Connect with us

Everything

Will somebody save professional sports from liberal insanity?

Published

on

There’s never been a more politicized time in our sports history. Even Jackie Robinson breaking the “color barrier” in baseball wasn’t this politicized. I mean, Robinson was a great baseball player, and nobody had to add “for a black person” because he played with whites and the results stand for themselves.

But today it’s gone to levels of insanity. Serena Williams is pregnant, and Vanity Fair put an art-shot of her naked form on their cover. As the Robin Givhan at the Washington Post pointed out, it’s been done before. Note that Vanity Fair is a fashion magazine and Givhan is the fashion reporter at WaPo. I’m not into celebrity naked-pregnancy shots, but I brought this up to note that nobody asked John McEnroe how Williams looked on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Lulu Garcia-Navarro, of NPR, did ask McEnroe, however, about his assertion of Williams being the best “female player in the world.” As in, why didn’t he say she’s simply the best tennis player in the world, period?

McEnroe: Oh! Uh, she’s not, you mean, the best player in the world, period?

Garcia-Navarro: Yeah, the best tennis player in the world. You know, why say female player?

McEnroe: Well because if she was in, if she played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world.

Gasp! How could he say that? Whether he’s right or not (and McEnroe is wildly more qualified than anyone at NPR to make that statement), it’s obvious that Serena Williams is a women, and at the highest level of tennis, women don’t play men, because women would lose. It’s why we have women’s tennis and men’s tennis.

To McEnroe’s credit, he won’t apologize for disagreeing with insanity.

Forget about Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. That was a stunt. But why would anyone ask the question in the first place, if it wasn’t to force some kind of gender equivalence down everyone’s throat? A false gender equivalence, by the way. It would be like asking McEnroe why he’s never been pregnant.

Then there’s ESPN, the model of liberal intolerance and lockstep leftism. Britt McHenry was a conservative, and was laid off by the network. Granted, the House of Mouse forced ESPN to lay off about 100 people, mostly “talent,” in April. The New York Post confirmed McHenry’s political leanings, which she wasn’t at all quiet about–but not in-your-face either.

In the week following the network’s layoffs, “SportsCenter” anchor Linda Cohn agreed with a radio host who wondered whether ESPN’s politics was hurting its ratings and thus its capacity to pay its employees’ salaries. Earlier this month, ESPN issued a press release, interestingly at the same time it rehired conservative firebrand Hank Williams Jr., that tried to clear its name of a political bent. An ESPN-commissioned study determined that ESPN is “getting it right” in its combination of sports and political content, the network announced.

ESPN is in-your-face liberal. The fact that ThinkProgress rushed to its defense to deny it is confirmation of what we already know by watching.

Also in-your-face is Sports Illustrated’s Peter King, who got into a Twitter war over his retweet of Bernie Sanders’ assertion that the GOP is about to “take health care away from 23 million people.”

My friend Josh Hammer engaged him, tweeting “Looks like one of the most venerable sportswriters in America has begun to start shilling for socialism.” To which King replied:

Okay…it’s fine if King is a sportswriter as a profession and tweets his personal views as a socialist. Free speech, liberty and to each his own. But if sportswriters are of the same ilk as most journalists (and they are), then they’re 90 percent liberal in just about every way.

Their bias shows and it’s offensive.

Rob Arthur at FiveThirtyEight, the statistics nerds who also do election predictions, used sabermetrics (Moneyball-style) to show why Tim Tebow should not have promoted out of low-A to high-A minor league ball.

It almost goes without saying that the move likely had less to do with baseball and more to do with marketing and selling tickets. Tebow was such an outsized star at this level of pro baseball that one opposing team went so far as to label his teammates as “Not Tim Tebow” on the scoreboard. (The team later apologized.)

Yes, Tebow is a huge draw. But Tebow is also an outspoken Christian, whose unapologetic witness for his Savior earned him scorn and mockery in the NFL, and now in minor league baseball. Let’s grant the guy this: he’s an incredible athlete to compete at any professional level in baseball and football. The list of athletes who have done this (since the 1920’s) is vanishingly small.

There’s Pete Layden in 1948, Drew Henson with the Yankees, Brian Jordan, who played 36 games with the Falcons before switching to a 14-year baseball career, and of course Bo Jackson. Comparing Jackson and Tebow: they both won the Heisman, All-American, and other similar awards for football.

