Free Republic

The Commission chose not to reveal the child's actual name.

While his comments are pretty damning, that clip does cut off the part where he backtracks and says he does condemn Hezbollah for the violence.

Here is a longer clip of the conversation.

I'm not quite sure how you don't take sides for or against a terrorist organization, yet condemn them for violence. He supported Hezbollah before he opposed them apparently.

But there is no direct reference to Christ, The Father and The Holy Spirit being one, is there?

That depends on the translation you're using. 1 John 5:7-8 may or may not contain a phrase known as the "Johannine Comma" which reads: "...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...."

The full text of these verses with the Johannine Comma included reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

There is disagreement as to whether this phrase is a legitimate part of Scripture however. I'm not sure whether it is included in Catholic translations or not.

They have both left-wing and right-wing shows. It wouldn't make much sense business wise to ignore one end of the political spectrum.

The fact is that the amount of time that this flag will serve it's purpose will be measured in nanoseconds, after which everyone will bypass them.

Bypassing it would most likely be a violation of the DMCA unfortunately.

I remember reading about that. Didn't the Young Republicans put out ads calling them on it?

I guess he did say the entire GOP needed to learn the lesson. I was referring to the representatives in the article when I mentioned they were state not federal reps.

Because this is the primary season? And these are state reps, not federal.

This looks to be more about taxes and abortion than immigration anyway.

Actually, the folks behind mexica-movement.org claim to be indigenous (though they claim Europeans have polluted their DNA, so I'm not sure how "pure" they are.) They hate Hispanics as much as they hate us. I wonder how many of their fellow marchers were aware of this.

NO to the Spaniard/Cuban Hispanic and Latino labeling of our people!
NO to assimilation! Spaniards and their descendants are not our people!
YES our people are the Nican Tlaca Race!
YES to embracing Mexica Identity!
YES to the Anahuac nation!
YES to liberation!

We need to be clear to the KKK, Neo-Nazis, SOS, Minutemen, CNN, and other racists:

The Mexica Movement organization is not part of MeCha, National Council of La Raza, Brown Berets, "Aztlanistas" or other "Latino/Hispanic" organizations; nor do we support their Latino/Hispanic agenda which is pro-colonial, anti-Nican Tlaca (anti-Indigenous), and racist in celebrating colonial identities (Hispanic/Latino) that enslave us to Europeans.

We are also not part of the Spain-centric and error-filled "Aztlan" ("Southwest" liberation) agenda because we are for the total liberation of our Anahuac continent ("North America") not just to where the European Spaniards drew their colonial borders on our continent.

We are a Nican Tlaca (Indigenous) rights educational organization for the Nican Tlaca people of the occupied lands of our continent that are called: Canada; U.S.; Mexico; and "Central America".

I wonder if anyone has ever pointed out to them that Spain is in Europe.

I've been wondering how they'll handle that.

I'm amused by the irony of the signs decrying white racists.

Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't place any demands on the President or Congress, so there'd be nothing for them to ignore. It would simply mean the Court is no longer taking a stance on the issue. Congress could choose to pass legislation legalizing abortion in all States, at which point the Court could rule on that legislation, but it would be a matter entirely separate from Roe v Wade.

Stevens, who has served on the court for 30 years, spends much of his time at his Florida home. The expectation is that he will wait for a Democratic president before giving up his seat willingly.

Rumor has it that Stevens has claimed that since he was appointed under a Republican, he will retire under a Republican. I'm skeptical, but one can always hope.

They were dismayed because they had to go on record this time.

I have *every* right to impinge upon your right to free speech in my home - I can tell you to shut up or leave.

Yes, you can. But that is all you can do. You can't take legal action against me unless I refuse to take one of those two options. If I do refuse to shut up or leave, then I am trespassing and you have cause for legal action.

Likewise, if I am told my bag must be searched, I have two options: allow the search, or leave. So long as I am willing to leave the premises, there is no further action that can be taken.

Now, if I am told when I enter the store that I must consent to be searched when I make a purchase, then I give my consent simply by making that purchase. Failing to allow a search at that point means I've violated the conditions of my being there and action can be taken.

Although it gets a little fuzzier in practice, in theory, I have the right to search you without probable cause if you're on my property.

There are laws in place that give merchants the right to search in certain circumstances. The details and scope of the laws vary, but the searches can never be unreasonable because the government can't grant authority it doesn't itself possess.

It amazes me how many people don't understand that the Constitution sets forth the limits of what the *government* can and can't do - not the limits on private citizens.

Correct. It is not necessary to limit the authority of a private citizen over me because a private citizen has no authority over me to begin with.

The Fourth Amendment states that the government may not conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, but says nothing of private citizens or corporate entities. In fact, the 10th amendment says that any right *not* mentioned is reserved for the states and the poeple, respectively. Therefore, odd as it sounds, the right to conduct an "unreasonable" search is restricted from the government but reserved for the people.

You might want to rethink your reasoning here. As I stated above, the Constitution doesn't need to limit the right of a private citizen/corporation to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures because they were never considered to have any such authority to begin with. You have no right to interfere with the exercise of my freedom of speech (though you are under no obligation to provide a forum for my speech, which is why FR can remove my posts if they wish) or my right to keep and bear arms, even though the Constitution does not apply to you. Likewise, you have no right to conduct any searches or seizures of my person or property.

The store has a reasonable expectation that x percentage of their customers will steal from them. Since they have no way of knowing *which* of their customers comprise that x percent, it's reasonable that they take a simple measure such as checking your bag against your receipt to protect themselves against such loss.

If a store wishes to post a notice stating that my bag may be searched upon leaving the store, then I implicitly give my consent to be searched by shopping there. They are under no obligation to do business with me if I do not wish to be searched. If, however, they do not post such a notice (or inform me in some manner before I make my purchase), then they are dependent on my giving explicit consent when I leave the store to be searched. Failing to secure my consent, they have no right to search me.

That being said, I don't see the big deal in letting them look through my bag. I don't think I'd worry about it, so long as they asked to.

It certainly worked for FDR. It scares me to think how fragile our Republic really is.

And Breyer in 1994. I said Republican nominees though - the author makes it sound like he's always been even handed with Supreme Court nominees when the reality is he's only had one opportunity prior to Alito to vote for a Supreme Court Justice that wasn't a liberal.

LOL - you're right. Feingold was first elected to the Senate in 1992. Roberts is the only Republican Supreme Court nominee he's ever voted to confirm.