Mainstream media often turns to the Southern Poverty Law Center as the authority on hate groups in the United States. Their ever-expanding list of organizations they label as spreaders of hate could be a valuable resource if it wasn’t so blatantly biased against any conservative thought.

As this article is being posted, Richard Spencer is scheduled to speak at the University of Florida shortly. He and his white nationalist movement have been labeled as a hate group and pretty much everything I know about them makes the label appropriate. All of the articles I’ve read about the event mention SPLC’s label. This would be a good thing without the aforementioned bias.

With the bias, SPLC is an elaborate joke being played on the media that doesn’t really have a punchline.

One of the organizations on the list is Windsor Hills Baptist Church. When I lived in Oklahoma a decade ago, I knew people who went to the church then and I assume they still go to the church now. I’m familiar with their teachings and their traditional views on marriage. They were placed on the list because Reverend Tom Vineyard made a statement before the city council that included declaring that 33% of child molesters were homosexual. One statement. That was six years ago. The church is still on the list.

Who’s not on the list? Black Lives Matter.

Who else isn’t on the list? Antifa.

To label a pastor and his congregation as a hate group because of one conservative-leaning statement, then to ignore the blatant and dangerous hatred that drives two liberal groups turns a potentially useful list into a parody of itself. How can they have a single ounce of credibility when they have a hair-trigger pointed at conservatives while holding judgment against liberals until the outcry is too great? In fact, the “liberal” groups they include on their list are invariably there because of at least one semi-conservative position in their agenda.

Black Lives Matter can promote violence against police all day without fear of being labeled by SPLC, but if they ever spoke out against LGBT rights, they’d probably make the list in a heartbeat. That’s how SPLC works. A hate group is only considered a hate group if they cross a threshold based upon ideology rather than actual hate. As long as groups like BLM and Antifa point their hatred in the “right” direction, SPLC considers their hatred as righteous.

This isn’t really about SPLC, though. They have the right to their opinions and while I completely disagree with their methodology and ideology, I would never ask them to stop doing what they’re doing. What’s troubling is the media’s love for their list. There’s no such thing as a truly unbiased journalist, but they should hold themselves accountable to the truth first. The SPLC hate group list is not the truth. It’s an agenda-driving narrative. That the media gives them so much authority on the issue is both unprofessional and dishonest.

Hate groups should be condemned based upon their actions and messages. SPLC passes out its condemnation based upon ideology alone. The media needs to stop giving them such a tall platform if they’re unwilling to define hate in an unbiased manner.

Prager U elaborated last week:

Earlier this week we heard the story of a Massachusetts Businessman who while employing 150 people in the state and apparently delivering good products and services to his customers made a critical mistake.

He did something that appeared to make President Trump look good.

According to Dave, he didn’t even know what else was in the order, nor was he a fan of the President. But this looked like a good deal for small businesses so he jumped at the chance.

Now that the picture has surfaced and been passed around on social media, he’s getting menacing phone calls and facing threats of boycotts from pet owners, soda drinkers and pretty much everyone who hates Donald Trump. The local paper interviewed folks at the dog park in Northhampton and pretty much all of them were in the loop and ready to hang Dave out to dry.

Welcome to social activism on the Left in 2017. A guy who provides 150 local jobs and serves a popular (if eclectic) consumer niche was trying to find a way to get more affordable group health insurance for his workers. When that goal was achieved he accepted an invitation he’d never asked for to go to the White House and celebrate that achievement. And now the liberal hordes on social media are trying to shut him down. Over a photgraph. Great job, guys.

So for the crime of appearing in a picture of with President Trump in the oval office good Massachusetts liberals have decided that Dave  Ratner is beyond the pale.

Dave now wishes he had never gone to the White house, and I’m sure the Massachusetts left agrees.  If only he had been someone who could have made trouble for the President perhaps someone like Sreynuon Lunn:

Surely you remember this career criminal from Cambodia. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled three months ago that law enforcement had no right to arrest or detain Lunn or anyone else “at the request of Federal immigration authorities, pursuant to a civil immigration order.”

