AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Her Parents Must be So Proud

UPDATE: Here’s the VIDEO.

Every once in a while, the networks get more than they bargain for when scanning the crowd at a sporting event. I’m sure ABC meant to focus on the 2 male Badger fans and their reaction to the current status of the game (today’s Wisconsin-Iowa football game in Iowa City). Unfortunately, they also got a nice little double one-fingered salute surprise from the blonde girl right behind them. Heh Stay classy, female Badger fans!

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

This girl’s parents must be so proud. Their little girl gets on national television and gives the nation the finger. Not just the finger, but a double one-finger salute! Ah, what a college education will produce.

(Unfortunately, she also got the last laugh as her team pulled out a 31-30 victory)

Advertisements

October 23, 2010 , 9:17PM Posted by | Sports | Comments Off on Her Parents Must be So Proud

On November 2nd, 2010, You Will Make the Most Important Decision of Your Life

Simply outstanding comment/commentary:

When you step into the voting booth on November 2, you will make the most important decision of your life. You’ll literally be voting on your future – or, more precisely, whether or not you and your country will have one.

Would you like to live in Cuba, own a business in Venezuela or have the civil liberties of an Iranian? Without a radical reversal of course, those happy fates could be yours.

Think of the watershed elections of our lifetime – Nixon-McGovern (1972), Reagan-Carter (1980), The Contract With America (1994), and Bush-Gore (2000). None even comes close to the importance of what will happen in less than two weeks.

You won’t just be voting for a House member and, in some cases, a Senator. You won’t just be voting on whether Nancy Pelosi (“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”) remains Speaker of the House, or whether Harry Reid (town meeting protesters are “evil-mongers”) is still the Senate Majority Leader.

You will be voting on whether Obama will still have a rubber-stamp Congress on January 3, 2011 – where a Democratic majority (liberal pod people) vote robotically for whatever economy-annihilating measures the administration dreams up.

If you want a snapshot of Obama’s vision of America (a Kodak moment from Hell), consider the political mutants who descended on our nation’s capital on October 2 to push his agenda.

Along with the usual assortment of labor hacks, educrats and racial guilt-mongers, One Nation Working Together included the Communist Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America, the American Muslim Association (People for the Jihad Way), the U.S. Campaign to End the (alleged) Israeli Occupation, and the National Council of La Raza (The Race).

If these are the people you want to chart our national destiny, then, by all means, vote Democratic this year. Then put a bullet in your brain – so you won’t have to live in their America.

On the other hand, if you have an ounce of survival instinct, you’ll vote Republican. Not that some Republicans don’t want to make you tear your hair out. But, basically, it comes down to this: With Republicans, there’s a chance of saving America. With Democrats – no chance. Compared to America with Obama and a Democratic Congress in charge, a snowball in Hell is the odds-on favorite.

Instead of a chicken in every pot, the Democrats’ slogan should be “A mosque on every block and an unemployment insurance office just down the street.”

With an unemployment rate of 9.6%, we lost another 95,000 jobs in October. The unemployment rate has been above 9% for 16 consecutive months. If you include those who work part-time because they can’t find full-time jobs and people who’ve given up looking for work, the real unemployment rate is 17.1%.

In 2007, before a Democrat-controlled Congress crafted the current recession, the economy was growing at 3% a year, 1.33 million new jobs were created, and unemployment was 4.6%. (Obama calls this the “mess” he inherited from his predecessor.) I’m hard at work on my latest opus, “Economics for Clueless Community Organizers.”

And there’s worse in store. As Wednesday Addams says in “Addams Family Values”: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” (I stole that from a Moron yesterday)

With support from a compliant Congress, the Obama administration has become the NASA of national debt – taking it from the stratosphere into orbit. In FY 2009 and 2010, Obama posted the two largest deficits in U.S. history – $1.416 trillion and $1.294 trillion.

