The NY Times presents a "debate" on whether the firing of an off-duty NJ Transit worker for burning a Koran was legal. The debate is a bit one-sided, since all the legal eagles agree that the fired employee is protected by the First Amendment. However, the Times did find one person to take the other side, however unconvincingly:
Salam Al-Marayati is executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a public policy organization that focuses on U.S.-Muslim world relations, Middle East peacemaking, counter-terrorism and faith-based initiatives.
...Burning the American flag is also protected by the First Amendment. But I certainly would fire any of my employees who would consider flag-burning as an act of defiance. It's not. It's childish and immature behavior, and those who would do such a thing would be unworthy of public employment.
"Unworthy"? Is that the new requirement? I will agree that if I ran a public relations firm I would probably fire an employee who made it to the evening news by burning a flag, or a Koran - that is not the kind of public relations in which I would choose to engage. However, we are talking about a state employee here.
My original question about whether the employee is covered by a union contract and grievance procedures remains unanswered. And let me toss in two cents - dare we analogize to the ban on cross-burning which was upheld by the Supreme Court? It is not a good analogy, since the history is very different, as is the intended meaning (cross-burners aren't expressing disdain for Christianity, although they do lack certain Christian principles.)
And secondly, let's boo Gov. Christie, who apparently supports the firing.
Jane:
How are you plans to come to the Sturbridge Tea Party coming along?
::sob::
There's an industry event going on that precludes going that week.
Wait. What?
Hey,when's the date for that Atlanta get together again?
Posted by: hit and run | September 21, 2010 at 09:50 AM
Janet and rse: If you go to the blaze dot com and to their blog section on the right, they discuss the Muslim speaker when Obama went to church.
Sorry no link. Apparently the speaker was part of a forum that began at 10 am and the Obama's attended the main service at 9 am and per the press pool report departed the church at 10 am or thereabouts.
Posted by: centralcal | September 21, 2010 at 09:52 AM
Last night Jim Ryan had a 10:01 post of leftists in Australia putting a farmer out of business. If you haven't read it it is terrifying.
Here's the New Zealand effort to end all Livestock production with Carbon Tax.
Here's just one of 3,500,000 articles at Google about the EPA effort to end agricultural EPA classifies milk as oil, forcing costly rules on farmers production in the USA.
I'm sure pofarmer can expand on the threat the EPA represents to American farmers.
Posted by: Pagar | September 21, 2010 at 09:53 AM
Laura Ingraham is skewering senility outreach night when Dhimmi Carter appeared on Larry King's still alive last night in an unintentional comedy classic. I don't know which of these two idiots should get the dirt nap first; a dead heat if you will.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 09:56 AM
I don't know which of these two idiots should get the dirt nap first; a dead heat if you will.
Someone should have just walled up the studio and done us all a favor.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 21, 2010 at 09:58 AM
This is truly lovely:
It's from the New Yorker.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 21, 2010 at 09:59 AM
Here is the article sent to me in an email about the Obama's Church service this Sunday. LUN
God, I liked to be skeptical enough to believe he didn't stick around for this speech but I just can't will myself to do so.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 21, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Thanks centralcal & JiB.
Posted by: Janet | September 21, 2010 at 10:05 AM
I had picked it up in the comments on MOTUS in need of some good snarking.
LUN is from the church website. The program does seem to have started at 10.
Still hard to imagine them going if the Forum program at 10 was an objectionable speaker or topic.
Posted by: rse | September 21, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Still hard to imagine them going if the Forum program at 10 was an objectionable speaker or topic.
Um, they spent 20 years going to to Trinity Hate-Whitey.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM
It was an Episcopal church so the chances of there being an anti-American motif was pretty fucking high, which is why the next time I return there will be with a Molotov cocktail in one hand and an axe in the other to expel the commies, pederasts and catamites.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 10:14 AM
ROTHFLMAO:
The original write in campaign ad for Murkwski. And yes that is the way her campaign staff spelled her name for the website. I kid you not! LUN
This is a hoot, as they say up there in Alaska.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 21, 2010 at 10:21 AM
In other words Ziad Asali and the topic and the activities of the American Task Force on Palestine are fine with BO and MOO.
Does anyone else especially want to hear that Khalidi dinner tape that the LA Times doesn't deny it has and is keeping secret?
Khalidi just keeps popping up-social justice, Gaza flotilla, Ayers.