Lunn had already been cut loose because of a different insane U.S. Supreme Court decision shielding violent illegal immigrants from deportation. But the SJC ruling re: Lunn, moot as it was, was hailed as basically making Massachusetts a “sanctuary state” for foreign criminals.

Attorney General Maura Healey hailed the SJC for its “smart” decision….

I had heard about this Cambodian Lunn months before the SJC decision. I got a call from a judge I know who had just come back from a judicial conference. He was appalled that all the tax-fattened hacks had been bragging that they had “found” a case that was going to allow them to shield criminal illegal aliens from deportation.

They were ecstatic, the judge told me, at the prospect of somehow sticking it to Trump.

See Dave that’s how you do it, you help the AG and the Massachusetts Left foil Donald Trump and even if you commit a crime the Attorney General will be hailing your release.  Even if it means you do something like this once you’re out…

An alleged drug addict — who was the face of a blockbuster high-court case that bars Bay State law enforcement from holding illegal immigrants for the feds — has been arrested for a brazen broad-daylight robbery and attack on an elderly woman in a wheelchair, police say.

Sreynuon Lunn, who was born to Cambodian parents in a refugee camp in Thailand, was arrested Tuesday after police say he and a friend, identified as Tiffany Bovio, wheeled an older woman away from a Bank of America near Charles River Plaza, hit her in the head and took $2,000 from her…

…Security camera footage shows Lunn and Bovio pushing the victim in a wheelchair from the direction of the Bank of America to where the woman was robbed, according to the report. Four minutes later, they were seen walking away from the robbery area together, police say.

…you still won’t face the vengeful wrath of any self righteous Massachusetts Liberal.  What’s one handicapped woman being robbed (or decades of women being abused in Hollywood) next to the chance for the left to score a political point, particularly against Trump.

I really miss the state I grew up in sometimes.



Normally you would see my tip jar pitch here and while I would encourage to at all times to hit said jar I’d like to pitch the GoFundme campaign of old friend conservative journalist Warner Todd Huston or rather his son whose campaign to raise money to replace his father’s car that was torched by “parties unknown” is, as of this writing,  still six grand short

Of course if you want to do that and still hit DaTipJar




Or subscribe


Choose a Subscription level



or buy my book

I’m fine with that too.

On Friday, October 6th President, Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, released sweeping religious liberty protections.   Contained in these protections is a reversal of ObamaCare’s conception mandate.  Most of these religious liberty protections are nothing new at all.  They are contained in the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  Unfortunately that clause has been ignored completely by those promoting the mythical constitutional provision called the separation of church and state.  Here are excerpts from the new guidelines:

Religious liberty is enshrined in the text of our Constitution and in numerous federal statutes. It encompasses the right of all Americans to exercise their religion freely, without being coerced to join an established church or to satisfy a religious test as a qualification for public office. It also encompasses the right of all Americans to express their religious beliefs, subject to the same narrow limits that apply to all forms of speech. In the United States, the free exercise of religion is not a mere policy preference to be traded against other policy preferences. It is a fundamental right.

Attorney General Sessions is mostly correct in this statement.  I’m not sure exactly what limits he is talking about.  The Free Exercise Clause demands that the federal government refrain from meddling in the exercise of religion in any way.  Any restrictions of religious practices were left to the individual States where the people living there can keep their government from abusing this most sensitive power.   The States, rather that the federal government, have the authority to ban such harmful practices as human sacrifice, ritual mutilation, and polygamy.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.

Attorney General Sessions is correct on this particular protection, which dates back to the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Constitutional protections for religious liberty are not conditioned upon the willingness of a religious person or organization to remain separate from civil society. Although the application of the relevant protections may differ in different contexts, individuals and organizations do not give up their religious-liberty protections by providing or receiving social services, education, or healthcare; by seeking to earn or earning a living; by employing others to do the same; by receiving government grants or contracts; or by otherwise interacting with federal, state, or local governments.

The Free Exercise of Religion Clause prevents the federal government from interfering with the religious beliefs of anyone.  This includes all individual and all groups of individuals.  There are no exceptions to this clause so the Attorney General is correct with this statement,

RFRA protects the exercise of religion by individuals and by corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies. For example, the Supreme Court has held that Hobby Lobby, a closely held, for-profit corporation with more than 500 stores and 13,000 employees, is protected by RFRA.

