Open Letter to Colin Kaepernick

Dear Colin –

I just got back from my son’s graduation from Army Basic Training. We are a family of Soldiers and veterans, and we have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. We have sworn to defend your rights and liberties. We have promised to protect every man’s sacred rights, without regard for anything superficial such as color, race, religion, or gender.

We uphold and live by that oath every single day.

There are a lot of people who are shrieking and screeching about your recent refusal to stand up for the National Anthem. I shall not do so.

It is your right as an American to be as abhorrent and offensive as you want. It is your right to display as much disrespect for this nation as you see fit. It is your right to protest whatever injustices you want.

That’s what our Constitution is about. It’s about protecting your right to be as much of an opprobrious asshole as you want and not face government prosecution. You will not go to jail for your actions. You will not be fined. You will not be punished in any way by the government for your display of contempt for this country.

That said, that doesn’t mean you aren’t going to be immune from the consequences. Consequences come in many forms – from fan criticism, to loss of sponsors, to censure from other NFL members – because the majority of people, fans, players, and coaches recognize just how lucky they are to be here, to play this game, to earn millions dollars doing what they love, to have the opportunities they have, their rights protected and their ability to speak out safe from government persecution.

Try that in many other countries, and you’ll find yourself in a cell.

Here, the worst that will happen to you is consternation from your fellow Americans. I guess you don’t care about that. Why should you? You’re making millions in a country that protects your rights – not always perfectly, not always neatly, but better than most. You’re playing a game you love, and you’re earning big money for doing so. You’re free to achieve your dreams.

And guess what! Thousands of courageous men and women died to protect this country whose flag on which you so freely defecate. I guess you don’t care about them either.

It’s sad that in your zeal to shed light on perceived injustices in this nation, you slap in the face every single person who has sacrificed for the very justice you claim to desire.

It’s a shame that in your blind hatred for the flag and the nation that has given so many people the opportunities most in this world could only dream about, you spit on every courageous individual who has volunteered to protect this land. You spit on me. You spit on my children. You spit on people I love.

So while you are free to show disrespect for my adopted country – the country that has given me and millions of others, including you, the opportunities you couldn’t possibly understand or appreciate, being the spoiled rotten brat you are – the rest of us are free to let you know just what a despicable, ungrateful disgrace you are.

Colin-Kaepernick-backwards-hat-300x300We are free not to watch your games.

We are free not to purchase any product for which you are a spokesman.

We are certainly free not to buy tickets to your games.

The NFL respects your right to protest, as they well should. Standing up for the national anthem is certainly not a requirement, nor is it a law. Neither is respecting your fellow Americans who sacrificed for the rights and freedoms you so freely flaunt and the oppression you disingenuously claim while making millions of dollars as a person of color in this awful country.

But that doesn’t mean we have to like you, respect you, watch your games, buy tickets, or purchase any product you happen to endorse.

It also doesn’t mean that I can’t hope you one day grow up, drop the drama, and develop some respect for the country which has protected your right to be an asshole, even if she’s not perfect, and even if bad things sometimes happen.

This country’s flaws – whatever they may be – will not be remedied by a sniveling, spoiled, tattooed prima donna, who thinks his cheap tantrum on the football field will cure America’s ills.

Here’s hoping you grow up, even though I doubt you will, and here’s hoping that the acrimony you have sowed will impact your wallet.

Maybe then you’ll learn.

Hugs and kisses,

Americans who aren’t assholes.

54 responses

  1. He has the right to not stand as a protest. I have the right to call him a self important douchenozzle stained with fecal matter.

    That’s how freedom works.

    Like

  2. That seems like a lot more energy than I would have afforded this clown. Sometimes just ignoring people who are seeking attention is the most powerful message.

    Like

  3. Nicki You’re (unfortunately) on your best behavior today. I was fully expecting and hoping for some memorable terms for C. K. considering how close he hit to home. ( Sarah Hoyt is right, it’s almost like poetry) Words can’t describe what I feel about this “protest” about issues that amount to nothing. I would feel a lot better if he protested the 70% + rate of illegitimate births among blacks which correlate to the high black on black murder rate in this country. A list of the number of blacks unjustifiably killed by cops in a year is just your average weekend of homicide in Chicago alone That’s too close to home for him though. Better and more logical to blame America.