Maybe Ayers retired to tell more of his story in print.
Posted by: rse | September 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM
"Still hard to imagine them going if the Forum program at 10 was an objectionable speaker or topic."
Doesn't sound like a message or speaker that would be objectionable to Obama.
Posted by: Pagar | September 21, 2010 at 10:23 AM
--If you think man in his natural state is wonderful thing YMMV.--
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9.
--the next time I return there will be with a Molotov cocktail in one hand and an axe in the other to expel the commies, pederasts and catamites.--
Vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Captain. Captain Hate 1:1.
:)
Posted by: Ignatz | September 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM
daddy will have to tell us how the idea that Alaskans are simpletons to be spoken to as children will play.
Tone deaf and a bad speller.
Out! Out!
Posted by: rse | September 21, 2010 at 10:26 AM
rse:
"Still hard to imagine them going if the Forum program at 10 was an objectionable speaker or topic."
Clarice can correct me, but I think the church is very convenient to the White House, and a lot of Presidents have attended services there. There's plenty of more objectionable fodder out there, without attaching great significance to every little thing, when there are any number of innocent explanations.
That was my reaction to the brouhaha over leaving the Creator out of the Declaration quote.
He's said it correctly any number of times; it's not something his particular audience would have been looking for; it's an unlikely message right when he's trying to establish his Christian bona fides by going to church; and he's always scowling these days.
I think it's more plausible that somebody just screwed up the TOTUS scroll.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 10:32 AM
JMH-
If they attended church at all regularly I would agree with you but making that Sunday one of the rare occasions. Not so sure.
On the Creator-it was his face that really bothered me when he omitted the line. He looked angry. He could have been angry at the teleprompter. Sad he showed no humor then.
My real interest again is Khalidi's seeming omnipresence.
Posted by: rse | September 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Rick:
"Ras shows Liza Minelski not doing too well."
Those numbers may be even better than they look, because Miller had definitely been holding his fire when the canvassing was done. ISTM, they would essentially represent the general election baseline, no?
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 10:38 AM
I was just alerted that a virus was trying to attack my computer. It was specific this time. The virus was connected to the Hot Air site. My protection blocked it, but be careful if you go over there.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Visiting Ace today I ran across the speech Mike Pence gave at HIllsdale College yesterday. One particular part of it really resonated with me and I'll bet 12 to a dozen it will do the same to all at JOM. So, if you will forgive my "Anduril-for-a-day" copy and paste here it is:
"Whereas, at home, the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential, abroad, his character must change. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:
"The President of the United States of America bows to no man. You do not bow to kings. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but, rather, the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country, the slaughter of our children, our mothers, our fathers, our sisters, and brothers… are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them." "
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 21, 2010 at 10:40 AM
I think someone should make a Lasi Meckloski ad for her, and spell her name wrong from the beginning to the end.
Now that would be funny.
It seems they have completely Palinized O'Donnell at this point and she is trailing the marxist by 20 points. Someone needs to address the sexism on the left.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 21, 2010 at 10:47 AM
This from Don Surber:
After polling in Alaska and finding Joe Miller with a 15-point lead over Lisa Sméagolowski, er, Murkowski and Scott McAdams, Scott Rasmussen declared Alaska is solid Republican.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 21, 2010 at 10:50 AM
JMH,
Actually, a little bit better than baseline for Liza because her name was presented. She ain't gonna be on the ballot and she's going to find out just how little Alaskan's care about feeding the ego of a wannabe baroness.
The "surprise" this morning is Gillibrand's poor polling in NY. Under 50 against a retread isn't good news for her at all.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM
rse:
I think when folks are looking for symbolism, everything is symbolic. If there ever was a time for KISS, this would seem to be it. The more cluttered up things get, the easier it is to change the subject. As you suggest, staying focused the big deals like Khalidi is much more important, IMO.
Jane:
"Anyone else think they are having an affair?"
Or maybe a three-way with Reid's "pet" in Delaware. Nothing Sharon Angle (or O'Donnell) has said sounds half as kooky as the patter from the Majority Leader. Crossroads should put a compendium of all the bizarre stuff he has spouted off in an ad. They could ask if this is the guy you really want running the Senate -- and your healthcare..... but I think just letting clips stand on their own might be even more effective -- in part because it assumes the public is capable of drawing its own conclusions.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM
That was great, JIB--thanks for posting it.
