A PROTEST WITHOUT A PURPOSE ISNT A PROTEST, IT’S A TANTRUM The Birmingham News – October 13, 2017
By State Rep. Rich Wingo (R – Tuscaloosa), who serves House District 62 in the Alabama Legislature. Wingo was a member of the University of Alabama football team from 1974 to 1978, and played for the Green Bay Packers from 1979 to 1986.
As a former linebacker for the NFL’s Green Bay Packers and the University of Alabama, I had the opportunity to play for two of the finest men to ever serve as head coaches – Paul “Bear” Bryant and Bart Starr.
One of the most important lessons Coach Bryant and Coach Starr taught me was plain and simple respect — respect for ourselves, respect for our coaches and teammates, and respect for our great nation. They also stressed showing your class in every situation and being humble.
The current “protests” being staged against our nation’s flag and anthem by players throughout the NFL violate every principle of respect those two great men drilled into players like me during their careers. The NFL is currently suffering from a complete lack of good leadership and it hurts me to watch it happen. The two coaches under whom I played simply would not have allowed the current situation to come to pass, and, instead, would demand that their players show proper respect for the patriotic symbols of our nation and its people. Like many Americans, I do not view the act of NFL players “taking a knee” during the National Anthem as an acceptable form of protest.
Most of the players who have chosen to sit or kneel have not outlined a specific reason, stated a goal, or defined what constitutes a victory in their eyes. If they have no goals to achieve by kneeling, how can they know when to start standing again?
A protest without a purpose is not a protest – it’s a tantrum.
The sadness of the situation was only compounded when players for the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars took a knee when the “Star Spangled Banner” was played before their recent game on foreign soil in London, but they stood at attention during “God Save The Queen.”
I do believe that every American has the right to protest or to have their voice heard, but they must be prepared to accept the consequences. Americans are likely to abandon the NFL by the millions if players continue to betray and insult our nation and its enduring symbols of freedom.
There are other, more effective and less offensive methods players may utilize to express their dissatisfaction with whatever is angering them. They could easily stage a rally, hold a press conference to protest, or, more importantly, invest or volunteer in their communities and do something constructive to change lives for the better.
We do not have to look too far into our nation’s past to see where the disrespect for American values and symbols took root. Activist judges and weak leadership in past generations forced the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer to be taken out of our children’s classrooms, and Hollywood has joined forces with the mainstream media to promote a radical social agenda that has turbocharged moral decay. Millions of brave men and women have fought, bled, and died on foreign battlefields across the globe in order to defend our nation and the symbols that define it.
In my opinion, the NFL players’ actions are one step away from burning an American flag on the 50-yard line, and the commissioner, team owners, and coaches need to do what Coach Bryant and Coach Starr would have done by demanding an end to the on-going sideline shenanigans immediately.
note: I would like to add that I remember “Bear” Bryant having a very low tolerance for disrespect, bad behavior or breaking team rules. His players were mostly proud to be held to tough standards and high expectations. It may have been old school, but many have continued on to have successfull and fulfilling careers. -cat-
Author Archives: catsNjammer
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
It has been said millions of times…guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Evidently, to many who live for simplistic solutions this nice catch phrase sounds great but it has no meaning whatsoever. Their belief is that if you remove guns from honest people you will stop massacres, crime, and all random acts of violence. They are absolutely wrong.
As has been proven in other societies, criminals do not give up merely for lack of a gun. Tasers, physical violence (with bats, foreign objects like knives or daggers) or cunning can often be employed instead. Where only one person is required to waive a gun around, two or three criminals working together offer enough of a threatening presence to achieve the goal. Also, consider that today most crimes are not the type that utilize a gun, they just steal from people by con. Identity theft is on the rise yet congress does nothing to protect citizens against the most basic collection of information by large corporations choosing instead to focus on guns. Email scams, Internet rip-offs are all out there just waiting for stronger regulation….but that would be hard.