In his first 19 months in office, Obama ran up more cumulative debt than every U.S. President from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined. No slouch himself when it came to deficit spending, George W. Bush added just under $4 trillion to the National Debt in 8 years. Obama has added around $2.7 trillion in just 2. “Yes we can” – bankrupt America, in the blink of an eye.

That mountain of debt towers over a shrinking economy. If this continues much longer, your children and grandchildren will inherit an America that looks like Lower Slobbovia. (see video rdb posted)

Get set for the largest tax hike in U.S. history – and Congress won’t even have to vote on it. Unless Washington acts pronto, the Bush-era income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will fade into the mists of time.

Taxes will rise for every bracket. Taxpayers presently paying 10% of their income will pay 15%. Those paying 25% will pay 28%. Other brackets will go from 28% to 31%, 31% to 36% and the top tax bracket will rise from 35% to 39.6%. The marriage tax penalty will come back, and the standard deduction for dependent children will be cut in half.

Didn’t the champion of the middle class promise no tax hikes for those earning less than $250,000 a year? But they’re not tax increases, President Orwell and his Congressional servitors insist. We’re not passing new taxes, just letting old tax-cuts expire.

Here are a few examples of the way Nancy, Moe and Curly’s (H/T Logprof) tax hikes that aren’t tax hikes will work.

Stephen Moore writes in The Wall Street Journal that a family of four with an annual net income of $45,000 will pay $2,083 more in taxes. A single mother earning $40,000 will shell out an extra $1,607 per year. But Democrats love the middle class – as long as they’re transgendered Islamicists in the country illegally with mortgages they can’t afford.

The so-called super-rich will pay more too – which will keep them from investing in business expansion and new jobs – another way to help “the folks from the bottom,” as the president condescendingly calls them.

On the campaign trail in 2008, the president explained his economic philosophy to Joe the Plumber: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Notice he didn’t say create more wealth (Heaven forbid!), but redistribute that which already exists.

Okay, according to the White House’s resident Alinskyite, it’s good for the super-rich (which, BTW, includes many small business owners) not to have the funds to invest in economic growth and job creation. Funny he didn’t get a Nobel Prize in economics.

But that family of four with a net income of $45,000 per, where does their “wealth” get spread around – to the welfare mooch-ocracy, to illegal immigrants to Michelle Obama’s travel agent? The U.S. tax dollars in Spain fall mainly in Costa del Sol.

But income tax hikes are only part of the grim picture. Unless it’s repealed, over the next 10 years, Obama Care will cost an estimated $500 million in direct levies. That’s why one provision of the 2,000-plus page law (the one that Pelosi said had to pass before we could find out what was in it) provides for hiring an additional 16,500 IRS agents.

Payment for Obama Care – designed to destroy private health insurance – won’t be denominated in dollars alone. You’ll be forced to pay for abortions. But insurers won’t be able to provide the life-saving equipment and procedures which will never be developed, because Washington doesn’t think you’re worth the investment.

We’ll also pay in blood, through rationing, or (as the president put it in a 2009 speech) there will be “incentives” for physicians to “avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs.”

Say goodbye to Grandma who needs a pacemaker and to your disabled child who’s considered not worth the cost of an expensive operation.

Obama is also working to euthanize our domestic oil industry. Two-thirds of the oil the U.S. consumes is imported – much of it from his Muslim friends in the Middle East and his Marxist friends in Latin America.

In terms of increasing our dependence on foreign oil, the president thinks we can do better. It drives him nuts that we consume 20% of the world’s oil. Maybe he should apologize for that the next time he’s in Saudi Arabia.

One of his first acts as president was to cancel domestic drilling leases. The enviro lobby, which has more clout with Congress than Planned Parenthood and the ACLU combined, has successfully pushed to put more and more federal land off limits for domestic exploration.