Interesting that Miller does better with Murkalinski in the race. God, she must be steamed.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 21, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Interesting that Miller does better with Murkalinski in the race.
What? You mean the RINO draws more Dems than Independents?
That's unpossible!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Jane:
"Someone needs to address the sexism on the left."
I'd opt for O'Donnelling Coons, myself. She's doomed if he escapes the public spotlight, which he's pretty much managed to do so far.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Well, so long as he didn't dabble in witchcraft.
JMH is absolutely right about that church. Interestingly enough my impression is the pastor on at least one occasion tried to embarrass W by his sermon and was always most solicitous of Clinton et al. The Church of the Royal Squish.
Posted by: Clarice | September 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Fox News:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM
It's a good thing they invited NPR and Isaacson to represent journalism in October.
LUN
Let's keep it fair and balanced.
(and keep track of those Khalidi sightings)
Posted by: rse | September 21, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I'd opt for O'Donnelling Coons, myself. She's doomed if he escapes the public spotlight, which he's pretty much managed to do so far.
Absolutely; by mocking O'Donnell 24/7 the MFM is telling you they don't want to talk about Harry's pet. Make it about his tax raising proclivities and unwillingness to run against anything the jugeared loser has done. Make it about Coons, goddammit.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 11:10 AM
JJ Jr. is about to get a serious courtroom beatdown. Word is that he specifically asked a fundraiser to offer Blago "millioins" in campaign controbutions in exchange for Obama's Senate seat. Funny how that ends up in the papers after Jackson the Younger puffed up his chest and challenged Fitz to 'bring it on.'
What may really sink him though is that the same fundraiser was apparently paying for air travel for a "Washington DC resturant hostess" whom Jackson Jr. described to the FBI as a "social aquantance."
Posted by: Ranger | September 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM
I suspect the 20 points is more realistic, DoT. Fox News Polls often seem to paint a slightly rosier picture for the right than the one we end up seeing as events actually unfold. Over time, I've found myself revising my expectations slightly downward when their data is the starting point.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Actually JM, despite what you would think, Opinion Dynamics has not been that terribly
accurate over time
Posted by: narciso | September 21, 2010 at 11:20 AM
I think it's more plausible that somebody just screwed up the TOTUS scroll.
He shouldn't need TOTUS to quote that passage.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 21, 2010 at 11:22 AM
The "surprise" this morning is Gillibrand's poor polling in NY.
Particularly for the hottest chick in
the senatedemocrat party. In fact she may be the only chick in the democrat party who isn't plug ugly.Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Rick,
Re: Gillibrand - the more attention the media directs toward DE, the better. If all the MSM can do on November 3 is trumpet the incredibly important! successful Dem defense of the sitting Vice President's old Senate seat in freaking Delaware, it will be a sweet day indeed.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 21, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Oh My! PPP has the Republican up by 3 in the West Virginia Senate race.
Posted by: Ranger | September 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Yes, I see that Porchlight, I wish there were a few less Ephialtes in the group, giving them
the advantage.
Posted by: narciso | September 21, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Not sure if this was linked already.
Republicans will unveil their new 'Contract' on Thursday in Virginia
Posted by: Extraneus | September 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM
centracal: Belated Happy Birthday.I hope you had a great day!
I saw the clip of the Obamas going to church- a definite photo-op. Obama'a townhall- a complete bust. The first woman is pouring her heart out and he is smiling and laughing-I kid you not!Obama has never felt her pain or anxiety because he is CLUELESS!
Posted by: maryrose | September 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Ranger,
WV plus WI plus CT? Could happen.
I'll say it again, I don't think we need DE to take the Senate.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM
PPP has Boxer up by 5 (I think it's five--can't find it now).
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Clarice:
A nominee for this week's Pieces. Obama's Boston auntie is a victim!
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM
I liked the first Contract with America but I'm not sure that it's such a good idea this year. The Tea Party exists because of dissatisfaction with *both* parties and I'd want to keep party affiliation as understated as possible.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Porchlight:
"He shouldn't need TOTUS to quote that passage."
Shouldn't need TOTUS in an elementary school, or a presser, either. Afraid I can't throw any stones when it comes to drawing a blank, alas.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM
((That was my reaction to the brouhaha over leaving the Creator out of the Declaration quote. ))
If someone else has already offered the following explanation, I apologize in advance.
Maybe the person who typed 0's speech into the prompter mistakenly left out that sentence and 0 was discombobulated because he couldn't remember the famous sentence well enough to quote it extempore.