The most obvious of all, of course, is that any laws that are passed of whatever stringency will have absolutely no affect on criminals, only on honest citizens who buy guns legitimately. Criminals do not buy guns in stores or in gun shows, they get them on the black market. No laws or regulations and no taxes to bother with on the black market. There are black market guns everywhere. Criminals don’t care if we put harsher regulations on gun ownership, as a matter of fact, it would make their lives infinitely safer and easier if innocent people cannot defend themselves! After all, even the mass killings tend to hit “soft targets” which means those places where guns are not allowed! Doesn’t that tell anyone anything??
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Chicago is a great example of what happens with the criminal element when you impose some of the strictest gun control in the US. The gang members and other criminals do not turn in their guns, honest citizens are left with no way to defend themselves and a city that was once wonderful now has a section that has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation! None of this is news, we all know it, so why are we not paying attention?
If government could protect us 100% of the time we would be 100% safe and no mass murders or crimes would ever occur.The government tells us that the police are there for our protection, but they are not everywhere all the time. As much as I respect and honor our warriors in blue, we were designed to be a country with guns and a brave people who could protect and defend themselves and their neighbors.
People, especially those in the government, tend to skip over the main reason that the founding fathers made sure that the citizens of this country would forever keep their God given right to bear arms. There was no guarantee that the new Constitution would stand the test of time. Many were very afraid that too much power had been given to the centralized federal government. They had experience with an oppressive British King and were wary of any form of it. We have our guns because a well armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny. It is true that our forefathers were closer to the land and hunted more. But make no mistake, if you read what they had to say on this issue, they were not ambivalent.
The liberals have chosen guns as an issue. However, if a disturbed, insane, evil person or a radical jihadi terrorist is determined to cause havoc and kill massive numbers of people – he does not have to use a gun! A gun is just a tool. I have friends who can shoot a bow as accurately as a gun, knives, bombs, cars, vans, eighteen wheelers, acid, poisons, etc. Jumping on the gun issue seems to be screaming at one of the symptoms when we ought to be looking at the genesis of the problem.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
I have been off today and so have had the rare opportunity to keep one eye on the TV coverage of the horrendously evil shooting in Las Vegas. While listening to the reporters interview witnesses and concert attendee’s I noticed that there was a common element in many of the accounts of survival. Fortunately for many of those at the event there were a goodly number of veterans, off duty police and military also in attendance and they instinctively knew what to do!They helped shepherd people to safety, they yelled out what to do, they assisted the wounded and they did it over and over again all around the venue. So many people were very lucky our brave military, vets, off duty police, etc. were there in the thick of the crisis helping when most did not even realize where the help was coming from!
I wonder if we appreciate how valuable, how honorable and how much more these men and women contribute to society and their communities than is readily seen. How often are their heroic deeds overlooked in the rush to show appreciation for the first responders, who deserve all the accolades we give them. Vets especially tend to always instinctively step up in these situations yet never seem to be recognized for the risks they take in doing so or receive credit for the lives they save.
However, it does take something special to think of others while under fire. Training helps, using that training to save strangers by risking your own life is an example of the best of us.
Up to now I had always assumed that much of the protesting against “white supremacy” as well as the rise of the BLM movement was because of perceived racial discrimination. Last night, while watching a segment on Tucker Carlson, I learned from one of his guests that my assumption was definitely passé. What is driving those accusations of racism and causing so much hate is an African American belief that Caucasians see themselves as better, smarter, classier, whatever. Most of the active discrimination has been legislated into illegal behavior, it should not be allowed and legislation has followed public opinion fairly well. Where the Legislature has not acted the courts have stepped in. So, now I am told that it is about Caucasian attitudes of natural superiority?
Who knew.. Or even thought such a thing?
I have red hair. However, I think that brunettes and blondes are the same as me and different in no significant manner. I don’t discriminate against either (makes about as much sense) or see myself as better than they are. As far as I know, hair pigment has no impact on intelligence, strength, common sense, creativity, etc.
My favorite color is royal blue, if I have to name just one, but I am not illogical enough to think that a royal blue 2018 truck is inherently better than any other 2018 truck merely because it is royal blue! This may sound silly, but it is exactly what is being assumed!
Would everyone just think?!?
