Serena Williams: The Biggest Sore Loser of All

An article on USA Today by Chris Chase highlights the complete lack of sportsmanship on the part of Tennis champion, Serena Williams. I have comments on this issue numerous times in the past, but this response was especially needing inclusion in this blog. Here's my reply:

"Serena Williams has perhaps the worst sportsmanship in US pro-level competition. She rarely--if ever--acknowledges her competitors whether she wins or loses. But most egregiously, when she loses, she NEVER compliments the winner. All she does is make excuses as to why she lost; as if the mere thought of someone beating her is repugnant to this biggest of all sore losers. Her incessant staged PR shoots codify the fact that she is as ugly on the inside as her lack of sportsmanship is on the outside; as if she's trying to believe her own PR stunts.
Tennis is, historically, a sport of graciousness and dignity. Serena Williams displays her complete contempt for those qualities by continually displaying tactlessness to both competitors and officiating, and her ugliness shines through every time her little tantrums flare up.
I watched Williams' match with Bethany Mattack-Sands, and something occurred during the match that simply floored me--announcer Chris Everet actually made excuses for Serena's poor first Set play; sounding exactly like Serena's press conferences whenever she loses. That was simply pathetic, and clearly demonstrates the fact that Everet has bought into the Serena Williams legend, rather than remaining the objective observer that any announcer should be.
Personally, I think Serena has been influenced too much by her racist father; you know, the same guy whom the USTA banned from all their events because of his race baiting, hateful rhetoric. THAT is where Serena's bad sportsmanship comes from; but I seriously doubt that anyone will say anything to her simply because she's Serena Williams, the greatest tennis player in history (man or woman, in her own mind), and for whom graciousness is as foreign a word as acknowledging her opponent's outstanding efforts is to Ms Williams.
Too bad so many mindless fans buy into her greatness and make excuses for her as much as she does for her losses. Serena could be a great champion. But her complete lack of sportsmanship will forever be a thorn in the side of her legacy; and rightfully so for someone so totally devoid of humility, and so filled with [seeming] disdain for her fellow players and anyone or anything that doesn't further her self-aggrandizing greatness."

Financial Impacts of the Oil Bust of 2015

From an article in the New York Times comes an article about the oil bust economy and financial impacts they have had on the area of the Karnes County, TX. The article , I think, unintentionally highlights the financial irresponsibility of area households, businesses and oil field workers by their spending freely during the boom times, but failing to save during the bust that would inevitably follow. The following was my response to the article...

"Just how many propaganda pieces are we going to see? So those in Karnes County, TX are feeling the pinch of the oil bust...so what? During the boom times, just how many in that area threw as much savings into their banks, versus how many would simply spend all of those huge paychecks?

Financial irresponsibility by those in and around that area is simply staggering. Sure, it's nice to pay off debt, buy a few nice things for the family, go on an extra trip or two during the year...but at what cost? Boom employees should know very well the risks of spending everything when the boom could stop at any time--the same goes for local businesses. It would seem that during boom times, it is only logical to save for the inevitable downturn that will shake the area. Why they didn't prepare themselves financially is a mystery. Now, the American taxpayer must make up the difference with THEIR moneys paying for shelter, food, medical bills, etc through governmental assistance programs.

This story has played out time and again around America. The American dream of financial independence has driven people to take extraordinary chances over the last two hundred and thirty years. Sometimes those chances pay off, while others only see financial ruin. The westward expansion is a terrific example of this, as is the post-Civil War land grab by people just wanting a better life. Then this played out again during the Alaskan Gold Rush, the Dust Bowl and Depression era years. It will be interesting to see the migration patterns that academics will surely study when they research the boom and bust years of the oil industry and the financial impacts that surely follow. I have to wonder how the financially irresponsible in areas such as Karnes County, Tx will be labled by these professors and researchers. Foolish; Dreamers; Spenders, etc. 

For now, readers will have to endure more propaganda from areas and people who should have known better than to spend everything they had. Maybe, we will ALL learn a lesson from the oil bust of 2015."

Religious Liberty: A Fundamental Human Right

The following video, a speech by Senator Orrin Hatch on the Senate Floor, hits the nail directly on the head regarding the right of Americans to practice their religion in the face of social change. Please, watch the video in its entirety.

https://youtu.be/Icguz3yMGBQ

Hateful Rhetoric Following the US Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

A few hours ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a deeply divided 5-4 majority, that gay marriage is legal in all states. This decision has unleashed a torrent of hateful rhetoric...by those on the winning side!
This whole post illustrates the hate that those who scream for equality, actually harbor towards those who stand up against gay marriage and homosexuality.
The following are comments from various response boards and are not written, nor altered in any way, by me.
*I must warn you, that some of these comments are graphic.

