text:
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.
By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.
Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a "political question" which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs' remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.
It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs' claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court's decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.
As promised, plaintiffs will be filing an appeal of Judge Simandle's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
October 21, 2009
For an outline and summary of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al case see:
46 comments:
- Sallyven said...
Just scanned through the Opinion, and my first reaction (I am not an attorney, obviously!), simply put, is that it seems that for any general provision in the Constitution, such as the natural born qualification (or even, for example, citizenship and age qualifications for members of Congress), is that if no specific injury can be proven, there is no standing. In other words, it appears that adherence to any provision in the Constitution of this nature can never be subjected to litigation, even if there is blatant non-adherence. So, it doesn't matter if a law or an appointment fails Constitutional muster, if no "harm" is done, no one can sue. And if Congress doesn't care, there is no recourse for the citizens. Therefore I wonder, what is the point of having a Constitution, or at least these provisions, if there is no intent by the Judiciary or Congress to enforce it, or an avenue for the citizens to demand it?
I am sure the answer to this would require a very complicated answer, and I am not expecting one. I simply felt the need to rant, as a citizen who once felt empowered by the Constitution, who now feels rather helpless and hopeless. - October 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM
- Unknown said...
We're behind you Mario and the plaintiffs!!
Ridiculous ruling after taking months for an answer - sounds like a stall tactic by our "juscice" system to me.. - October 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM
- Unknown said...
Sallyvan, you are exactly correct. We might as well have a Constitution Burning Party - that's where our "Justice" system is leading us.
- October 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM
- QueMan said...
The 'courts' excuses...I mean decisions are becoming more and more lame by the day!
Instead of the 3rd branch of OUR government standing behind WE THE PEOPLE who are questioning this usurpers eligibility and congresses failure to act according to the Constitution...they are hiding!
The day of reconning will come where We the People of the United States of America will once again be in charge of our country. - October 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
- Webmaster said...
Anyone has Standing to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution:
"Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment" to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members.563 In[p.695]order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powell's conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine.564"
Powell v. McCormack
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners' action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.
(a) The case is one "arising under" the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners' claims "will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another." Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.
(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over "all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ," and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.
5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.
(a) Petitioners' claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House's duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.
(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.
6. The case does not involve a "political question," which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.
(a) The Court's examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress' power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the "Qualifications of its Members" is a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government" (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution's membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.
(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a "potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches" of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.
7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/index.html - October 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM
How do these courts get a "political question" out of a plainly articulated Constitutional question? No one is questioning the man's foreign or domestic policies - just his Constitutional right to even legally make policy - and THIS by his own admittance of ineligible British citizenship. It looks more like an easy out for these judges. Either that or they just need real basic courses in the Constitution. And next we have Philadelphia to contend with? Any bravery in THAT enclave?
- October 21, 2009 at 1:56 PM
- Pragmaticite said...
Onward, Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner! This is not the end.
I wonder if alleged Congressional hero of the Consitution, Ron Paul, is feeling any remorse these days for failing to defend the Constitution during the certification of the electoral votes? He was asked in Dec. 2008 about challenging BHO's eligibility as a NBC.
"If I did that, I'd be laughed out of Congress," said Paul.
How's crying compared with laughing, Congressman? - October 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM
- James said...
Eeryone should have standing. Actions taken by Obama that effects a single or group of individuals has standing. Why? Because Obama is ineligible. The acts that Obama does are not injury but they are injury because Obama is doing it but should be able to do it. In that instance, anyone is injured.
The same example can be applied to a situation where someone has done something that has affected an individual or group of individuals. The person doing the action isn't allowed to do such action but is doing it anyway. In that instance, everyone is being injured by the action that person is taking. - October 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM
- FollowTheConstitution said...
When did a constitutional issue become a political issue???
The corruption of the courts continue on!
I believe the reason these courts claim they have no jurisdiction is because of the fact these corrupt officials are hiding behind the foreign corporation. Since they are really non-us citizens upon taking oath to office they actually become foreign citizens under the foreign corporation of the United States, Inc.
The United States Corporation is a foreign corporation that operates within the 10 mile square of the district of Columbia. There is only ONE court that has jurisdiction to hear any case that involves the United States Corporation and that is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
To get that court to hear the case you MUST file civil suit against the United States DBA CORPORATION and name these elected officials in their corporate capacity, NOT their official capacity. If you sue them in their official capacity they have immunity. Under their corporate capacity they do not have any immunity. Since the United States Corporation IS in fact a FOREIGN Corporation none of the federal courts outside the District of Columbia have jurisdiction.