    Like

  4. Ostracism is a powerful tool.

    Eloquent, Nicki.

    Like

  5. Just perfect, Nicki.

    Like

  6. Ditto all of the above. This guy (and his team) will never get a dollar from me again.

    Like

  7. People watch the 49’ers?

    Like

  8. Well said. One of the benefits of freedom of speech/expression is the right to be an absolute douche nozzle. He is one. He is not free from the consequences of being a douche nozzle. I think he’s going to figure that out, if not already. This is reason #329 why I no longer watch the NFL, because of shit wits like this guy. All that money they make, they have no reason to complain about shit. I save lives for a living (paramedic) and struggle to pay bills so fuck him.

    Like

  9. Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word… and commented:
    Nice…

    Like

  10. […] Source: Open Letter to Colin Kaepernick […]

    Like

  11. You’re more gracious than I.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m not being gracious, guys. Really. Fact is we swore to protect people’s rights no matter how odiously they exercise them. I can’t condemn people for exercising the very freedoms we have taken an oath to defend merely because we don’t like the manner in which they exercise them.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I can’t condemn people for exercising the very freedoms we have taken an oath to defend merely because we don’t like the manner in which they exercise them.

        Maybe this is just a semantic quibble, but by my book you DID condemn him. You made it quite clear you don’t approve of him as a human being.

        You did it while affirming his right to be such a pissguzzling moron, but that doesn’t negate the condemnation.

        (One needn’t say “you had no right to do that” to condemn someone.)

        I can only hope “my” team stomps his team into the dust this year, assuming they even meet (it’d be inter-conference).

        Like

        1. No, I condemned the way he did it. I didn’t condemn him for exercising his rights. There’s a difference.

          Like

        2. Well Nicki, I “condemn” him for exercising his right, because he, of ALL people, has no REASON to do what he did or say what he did. He may have the “right” to do it, but he has no REASON to. If his U Nevada-Reno “education” was worth spit, he should KNOW that. The man makes 19 MILLION dollars per year with the next three years GUARANTEED–something like 61 MILLION, IIRC. That’s nearly more than a year’s salaries combined of all those who died in Vietnam in 10 years! Besides that, 99% of blacks shot to death in this country over the past 100 years were shot by other BLACKS. If I were this guy’s white parents, I’d never show my face in public again. Here’s hoping that he’s run out of the NFL.

          Like

        3. It is not up to us to judge his reasons. He has the right, and he can exercise it in any ridiculous way he wants. I condemn him for being ridiculous but not for exercising his right.

          Like

        4. Just because you HAVE a “right” doesn’t mean it’s right to exercise it…especially in that manner…not and then claim that “right” based on a totally false premise.

          Like

        5. Everyone has the right to be a douche. Was it ethically the right thing to do? That would depend on your perspective. For someone like me, it was a slap in the face to every service member who served and died. For someone like him, it was standing up for the little “oppressed” guy. For someone like me, he was just being a fucking dickhead. But every one of us has that right, and I’ll fight to the death to protect it.

          Like

        6. I don’t disagree that the right exists. I disagree that he was RIGHT to express his opinion in that manner. I’m also a vet–two difficult tours in Vietnam in the 60’s, followed by 7 years as a police detective. He has the “right” to be a douchebag and I have the “right” to find fault with what he did. Sadly, since I’m not in any position to affect him or his income in any significant fashion, MY right doesn’t interfere with his. That’s not to suggest that I would in any way advocate that the government sanction him for what he did–but the American PEOPLE certainly can by taking dollars out of his pocket.

          Like

        7. ” He has the “right” to be a douchebag and I have the “right” to find fault with what he did. ” — that was my whole point.

          Like

        8. Eh, Whisky Tango Foxtrot…?

          He shouldn’t exercise his right…even if I presume you mean “it wasn’t prudent of him” rather than “he should be forbidden to,” (which would negate the notion of a right) you seem to be proceeding to argue that somehow the right is a false premise.

          Either the man has a right to voice his opinion, or he does not. Whether the opinion is utterly shitheaded (OK, not very creative but there’s too much blood in my caffeine stream right now) is an orthogonal question to whether he has a right to express it.