*by Tony S
"What you have hidden in your past does not make it right in our eyes Jim. You say your newly found god forgives you, we don't as a society."


*by Steve L
"To all you right wing knuckle draggers. You people who hate anything not like you. You are in fact having a very bad week. Why are you always on the wrong side of history? The rest of America is laughing at you! You big redneck dope!"


*by Jared M
"F@@@K your god. I smite all you pieces of crap and your god damn but F@@@King religion. Your god is a croc of sh@T."


*by John D
"KG "Hell" is another misconception. If there is such an eternal lake of fire it most likely awaits your arrival anxiously, ready to devour your soul for being such a homophobic hater."


*by Nelson C
"Your God of injustice, abuse and exploitation or MY God of justice, understanding, and tolerance. Of the two, I prefer my God and Mike Fuckadoodle and his brethren including you can go to Hell."


*by Tryan B
"Jim Cochran, God told me that He wants you to start sucking off guys pronto! So hop to it, man!"


*by David R
"GOD PERSONALLY told me that he's okay with gay marriage and that you were a mistake :)"


*by Dale B
"Your God can go f*** himself. he is a piece of s*** tyrant that needs to be shot in the forehead."


*by Wallace M
"...your just another Christian spewing hate when things don't go your way. you are suppose to give up those imaginary friends about the age of 5."


*by Jeff J
"Tom F Don't make fun of Christians just because they are hypocrites, they can't help themselves. 95% of them don't have a clue what the bible really says."


*by Eddie S
"...since you know so much about it you must yourself be gay or? No. Then STFU!"


*by Kent B
" ...do you really believe this? You are truly nuts. Maybe crazy people like you should be "incarcerated or executed".


*by Edward P
"... then get the hell out of our awesome country...go be a pathetic CUNT someplace else."


*by Kristina O
"You are entitled to your opinion. Most of us, however, do not place much importance on opinions based on hatred and bigotry. Amazing how people like you will proudly state such nonsense."


*by Mario Q
"OK Christians...the country has sinned...please, it is time for you to go to your God and show your contempt for a world ruled by Satan...any cliff will do and all you have to do is step off it...or surely there is a bottle of drano under the sink and you can chug it...c'mon, pray to Yeezus to give you the strength and resolve to do it...or you can chug some Jim Beam to give you the valor to step off a cliff, what the heck...you cannot stay on this earth...or on this country, but you really cannot find another country on a world map and they are all probably communists...you must commit suicide and leave the realm of Satan!"

These comments are only a very small sampling of the intolerant hatred being spewed by the winning side. What's more, the comments, as a whole, clearly show that the next battleground in this fight will be against religion itself. But that, is for another commentary.

Let the People Decide--Not the Courts

From Senator Mike Lee on the issue of gay marriage and the Constitution:

"Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving four separate lawsuits, each dealing with the same question: does the U.S. Constitution require the redefinition of marriage?

The answer is simple: there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the states from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
This case comes from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled last year that the citizens of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee have the constitutional authority to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The basis of the 6th Circuit’s decision is the plain fact that the Constitution is silent on the question of marriage, just as it is silent on many questions that arise in the public square.

This is by design.

When the Constitution neither requires nor forbids a particular policy outcome, it leaves the matter up to the people to decide. In this sense, our Constitution is not an answer book as much as it is a blueprint. It’s purpose is not to resolve every debate, but to create a framework of government in which a free people can govern themselves and address the questions of the day through their elected representatives.

And unless it’s an issue of specifically national or interstate consequence, the Constitution directs this decision-making process to occur at the state level, to create the space for the greatest diversity of opinions to be expressed.

This is how marriage policy has always been determined in America. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rightly observed in United States v. Windsor, “[t]he significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning.”

The current debate about same-sex marriage does not change the fact that marriage policy should be decided by the people and their representatives, not dictated by unelected judges.

In recent years, voters in more than 30 states, including Utah, have passed amendments to their state constitutions that define marriage as an exclusively male-female institution. In 11 other states, the people have chosen to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.

The democratic process has yielded a diversity of outcomes because there is no consensus regarding the definition of marriage. The country is obviously in the process of making up its mind. The Supreme Court should not short-circuit that democratic process by substituting the views of five judges for those of 320 million people.
But while Americans may be divided over the definition of marriage, an overwhelming majority of people agree that the government should not coerce anyone into violating their beliefs about marriage.