In the interests of full disclosure, I freely admit that I am not a professional sports fan. I sometimes enjoy college football, when my team is winning, but my interests lie elsewhere. Living in Alabama, however, I am completely and totally surrounded by football fanatics and so have had no choice whatsoever but to cultivate a healthy respect and a minimally respectable body of knowledge regarding the sport.
The First Amendment only protects the citizen’s right to free speech from government control. It does not apply in employment situations, in clubs or societies with rules and regulations that govern such things, in any situation not involving the government or a government funded entity. Keeping this in mind, it should be immediately obvious to anyone with even half a brain that the First Amendment does not apply to guaranteeing random hired football players the right to disrespect the American Flag and the National Anthem in the course of their employment.
The issue is not “social justice”. If that were the issue then peaceful protest, meeting with community leaders, working through churches associating with other churches, petitioning the President or requesting a meeting with the White House or the Governor’s office. The issue is not “freedom of speech”. If these players want to work towards social change or if they feel that they must speak out against social injustice then they should do what the entire remainder of the employed United States does…..PURSUE YOUR PERSONAL POLITICS ON YOUR OWN TIME!
President Trump is not dividing us by calling out the owners for allowing this. He is expressing the opinion of millions who either believe that a football game is no place to air your political views or who believe that disrespecting the flag and the Star Spangled Banner is the wrong way to express yourself and will not encourage dialogue at all. Real facts and statistics work much better, preferably the sort that cannot be debunked.
All of the rest of the commentary revolving around this “issue” is nonsense.
Trump is right, Socialism doesn’t work
Larry Alex Taunton | FoxNews.com
Published on September 24, 2017
On Tuesday, President Trump addressed the United Nations and, shocking to no one save left-of-center news agencies, he expressed his strong belief in his own economic policies; in America—its people, way of life, and the Constitution which governs it; and in business enterprise as a path to freedom and prosperity. Trump’s speech, optimistic and pro-American as it was, falls in the mainstream of American presidential tradition. Indeed, it is the stuff of a Truman or a Reagan.
But you’d never know it from how it was reported.
The Guardian called it “a blunt, fearful rant.”
That is a more apt description for The Guardian itself. (Trust me, I know. I’ve been trashed by them no less than twice for a claim I never made and they never bothered to verify.)
Salon said Trump “careened wildly from some warped form of principled realism to threats of mass annihilation and back again.”
Perhaps Salon, careening wildly from one Trump attack-piece to another, is unaware of the fact that America has been threatened with “mass annihilation” by a declared enemy with an increasing capability to do it. Someone should tell them.
Slate characterized it as “the most hostile, dangerous, and intellectually confused—if not outright dishonest—speech ever delivered by an American president to an international body.”
We live in an age of hyperbole and this is an excellent example of it. I encourage you to read the full text of Trump’s speech and decide for yourself if it was “the most hostile, dangerous … speech ever” or if this is the worst reporting in the history of human civilization. Ever.
Then there is John Haltiwanger’s article in Newsweek titled, “Trump was laughed at by world leaders for dissing socialism.”
This column caught my attention both for its content and lack of content. The title alone intrigued me—as good titles are supposed to do—but for all the wrong reasons. I mean, really? I know we live in the age of 24/7/365 news cycles and the hunger for fresh web content is relentless, but has Newsweek sunk so low that an article that feels like dialogue lifted from the script of “Mean Girls”is now counted as serious journalism?
Let’s consider Mr. Haltiwanger’s argument, such as it is.
As the title indicates, his critique of Trump’s speech centers on the president’s “dissing” of socialism. Haltiwanger writes:
When President Donald Trump criticized socialism during his speech Tuesday at the United Nations, he seemed to expect roaring approval from the audience. Instead, world leaders responded with laughter and weak applause. It was perhaps the most awkward moment of Trump’s speech.
Speaking on the recent crisis in Venezuela, Trump said, “The problem…is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”
“From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure,” Trump added.
In the middle of his comments, Trump paused to take the room’s temperature, but it was apparent world leaders were unmoved by the rebuke of the worker state. The room was silent. It was reminiscent of Jeb Bush’s “please clap” moment…. Video of the [president’s] speech has immortalized the uncomfortable moment.
