For the Love of the Game

                   By Florida Bill

  

                 Another season of the NFL is upon us with all the hype that goes along with this great game. And who would play this sometimes brutal sport, if it weren't for the roars of the crowd and the chance to be number one in the hearts of the fans. 

                  I  have always been amused by the "hotdogging" that goes on among players anxious to secure their place in the spotlight.  The wild celebrating that players engage in when congratulating themselves on a big hit or a touchdown has just become another element of the game.  
                These days it usually involves spiking or spinning the pigskin, or even a jump into the stands for a personal hug with fans.  Most of these celebrations, which usually take place in the end zone, are okay with the officials, although anything that can be interpreted as "taunting" is forbidden, and for that violators will earn a penalty assessed against their team.  You can hardly find such showmanship on Broadway! It can certainly turn a football game into some fine theater.

                Sometimes, even when a team is down by a few touchdowns and the the game is a lost cause, we might be treated to raunchy gyrations and pelvic humps by a member of the trailing team who just made an aggressive play. Of course, there may be those who consider this a poor time for celebratory boasting. Refs, however, generally seem to have mercy on the losing team,  probably figuring it doesn't make much sense to call a violation.

               The NFL rule book states that a team will be penalized 15 yards if a player commits the following acts:  sack dances, home run swings, incredible hulks (does this have something to do with the big green brute of comic book and TV fame?); spiking, spinning, throwing or shoving the ball; verbal taunting; military salutes; or standing over an opponent with prolonged  provocation.  But again, it is all at the referee's discretion, and you can't blame an athlete for being elated over his good play in this multi-million dollar sport.

            Some years ago, the Vikings' Randy Moss was fined $10,000 in a post TD exultation in which he pretended to pull down his pants and moon a Green Bay crowd.   Joe Horn of the Saints got hit with a $30,000 bang when he scored and then pulled a cell phone from his shoulder pad and called home, then signed the football with a Sharpie pen hidden in his padding.  Over the top, said the refs.

            According to records,  Homer Jones of the New York Giants gets the kudo for having been the first player to spike the pigskin following a touchdown; and Packer Leroy Butler, playing at Lambeau Field, was the first to vault over a wall to make contact with fans.  Initially,  the behavior was deemed too much, but is acceptable today.  In games everywhere, the jump is known as the "Lambeau Leap."

            You might wonder if the demonstrations are putting any players at risk?

             Well, Gus Frerotte of the Redskins scored a TD from the one-yard line and then in reckless jubilation rammed his head into a padded cement wall, spraining his neck and causing him to sit out the remainder of the game.

              Running back Marion Barber of the Chicago Bears, returning for that game after an injury,  was so elated over a touchdown he scored, that he did a back flip landing on his head and face, which required teammates to help him to the sidelines.  That had to hurt, in more ways than one.

            Tight end Jimmy Graham of the Saints never got hurt, but his elation upon scoring prompted him to make a goal post dunk. Only problem was that he inadvertently tore down the left side of the structure, which necessitated a game delay and repair work from the field maintenance squad.   I don't think that Jimmy ever got fined; apparently the refs recognized that the wreckage constituted accidental damage.

            Ken Norton Jr, a defensive lineman with the Raiders, was such an admirer of his dad. who was a great heavyweight boxer, that the young Norton  made it his practice to strike a boxing stance and deliver left and right jabs to the goal post pad following a defensive touchdown.

            Also a bit of a showman was Chad Johnson of the Bengals who, following his TD, gave CPR to a football, dropped to one knee and proposed to a cheerleader and then pulled out an end zone pylon and pretended to hit a golf shot.

            Billy "White Shoes" Johnson, who had a lengthy career with the Oilers, Falcons and Redskins, used to scissor kick and roll the ball up his arms and around his neck in what he explained could be called the "Funky Chicken."

            Another move that earned its own nickname came from  Elbert Woods of the Bengals, whose end zone special became known as the "Icky" shuffle: it included extending his right leg and hopping  to the left and then extending his left leg, and hopping to the right.  Woods drew screams of delight from fans.

