Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Boycotts, protests, and SOBs



Boycotts protests and SOBs

I respect the decisions of those with the fortitude to follow through boycotting the National Football League. It really doesn’t matter why. What matters is that individuals have the liberty to choose “[p]rinciples over pleasure” (as J.D. Rucker discusses his perspective here), boycotting the NFL. Like Mr. Rucker, football players have the liberty to speak on issues and protest in a peaceful manner. The difference between the two forms of protest is the stage upon which the protest is made. Football players are viewed live by 60k to 90k fans in stadiums and by millions on television. Mr. Rucker’s protest, and others like him, is a private protest. Boycotting the NFL has been effective and noticed by ultra-liberal ESPN. Personally, I haven’t felt the conviction to boycott the NFL, and that is my liberty. That said, I was surprised by President Trump’s tirade railing against individuals for asserting their freedom of speech.

The perception is that when football players gather to play their games, they are in business mode – that is, on the clock. Although it is entertainment, NFL players are independent contractors paid to perform a specific role. For that work, they get paid, the NFL gets paid and the teams’ personnel and owners get paid. I can fully understand and be sympathetic, then, toward those who find it distasteful for protests during the National Anthem on this stage. Athletes, while on the clock, are not paid for their personal beliefs. Fans attend games for a break from political and ideological differences and they would like that break honored. Given any other business, private or public, it would be unacceptable for employees, while on the clock, publicly demonstrate personal ideologies that remove focus from the product.

I do not agree with the form of protest that NFL players have been demonstrating – taking a knee or holding up a fist during the National Anthem. First, I don’t think the demonstration fits the purpose of the cause. Second, I cannot help but think, “Is this the best you can do?” In other words: 1) if you just turned on a football game and saw a player kneeling during the National Anthem, would you know why, and, 2) a millionaire athlete demonstrates his protest with as little effort as possible. As an aside, I have some difficulty taking seriously a millionaire athlete’s protest against inequality. Wrapped in all of this, there are three points I am going to address.

Problems with President Trump’s message

I cannot express more contempt for the divisiveness and vulgarity of Trump’s message. This is personal for me because I chose to vote for him in order to vote against Hillary Clinton. Thank you, Mr. President for pouring more salt in that wound. Please, focus on NorKo, Iran, China and Russia.

“Son of a bitch” is derogatory towards two individuals, one of whom may not agree with her son. The mother of Colin Kaepernick is rightfully upset. The President should know better than create publicity that supports negative perceptions. If I were in his cabinet, I would resign. If I could rescind my vote, I would. Trump’s message is based on emotion intended to resound with a portion of his base. There are some things that, given one’s title and position, should remain unsaid. He should not, as POTUS, rail against (much less call for firing) a private citizen demonstrating a peaceful protest.

Vagueness of athletes’ message

The message of the protest is inequality. Or is it injustice? Well, depending on whom you ask, you may get a different answer. That is part of the problem. Inequality is too vague in that there are multiple contexts in which we can discuss equality – financial, ethnic, liberty and constitutional to name a few. Likewise, injustice is vague. The point is that the message is lost in connecting the speech with the cause. My perception – subject to correction, of course – of the core issue is an inequality of justice. The perception on one side is that persons are not held to the same degree of judgment as others due to skin color (ethnicity) or financial status.

Protest as a form of speech is protected

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”

Both protests – Trump’s and the athletes’ – are protected forms of speech by our Constitution. I don’t agree with the athletes’ chosen demonstration of protest for the reasons I mention above. I detest President Trump’s hateful message although he has the Constitutional right to say it. It’s okay to have certain convictions that motivate you to protest – either through boycott, peaceful demonstration or picketing.


The millionaire athletes should be able to find a way to publicize a unified message (without employing divisive tactics or groups) through a unified movement with a public relations team. But they need to articulate the message so that we all get it and it needs to be on their own time.

Trump needs to stick to refining his political acumen. Right now, he stinks and his verbal filter, if one exists, is broken. In spite of his divisive message, a great unity appeared in Sunday’s games during the performances of the National Anthem. I saw players standing side by side, arms locked. If anything, that is more unity than I have observed since Trump’s election.

There are inequalities in our justice system. The appropriate thing to do involves root-cause analysis. Following due diligence through analysis, they should develop a message. As educated millionaires, they should then have the tools to formulate appropriate actions to rectify the problem. One suggestion might be finding individuals who agree with and support challenging the current legal culture to fix the issues. Another might be programs to help minorities understand the roles of and become upstanding members of law enforcement, driving cultural change from within rather than rioting.

I am hoping that something good will come out of Trump’s ignorance – arguably, his stupidity. On the subject of inequalities within our justice system: I am unified with those who properly challenge culture and stand determined to seek an appropriate course of action to rectify the system.

