Category Archives: war on patriotism

Christian leaders trash President Trump and his supporters

File this under “No good deed goes unpunished”.

On May 4, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order promoting free speech and religious liberty by enabling religious groups to speak freely on politics without losing their tax exempt status. In the words of the executive order:

“All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term “adverse action” means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

This is how Pope Francis’ close advisers and a Protestant minister reward President Trump for his religious liberty executive order.

(1) Pope Francis’ Advisers

In a recent article in the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, the contents of which are vetted by the Vatican in advance of publication, two close advisers to Jesuit Pope Francis lashed out at American conservatives and the political alliance between conservative Catholics and Evangelical Protestants which elected Donald Trump to the White House.

As reported by Catholic World News on July 13, 2017, the article is co-authored by:

  1. Father Antonio Spadaro, the editor of Civilta Cattolica, who is a regular adviser to Pope Francis.
  2. Marcelo Figueroa, a Presbyterian pastor who was recruited by Pope Francis to launch an Argentinean edition of L’Osservatore Roman, the Vatican’s daily newspaper.

Spadaro and Figueroa maintain that American conservative leaders, including Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, have been heavily influenced by fundamentalist Protestant thought — an influence that shows itself in a noxious Manichean worldview that “divides reality between Good and absolute Evil” and encourages confrontation.

The two close advisers to Pope Francis write that many American Catholics have been drawn into that Manicheanism, and that their alliance with Evangelical Protestants as “values voters” is worrisome because these Catholics are a departure from Pope Francis’s “ecumenism”:

“Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church.”

(2) Protestant Pastor William Barber

On July 10, 2017 in the White House, a group of evangelical leaders laid hands on and prayed over President Trump, asking God to give him guidance, wisdom and protection.

That sent Rev. William Barber II, the pastor of Greenleaf Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Goldsboro, NC, and president of North Carolina NAACP. into a spitting rage.

Rev. William Barber II

Abbie Bennett reports for The News & Observer that on MSNBC’s “AM Joy” on Saturday morning, July 15, Barber called the evangelicals’ prayer for the President “theological malpractice”:

“It is a form of theological malpractice that borders on heresy when you can p-r-a-y for a president and others when they are p-r-e-y, preying on the most vulnerable, you’re violating the most sacred principles of religion.”

Next day, in a news release, chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party (NCGOP) Robin Hayes said:

“In the strongest possible terms, the NCGOP condemns the hateful actions of Dr. Rev. Barber, who cast tens of millions of people, of all faiths, who pray for the president, as sinners in a nationally broadcasted interview. As a pastor in North Carolina, Rev. Dr. Barber has crossed the line this time. Using his role as a supposed faith-based leader to falsely drive citizens away from praying for the good of our nation and our nation’s president, is absolutely grotesque. The idea that it is a sin to pray for any individual, much less the commander-in-chief of our country, goes against any religious teaching that I have ever heard of. Rev. Dr. Barber is spreading a repulsive lie, and he should apologize immediately.”

During the 2016 presidential election, neither the Vatican nor Rev. William Barber had a problem with Hillary Clinton, who is so pro-abort that she favors the legalization of late-term or partial-birth abortion (i.e., up to the 9th month). In contrast, President Trump has been true to his campaign promise, having defunded International Planned Parenthood, as well as signed a law restoring states’ right to defund Planned Parenthood in the U.S.

“Reverend” Barber and Pope Francis’ close advisers “Father” Spadaro and “Pastor” Figueroa, are no more Christian than the devil himself.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

White House on July 4th: Trump vs. Obama

On July 4, 2017, the White House of the President Trump administration was lit in red, white and blue.

In contrast, this was the Obama White House on July 4, 2009:

But the Obama White House was lit — in rainbow colors — on June 25, 2015 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of “gay” marriage:

~Eowyn

Happy Fourth of July! The Greatest Play in Baseball

An oldie but goodie. One of the best plays EVER.

Read about Rick Monday saving the U.S. flag here.

DCG

Remembering that first Fourth of July 241 years ago

Today, July 4, 2017, is the 241st anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence.

As the light of freedom dims in America, we should recall that first Fourth of July in 1776, when 56 men convened in a hot stuffy room in Philadelphia to deliberate on and sign the Declaration of Independence.

There are 3 parts to this post:

  1. An evocative narrative of that day in 1776.
  2. What happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration.
  3. The Declaration of Independence.

The Americans Who Risked Everything,” by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. (father of talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh, III):

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren’t nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that “the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them.” All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president’s desk, was a panoply — consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!”

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. “Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York.”

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase “by a self-assumed power.” “Climb” was replaced by “must read,” then “must” was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called “their depredations.” “Inherent and inalienable rights” came out “certain unalienable rights,” and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: “I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American.” But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

+++

The Fate of the Signers

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact. [from “The Americans Who Risked Everything“]

+++

The Declaration of Independence

The Want, Will and Hopes of the People

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

+++

“I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American.”