Here’s the difference. Jackson played college baseball and played in the MLB before he was in the NFL. Tebow had not played competitive baseball since his junior year in high school. Yet he’s not awful on the field.

Arthur’s statistics are correct–Tebow is a below-average minor leaguer. But he’s not laughably bad, and he’s getting better fast, according to his coaches. But Arthur’s hypocrisy is also showing. Why is is wrong to promote a famous and up-and-coming player to sell tickets but it’s right to use sabermetrics to predict which players will sell more tickets, a la “Moneyball?”

Apparently, when that player is Tim Tebow, outspoken Christian.

When we apply the same filter to hiring, firing, tweeting, on-air commentary, interviews and coverage in general of sports in America, we see that the entire industry’s bias is showing. (Don’t even get me started on Michael Sams.)

It’s not that people don’t want politics with their sports (but most don’t). It’s that most people don’t want a heaping helping of nanny-state, preachy, virtue-signaling, metrosexual, pajama-boy, social justice, gender-bending, smug liberal moralizing, progressive politics with their sports.

Is it too much to ask if someone can save us from the liberal insanity so we can just watch a game?

Advertisement
2 Comments

Culture and Religion

The far-left hates liberty. Isn’t it time to stop praising them as being liberal? Part II

Published

on

By

The far-left hates liberty Isnt it time to stop praising them as being liberal Part II

If we want to defeat socialism and Conserve Liberty, we have to stop using the reality defying language of the Left.

Bernie Sanders recently gave a speech inverting reality to redefine socialism. It was replete with some modernized versions of the tired old tropes of the Communist Manifesto. But the key part included some absurd assertions on Liberty that would have made a younger version of George Orwell proud.

Apparently no one can be ‘free’ unless they have a claim on the time, labor and property of others in society. In the Orwellian mindset of Bernie Sanders and others of the national socialist Left, Liberty means that you should be ‘free’.. to enslave others. No word on whether the people forced to provide their time, labor and property to Bernie voters that are ‘free’.

It is a fact that every living being from bacteria to Brontosauri has had to exert effort in order to survive. However, the Leftist mindset sees an opportunity to control every aspect of everyone’s life in trying to alter this essential fact of life. For if they can assert that every individual has a collective obligation to society at large, they get to enforce that obligation, since they consider themselves to the moral superiors of everyone else. They know this because they are the moral superiors of everyone else.

In this inversion of Liberty from the Left, freedom means that you should be provided with free healthcare, free housing, free college, free food, free childcare and just about any free benefit they can conjure up. Never mind that there isn’t enough money to provide all of these ‘freedoms’ or that the people forced to provide them could hardly be considered to be ‘free’. We’re also to forget about the fact that these ancient ideas run contrary to human nature and that they have never worked in the 400 years that this ‘social’ experiment has been run.

Part I of this series proved that the Far-Left has become the enemy of Liberty while they use labels that falsely imply the polar opposite. Even though Leftists have become increasingly hostile to freedom and basic reality, they still falsely claim to be ‘Liberal’. Part II will present the case for a two-step approach in rhetorically cutting them off at the kneecaps in depriving them of this deception.

The Orwellian language of the enemies of Liberty on the Left.

Ideas are conveyed and considered through the shorthand of language. A positive word connotes a positive thought or feeling on a particular issue, while a negative word has the opposite effect. If Leftists are good at anything, it’s in word selection and exploitation. It’s the reason they put so much effort in trying to control free speech and dictating the terms of debate.

This is why it is imperative that we of the Pro-Liberty Right avoid being trapped into using the language of the Socialist-Left, debating the issues on their terms. This unnecessarily places us in an immediate disadvantage when it’s just a question of choosing the proper words and having the discipline to use them properly.

Eleutheros to Libertas.

There is a reason the Left loves to exploit the derivatives certain ancient words. The first has its origins in Greek: free (liberated), unbound (unshackled); (figuratively) free to realize one’s destiny in Christ.

The second is a derivative of the first, howbeit the etymology is somewhat murky. The second is the Roman personification of Liberty and freedom. The ancient term Libertas has a number of positive and similar sounding derivatives with the two-syllable ‘liber’ common to the words Liberation, Liberty and Liberal.

