Saturday, May 16, 2009
President Harry S. Truman led the effort to establish a single holiday for citizens to come together and thank our military member for their patriotic service in support of our country.
On August 31, 1949, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced the creation of an Armed Forces Day to replace separate Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Days. The single-day celebration stemmed from the unification of the Armed Forces under one department -- the Department of Defense.
Navy Day was established on October 27, 1922 by the Navy League of the United States.
Although it was not a national holiday, Navy Day received special attention from President
Warren Harding. Harding wrote to the Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby:
"Thank you for your note which brings assurance of the notable success which seems certain to attend the celebration of Navy Day on Friday, October 27, in commemoration of past and present services of the Navy. From our earliest national beginnings the Navy has always been, and deserved to be, an object of special pride to the American people. Its record is indeed one to inspire such sentiments, and I am very sure that such a commemoration as is planned will be a timely reminder."
"It is well for us to have in mind that under a program of lessening naval armaments there is a greater reason for maintaining the highest efficiency, fitness and morale in this branch of the national defensive service. I know how earnestly the Navy personnel are devoted to this idea and want you to be assured of my hearty concurrence."
October 27 was suggested by the Navy League to recognize Theodore Roosevelt's birthday. Roosevelt had been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy and supported a strong Navy as well as the idea of Navy Day. In addition, October 27 was the anniversary of a 1775 report issued by a special committee of the Continental Congress favoring the purchase of merchant ships as the foundation of an American Navy.
Navy Day was last observed on Oct. 27, 1949.
Friday, May 15, 2009
One day my housework-challenged husband decided to wash his sweat-shirt seconds after he stepped into the laundry room, he shouted to me, "What setting do I use on the washing machine?"
"It depends," I replied. "What does it say on your shirt?"
He yelled back, "University of Oklahoma..."
And they say blondes are dumb.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Jim -The Thoughtful Husband...
It is important for men to remember that, as women grow older, it becomes harder for them to maintain the same quality of housekeeping as when they were younger. When you notice this, try not to yell at them. Some are over-sensitive, and there's nothing worse than an over-sensitive woman.
My name is Jim. Let me relate how I handled the situation with my wife, Christine. When I retired a few years ago, it became necessary for Christine to get a full-time job along with her part-time job, both for extra income and for the health benefits that we needed.
Shortly after she started working, I noticed she was beginning to show her age. I usually get home from the golf club about the same time she gets home from work and although she knows how hungry I am, she almost always says she has to rest for half an hour or so before she starts dinner. I don't yell at her. Instead, I tell her to take her time and just wake me when she gets dinner on the table. I generally have lunch in the Men's Grill at the club so eating out twice is not reasonable. I'm ready for some home-cooked grub when I hit that door.
She used to do the dishes as soon as we finished eating. But now it's not unusual for them to sit on the table for several hours after dinner. I do what I can by diplomatically reminding her several times each evening that they won't clean themselves. I know she really appreciates this, as it does seem to motivate her to get them done before she goes to bed.
Another symptom of aging is complaining, I think. For example she will say that it is difficult for her to find time to pay the monthly bills during her lunch hour. But, boys, we take 'em for better or worse, so I just smile and offer encouragement. I tell her to stretch it out over two or even three days. That way she won't have to rush so much. I also remind her that missing lunch completely now and then wouldn't hurt her any (if you know what I mean). I like to think tact is one of my strong points.
When doing simple jobs, she seems to think she needs more rest periods. She had to take a break when she was only half finished mowing the lawn. I try not to make a scene. I'm a fair man. I tell her to fix herself a nice, big, cold glass of freshly squeezed lemonade and just sit for a while. And, as long as she is making one for herself, she may as well make one for me too.
I know that I probably look like a saint in the way I support Christine. I'm not saying that showing this much consideration is easy. Many men will find it difficult. Some will even find it impossible! Nobody knows better than I do how frustrating women get as they get older.
However, guys, even if you just use a little more tact and less criticism of your aging wife because of this article, I will consider that writing it was well worthwhile. After all, we are put on this earth to help each other.
Jim died suddenly on May 27 of a perforated rectum.The police report says he was found with a Callaway extra long 50-inch Big Bertha Driver II golf club jammed up his rear end, with barely 5 inches of grip showing and a sledge hammer laying nearby. His wife Christine was arrested and charged with murder. The all-woman jury took only 15 minutes to find her Not Guilty, accepting her defence that Jim somehow, without looking, accidentally sat down on his golf club.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Danger: Hate Crimes Bill Would Destroy Freedom Of Expression, Religion
Who could possibly oppose punishment for hate crimes? That is the quandary people of goodwill feel when confronted by the superficially attractive, but false title of legislation purportedly intended to prevent crimes of violence, when in fact the bill itself — HR 1913 (“Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009”), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week — is loaded with hidden landmines that threaten sacred freedoms of expression and religion.
