Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Boycotts, protests, and SOBs

Published

on

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.

Conclusions

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
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  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

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Gay Americans speak out in support of Christian Baker, against the gay lobby

Published

on

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

-Patrick Henry

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now, however, after years of radical LGBT activist domination over the nation’s dialogue surrounding civil rights, liberty-loving gay Americans are pushing back.

All wheels have begun to squeak.

Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (7-2) in favor of Jack Phillips, a devout Christian and confectionary artist. In 2012, after declining to lend his artistry skills toward the custom adornment of a cake intended for the celebration of a same-sex wedding, Phillips was sued for discrimination and was later found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Although the Commission had deemed Phillips’s art – confectionary art is a subset of sugar art – as expression under the First Amendment, his religious views were publicly attacked by commissioners. It was this blatant governmental bias which persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse all previous rulings against Mr. Phillips.

Despite of the Supreme Court ruling’s narrow scope, by mid-day on Monday, freedom-loving gay Americans had begun to speak out in support of Jack Phillips’s Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, and celebrate the Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Phillips’s favor.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must… undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine

Pushing Back: Live on the Radio

Speaking with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, a Seattle woman who identified herself, saying, “I’m gay, I’m Hispanic, I’m female, I’m middle-aged, and I’m conservative,” stated:

I wanted to comment on the cake thing, on the Supreme Court judgment ruling on the cake matter. I wanted to say that I am so pleased to hear that, because I just don’t understand how people in this country can keep fighting against having their negative rights, against having what makes this country great, and against that which are the people that came to this country and come to this country, come here for. I just don’t get it… we are the country on this planet that stands for everyone to come and have liberty.

…[P]eople want to have freedom. But what they don’t understand is that freedom never needs to be defended. It’s liberty that needs to be defended. God gives us our freedom. God gives us the right to be free. We have to defend our liberty.

Another Limbaugh caller who identified himself as a wedded gay man, expressed disdain for the radical LGBT activists, describing them as “militant,” asserting:

…[I]t does not make our situation any easier when these militants are on the news because they do not represent me.

His {the husband’s] family didn’t show up at our wedding because they believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. And I don’t want to brand them a bigot or a homophobe for the rest of their lives when I could have an opportunity to have a relationship with them. I’d rather understand where they’re coming from and try to build off of what we have in common than brand them over a decision like a cake and then not have a relationship with the man I love’s family.

The caller continued his frank criticism, stating:

I think these militants make it worse, not better, and they don’t have me — in mind when they’re out there doing it… I just think they’re really loud and obnoxious, and so they get on the news.

They went on TV, and they said what their case was. They said it was never about the cake; it was about making them do what they wanted them to do. 

And I would rather go get a cake from somewhere else and not be on the news and have a chance at understanding where other people are coming from than force my will on them any more than I want them to force their will on me. I know a lot of people don’t accept gay marriage. However, it’s a lifestyle choice I made. They choose not to bake me a cake. I’ll get one somewhere else.

My sexuality makes up so small of who I am as a person; it really shouldn’t matter.

Pushing Back: Speaking Out on Twitter

Other non-totalitarian, liberty-loving gay Americans chose to push back by making their voices heard via social media.

Pushing Back: The New Squeaky Wheels

The phenomenon of gay Americans, fellow freedom-fighters, pushing back against the radical LGBT lobby isn’t unique to the Masterpiece Cakeshop court case. Since 2013, Chad Felix Greene- a wedded gay man – has “been writing in favor of religious freedom for those asked to participate in gay weddings.”

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Greene stated:

LGBT’s hysterical denunciations and hair-on-fire rhetoric has not changed. Fortunately the argument has. We must continue fighting the rhetoric.

This case is not over.

Back in December of 2017, a gay duo – T.J. and Matt – made headlines for their open support of Jack Phillips and all who wish to exercise religious liberty and freedom of speech.  In a video for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the pair, standing outside the front entrance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, explained:

We’re here to buy stuff from him and support him, because we don’t think any artist should be forced to create for something that violates their beliefs.

On Monday, echoing the same sentiment, Mr. Greene explained to his followers on Twitter:

The LGBT movement needs to understand that tolerance goes both ways. They have been behaving as though they are entitled to special treatment from everyone under the guise of ‘equality.’

We have equality. But we don’t have the right to demand others violate their beliefs for us.

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.

-Benjamin Franklin

Reason to Hope

The trappings of authoritarian identify politics are being rejected and the walls are beginning to crumble. Liberty-loving Americans representing a plurality of circumstance and lifestyle, often hidden from the limelight of the media, are joining together in good will.

As a Christian and an artist, I count the mounting acts of ideological divergence – examples of bravery – from those in the gay community, as true blessings!

Alas! The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Religious liberty lost and judicial tyranny won in Masterpiece Cakeshop decision

Published

on

Yesterday, in a narrow 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple based on the grounds that doing so would violate his religious liberty.

Wait a minute! 7-2? How is that a “narrow” decision?

While it’s true that Mr. Phillips was the victor in a lopsided vote total, the root issue concerning his case—freedom of religion—was left unanswered. The court’s decision wasn’t so much pro-First Amendment as it was anti-Colorado Civil Right Commission, which is why it’s being called a narrow decision.

Writing for the majority, Anthony Kennedy—the Justice responsible for Constitutionalizing same-sex marriage—confirmed this fact when he noted that the case created a “difficult situation” when it comes to how the LGBT agenda impacts religious liberty and how he believes that the issue “must await further elaboration” in the courts.

While people like Franklin Graham—a so-called evangelical who winks at Trump’s indiscretions because he was chosen by God’s hand”—proclaim that the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision was a “huge win for religious freedom” and serves as proof that God answers prayer, the reality is that religious liberty is no safer now than it was before this ruling.

In his analysis of the Supreme Court ruling, Daniel Horowitz, Sr. Editor at Conservative Review and an expert on judicial matters, points out how yesterday’s decision falls short of protecting religious liberty because the Court never addressed whether the state or federal government has the power to make laws forcing individuals to violate their consciences.

Meanwhile, the ACLU—who represented the plaintiffs in the case—was pleased with the Court’s decision, saying that it was “based on concerns unique to the [Masterpiece Cakeshop] case but that it reaffirmed its long-standing rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.”

Translation? According to the ACLU, the Court affirmed the right for states to pass laws forcing businesses to serve anyone, anytime, anyplace for any reason; First Amendment be damned.

By the way, isn’t it a pretty good indication that this ruling failed to protect religious liberty when the lawyers representing the plaintiffs agreed with it?

In the end, this case is just another example of how we have become a post-constitutional America where judicial tyranny has replaced the checks and balances provided by three separate but equal branches of government. While Masterpiece Cakeshop won this case, the ruling could have just as easily gone the other way with a different set of judges hearing the same evidence.

Liberty isn’t supposed to be subject to the whims of special interests where political parties are pulling the strings, but that’s what we witnessed yesterday. Judicial tyranny will increase so long as so-called conservatives continue to rely on the Supreme Court to protect our Constitutional rights instead of fighting for the America created by our Founding Fathers.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.