Posted By: sam on 2008-10-28 In Reply to:Bingo! - sm
Germany. Do you really hate a group of people that much? Really?? That you want to go down the marxist path of quashing or belitting any kind of dissent or disagreement? I thought liberals were all about the right to dissent! Oh...what on earth am I thinking? They are for THEIR right to dissent and dam* anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Obama pressures Philly area synagogue to drop RJC Rrepresentative from a ... The RJC has launched a new series of ads raising critical issues for the Jewish... www.rjchq.org/ - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
I'll be very interested to hear more about her. So far, I've learned that she contributed to Al Gore's campaign and was also involved with Legal Aid in the past. Either Bush is coming to his senses or this is merely another example of his ongoing cronyism. In this case, his cronyism just might actually finally benefit the American people this time.
Bush picks White House counsel for Supreme Court
If confirmed, Harriet Miers would succeed O'Connor
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Miers, 60, was the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She has never been a judge.
An outspoken supporter of the Bush administration, she was a leader of its search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts. A White House official said that at the same time, Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge.
In a televised announcement from the White House, Bush called Miers exceptionally well-suited for the high court. Miers has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice, he said.
He called on the Senate to review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly.
Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination. (
It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society, she said.
If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution. (
If the Senate confirms Miers, she would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first female justice in 1981.
Dinner offer
Bush offered her the job Sunday night over dinner in the White House residence, White House sources said.
During the summer, a vetting process for Miers took place once the president began considering her.
Bush took seriously suggestions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and ranking Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, that the president consider candidates from outside the appellate courts, the sources said.
Miers, 60, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas Bar Association. She also was a member of the Dallas City Council. (
Harriet Miers is an intelligent lawyer who shares the president's judicial philosophy, said Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society.
She has demonstrated that in her capacity as White House counsel and a senior administration official as well as an active member of the organized bar.
Quietly, some conservatives involved in the White House's nominee selection consultation process said they are concerned with Bush's pick.
The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer, said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in 1965.
The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it. However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.
The Concerned Women for America, another conservative group, also took a wait-and-see approach on Miers.
We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the group. Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process.
One Republican official said that many had expectations that Bush's pick would be a known conservative, adding that he was surprised by the president's choice.
Republicans were hoping for a clear conservative, the official said. It's going to be heavy lifting for us and the White House.
Another conservative source who was involved in the selection consultation process said Miers was not a big surprise and that she had always been someone under serious consideration.
She's a good conservative, the source said. She does share the president's views about law and public policy. But she is not well-known, which is going to be part of the challenge.
Democrats on the the Senate Judiciary Committee reacted cautiously to Miers' nomination, but they did not immediately oppose it.
It is too early to reach any firm judgment about such an important nomination, Leahy said in a statement, noting Miers long ties to President Bush. It is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers isues of interest to this Administration.
My first reaction is a simple one: It could have been a lot worst, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, one of the Demcrats on the committee, said. ... The president has not sent us a nominee that we've rejected already.
Schumer continued, There's hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee. ... Given the fact that the extreme wing of the president's party was demanding someone of fealty to their views, this is a good first day in the process that begins to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, another Democratic committee member and its only woman, said she was happy that a woman was nominated to replace the outgoing O'Connor but wanted to know more about Miers' views on privacy and other issues.
This new justice will be critical in the balance with respect to rulings on congressional authority, as well as a woman's right to privacy, environmental protections, and many other aspects of constitutional law in the United States, Feinstein said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was complimentary of Miers.
I like Harriet Miers, Reid said in a statement. As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
Pivotal replacement
The choice to replace O'Connor, a key swing vote, could be pivotal. (
The announcement came shortly before justices were to begin a new term with new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is the youngest member of the high court.
The term is expected to include rulings on several controversial cases, said Edward Lazarus, a Supreme Court legal analyst. (
This is a situation where, from the very moment the justices start back up in October, they're going to be very divided, said Lazarus, who authored Closed Chambers, a book on the justices. It's going to be a lot of friction inside the building.
O'Connor announced her retirement in July. Bush initially chose Roberts for her seat, but the September 3 death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist changed the White House's strategy.
O'Connor has said she will stay on until she is replaced, making her role in the upcoming term unclear. Under court rules, a justice's vote does not count until a ruling is issued, a process that can take weeks or months.
Many legal scholars question whether O'Connor would want to continue hearing cases if her replacement takes over before rulings are issued, thereby negating her vote.
CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers
There's an old Jewish saying. TI
Prepare yourself with truth before you argue. You speak about debate, but I haven't seen any real debate here. A lot of hysteria. A lot of disinformation. No debate. Israel is not an ally because we haven't sent troops to Iraq. When I finished laughing about that, I had to be disturbed from the lack of real knowledge among you. You get all your facts from news sources, I am guessing most of them partisan. I am not only speaking to you but to other posters here. You give yourselves names like Liberal and Democrat and you speak from political points and not humanity. There is no humanity in your words. You have no idea what goes on in Israel. Unless you are there or have lived and breathed there, or know what the struggles are from minute to minute, you know only what you read. That is the truth. My Jooish friends and I won't bother to educate you. You already know everything and my time here is wasted. It's a big contest about who can paste here articles they find that say what they want. Whether they be true or no. Les enfants israeliens meurent aussi.
I didn't say because you were Jewish
I said it's not right to think that Christianity should be taken out of everything just because you don't agree.
And you did say that you are getting "Christian things shoved down your throat" everywhere. Usually when you say something is shoved down your throat it means you take offense to it.
I have a serious question to ask you though - do you not believe in Jesus? If not, what is the reasoning as far as you are concerned for getting into heaven? I mean what are the requirements from a Jewish point of view? I'm asking this in all honesty, not sarcastically or anything like that.
Not all Jewish grandparents think the way you do
@@
So, gt, are YOU the Jewish expert on this board. sm
So what are your thoughts on Gaza and it's historical and Biblical significance? Do you think Egypt will encroach upon the left bank? How about Hamas and their recent aggressive actions. Do you think they will rebuilt Gaza? What do you think about the relocation of the Gaza settlers? What is the significance of losing Gaza? Do you think the Arabs will uphold their part of the peace agreement, and if so, why? Don't you think Sharon is doomed as far as ever being reelected. Netinyahu is pretty steamed as are most Israeli. Do you think they should vote him back in? Tell us your thoughts.
Jewish Voices For Peace
Not all jews agree with this latest Israeli/Bush aggression, myself included. Check out the web site Jewish Voices For Peace.Org.
Jewish Voice For Peace
It is Jewish Voice For Peace.Org, not Jewish Voices For Peace as I previously posted. Sorry.
Does really need to be said that Israel is predominantly Jewish?
When I speak of Israel, I speak of the Jews.
You Said: "And yes, I did bring Hitler into the conversation. He systematically tied to wipe out a group of people, which is exactly what Israel is doing right now."
That statement is exactly what makes you anti-Semitic. The fact that you can compare Israel to Nazi Germany is obscene and anti-Semitic. You are using something horrific done to the Jews (who make up 75% or more of the Israeli population) and using it to illustrate what you perceive is going on in the Gaza Strip. Can you not find some other means to make your point other than conjuring up prejudice perpetrated by Hitler? Could you have maybe made your comparison to Kosovo/Bosnia? Nope, you chose the holocaust to illustrate your point. You intent was to shock and to be controversial. You wanted to provoke a reaction.
What exactly did you think using the name "Hitler" would provoke? You argument in and of itself is anti-Semitic.
By the way, I am a messianic Jew. I know a little bit about anti-Semitism. So before you continue to insult both my intelligence and my homeland, choose your words wisely.
‘I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson’ says officer, who is Jewish
MSNBC The Associated Press Updated: 7:56 p.m. PT July 31, 2006
Excerpt:
CALABASAS, Calif. - The deputy who arrested Mel Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving said Monday that he feels bad for damage to the star’s reputation but hopes Gibson thinks twice before drinking and getting behind the wheel.
James Mee, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, told the Associated Press that he considered it a routine arrest and didn’t take seriously any comments that Gibson made.
Gibson reportedly unleashed an anti-Semitic tirade and made other offensive comments when he was pulled over, initially for speeding, early Friday along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. He was then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Gibson has issued a public apology for his conduct without specifying what he said or did.
“I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson,” said Mee, a 17-year deputy who is Jewish. “What I had hoped out of this is that he would think twice before he gets behind the wheel of a car and was drinking. ... I don’t want to ruin his career. I don’t want to defame him in any way or hurt him.”
*snip*
TMZ reported that Gibson said, “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked the arresting officer, “Are you a Jew?”
In the interview outside his home, Mee would not comment specifically on what Gibson said.