             Both Johnson and Woods were outstanding running backs, but you have to wonder how much time they spent choreographing and rehearsing these moves.

            Dallas Cowboy Butch Johnson was a wide receiver and a true Texas guy.  Following a touchdown, Butch would pretend his hands were six shooters and he would fire away, and then blow smoke from his fingertips. At conclusion he would pretend to reholster his weapon.  

            I guess athletes are entitled to a little showing off after an extraordinary play.   From time to time referees would let the word out that players should cool it. Then in 2006, the NFL amended its rules to include the 15-yard penalty for "excessive celebrations."  Yet on the whole, they seem rather tolerant of all the carrying on.  After all,  refs like the game of football and they know that the fans do too.  Maybe the celebrations are just all in the game.      

                                                   xxx

.

A Matter of Faith

 By Florida Bill

A political groupie at a recent Donald Trump rally accused President Obama of being a Muslim. He complained of all the problems Muslims are creating in the United States and asked the candidate when we can get rid of them.

“We have a problem in this country,” the questioner stated.  “It’s called Muslims.  You know our current president is one.  You know he is not even an American.…There are training camps where they want to kill us.  That’s my question…when can we get rid of them?”

Trump responded: “We are going to be looking at a lot of different things,” he answered.  “You know a lot of people are saying that and a lot are saying that bad things are happening.  We are going to be looking at this and a lot of other things.”

Obviously unprepared for such a question, Trump tried to duck it with a rather innocuous response.   His answer, however, set off the liberal fringe and the lunatic media which blasted Trump as an Islamophobe and a racist. 

            The question of President Obama’s religion continues, and pollsters have reported that nearly 20 per cent of Americans believe that the President is a Muslim, given his upbringing and attendance at a Muslim school (Madrassa) in Indonesia;  the religion of his father and stepfather and siblings, and his praise of the religion and reverence towards the holy month of Ramadan since becoming president.  

Just what answer should Trump have given to this loaded, unanticipated question?   Should he have immediately put down the questioner by stating: “How dare you ask such an Islam-hating question, when we know Mr. Obama is a Christian?”  Should he have gone with the accepted public response to this frequently raised issue by saying “President Obama has said he is a Christian and I take him at his word,” as other politicians, including Senate President Mitch McConnell, have said?

            In one report Mrs. Clinton had been quoted as saying in response to a question put to her during her 2008 campaign on whether Obama was of the Islamic faith, that there is no evidence of that, “so far as I know.”

            No matter how you look at it, it is a delicate question.  When Gov. Walker, currently a Republican candidate, was asked if Obama was a Christian, he replied he did not know because he had never talked to him about it.  

            Gov. Chris Christi, who is a straight shooter, has said he would not allow any one at a news conference or rally of his to say Obama is a Muslim.  I would tell him emphatically that he is wrong in saying so, he is Christian, Christi has said.

            Hillary Clinton, who must now kowtow to Democratic leadership, recently stated she was "appalled," that Trump did not call out the man asking the question, and that the question "was not only out of bounds, it was untrue." No one at one of her rallies would have even asked such a question, she insisted.  And we all know that Hillary never lies!!!                  

            Before becoming president, Mr. Obama attended a Christian church in Chicago headed by his friend and mentor, the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  In 2008, as a candidate for President, he joined his opponent Sen. McCain at a Q and A session sponsored by the Rev. Rick Warren,  where he expressed the Christian belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman;  and in other public statements has said that he is a Christian and a follower of  Jesus Christ.  

            If some one asked me, a lawyer and former Chicago Tribune reporter for nearly a quarter of a century, if the President was a Muslim,  I would have to join the ranks of those saying they honestly don’t know. I believe unless he declares otherwise, we must take him at his word that he is a Christian. 

            Yet it is still true that he has said and done things which raise legitimate questions as to his religion. He "evolved" from his Christian philosophy about marriage a few years ago. He refuses to blame Islamic terrorists for the savagery and beheading of Christians, and has refrained from ever uttering the words "radical Islamic terrorists." 

             It is a very touchy subject, to say the least.  Just talking about it causes accusations of prejudice and hate, as Trump recently found out.