The right of conscious has always been a key component of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause.  It is one of the God=given Natural Rights protected by that clause.  Because of the First Amendment, the Obama Administration was absolutely wrong when it tried to force individuals, companies, and religious organizations to violate their religious principles.  Sessions was right to set aside the contraception mandate however his justification was flawed when he cited the RFRA as his sole justification.

A careful examination of the drafting of the First Amendment will prove that the Attorney General’s guidelines are all contained in the Free Exercise of Religion Clause.  Here is an excerpt from the Virginia Ratifying Convention for the Constitution, when the Free Exercise of Religion Clause was proposed.  This took place on June 27, 1788.

20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others.

Here is an early Draft of First Amendment by James Madison.  This passage is from the House of Representatives transcripts from the drafting of the Bill of Rights, June 8 1789

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Here is a later Draft from August 15, 1789, which was read by Mr. Doudinot, who was sitting as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.

Here is the discussion that followed that reading:

Mr. [Daniel] Carroll.–As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than almost any other amendment he had heard proposed.

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

As you can see from this excerpt, the right of conscious is an integral component of the Free Exercise Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  This has been repeatedly ignored by the federal government for over almost 100 years.  The guidelines issued by Attorney General Sessions simply restore this clause back to the original meaning.  Unfortunately a future president can simply ignore it and return us back to where we were before its release.  We the people need to insist the federal government follow the original meaning of this extremely important clause.

In case you missed it while people hashtag “#MeToo“, John Solomon and Alison Spann report that in 2009 the FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow, Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One.

Russia and the Clintons:

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
. . .
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer [sic] and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

How much? US$145 million.

Russian bribes and kickbacks endangering national security:

The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.

One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.

Russia gets the uranium:

In 2011, the [Obama] administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

Regarding that 2011 approval, Ed Morrissey notes that there were two deals: Rosatom’s 2010 purchase of Uranium One, and the 2011 “approval for Rosatom to vastly expand its sales of uranium inside the US through its Tenex subsidiary.”

The DOJ did nothing for years (emphasis added):

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

Solomon and Spann point out that

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.

That smells like a political cover-up of the first magnitude.

Indeed, today  Solomon and Spann report that

An American businessman who worked for years undercover as an FBI confidential witness was blocked by the Obama Justice Department from telling Congress about conversations and transactions he witnessed related to the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton and influence Obama administration decisions, his lawyer tells The Hill.

John Hinderaker asks,

who supervised the Russia investigation? Rod Rosenstein. Who was the FBI director when the Russia probe began in 2009? Robert Mueller. Who was running the FBI when the case ended with a whimper and an apparent cover-up? James Comey.

Rosenstein and Muller should resign over conflict of interest, but I’m sure they will not.

And these are not the only players in the case. Last year I posted on the Clinton’s Colombian Fondo Acceso partner Frank Giustra, whose mining company merged with three Kazakhstan mining companies, after which it was acquired by Rosatom. Guess who authorized that,

Because uranium is a strategic asset, the sale required (and received) approval from multiple U.S. agencies, including the Department of State, then run by Hillary Clinton.

Last night in Sean Hannity’s show (35 minutes into the video) Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, explained that Hillary knew that the Russians were trying to corner the uranium market, that the donations to the Clinton Foundation were hidden, and, as if things weren’t bad enough, that “Uranium One, now owned by Rosatom, is actually exporting yellowcake from the United States,” when the uranium is supposed to stay in the U.S.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into the case.

Don’t hold your breath on this story making it to the front pages.

UPDATE

Two and a half years ago at Da Tech Guy: Oh look, the guy behind the Clinton uranium deal was also the guy behind the Clinton FTA deal

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

Yesterday I argued that the there was an actual reason why the San Francisco 49ers might as well sign Colin Kaepernick (2-10 last year as a starter) as they can’t do any worse with him as they have been doing without him (0-6) but there is one other reason why it doesn’t really matter anymore if the instigator (or as I suspect the boyfriend of the REAL instigator) of the NFL protests is signed.