“That stuff is booze talking,” the deputy said. “There’s two things that booze does. It amplifies your basic personality. If you are a laid-back kind of person, just an easygoing kind of person, booze is going to amplify that and you’ll be just sitting around going how it’s a wonderful day.
I might be missing something here but I can't find posts by Kfir discussing her Jewish faith. It was all about the war. It was about the state of Israel not about the Jewish religion. Isn't that 2 different things?
The Anti-Republican Republican Who is Really a Republican
The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain's rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.
Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.
He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.
He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.
He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.
And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:
"We will drill..."
"We'll drill..."
"More drilling..."
McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.
But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.
Citing U.N. statistics, the IMC said more than 300 children were killed in Lebanon and 1,000 wounded while a further half million youngsters were displaced by battles between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry names eight Israeli children killed by Hizbollah rockets, including two 18-year olds. The total Israeli death toll is estimated at more than 150. It is unclear how many Israeli children were wounded.
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity
This is terrible. :-(
Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity
by JewsOnFirst.org, June 28, 2006
Note: On July 11th, we posted two follow-up reports, which you can find here. And on August 23rd, we posted another update here.
Links to articles and documents cited in our report appear immediately below it
A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from state-sponsored religion.
The behavior of the Indian River School District board suggests the families' fears are hardly groundless.
The district spreads over a considerable portion of southern Delaware. The families' complaint, filed in federal court in February 2005, alleges that the district had created an environment of religious exclusion and unconstitutional state-sponsored religion.
Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for our heavenly Father's guidance for the graduates with:
I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name.
In addition to the ruined graduation experience, the Dobrich-Doe lawsuit alleges that:
The district's custom and practice of school-sponsored prayer was frequently imposed on impressionable non-Christian students, which violated their constitutional rights.
The district ignored the Supreme Court's 1992 Lee decision limiting prayer at graduation ceremonies -- even after a district employee complained about the prayer at her child's 2003 graduation..
District teachers and staff led Bible clubs at several schools. Club members got to go to the head of the lunch line.
While Bible clubs were widely available, student book clubs were rare and often canceled by the district.
When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son Jordan Doe was left alone when his classmates when to Bible club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club, regardless of his religion.
The district schools attended by Jordan and his sister Jamie Doe distributed Bibles to students in 2003, giving them time off from class to pick up the books.
Prayer --often sectarian -- is a routine part of district sports programs and social events
One of the district's middle schools gave students the choice of attending a special Bible Club if they did not want to attend a lesson on evolution.
A middle school teacher told students there was only one true religion and gave them pamphlets for his surfing ministry.
Samantha Dobrich's honors English teacher frequently discussed Christianity, but no other religion.
Students frequently made mandatory appearances at district board meetings -- where they were a captive audience for board members' prayers to Jesus.
The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha. Mona Dobrich, Samantha's mother, repeatedly called district officials to complain. A board member told her she would have to get the matter put on a meeting agenda -- then refused to put it on the agenda. The school superintendent slipped the topic onto the agenda and then told Mona Dobrich she would need to raise it during the public comment period.
School board unyielding The board opened the June 15, 2004 meeting at which Dobrich was prepared to speak with a prayer in Jesus' name. The board was not forthcoming to her request that official prayers be in God's name rather than in Jesus' name. The high school athletic director veered from his agenda topic to encourage the board to keep praying in Jesus' name.
Board member Donald Hattier followed Dobrich out and offered to compromise by keeping graduation free of prayers to Jesus. And, according to the complaint, he warned her not to hire a lawyer.
A large crowd turned out for the next board meeting and many people spoke in support of school prayer. Mona Dobrich spoke passionately of her own outsider experience as a student in Indian River District schools and of how hard she'd worked to make sure her children didn't also feel like outsiders.
Hattier again approached her after the meeting. This time, the complaint alleges, he told her he'd spoken with the Rutherford Institute, a religious right legal group.
Talk show calls out a mob The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue.
On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meetng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.
The complaint recounts that the raucous crowd applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him: take your yarmulke off! His statement, read by Samantha, confided I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy.
A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that the people would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating god and state.
A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might disappear like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. O'Hair disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.
The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to go back up north.
In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.
Killing Christ Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of killing Christ and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts. He took it off whenever he saw a police officer, fearing that the officer might see it and pull over his mother's car. When the family went grocery shopping, the complaint says, Alexander would remove the pin holding his yarmulke on his head for fear that someone would grab it and rip out some of his hair.