How many Americans today — like this Vietnamese immigrant — identify first and foremost as American instead of by a perpetually-aggrieved race or ethnicity or country-of-origin or class or gender or political party?

Today, the Left and RINOs deify globalism, and portray American nationalism as a dirty word and American nationalists as racists. How low we have sunken . . . .

Friends and patriots, on this Independence Day, never forget the sacrifices so willingly undertaken by this nation’s founding fathers. Let us take up the challenge and make sure that the dream they began 241 years ago be never extinguished.

May God have mercy on America.

~Éowyn

The synagogue of Satan

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

The “Synagogue of Satan” subject keeps injecting itself into our discussions, so here is one treatment of the subject.

Bernie Sanders

Personally speaking (in a non-scholarly way), whenever I see Karl Marx, Bernie Sanders, George Soros or some putrid Hollywood mogul, the term, “synagogue of satan,” comes to mind.

The following treatment (which is slightly different than my opinion) can be found at: https://www.gotquestions.org/synagogue-of-Satan.html.


Question: “What is the synagogue of Satan in Revelation?”

Answer: The synagogue of Satan is mentioned twice in Revelation, once in Jesus’ letter to the first-century church in Smyrna and once to the church in Philadelphia. In both cases, the synagogue of Satan is opposed to the mission and message of the church.

To the church in Smyrna, Jesus says, “I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9).

To the church of Philadelphia in Asia Minor, Jesus says, “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9).

In short, the synagogue of Satan was a group of unbelieving Jews who were persecuting Christians. These groups were guilty of slandering the church in Smyrna and opposing the church in Philadelphia in some way.

The majority of the persecution the New Testament church faced came from the Jewish community. Even most of the Roman persecution was an effort to appease the Jewish authorities. This is true of Pilate’s condemnation of Jesus (John 19:1–16) and Paul’s imprisonment by the Roman governors Felix (Acts 24:27) and Festus (Acts 25:16). This pattern held true throughout the Roman world in the first century. As long as Christians were considered a sect of Judaism, they were exempt from the required observance of certain aspects of Roman state religion. However, as Christians were expelled from synagogues and denounced by the Jewish leadership, Rome began to see Christianity as a new religion that did not have these same exemptions. Therefore, Christians outside the protective umbrella of the synagogue were open to Roman persecution.

The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews (the people of God), and they persecute those who believe in Jesus the Messiah (the true people of God). In reality, by rejecting the Jewish Messiah, they have renounced their status as “true” Jews, and that is why Jesus calls them “liars.” This distinction between ethnic Jews and faithful Jews is also seen in Romans 9:6 (“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”) and Romans 2:28–29 (“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter”). By their persecution of the true people of God, these unbelieving Jews had become a synagogue of Satan—a gathering of people who were actually following the devil’s priorities.

Both churches are promised victory over the synagogue of Satan. This promise echoes Isaiah 60:14: “The children of your oppressors will come bowing before you; all who despise you will bow down at your feet.” In the context of Isaiah 60, an oppressed Jerusalem will be vindicated. Those who oppress her will bow down at her feet and will have to admit that she is indeed blessed by God—in the language of Revelation 3:9—that God loves her. But Isaiah 60:14 applied to these Jews and the Church is something of a reversal. In Isaiah 60, the oppressing Gentiles will bow down at the feet of Jews and admit that God loves them. In Revelation 2—3, oppressing Jews will bow down at the feet of the persecuted Church (with a significant population of Gentiles in it) and admit that God loves them. This is a striking role reversal.

Internet searches of “synagogue of Satan” produce quite a few links to sites that claim the “synagogue of Satan” refers to the Jewish people today and that promote all kinds of conspiracy theories about how the Jews run the world. Quite frankly, this is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the verses in Revelation. The synagogue of Satan refers to specific Jewish communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia that were persecuting the church, not to any modern situation. Likewise, no modern situation should be used as an interpretive tool to explain a passage firmly rooted in the first-century Roman world. ❦


Okay people, there’s one opinion.
Let’s have at it. 

 

Navy Vet: ‘CA City Told Me to Take Down American Flag on D-Day’

galt ca flag pole mess

A big no-no in Galt, CA: Two flag poles. Oh the horror!

Why does it cost $4,400 to file a petition to amend this law? Insanity.

From Fox News: A California Navy veteran and his wife expressed disbelief at the city of Galt telling them to remove a flagpole on their property or face a fine.

The couple was informed that the second of their two flagpoles violated neighborhood code, which allows a maximum of one flagpole per property.

Ron Raeta and his wife, Sherri, said on “Fox & Friends” they were furious that someone in the neighborhood “with nothing to do” reported the violation to the city council.

Raeta recalled that he received notice to remove the flagpole on June 6, which is the anniversary of D-Day.

He said the city council tried to help, but since the code was clearly being violated, they said the flagpole would have to come down.