          Like

  12. You are being far more gracious than I am.

    Considering that he is making more in one year than most of us will see in our life-time, that he got where he is because someone paid for him to go to school, that people have bleed and died so that he could be a jerk without fear of government reprisal, what I was saying was far less civilized.

    I grew up with class mates who were Jehovah’s Witness. They were not permitted to salute or recite the pledge with the rest of us, but they stood up with the rest of the class. They just reminded silent. Few American would have damned him for doing that – just standing there.

    I have very little respect for 90% of professional athletes. (NASCAR is the only sport I watch with any regularity) This behavior does not help my opinion of them one iota. They are not heroes. The real heroes are the people like you, and your family, who have put on those uniforms and risked life and limb so Over Paid, pampered, entitled jerks like him can be free.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Enjoy the fame, Colon. You’ll never be known as an NFL player. You’ll only be known as that douchebag that wouldn’t stand up. That’s the choice you made, live with it.

    The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (that countless Americans, all better people than you, defended with their very lives) guarantees you the right to free speech, allowing you to protest and speak out against your government and your country as you see fit.

    That same amendment guarantees the country’s right to call you an immature, ungrateful, selfish little prick, and to vote with their wallets and not spend their hard earned dollars on products associated with you.

    That’s what we call equality, it works both ways.

    Like

  14. +1 to all comments so far.

    (I imagine some jackwagon will eventually show up to say whatsisface did the right thing, hence the qualifier.)

    Like

  15. Hey Colin, you forgot to mention your father, from a race that is so oppressed, that had NOTHING to do with your “raising” and the “white oppressors” that took you in and did nothing but nurture you and keep you from becoming a statistic in some obscure DOJ data table.

    Go pound sand you narcissistic twat pimple.
    (That last line will not be found in the AP Style Book, but probably in “The Liberty Zone Authorized Style Book”)

    This is fun….a few more examples
    Ass Knot, Shkrimp Dick, Big toe nose, Slap Nut, Sphincter Miner, Limp Bizkit, Dick Nick, Dick Knock, Ratchet Neck, Ass Nick, Taint Painter, ….please add your own

    I also add my favorite quote from S.L. Clemens…(surely paraphrased)
    “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you’re a fool than open it and remove all doubt.”

    Peace and blessings to all of Mama Nicki’s minions

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Big. Toe. Nose.

      I don’t even! LMAO!!!

      Like

  16. He apparently converted recently to Islam, and his girlfriend is active in Black Lives Matter, so he does seem a complete utter shitstain. While there will always be refuse like him, shame on his team for not firing his ass, and his teammates for not correcting him, like they would if they were actually men.

    Like

    1. I’m pretty sure they were on the verge of letting him go anyway, and RUMINT says so as well. He’s not playing well. He’s in shitty health. Meh.

      Like

  17. Since this story has came out, I have felt the same as you. Great article. I plan on reading more from you.

    Like

  18. Perfect as always, Nikki. I feel the same way about someone who wants to burn the American flag that my father and all my uncles and even my son at this very minute served to defend. They have a Constitutional right to protest any way that doesn’t infringe on someone else’s rights. They just better not do it near me, as I have determined that I am willing to go to jail defending the flag, as my family, and many others, were willing to die for it. Actions have consequenses, on both sides.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So…you’d commit an act of violence against someone who’s exercising their right stupidly? That would be a violation of their rights on your part.

      Like

      1. As a matter of fact, I would. And I would expect to suffer the punishment that would go along with that act. I have many family members who have put themselves in harms way, and a son who is serving currently, so that the flag may wave over the nation as a symbol of freedom. If someone chooses to disrespect that service, that is their right. But by disrespecting that service, they are disrespecting my family, and many of my friends, some of whom are now dead because of their service to this nation, the flag of which is a mere representation. I will not stand meekly in the presence of such disrespect. It is their right to protest, and it is my right to act and accept the consequenses. They can make their choice, and I will make mine. I am no longer standing on the sidelines.