After the Gulf spill (courtesy of BP, an Obama campaign contributor, but aided by the president’s own ineptitude in handling the disaster), the administration put a six-month ban on deep-water drilling. Since fighting alleged global warming is another of Obama’s passions, $7-a-gallon gas (plus commensurately higher food prices) would suit his administration just fine.

One thing which will never be in short supply – thanks to the One whose birth certificate is still AWOL and a feckless Congress – is illegal immigrants, currently 11 million to 18 million. In June, Sen. John Kyl disclosed that the president told him he was holding border-security hostage for GOP support for another amnesty. Kyle: “The problem is, he (Obama) said, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.” The White House claims the conversation never took place.

With the Tea Parties breathing down his neck, Obama is desperate for new voters – voters who can’t speak English, voters who have no stake in this country’s future, newly minted “citizens” who’ll vote the way LULAC and the National Council of The Race tell them.

This summer, rumors were flying that El Presidente would try an end-run around Congress, by amnestying millions of illegals by executive order. Eight GOP Senators gave enough credence to these reports to sign a letter to the president asking him to repudiate the strategy. A cabinet officer said they were merely discussing the best options. But open borders and increasing our dependence on foreign oil are only two of the ways the administration and its congressional lackeys are working overtime to make you and your family less safe.

With Obama in the White House, the only thing more dangerous than being an Irish nun at an airport security checkpoint is being a U.S. ally.

Barack Hussein’s scandalous treatment of Israel (our ally of 62 years, based on shared values) and Iran (our sworn enemy, based on its demented ideology) is the most glaring example. While he bashes Israel for building Jewish homes in Jewish Jerusalem and drives it toward establishing a terrorist strip mall on the West Bank and Gaza (“I’m Crazy Mahmoud. Come on down!”) he practices diplomatic soft love with Iran’s lunatic President Ahmadinejad to get him to abandon his quest for nuclear weapons.

Obama has won the war on terrorism by declaring that terrorism doesn’t exist. When Americans go into combat abroad, they’re not fighting terrorism; they’re engaged in “overseas contingency operations.”

The chief of his Keystone Kops, Homeland Security Director Janet (illegal immigration isn’t a crime) Napolitano, prefers “man-caused disasters” to describe incidents like the Fort Hood massacre, where Major Nidal Malik Hassan murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers while shouting “Allah is Great.” Obama’s Department of Defense refused to use the words Islamic terrorism in its report on the murders.

The president is engaged in a relentless drive to remake America. The long march through the culture is accelerating. B. Hussein says: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president to fight negative stereotypes of Islam.” (Try finding that in the oath of office.) He doesn’t feel a responsibility to defend Catholicism – which gets smeared on a daily basis – or Judaism, or evangelical Christianity (let alone to speak out against the persecution of Christians and Jews in the Muslim world) only stand up for Islam.

Unlike his predecessors, this president passed on a White House National Day of Prayer event, for the past two years. He couldn’t find the time to visit Arlington National Cemetery to honor our fallen heroes on Memorial Day, but hosted Iftar dinners (to mark the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan) in 2009 and 2010. At this year’s shindig, he announced his support for the obscene Ground Zero Mosque.

America isn’t a Christian nation, or is no longer a Christian nation, the president proclaims. In a recent speech to an Hispanic audience, he even edited the Declaration of Independence to make our founding document more politically correct, by taking out the reference to rights “endowed by their Creator.”

Give him a Democratic Congress for two more years, and you won’t recognize America by 2012. And NPR won’t go away either.

The Constitution is also on the line. The Supreme Court is currently split down the middle – with four conservatives, four liberals and Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. Kennedy is 74, as is constitutionalist Antonin Scalia. If something happens to either, without a Republican Senate to filibuster his worst choices (Sotomayor on steroids, Kagan on crack), Obama will have a Supreme Court which will take the Constitution and drop-kick it into the Potomac.

That’s what’s at stake this year. If Obama has a Democratic Congress in 2011, it’s Armageddon, Ebola, “The Day After Tomorrow” and “2012” all rolled into one.

