NAACP Denounces Demand For Players To Stand At NFL Games As “Unconstitutional”

Naacplogo300px-National_Football_League_logo.svgThe National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has Cowboys owner Jerry Jones saying that any players who protest during the anthem will be disciplined and not allowed to play. The NAACP has denounced the policy as “unconstitutional.”  While one can certainly disagree on the merits over the protests, teh NAACP is wrong on the constitutionality of such a policy.  An employer can clearly bar political protests during work hours. Moreover, the First Amendment is primarily directed to limiting government interference or regulation of speech.  While a public university qualifies as a state actor, it does not necessarily mean that protests are protected.  Even on college fields, school are giving considerable leeway in setting such rules, including the recent dismissal of a college quarterback for kneeling.


Jones said

“I want [the players] to have the ammunition to tell anybody that asks them to do anything otherwise or demonstrate during that period of time, that ‘I don’t get to play if I do that. This is a workplace issue. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding as to where I want the personnel of the Cowboys to be when we’re at the No. 1 workplace we have, which is the field and the sideline on gameday. I want to do everybody a service, as I should in leading the team, and let’s be really clear about what our expectations are.”

I have been critical of the protests but the ultimate decision of what occurs at a private business in terms of political protests is left to the owner. Notably, the owners only recently began to suggest the enforcement of the long-standing policy that no protests are allowed during the anthem.  Indeed, the NFL has a rule that players during the anthem must “stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking” or face discipline. That does not, however, appear in the 2017 version of the NFL official playing rules.  Now, as both attendance and viewership continues to fall (in part, according to polls, due to the protests), the owners appear to be changing their initial decision.  As always with Roger Goodell and the owners, there seems little principle but a lot of profits in the mix on this decision.  Goodell has repeatedly shown an insatiable desire to squeeze fans and sponsors alike for any profits, even as fans have left the game in droves.  Now that money is at stake, the owners are suddenly calling for the respect of the flag.  It is reminiscent of the scene in the Goodfellows where Pesci explains it always comes done to the dollars, “Always the dollars.” 

However, while the motivation may be questionable the means is not.  It would be bizarre if business owners could not prevent employees from protesting in the work place.  Customers go to Starbucks for frappuccinos and fans go to the NFL for football.

Nevertheless, Tony Covington, a former NFL safety and an executive with the NAACP, declared “Jerry Jones’ comments are more than tone-deaf, more than misinformed and misguided — they are a public commitment by an NFL owner to violate his players’ Constitutional right to free speech — one of the principles on which our nation was founded.”

If NAACP pursues this as a constitutional matter in court, they will fail.  The best option in such cases is a contractual claim but the NFL rules establish the right of owners to dictate such conditions.  Neither the constitution nor the contract is likely to support the right of employees to engage in protests during games in my view.


193 thoughts on “NAACP Denounces Demand For Players To Stand At NFL Games As “Unconstitutional””

  1. The F.B.I.’s Black Phantom Menace

    “Fifty years ago, Hoover’s F.B.I. spied on civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr. It forged letters to create friction between rival black-power movements, which led to a shooting at the University of California in Los Angeles in 1969 that left two dead. Undercover police officers were responsible for framing 21 Black Panthers for a fake bombing conspiracy in New York in 1969.

    “The list goes on and on.

    “There is a slippery slope between this kind of intelligence assessment and acts of repression. The F.B.I. has slid gleefully down that slope before. It must not be allowed to do so again.”

    The comments are interesting, as well.


    “The N.F.L. for now will continue to let players kneel or sit during the national anthem without a penalty, capitulating to demands by the athletes for free expression but potentially further alienating fans who object to the protests and feel they are disrespectful to the flag and the military.

    “But, after a meeting Tuesday with union representatives and players, the league did promise to help support some of the causes targeted by the protesting players, including reform of the criminal justice system.”

    1. That is the owner’s choice, but then one doesn’t have to purchase those very expensive seats at their stadium. Perhaps one has considered not keeping their seats because of the traffic and the hassle. Such a decision by the owners can make the choice easier to give up those seats. I know that some friends have already reduced their viewing of the NFL on TV and get their football fix from college football which in some ways is a lot more exciting and accessible.

