While Democrats and media pundits pounce to decry the Betsy Ross flag as racially problematic — with one even likening the symbol to Nazi swastikas — the very same flag flew prominently during then-President Barack Obama’s second inauguration ceremony in 2013. The reminder that the flag was displayed during Obama’s inauguration came amid the controversy from Nike halting the release of shoes bearing the flag, which flew during the Revolutionary War. The company worried that the flag could “unintentionally offend” people, after controversial football player Colin Kaepernick expressed concern over the design, claiming it recalled the slavery era and has been appropriated by white nationalists. The controversy quickly worked its way into the national political bloodstream, with some Democratic presidential candidates siding with Nike. President Trump’s campaign fired back by noting the flag’s otherwise broad appeal. “Democrats running for president have officially lost it. Beto & Castro strongly imply that the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of hatred. Do the rest of the Dems agree? Pictured here, of course, is the notorious flag prominently featured at President Obama’s 2nd inauguration,” tweeted Tim Murtaugh, director of communications for Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, also mocked those suddenly criticizing the flag, tweeting that “weird that no one had a problem with The Betsy Ross Flag when it flew over Obama’s inauguration.” Liberal pundits and 2020 presidential candidates alike jumped on the controversy, with former HUD Secretary Julián Castro saying he was “glad to see” Nike removed the shoes over the “painful” symbol that he compared to the Confederate flag. “There are a lot of things in our history that are still very painful,” Castro told CBS News. As an example, he cited “the Confederate flag that still flies in some places and is used as a symbol.” Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, meanwhile, also gave thumbs up for Nike’s decision, noting that “white nationalist groups” have “appropriated” the Betsy Ross flag, without providing evidence.
One thing we love to do here at The Daily Buzz is to show the brazen hypocrisy of the left. This story is an example of that. Colin K., and all of these Dems never had any problem with the so-called “Betsy Ross” American flag when it hung behind then-President Obama at his 2nd inaugural in two prominent positions. in fact, it’s never been an issue at all! But, when Trump became President, suddenly it became a symbol of slavery and white supremacy; both of which are factually, historically inaccurate and simply ridiculous. Then again, the left isn’t interested in facts or history. They’re just interested in dividing America, and history revisionism to serve their liberal, anti-America agenda.
California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom (D) wants to lead a fight against gun ownership–yet has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to surround himself with armed security. Breibart News previously reported Newsom’s belief that the Paris attacks would have been worse if citizens had been armed for self-defense. He told HBO’s Bill Maher that the whole idea of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy is “mythology.” Newsom’s exact words on Maher’s show, Real Time, were: “I just simply, this sort of mythology, the guy with the gun that’s going to come save the day, I mean, so right out of the movies, sort of this gun-slinging fantasy. The reality is, it’s most likely to create more harm, more damage, more lost lives in those circumstances.” Rewind a few years to Newsom’s tenure as Mayor of San Francisco. He was mayor from 2004 to 2011, and toward the end of that time–on July 7, 2009–reports emerged that Newsom had spent “millions” surrounding himself with armed security. Moreover, those “millions” came out of city funds–otherwise know as taxpayer monies–which paid for the police detail from which protective services were rendered. NBC Bay Area reported Newsom’s security spending as follows: How much does it cost to protect the mayor of a major metropolitan city? In Los Angeles, about $450,000 a year. In Houston, about $339,00 a year. In San Francisco, anywhere between $1 and $72 million. [On July 7, 2009] SF Appeal revealed…the budget for Newsom’s personal police bodyguards comes out of the San Francisco Police Department’s Investigations Detail, which boasts a $72.9 million budget. So, depending on how you look at it, Newsom’s protective detail cost at least seven figures–money few average citizens would have for personal self-defense. Then Newsom was elected to the position of Lt. Governor in 2010, and assumed that office in 2011. And the very next year, in July 2012, the Los Angles Times reported that the cost for providing security for Lt Governor Newsom was up nearly $30,000 above what it had been for his predecessor. According to the Times: The state spent $93,379 through May in the just-completed fiscal year on CHP protection for Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who took office at the start of 2011. The amount is up from the $65,954 spent in the previous fiscal year, the first half protecting Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, and the second half protecting Newsom. The Times inquired whether the elevated price for armed security was the result of Newsom taking “a CHP officer…to the taping of his weekly hour-long talk show, ‘The Gavin Newsome Show,’” but Newsom’s spokesman said they do not discuss details related to security. Here is the bottom line: Newsom does not think allowing average Americans to be armed for self-defense does any good. In fact, he thinks “it’s most likely to create more harm, more damage, more lost lives in those circumstances.” But he had no problem spending millions to surround himself with armed security as mayor and to increase expenditures for armed security by $30,000 once he became Lt. Governor. Maybe it is time for Newsom to live up the standards he wants to force onto average Americans and forgo the confidence derived by having guns around for self-defense. Talk is cheap–perhaps Newsom can lead by example, disarming his security detail and going through a few days thinking about how citizens feel when state and local governments disarm them via myriad gun control scenarios.
Gavin is your typical, self-righteous, sanctimonious, anti-gun, extreme, limousine liberal who is spectacularly hypocritical. He doesn’t want you or me to be able to protect ourselves with our Second Amendment rights. BUT, he’ll spend MILLIONS of our hard-earned taxes for HIS personal protection and his ARMED guards. Then, he’ll go on some late night show and say he’s not carrying any guns. What a brazen hypocrite. It truly is breathtaking. But hey folks.. This is what these liberal elitists are like. They have NO shame. What a tool..