Posted by: Chubby | September 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM
The Delaware Repubs finally got off their dead asses (or maybe that wasn't necessary) and updated their website to indicate O'Donnell and not Castle is the Senate candidate. Hey it was within a week....
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Shouldn't need TOTUS in an elementary school, or a presser, either.
So true, JMH.
I'll admit the possibility that he didn't leave the Creator part out intentionally; perhaps he just doesn't like that part or doesn't believe that it is important, so he unthinkingly left it out.
Would love to see what was actually programmed into TOTUS, though.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 21, 2010 at 12:01 PM
CH,
A very short contract would work. Something like:
1. Repeal Obamacare.
2. Ten years and out for any elected official.
3. No, nein, nyet, non, nr, αριθ, 否, いいえ, não.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM
CH,
A very short contract would work. Something like:
1. Repeal Obamacare.
2. Ten years and out for any elected official.
3. No, nein, nyet, non, nr, αριθ, 否, いいえ, não.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM
I think TypePad is really running tOTUs, it's the best explanation thus far
Posted by: narciso | September 21, 2010 at 12:07 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/totus_it_wasnt_me.html Thinker says that Obama ad-libbed the entire remarks about the Declaration. They are not in his prepared remarks.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/totus_it_wasnt_me.html>Shoot. Sorry about that folks.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM
PPP had Boxer by eight DoT; 50 to 42.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 21, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Ah, thanks Sue. Ha ha. Dumbass Professor O doesn't know the most famous passage in the most famous document in American history.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 21, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Porch,
Even better, he is a constitutional professor.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM
That Aunt Zeituni story is a perfect example of what is infuriating about our government. First she ignores our laws...then actively disobeys them...all the while getting taxpayer funded medical attention & housing. She even has wealthy family relations that are lawyers that she could have turned to.
Why should I obey laws if Aunt Zeituni doesn't have to?
Our idiot leaders are so busy micromanaging our lives & intruding into areas that they have no business in, that they can't even perform their legitimate functions.
...and if our medical system is so godawful how did a destitute illegal get treatment? Next time the Dems trot out some individual with a sob story we should just tell them to go see Aunt Zeituni....she'll tell em what to do. Need some dentures?...go see Aunt Zeituni.
Posted by: Janet | September 21, 2010 at 12:30 PM
LMAO - Rush is just decimating Judith Miller's appearance last night on Special Report round table.
Said she has an I.Q. that could fit in a thimble and she should have never gotten out of jail!
Posted by: centralcal | September 21, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Sue,
Good catch. It must be that charter of negative liberties he can't get his head around, I guess. Oh, and the natural rights thing. But those are just minor details or something.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 21, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Not too beloved I guess...
Posted by: Janet | September 21, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Is Auntie Zeituni the Billy Carter of the 21st century?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 21, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Me too, Porchlight.
Captain Hate:
"I liked the first Contract with America but I'm not sure that it's such a good idea this year."
I'm of two minds about that, myself. Jay Cost had some really interesting observations about the ultimate importance of the 1st Contract. While Newt has certainly worked hard to create his own little Camelot, Cost suggested that the Contract wasn't nearly as valuable in the election as it was as a blueprint for governance afterwards.
On reflection, that makes a lot of sense to me. You get a clear agenda, a Rumsfeldian "metric" for assessment, and hopefully, an upfront Congressional commitment with a whole lot less post-election wiggle room. When Republicans (even Eric Cantor!) have already started backing away from a push to bring earmarking to a permanent end, the idea of signing on to an explicit set of objectives is starting to look a lot more attractive to me.
I hate to say it, but I think the biggest pitfall would be expanding beyond the political and economic goals that are clearly generating opposition unity and momentum. Traditional Republican social issues are not the energizer here, and keeping it simple is key this time around.
Rick:
I always thought the "Party of No" was a plus, not a minus. In fact, I even bought a domain name for it, although off hand, I can't remember whether or not I let it lapse.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM
From an old CNN article -
Onyango has donated at least five times to Obama's campaign in July and September, listing her occupation as a "volunteer resident health advocate."
Hah! Maybe the dentured destitute really SHOULD go ask Aunt Zeituni...
Posted by: Janet | September 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Ah, St. John's - church of presidents.