In case you’re one of those who thinks there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, think again.
Based on ratings compiled by the American Conservative Union, in the current Congress, Republican Senators voted for fiscal responsibility, national security and traditional values 82% of the time, compared to 15% for Democrats. In the House of Representatives, it was 89% of Republicans on the side of sanity, versus 12% of Democrats.

One thing more: Not a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for Obama’s socialized-medicine in stages – not one.

If there’s no check on the last two years of the Obama presidency, you can kiss your country goodbye and assume the position for a forced landing in the People’s Republic of Bill Ayers. Just sayin’…

Posted by: sickinmass at October 21, 2010 08:04 PM

October 21, 2010 , 7:55PM Posted by | Conservatism, Politics | Comments Off on On November 2nd, 2010, You Will Make the Most Important Decision of Your Life

Wall of Separation Idea Came from Former Klansman

So Christine O’Donnell is being ridiculed for asking Chris Coons where in the Constitution is found the idea of “wall of separation of church and state”. Liberals always like to throw this phrase around, as if it’s actually in the U.S. Constitution. The fact is, it is not. And I think it is important to remind people just whom liberals are quoting when they bring up the “wall of separation” idea. The following is from an interview done on the Rush Limbaugh program in January 2008 with Mark Levin:

LEVIN: I mean, you have everything from Santa Claus and Christmas trees. We have a court they couldn’t muster together a majority to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance on the merits of what’s in the Pledge of Allegiance — and let’s look at that for a second. The “wall of separation.” This is annoying to a lot of people and very upsetting. The Framers did not want a government religion. They did not want what they had in England, where everybody is taxed to support that religion and has to be a member of that religion or they’re punished, and so we’ve reached the point now where it’s been twisted and turned to mean what? If I don’t like what’s on public land and it bothers me, then I have a constitutional right to sue and get an ACLU lawyer and have it removed. Well, that’s not what the Constitution says.

So where does this “wall-of-separation” language come from? It doesn’t come from Thomas Jefferson. It comes from Hugo Black, in 1947 and an Everson decision.

Now, who’s Hugo Black? Hugo Black was appointed by FDR. Before that he was a senator. Before that he was for a couple years an active member of the Klan, and after he became an active member of the Klan, he was a lawyer, a very good lawyer for some Klan members who committed very violent acts, including one who killed a Catholic priest.

Now, when he came on the court, I don’t know that he lost all those viewpoints, but in this particular decision involving public monies that incidentally would go to Catholic school children to help transport them to school, Black snuck this language into the decision: wall of separation, strict wall of separation. Now, that’s not in the Constitution. That’s nowhere in the Constitution. Black put it in the Constitution — excuse me — put it in this decision.

So now when all these pseudo-civil libertarians are running around saying, you know, “separation of church and state,” I think our audience should remind them: You’re not quoting Jefferson; you’re quoting Hugo Black, the former Klansman!

Of course, it should not surprise anyone that liberals side with a former Klansman. Afterall, they revered former Klansman Robert Byrd so much that they elected him to the U.S. Senate and kept him in office for decades.

Here is more from the interview: Men in Black — Part I

Also see this great post by Bob Ellis at The Dakota Voice: Church and State: Another MSM Hatchet Job

Here’s Rush today on this issue:

RUSH: That’s not in the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what’s really scary. Most of the Framers and the congressmen who were first elected to the House and Senate prayed every day and went to church in Congress on Sundays, and in fact the House is opened every day with a prayer! Apparently back in the day, the Founders didn’t know that there was separation of church and state. All the Founders said was that the state shall not establish an official religion. It does not say that people in government shall not practice or cannot practice a religion. The Senate opens with a prayer every day, as does the House. The House has a chaplain, for crying out loud!