Reverend Al

           By Florida Bill

          Here in South Florida, in this land of sunshine and tropical storms, it is not unusual to run into a serpent here or there. The most frequent of these encounters is typically with a common black snake, which can startle most people with its size and quickness.  Though these nasty looking reptiles are essentially harmless, backyard encounters are usually unwelcome and almost always unnerving. Nobody likes to come face to face with any critter with its body coiled in anger and its tongue darting.

           The bothersome presence of these Florida reptiles remind me of that New York hisser, Al Sharpton.  However, over the years, Sharpton has come to be more like the rapacious python  that is ravaging the Everglades than the harmless garter snake popping up in backyards. Like the invasive Florida snake, Sharpton moves stealthily about with his jaw unhinged, threatening to squeeze the reputation out of anyone who gets in his way. And like his counterpart in the Florida landscape, Sharpton is amazingly hard to get rid of. And, like other snakes in the grass, he typically leaves fear, anxiety and bedlam in his wake.  

            Sharpton, who likes to be known as “the Reverend” maintains that he is a Baptist or evangelical minister who was ordained when he was just 4-years-old by a trusted Bishop Washington, who he  met on the sidewalks of New York.   Sharpton maintains that he preached his first sermon during his kindergarten years, and that he has been passing out his advice and counsel ever since, primarily to those men and women who claim abuse and discrimination against them by Caucasians, who are usually policemen.  But occasionally,  he provides his wisdom and counsel to President Obama  in the plush setting of the White House.   

              During his real heyday, Mr. Sharpton weighed in at more than 300 pounds, though nowadays he hits the scales at about 140.  Sharpton used to be seen often in an African garb as he waved a fist in one hand and a bull horn in the other. Nowadays you will find him, shriveled looking in a neat business suit, sometimes on a television screen, but still screaming about racial discrimination, which he finds under almost any rock or anywhere an angry crowd is assembled.

            Sharpton has been especially visible as a promoter of the “Black Lives Matter”  movement. Of course, he is generally silent when policemen are gunned down, but was right in there as one of the lead rabble rousers in Ferguson, Mo,. when a white police officer shot a black criminal who had attacked him. In every subsequent conflict between police and African Americans, Sharpton has quickly arrived on the scene to make sure there is abundant news coverage and community outrage.

       “Do I think Al Sharpton is a legitimate civil rights activist? Are you out of your mind?” said former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. “Are you living on Mars? If you can’t figure out Al Sharpton is a con man, you’re not a reporter. 

“Al Sharpton stands for something,” he went on.  “He is involved in every racial or quasi-racial issue that has involved any police officer … always on the side of whoever is against the police. Some of them have been legitimate, many of them have been illegitimate. We’re talking about a man with a record that is astoundingly outrageous, a man who was a tax cheat, a liar … who has made allegations against police officers constantly.”

Sharpton got his start in the l980s in New York when he, along with two lawyers, accused a policeman and a prosecutor of  the rape and abduction of a 15-year-old African American girl, Tawana Brawley.  After six months of an intense grand jury investigation, the story was proven to be a hoax and subsequently defamation lawsuits were filed against  Sharpton, the alleged victim and two other lawyers, by the police officer and significant awards  were entered against the defendants.   But nonetheless, Sharpton’s reputation as a police-hating activist became nationally known and his presence was a given at protests in which police or others were accused of racial animus.

             With his antics and activist personna, Sharpton’s wealth has grown and he is said to be worth many millions of dollars. Through the years he has been sued many times, and reportedly numerous judgments and liens have been filed against him.

He says that claims he is in debt to the IRS to the tune of nearly $4 million are exaggerated, and that he has already worked out a repayment plan with the government for whatever amount it is that he has failed to pay.  

Though sometimes characterized as a race hustler and a tax cheat, Sharpton appears to have become a close advisor and friend of President Obama.  Records indicate that he has visited the White House some 80 times since Obama took office in 2009.  Giuliani has said he believes the anti-police sentiment sweeping much of the African American community has been given legitimacy by the portrayal of Sharpton as a confidant of President Obama on the issue of race relations. Perhaps this close association with the chief executive has also contributed to giving the nation’s top race activist a Teflon coating of protection and an air of importance.

