Obama, the "American past-time fan"

President Barack Obama threw the Washington Nationals' opening game first pitch on Monday.
Well, maybe the verb "to throw" isn't the right word. Maybe 'hail Mary' or 'heave ho' could be more accurate words for what he did at Nationals Park.
Here's the video:

Now that you've seen that, what is going through your mind?
Well, first off, what is with that hat? Are the White Sox playing in this game? Nope. So why? Oh, yeah, Obama is a die hard White Sox fan. Or is he? Watch this video from when he was interviewed by MASN during the game:

Well, that was a shocker. Not really. What kind of a fan can't name off one player on the team he is a fan of? The answer: he's not a fan. However, he is a "fan" of the voters on Chicago's southside. Or, he says he is. Also, what does it mean to be "blue collar" in baseball? I think he just made that up. And what is his infatuation with "Cominsky Park," or in the past, "Cominsky Field"? It is and will forever be Comiskey Park. Get with it! I know it is now called US Cellular Field, but in the hearts of all baseball fans, they refer to it still as Comiskey Park. Is he just dumb when it comes to baseball park names, or is he just confused? Oh, I also liked how he mentioned the Cubs, and that was only for political reasons.
I classify myself as a sports fan. Now, I do not know everything when it comes to baseball, but I appreciate the sport. I appreciate the history. I would NEVER wear attire of two competing teams in the same sport. If he really is a Sox fan as he claims to be, why is he wearing a Nationals pull-over?
Also, as a fan, why are you wearing that team's attire when that team is nowhere near the ballpark? If I was Obama, I would be wearing no team attire when my team is not present. I would be wearing a MLB generic outfit, or just a presidential pull-over. Why are you clashing your fanhood? Are the Sox, just a fashion statement to say that you still care about Chicago?

Constitution under attack: Chicago ban on handguns upheld by court

A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld on Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel said the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment did not apply to state and municipalities.

So, exactly what does this mean? Does the Constitution of the United States of America not apply at all? There are 50 states in the union, one would say 57 (ahem, Obama).

There is a good thing that there is a group called the National Rifle Association that is appealing this court's decision to the United States Supreme Court. I just hope Judge Sonia Sotomayor isn't there to ban guns outright.

I am all for States' Rights, but this is unbelieavable. Actually, this isn't even a States' Rights issue, it's a Chicago issue, but the court had to thrown in "did not apply to state and municipalities."

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "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.”

IT HAS BEEN INFRINGED!!!

If a court can take away the Second Amendment, what can stop them from taking away more rights?

IN THE NEWS:
Bloomberg: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court