So this story was purposely written to make it look like Christine O’Donnell does not know what’s in the First Amendment, when she was right. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words “separation of church and state,” and nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything written to convey the meaning that religion is not permitted to be part of government. All it says is that the government shall “establish” one. The United States government cannot proclaim, “This is a Christian nation.” It cannot proclaim, “This is a Jewish state,” cannot proclaim the official religion of our country is Islam. They cannot do it. But we can have Islamists in government, we can have Christians in government, we can have Jews in government, and they can pray while serving! This has been one of the tricks of the left for as long as I’ve been alive.

To get God out of our culture, to get God out of the schools, to get God out of everyday life. It’s to try to say that the Constitution prohibits God, that’s what they want the interpretation of the First Amendment to be. The Constitution does not prohibit God. I mean, for crying out loud, look at the Declaration, acknowledged as one of our founding documents. We are all “endowed by our Creator.” The reason for this phrase in the First Amendment was where were these people fleeing? England! The Church of England. Henry VIII established a religion so he could get divorced. Pure and simple, he wanted to get a divorce. Religion said, “No.” “Okay, I’m going to make my own religion. Screw you! I’m gonna behead somebody. Screw you!” They were fleeing religious persecution. The scary thing is that a bunch of dummkopf, dingleberry law students and audience at a law school laughed at the correct portrayal of what’s in the Constitution.

Christine O’Donnell may be as “stupid” as Justice Scalia. You want to know what he said about it? Justice Scalia: “In holding that the establishment clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the court with nary a mention that it is doing so lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves and that is a component of an even more long-standing American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the court invents a boundless and boundlessly manipulable test of psychological coercion.” That is Justice Scalia writing about people amplifying the establishment clause to suggest that God can’t be mentioned, that prayers cannot happen at public graduations.

That was Justice Scalia writing about those on the Supreme Court who would rule that God could not be part of anything to do with government or anything public. The Constitution doesn’t say it. Christine O’Donnell was right. Chris Coons couldn’t name the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment. (interruption) Christine O’Donnell is… (interruption) Well, does she…? Snerdley says that Christine O’Donnell’s not slick; she doesn’t know how to say it to get past these connivers and SOBs. I guess not if you want to look at it that way. The guy says establishment of church and state. She says, “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” She knows full well it’s not. It’s not that she’s not slick enough. She’s assuming that everybody is as smart as she is. She’s assuming that everybody’s as informed as she is. That’s the mistake many of us conservatives make: We assume everybody knows what we know. We assume everybody is as informed as we are. That’s why I say it was really scary that these lamebrains at that law school laughed at the absolute correct assertion that she made.

A-freaking-men to this:

Exit Question: Who the hell cares if she thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?

Coons never met a tax increase he did not like, and I am supposed to believe that one of the most important issues in the DELAWARE Senate race is some evangelical hobby horse that has zero chance of even being considered in Delaware or in the Department of Education.

WTF? She can be a snakehandling speaking-in-tongues charismatic wacko for all I care. Is she going to fight tax increases? Is she a solid vote against Obamacare?

On the Howard Kurtzian other hand: She should have just blown off the question and come back with something like “this creationism stuff is just a distraction from the real issue of how we get the Federal government out of our schools. That is something that I, as a Senator, can impact. Creationism should be decided by the local school district….”

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at October 19, 2010 02:08 PM

And this:

The context is bad. It sounds like O’Donnell was defending the teaching of creationism as science. That’s not going to attract a lot of moderates either.Posted by: Cicero at October 19, 2010 01:39 PM

If these so called moderates are going to vote for a Marxist this year because of an establishment clause issue, then they need to get a frickin’ clue.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 19, 2010 02:07 PM

BRAVO and another A-freaking-men to this:

Can we maybe just face it? O’Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate. Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that’s not much comfort. The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.<<

That already happened during the last presidential election, and yet this very site declared that not pulling the lever for McCain and not overlooking his tendency to trample fellow Republicans on his way across the aisle to caucus with the democrats were acts just short of treason. I would like to see a little of that, er…support thrown the way of actual conservative candidates. If you stomached voting McCain, you can stomach shutting your hole over O’Donnell for 2 damn weeks.