        Like

        1. I think, honestly, that if you think violence is an appropriate response to someone exercising their right, you either don’t *really* consider it a right (since you seem to feel justified in using force in response), or you’re confused. You somehow justify the initiation of force just because you are offended. (The provocation is different, but the logic is identical to people willing to do violence on those who blaspheme Allah.) And since it IS an initiation of force, YOU are violating their rights.

          Like

        2. Replace last sentence with ” And since it IS an initiation of force, YOU are violating their rights, NOT protecting them as you seem to think you are doing.”

          Like

        3. Having a nebulous “right” doesn’t insulate you from the consequences of exercising it, Steve. And, there is a serious difference, at least in degree, between physically slapping or punching someone for burning a flag in your presence and blowing up a marketplace full of innocent people because “someone” insulted Allah.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. It’s ONLY a difference of degree. The cause of the act is the same: I’m going to commit an act of violence because I’m offended.

          Since you think violence is a valid consequence (not an expected one but valid one) in response, you’re just as bad as Mr. PigPen.

          I can sort of understand someone being infuriated and losing control in the heat of the moment, but both you and Pigpen are PROMISING to do this in advance of the fact.

          Appalling. And, what galls me about it is it often comes out of the mouths of people who brag about protecting rights. Fucking hypocrites.

          Like

        5. First of all, there is no such thing as a “right” to burn an American flag as some idiotic form of “protest,” regardless of what a leftist-controlled SCOTUS may have to say about it being protected “speech.” If the founders had intended for actions to be considered “speech” then they would have SAID so when the Bill of Rights was approved and made part of the Constitution. SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to invent rights out of whole cloth, even though they’ve done so dozens of times–especially in the so-called “progressive” era–and most people simply nod and accept these unconstitutional pronouncements as if that’s the last word on the issue. Neither is there any such thing as a “privacy” right in the Constitution which throws a monkey wrench into the whole rationale for “abortion on demand.” For such a “right” to exist, is would have to be–of necessity–absolute and the Bill of Rights itself makes specific exceptions as to when one’s “privacy” can be violated by the government with impunity. Therefore, it’s NOT absolute and therefore not anyone’s “right.” Just another example of a “right” invented out of whole cloth for political instead of constitutional reasons. And, there are dozens of such SCOTUS decisions that are simply unchallenged. For example, can you explain WHERE in the Constitution it says you must apprise a criminal suspect of his “rights” before a confession is “legal?”

          Like

        6. First of all, there is no such thing as a “right” to burn an American flag as some idiotic form of “protest,” regardless of what a leftist-controlled SCOTUS may have to say about it being protected “speech.”

          Please go acquaint yourself with the Ninth Amendment. The rights listed in the Constitution aren’t all the rights, and the Constitution itself says so!

          Although it’s important to understand the Framers never confused an entitlement to someone else’s things with an actual right, they certainly didn’t construe rights so narrowly as you do (by your logic maybe they did mean muskets and hand-cranked printing presses). And in no way does someone burning a flag cost you or anyone else a solitary fucking thing. Unless they stole that specific flag from you and are burning it without your consent, but that would be a simple property crime.

          Under the understanding of the concept of a “right” that was operational in the 1780s, you have a right to burn a flag so long as it’s your property (the flag does not become property of someone else because it happens to be in a certain pattern), and you’re not causing an actual hazard to others’ actual lives or property (in point of fact the first condition is a redundant special case of the second).

          Your feelings don’t count as actual damage.

          Has the supreme court done some stupid things in the past? Yes. So what? That doesn’t prove this is one of those things.

          Like

        7. But you cannot assert a “right” as Constitutional UNLESS the Constitution specifically empowers you to add words or phrases (or actions) TO the Constitution. The 9th Amendment doesn’t do that. It also doesn’t empower the SCOTUS to do that. There is a specific process for addition to, detracting from or otherwise changing the Constitution. That process does NOT include unelected “judges” making those changes unilaterally. Try reading the 10th Amendment sometime. The feds’ powers are specific–“everything else being reserved to THE PEOPLE, or to the States,” with only a bit of a paraphrase. By what passes for your “logic” there can be no action taken by anyone that is so outrageous, insulting or inflammatory so as to invite physical retaliation. Sort of knocks into a cocked hat the whole concept of “hate crimes” or shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

          Like

        8. But you cannot assert a “right” as Constitutional UNLESS the Constitution specifically empowers you to add words or phrases (or actions) TO the Constitution.