My office used to be a block away. IIRC, Its actually across the street from the Hay-Adams Hotel. It is a really liberal, leftist kind of kumbay-ya lets coexist gathering place. Not surprising that they are trying to explain why even Obama hasn't a prayer when it comes to the middle-east because we all know its the Jooooos fault. Note on their website that they are still filled with christian anxiety over South Africa and Katrina.
Next up for the Obama "Religion's R Us" campaign is a visit to National Cathedral for the annual Prayer Breakfast:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 21, 2010 at 12:51 PM
JMH & Rick,
Definitely keep it simple
LUN for Iowahawk greatness
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 12:52 PM
CH,
C. S. Lewis couldn't have written it better:)
You know, I wonder what his driving record is like? Any tickets (probably for going to slow on the Interstate)? Any parking violations (probably for parking in a handicap spot so Michelle didn't have to walk to far)? Any accidents (probably panic braking on an icy street and hitting a sanitation truck)?
You can bet that if he has a record it is protected under the Illinois secrets act.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 21, 2010 at 01:01 PM
I'm trying to decide whether to have Cap'n Hate replace Steele, or the Anglican Archbishop. In any event, he is underemployed where he is now.
Posted by: Old Lurker | September 21, 2010 at 01:19 PM
OL, I used to be an altar boy (unabused of course)
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 01:27 PM
Thanks for that Iowahawk link, CH.
I'm still laughing.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 21, 2010 at 01:30 PM
Well, that settles it, Sue. Obama always screws it up when he ad libs.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 01:42 PM
CH:
Iowahawk doesn't usually push my buttons, but that was hysterical.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 02:01 PM
I don't know if you know this but Iowahawk was a professor of the hard sciences at a very prominent school and is now a well-regarded Chicago business executive. I simply don't know how he has the time to write all this wonderful stuff with all his other obligation.
I am in awe.
Posted by: Clarice | September 21, 2010 at 02:05 PM
As for Delaware, Legal Insurrection offers a history lesson (Scott Brown vc. Coakley) and argues the election is one of issues not personalities..do not give up.
< href=http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/09/please-ignore-history-and-give-up-on.html>Fight on to victory
Posted by: Clarice | September 21, 2010 at 02:09 PM
JMH, I pretty much feel the same way re: Iowahawk; comedy is pretty subjective on how it hits people.
Listening to Tammy Bruce is a good balm after the small but persistent herd of eeyores at AoS has infuriated me
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 02:18 PM
St. Johns is a member of Washington Interfaith Network -From their web site: "WIN" is affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the oldest and largest community organizing network in the United States. with more than 60 faith-based community organizations across the nation, including BUILD in Baltimore, MD and AIM in Montgomery County, MD".... (my note: it bases its teachings on Saul Alinsky). So here we have Obama comfortably attending an affiliate of a huge political religious organization, birthed from that great community organization "spirit" that has successfully distorted the Gospel by erasing a connection to scriptural fidelity. The great deceiver has been working overtime across our land and in the church, and few seem to notice or care. Is anyone paying serious attention to the growing alliance between the Progressive church leaders and the Islamics? Their blindness is startling--they seem not to grasp the enduring hatred of Islam towards Christians and Jews and our final showdown (scheduled sometime soon) in the Middle East. When the doctrinal structure of the church can be transformed by the insidious infiltration of leftist ideology, hapless parishioners are left without spiritual food for their souls. It's heartbreaking to witness the growing deception in the church.
Apparently Obama is wary of attending a faith service that is true to Christianity, or maybe--even though he professes himself a Christian, he's never actually been led to the great I AM?
Posted by: OldTimer | September 21, 2010 at 02:27 PM
Completely O/T, but I found this link at IOTW and it is very
interestingrevealingPark 51; 45, 46, 47
Posted by: centralcal | September 21, 2010 at 02:27 PM
It could be worse the Vatican Bank is now involved in a $30 million money laundering scheme. Soon we'll have not only home schooling but home religious services. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea.
Everyone tend to their own gardens.
I stopped attending synagogue when the service I went to featured a dance celebrating the uterus.If we're going back to pre history pap like that, go back to the time when succoth was a national holiday celebrating by a mass orgy at the temple mount in Jerusalem.
Posted by: Clarice | September 21, 2010 at 02:31 PM
**celebratED****
Posted by: Clarice | September 21, 2010 at 02:32 PM
Here's the Vatican Bank story along with something I vaguely remembered from thirty years ago
"In the 1980s, it was involved in a major scandal that resulted in a banker, dubbed "God's Banker" because of his close ties to the Vatican, being found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_vatican_bank
Posted by: Clarice | September 21, 2010 at 02:42 PM
ha ha ha, Clarice. Yeah, I know it is more sad than funny. But, you made laugh by the way you put it.