Posted by: Kerry at October 19, 2010 02:10 PM

I am 100% in agreement with this as well. To anyone with a lick of common sense, it is obvious that the Left brings up these issues (“separation of church and state”, Intelligent Design/Creationism, etc) to distract from the actual important issues. However, if the American electorate is stupid enough to fall for this BS from Democrats, then we get what we deserve. The Democrats will stop pulling this BS once the American electorate finally punishes them for doing it.

What is noxious is this whole [f-ing] subject. So with 10% unemployment, deflation, crippling gubmint debt, Li’l Barry and the Demotards more than quadrupling the deficit in under two years, Obama’s socialized medicine destroying people’s medical coverage, mountains of new regulations from the EPA et al., massive voter fraud, the prospect of cap-and-tax enacted through executive order… this debate and the tools who sponsored it decided it’s a dandy time to have a bull session on religion in government?

Delaware. My God… it’s full of stupid.

Posted by: George Orwell at October 19, 2010 02:12 PM

Unfortunately, it’s not just Delaware. The Democrats and MF-ing media would pull this BS tactic anywhere in the nation they felt it would work. They have been doing it for decades. Rarely do Democrats ever focus on the actual issues of the economy and foreign policy, and when they do, they lie and mislead people. Until the American electorate stops falling for this BS from Democrats, they’re going to keep doing it.

October 19, 2010 , 1:47PM Posted by | Democrats, Liberalism, Mark Levin, United States Supreme Court | 2 Comments

It’s Time for The View to get a Makeover

Someone I read recently made a good point about the women’s daytime talk show The View. They noted that the show is named The View and not Views. And that name holds great meaning. It represents the fact that there is only one view on each issue talked about on the show, and that is the liberal view of the three liberal hags: Joy Behar, Whoopi ‘rape-rape’ Goldberg and Barbara Walters. No other views are allowed to be treated with respect or are open for discussion. Oh, sure, they have conservative-ish Elizabeth Hasselbeck there as the token “conservative”. But they don’t give her any respect whatsoever and constantly talk over her, demean her and smear her.  And they do so knowing that she is too submissive to stand up for herself against their ridiculous bullying.

What would be a truly good show is to have four strong, informed, opinionated, yet respectful women on the show. Off the top of my head, I can think of Michelle Malkin, Kirsten Powers, Dana Loesch and Camille Paglia. That would actually be a good diverse panel of women to watch. Granted, Kirsten Powers is pretty much a liberal hack, but at the very least she can discuss things with a reasonable amount of respect and decorum. Which is much more than we can say for Whoopi and Behar.

Anyone else have some suggestions for some strong, informed, opinionated, but respectful liberal and conservative women who could makeover the show The View?

Some feedback from where I had this posted on Facebook:

I like that, though some alternates I’d throw in there are Megyn Kelly, S.E. Cupp, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, or Ann Coulter for the conservative view. I’m much less well versed on liberal women, maybe Megan McCain‘s chunky butt, or Rachel Maddow. My only problem with this show is you know it’d devolve into a cat-fight eventually. I don’t see most of the conservatives suffering fools for long.

I thought of Megyn Kelly, but forgot about S.E. Cupp. She’s another good one. I left out Kelly, because I was trying to go for women who didn’t already have their own shows. Ingraham, Cheney and Coulter are good ones too though. Coulter especially, because I think she’d really surprise people about how intelligent and well spoken she is, if she had time on her own show to articulate her points, instead of always having to be on the defensive and be pressed for time when on the talk shows where she is interviewed. When Rush had her on for an extended interview, she did fantastic. I think she’d be great on a new The View.

