Sixteen female Senators have sent a letter to the NFL Commissioner calling for a zero tolerance policy regarding domestic violence after the Ray Rice video was released.
Why is this Congress’ business? It would seem to me that Congress should worry about the nation and its problems and leave private business to solve its issues without the nanny state jumping in.
It also seems to me that Congress might want to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding its own members before demanding others do so. Congress is full of people who have done various bad things from tax evasion to domestic violence (gasp). If Congress wants to set an example how about it expel any member who has been involved in a domestic violence episode? How about dumping the tax evaders and the drunkards?
Clean up your own home before you demand others clean theirs.
I do not believe that Commissioner Roger Goodell is telling the truth about the Rice incident and I think he mismanaged it terribly. How the issue is handled is up to the NFL and not Congress.
Perhaps Goodell should respond to the letter by informing the Senators that the NFL is a profitable business that generates 6 billion dollars a year in profit and that its problems are not the concern of Congress. He might want to let them know that while the NFL is profitable the US is 17 TRILLION dollars in debt (and continues to run a deficit) and their attention might be better focused on solving their issues instead of worrying about things that are not their business.
He might even offer to give them some advice on working to get rid of the debt they have accumulated.
Spousal abuse (whether a man or a woman is the abuser) is a bad thing and needs to be addressed by private organizations in the manner they see fit. It is not the business of Congress or the harpies who want some face time.
If these Senators want to make an impact perhaps they could write letters to law enforcement agencies demanding zero tolerance policies since police officers are involved in more domestic violence incidents (nearly twice the rate) than the general population.
Then again that would not be their business though they would at least be interacting with another government agency rather than a private business.
Of course, the first step would be for Congress to clean its ranks of law breakers, sexual harassers, predators and those who engage in domestic violence.
They turn a blind eye to their own and stick their noses in the business of others.
Better yet, these folks might want to turn their attention toward the Muslim Terrorists who treat women badly as a way of life.
No, these morons will embrace them.
Never surrender, never submit.
When someone uses a bomb to blow up a building we go after the bomber not the bomb. When a person uses matches to light a building on fire we go after the arsonist and not the matches. When someone drinks and drives we go after the drunk driver and not the car or the alcohol.
For some reason though, when someone uses a gun to commit a crime we go after the gun. Not only that, they go after the guns of all the people who had nothing to do with the crime.
When I wrote for some reason above I knew the reason and you know it as well. They use incidents of violence with guns to go after guns because they want to disarm all of us. Gun control is not about the gun it is about control and government knows that if it can disarm its citizens it can control its citizens.
This is why we have a Second Amendment. Despite the stupidity of people like Andrew Cuomo of New York the Second Amendment is not there to protect hunting or sport shooting. It is there to protect the population from its own government and any other that tries to attack us.
Make no mistake about it, our Founders protected our right to keep and bear arms so that we would never be held as slaves under a tyrannical government. We would always have the ability to fight our government should the need arise.
This is not a radical idea as our Founders did just that to gain our freedom.
But gun grabbers want to disarm everyone. I know they claim otherwise with nonsense terms like “common sense laws” and such but their plan is to incrementally impose more and more bans until we are disarmed. Places like Maryland are already well along in the anti gun, gun ban, confiscation scheme. Communist Governor Martin O’Malley and the Democrat idiots in the legislature have passed gun laws that are unconstitutional and will hopefully be negated by the Supreme Court (though one can never tell with the outside influences blackmailing justices).
In any event, the shooting at the Navy Yard elicited the same visceral response we have come accustomed to. The immediate reaction of the gun grabbers was to call for more gun control. The reality that the shooting took place in a city that has strict gun control on a military base with strict gun control has not even dawned on the people who are so hell bent on enslaving us that they were screaming for more gun control while the dead bodies were still warm.
Barack Obama lamented that we are once again dealing with this kind of tragedy. I will shoot his words back at him. We are once again dealing with you exploiting a criminal to disarm non criminals. You danced on the bodies of the dead children in Newtown and you are dancing on the dead at the Navy yard.