      I think in the end actions of the NFL will eventually make them irrelevant. The NFL already has a lot of strikes against them.

        1. Time will tell, but it is no skin off my back whether the NFL does well or poorly.

          I root for the NFL to pay the price, just like Hillary Clinton did when she lost and the “deplorables” won even though It was the Clintons dealing with the Russians while Mueller as head of the FBI did nothing. It must feel great for Hillary’s supporters to know that for-profit she sold out our country to our enemies selling uranium to the Russians so it could be used in nuclear weapons by Korea and Iran.

          Keep cheering for the folk that desire to destroy America.

            1. Anonymous, the Hill has heavy evidence. What facts are faulty? Haven’t you followed any of the news? It’s very incriminating and Mueller was the director of the FBI while Hillary was “selling” the uranium. Whoops, wasn’t there an investigation during that time period?

              Hillary pledged to release all the sources of money that went into her foundation but hasn’t released it all. Why not? You know another 2,800 emails of hers were on Weiner’s laptop right? She denied their existence, but slowly the pieces are being put together. Are all those things wrong or do you just avoid any news that reflects badly on Hillary? None of these things are assumptions so correct anything you believe is wrong.

              1. Snopes Oct. 17th update, following up on reporting from The Hill:

                “In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.”


                Anyone reading these past few comments might want to read the entire posting. I’ve only included the initial claim, the rating — which is “false” and the update, based on information reported by “The Hill.”


                Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. See Example(s)

                RATING: FALSE


                On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.

                Updated [17 October 2017]: Added synopsis of new reportage by The Hill.

                1. Allan wrote:

                  “Keep cheering for the folk that desire to destroy America.”

                  Said without basis or merit.

                  Another doozy, written by Allan:

                  “…do you just avoid any news that reflects badly on Hillary?”

                  I’ve never been a fan of hers — nor do I avoid any news.

                  Stop makin’ shit up.

                  1. Well, Allan’s off on another tangent.

                    Bottom line, at this point:

                    We need to see where things go with the Senate Judiciary Committee probe, rather than jumping to hasty conclusions that may be without merit. I don’t care what happens to Hillary; she wasn’t my choice to lead this country. Let Grassley and the Committee do what needs to be done — and we’ll see where the chips fall.

                    1. Also from Snopes — and important to note:

                      “Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

                      “A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

                      “NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
                      remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”

                    2. ““Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.”

                      There seems to be evidence developing that at least some of the uranium did not remain in the US.

                      I note how with no evidence, your claims directly or indirectly pointed a finger without evidence where Trump was concerned.

                      We know who you are and how you work. You have a double standard and really seem to dislike the nature of this country.

                  2. Tell us your version of what happened to the uranium. You can’t, but we know who has it.

                    Apparently, all you do is avoid the news, but it is nice to know you are rejecting being a fan of Hillary. Maybe someone who knows you a bit longer can comment if even that is true.

                    Keep hopping on the destroy America bandwagon.

                    1. Allan, gettin’ all crazy again:

                      “Keep hopping on the destroy America bandwagon.” (Allan said this.)

                      It’s just more nonsense.

                    2. “It’s just more nonsense.”

                      We have all heard your double standard whether directly or indirectly from you.

                      No matter what is said you make excuses.

                      First, you say the uranium transfer wasn’t true and then you state the uranium didn’t leave the US. It seems both are faulty and that uranium has actually left the US. Congratulations anonymous or Elaine for potentially arming our enemies with nuclear weapons.

                      Check the Podesta emails that help to implicate Hillary.

                2. Quid pro quo would require a type of contract. You are right. There was no contract. Hillary allowed the uranium sale and over $100Million was placed in her foundation while her husband got speaking engagements of half a million apiece.

                  NOT ARMS LENGTH by a mile and evidence is still coming in.

                  By the way, Snopes is far left and tries to justify everything the left does. It is not a very good source of truth.

                  1. Like I said, prudent and reasonable people will wait for more information and the outcome of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s probe.

                    1. I have been waiting, but it is funny how slowly the FBI moved when Mueller was head of the FBI. The justice department under Holder imposed a gag order on at least one person who states he was around at the time of the bribes. Amazing, how you have so little concern over perhaps the worst scandal in recent American history. National security doesn’t appear to be your forte.

