NFL Commissioner Offers Brilliant Plan To Fix What Isn’t Broken…





NFL Stadium aerial

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has decided that fans are not getting their money’s worth from the nation’s most popular spectator sport. “You want to add excitement with every play,” said the concerned commissioner of the 256 regular season games plus playoff contests played this season.

His solution–make extra points automatic. But if a team decides to go for 2 and fails, the gimmie extra point will be taken away, leaving a 6 rather than 7 point score.

In the 2013 regular season, exactly 5 extra point tries failed. Five! In short, the extra point is already automatic. And when a team fails in a bid to score 2 points, the result is 6! That is, Commissioner Goodell’s automatic extra point is taken away.

Rather than engage in the mental gymnastics required to make Rube Goldberg a participant in every Sunday contest, maybe Commissioner Goodell should consider the damage already inflicted on the game of football in the name of generating excitement.

In 1974, rules concerning pass interference were changed. Receivers could no longer be harrassed by defenders until the ball was in the air. Four years later came the Mel Blount Rule. In a clear effort to help outclassed competition score against the Pittsburgh Steeler defense, the league decided to prevent defensive backs coming into contact with receivers beyond 5 yards of the scrimmage line. The result of this attempt to neuter the Hall of Fame cornerback: Pittsburgh’s Terry Bradshaw had his best season, the Steelers went 14-2, defeated Dallas in the Super Bowl, and would go on to win their 4th championship in 1979. Pretty shrewd, Commissioner Rozell. Pretty shrewd.

All those years ago, the great teams ran the ball. The game of football was a collision sport, in many ways a rougher and more physical game than the one fans see today. Forty years of rules changes have made football a game of pitch and catch. Placed in skirts by rules changes, quarterbacks weep uncontrollably when officials do not properly protect them and their receivers from having to experience actual contact. Are Tom Brady and Peyton Manning better quarterbacks than John Unitas or Fran Tarkenton? Statistics would say yes. But how many touchdown passes would Manning, Brady, or Brees have thrown this year if their receivers had been pummeled on each play at the line of scrimmage as linebackers attempted to decapitate both the pitcher and the catcher even on running plays?

Want to add more “excitement” to the game, Commissioner Goodell? Make it against the rules to rush the passer! Turn 400 yard passing games into 700 or 800! A 10,000 yard passing season and 85 touchdowns thrown. Now wouldn’t THAT be exciting. Institute a rule penalizing the defense for intercepting a pass. Or limit the defensive team to 8 players. Final scores of 110 to 97 would be very exciting.

The far left has already begun its assault on the NFL as trial lawyers attempt to win multi-million dollar settlements for “brain damaged” players who never played a down! Don’t assist them in their efforts by dreaming up idiotic rule changes, commissioner. Your predecessors have done enough damage as it is.





Supreme Court Positioned To Repeal 4th Amendment





SupremeCourt building flag SC

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Navarette v California, a case in which a wrong decision will effectively repeal the 4th Amendment rights of the American people.

The text of the 4th Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that “…law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest.” This reasonable suspicion standard created by the court has provided police the necessary “legal” authority to perform searches in violation of 4th Amendment language. In fact, thanks to the Court, the overwhelming majority of searches conducted in the U.S. today are warrantless searches. Obtaining a warrant has become an annoyance, a bothersome anachronism that is said to interfere with the timely administration of justice.

In Navarette, an anonymous tipster telephoned police, informing them that the driver of a silver Ford truck, license number 8D94925, had just run him off of the road. Upon locating the truck, “…[police] officers verified the non-criminal details of the tip before pulling over the truck (i.e. color, plate number, etc.), [but] they did not witness any illegal behavior or reckless driving before stopping the truck.” Officers searched the truck and found 4 large bags of marijuana. The driver was charged with “…transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale.”

The defendant’s attorney asked that the evidence of the marijuana be suppressed, stating that “…the original stop was an illegal stop because the anonymous tip was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Both the trial court and a California Appeals Court denied the motion to suppress, each stating that police were not required to verify the claim that the truck was being driven recklessly. Officers were only required to verify the “non-criminal” details–in this case, the type and color of the vehicle and its license number–prior to stopping the truck and conducting a search.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in order to decide “…whether the Fourth Amendment requires a police officer, who receives an anonymous tip about a drunken or reckless driver, to corroborate the dangerous driving before stopping a vehicle.”