The Dobriches refinanced their home so that Mona and Alexander could move to Wilmington, away from a situation that had become untenable, according to the complaint; Marco stayed behind because of his job, .
Ultimately, it continues, the expense of two households forced the Dobriches to sell their home. And Samantha was forced to withdraw from the joint program she attended at Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. She is being treated for depression.
The lawsuit states that the Doe family wants to remain anonymous in order to avoid the retaliation experienced by the Dobrich family. Jordan and Jane Doe are also suffering from depression related to their opposition with the Indian River School District's religion policy.
Elusive religion policy Even after Mona and Alexander Dobrich moved to Wilmington, the family and its lawyers continued to request the district's policy on religion in the schools and to ask for meetings with the board. Their requests were stonewalled, so in February 2005 they filed suit.
In a statement issued through her attorneys and quoted by the Delaware Wave, Mona Dobrichexplained why the families were suing: We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students.
The families seek to recover damages and to compel changes in the school district's policy.
That policy, however, remains elusive.
At the request of a board member soon after the infamous graduation, the Rutherford Institute, prepared a prayer policy for the school board, according to the complaint. In October 2004 the board reportedly adopted a new policy on religion in response to the Dobrich's complaint.
It is unclear if that policy is the one prepared by the Rutherford Institute -- because no one has seen it. The Dobrich's complaint states that the policy was unavailable and when the families requested it the district told them to file a freedom of information request.
This June, the board had a reading of a proposed change in the unseen policy. They said the policy and its changes would be posted on their website, (www.irsd.net) but on June 27th, it was nowhere to be found among several dozen policy documents.
The Rutherford Institute enters the fray At the boisterous August 2004 district board meeting, the head of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, urged the board to set an example for other schools, according to the Daily Times, a local paper.
A Rutherford affiliated lawyer, Thomas Neuberger, came into the case representing one of the school board members. Before he left the case last August (because the judge dismissed the individual board members from the case), Neuberger was reportedly feuding with other lawyers.
While he was in the case, his client, Reginald L. Helms reportedly admitted one of the lawsuit's allegations: that school officials invited Pastor Fike to the 2004 graduation. That undermined the district's claim that students chose the speakers.
Neuberger was quoted by the Delaware Wave newspaper denying that the Dobrich's son Alex was taunted as a Jew by classmates. I seriously doubt that it ever occurred, he told the paper, contending that the plaintiffs were using the allegation used to defame the good citizens who serve on this school board.
In its response to the lawsuit, the district reportedly called some of the families' claims immaterial, impertinent and scandalous, and intended only to cast the district in a negative light.
Settlement rejected In February 2006, the board unanimously rejected a settlement offer that would have required renaming Christmas and Easter breaks to winter and spring, respectively, and to put a Dobrich child at the top of a waiting list for an arts school. It would have permitted board members to continue praying at their meetings. (US District Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., who is hearing the case, ruled last year that the prayer was a historic tradition and could continue.)
In April the board's insurance company, which had been representing the district in the lawsuit, filed suit against it (and the individual board members) because they had, against its advice, rejected the settlement offer. The board then fired the attorneys that had been representing them and hired a new set. The insurance company is reportedly refusing to pay for the board's legal defense from the date the members rejected the settlement offer.
According to the Coastal Point, the insurance company's complaint is sealed, as is the district's response. The district's taxpayers, who will pay the bill if the insurer prevails, cannot know the details of the case.
Attorney Thomas Allingham, who represents the Dobrich family in their case against the school district, says the board's behavior suggests it was not negotiating in good faith. Allingham told JewsOnFirst that several board members attended the settlement negotiations, which were under the auspices of a federal mediator. He said the members approved the settlement during those negotiations. But, when the board voted on the offer, they rejected it unanimously.
Allingham said the plaintiffs remained open to the possibility that the case could be settled. But the case is set for trial in June 2007 in Wilmington.
Board prayer allowed with settlement
By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 16, 2006
A settlement offered by the plaintiffs in the Dobrich/Doe prayer suit and denied unanimously by the Indian River School board on Feb. 27 would have allowed board members to continue opening monthly meetings with a prayer, a board member and two other sources close to the case told the Coastal Point. Click here for the report (a PDF file).
School board to discuss religion policy
By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 23, 2006
The policies regarding prayer at graduations and religion in school that were adopted by the Indian River School Board on Oct. 19, 2004, after they heard complaints from a Jewish family, might be amended next week.