It’s because the damage has already been done.

For the owners and the players who by contract (rightly) get a large share of revenue the decision to first tolerate Kaepernick’s solo protest and then to react to , rather than ignore, the President’s remarks at his famous Alabama appearance for the defeated Luther Strange has burst the dam.

They have managed to turn the most popular sport in the nation into one of  the most divisive brands in the country.

After more than a year of rampant NFL player protests, the National Football League is now seen as one of the most divisive brand names in America, a new report finds.

As reported in the New York Times, a new Morning Consult survey found that the NFL is viewed as “polarizing,” by nearly as many people as view President Donald Trump’s hotels that way. The survey found that the NFL now figures in among the top ten most polarizing brand names. The top ten most divisive list includes Trump hotels, CNN, NBC News, The New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, the NFL, ABC News, HuffPost, and CBS News.

They have managed to tank the ratings to the point where CBS’ stock is suffering:

Declining NFL television ratings will lower CBS earnings, according to Credit Suisse.

The firm cut its third-quarter EPS estimates by 5 percent, citing CBS’ softer Sunday NFL ratings. The media company reports on Nov. 2.

Which means bad news when renegotiating contracts:

The downgrade comes at a time when the NFL is negotiating two important distribution deals that end after this season: Verizon’s $250 million a year streaming agreement and the $450 million a year Thursday Night Football deal for games shared by CBS and NBC.

 Through five weeks, the league’s ratings are substantially lower this season, according to Nielsen data obtained by Sporting News.:

The league’s average TV audience through Week 5 of the 2017 season dropped 7% vs. the same period of the 2016 season, and the average game audiences are down 18% compared to the first five weeks of the 2015 season.

How bad is it?  While at a bar I actually saw an ad run for people to get on the Patriots season ticket waiting list which is undoubtedly the result of the decision of 17 pats to kneel that first week after the Trump speech:

They have not kneeled since but apparently the damage is already done. Which is why the networks spent this week pretending the protests weren’t happening and the league which spent a year denying that the anthem protests were hurting their bottom line is desperate for a solution.

But given this story:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, owners of each team, representatives of the players’ union and players themselves will meet Tuesday to discuss ways to “move from protest to progress.”

Among the topics will be enhancing their platforms for speaking out on social issues, and the league’s policy that suggests but does not mandate players standing for the national anthem.

There is a quiet mandate, though, for those discussions: figuring out how to get the attention back on those social issues, not how they are being publicized.

And getting the attention back on football.

I can tell you it will not help. The very fact that “social issues” are on the agenda gives it away. This is a football league and it’s purpose is to play football. If players want to get involved off the field that’s fine but it’s not the league’s job to push the left’s political agenda.

Most incredible of all, they have done this in defiance of their ticket buying fan base on behalf of a bunch of liberals whose only interest in the game is being seen at the spectacle of a super bowl and an ultra liberal sports media who convinced them they it was the thing to do.

I think short of an abject apology the owner, from players individually and the players union as a whole for disrespecting the flag (an apology that many fans would love to accept) the days of the NFL as it once was is over.

Update: This is a start

The Jacksonville Jaguars have apologized to local military leaders for demonstrating during the national anthem in London last month…”This was an oversight and certainly not intended to send a message that would disparage you, our flag or our nation,” Lamping wrote to Bill Spann, director of Jacksonville’s military affairs and veterans department.

The line that really hit me was this:

“The notion never entered the minds of our players or anyone affiliated with the Jacksonville Jaguars, but today we can understand how the events in London on September 24 could have been viewed or misinterpreted,”

Yes you read that right, the notion never entered the minds of either the players or the management of the Jacksonville Jaguars that disrespecting the US flag while standing for God save the queen on foreign soil might be insulting to America.

That tells you everything you need to know.

by baldilocks

The church I regularly attend is multi-racial, but I didn’t choose it because of that. I chose it because of other churches and other pastors. I chose it because of situations like the following.