          I never asserted it was a constitutional right. In fact, I never once used any form of the word constitution until you brought it up.

          I said he had a right to burn his own flag, not a constitutional right to do so.

          To insist that only constitutional rights are rights is equal to an assertion that the constitution grants rights, rather than acknowledging and protecting pre-existing rights. Some of the founders were afraid that listing rights in a bill of rights would lead to some douchenozzle, down the road, claiming other natural rights didn’t exist. They lost the argument against listing (some) rights, but they had enough of a point that the authors of the BOR put in the ninth amendment in what is apparently a failed attempt to stop this happening. I say failed, because it looks like we’ve got precisely the sort of douchenozzle they were afraid of, operating today.

          Thus, all things listed in the BOR are rights, but not all rights are listed in the BOR. Any argument that “it’s not in the BOR therefore it’s not a right” is simply a non-starter with me. I frankly didn’t even bother to read the rest of your response; I’ve no doubt it’s based on the same false premise.

          Go off and acquaint yourself with a real theory of rights not, “It’s not in the Constitution!”

          Like

        9. The issue isn’t whether YOU have said the circumstances instant are “constitutional rights.” The issue is that the SCOTUS–and, by extension, the entire government–considers it to be a “constitutional right,” mostly simply because the SCOTUS once said so. Sorry, but you have no “constitutional right” to be confrontational, insulting and literally INVITE a reaction to what you say or do and then complain that you are being “unfairly targeted” when that reaction occurs. Do I have the right to walk up to this guy, get in his face and call him a dumb n*****r? Certainly, but I would expect to be–at LEAST–punched in the face…and by HIM. Just because you have a “right” to do something does NOT mean that it’s “right” to DO.

          Like

        10. The issue isn’t whether YOU have said the circumstances instant are “constitutional rights.” The issue is that the SCOTUS–and, by extension, the entire government–considers it to be a “constitutional right,” mostly simply because the SCOTUS once said so.

          On the contrary…what the SCOTUS said was NEVER the issue here until you brought it in out of left field.

          This exchange started when you said you’d attack someone for burning the flag, you even conceded he had a right to do so, but he’d face “consequences,” which so far as it goes can be true but such statement generally applies to metaphysical hazards, not immature jackwagons deciding to take offense. I told you you’d be violating his rights if you did so (hint: I said so because YOU would be the aggressor, not him). You then changed tack and tried to assert he had no right to burn the flag because it wasn’t in the constitution, and went off on a pointless rant about the supreme court.

          Let’s go back to the original issue. What justifies you initiating violence for someone burning one of his own possession? He’s not putting you or your property at hazard, so there’s no “external” effect. So the answer is: NOTHING.

          Like

        11. SteveinCo,
          If you are calling me a fucking hypocrite, you are wasting your time here. I am not a little boy and your insults do not hurt me. If you wish to have a real discussion with me, I welcome that, because I find that even though we often disagree, you are intelligent and not afraid to be on the other side of an argument if you think you are right.
          Secondly, as to the issue of what gives me the right to step up and possibly confront someone physically, thereby depriving them of their rights, I never once said, nor did I imply, that I had any right to do such a thing. In fact, I hope that I made it quite clear that the opposite was true and that I knew that it would be wrong and that I was ready to accept any punishment that I deserved. Honor is important to some people. That is what the issue is about. Just like I would not allow someone to call my wife a whore in my presence, or to piss on my father’s grave, I will not allow someone to dishonor the sacrifice that my family, friends, and fellow countrymen and women have made.
          I also want to point out that I am not aware that I brag or have bragged about protecting anyone’s rights. I do support everyone’s rights and would protect them if called upon, but I don’t recall ever saying that I have personally protected anyone’s rights. If I am incorrect, I apologize.
          Now, to the Constitution, and rights. I side completely with you as far as you have gone, in that many of our founders, I believe Jefferson included, did not want a separate “Bill of Rights” included. It was much the same as an old boss I used to have. If you brought up an item with him, he always asked you to write it down on a piece of paper and give it to him. He said that way he could visualize everything better. We said that way, it was easier for him to toss it into the trash and forget about it.
          Where I think you have fallen somewhat short is that when the SCOTUS issues an opinion, stating what the law or Constitution means, that becomes a part of our body of laws, with the force of the original founders behind it.
          Take for example, the case of DC vs. Heller. We all know it, it was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protects an individuals right to own guns. Now unless, or until, another SCOTUS ruling changes that, it is now the law of the land, and it adds definition to our understanding of the second amendment. So Supreme Court rulings are quite valid and a part of the landscape that we must look at when we look at things like rights and law and the Constitution. Just like the Executive branch and the Legislative branch also have their places in the same areas.
          One more note, on flag burning, Pappadave, you should note that it was in 1989 that the Supreme Court basically gave the ok to flag burning as a form of protest, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the decision. He is not known as all that liberal. He tends to vote both ways depending on the issue, but was appointed by Reagan after Bork and Ginsberg were no goes. And in this case, the Supremes got it right. We must be able to protest. Kennedy even said pretty much that even if we found it repugnant, free speech was free speech. That still doesn’t change my position. Call it based upon ignorance, or emotion, or downright intolerance. Just know that I will not change my mind.