That Trump would do such a thing is, for Haltiwanger, evidence of the president’s buffoonery, lack of sophistication, and his failure to properly read “the room’s temperature.”
He includes a screenshot of a tweet from someone named Jordan, which reads, “The /#UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] just LAUGHED at Trump for criticizing socialism.”
I laughed at Mr. Haltiwanger’s article, but this is no proof that it is logically flawed (though logically flawed it is). The Left has always been overly sensitive to what the world thinks of America and its president. They need global affirmation, it seems. Obama was, for them, urbane, glamorous, “a gentleman,” as an acquaintance at the New York Times has often characterized him to me, as if these are defining characteristics of great national leaders.
By contrast, Trump is, for them, a national embarrassment with his comb-over, trademark scowl, and unfashionable patriotism. How are we to stand toe-to-toe with France and Canada when they have socialist beefcakes like Macron and Trudeau? Winston Churchill, who was neither a gentleman nor glamorous—and whose scowl was likewise perpetual—seems to have worked out rather well as Prime Minister. Moreover, Churchill biographer Paul Reid has said that Churchill, ever a reactionary, “would out-tweet Trump.”
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Trump expected, as Haltiwanger maintains, “roaring approval from the audience.” According to a 2015 Freedom House study of 195 nations—and, at the moment, there are precisely 195 nations in the world—only 46 percent of them are deemed free. Worse, that same report says the world is trending away from freedom — 193 of the countries included in this report are member states of the United Nations, North Korea and Venezuela among them. Trump “seemed to expect roaring approval”? Please. Ann Coulter will sooner get applause at Berkeley than Trump before such an audience as this one.
Of course, the reason the author tells us that UN “leaders responded with laughter and weak applause” is because he is, in the spirit of an adolescent, inviting us to join in the mockery and scorn of this president.
Mr. Haltiwanger, who is clearly infatuated with the undeliverable promises of socialism, concludes his argument with what he apparently thinks is his article’s mic-drop moment, proving once and for all that socialism works and that Trump is an idiot for thinking otherwise:
Most industrialized countries, for example, have implemented universal health care. Moreover, Norway was recently ranked the happiest country in the world, and it pointed to its strong state-support programs as crucial to achieving this accolade…. Several other Scandinavian countries, including Denmark, Iceland and Sweden, were also among the top 10 happiest countries in the world, according to the most recent figures…. The U.S., however, can’t even make it into the top 10 happiest countries. It’s ranked at No. 14.
Icelandic and Scandinavian happiness.
Let’s drill down on this a bit and the inference that socialism is the reason for it. Norway’s designation as the “world’s happiest country” is based on a United Nations report. You might think that this ranking comes from simple “yes” or “no” responses to the question, “Are you happy?” It isn’t. That is essentially what Gallup did and guess who dominated the top ten? Paraguay and Latin America. Neither Iceland nor a single Scandinavian country appeared in Gallup’s top ten.
So how did the guys at the UN produce entirely different results? After spending an afternoon reading the UN report, that is still is unclear to me. This is because their study is 184 pages of abstruse data and reads like this:
The U.S. corruption index rose by 0.10 between 2006/7 and 2015/6. With a coefficient -0.53 in the happiness regression, the negative effect on U.S. happiness is 0.054. Reversing the rise in perceived corruption would therefore raise happiness by 0.054….
Drilling down still more, we find that this report, as with any UN report I’ve ever read, has a very definite political agenda. It concludes:
To escape this social quagmire, America’s happiness agenda should center on … an expanded social safety net, wealth taxes, and greater public financing of health and education…. [A]cknowledge and move past the fear created by 9/11 … Trump’s ban on travel to the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries is a continuing manifestation of the exaggerated and irrational fears that grip the nation.
So, from a haze of data on global happiness the report makes the illogical leap to America, Donald Trump, and the lack of “a social safety net”—i.e., lack of socialism—as the sources of unhappiness? They could have saved themselves time, money, and the clever use of dubious statistics and just interviewed Maxine Waters—or Kim Jong Un.