From Lloyd Marcus:

My brother Jerry is a deacon in his all-black church. Jerry called to tell me he confronted his pastor, telling him it is unchristian to include a hateful rant against Trump in every sermon. His pastor firmly believes Trump is a rabid racist. I asked Jerry, “What was your pastor’s response?”

Jerry said his pastor gave him the same blank stare he always receives from fellow blacks when he states commonsense views that are contrary to Democrat lies believed by that most blacks. Condescendingly, Jerry’s pastor said he understood his concerns. Meanwhile, his attacks on Trump from the pulpit continue. Jerry said every guest speaker at his church includes trashing Trump in their sermon.

I want to be clear about this: it isn’t the bashing of Republicans or of Trump in particular that bothers me. It’s that is being done from the pulpit as a part of the sermon. A pastor’s job is to tend to the sheep: to lead them in their walk with and toward Christ. Any other purpose is leading the flock astray.

In fact, the church belongs to Christ, not to individual pastors/reverends/priests, etc.; it is entrusted to these individuals, but it’s not theirs. When these leaders stoke and provoke anger as opposed to faith and prayer about any person or any topic, they have become wolves in pastor’s clothing.

But we all know that, for many of these people, it’s about getting butts in the seats. And most people are comfortable with having their anger and victimhood nourished.

Meanwhile, who is exhorting these people to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness?

The Bible says that we will all give account for our words and actions, but pastors, etc. have a special standard to meet. I don’t even want to think about what’s in store for these misleaders of God’s church if they don’t do a 180.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

Every year I wait for a call from the MacArthur Foundation telling me I was going to receive more than half a million bucks. Alas, I didn’t get one of the so-called “genius grants” again this year.

What I came to realize many years ago was that the foundation is simply funding a band of social justice warriors, numbering nearly 1,000 since the grants started in 1981.

Let’s look at some of the recipients announced earlier this month:

–Cristina Jimenez Moreta founded United We Dream in 2008 to secure the rights of immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

–Rami Nashabi is a community leader who focuses on poverty in Chicago’s Muslim communities.

–Nikole Hannah-Jones writes about “urban segregation” in education.

Critic Martin Morse Wooster made the point about leftist bias in “The MacArthur Foundation: A donor without a cause spawns a foundation with an agenda.”

“What do the Federation of American Scientists, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Arms Control Association, the League of Women Voters, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, and the National Commission on Energy Policy have in common — aside from solid leftist credentials? Each receives funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.” MacArthur is everywhere on the left, openly supporting the progressive policy agenda, including the “climate change agenda — which is often a cover for more nefarious, radical economic change.”

 
In December 2015, MacArthur Foundation President Julia Stasch co-authored an opinion piece in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, calling upon “fellow grant makers, advocates, business leaders, government officials, and citizens” to make climate change a priority. In doing so, Stasch used her influence to lead other organizations into a complicated web of progressive foundations, pushing radical economic change.

Some “genius grants” have been known to go awry. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, was a 2003 recipient who created fictitious documents to discredit a conservative group that attacked climate change. See http://fakegate.org/

The MacArthur Foundation also has a geographical bias that favors leftists, with New York and California leading the pack in getting “genius” grants. Apparently, the foundation has yet to find a “genius” in Wyoming, my family’s home state, and not many in flyover country, where I spent most of my formative years. See http://www.aei.org/publication/the-reluctant-philanthropist/

The foundation was set up as a tax dodge by John D. MacArthur, an insurance magnate who often played fast and loose with other people’s money. Maybe the IRS should look at the foundation’s books—as the Obama Administration did with conservative groups. See http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/index.html

Whatever happens, I probably won’t get a call again next year. But Colin Kaepernick, members of Black Lives Matter, and other social justice warriors will likely become so-called “geniuses” some day soon.

Chicago’s South Side last autumn

I’m not a fan of Colin Kaepernick or his protests.  I think he’s a rich dirtbag fraud who has been pushed into this nonsense by his young lady and no concept of actual reality.  I think he’s a proper object for a combination of pity for his ignorance and contempt for his actions.   Furthermore I’ve resented the MSM/ESPN etc trying to pressure teams to sign a 2-10 QB for social justice reasons.