          Like

        12. Sorry, pigpen, but there is NO WAY to change the Constitution by fiat…which is precisely what these SCOTUS decisions amount to. I have no problem with re-defining what “speech” means in the Constitution as long as enough people want it done and it’s then done according to HOW the Constitution can be altered.

          Like

        13. In fact, I hope that I made it quite clear that the opposite was true and that I knew that it would be wrong and that I was ready to accept any punishment that I deserved.

          OK, fair enough. You at least understand the principle I was attempting to invoke, even if that hasn’t worked its way down to the emotional level.

          Honor is important to some people. That is what the issue is about. Just like I would not allow someone to call my wife a whore in my presence, or to piss on my father’s grave, I will not allow someone to dishonor the sacrifice that my family, friends, and fellow countrymen and women have made.

          In *some* law there is a concept of “fighting words” though I don’t believe it’s universal, and your latter cases would often be cited as such.

          I suppose one could consider “fighting words” to be equivalent to challenging someone to combat. Looked at that way, so long as the speaker intends to challenge, I don’t have a moral problem with responding, “OK let’s do this” in a nonverbal way. The problem is twofold: There’s no way to know if that was the speaker’s intent, and such combat is often illegal (particularly if it’s a pistols-at-dawn duel to the death).

          Even given that, I can’t quite consider burning a flag to be “fighting words.”

          On to SCOTUS–my argument was never based on SCOTUS’s findings re flag burning (nor the constitution), so PappaDave bringing it up was an irrelevancy. People coming to a place called “LibertyZone” ought to have an understanding what people have a right to do, regardless of whether the Founders said so, and regardless of whether the SCOTUS says so. (Those become relevant if one is hauled into court for punching a flag burner and tries to argue as justification–like Dave did–that the burner had no right to do it, perhaps, but that’s different from the objective issue, which is all I was trying to address.) If we all-too-few can’t agree on basic principles, i.e., what is a “right” and what it means to violate it, we’re never going to convince the hordes of people who think that they have a right to other peoples’ time, labor and property on the basis of “need” or who think rights are a “social construct,” and oh, say, we can just arbitrarily decide there’s no right to the tools of self defense, and that very act of decision makes it so.