                      9 separate companies at the same time decided to donate 145 Million to Clinton and it wasn’t reported by Clinton. That doesn’t phase you at all? Pure coincidence you say?

                      Check out the NYTimes discussing how yellow cake uranium has left the US and we don’t know where it went. Yet we hear from you that no uranium left the US.

                      You are terribly uninformed or you don’t give a damn about the United States.

                  2. “By the way, Snopes is far left and tries to justify everything the left does. It is not a very good source of truth.”

                    So you say.

                    1. Allan says: “We know who you are and how you work.”

                      Oh, sure you do, Allan.

                      And another wild claim by the great Allan: “You have a double standard and really seem to dislike the nature of this country.”

                      And if you believe that, well, you really are an idiot.

                    2. Even people on the left recognize bias when they see it, but I don’t expect that bias to be recognized by anonymous AKA Elaine.

                    3. “And if you believe that, well, you really are an idiot.”

                      Don’t make me laugh Elaine/ anonymous. Your double standard is so clear that one could be blinded by it.

      1. The NFL is giving fans the best reason to stay home and watch. Essentially they have “flipped the bird” to their fans. Which should tell you hey we really don’t care what you want. Will parking lots be full? Vendors probably had no voice at their meetings, but are at risk to lose money (how many beers are usually sold)? Apparently their TV ratings are going down; sponsors won’t like that. Then the players individual deals with football gear might be affected. We’ve stopped watching. They think they’re too important to be concerned. Tomorrow night will be the first test.

        1. Baseball’s World Series comes at the perfect time this year to bring Americans back for American’s game!

        2. Great Sandra. “They think they’re too important to be concerned. ” That is arrogance and arrogance is not well tolerated by a lot of regular people.

    1. David Benson – NAACP does not have standing and labor law is on the side of the owners in this dispute.

        1. David Benson – according to reports there is a boilerplate provision in all player contracts which allows the owners to enforce the standing or firing rule.

    2. In some states that might actually be true. Some states have specific laws protecting political expression at the work place. However, I don’t believe that any such law would stand the test of such expression causing material harm to the company.

      And, of course, none of those laws have anything to do with the constitution.

  3. Apparently along with NFL, the NAACPalso does not know the meaning of “N.” Watch some illiterate misconstrue that sentence.

  4. Take a breath. The NFL has decided that there will be no change. Citing the NAACP is just red meat for the bigots here.

    The Supreme Court decided in 1948 that students didn’t have to stand for the pledge of allegiance. I don’t see how standing for an anthem is any different. Is the NFL a single corporation? I thought it was a confederation of tax exempt corporations that receive public tax dollars.

    1. The NFL is still private so start distinguishing between Public (schools etc.) and Private (organizations). The NFL owners along with the league are the employers and decide policy. The public which constitutes the people including the President has a right to say how they feel about these jerks, many of whom have had bad brushes with the law. The people also have a right to turn off the games in disgust.

    2. Did this voice of “Affirmative Action Privilege” say “bigot?”

      “Crazy Abe” Lincoln would like to say a few words:

      “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

    3. You are so very wrong. For the same legal principles that say a Christian bakery must bake for gay couples also say NFL customers have the right to exact the performance they wish from their NFL players. Moreover, the NFL is hardly a true private enterprise – not after $7 billion in taxpayer funds have built the stadiums in which they play; not to mention the tax exemption as well as the league’s own exemption from anti-trust laws.

      Perhaps the question you ought to be asking is, why is the NFL made up of 70% black players when that doesn’t match the proportion of black people in the broader population? Every other demographic is under-represented. Asian-Americans. Hispanic-Americans. Native-Americans. Ordinary white people. Not to mention, the transgendered.

  5. I am so sick of phony American patriotism. How stupid it is to order people to stand for a piece of cloth and/or the singing of that bombastic anthem. Perhaps people could study the principles that are represented by the symbols and live by them instead.

    Too many Americans love being authoritarians or love being submissive to authoritarians. They represent the antithesis of freedom.

    1. In other words, you’re desire to flip the bird at the people around you is what should rule, as well as your contempt for ordinary people with ordinary sensibilities.

      You’re expendable, chump.

    2. According to the American Founders, you, as “…a discordant intermixture…” should have been denied entry and should now be deported. Why in the world do you persist in a state you loath?