The narrative was the same in the media as we were bombed with stories of an AR 15 and assault this and assault that.
Turns out the gun used was a shotgun and the pistols used were taken from the guards who were shot. Not to worry, the media came to the rescue like they did when George Zimmerman turned out to be Hispanic instead of white (and thus became the new race of white Hispanic) and invented the new AR 15 shotgun…
We are now finding out that the shooter had a real problem with mental illness and that it was reported months ago but not acted upon by the very government that wants to disarm you for the deeds of the shooter. It also turns out that this guy would spend up to 18 hours at a time playing the Call of Duty video game. It is reported that the game took him to his dark side.
In other words, the video game influenced this mentally ill man to act on his inner dark side. Thus, he sneaked a firearm onto a post and went around shooting people like in the video game.
So now that we know this is it safe for us to conclude that we do not need to ban guns we need to ban video games? The game caused the problem and made this man shoot others. In order to stop this senseless violence we must have the following:
- All people who want to buy a video game must be 21
- All people who want to buy a video game must pay money and submit an application with a set of fingerprints
- All people who want to buy video games must sign a release for a medical and mental health records check
- All video games must no longer be capable of being played longer than 2 hours in a 24 hour period. This is our ban on high capacity video games
- Anyone who purchases a video game must wait 3 days before picking it up so a background check can be completed
- No one can buy more than one video game in a 30 day period
- Online video gaming will no longer be allowed so we can close the internet loophole
These are a must because there are millions of people out there using video games. These games cause people to turn violent and result in death. It is not the person, it is the game and you should never forget that.
We must do this…
…for the children.
However, in keeping with the spirit of Barack Obama’s tenure video games may be given to terrorists.
Yep, Barack Obama wants to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms and wants to impose even tougher restrictions on law abiding citizens while at the same time he has waived the law disallowing us from sending arms to terrorists so he can arm the Syrian Rebels.
Think about it folks, Barack Obama trusts terrorists with firearms but does not trust you with them.
And he knows the terrorists would fail the background check. That is why he waived the law…
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 23, 2013 Political
Many times Kirstie Alley has espoused views that would appear conservative or libertarian. She opposed Obamacare because we don’t have the money to pay for it (ignoring that government does not belong in the health care business) and she defended Clint Eastwood’s chair routine and said that media are biased in favor of Dems. However, she is misguided in her thoughts about violence and her hypocrisy demonstrates that while she is all over the board politically, she is very much a liberal with regard to justice and violence.
Liberalism is a mental disorder and should be classified as such in the DSM-V. The people who follow that ideology are confused and have no sense of reality. The effects of the disorder are often seen through the hypocritical positions liberals take. They will vehemently oppose something when a person from another party introduces it and then support it full tilt when it is introduced by their own party.
Harry Reid was very passionate about why the nuclear option should NOT be exercised when he was in the minority. Just recently he threatened to do exactly that which he opposed only a few short years ago.
Liberals screamed and hollered about George Bush and his illegal wars but said nary a word about Obama’s illegal use of the military (they called the wars illegal and they voted for them).
The very people who claimed time and again that Saddam Hussein had WMD told us how Bush lied when none were found.
To top it off the left screams for peace and hand holding but then protests and starts violence with those who disagree with them. They say that violence is not the answer and then physically attack people.
When the George Zimmerman verdict was announced actress Kirstie Alley tweeted:
White people used to make black people drink from separate fountains…Now we just shoot their children… [Twitchy]
So according to Ms. Alley (who belongs to the Scientology Cult) white people have evolved from separate but equal to violence against the children of blacks.
I guess she would want us to think she is a peaceful person. While I can understand the anguish over the death of a 17 year old kid (and I have already addressed the issue) I think it is moronic to make a blanket statement about whites like she did and I think that it is even more so considering blacks kill their own much more often than whites do.
But this peaceful woman who thinks it was tragic to kill a child who was beating the hell out of someone has no problem with violence against people she does not care for.
Fellow moron Kanye West had an altercation with the Paparazzi at the LA Airport and Ms. Alley “loves” it. She thinks it is great that Kanye went all whack on the Paparazzi.