I have however, also said over the course of a season due to the nature of the game (injuries etc) Kaepernick might be a useful choice for a team and that if there is a solid football reason to sign him, my contempt for him is not a valid excuse for a team not to.

Well in my opinion that time has come.  There is a team that needs a change quick and Colin Kaepernick would be the perfect tool (pun intended) to achieve that change.

That team is the San Francisco 49ers.

Consider these five reasons why SF and Kaepernick is an excellent fit:

Colin Kaepernick was 2-10 last season starting for that team, that is pathetic by normal football standards, however the San Francisco 49ers are currently 0-6.  So while Kaepernick’s record is horrible his winning percentage last year is .167 above the current winning percentage of San Francisco.

While there is a new coach in San Francisco this year there is not a new team wholesale, Kaepernick is familiar with the players, and fans and they are familiar with him.  That would cut down considerably on the assimilation time.

San Francisco has lost their last 5 games by 3 points or less.  Even a small improvement at QB would have turned some of those losses into wins.  Despite his record last year Kaepernick was at one time a premier QB in the league and is likely enough of an improvement to turn some of those losses into wins.

San Francisco needs a short term solution  as it searches for its quarterback of the future.  Kaepernick likely doesn’t have more than a couple of years left in him thus bringing him in doesn’t mess with the long term plan much.

Finally you don’t want to pay a lot for a short term solution, Kaepernick would not (or should not anyways) be an expensive signing and is unlikely to hurt the team on their cap space (and BOY would it solve a lot of problems for the league if he refused an offered contract because he thought it was too low).

Those are all the football reasons why Kaepernick to San Francisco would be a good signing for the team.  He’s a no good bastard but San Francisco’s job is to win games and I think Kaepernick is the most logical choice to help them do so in the short term.  Now let me give you one reason why the NFL would absolutely love this to happen.

San Francisco already has the largest contingent of players protesting in the league and shows no sign of stopping they are constantly being booed over it.  Thus the addition of Kaepernick to SF will not change that image or hurt attendance (and given that it’s San Francisco the heart of the land of Harvey Weinstein Democrats it might even put a few fans in the seats) and will take the pressure of SJW’s off of every other team.  Furthermore once he is signed Kaepernick, becomes the face of the protests and the focus of the anger over them instead of the league. Suddenly he, instead of Goodell becomes the villain in the story.  

Now for myself I don’t think that will work in the long term, I think the fans won’t forget and that the players who choose to protest the anthem can kiss any future endorsement deals goodbye but I don’t see a better plan for the NFL to distract angry fans and advertisers.

Anyway that’s my two cents.

In Gill v. Whitford, democrats are challenging Wisconsin’s congressional district map, claiming that the Republican majority redrew the lines in an unconstitutional way back in 2010. The Constitution permits states to determine legislative districts, thus it is a legislative function. However, since Democrats haven’t won what they consider enough seats in Congress (i.e., all of them), they reason that there must be something wrong. It would be easy to say that what’s wrong is simply their understanding of the Constitution, but I believe there is something much more sinister going on.

In order to challenge the current district map, they have concocted something called an “efficiency index,” which Chief Justice Roberts correctly called “sociological gobbledygook” during oral arguments. The index purports to calculate the number of citizens of either party who wind up represented by a legislator of the opposite party, and Democrats are claiming that, since this calculation shows that more democrats live in districts that elected republicans than vice versa, the courts should usurp the legislative power of redistricting to create a district map that is more in Democrats’ favor.

If that were all, it would be bad enough. We have seen repeatedly over the years that it is easy to find a federal judge willing to reach beyond the Constitutional judicial role and claim jurisdiction over just about any issue, particularly when it is a matter of “fairness.” Only the Supreme Court can decide once and for all that this must remain a legislative function, but Democrats are hoping that the Court will decide on some kind of formula to control redistricting. Let’s set aside the impossibility of creating such a formula that would account for the possible future movement of citizens such that what is a Republican district today may, in less than 10 years, become a majority-Democrat district (If you don’t think this is possible, just look at New Hampshire). I believe that this entire effort is a Trojan Horse to eliminate the Electoral College.