          Like

        14. Papadave, I was not saying that we should change the Constitution, but was only trying to explain how I believe that you may have missed part of the point. If you truly believe that the law of the land is rock solid and only able to change with a Constitutional amendment, then I would assume that you are either the owner of a machine gun, if you want one and can afford it, or carry a concealed weapon without a permit, if your state requires one, since those laws are not a part of either the Constitution or any of it’s amendments.
          Part of the Supreme Courts job is interpreting what the Constitution actually means, whether we like the makeup of the court at the time or not. If we were to have a court that was completely non-partisan, that would be ideal. That was never the case as far as I can tell, and it is certain that it will never be the case in the future. So we will see things shift from left to right continuously from now till the end of time.
          SteveinCo, as to not having things work their way down to an emotional level, of course things are down to an emotional level. I realize that my response is all based upon my feelings and my emotions and not upon the rights or fairness towards some person that may have a different opinion than myself. However, you must admit that human beings are not just automatons, but that we are complicated creatures with not only intellect, but also emotions, that play a part in our make up. I am not trying to justify myself to you, or anyone else. I am merely acknowledging a truth that I recognize about myself and accept.
          You make the mistake of thinking that when I use the word honor I somehow am invoking the old idea of feudalism, when a man who felt slighted would challenge another. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire subject is predicated upon something much simpler, and which involves only cause and effect. If someone disrespects the flag in my presence by burning it, trampling it, etc., then I will physically intervene to attempt to stop them.
          I certainly am willing to continue this further, and welcome further conversations with you in the future on other subjects, as well. But I think, and I suspect that you may feel the same way, that we are starting to till already plowed fields. If you have a new perspective that we haven’t considered, I would welcome that. But I hope that we both have a pretty solid understanding of each others position by now, and I am certain that neither one of us will change our minds.

          Like

        15. What purpose do you think a flag-burner HAS for doing so? It’s pretty obvious to me, at least. He wants to PROVOKE A RESPONSE, preferably a violent one that’ll get him on the TV cameras somewhere. I have little doubt that this incipient Muslim had the same motivation for what HE did–probably because he needed a plausible excuse for being cut.

          You’re right about one thing. I, and I alone, can decide when, where and if it’s prudent for me to carry a weapon and what type. The Constitution affirms that I have that right and prohibits the government from interfering with it. I frequently do so and am fully prepared to take on the consequences for doing so–especially in the highly unlikely event that I misuse it in some fashion. Just like I’m fully prepared for the consequences of giving some flag-burner exactly what he’s asking for. There’s not a court in my State that would convict me in either case.

          Like

  19. Some hose-nozzle on FB had a photo up of the Senate (I think, may have been the House) during opening of session and several of our elected officials were not standing during what was presumed to be the anthem. The aforementioned hose-nozzle wanted to know why everyone was whining over Mr. K. but was silent about that (the image)

    My thoughts:
    A) What makes you think we’re not upset and/or protesting? Those jerkalotamus we can call/e-mail and tell them to straighten up their act.
    B) Most of them are not doing it as some pointless protest to gain media attention. It is simply a matter of jerks-r-us. They don’t stand because they think they are above all that silly patriotic nonsense.
    C) You’re assuming the jerkalotamus photographed were even aware of what was going on, the signal may not have arrived from their home world.
    D) I have about as much respect for congresscritters as I do the jocks. eg – very little.
    E) Finally – when will this media shitstorm end? [It is getting so I can’t even watch Fox5 w/o seeing it.] I’m already sick and tired of seeing the little performance by this example of school on Saturday. (h/t to Dr. Cosby) Oh, but he is giving the first million to under privileged youths in depressed areas. Only a Mil? The asshat makes over 100 million. He can afford to do more than <1%.

    If you want to refuse to stand for the anthem, say that you cannot respect the country for perceived wrongs, then you do not get to say in the next breath that you respect men and women in uniform. Those men and women are part of the country. They are not a body what exists inside the whole, but somehow independent. Also, when you disrespect the whole, the body, of the nation, you are also disrespecting your own community.

    Like

    1. I’ve never heard of Congress opening with the national anthem, so my first suspicion is that the photo is mislabeled. Not that your lack of esteem for those toads isn’t (otherwise) justified. (My second suspicion is that I’m just ignorant of what Congress does ceremonially.)

      It would be a gigantic political mistake for a congresscritter to blow such a ceremony off; one would think that even the ones inclined to be like whatsisname the quarterback would make a point of faking it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. …In point of fact my suspicion would be those people are not standing for the opening prayer.

        Like

  20. […] into hell and back. I wanted to publish this, because it appears the stupid is spreading from Kaepernick’s little public snit fit and his insistence on spitting in the faces of all Americans and all who have sacrificed for the […]

    Like

  21. […] makes us great is that one douchebag – or several – can show disrespect for our flag and our national anthem, and still […]

    Like

  22. Have Colin Kaepernick visit Military Cemitaries World Wide of our veterans that never made home and explain his Constitional Rights disrespecting our Flag.

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: