AUloggerhead

Every time I see him on TV I'm reminded of the image of him being led off the field while looking through the ear hole of his helmet. Ha!

Terrible issue to joke about, but it's like the jokes write themselves. They deserve to be mocked & joked about.

The Peace Cross was completed in 1925 with private funds raised by an American Legion chapter on behalf of grieving families of 49 local soldiers killed in WWI. The parks commission took possession of the lands with the memorial in 1961. Doesn't the parks commission have an obligation to maintain the property which they acquired? Or can they just throw up their hands and say 'nope, Peace Cross on the property -- we can't spend any money maintaining it for fear of looking like we are establishing a religion'? By the way, inscribed at the base of the cross are a few words: Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion. There is also a bronze plaque with words from Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves.” The American Humanist Association is the organization filing suit claiming the Peace Cross is unconstitutional. I have to ask: what religion is being established here with the Peace Cross? There are no explicit Christian references in anything inscribed on the cross or in the words of President Wilson on the plaque.

This article was written by a student for the Stanford Daily right after the game: Link Best writing on the subject, by far.

I'm sure the objection is over the establishment clause of the 1A, but when does the '"... nor prohibit the free exercise (religion) thereof" clause come into play? If a community elects to erect a memorial cross or Star of David, etc. at a public cemetery, then why wouldn't such an act be considered free exercise thereof? At the very least, it could be argued that such an act is protected speech too. If a newspaper sponsored the memorial ... then wouldn't that cover the trifecta of the entire 1A?

The commandment is pretty clear ... ... and asses is plural, not single. Go forth.

I was addressing the (ridiculous) tweet you included from Bernie. I don't consider you as a Neighbor's Ass Covet-er ... ... only Bernie & like-minded economics-challenged simpletons.

It'c called "Thou Shall Not Covet Your Neighbor's ASS." The religious here will recognize that as one of the 10 commandments. For the non-religious, jealousy & envy of others' hard work is a bad look. (Don't do it.)

Income inequality is the perfect dodge campaign issue for dyed-in-the-wool communists like Sanders to rail against because it will never be "solved" by any actions taken to include any government actions taken by his ilk should they ever be in charge.

(1) People of Color would receive reparations. (2) People of Non-Color would pay reparations. (3) Clear thinking, logical reasoning is not relevant to this issue. How dare you attempt to try?! (4) Well, duh.

Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty. Even Smollet deserves the presumption of innocence while facing charges, no matter how damning the evidence looks.

More facts from the father's lawsuit: Link I'm not questioning whether she was ever issued a passport. I'm wondering if it was issued in error? The father was under diplomatic immunity almost 4 months after her birth. Yes, he was notified in June 1994 that his diplomatic ID card would have to be surrendered, but under the Vienna Protocol, diplomatic immunity doesn't switch off immediately like a light switch. Diplomats are afforded "reasonable" time to exit the country when their diplomatic mission comes to an end. In this case, the mother's pregnancy at the time of diplomatic mission termination probably precluded her from flying. Again ... I think there is plenty of gray area surrounding this case.

And I can agree with that statement on face value. The problem comes because there is some gray area as to just when the father "was no longer subject to diplomatic immunity." I can only relate what's been reported on this issue and I haven't come across too much detail as to the reasons why the father no longer was Yemen's UN representative. But I did search around and found the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. Article 39 states this, The reporting on this issue has listed "months" before the birth for the time the father no longer was a UN rep, and I have seen it also been reported as "1 month." So putting 2 & 2 together, I assume the time period was probably a little over 1 month. Either way, 1 month or 2, it could be argued that the former Yemen UN rep still had diplomatic immunity at the time of her birth. If so ... ... that would make her a Yemeni citizen.