      Alexander Hamilton –

      “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

      United States Congress-

      “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,…”

    3. That’s why we have a Democrat party in a country that is not and never has been a democracy.

    4. Too many Americans are proud of our country. No other country has the rights and freedoms we have. Where else do atheletes get million dollar contracts, even if you don’t play?

    1. David Benson – the NAACP got rid of their legal some time ago since it really was not being used (that should be a clue to most of you) so they are relying on amateurs for the Constitutional interpretations.

      1. No. There was a velvet divorce between the main organization and their Legal Defense and Education Fund in 1957. There was some practical reason it was advisable at the time. About a generation later, the two organizations got into a legal tangle about whether the latter could continue to use the string “NAACP” in its name. It actually was being ‘used’. The scandals and embarrassments the last generation have emanated from the main organization, not the Legal Defense Fund.

        I imagine the NAACP does employ legal counsel; it’s just that litigation ceased to be an important part of their book after 1957.

      2. PCS, with all due respect, all sentient human beings can read, comprehend and know what the Constitution says, requires and implements. For crying out loud, it’s in plain English. There is not now and there never will be a need for “interpretation.” For example, it is not the duty of the judicial branch to “interpret” the Constitution. That is a feeble excuse to usurp the power of the legislative branch, and thereby the People, and impose corrupt “legislation from the bench.” Preposterous! The only charge of the judicial branch is to assure that actions comport with Constitution. “Interpretation” of the Constitution is treason.

  6. I can’t help but wonder what our friends from the NAACP thought when James D’Amore was fired by Google for criticizing corporate policy in a memo. Jemele Hill has a better case than any of the NFL demonstrators do.

  7. If any of us at a horse show knelt during the Canadian national anthem, it would clearly have been an insult. Those of us from the US stood politely at attention out of respect for the country. If the British anthem “God Save the Queen” played, and people knelt, walked away, or turned their backs, it would clearly be rude. This is not a question. If the players do not understand this, then why not? Would they get it if they were playing another country and their players turned their backs or took a knee when our anthem played. Would they think that was respectful?

    I am so tired of divisive politics infiltrating every aspect of our daily lives. I just want to turn on the TV and watch the game. This should be one of those “safe” activities you can do with the whole family, as well as friends with mixed political backgrounds. I don’t watch football to hear what a rich player thinks about politics. Save it for when he’s off work. These thoughtless players jeopardize the jobs of everyone who depends on football for a living. The loss of fans means downsizing and tighter budgets.

    The only way to avoid their opinion is to turn off the TV. Which a lot of people are doing.

    Way to go, guys.

    1. Karen, Packer fans are hard core. I know several who no longer watch, listen or read about the Packers. That’s a big deal.

      1. Wow. That is a big deal. Even I’ve heard about Packer fans having a lot of community spirit for their team.

        1. You can watch the game at home with great food, beer, and root for Green Bay.

  8. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. Drove my chevy to the levee but the levee was dry.
    Good ol boys drinking whiskey and rye… singing…
    This will be the day that I die!

    And die they will when they do the knell.
    I have a gun and my mind is steel.
    The gun will bam and the dorks will fall.
    Their friends will whine and start to crawl.

    This will be the day that they die!
    This will be the day that they die!


    So go ahead you dorks. Kneel.

  9. “97-year-old WWII vet goes viral after ‘taking a knee’ to support NFL players”

    by Kevin Kaduk

    NFL players have the support of a member of the Greatest Generation.

    John Middlemas, a 97-year-old World War II veteran from Missouri, went viral on Sunday after his grandson Brennan Gilmore tweeted a picture of his grandfather kneeling on the ground.

    “Those kids have every right to protest,” Gilmore quoted his grandfather as saying.

    My grandpa is a 97 year-old WWII vet & Missouri farmer who wanted to join w/ those who #TakeaKnee: “those kids have every right to protest.”
    — Brennan Gilmore (@brennanmgilmore) September 24, 2017

    The image of a World War II veteran defending the rights of Americans to peacefully protest quickly struck a chord with an online audience. As of Sunday night, the picture had between retweeted more than 100,000 times and “loved” almost 300,000 times.