Each of these three derivatives convey the positive idea of being unbound and free from restraint. When used by the Far-Left this runs contrary to their true meaning because their socialist ideology has the opposite effect, the assertions of Bernie ‘we must be free to enslave others’ Sanders notwithstanding.

Leftists love thinking of themselves a ‘Liberators’ or the vaunted protectors of Liberty, but it is their incessant use of the term Liberal that needs to be corrected. Far too many people wrongly associate socialistic slavery with this contrary term. While many falsely apply some sort of post-modernism ideas to the term, it cannot be denied that Liberal connotes the same positive ideas of freedom as the words Liberty and Liberator. Many associate the real enslavement of society with being Liberal and by extension Liberty and Liberation to the point that the media contradictorily uses the term to refer to socialism.

Defeating the Socialist-Left by depriving them of their false labeling.

Defeating the Leftists on this subject is just a two-step process of taking back the word and having the discipline to use Leftist instead of Liberal. Then it’s just a question of rhetorically pounding Leftists as being hypocrites in trying to sell socialistic slavery as ‘Liberation’ or ‘Liberty’.

We have already made the point that true Liberals belong on the right side of the political spectrum here, here, and here. The fact is, the Conservative-Right side is represented in the Liberal party in Australia. Consider the through the looking-glass mindset of the Left characterizing a win of the Australian Liberal party entitled as ‘How Liberalism Loses’ taking note that they scrupulously avoid using the actual name of the Liberal party in Australia.

Why it is extremely important to use the term Leftist instead of Liberal.

It should be an easy fix to the situation, given that both words start with the same letter and have the same length. It’s just a matter of understanding the vast difference in the meaning of the two words and why we all need to have the discipline to just use Leftist in referring to those people.

Those using the term Liberal when referring to the Left are complicit in perpetrating their deception on who they are. Leftists don’t consider Liberal to be a pejorative. They smile when we use the odd phrases such as ‘Owning the Libs’ because that reinforces their supposed ‘Liberal’ street cred. The same holds true for any variation of terms that have a ‘Lib’ portion.

The Word Salad approach to labeling the Left.

While many understood the logic in this effort, there are still some on the Conservative-Right that still use a ‘Word Salad’ approach when referring to the Left. They will begin using Leftist and switch to Liberal at some point, followed by the term Progressive in another instance, then perhaps switching back to Leftist in another.

No one is really impressed by the undisciplined use of these terms, there really is no point in continuing the practice. One word is sufficient, the Far-Left has no qualms about using the term ‘Far-right’ in referring to the Pro-Liberty side of the aisle. This refers back to one of the Left’s biggest lies: that the Nazis weren’t socialists. But that doesn’t stop them from trying to reinforce that lie at every opportunity where up is down and Left is Right – meaning a socialist workers’ party of the Left is somehow of the ‘Far-Right’.

It is time to fight back on this front instead of conceding the language of the Left, it is how they lie about who they are and what we are. It is how they deceive people who are unaware of their true nature.

The Takeaway.

The Socialist-Left revels in being ‘Liberators’, the defenders of Liberty and of course as being Liberal.
Those positive sounding attributes belong to the Conservative-Right, that why it is important to use the correct word.

Using Leftist instead of Liberal takes away one of the Left’s biggest deceptions, why wouldn’t anyone follow that advice?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

There are still 10 Commandments even if most Christians only believe in 9

Published

on

There are still 10 Commandments even if most Christians only believe in 9

If you ask an average evangelical Christian if they believe in the 10 Commandments, most say yes. In fact, a majority of Americans believe nine of the ten Commandments are still important today. Only one commandment in a poll last year was accepted by less than half of Americans. Only 49% believe keeping the sabbath day holy still applies.

But the Bible is very explicit about the Commandments. From Genesis to Exodus, the sabbath is mentioned as being kept, including by post-resurrection Christian leaders like Peter and Paul. Nothing in the Bible indicates it has changed. In fact, it was the actions of men attempting to claim the Christian faith as their own and merging it with the pagan religions of their day that prompted a change to Sunday as the day of worship. It wasn’t by decree from a prophet of God. It was men trying to make things easier to rule their people who decided to change times and laws.

The Bible is unambiguous. In Exodus 20:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Now is not the time to debate misinterpretations of Paul’s teachings, the ones most often pointed to when pastors and Christian scholars try to justify their acceptance of the anti-Biblical change in both scope and details surrounding the permanent law of God laid forth for all men and for all time in the 10 Commandments. I’ll leave a video below from 119 Ministries that goes into the details and offers a scriptural basis for keeping the sabbath. I do not believe in all of their conclusions, but it’s a great reference nonetheless.