  Several years ago, the snake was uncoiled on NBC television and given his own talk show, reportedly earning him millions, which allowed him to hiss about his theories of police discrimination and expound on the doctrines of Obama.   

When Obama ran for president, he promised the American people that he would be a uniter, not a divider; that he would bring harmony to the enmity that exists between many whites and African Americans.

 Yet racial tensions are higher today than at any time in the recent past. Perhaps the President of the United States should reconsider his friendship and admiration for the man who slithers onto center stage at every racial confrontation in American today.

                

Sky High Debt

  By Florida Bill

      

      Do Americans understand or have a hold on just what  it means for a country to be $18 trillion dollars in debt? That's $18,000,000,000,000 --a boatload for sure.

      We have all  heard talk of this incredible debt, but what does it mean?  Is it just another number?  Every so often the President recommends an increase in the bottom line, and Congress eventually endorses the addition. In 2004, the federal debt was $7.3 trillion. This rose to $10 trillion when the housing bubble burst four years later. Today it exceeds $18 trillion and is projected to approach $21 trillion by 2019, according to Forbes Magazine.

       I keep hearing an ad playing regularly on television in which a celebrity urges the purchase of gold or silver as a way of preserving one's nest egg in view of the astronomical debt.   And he asserts that  "if that debt doesn't scare you, it should.....and it increases by millions every day." ( For me, I don't know whether it is good or bad to buy real gold.)

       How much is one trillion dollars.  One billion of course, is 1,000 millions, and 1,000 billions amount to one trillion.  And 18 trillion dollars means 18,000 billions.  That's an awesome amount of money.  But just how awesome?

        A couple of perspectives will help in understanding this sum of money.  For example, some physicians and mathematicians have said that if you live to be 80 years old, your heart will beat about 3 billion times;  And it would take 31,688 years for a trillion heartbeats to tick away.
         Some mathematical wizards have calculated that a billion seconds ago puts us in 1959. A billion minutes ago, Jesus walked the earth.  A billion hours ago--the Stone Age, and a billion days ago, no one with two legs walked about.  

         Other ways of  looking at America's debt: One trillion would equate to a stack of dollar bills reaching 1.1 million miles into space, or laid end-to-end on the ground, would encircle our planet five times. It would also stretch nearly five times the distance to the  the Moon from the Earth.    If you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you’d be a millionaire. With a stack of thousand dollar bills reaching 46 miles into the sky, you would be a trillionaire. 

          How did America acquire such a negative position?  The short answer is that there has been no balance to its spending. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, at the end of August, 2014, more than a third of the debt was owned by foreign countries (34.4%). And the remaining 65  per cent is considered domestic debt stemming from retiring securities and U.S.Treasury bills and in entitlements which include Social Security and Medicare. 

          Theoretically, the debt can be apportioned to citizens of the USA.   The debt has gone from  $72,051 per taxpayer in 2004 to $154,161 today--just 11 years.  So the time appears ripe for fixing the problem, and experts say it can be done, but the bottom line is that there needs to be a "tough love" management and serious paring of spending. 

           How bad could it get? It’s difficult to say. According to experts, to change direction,  we will need elected officials who are willing to put the needs of the country ahead of their own agendas.  And we haven't seen much of that since the mid- 1990s when we did have a balanced budget. In other words, politics will have to take a back seat. 

           I wonder if any of the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, have any plans for attacking the national debt.  We cannot continue to accumulate debt or there will be consequences for taxpayers and investors, and that's a scary thought.     

   

Anchor Babies

   By Florida Bill

                 

               Of late, there has been a good deal of rhetoric concerning  babies born on American soil who are the offspring of illegal aliens.   Aside from any other consideration, these babies, so long as they begin life here, are deemed citizens of the United States, entitled to all of the benefits accorded to citizens.  The infants are called "anchor" babies.

                According to census reports, there are some 375,000 children of undocumented residents born annually in the United States--at a rate of one every 93 seconds. 

In 2008, the Pew Hispanic research center, a non partisan group, counted four million American born children with at least one parent who was in the United States illegally.  Eight percent of babies born that year in the United States  had at least one undocumented parent.               

               Some of the candidates now in the news have been critical of the unchecked flow of illegal immigrants, primarily from Mexico, across the Texas border.  I agree that it should not be happening and it was never the intention of the founders of this republic that birth on American soil automatically and without reason guarantees citizenship.

                 Candidate Donald Trump, now,and Michele Bachman, a former Minnesota congresswoman who was a candidate for President four years ago, believe that this automatic citizenship for alien babies entitling  them and their single mothers or parents to social security and other benefits is contrary to the essence of the meaning in the birthright provision of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.  Trump believes that birthright citizenship is right in some cases, but should be denied in other situations, and that there would be no contradiction of the Constitution. Bachman does not endorse caring for children of illegals.  

              Section 1 of the 14th amendment is as follows: 

              "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  

                    Is the meaning absolute as some say?  Is it conceivable that if a visiting couple was stranded in the United States for unanticipated and bizarre reasons, and the woman gave birth prematurely to a baby, that baby would automatically be registered as an American citizen?   I think not.  And as has been maintained by some, the 14th amendment does not control and the child does not become a U.S. citizen, but remains subject to the jurisdiction of the country from whence his parents came. 

                    Some scholars will argue that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means as of the moment of birth and therefore it is the land on which you are born at the moment of birth.  Some legal scholars dismiss that interpretation. 

                     In drafting the 14th amendment, there is no doubt but that the fathers wished to dismantle completely the Dred Scott decision which treated Blacks as property and to make it clear that blacks born in America were citizens of the country  

                    When undocumented individuals who are subject to the jurisdiction of another country sneak into the United States for the sole purpose of having a child for which American money will be paid to them for the next 21 years, this flies in the face of the logical intent of the 14th amendment as drafted by the fathers of the constitution.

                     It would be absurd to argue that the founders of this nation ever intended anchor baby citizenship, with no guidelines or control.  The intent of the 14th amendment, according to scholars, was drafted with non-whites in mind so as to guarantee that children of all men who might have at one time been slaves be considered natural born Americans entitled to receive all benefits accorded to American citizens.

                     Conceivably, the 14th amendment  can be amended so as to more clearly define natural birth and citizenship. However, the amendment process is lengthy and cumbersome requiring a constitutional convention and ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 states.  
                     There is extensive differing of opinion as to what might be done so as to clarify the amendment dealing with citizenship. Some believe that congressional legislation might be appropriate in establishing the parameters of the birthright provision.   Certainly the matter is ripe for fresh consideration by the Supreme court.

                                               XXX

Speak Up, Mr. Bush

    

                                         BY BILL JUNEAU 

                                                  President Bush (43), where are you?

                                 There are unwritten rules that proscribe a former president from criticizing the performance of another chief executive.  But given the comments made by presidents in the past, the rules are by no means absolute. Millions of Americans trusted former President Bush in his dealings with Middle Eastern fanatics, and I would certainly like to hear his opinion of the Iranian deal which has been promoted by his successor, President Obama, and which is now the subject of immense controversy.

                                 Mr. Bush has said that he considers it inappropriate for an ex-president to look over the shoulder of his successor and second guess his decisions.  Well, since Bush has consistently been in the Obama crosshairs and after seven years of his accusing Bush of bum policies and decisions, I think it is George Bush's time to let Americans know what he thinks of Obama and his Middle Eastern appeasement policies and, in particular, the Iranian deal now on the table.  So If Mr. Bush thinks he should remain quiet, I respectfully disagree.  

                                  The stakes have never been higher. Obama is nearing the end of his second term, and the Iranian deal is considered of monumental importance.  Not to mention that Obama has been nipping at the heels of Mr. Bush since his election in 2008. So perhaps an exception to the unwritten rule is more than appropriate here. 

                                  We know that President Obama was less that truthful when he begged for citizen support of his healthcare (Obamacare) program and said:  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; and if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your plan."  Is this the opening which former President Bush might take to express his analysis of the Obama years?      

                                 Sometimes misstatements of a president prompt immediate response.  Harry Truman certainly was motivated when he asserted that "Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."  Appropriate? 

                               Not quite as bombastic as Truman,  Jimmy Carter in 2007 denounced the administration of President Bush (43) as the "worst in history."   After leaving office, President Eisenhower was noisy and critical of JFK's  domestic policies and Bush (41) pounded on President Clinton, his successor, for his sorry treatment of Haiti.   There is plenty of precedent which would lay the  groundwork for Bush's analysis of his successor's Iranian deal which would supposedly prevent Iran from manufacturing atomic bombs.

                               President Bush has been in the Obama crosshairs since Obama became President seven years ago.  He has been consistent in blaming Bush for his administrative blunders and for creating a "mess" for him to clean up.  He blames our current Middle Eastern problems on the Iraq war, which he has characterized as a "dumb" war.  I can't figure out how Mr. Bush can sit back and allow truth to get buried under Obama's misstatements and socialistic philosophy. 

                              After suffering through Obama's poor performance as President, his appeasement policies and the questionable Iranian deal, as well as his continual criticism of his predecessor, Americans, and I am one, are eager to hear Mr. Bush's opinions. What does he think of the efficacy of the Iranian deal? Does he believe it will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power? Or does he see it is an historic mistake which will actually guarantee that Iran obtains a nuclear bomb, as Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel believes, along with a majority of members of both houses of the United States Congress. 

                              Congress is expected to vote to reject the measure.  President Obama has said that he will veto the rejection leaving Congress without sufficient votes to override the veto.  At that time the agreement will be in effect and  $150 billion in funds frozen through sanctions will be be given to the Theocracy of Iran.  So, should President Bush weigh in on the deal? The answer is Yes, absolutely. After silently watching Obama from the sidelines these past seven years, it is time for Mr. Bush to offer his analysis on the proposed accord, and his successor's performance in general.  I think that it will do some good.  

ESPN Throws Schilling a Curve

    

                                                           BY FLORIDA BILL 

       For me, I say Go Curt!!!!

     Nonsensical "political correctness;"  has just moved one more step up the liberal ladder and this time it reaches into the grand old game of baseball.  And the one who got the high hard one is Curt Schilling, a future hall of fame big league pitcher, with a reputation for honesty and belief in God and country.

     Schilling has been called on the carpet and suspended by ESPN for offending the Muslim community in a tweet he published in late August which called attention to the extremists in the Muslim ranks. The former big leaguer has been an employee of ESPN for commentary and for calling the play by play of little league games. 

     So what was the tweet which offended Muslims.  Schilling  pointed out that fanatics make up some 5 to 10 per cent of the followers of Islam and he juxtaposed that with the fact that it has been estimated that some 7 per cent of citizens in Germany during the days of Adolph Hitler had been members of the Nazi party.  And in reference to the Nazis, Schilling noted, "How'd that go?"

      What did Mr.Schilling do, in the eyes of "political correctness" lunatics?   Who was insulted, and who is disciplining him?  It's ESPN, which is now waving its flag to the applause of loons who will never recognize Islamic threats to America and the freedom which this country provides.  

     The message in the tweet was that there is an Islamic threat to this country and you better watch out.  "Curt's tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company's perspective," ESPN said in a statement. "We made that point very strongly to Curt and have removed him from his current Little League assignment pending further consideration."  

     Amazing that ESPN cannot recognize the threat which Muslim terrorists are posing.  Have the sports people ever heard of the 9-11 attack, and Fort Hood slaughter in the United States and the bombings and murders by Muslims in Europe; and of course the decapitation of innocent Christians and journalists, all in the name of Allah.  Wake up ESPN.  And thanks to former Gov. Palin for her awareness of Islamic threats and pointing out the asininity of ESPN. 

     It is also worth noting that there were 65 million citizens in Germany in the 1930s of which 7 per cent equates to about 4.5 million persons.  There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and 5 per cent  means that at least 100 million qualify as extremists who favor violent jihad in the name of Allah. 

ESPN should be embarrassed by its behavior.  It should apologize to Mr. Schilling and to Americans who understand the threat of Islamic terrorists.