In fact, she applauds anyone who takes a swing at them.
I do not know what happened with West and the Paparazzi but let us assume that the Paparazzi started the issue. West reacted and an altercation took place. Kirstie Alley is OK with that and applauds ANYONE who takes a swing at them.
She was not so supportive of George Zimmerman who defended himself when a big, strong, drugged up kid broke his nose and bashed his head on the concrete.
See how this works? Alley does not like the Paparazzi (who are just doing their jobs) so it is OK to take a swing at them.
To paraphrase this nut job, actors used to let photographers take pictures of them, now they just beat them up.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 12, 2012 Political
The unions in America are led by thugs and some of the members are thugs who do the union bosses’ bidding. We have seen this throughout the budget debates as unions send their people to disrupt procedures and threaten people. In some cases the unions were involved in violence. The Victory of Scott Walker in Wisconsin was hard fought and the fight was against union thugs who were involved in or incited violence. One only needs to look at the calls for violence against Walker after he won to see the evil that unions can bring.
This video discusses union violence. Some people might find the images disturbing.
Union leadership uses intimidation and forced union membership to keep workers in line and it also uses intimidation and violence to get what it wants. There is no denying that unions, particularly public sector unions, have outlived their usefulness.
I have seen the intimidation tactics first hand when a union (private sector) was trying to get established in a former workplace. One of the thugs tried to coerce me and said he was not going to let me leave until he got his point across and got a commitment (I guess he thought I was going to fill out a card). He found out quickly that he was putting himself in danger.
In any event, these thugs literally get away with murder. They will not stop until they are met with equal force or until Governors like Walker take a stand and beat back these domestic terrorists.
Thanks to Aunt Barb for the link…
This is a link to the same video with a petition drive.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 18, 2011 Political
A man from Idaho named Oscar Ramiro Ortega is in a world of trouble after he fired a weapon at the White House. Barack Obama and his family were not there at the time and ballistic glass prevented any penetration but that does not negate the seriousness of the act. Ortega is being charged with attempted assassination though I think that might be hard to prove. All he has to do is claim he knew Obama was not there (Obama’s travels are in the news) and there can be no intent shown with regard to assassination.
Let me stop here to make it clear. I DO NOT support what this guy did or any act that involves shooting Obama or any other elected person. That is not the proper way to handle things and those kinds of things are not appropriate.
Ortega has been linked to the Occupy DC group, part of the entire Occupy movement which might explain why he was quickly labeled as mentally unstable. Can’t have a left wing radical doing things against the left wing radical Obama.
The question is, since Obama follows Saul Alinsky’s tenets (the ends justify the means) and since he has wholeheartedly supported the Occupy movement, does he support what this guy did?
We already know Obama has no problem with people using violence to get what they want so long as what they want is part of the progressive agenda. Obama is friends with US terrorist Bill Ayers who killed police officers and detonated bombs in this country as part of the progressive movement in the 60s. I know Obama was only a child at that time but one can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps and Obama kept company with a terrorist. Obama has thrown his support behind the Occupy movement even though they have been committing horrific crimes, vandalizing property and attacking police.
So does Obama support what Ortega did?
Ortega was expressing himself in a manner that is consistent with the Occupy movement, Alinsky and Ayers, all of which Obama supports.
I imagine they charged this guy with the attempted assassination and will push to say he is insane (he might well be) in order to hide him away somewhere to make it easier for the State Run Media to ignore it.
The funny thing about all this is that the Media wing of the Democrat party keeps telling us that the Occupy folks are no different than the TEA Party. Really now? How many TEA Party members ever shot at anyone, politician or otherwise? NONE!
As an aside, how many TEA Party events had public health officials concerned about the spread of disease? Again, NONE!
I am not in support of the act committed by Ortega. I do find it ironic that he is a left wing whack job who committed an act that Big Sis at DHS said would come from right wing extremists.
The only things that would make this story (the association, not the act) sweeter is if Ortega was an illegal alien and the gun he used was traced back to Fast and Furious.
Now that would be funny indeed.
Never surrender, never submit.