In a 2000 case, the Supreme Court ruled that an anonymous tip did not allow police the luxury of ignoring either 4th Amendment rights or even the necessity of meeting the far less stringent legal standard of reasonable suspicion.

But in Navarette, the State of California will argue before the Court that even the weak standard of reasonable suspicion may be ignored IF the alleged criminal activity is serious enough. In other words, “the more serious the crime, the less suspicion is needed.” Or more properly, the more serious the ALLEGED crime, the less suspicion is needed to stop and search the alleged suspect. Reckless driving, for example, may indicate drunk driving, which represents such a potential danger to the public that the rights of an alleged suspect may be completely ignored. Therefore, an anonymous tip may be acted upon just as though the tipster were known to be reliable and correct, and the driver known to be guilty!

If the Court permits law enforcement to ignore constitutional rights based upon an anonymous tip and permits police to increase the aggressive nature of their response according to nothing more substantial than the seriousness of the alleged crime, how long will it be until Democrat operatives make anonymous claims about alleged criminal activity on the part of Republican candidates? How often will former girlfriends or wives lodge anonymous charges against former boyfriends or husbands? The possibilities for the destruction of reputations are endless. And the necessity of probable cause, or proof, will for practical purposes no longer exist.





Video: Premiere Obamacare Clinic Opens In Chicago





Direct from TRUE NEWS USA comes word that the nation’s first ObamaCare clinic has opened in Chicago’s Englewood Community. Though the initial patient load has been somewhat thin, well trained physicians and experienced nurses guarantee the future success of this hi-tech medical center…





Was Roberts’ Obamacare Ruling A Blessing, Or A Curse?





Photo Credit: McConnell Center Creative Commons

When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an “act of judicial cowardice.”  “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to “protect” the people from a wanton abuse of power,  he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing unconstitutional legislation.

But did Roberts manufacture his creative penalty-is-really-a-tax revision of ObamaCare for the purpose of bailing out the lawmakers who wrote the Act? Or was it actually his intention to help destroy them?

American Thinker contributor Bill Dunne believes that in his ObamaCare ruling, the chief justice set a “diabolical trap” designed to imperil Democrats, even as it “saved the Republican Party from going into a death spiral…”

It is Dunne’s contention that Justice Roberts’ decision spawned a “Great Awakening” of the American people by making it clear to them that “…ObamaCare [was] a civics lesson from hell, with vast implications for America’s future.” Had the Chief Justice sided with court conservatives, the disastrous effects of the Affordable Care Act would have disappeared along with the law. The largest tax increase in American history would not be taking place. Millions would not have had healthcare policies cancelled due to ACA mandates; premiums would not have doubled–or worse–thanks in part to unwanted coverages; longtime family doctors would still be available to patients; a non-functioning, $600 million website would not threaten to transform average citizens into “scofflaws;” identity theft would not run rampant; and some semblance of a right to medical privacy might still exist for the American public.

But the most important consequence of Roberts’ ruling is the fact that millions of Americans finally understand that “…[ObamaCare] has less to do with insuring the uninsured than with one political party’s lunge for unprecedented power and control over people’s lives.” The utter contempt for individual rights, which is the hallmark of DC Democrats, has at last been revealed to any interested American. And the fact that healthcare may no longer be affordable or available interests one Hell of a lot of us.

Did Roberts assume the role of visionary by finding the ObamaCare mandate constitutional? After all, in spite of the happy faces assumed by party loons such as Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Senate Democrats like Mark Udall (Co) and Mary Landrieu (La) will likely enter Election Day 2014 from a position of weakness, dreading the possibility of THEIR vote being proclaimed the one that passed ObamaCare into law.

So was John Roberts a gutless traitor to the American nation and people? Was he blackmailed into finding the Act constitutional? Did he prostitute the Constitution in the hope of becoming an important part of history? Or did his purported act of prescience help to save the Republican Party from an historic collapse?

 

Photo Credit: McConnell Center (Creative Commons)





Texas Court Throws 2nd, 4th Amendments Under The Bus





Texas map SC

Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”

In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn, based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “…did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “…based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.”  Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family, and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.

When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “…because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.

The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:

“…in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”

The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.

Should Americans who exercise their God-given, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts, or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of–or protection guaranteed by–another right is despicable, disgraceful, and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.

Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on site, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?

Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.