The board held a first reading on the amended ordinances Tuesday but deferred a vote until after an executive session on Tuesday, June 27. Board members and district Superintendent Lois Hobbs wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the proposed amendments. Click here for the report (a PDF file).
School prayer lawsuit filed against district
By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, March 2, 2005
Two sets of parents filed a federal lawsuit in Wilmington on Monday that seeks to bar the Indian River School District from promoting religion at school functions.
The parents, who also are seeking damages, claim in the lawsuit that their rights to free speech and to be free from state-sponsored religion have been violated.
We didn't want a lawsuit, but at this point we feel like we don't have any other choice, said Mona Dobrich, one of the parents, in a statement provided by attorney Thomas J. Allingham. We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students. Continue
School district disputes lawsuit
By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, May 4, 2005
WILMINGTON -- Indian River school officials have filed papers in federal court denying virtually every claim in a Jewish family's lawsuit over school-sponsored Christian prayer.
John Balaguer, attorney for the school district, also asked a U.S. District judge to strike large sections of the complaint as immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.
Balaguer said the items were included solely to cast the district in a negative light. Continue
ACLU Sues to Stop School Board Prayer: Dobrich v. Walls
Rutherford Institute website entry on the Dobrich case.
JOF note: the ACLU is not involved in the case!
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU against Reginald Helms in his official capacity as a member of the Indian River School District Board of Education. The lawsuit, which was filed by the ACLU in February 2005 against school board members in their personal and professional capacities, alleges that school- sponsored prayer “has pervaded the life of teachers and students” in the Indian River District schools. In their motion to have the case dismissed, Institute attorneys argue that as a school board member, Helms should have immunity from liability claims under the established doctrine of absolute legislative immunity.
An official with the Indian River School District Board of Education contacted The Rutherford Institute for help in August 2004, after the Wilmington, Del., branch of the ACLU demanded that IRSD board members stop opening their monthly business meetings with a prayer. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute agreed to represent Reginald Helms, vice president of the IRSD Board of Education, in his individual capacity should the Delaware school district’s practice of opening meetings with a brief prayer be challenged. Despite pressure from the Wilmington chapter of the ACLU to cease issuing prayers at public events, officials with the IRSD opened a school board meeting on Aug. 24, 2004, with a brief invocation. Several hundred members of the community gathered at Frankford Elementary School for the monthly business meeting broke into applause after Board President Harvey Walls asked board member Dr. Donald G. Hattier to lead the board in a word of prayer. Hattier read a prayer given by George Washington during the Revolutionary War. During the business meeting, the board also issued a first reading of a policy concerning school prayer at baccalaureate and commencement ceremonies, which states that student-initiated, student-delivered, voluntary messages may be permitted during graduation ceremonies. Thomas Neuberger, a Rutherford affiliate attorney with the Neuberger Firm, which is based in Wilmington, Del., is defending school board member Reginald Helms against the ACLU’s lawsuit. (link)
Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected.
ANd by the way....I think Obama has the market cornered on bad judgment. lol.
So is all the one-way republican B.S. Republican too
I am a Republican too, just don't get on politics board very often. I am praying McCain/Palin win for the sake of our country.
Since when has a Republican? (Unless you
.
I'm not republican....I'm just looking out for my
Unfortunately, I've come to realize the real reason for putting Obama in office has nothing to do with their pocketbook, which is all I heard for weeks, but it has to do only with the color of his skin. I've realized there are so many racists such as yourself on this board that care absolutely nothing about their country...only the color of this man's skin.
that would be you, right? So you mean he played his own democratic party into believing he actually cared about the people of this country, isn't that what you meant? Republicans and independents knew he was lying all along. Too bad you didn't!
ROFL!
So tell me what does a republican look like
I'd like to know how you were able to tell the republicans from the democrats and independents. All three parties were at the rallies, and to me they all look like human beings to me. I couldn't tell one from the other. They all had 2 ears, a head, a body, and most of them had arms and legs (except for a few I would imagine). All I know is there were democrats, republicans, and independents there and they were all patriots. It was a day where parties were put aside and people talked about facts, not parties. Everyone who participated did not say it was one side or the others fault. They said it was both sides fault. This was not an anti-Obama rally, it was an anti-government rally. Didn't you read the signs? I guess not.
