Tuesday, September 26, 2017

A video to watch...

Americans first?
Political Parties second?

Or is is the other way around?

Some coaches get fired for allowing their team to take a knee at a football game...

Of course who doesn't understand that praying is so much more offensive
than disrespecting veterans, fallen soldiers, and the flag that represents the

Monday, September 25, 2017

Cowboys kneel - Fans boo!!

To be clear, I am not watching the game, I simply saw this on ESPN when I went on the site for other reasons. But watching the video, there was not a "spattering of boos" as some describe it, but a fairly loud expression of displeasure from the fans.

I have to ask...

Vikings used to actually practice
standing at attention for anthem
when Bud Grant was their coach.
Are these people "that" clueless? Who are they attempting to actually impress, other than themselves? The people in the stands (who are largely middle aged white working class Americans) are not impressed... and do these people forget that the fans actually pay their salaries?

Moreover, as has been pointed out... nobody has expressed any "clear" understanding of what it is that they are protesting (other than protesting the President himself). A stupid thing to do when (again) your audience is largely middle age white working class Americans. Two thirds of them probably voted for Trump, ninety percent of them think Colin Kaepernick is a clown, most all of them believe that the national anthem means something, and most actually "do" wish an owner would actually discipline their players for showing disrespect for their flag.

I heard it this morning on a sports talk radio show, and I believe they might be right. The NFL is on a downward spiral, and in ten years or so... the entire product will be a shadow of what we know it to be now. This may not be the true beginning to the end (that probably started a while back)... but it's certainly an escalation of the process.

Headline of the day!

Liberals to "bend a knee" to Trump as protest signal?

Show respect to your queen! Bend the knee!

Trump to "replace" Travel Ban

Two weeks before the USSC was about to hear arguments regarding the Trump travel ban, the President has announced that what had been in place is being replaced with a broader travel restrictions aimed at countries who specifically do not meet certain minimum requirements for security vetting.

Contrary to the arguments of some, the timing of the announcement is not about the upcoming court case, but is based on the fact that the original travel ban has run out.

Apparently the Administration has been negotiating with officials from several countries that were said to have lax travel restrictions which includes an inability to provide basic information on their citizens who travel here. Among the information required is an actual ability to "verify" the identify of a traveler, an ability to communicate passport information electronically, and provide the United States with information they have on criminal and terror networks. These countries were give a fifty day notice to comply with these standards, or face travel restrictions.

Officials have suggested that many of these countries added measures to improve their vetting process, while others either said they couldn't or wouldn't comply. The former will not be affected by the restrictions, while the latter will be the countries that ultimately will face new travel restrictions.

Already, some groups have stated that they will sue the Administration (again)... even before this list of countries has been released. Proof that such lawsuits are now simply a knee jerk reaction to anything the Trump administration does, rather than a well thought out legal argument based on the facts at hand. I wonder out loud, how liberal groups can side with foreign states who refuse to abide by minimal security standards over our own Department of Homeland Security. To openly admit that your allegiance is to Syrian or Iranian officials, rather than our own DHS officials is truly remarkable.

There is no news as to how this will affect the upcoming court case against the original Trump travel ban. The USSC could still hold hearings on the original travel ban, or I suppose they could find that such arguments would be moot, as the ban is no longer in place. Many expected that the President would simply "extend" the original ban, thus providing a more clear cut reason for the court to hear the arguments.

UPDATE: The new ban will effect all travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea... as well as specific restriction from Iraq and Venezuela.

UPDATE II: Department of Justice is asking the USSC to consider new filings and new briefs to be brought forward no later than October 5th as it pertains to the new executive order. In essence the Trump administration is looking for a quick USSC decision on this. I would hope that the USSC would agree to continue with the original case (as the underlying principals are pretty much the same) but I could see it go either way.

In theory, the fact that the USSC stayed the lower court decisions pending their own review "should" (logically) prevent lower court orders from being implemented (even if lower court decisions were in favor of the plaintiffs, the option always exists to stay their own orders pending appeal). However, the lower courts in question don't appear to want to play nice (either with the Administration or the USSC). So it's certainly possible that a lower court would declare the "new order" unconstitutional and demand that it be halted (even knowing that the USSC stayed these exact same orders just a couple of months ago).

Sunday, September 24, 2017

So why is it okay to fire James Damore for voicing his opinions...

but suspending an NFL player for making a political statement would be an attack on the first amendment?

Oh, that's right... only "liberal voices" should be protected?

BTW... these anthem demonstrations today (regardless what direction they took) are a no win situation for the NFL. There is not a single person who currently does not watch the NFL, who will start watching the NFL because of these anthem antics... not one.

But they will continue to dilute their actual viewership by continuing to drag more and more politics into their sport. People watch to "get away" from that crap... not to deal with more of it.

Down short of the goal line... 

Saquon Barkley - 305 all purpose yards

Wow - just wow
Too bad it wasn't a very exciting game... 

28 carries for 211 yards rushing
12 catches for 94 yards receiving