A recent poll shows 81 percent of Americans agree “that government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.” Yet today there are many individuals, associations and businesses in America who are denied this fundamental right of conscience.
There are those involved in the wedding industry — like photographers, florists, bakers and even ordained ministers — who face coercion, intimidation, costly lawsuits and financial penalties from state or local officials for declining to participate in same-sex ceremonies. And there are the religiously affiliated adoption agencies that are forced to shut down because their faith directs them to place children with a mother and a father.
This should be concerning to all Americans, regardless of one’s view on marriage. When a government forces someone to choose between making a living serving one’s community and adhering to one’s religious beliefs, our society is left less tolerant and we are all made less free.

Many of these threats must be addressed at the state and local level. But there is also a role for Congress to at least ensure federal powers aren’t employed against those exercising their religious beliefs.

In the wake of the Windsor decision, President Obama declared that, because “Americans hold a wide range of views” on the issue of marriage, “maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom” is “vital.”

I agree.

That’s why, as the marriage debate progresses, I am committed to passing legislation clarifying that federal laws cannot be used to penalize individuals or groups who believe in traditional marriage."

Problems In the US Senate (2015) Begin With The Democratic Party

I received the following newsletter from Senator Mike Lee (UT) in our nation's Capital...


Time to Stop Delaying Democracy

"The Senate has been a much busier place these last few weeks than it was under the previous leadership.  With Republicans in charge of the Senate we have held more votes on amendments in the first few weeks of the 114^th Congress than were allowed in the Democrat-led Senate during all of 2014.  And we have already seen the positive effects of restoring the American people’s voice in the Senate.  During the debate to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, I introduced two amendments that were voted on by the Senate.  The first amendment would limit frivolous lawsuits filed under the Endangered Species Act, and the second would speed up the process for the BLM to approve leasing permits.

The Senate and the House eventually passed the Keystone XL pipeline bill, and it is now sitting on the president's desk, waiting for him to sign it into law or veto it.

For the next major legislative item, Republicans are trying to keep our promise to the American people and do what we were sent here to do: keep the government funded, especially the agencies protecting our homeland security, and hold the President accountable for his abuses of power.  But standing in the way are Senate Democrats who refuse to even allow consideration of the DHS funding bill, so they won’t have to declare where they stand on the President’s illegal and unconstitutional action on executive amnesty.  This effort to try and hide from the American people is embarrassing.
 
Republican leaders in the Senate have repeatedly signaled that they will give Democrats every opportunity to amend provisions of the bill that they don’t like.  But even this is rejected, because it would require Democrats to go on record as supporting or opposing the president’s executive amnesty.

Democrats say they have an alternative bill and insist that we pass it immediately. There are two problems with that approach.

First, while that may have been how the Senate worked under the previous majority – writing bills in back rooms, waiting until the last minute to make them public, blocking amendments and debate, and ramming the bill through without any input from the American people – that’s not the way the Senate is supposed to work, and it’s not the way the Senate is working with Republicans in control.

And second, appropriations bills aren’t supposed to start in the Senate.  In fact, the House has not considered a Senate-originated appropriations bill since at least 1901 -  the period for which records are readily available.

And unfortunately for them, the bill the Democrats want is not supported in the House because it’s not supported by the American people.

It is time to stop delaying democracy; it’s time to stop hiding from the American people and start debating the future of homeland security funding."
After reading this, I want you to ask yourself, "How is my Senator voting in Congress, and does he/she represent the people, or are Party interests taking precedent over everything else?"
In this day and age, when corporate interests are seemingly placed above the welfare of the citizens of the great country, it is more vital than ever that you are aware of the politics in Washington D.C, and how you are affected by the decisions being made of your behalf. Are your Congressional Reps more interested in PAC's, Corporate Welfare and other Special Interests over and above that of their voting constituents? Or do they truly represent the Will of the People? Do you even know how to answer that?

If you don't know the answers to those questions, then please contact your House of Representatives duly elected Rep, and your US Senators. Sign up for their newsletters, write them on important issues--or even issues which are important to you!--get yourself involved in the process! If you do nothing, then don't like what's happening, then you really can't complain at all! So Write, Call, Read up on news and events, and know where your elected Congressional Reps stand on issues.
Things in DC will never change if ordinary people do nothing. Get involved!!!

Quiz: The Bill of Rights

From The Wall Builders, an organization dedicated to preserving the real American history that is so often glossed over in favor of more popular viewpoints. Take this quiz on our Bill of Rights, and see how much you know!

1)  Which Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

2)  How does the Tenth Amendment limit the federal government?

