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.

An Open Letter To Catholics Who Vote Democrat

Catholic Church interior

Note to my Catholic Democrat brothers and sisters:

In this world, you may have either knowledge or repose; but you may not have both.

Your Church  and your religious freedoms are under an ongoing attack being carried out under the direct control of Barack Obama, a man many of you helped put in office. While you were taking care of yourselves and your families and trusting in the wrong people, your Democrat Party has turned on you and your Church. You must now choose which one to stand with.

There may have been a time long ago when we could be both good Catholics and good Democrats, but that alliance is now a relic of the past.

Holding on to the comfort of uninformed robotic voting followed by a smug sense of having “done your duty as a citizen” is a dangerous mistake. Catholics who have taken refuge in this position are as much enemies of our nation as Catholics who willfully work to undermine our freedoms because in fact, they are achieving the same ends.

The largest potential voting bloc in American politics is the Catholic Vote. Those of us who have watched willfully blind and/or maliciously motivated Catholics erode both our nation and our Church can now no longer merely stand by and complain. Hand-wringing but doing nothing makes us just as guilty as the empty heads and the maliciously motivated in our faith.

Those who pay attention to such things will recall that during Obama’s fake government shutdown, he targeted two of his favorite enemies for special persecution: The Catholic Church and America’s Military.

One of Obama’s targets was Father Ray Leonard, a Catholic Chaplin assigned to Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia.  Father Leonard was threatened with arrest if he performed mass, administered Catholic Sacraments including Reconciliation and Last Rites, or even entered his church during Obama’s fake government shutdown.  Father Leonard filed a lawsuit to regain his rights and was immediately subjected to retaliation from Obama’s lawyers. They are withholding some of his pay and announced that his legally signed and executed contract is “being reviewed.” His is the only such contract “under review.”

Obama is NOT going to march us out of our homes and shoot us; he is just going to destroy our Church if you and I let him by doing nothing.

Make your voice be heard at every opportunity. Those of you who are not Catholics: keep in mind that should we lose, he’s coming for your Church next.

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.

Kerry ‘s Latest Lie Puts Americans In Danger…

John Kerry Brain Scan SC

There is irrefutable proof that it is Islam, not poverty, that causes terrorism. A three decades long study shows that as worldwide poverty has declined, terrorism has increased.

Democrats are constantly on the attack. Whenever they recognize an opportunity to promote one of their destructive aims, they will do anything necessary. As we have seen over and over again, this means lying. John Kerry–the slug who plays the Secretary of State on television (don’t tell me the Democrats’ low information supporters know any better)–is among the best liars his party has. Kerry almost lied his way into the Oval Office a few years back, you will recall.

During a recent meeting with a representative of the Vatican, Kerry took the opportunity to lie to suck up to the Muslims in his effort to get them to abandon their eternal goal of wiping Israel off the map.

What Kerry said was that poverty (and of course “disenfranchisement” – a favorite Democrat word usually used when they are caught committing fraud) causes terrorism. This lie gives Kerry and his party a few advantages. They can get cover from a Papacy that already blames poverty for all of the world’s ills, and they further reinforce the lie that Islam is a “Religion of Peace.” Kerry pushes aside the fact that Islam is actually just another failed economic system created by people who knew and know nothing about how thriving economies work.

As “an important member of Barack Obama’s Cabinet,” Kerry must have been told about the results of a huge and exhaustive study of the results of America’s benevolent introduction of free market principles to the world. The study completed by economists Maxim Pinkovskiy of MIT and Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia shows that over a thirty six year period, the percentage of the world’s people living on the equivalent of a dollar a day dropped from 26.8% to just 5.4%!

This drop is so great that it leaves no room for argument from the freedom-hating left. Poverty doesn’t incite Muslims to blow people up; they’ve lived in poverty for hundreds of generations. It is Islam that causes terror attacks. John Kerry knows this but lies about it anyway; he is a Democrat after all.

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…