Meghan McCain doesn’t fit, because I’m going for someone who is actually intelligent and informed. Meggy Mac is just an ignorant twit attention whore. I’m going for a new The View that combines personality, entertainment and intelligent, informed discussion. The only thing Meggy Mac would bring would be her boobs and her whining about everyone picking on her.

Maddow seems to be an even worse hack than Powers. She seems to be the female — or at least less male — version of Olbermann. Which is to say she’s basically a butch, unattractive version of Meggy Mac. Plus she has her own show, so she’s out.

Unfortunately, there just are not that many good liberal choices out there. I think Paglia would be good though. Even though I disagree with her a lot, she is respectful and makes her points well.

And here is a prime example of why I suggested Dana Loesch. Not only is she beautiful, but she’s sharp, intelligent and knows her stuff. And she doesn’t back down to anyone. Replace Hasselbeck with Loesch and she’d put Whoopi and Behar in their place.

October 18, 2010 , 2:48PM Posted by | Hollywood, The View | 3 Comments

1st Place Detroit Lions?

So I’m listening to Doug Karsch and Scott ‘the Gator’ Anderson on 97.1FM The Ticket this morning here in Detroit and they’re discussing the Lions game from yesterday. As usual when talking about the Lions, inevitably the gripes come up about the Week 1 loss to the Chicago Bears and the disallowed Calvin Johnson catch. I don’t blame them, as they did get jobbed by the refs that day on the catch. Though it was no guarantee that they win that game, since (1) there were still about 40 seconds left in the game, (2) the Bears were doing great with kick returns all game and (3) all they would have needed to do was get into FG range to either tie the game or win it (depending on whether or not the Lions were able to convert on the 2-pt conversion).

They also lamented that if the Lions could have gotten the Bears win and maybe another game where they were close, the NFC North division race would look completely different and the Lions would be able to compete. So I went to look at the current NFC North standings to see just how different the race would look had the Lions been able to pull off wins in their close games.

Currently, the standings look like this (record in division games in parenthesis):

CHI — 4-2 (2-0)
GB — 3-3 (1-1)
MIN — 2-3 (1-0)
DET — 1-5 (0-3)

Now, let’s first give the Lions a victory the Week 1 game against the Bears. Second, I believe the Lions got ripped off in the game they lost to the Packers 28-26. They were driving for a game-winning FG late in that game and there were at least 2 passing plays where Packers’ DB Charles Woodson was guilty of Pass Interference (PI) and it wasn’t called. The most blatant was a 4th Down pass to Calvin Johnson where Woodson was all over him. The refs didn’t throw the flag, the pass fell incomplete and the Lions turned the ball over on downs. Game over, Lions lose. Well, I believe the Lions were the victims of the refs giving preferential treatment to veteran DBs like Woodson. I further believe the Lions would have driven down for a game-winning FG had the flags been thrown on Woodson for his PIs. So let’s give a win to the Lions in the Packers game.

Now, watch how dramatically this changes the NFC North standings:

DET — 3-3 (2-1)
CHI — 3-3 (1-1)
MIN — 2-3 (1-0)
GB — 2-4 (0-2)

The Detroit Lions would be in 1st Place! And the pre-season favorite by the so-called “experts” for the Super Bowl, the Packers, would be in last place, with 2 division losses! Simply amazing.

As it is, I still think this division is up for grabs. My Bears have MAJOR issues with their OL and have a BRUTAL end of season schedule (MIN, @MIA, PHI, @DET, NE, @MIN, NYJ, @GB). I have them pegged to finish 8-8 (3-3), losing their last 5 games of the season. But that’s giving them wins vs PHI and MIN at home. Lose those and the Bears are at 6-10 (2-4).