This quandary is brought about by a facile and concerted use of language that has been twisted by people with a radical agenda for America, so that certain words are emotionally loaded and convey a completely different meaning than their normal use. The word “hate,” for example, has been twisted to mean “disagreement,” so that if you express your disagreement with homosexual behavior, you are accused of being “hateful” and engaging in “hate” speech, or even a “hate crime.”
The intended effect is to silence reasonable and good people, and to quash any intelligent substantive debate on the normalization of homosexual or other “sexual orientations.” (Recall the excoriation of Miss California by Perez Hilton after she politely expressed her disagreement with same-sex marriage.)
It is important to underscore this point because silencing dissent and ad hominine arguments are standard tactics practiced in the name of stopping so-called “hate.” However, silencing dissent — antithetical to the First Amendment and true civil libertarians — is only a first step; the next move is criminally proscribing disagreement with the real threat of jail. This is precisely the intent of the Hate Crimes Bill, which the Senate will now consider.
HR 1913 is inimical to America’s core foundational principles of freedom of expression, religion, thought, ideas, and yes, dissent. Our Founders were extraordinarily careful to balance these freedoms with the responsibility to honor and preserve life and liberty, and to respect the dignity of all individuals. Our Founders believed that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The hate crimes bill eviscerates these founding principles.
First, HR 1913 will stifle religious speech and “politically incorrect” ideas by providing a legal basis for finding religious leaders guilty of hate crimes. How would this happen? HR 1913 makes it a federal crime to willfully cause “bodily injury” because of “the actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity” of another. Incredibly, the statute fails to define “bodily injury. When a statute fails to define a term, a judge must discern its meaning by looking to other statutes. Several federal criminal laws define “bodily injury” as including emotional distress. So, if a pastor expresses the biblical viewpoint that homosexual (or other) behaviors are immoral, a homosexual can allege that he has been emotionally injured by the willful conduct of the pastor. That is a hate crime under HR 1913!
Second, religious leaders could be found guilty for the violent acts committed by people who hear them speak. Federal law provides that whoever induces someone to commit a federal crime shall be punished as if he actually committed the crime himself (18 U.S.C. § 2). If a pastor addresses the topic of sexual orientation and an unstable person hears his sermon and is thereby “induced” to murder a homosexual (which would be a federal hate crime), then the pastor could be found guilty of murder.
Third, the bill provides special legal protections to people who engage in behaviors that ought to shock our collective moral conscience. The bill fails to define the term “sexual orientation” and a judge could interpret this term to include behaviors such as pedophilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, bestiality, necrophilia, polyamory and a host of other sexual behaviors. When U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also a former appellate judge, offered an amendment to prevent pedophiles from being included in this class of protected people, it was defeated on straight party lines.
This provides the legal basis for absurd results. You could be found guilty of a hate crime if you physically stopped a pedophile from assaulting a child because the pedophile is within the special protected class and you “caused bodily injury” “because of” his “sexual orientation.”
An activist judge could thus interpret the law based on his own sexual orientation or agenda. For those thinking such an interpretation is far-fetched, remember that no one in 1970 would have believed that the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), originally written to target organized crime, would be used by pro-abortion advocates to target pro-life organizations.
Yet, in 1986, the National Organization For Women (NOW) used RICO to sue pro-life groups, and the federal courts allowed this bizarre interpretation, finding in favor of NOW. It took nearly 20 years of expensive litigation before the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts.
Who should oppose hate crimes? All Americans who believe in equal justice under the law, who believe in freedom of expression, religion, thought and dissent, and who believe in the dignity and worth of all individuals. If you are a true civil libertarian, then you owe it to yourself, your children and your country to contact your senator ASAP and oppose this insidious bill.
David Wiedis is an attorney and COO of The Providence Forum, the West Conshohocken-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit scholarly and educational organization that preserves, defends, and advances the faith and values of our nation’s founding. The Providence Forum celebrates its 10th anniversary this year: www.ProvidenceForum.org
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
What's For Dinner?
Can't eat pork, Swine flu...
Can't eat chicken, Bird flu...
Can't eat Beef, Mad cow...
Can't eat eggs, Salmonella...
Can't eat fish, heavy metal poisons in their waters...
Can't eat fruits and veggies, insecticides and herbicides....
I believe that leaves Chocolate and ice cream!!!!!!!!
Remember - - -
"STRESSED" spelled backwards is......"DESSERTS" !!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Attending a wedding for the first time, a little girl whispered to her mother, 'Why is the bride dressed in white?''
The mother replied, 'Because white is the color of happiness, and today is the happiest day of her life.'
The child thought about this for a moment then said, 'So why is the groom wearing black?'