Should we really be surprised that the UN, the body that commissioned this report, didn’t like Trump’s speech?
As for the myth that Iceland and Scandinavia are socialist utopias, it is interesting to note that these countries rank highest in the use of antidepressants. Iceland holds the top spot while Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are all in the top ten. It seems they rank high because they are, well, high.
While speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen rejected the idea that his country is socialist even though it has a much larger social welfare system: “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
I am currently going around the world investigating the question of national greatness. In the last month, I have been in Japan, Singapore, and China. Traveling across Asia, you quickly discover that no one outside of Pyongyang has faith in the tenets of Marx and Lenin anymore. Not even China is truly socialistic. That is because they knowsocialism doesn’t work.
No, the people who believe in that naïve, unworkable, utopian ideology no longer live in Beijing, Moscow, or Hanoi. On the contrary, socialism’s modern advocates reside in such places as London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and, increasingly, Washington.
Since we are using happiness as an indicator of socialism’s emotional influence, let’s look at Gallup’s least happy country: Ukraine. I’ve spent a lot of time in that country. Indeed, I’ve written a book on it, and I can tell you that Ukraine has been economically, intellectually, and spiritually assassinated by socialism. Five more socialist (or formerly socialist) countries make Gallup’s bottom ten.
Trump is right to say that “wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”
The failure of socialism is a wholly unjustified confidence in human government. It is, as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky observed long ago, “the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth, but to set up Heaven on earth.”
Larry Alex Taunton is the author of The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist (2016) and the Executive Director of the Fixed Point Foundation. You can follow him at larryalextaunton.com or on Twitter @ LarryTaunton.
©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
It honestly reminds me of the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz, he stands behind the curtain and fools people into thinking that he is greater, smarter and more powerful than he truly is. Mark Levin wrote a book on the history of the Supreme Court which has some fantastic true stories about some of the looney tunes who have maintained a seat on the bench! There are some honestly great and fair minds on the bench who adhere to the Constitution as written. This post has nothing to say about them, but………
A retired teacher (72) who was searching for information on student district enrollment data year 2016 was sued by the Louisiana Department of Education merely because he requested the info. When finally released, the data actually demonstrated that there was an expanding gap in achievement between Louisiana’s poorest students and the majority percentage.A mother in Oregon who was looking into why certain employees at her local school had been paid to stay home for a while (one at least 3 years) was sued by this school her children attended for requesting information that the District Attorney had evidently previously ordered released.
Western Kentucky University filed suit against their own student newspaper after it requested the details of a sexual harassment case against a professor who resigned.
The above details courtesy of Ryan J. Foley – AP
I was skimming through the paper and noticed that educational institutions and governments are fighting FOIA and other reasonable public info requests by suing the people who request the data. Why not? As a weapon of choice it has worked very well for democrats fighting the immigration limits and other Executive Orders that they do not like. Find a judge that leans to your point of view and you are sure to win!
An Executive Order is issued from the executive and has never been intended to be for judicial review absent emergency circumstances. Courts were not established to police and set boundaries for the country. The three branches working together within the dictates of the Constitution are responsible for their own areas and should never be allowed to grab power by encroaching into another’s area of power and responsibility. I know I am being redundant as I must have said this in a dozen posts, but when we get away from the dictates of the Constitution we take on trouble.
Unfortunately, after systematically stuffing the federal courts with radically liberal judges who believe that the Constitution is a fluid living document, subject to loose interpretation according to the beliefs of the day, democrats and liberals of all stripes make use of those courts whenever possible. They use the courts to attempt control of the president, administrative agencies, senators, representatives, educational institutions, churches and now even citizens who ask for public information they are entitled to have. Our judicial system was never meant to be used as a weapon. Neither was it intended to be used to manipulate or control the remaining two branches of government, it is merely a check and a balance as the executive branch and the legislative branch are both also checks and balances against the judicial branch.
This is abuse of process! It is domination and rule by the courts and it must stop now! Like so many other things occurring in society now, this is hard to believe and harder to find a solution for. But, we cannot be free when we must submit to the rule of an unelected mob in mystic black robes operating outside of the Constitution.