Posted by: centralcal | September 21, 2010 at 02:45 PM
uh, laughing at the mass orgy, not the hanging banker!
Posted by: centralcal | September 21, 2010 at 02:47 PM
21 Sep 10
Baghdad
The beauty of the contract for America was that it was just that; i.e. expectations were defined in advance and then voters could measure against a defined objective.
Many parents will recognize the same sort of mechanism when dealing with their children when it comes time to pay weekly allowance. . . e.g. "did you take out the trash?" "Yes, good." "Did you feed the dog?" (in the case of 44) "No, good." Very simple.
I'm not a lawyer, but it is obvious that there are all sorts of contracts: legal, implied, specified, handshakes, moral, ethical, etc; there's a lot of overlap in those categories.
BUT, what is missing today, akin to what NG recognized in the run up to '94, is confidence in the fidelity to the implied, moral and ethical contract between the elected and the electors to put the best interests of the republic first and foremost.
Take good care,
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy Daze | September 21, 2010 at 02:51 PM
Republicans Block Bill to Lift Military Gay Ban
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans have blocked an effort to repeal the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.
The partisan vote was a defeat for gay rights groups who saw the provision in a defense authorization bill as their last chance any time soon to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation, which authorized $726 billion in defense spending. The vote was 56-43.
(See article LUN)
Posted by: Barbara | September 21, 2010 at 03:19 PM
--they seem not to grasp the enduring hatred of Islam towards Christians and Jews and our final showdown--
They grasp it and, being neither Christians nor Jews, they actually share it.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 21, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 21, 2010 at 03:44 PM
Besides repealing DADT, the bill also contained Reid's bad-DREAM act and a little doo-dad slipped in by the great Roland Burres hisownsef funding abortions on military bases.
Good for anyone who helped shoot this mess down.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 21, 2010 at 03:52 PM
Absolutely, even the Maine squish sisters can feel the temperature of the wind. Does anybody know if Colin Powell is sobbing profusely as he apologizes to the people working on his house? That backstabbing asshole can blame me if he wants.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 21, 2010 at 03:56 PM
If the scoundrels really felt that strongly about allowing open homosexuality in the military, they'd have put forward a bill for it instead of tacking in onto an unrelated defense appropriations bill.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 21, 2010 at 03:57 PM
Centracal, your Park 51 link is fascinating. The Islamic assault against us will only escalate if we are unable to decipher their deception before it culminates in catastrophe. For every transgression they make against us, there is a verse of scripture given to refute and to utterly thwart them. If only we will use the "Power" at our disposal...
Posted by: OldTimer | September 21, 2010 at 04:00 PM
Dave,
Same with the DREAM act.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2010 at 04:00 PM
Republicans are getting ready to vote tomorrow to remove Murkowski from her rank on the energy committee. Seems they can't remove her from the committee, but can strip her rank.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2010 at 04:09 PM
Sue:
If the Murky decision is anything other than unanimous, I just hope someone will have the guts to bring the sunshine on that vote.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 21, 2010 at 04:24 PM
Sue: Didn't I see somewhere that Murk-cow-ski is also on the Appropriations Committee? Anyone know?
Posted by: centralcal | September 21, 2010 at 04:31 PM
I suspect it will be unanimous, unless she has some dead bodies lying around. And yes, she is also on the appropriations committee. Not sure what her seniority is. According to Ace, they (republicans) can only remove her from her seniority position, not from the actual committee itself. Needs to be voted on by the entire senate to remove her from committees.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2010 at 04:33 PM
Absolutely right, OldTimer.
Posted by: centralcal | September 21, 2010 at 04:34 PM
The only senator I've read who supports her is Lord Lindsey.He's yours, jmh. Go get him.
Posted by: Clarice | September 21, 2010 at 04:42 PM
The Democrats' favorite Republican this week Moocowski didn't vote on S.3454 because she's too busy back home desperately trying to keep from getting kicked out of the family business.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 21, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Taranto's line about "Taking Your Daughter to Work" is choice, also Sally the pampered child
in Mad Men, is analogous
Posted by: narciso | September 21, 2010 at 04:59 PM