Let’s look at Green Bay: MIN, @NYJ, DAL, @MIN, @ATL, SF, @DET, @NE, NYG, CHI

Damn, that’s one tough schedule. Given their injuries, they could easily lose all of those, in my opinion, with the best chances for victories coming against DAL, SF, @DET, NYG and CHI. Let’s be generous and say that’s how it works out. That puts the Packers at 8-8 (3-3). In other words, tied with the Bears. But that’s giving the Packers wins in tough games vs DAL, @DET and NYG. And the season ending game vs CHI could come down to a playoff spot. So a lot could be on the line and that game would be no guarantee. Worst case, as I see it, with losses to DAL, @DET and NYG puts the Pack at 5-11 (2-4)!

Let’s look at Minnesota: @GB, @NE, ARI, @CHI, GB, @WAS, BUF, NYG, CHI, @PHI, @DET

Another tough schedule with 6 road and 5 home games. Starting with being generous, let’s give them wins @GB, ARI, GB, @WAS, BUF, NYG, CHI, @DET. That puts them at 10-6 (5-1) and in 1st Place over the 8-8 Pack and 8-8 Bears. But @WAS, NYG and @DET will be tough games. Let’s say they falter there. That puts the Vikings at 7-9 (4-2).

Finally, let’s look at the Lions: WAS, NYJ, @BUF, @DAL, NE, CHI, GB, @TB, @MIA, MIN

Now, let’s keep in mind that the Lions get Matthew Stafford back after their BYE week, starting with the WAS game. That will be a HUGE shot in the arm and morale booster having their leader back at QB. Let’s start with being generous, giving them wins against WAS, @BUF, CHI, GB, @TB and MIN. That puts them at 7-9 (3-3). Now, before I get to the worst case, let’s see how the Lions’ best case stacks up against the worst case for the rest of the division:

MIN — 7-9 (4-2)
DET — 7-9 (3-3)
CHI — 6-10 (3-3)
GB — 5-11 (2-4)

Wow. The Lions would finish tied for 1st Place, but lose the tie-breaker (division record).

Now let’s see how they would have done if we combine this scenario with wins @CHI and @GB:

DET — 9-7 (5-1)
MIN — 7-9 (4-2)
CHI — 5-11 (2-4)
GB — 4-12 (1-5)

NFC North Division Champion DETROIT LIONS! Wow.

Granted, that would also mean the Lions go 8-2 the rest of the season, but I think it’s doable with (1) Matthew Stafford (2) an improved defense and (here’s the key) (3) more discipline with regards to penalties. That’s really what has been killing the Lions so far this season: (1) dumb penalties killing drives and (2) turnovers at horrible times (ie the Nate Burleson fumble in yesterday’s game @NYG when the Lions were driving to take the lead late in the game). If the Lions can make these improvements, they could really shake things up in the NFC North.

However, if they don’t fix those problems, I’d take away wins against WAS, @BUF, GB and MIN. That would put them at 4-12 (1-5) and last place once again.

Regardless of how things turn out in the division this season (which will probably be somewhere in between my ‘best case’ and ‘worst case’ scenarios for each team), I think the future looks really bright for the Lions going forward. With Bret Farve retiring, the Vikings go back to being just an average 7-10 win team. The Bears success going forward will be based on fixing their OL, then they will be dangerous. And the Packers just need to keep their players healthy and fix their discipline problem with penalties. With a full season of Matthew Stafford, lots of weapons for him to utilize on offense and an ever improving Lions defense, this division could be wide open for ANYONE to take — including the LIONS — in the next 5 years.

And it will be great watching the maturity of 3 young QBs in Stafford, Culter and Rodgers. If the Bears ever fix their OL problems to allow Cutler more than 2 seconds to throw, we could be looking at 3 of the most exciting young offenses in the NFC the next 5-10 years.

Let’s just hope everyone can stay healthy and we’ll be able to enjoy some pretty competitive football, with no one dominant team, in the NFC North for many years going forward.

October 18, 2010 , 11:46AM Posted by | NFL | Comments Off on 1st Place Detroit Lions?