    Middlemas’ local paper caught up with him on Sunday to ask him about his newfound fame and why he decided to back NFL players when many others cite the sacrifice of American soldiers as one of the reasons players are “disrespecting” the flag.

    “I wanted to communicate what I always told to my grand-kids and everybody else,” Middlemas, a farmer, told the Springfield News-Leader. “When they’d go to bed at night, we’d tell the kids we wanted to be like Jesus.”

    “I’m trying to say that you have to love everybody. We don’t kill people. We want to make people live.”

    Middlemas made no bones about his dislike of President Donald Trump, calling him “garbage mouthed.”

    The paper reported that Middlemas has always been about the pursuit of justice. A stout admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King, Middlemas participated in an equality march in Springfield, Mo., in 2013 that he said was the most important march of his life.

    But there’s no doubt the image of Middlemas showing his solidarity with NFL players has reached a much wider audience across the world. Middlemas says he hopes his view will resonate. -Kevin Kaduk

    1. anonymous – sure like to know where he didn’t fight in WWII. Are we sure it wasn’t a slip-and-fall and he is just covering up?

        1. SOT – the great fire at St. Louis ruined most of the records for WWII vets. The fact you can find anything is a surprise. Not sure you will be able to find much else unless you go through the local newspaper archives. Hometowns kept up on their boys.

          1. Come again? There are 8 million records in the Army enlistment database, 29 million in the two draft card databases, 33 million entries in period Navy muster rolls, 14 million in the BIRLS file. No clue where you got that idea.

            There are several men named “John Middlemas” born during the years 1917 to 1922 who appear in the enlistment, muster, and BIRLS databases. They’re all deceased at this point, as far as I can tell.

      1. Yes, the voice of reason is to be found in you. . .someone who cites the foolish actions of a senile and demented 97 year old–who probably can’t remember the last time he had a solid bm–as those which the rest of us should follow.

        By the way, if you wish to refer to me as one the Three Stooges, I would appreciate being referred to as Shemp. You, on the other hand, wouldn’t qualify to shine their shoes.

    2. John Middlemas, a 97-year-old World War II veteran from Missouri, went viral on Sunday after his grandson Brennan Gilmore tweeted a picture of his grandfather kneeling on the ground.

      I’ve spelunked through an aggregation of military and veterans’ databases and I think I’ve located this fellow. He would be one John Middlemas, b. in Springfield, Mo. on 4 September 1920, the son of R.O. Middlemas, a farmer in Greene County, Mo.

      Here’s the curio: he appears in just one database: “U.S. WWII Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947”, and, what is odd, is that his draft card is dated 28 January 1946. He does not appear in the enlistment records database. Now, the enlistment records database only includes about 1/2 those who were in uniform over the period running from 1938-46. I have a cousin (b. 1923) who does not appear therein but does appear in the VA BIRLS file As Mr. Middlemas is still alive, he’s not going to appear in the BIRLS file. The thing is, my cousin’s draft card is dated 1942, and he appears in at least one other aggregation of VA records (wherein it indicates he entered service on 1 July 1943).

      The date on his draft card is strange given how comprehensive was draft registration during the 2d World War. Did they lose his earlier registration? Was his military service in some off-center locus, say, the National Guard, Coast Guard, or Merchant Marine?



          “John Middlemas received a Meritorious Unit Commendation for fixing the sonar and getting his crew home on a 59 day underwater spy run to Russia, his daughter says.

          “Middlemas and Gilmore don’t see any conflict between patriotism and the urge to protest against injustice.

          ““The issue isn’t about disrespecting the symbol of the flag and the anthem, but the core issues and values that those symbols represent, free speech and the effort to try to be the best country — the country my grandpa and others fought for,” Gilmore argued.”

          1. He doesn’t appear on Navy muster rolls. The John Middlemas who does appear (and did have a post-war submarine posting) was born in 1917 and died in 2010.

        2. His grandson appears to be the worst sort of political sectary.

          I also find it interesting that his grandfather has ’32 grandchildren’, which would require that his children have produced a mean of over 5 children a piece, something you see in Mormon families but hardly anywhere else.

          My uncle was in the Navy and Reserves for 26 years. This fellow was supposedly in one or the other for at least 17 years and overlapped with my uncle for a decade or thereabouts. It’s a cinch to find my uncle in military databases.