Democrats have long hated the Electoral College, but that hate has grown to the heat of several white-hot stars since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton (I love writing that) last November, even while losing the popular vote. They have hated the Electoral College going back at least to the 2000 victory of George W. Bush, and have been pursuing the National Popular Vote project for many years. This project is an attempt to convince enough states to constitute a majority of the Electoral College to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This is possible since the Constitution allows each state to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” its Electoral College delegates. But the fact that this is possible doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea.

The NPVP is trying to convince enough states to appoint electors who will vote for the winner of the national popular vote. So much for Democrats bravely telling Electors to “vote their conscience” and select Mrs. Clinton. Now they want to remove any discretion from Electors and force them to vote for a particular candidate.

But here’s where the Wisconsin case comes in. If the Supreme Court decides that the “efficiency index” or some other bogus formula should be used to make representation more “fair,” then Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will claim that the Supreme Court has ruled that elections that fail to meet this “test” are unconstitutional. Therefore, they will claim that, since the Electoral College can lead to a situation where the “wrong” candidate is elected president, the Electoral College itself, apportioning Electors on a winner-take-all basis as they have since the beginning of our republic, is by this standard unconstitutional. What better way to try and convince states to adopt the National Popular Vote? Let us hope that the Supreme Court recognizes this case for the long-game con that it is and rejects the plaintiff’s case.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – The next mayor of New Orleans will be a woman.  In Saturday’s mayoral election, two women finished with a majority of the votes and will face off in a November runoff election.

While we’ve spent much of the past two years talking about monuments, neither candidate wanted to bring that issue into the campaign, with candidate Desiree Charbonnet calling it “a huge distraction.”

The race finished Saturday night with Desiree Charbonnet, a former Municipal Court Judge, and City Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell at the top of a long field of candidates. Charbonnet is a lifelong resident of New Orleans and had the bigger war chest and perhaps the better connections.

LaToya Cantrell is from California but moved to New Orleans in 1999 to attend Xavier University.  She was very politically active after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when the levees broke and flooded her Broadmoor neighborhood.  She was actively involved in the rebuilding and restoration of that neighborhood.

Writing for The Hayride, Owen Courrèges sums up the candidates. On Charbonnet, he says:

Charbonnet is a former Chief Municipal Judge and Recorder of Mortgages for Orleans Parish, positions that shed little light on her policy predilections or executive abilities. Her candidacy for mayor has been punctuated by intense mudslinging; her opponents essentially call her corrupt and intimate that she’ll be selling the city to the highest bidder.  Charbonnet’s coterie consists largely of establishment figures who have been pulling strings for decades, which tends to justify these suspicions.

Nevertheless, Charbonnet is attempting to portray herself as a reformer, and the centerpiece of her agenda is her crime prevention plan.  Her plan entails the old policy sawhorses of hiring more officers and having a national search for a new police chief, but also in reducing funding to monitoring the federal consent decree.  Unfortunately, the NOPD needs more oversight and supervision, not less.  Overall, her crime plan is less a breath of fresh air than it is a revolting burst of halitosis.

And for Cantrell:

The problem with Cantrell is that she’s a major pusher of progressive, flavor-of-the-month legislation.  If San Francisco did something ten years ago, she wants New Orleans doing it now.  Cantrell pioneered New Orleans’ smoking ban, and has attempted to follow up that victory by passing a ban (or at least a tax) on plastic shopping bags, and a “rental registry” creating a new inspection bureaucracy for all residential rental housing in the city.  She has also been a major force pushing affordable housing mandates for new development, and even proposed that New Orleans provide useless municipal ID cards for illegal immigrants.

Cantrell has a reputation as a hard worker who provides solid constituent services, but her policy agenda is the worst species of faddish dreck.  She seems to have little concern whether the legislation she proposes serve any real purpose other than to make peoples’ lives more difficult.

Neither of the two women earned his vote, by the way, and now they will have about a month to earn the votes from the widely spread field of candidates.

No matter who ends up in the mayoral seat, it has got to be better than Mitch Landrieu.  (Funny, we said that after Ray Nagin’s tenure….)

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.