David is a Christian, a husband, father and patriot. He loves the fundamental first principles of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As a full-time student at Regent University (online), he is earning a BA in Paralegal Studies with the intent to continue on to law school at the University of Texas, Austin. Whenever possible, David argues for the principles of natural law with whoever will listen. David lives in Georgetown, Texas with his wife, Mandy and two children, Ethan and Meredith.

Continue Reading


  1. Dale McNamee

    September 24, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    Like the players have the right to protest… The rest of us have the right to protest them, not to purchase league, team, and player gear, or to buy tickets, not to attend games, watch games on TV nor listen to them on the radio…
    That includes having the freedom not to have an interest in sports at all !

  2. Steve Bliss

    September 24, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    I was with you until you said that the protests marked an increase of unity. Maybe you witnessed unity among teams and in some cases, not even teams but pockets of players on teams but in the big picture I would not call it unity. In most cases where there were large groups of players kneeling you could also hear fans booing. All of the Steelers except one player didn’t even go out to the field. And the one player who did go out for the anthem and stood with his hand in heart is a former Army Ranger, but that didn’t stop Mike Tomlin from throwing him under the bus at the post-game press conference. No, in the big picture the players protests did not enhance unity at all but instead they just further perpetuated the divide.

  3. Dale McNamee

    September 25, 2017 at 10:03 am

    Mike Tomlin, “coach” of the Steelers, is putrescent for his trashing of the one player who is a true hero and war veteran who did 3 tours of Afganistan…

    I used to be disinterested in sports, now I’m “woke” and enraged !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Sheepdogs, Guardians and Liberty control




The issue of security is a serious matter, we should be following the realistic examples of what works to keep our children safe.

So what is the best way to protect people from evil? Taking a page from ranchers or other rural folk who need to protect their flocks from predation may be the best way of figuring this out. We know what doesn’t work, and that would be depriving the people of their liberty of self-preservation. But this doesn’t stop the left from obsessing over inanimate object control. This is a futile pursuit since even in an environments where the Liberty of self-defense is heavily controlled, shootings still take place.

It would be far better if we did not need these measures, but the Socialist-Left has insisted upon tearing down the country’s moral underpinnings to replace them with it’s vile collectivist ideals. So we have to decide the best way to protect from that which the enemies of Liberty on the Left have imposed on the nation. The fact of the matter is that these commonly held arms have been around for over 100 years while these attacks are of a more recent phenomenon. It also needs to be pointed out that Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It’s Not A Growing Epidemic as reported on Left-Leaning NPR.

Examine how is security provided in other fields to decide what Will Work.

As has been always the case, Liberty control will not work because evil will always find a way to kill. Witness recent events in Austin, Texas where bombs replaced guns in bringing on terror. Even if guns could be wiped from existence criminals, terrorist or governments would find a way to deliberately slaughter people. Therefore the choice is that of restoring our moral underpinnings or providing new guards for our security. While the national socialist Left still holds sway over the culture, media and government indoctrination centres that necessary restoration will have to wait. So the only realistic option is one of armed, on-scene responders to protect our most precious resource.

Similar circumstances teach the best forms of security: The example of livestock control and protection.

Law enforcement personal are often referred to ‘sheepdogs’. They maintain control over crowds of people in varying situations while also protecting them. We can extend this analogy further as a way of illustrating the way to keep people safe from predation. Ranchers have two main types of animals to assist them, for control they use the venerable herding breeds of dogs ranging from the Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, Corgi, Sheltie, etc. To protect them they also have animals commonly referred to as Livestock guardians. These range from special breeds of livestock guardian dogs to Llamas or Donkeys. They normally live with the flock to provide around the clock protection. They also blend in with it to a certain extent so that the predators cannot single them out.

Guardian protect the flock while sheepdogs maintain control.

In both situations it’s the guardians who blend in and are always on the scene in case of attack. With the ‘flocks’ of humans, the guardians are the people carrying concealed weapons. Those bent on evil don’t know who this may be, their numbers or location. The element of uncertainty keeps the human predators at bay. By contrast the sheepdogs usually stand out in a crowd. While they also offer a deterrent effect, this can be negated by their visibility. They can also be targeted first in an attack to defeat that layer of security.

In the world of the rancher attempting to both protect his (or her) flock, they have the sheepdogs to move and control the flock while the guardians protect it. The sheepdogs do offer a layer of protection, but they cannot be present all the time. It’s the livestock guardians who bond with the flock who protect it around the clock.

The Takeaway.

Recent events illustrated that it’s impossible to keep people safe by banning guns or any other Liberty control measures. The only way to keep them safe in the immoral environment brought on by the Left, is to have both uniformed law enforcement and those carrying concealed on site as dual layers of defence. Merely decreeing a ‘Gun-Free’ zone or banning firearms are dangerous notions that do not work. These fanciful Leftist constructs only serve to deprive the innocent of the Liberty of self-defence and do nothing but raise the body count.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?




The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.

Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.

The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.

The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?

Liberty Control down through the ages.

The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.

Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.

In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.

The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’

It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation.  Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.

The Takeaway

The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.

Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?



Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.