Is Brady The NFL's Racism Inoculation?

The NFL issued a disciplinary action against Tom Brady calling for his suspension for four games. This isn't terribly unusual, the NFL has issued 10 such suspensions in August of 2015 alone. Many, including this obscure blogger; have wondered - "Why does the NFL seem obsessed with suspending Tom Brady?" After all, he is a marquee player, and has no history of wrong doing - on or off the field.

Yesterday, I had a random thought, and did a little investigation of recent disciplinary actions in the NFL. Seems like the recipients of disciplinary suspensions in the NFL aren't exactly a "cross section of America" - or even the NFL.


Is it possible that the NFL's aggressive prosecution of Brady's suspension and their apparent obsession with not only discipline but public humiliation - is a conscious effort to divert public attention from the fact that the NFL disciplines blacks at a far higher rate than whites?

Unfortunately, in the atmosphere created by a President that declares our entire country guilty of having racism in our DNA - it's definitely a possibility that Brady's race is making him a target of NFL. The race grievance industry has made a living off of "outcome based evidence." That is, they contend that any outcome that results in one race being disproportionately effected is prima-facia evidence of racism. They've used "outcome based evidence" to change law and public policy on loan approvals, hiring, and now of course - police shootings. Even though police shootings aren't disproportionate - just the media hype that are - seems enough to evoke the wrath of the outcome based evidence Nazi's.

Given that climate and the NFL's other obsession to be on the cutting edge of political correctness it seems entirely possible that the NFL is seeking inoculation from being accused of racism in its disciplinary action.  

I hope it's not so. But I can't help but think that it is.

Maybe if Brady puts on a dress, makeup, and declares he's a woman - he'll get on the right side of the NFL's quest for social justice.


Add a comment

Is the Hillary Email Scandal a Ruse?

It's occurred to me that Hillary's current email controversy is miles away from where it started.

When the "" was revealed, the big concerns were Benghazi, and donations to the Clinton Foundation which were numerous and well documented in Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash.

Now the controversy is focused on her discussing "classified information" on email - as Secretary of State. Sorry, but despite the current feeding frenzy, I don't believe that is going to be her undoing. Secretary's of State are supposed to deal in classified info. Sure, her email system was poorly constructed and probably violated numerous security standards...

But that's never been a secret. She sent and received 10's of thousands of emails over 4 years on that account. It's difficult to claim that wouldn't constitute some level of approval - and it's hard to see where that won't eventually become her defense.

We seem to have accepted that she's turned over most of her email and server, we're ignoring that there is no reference to donations and almost none to Benghazi, and running down this rabbit hole about classified information.

The truth is Hillary has turned over NO emails. She has turned over printed paper containing  what she claims are unedited text of all her official email. Even if she didn't edit, alter, or delete anything from the email prior to printing; by it's very nature it lacks all of the header information, any active links, or attachments. Yet, we've already accepted her paper dump as "her email" - even though we know that she purposefully destroyed all digital evidence that could verify the authenticity of her email.

If there were any serious effort to "investigate" Clinton, the senders and recipients of the reported emails would have their email records subpoena'd and compared with the paper versions for edit's. ANY modification could be considered brazen obstruction. It also could lead to thousands of additional emails that were not submitted. But really, how is destroying a hard drive of information under investigation not already brazen obstruction?

But nobody is looking past the submitted documents - or even suggesting they might  not be complete or unedited.  

It just sounds to me like this is another successful innoculation by the Clintons, and when someone questions; foreign donations, Benghazi, or email; she'll invoke the famed "asked and answered, old news" defense for which the Clinton's are famous.

just sayin...

Add a comment

Erick Erickson Creates Trumps Macaca Moment

Erick Erickson has banned the Republican front runner from his forum of Presidential candidates, joining a long list of morons hoping to enhance their own status by piling on a Republican that threatens the status quo. 

The current frenzy about Trump calling poor Mrs. Kelly "hormonal" is absurd. His comment about blood coming from her eyes was clearly a statement of his belief that she was "going for blood", "a kill shot", "a take out" - or at least that's how any normal human would take it. 

Just like anyone would take George Allen purposely mangling an opposition researchers name as a mild insult, the Washington Post found a non-existant link between the word "Macaca" and racism. After weeks of making Allens "racism" the leading story of the race - we got Senator Jim Webb.

I'm not a Trump supporter. But idiots like Erickson, Kelly, and Luntz are pushing me his way. Why the GOP insists on taking out their most popular people is a mystery. I guess that makes why they lose Presidential elections no mystery at all. 

Add a comment

Trump's Mandatory Deportation Plan - Fact or Fantasy?

Trump released his immigration plan and the major media is in a frenzy over its highly offensive concept of enforcing immigration law. Much has been made of his Mandatory return of all criminal aliens. Many are anxious to point out the "impossibility" of deporting huge numbers of illegals.

They're missing the point.

Having a policy of deporting criminal aliens does not mean one immediately mobilizes all available resources in an attempt to implement the policy. It simply means that when a criminal alien is encountered in the normal course of law enforcement - they will face deportation.

Consider the policy on drunk driving, most localities have a policy of jailing all drunk drivers. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "an estimated one-fifth to one-fourth of U.S. drivers admit to having driven after drinking." Clearly, it's "impossible" to jail the 10's of millions of drunk drivers - but it doesn't mean that we don't jail those that we find. 

Such a policy is completely plausible and actually consistent with most law enforcement policies. It is the pro-amnesty philosophy of "you can't catch them all - so you must let them all go" that is intellectually flawed and inconsistent. No nation approaches any transgression in that manner.

So... Despite the the histrionics of the left; nothing about the proposed policy of Mandatory return of all criminal aliens is unworkable - or even unusual.

Add a comment

Read more: Trump's Mandatory Deportation Plan - Fact or Fantasy?

Obama Demanded Iraq Parliament Approve SOFA - Denies US Congress Role in Iran Nuke Deal

Ok, maybe I'm just ticked because nobody seems to think this is significant but...

The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq which launched the rise of ISIS and unleashed a continuing wave of unspeakable violence and brutality in the Middle East - was due to the failure to reach a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) with Iraq. Perhaps the largest reason that such an agreement failed was because unlike previous SOFA's: Obama and the US State Department lead by HILLARY CLINTON :


Now, Obama and the US State Department, lead by John Kerry, openly mock the role of the duly elected representatives of the United States to have any role in the Iranian Nuclear "Non Deal."

So, will any of the media who chase down every member of the GOP and demand that they denounce the latest rantings of Donald Trump try to ask either Obama, Hillary, or Kerry:

"You demanded the Iraqi Parliament participate in the SOFA negotiation - why are you denying US Congressional input in the Iran Nuke Deal?" 

Add a comment