Raeta said he feels a sense of pride and patriotism to have the two American flags flying high in front of his house.

Sherri said the city council plans to review the code and that it would cost $4,400 to file a petition to amend the law.

Watch the interview above and read more, here.

DCG

Colin Kaepernick is making his choice: Activism over the NFL

kaepernick-taking-a-knee

Actions have consequences…

Translation: No NFL teams wants to deal with the negative impact of Kaepernick’s toxic opinions.

From Yahoo (by columnist Dan Wetzel): In a flurry of tweets and retweets Monday night, Colin Kaepernick used his sizable social media platform (1.1 million-plus followers) to comment and promote issues concerning police violence involving minorities and the prison-industrial complex, notably the use of inmate labor.

This isn’t new. His Twitter feed is a near daily display of activist messages and arguments. Last weekend he retweeted a couple images that compared modern police officers to slave catchers of the past. To some it was a history lesson. To others who see the many honest and fair members of law enforcement that are trying to build a better future, it was an insult.

Maybe you agree with his posts or maybe you don’t. Maybe they cause you to think about the issue for a second. Maybe you’re bored with anything Kaepernick has to say. This column isn’t about changing any opinions. You can take it up with Kaepernick. He doesn’t seem to mind the debate.

What Kaepernick hasn’t been tweeting about, or speaking about, or granting interviews about is that he remains an unsigned free agent as NFL training camps creep closer and available jobs are being filled. Kaepernick, who once started in a Super Bowl but is most famous for taking a knee during the national anthem last year, is unemployed.

No one says he should replace Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers or even be slotted in as a starter. He is undoubtedly better, however, than some of these third-stringers with camp invites.

As team after team passes him by, the obvious conclusion is that his high-profile political stances have made him, in the minds of NFL decision-makers, a liability greater than the perceived value he would bring to the team. Make no mistake, if Kaepernick completed 69.9 percent of his passes for 38 touchdowns against just 7 interceptions last season (MVP Matt Ryan numbers), he could tweet whatever he wanted. After all, there are plenty of other players who joined him on one knee during the anthem who will be suiting up next season.

When your perceived-negatives outweigh your perceived-positives though, you’re done. This is pretty much how it works in every profession, let alone one as cutthroat as the NFL. Kaepernick completed just 59.2 percent of his passes while starting for a 2-14 team. He’s a back-up at this point. So here we are.

Yet he doesn’t seem to care … or at least care enough to change his behavior in an effort to ease fears from clearly skittish teams who tend to like quiet, compliant back-ups. The simplest advice for Kaepernick if he wants to play in the NFL next season is to just be quiet. He won’t be quiet. He won’t back down.

Whether you agree with his stances, disagree with his stances or find some reasonable and some not, it’s worth offering at least a nod of respect for a guy willing to risk so much for what he believes in. On this, he is putting his money where his mouth is.

(This is in addition to what his website claims is already $700,000 in donations – out of a pledged $1 million – to “organizations in oppressed communities.” Each donation, most to grassroots organizations, is carefully noted.)

If you look at the website kaepernick7.com, other than the jersey number in the domain name, there is very little acknowledgement that he is even a football player – it’s all about his foundation and its “Know Your Rights” campaign. There are links to pro-Kaepernick sports columns under “media,” but that’s about it.

And he’s yet to come out and complain or even comment about how his NFL job hunt is going.

“He is a starter in this league and I can’t imagine somebody won’t give him a chance to play,” Seattle coach Pete Carroll said earlier this offseason. Carroll is wrong; it’s pretty easy to imagine that no team will give Kaepernick a chance to play. NFL coaches dread so-called “distractions” and Kaepernick is clearly considered one of those. For different reasons, so are Tim Tebow or Johnny Manziel, although neither of them ever led a team to the Super Bowl.

In Seattle’s case, Carroll said he didn’t sign Kaepernick because his contract demands were more than Seattle could handle for a back-up position … which is also a major factor here.

To say politics isn’t a factor here for at least some teams, though, is disingenuous. You can blame the teams for this or you can agree with it. That’s reality, and Kaepernick is very well aware of that fact.

When he chose to make a political statement by sitting, and later kneeling for the national anthem, he knew that he was creating a major stir. His handling of the attention wasn’t always smooth – he was willing to speak at length and with great passion about his positions and how it did or didn’t effect the San Francisco locker room, but he also struggled with details at times and famously decided to skip out on voting (even for ballot initiatives) last November. Becoming a national activist isn’t easy.

Whatever, he decided to try and so he tried. He decided this was important to him, so he made it important to him. He decided that he couldn’t be silent about what he believes, so he spoke out, presumably well aware of the potential repercussions, like being out of the league at age 29.

And now, faced with reality, he hasn’t changed his course at all. He’s Colin Kaepernick, take him or leave him. (And it appears the NFL is leaving him.)

DCG