You think there are no black republicans. Guess you don't follow politics very closely. As for old and white. First, that is a racist comment. Second if you want to see old and white look at your lord's administration. Every time he has a photo op he is surrounded by old white man. No blacks, no hispanics, no nothing except for old white men. Boy, talk about racism.
As for you not seeing any black faces. Yeah, sure you didn't. Why don't you say something that sounds halfway like a truth.
This is complete and utter bu!!sh!t about it being an anti-Obama rally. This pity party poor us your all picking on us routine is so old.
There is no danger to your lord. The danger is the fear and paranoia being spewed by the left. The left wing media is like a person who yells fire in a theater when there is none and then whines when people call him on it.
Yes I have heard there are concentration camps here, but how true it is I don't know. I'd have to do more research on it.
But for Pete's sake, turn off Keith Oberfool, CNN (Communist News Network) and the other spew on BSNBC and watch some real news. There are many many channels to choose from. Listen to both sides. Not just spew from the hate filled and spiteful left.
And this "I saw no black faces in the crowds". Sorry, I don't buy it. By reading your post I'll bet you were not even watching any of it.
I think I said right off what a republican
convention looks like, old and white. So you have bought into the concentration camps here in America also, how sad. What is wrong with everyone? Oh, I saw some of the pictures from the teabaggers outing, not on any of the channels you name but on the internet and they are so just horrific. I saw no diversity in the pictures (by the way, Fox was the only channel that was playing any of the outing that day so that is where I watched about 5 minutes or so). In all my 60+ years and remembering as far back as Eisenhower, the country has never to me seemed so rabid, pure unadulturated hysteria. Just insane. People have the what if syndrome. Someone posted about what are you going to do in 2011. News flash- you might be dead. I know there are some black repubs but only a token few. Just does not fit into the picture of the good ole boys.
AND he's a Republican
.
Republican chant says it all!
Mercenary pro-war trolls chanting to Cindy Sheehan, shouting "We don't care! We don't care!" Well we knew that all along:)
republican baloney
Whew..have heard the right wing frightening baloney for years and years and dont want to hear it any more..cant wait till next year when the people vote their displeasure of the republicans..Gonna be party time..
A Day in the Life of a Republican
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and hisbelow-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuckhis nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.
Yes, but you did say to me and another person(s) that we were not telling the truth and that is to be taken that you thought we were lying = liar.
Your reasoning appears impaired, your ability to recall what you said and when appears impaired and your ability to define and decipher what is truth and what are lies appears highly suspect. I think you most definitely are a Republican!!!! (with nixon and clinton thrown in just for a laugh).....
End of story.
Outsourcing is NOT just Republican...
I'd advise you to check out the outsourcing that happened during the "glory" years of Bill Clinton. As to Democrats beating ol' McCain's posterior...don't count your chickens.
I am not a Republican....but two years is...
plenty of time for the Democrat majority to have done SOMETHING...and they have done nothing...including taking their vacation instead of voting on an energy bill and they claim to care about gas prices. Pardon me if I doubt their sincerity.
I am not a Democrat either. But I know Barack Obama is as much or more invested in Europe as he is in the US, and that does not give me a warm and fuzzy. His Chicago connections, his voting record, his writings, his wife's writings, his pastor, his friends...all of those things send up huge red flags to me. What he is saying now is not anything like what his history and life have been to this point. So I don't trust him. He is way left of Clinton...most liberal voting record in the senate.
McCain has butted heads with Bush several times over the years...he is not a repeat of Bush. All one has to do is look at his record, if one is so inclined. He is not my favorite either; I have some issues with him as well. However, I know he would protect this country and I am not so sure Obama would.
This is sam's post from this morning when ANON requested we all take the day off from nastiness on the board in honor of 9/11.
lets try to find the place where we were all Americans and party lines disappeared. If we could get that back without a major disaster to provoke it...therein lies the real hope and change for this country.
Obviously has the same integrity as JMc.
Sam's a republican through-&-through. Wouldn't be
All that trumpting of his own virtue & intelligence and all. He doesn't seem to get it that NOBODY reading this forum, no matter what candidate they believe in, is going to change their point of view based on what they read here. And most CERTAINLY not because of anything the oh-so-self-important, omnipotent (or maybe IMpotent?) Sam has written here.
If you believe McCain isn't more of the republican
to take everyone's mind off that fact, then I have some oceanfront property in Fallon, Nevada that you just might be interested in.
marks the location of current message within thread