          1. SOT/DSS, is that you?? : ) (Of course, it is.)

            Always one to try to discredit or see the worst in people.

            1. Always one to try to discredit or see the worst in people.

              ‘Trying to discredit?’ You’re citing this fellow as an authority. It’s a crummy argument. It’s also an argument which falls flat if the fellow’s biography is not what you’ve presented it to be. (And it’s an argument you’re making in advancement of a stupid cause). Of course I talk back to you. Any person of sense would.

              There is who he is, who he was, and the character his grandson has manufactured in service of the grandson‘s aims. The evidence suggests the following: (1) the grandson subscribes to a great many foolish causes and (2) the grandson makes barely credible claims about his collateral relations and (3) the residual documentation is consistent with the thesis that the character his grandson has manufactured does not correspond well with the original.

              No clue what the truth is here. It’s just that there’s something that doesn’t wring true about this man or his grandfather.

              1. Perhaps it “doesn’t wring (sic) true” because you don’t like it, SOT.

                (What a miserable world this would be with only SOT, DSS, and TSFS types.

                1. No, it does not ring true because it’s highly unusual and the grandsons a flake.

          2. DSS/SOT/TSFS wrote: “I also find it interesting that his grandfather has ’32 grandchildren’, which would require that his children have produced a mean of over 5 children a piece, something you see in Mormon families but hardly anywhere else.”

            Ever hear of adoption?

            “It’s a cinch to find my uncle in military databases.” (Again, from DSS/SOT/TSFS…)

            One can’t conclude that it’s always “a cinch to find” someone, simply because it was easy for you to find your uncle.

            1. Ever hear of adoption?

              There are about 25,000 domestic adoptions a year, accounting for less than 1% of the children added to families.

              Out of the population of family households, about 1.5% have more than six members at any one time. That’s supposedly the average in this family. Again, the mean of this collection is supposedly north of 5 children a piece. Again, his children would have been in the midst of their childbearing years ca. 1980. Total fertility rates were no higher then than now.

              Mitt Romney has 20 grandchildren, btw.

              1. SOT writes: “Mitt Romney has 20 grandchildren, btw.”

                Actually, the count is apparently 22.


                You seem to have a lot time on your hands, dear old SOT. Maybe you should look into all of this so that you can “officially” discredit Middlemas and his grandson.

                John Middlemas reportedly lives in Willard, MO. Why don’t you give him a call and get it all straight from the horse’s mouth. You’re such a pleasant person. I’m sure you’ll have a perfectly lovely conversation.

            1. No clue how you got the idea in your head that a social observation – Mormons are fecund – constitutes a ‘jab’.

  10. “NFL: No change in policy on standing for the national anthem”

    Justin Boggs
    4:43 PM, Oct 11, 2017

    “After rumors swirled early this week that the NFL would prohibit players from sitting or kneeling during the national anthem, the league and players’ union jointly announced on Wednesday that there would be no change in policy.

    ““Commissioner Roger Goodell reached out to NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith today and both he and player leadership will attend the League meetings next week,” the NFL and NFLPA said in a joint statement. “There has been no change in the current policy regarding the anthem. The agenda will be a continuation of how to make progress on the important social issues that players have vocalized.

    “”Everyone who is part of our NFL community has a tremendous respect for our country, our flag, our anthem and our military, and we are coming together to deal with these issues in a civil and constructive way.””

    Good. Just as it should be.

  11. I was thinking this morning that people like our friend Natacha should have that race card laminated, to protect it since it is whipped out so frequently. Gotta be getting a bit dog-eared by now.

  12. I would love to separate each and ask why are you kneeling? Can you imagine the answers. Let’s remember they didn’t attend college for their intelligence so can you imagine their degrees if they ever got one. Go after the NFL sponsors then we’ll see how strong their commitment to stupidity is.

      1. Rodgers is of average intelligence but is the the upper stanine in smugness.

      1. Said, by someone, who writes. . .higher than all of you all.

        They must be giving out free computer access on the community computers in the trailer park tonight. Yee hah.

          1. Elitist–who is that? Someone with more than six teeth in his mouth, who doesn’t wear a wife beater and sleep with his sister and cousin?

Comments are closed.