! Pay us the wages for 600,000 slaves who labored day and night for four hundred and thirty years; for those wages surely exceed anything we might have taken when we left Egypt!” Alexander the Great turned to the Egyptian plaintiffs and demanded that they answer the counterclaim. “Give us three days to answer” the Egyptians pleaded. He granted them the time and they promptly disappeared and never returned.
Returning to our discussion, the Torah records in this week’s parsha that there was so much wealth on the banks of the Red Sea that Moses literally had to pull them away from the riverbank. This was because all the precious gold, silver, and fine jewelry that the Egyptian soldiers had worn (they even adorned their horses with jewels!) had sunk to the bottom of the Red Sea when they and their horses drowned. However, God delivered a miracle and all the gold, silver, and jewels were brought up by the sea and deposited onto the riverbanks from which the Jewish people were able to collect them.
Moses wanted the Jewish people to leave the riverbanks but struggled to get to them to comply because of all the wealth that was still on the riverbank. Even after they had collected a large amount, there was still more to be had and they didn’t want to leave.
But this story begs the following question: Since the entire episode was a miracle, why didn’t God just bring forth the exact amount that He wanted the Jewish people to take? Once they had collected everything, they would have surely left on their own without Moses having to admonish them to leave. Why should the sea deposit onto the banks more than they should take? Moreover, why would Moses even care if they stayed and collected more?
There is a very deep message here. God promised our forefather Abraham that the Jewish people would leave Egypt wealthy. But at what point can you consider yourself wealthy? At what point are you satisfied with what you have?
The answer is when you leave gold, silver, and precious jewels laying on the ground in front of you and you can just walk away. That is what Moses was trying to teach them: You are wealthy now and you do not need any more. When they realized that they had so much that they could simply walk away from more they finally understood that they were in fact wealthy and left the riverbank. Thus, God fulfilled his promise to Abraham.
In a similar (but much more mundane) vein, I recall hearing many years ago that Weight Watchers recommended, as a lifestyle change, a habit of leaving food on your plate during meals. In other words, instead of blindly consuming everything on your plate, consider how you feel, and when you feel satisfied stop eating and leave what is left on your plate. (I’ll bet you didn’t think you were going to get dieting tips from me today!)
When a person can honestly look at everything he has and say, “I have enough,” then he can finally walk away from the pressures, the time, and the mind space required to stay in the “rat race.” More importantly, he can begin to focus on other life enriching endeavors (family, travel, acquiring knowledge, etc.) and can truly begin to enjoy all the blessings that he has been given.
Beshalach, Exodus 13:17 - 17:16
The Jewish people leave Egypt. Pharaoh regrets letting them go, pursues them leading his chosen chariot corps and a huge army. The Jews rebel and cry out to Moses, "Weren't there enough graves in Egypt? Why did you bring us out here to die in the desert?" The Yam Soof, the Sea of Reeds (usually mistranslated as the Red Sea) splits, the Jews cross over, the Egyptians pursue and the sea returns and drowns the Egyptians. Moses with the men and Miriam with the women -- each separately -- sing praises of thanks to the Almighty.
They arrive at Marah and rebel over the bitter water. Moses throws a certain tree in the water to make it drinkable. The Almighty then tells the Israelites, "If you obey God your Lord and do what is upright in His eyes, carefully heeding all His commandments and keeping all His decrees, then I will not strike you with any of the sicknesses that I brought on Egypt. I am God who heals you." (This is why the Hagaddah strives to prove there were more than 10 plagues in Egypt -- the greater the number of afflictions, the greater number from which we are protected.)
Later the Israelites rebel over lack of food; God provides quail and manna (a double portion was given on the sixth day to last through Shabbat; we have two challahs for each meal on Shabbat to commemorate the double portion of manna). Moses then instructs them concerning the laws of Shabbat. At Rephidim, they rebel again over water. God tells Moses to strike a stone (later in the Torah God tells Moses to speak to the stone, not here!) which then gave forth water. Finally, the portion concludes with the war against Amalek and the command to "obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens."
Jerusalem 4:42 Guatemala 5:45 - Hong Kong 5:58 - Honolulu 6:06 Johannesburg 6:38 - London 4:44 - Los Angeles 5:04 Melbourne 8:10 - Mexico City 6:14 - Miami 5:50 New York 5:02 - Singapore 7:02 - Toronto 5:18 Moscow 4:57
He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.
Jonathan Cahn 2020
Jonathan Cahn February 2020
Jonathan Cahn New Message
####################################
Join this group to get more great messages daily from Rabbi Jonathan Cahn! ►►► https://www.facebook.com/groups/26068...