For now, I’d prefer to appeal to logic. Before Jesus Christ died, after His resurrection, and any time He has appeared in the Bible, neither He nor anyone else talks about moving the sabbath. I’ve heard Bible scholars infer that it was changed to somehow represent His rising and the changes that happened in the world as a result, but that does not explain why the sabbath was kept by Christians throughout the early days of the church even after His death. Historians and the Bible all agree that those who were closest to Jesus continued to keep the sabbath.

It takes a tremendous amount of eisegesis to work that change into the Bible somehow. Moreover, it completely ignores historical records that show why the leaders in the 3rd century changed the day of worship to match with the pagan day of worship, Sunday, and to separate themselves from any attachment to the non-believing Hebrews.

The Bible tells us to keep the sabbath. At no point does it tell us to stop keeping the sabbath. Instead of listening to the traditions of men who were appeasing pagans, why don’t more Christians trust the Word of God?

Here’s the video:

Continue Reading

News

A different kind of Mayor for Honolulu

Published

on

A different kind of Mayor for Honolulu

John Stanley Carroll has announced that he is running to be the next Mayor of the USA’s southernmost and westernmost large metropolitan area, the City and County of Honolulu. Fiscal responsibility and the well-being of the nearly one million residents of the Island of O`ahu are at the top of his agenda.

Here is John’s announcement of his candidacy which he has just released:

JOHN CARROLL ANNOUNCES HIS CANDIDACY FOR MAYOR OF HONOLULU

FOR RELEASE AFTER
4:00 p.m., Friday, June 14, 2019

For Friday, June 14th ~ Release Only ~ No Press Conference

Contact:  David Ware

Campaign Spokesperson

(808) 220-9450
810 Richards St., Suite 810
Honolulu, HI 96813

Honolulu, Hawaii ~~~ Former State Senator John Carroll’s Spokesperson David Ware announced today that Mr. Carroll has already registered with the Campaign Spending Commission as a candidate for Mayor of the City and County of Honolulu. Mr. Carroll is running to provide badly needed leadership for the City as well as the State. He has been an outspoken critic of many leaders in both political parties.

As Mayor he plans to end the “rail to nowhere” debacle and shut down HART. He will seek Court Ordered Forensic Investigation and Audit before allowing further expenditure of local residents’ tax dollars. The needs of all O`ahu residents will be first and foremost in the decision on how to proceed.

Hawaii suffers disproportionately from archaic laws like the Jones Act. There is a need to stop the damaging economic impact of the monopoly on carrying domestic cargo to Hawaii’s ports. The cost of goods in Hawaii must be dramatically reduced. We need to grow our economy by reducing taxes and over-regulation. Our next Mayor must make Honolulu affordable for Honolulu families once again. It will no longer be necessary to relocate to Las Vegas or other mainland cities to be able to buy a home and raise a family!

John originally came to Hawaii on a football scholarship under Coach Tommy Kaulukukui. He is a U.H. graduate in Education, with a Doctor of Jurisprudence Degree from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, has served four terms in State House and one in State Senate. His entire life has been devoted to public service on behalf of all the good people of Hawaii. He has retired from practice of law, from 34 years of military service (U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force) at the rank of Colonel and as a Korean War Veteran. He has also retired from management of Hawaii Aviation Contract Services and 32 years as a pilot for Hawaiian Air Lines. John is still licensed to fly gliders commercially. You may see him circling over Dillingham Airfield and the North Shore on some beautiful sunny morning.

John Carroll intends to implement many innovations in his non-partisan campaign for Honolulu Mayor. Stay tuned for details coming soon. This will be an unconventional campaign and John will be a very different kind of Mayor as he recognizes, respects and serves the needs of ALL citizens in the City and County of Honolulu.

John is always accessible and you can reach him by phone at (808) 220-9450.

In full disclosure, the author of this NOQ Report article and the John Carroll for Honolulu Mayor Spokesperson are one and the same. Other candidates for Mayor as well as all political offices here in Hawaii will be accorded full and fair coverage of your campaigns. You are encouraged to submit the American Conservative Movement form at the end of this article to Editor-in-Chief JD Rucker.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending