Today, we bid a sad farewell to Mr. George Steinbrenner, owner of the New York Yankees. He died of a massive heart attack at his home in Tampa, Florida, according to news reports.
Ironically, he got his start in football. Being apart of coaching teams at Ohio State, Northwestern and Purdue, if I am not mistaken. He made his fortune in shipbuilding and bought the Yankees in 1973.
Of course, all of us Yankee fans remember his love/hate relationship with Billy Martin (we still miss you, Billy), whom he hired and fired I believe 5 times! It almost got to be comical.
Tonight is the Major League Baseball Allstar game, and I am sure they will do something to honor him, as will the Yankees win the return to home play after the break.
We will miss you, Boss. And we always loved you.
Love,
This Yankee fan.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Obama, Black Liberation Theology and Karl Marx
http://www.americanthinker.com/
People need to check out this link and read about:
American Thinker: Obama, Black Liberation Theology and Karl Marx
Not good stuff. Not at all. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
People need to check out this link and read about:
American Thinker: Obama, Black Liberation Theology and Karl Marx
Not good stuff. Not at all. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Friday, July 9, 2010
Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
********************************************************************
I think this is one of the greatest speeches ever made. The part we need to remember as a country is "that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
We are losing that government right in front of our eyes and if we don't stand up and fight, it will perish from the earth! FIGHT AMERICA! FIGHT!
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
********************************************************************
I think this is one of the greatest speeches ever made. The part we need to remember as a country is "that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
We are losing that government right in front of our eyes and if we don't stand up and fight, it will perish from the earth! FIGHT AMERICA! FIGHT!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment Rights
Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment Rights
Monday, June 28, 2010
The United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling today that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says -- even in Chicago -- and guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case at hand was McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the plaintiff sought to overturn Chicago's blanket ban on handguns.
The Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Chicago ban clearly infringed on that right.
That didn't stop the Chicago Tribune from spinning in its headline, "Supreme Court extends gun rights." The Tribune lamented that the Court's decision had "extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection." Such language, of course, suggests that the Court invented the right out of thin air -- sort of like abortion on demand. Unlike abortion, however, the right to keep and bear arms is actually written down in the Constitution, in plain view for all to see.
Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation summed up the case:
In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court for the first time held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But that decision, which struck down a virtual ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" in the District of Columbia, applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave. What had never been decided before today's decision in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the protection of the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to apply to state and local governments.
The Associated Press reports, "Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall."
Predictably, the split was along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were in the majority; Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens, who served his last day on the court Monday, dissented.
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito observed, "It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Alito also wrote, "The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."
Justice Thomas, in a separate opinion, argued a different constitutional rationale, saying, "[The] Due Process Clause, which speaks only to 'process,' cannot impose the type of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts. Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.'"
Out in left field, Justice Breyer displayed his bullheaded ignorance, writing, "[N]othing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense ... is 'deeply rooted in this nation's history or tradition' or is otherwise 'fundamental.'" Justice Stevens dissented separately, and suddenly became a proponent of federalism: "[T]his is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this court's meddling." Where was this fair-weather federalist with any number of other heavy handed rulings that took away states' rights?
As for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Barack Obama's nominee to replace Stevens on the Court, she pleaded the Fifth. In a monumental case involving the Bill of Rights, she chose not to file so much as a brief in the case. In the past, however, she stated that she was "not sympathetic" to a District resident with a complaint similar to that eventually upheld by the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Put another way, Kagan is hostile to the Second Amendment.
The courts likely will now face numerous cases on other state and local gun restrictions. The Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right, but it left open many questions regarding who, what and where. This is yet another way in which elections have consequences. For at least two and a half more years, an anti-gun leftist occupies the White House and wields the power to nominate like-minded individuals to the courts.
[The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)]
*********************************************************************************
So what do ya'll think about the Supreme Court deciding its okay for us to 'bear arms', although we are already guaranteed this right in the US Constitution?? Huh?? Who gives them the right? And why do they need to do it? I will say, if it comes to a point where they decided its not okay for us to 'bear arms', they are going to have a fight on their hands; a legal fight. It's in the Constitution for petes sake!!! How can you change the Constitution on a whim??
Ugh!
I am so sick of this administration and their doing what they want and think they can do. It's possible that the Administration has committed two felonies but has anyone heard anything about it? No. Will they get punished for it? No. They should all be thrown out of office. ALL OF THEM. It's time to take our country back people. WAKE UP. If you don't you'll be living in communist America and it won't be pretty.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling today that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says -- even in Chicago -- and guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case at hand was McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the plaintiff sought to overturn Chicago's blanket ban on handguns.
The Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Chicago ban clearly infringed on that right.
That didn't stop the Chicago Tribune from spinning in its headline, "Supreme Court extends gun rights." The Tribune lamented that the Court's decision had "extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection." Such language, of course, suggests that the Court invented the right out of thin air -- sort of like abortion on demand. Unlike abortion, however, the right to keep and bear arms is actually written down in the Constitution, in plain view for all to see.
Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation summed up the case:
In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court for the first time held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But that decision, which struck down a virtual ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" in the District of Columbia, applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave. What had never been decided before today's decision in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the protection of the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to apply to state and local governments.
The Associated Press reports, "Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall."
Predictably, the split was along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were in the majority; Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens, who served his last day on the court Monday, dissented.
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito observed, "It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Alito also wrote, "The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."
Justice Thomas, in a separate opinion, argued a different constitutional rationale, saying, "[The] Due Process Clause, which speaks only to 'process,' cannot impose the type of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts. Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.'"
Out in left field, Justice Breyer displayed his bullheaded ignorance, writing, "[N]othing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense ... is 'deeply rooted in this nation's history or tradition' or is otherwise 'fundamental.'" Justice Stevens dissented separately, and suddenly became a proponent of federalism: "[T]his is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this court's meddling." Where was this fair-weather federalist with any number of other heavy handed rulings that took away states' rights?
As for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Barack Obama's nominee to replace Stevens on the Court, she pleaded the Fifth. In a monumental case involving the Bill of Rights, she chose not to file so much as a brief in the case. In the past, however, she stated that she was "not sympathetic" to a District resident with a complaint similar to that eventually upheld by the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Put another way, Kagan is hostile to the Second Amendment.
The courts likely will now face numerous cases on other state and local gun restrictions. The Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right, but it left open many questions regarding who, what and where. This is yet another way in which elections have consequences. For at least two and a half more years, an anti-gun leftist occupies the White House and wields the power to nominate like-minded individuals to the courts.
[The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)]
*********************************************************************************
So what do ya'll think about the Supreme Court deciding its okay for us to 'bear arms', although we are already guaranteed this right in the US Constitution?? Huh?? Who gives them the right? And why do they need to do it? I will say, if it comes to a point where they decided its not okay for us to 'bear arms', they are going to have a fight on their hands; a legal fight. It's in the Constitution for petes sake!!! How can you change the Constitution on a whim??
Ugh!
I am so sick of this administration and their doing what they want and think they can do. It's possible that the Administration has committed two felonies but has anyone heard anything about it? No. Will they get punished for it? No. They should all be thrown out of office. ALL OF THEM. It's time to take our country back people. WAKE UP. If you don't you'll be living in communist America and it won't be pretty.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Surprise at Tea Party Rally
1. http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=cd56f260723d5040008c14389&id=b584aa77ca&e=3a6f03a2c1
Now, how many of you have ever heard this second verse? I know I haven't. I think it needs and should be sung along with the first verse, which everyone is aware of, all the time, especially now.
Our country is in dire trouble and if we don't start standing up and speaking up, we are going to lose our freedoms and liberties. We need to get this country back to what the Founding Fathers intended it to be.
Let me hear your thoughts on this second verse of the Star Spangled Banner and what it means to you!
God Bless American now more than ever!!
Now, how many of you have ever heard this second verse? I know I haven't. I think it needs and should be sung along with the first verse, which everyone is aware of, all the time, especially now.
Our country is in dire trouble and if we don't start standing up and speaking up, we are going to lose our freedoms and liberties. We need to get this country back to what the Founding Fathers intended it to be.
Let me hear your thoughts on this second verse of the Star Spangled Banner and what it means to you!
God Bless American now more than ever!!
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Obituary of Helen Thomas "Reporter"
This is the obituary of Helen Thomas, former White House "reporter", and I use that term very loosely. She is finally out of her job at the White House. Her big mouth has been sitting there, front and center, for years, using language that no one else would use.
And finally in the past few days we see the true Helen Thomas. The anti-Semite. The Jew hater. She probably loved Hitler when WWII was happening. She supposedly apologized, but I think it was just a token apology. She apologized because she "had" to and did not mean a word of it, in my opinion.
I honestly don't know how she managed to stay in the White House as a "reporter" for so long as it was. She was nothing but a nuisance and never had anything of substance to say or ask, in my opinion.
I am glad to see her go, especially since she showed her true colors. I don't understand why all of a sudden everyone, including the Obama administration, is bashing Jews and Israel. I thought the Benjamin Netanyahu's speech the other day was right on target and kicked butt. We need to stand with Israel and support them. Remember, when the Lord comes back, that's where it all will go down.
So, Helen Thomas: Goodbye, Adieu, Arrivederci, Farewell, Donadagohi, Sayonara, Auf Wiedersehen, Adios, Paalam, Dag, Yasaou, Ha det bra, Slan leat, and Shalom. We won't miss you!
And finally in the past few days we see the true Helen Thomas. The anti-Semite. The Jew hater. She probably loved Hitler when WWII was happening. She supposedly apologized, but I think it was just a token apology. She apologized because she "had" to and did not mean a word of it, in my opinion.
I honestly don't know how she managed to stay in the White House as a "reporter" for so long as it was. She was nothing but a nuisance and never had anything of substance to say or ask, in my opinion.
I am glad to see her go, especially since she showed her true colors. I don't understand why all of a sudden everyone, including the Obama administration, is bashing Jews and Israel. I thought the Benjamin Netanyahu's speech the other day was right on target and kicked butt. We need to stand with Israel and support them. Remember, when the Lord comes back, that's where it all will go down.
So, Helen Thomas: Goodbye, Adieu, Arrivederci, Farewell, Donadagohi, Sayonara, Auf Wiedersehen, Adios, Paalam, Dag, Yasaou, Ha det bra, Slan leat, and Shalom. We won't miss you!
Friday, June 4, 2010
A Congressman, A Former President and an Intern Walk Into a Bar.....
The Foundation
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation." --James Madison
Government & Politics
A Congressman, a Former President and an Intern Walk Into a Bar...
SestakThe plot thickens over the job offer to sitting Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and it may be only a matter of time before "Sestak-gate" enters the political corruption lexicon. Late last Friday, as the news cycle wound down going into the holiday weekend, the White House issued a memo declaring that its internal investigation of the alleged job offer to Sestak revealed no improprieties. This finding was certainly no surprise, but the administration's lame explanation raises more questions than it answers.
According to the official account, Bill Clinton approached Sestak in 2009 about accepting an uncompensated position on a presidential advisory board -- this in return for Sestak's commitment to refrain from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) in their state's Democrat Senate primary. Sestak promptly rejected the offer and went on to win the primary last month.
There are several problems with this story, however, not the least of which is that it differs significantly from Sestak's. When Sestak first stated publicly in February that the administration had tried to get him out of the Senate primary, he claimed that he had been offered a "high-ranking job" -- not an unpaid position on an obscure presidential advisory board. Furthermore, the only board for which Sestak might qualify is the Intelligence Advisory Board, but because he's a sitting member of Congress, he cannot lawfully take part. For the administration's explanation to hold water, we would have to believe that Joe Sestak would give up a Senate run and a current House seat to take a role on an advisory board that offers no pay, no political clout and virtually no future career opportunities. Or at least none compared to being a former congressman or senator. Sestak, a liberal Democrat and retired Navy vice-admiral, has built his campaign around issues of trust and integrity; needless to say, this episode certainly could tarnish his race in the fall.
ClintonNor will the White House escape the matter by bringing in scandal magnet Bill Clinton. It's suspected that Clinton's involvement is supposed to somehow absolve the administration of any wrongdoing because it puts them at arm's length. That's not the case, however, as Clinton still appears to have acted as an agent of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who, in sending Clinton, just may have violated the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act states that no federal employee may exert pressure to participate or not participate in political activity.
In related news, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina may soon be facing similar questions with regard to a job offer to Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado. Romanoff's offer to drop his bid to challenge administration favorite Michael Bennet has resurfaced this week thanks to the Sestak affair.
RomanoffRomanoff was rather vocal about his desire for a federal job during the Obama transition. He also expressed interest in a Senate appointment, which went to Bennet instead, or a shot at the lieutenant governorship slot when that opened up. It was only after he came up short all around that Romanoff turned to a Senate challenge of Bennet. (Apparently, making an honest living in the private sector never occurred to him.) Romanoff filed his papers as a candidate on Sept. 10, 2009, and the next day he received a call from Messina, who offered three separate opportunities with the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Trade Development Agency. Romanoff claims that none of the positions were guaranteed, but they would be available only if he was not already a candidate.
Since Obama's first attempt to sweep this under the rug seems to have failed, it will be interesting to see what future memos and documents have to say about what transpired in the ham-fisted political machine, er, "most transparent administration in history." To paraphrase the great political sage Forrest Gump, transparency is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get.
[The Patriot Post (PatriotPost)].
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation." --James Madison
Government & Politics
A Congressman, a Former President and an Intern Walk Into a Bar...
SestakThe plot thickens over the job offer to sitting Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and it may be only a matter of time before "Sestak-gate" enters the political corruption lexicon. Late last Friday, as the news cycle wound down going into the holiday weekend, the White House issued a memo declaring that its internal investigation of the alleged job offer to Sestak revealed no improprieties. This finding was certainly no surprise, but the administration's lame explanation raises more questions than it answers.
According to the official account, Bill Clinton approached Sestak in 2009 about accepting an uncompensated position on a presidential advisory board -- this in return for Sestak's commitment to refrain from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) in their state's Democrat Senate primary. Sestak promptly rejected the offer and went on to win the primary last month.
There are several problems with this story, however, not the least of which is that it differs significantly from Sestak's. When Sestak first stated publicly in February that the administration had tried to get him out of the Senate primary, he claimed that he had been offered a "high-ranking job" -- not an unpaid position on an obscure presidential advisory board. Furthermore, the only board for which Sestak might qualify is the Intelligence Advisory Board, but because he's a sitting member of Congress, he cannot lawfully take part. For the administration's explanation to hold water, we would have to believe that Joe Sestak would give up a Senate run and a current House seat to take a role on an advisory board that offers no pay, no political clout and virtually no future career opportunities. Or at least none compared to being a former congressman or senator. Sestak, a liberal Democrat and retired Navy vice-admiral, has built his campaign around issues of trust and integrity; needless to say, this episode certainly could tarnish his race in the fall.
ClintonNor will the White House escape the matter by bringing in scandal magnet Bill Clinton. It's suspected that Clinton's involvement is supposed to somehow absolve the administration of any wrongdoing because it puts them at arm's length. That's not the case, however, as Clinton still appears to have acted as an agent of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who, in sending Clinton, just may have violated the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act states that no federal employee may exert pressure to participate or not participate in political activity.
In related news, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina may soon be facing similar questions with regard to a job offer to Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado. Romanoff's offer to drop his bid to challenge administration favorite Michael Bennet has resurfaced this week thanks to the Sestak affair.
RomanoffRomanoff was rather vocal about his desire for a federal job during the Obama transition. He also expressed interest in a Senate appointment, which went to Bennet instead, or a shot at the lieutenant governorship slot when that opened up. It was only after he came up short all around that Romanoff turned to a Senate challenge of Bennet. (Apparently, making an honest living in the private sector never occurred to him.) Romanoff filed his papers as a candidate on Sept. 10, 2009, and the next day he received a call from Messina, who offered three separate opportunities with the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Trade Development Agency. Romanoff claims that none of the positions were guaranteed, but they would be available only if he was not already a candidate.
Since Obama's first attempt to sweep this under the rug seems to have failed, it will be interesting to see what future memos and documents have to say about what transpired in the ham-fisted political machine, er, "most transparent administration in history." To paraphrase the great political sage Forrest Gump, transparency is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get.
[The Patriot Post (PatriotPost)].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)