 

3)  On the day that the language for the Bill of Rights was finished in September 1789, what did Congress ask President Washington to do?

 

4)  When was the Bill of Rights ratified?

 

5)  Who is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights," and why?

 

6)  In which Amendment in the Bill of Rights does the phrase "separation of Church and state" appear?

 

 

 

 

How did you do?

 

(Answers are below...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answers:

 

1)  The Second Amendment. (For additional information, see "The Founders on the Second Amendment" and The Second Amendment by David Barton.)

 

2)  By stating that all powers not delegated to the federal government through the Constitution are reserved for the states and the people. (See David's article on "Limiting an Overreaching Federal Government: Is State Nullification the Solution? A Constitutional Analysis" for more information.) 

 

3)  To recommend a day of thanksgiving. (See this Congressional action in the Annals of Congress.)​ (Read Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation online.)  

 

4)  December 15, 1791. Virginia was the last state to ratify the Bill of Rights, officially adding these ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (For more information, check out the Bill of Rights Institute.)

 

 

5)  George Mason from Virginia.

​ Because he advocated for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution.​

(To learn more, see "James Madison and Religion in Public" or to learn more about George Mason, purchase George Mason: His Life, Correspondence & Speeches).

 

6)  NONE!  IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS of The United States of America! (For additional information see Separation of Church and State and The Truth About Thomas Jefferson & the First Amendment. See also, "Church in the Capitol.")​   

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I hope this quiz has opened your eyes to the real history behind the founding of our great country. To learn more, visit TheWallBuilders.com. They have tons of free info, and loads of books and other materials to purchase.

A Voice of Reason Amidst the Anti-Religion Storm

Today, a voice of reason amidst the storm of Anti-Religion rhetoric!

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in remarks to students at Colorado Christian University, laid out the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the role of religion in the United States, as stipulated in the Constitution.

Justice Scalia's remarks leave absolutely no room for the misinterpretation of the so-called "Separation Clause" (a non-existent clause thrown about by those pushing to eliminate any religion from public life.) Let's read his remarks...

"The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.
Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”
Earlier this year, Scalia joined the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, which held that the New York town could continue opening legislative sessions with sectarian prayers.

Scalia has since used the case to press for the approval of public prayers in schools, legislatures and courtrooms.

In June, Scalia criticized the Supreme Court for declining to review Elmbrook School District v. John Doe, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that a public school district's decision to conduct graduation ceremonies in a church violated the Establishment Clause.

In a dissent joined by Justice Thomas, Scalia argued that “at a minimum,” the Supreme Court should remand the case for reconsideration, noting that “the First Amendment explicitly favors religion.”
On Wednesday, Scalia also criticized members of the Court who champion a more evolving, “living” view of the Constitution -- a judicial philosophy he has previously said only an “idiot” could believe. 
 
“Our [the Supreme Court’s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Scalia said on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”
If Americans want a more secular political system that guarantees those distinctions, they can “enact that by statute,” Scalia said, “but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

In another public appearance on Wednesday at the University of Colorado Boulder Law School's annual John Paul Stevens lecture, Scalia compared his efforts to restore constitutional originalism to the challenges faced by "Lord of the Rings" protagonist Frodo Baggins.

“It’s a long, uphill fight to get back to original orthodoxy. We have two ‘originalists’ on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said, referencing Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “That’s something. But I feel like Frodo … We’ll get clobbered in the end, but it’s worth it.”

Justice Scalia's remarks reflect what I have been advocating regarding the First Amendment and Freedom OF Religion. People who twist and shape the Freedom of Religion clause to adhere to their own interpretations are only damaging (or eliminating) the intent of the clause as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

By adhering to what the Constitution actually says, rather than interpreting what they (the Founding Fathers) may have meant, we have a clear path to follow, and any unexpected twists and turns of that path are eliminated. Everyone still gets to have their opinions, but the whole issue of religion in the public sphere becomes moot, and those who rail against religion are silenced in their vain attempts to rewrite history.

I applaud Justice Scalia for his insight, and for his determination to right a very serious wrong that is being perpetrated on all Americans by those behind the secularist movement to remove religion from our country, and rewrite its history, and supplant it with the interpretations and whims of man.

I have read that the Constitution of the United States is a near perfect document that guides an entire nation towards peace and prosperity. If the Founding Fathers regarded religion with such reverence and necessity, we need to understand why, then implement their wisdom into our daily lives. In this day and age of technological leaps and growing immorality, we should be looking back to the founding of this country, and find the guidance to continue moving forward as the greatest nation on the earth.