Think about it! If you were to sue a foreign corporation in Europe, could you sue them in a federal court in the US? Of course not. You would have to go to Europe and sue them there. It is no different here. The United States Corporation is a FOREIGN Corporation based inside the District of Columbia and none of the federal courts outside the District of Columbia have jurisdiction to sue a foreign corporation.
I say forget all crap about trying to remove Obama in these lawsuits. Just sue the United States DBA Corporation, Congress DBA corporation, Senate DBA Corporation, etc....for FRAUD, R.I.C.O. Mail and Wire Fraud, etc.,!
There is plenty of evidence to show fraud here! This will force them to prove otherwise and expose the truth!
What they did they did through fraud, mail & wire fraud, R.I.C.O. and I'm sure numerous other charges we can bring up!
This is the only chance of ever getting justice through the legal system without the people being forced to rise up and march into DC and physically remove these crooks by force of we the people!
Time for the people to take their country back! - October 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
- Webmaster said...
Or Judge Simandle could put it another way: The President and the Congress can disregard the Constitution, and as long as it affects everyone, the third branch in the "checks and balances", the Judiciary, won't lift a finger to prevent it.
- October 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
You are absolutely correct.
Can you imagine if the dispute was whether Obama was 35 years old and neither a majority of the voters, nor the Electoral College, nor Congress cared to enforce that simple requirement, believing that the youngster was the best person for the job. Following our Court's logic, a dispute surrounding that eligibility requirement would be a political question, too difficult for the Court to handle, something which the same Congress which refused to rectify the problem in the first place must resolve.
Also, a person whose unalienable right to liberty, safety, and tranquility is deprived from such ineligible candidate occupying the Office of President (assume the reckless conduct of youth) would not have any "injury in fact" and therefore no standing. But the Court offers that person a remedy. Of course, says the Court, that person can go to the polls and cast his lone vote to get Congress out of office which would depend on the vote of the same people who did not care about the candidate's youth in the first place.
Can you just imagine our Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. May they Rest in Peace.
I repeat, we are a Constitutional Republic, with a written Constitution. We are guided by the rule of law, not by the rule of the majority. Neither the voters, nor Congress, nor the President decides what the Constitution means. Rather, our Founding Fathers gave that critical task to our Judicial Branch of Government. When the Judiciary, the last guardian of the gates, as it admits because of a "political question" abdicates its constitutional responsibility to interpret the Constitution and make sure that all branches of government and its actors adhere to its dictates, we no longer have a Constitutional Republic but rather a mob-ruled democracy.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. - October 21, 2009 at 2:32 PM
- giveusliberty1776 said...
When? Say the word..... - October 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM
- Félicie said...
I just want to cry in frustration.
I am beginning not to be too dismissive of the Antichrist hypothesis. It is just NOT NORMAL that everything conspires against the cause of justice. But everything. - October 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM
- rxsid said...
Wasn't the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in PA where one of Attorney Berg's cases was tossed because (one of) the wise judge there had said that the issue of Barry's eligibility had been "blogged" and "twittered"?
I'm confidant justice will be served there.
/s - October 21, 2009 at 3:45 PM
- Pragmaticite said...
What about picketing the White House? Could faithful followers of this blog be joined by others who prefer a nation of laws and muster 100 people with signs and megaphones in front of the White House sometime before the end of this year?
Maybe then FOX News would interview Mario...?
Have you sent FOX News a request for coverage today?:
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com - October 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM
- Sallyven said...
Mr. Apuzzo: I love your comment in response to Mark. This is a simple, yet critical point, that needs to be shouted from the mountaintops. Your example using age, as opposed to citizenship, is an excellent, easily understood way to explain both the "injury" and "political question" issues. I think it deserves, once the dust settles on today's news, another one of your superb essays as a separate post...
- October 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM
- James said...
Mario and Charles,
Can interview on Mommae, Patriot Hearts, or Andrea Shea King?
We love to hear your thoughts - October 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM
- Justin W. Riggs said...
This is certainly a disappointing decision, although not altogether unexpected. While I encourage those who are able to continue pursuing justice through the court system, have the rest of you thought of using the legislative branch to attempt to solve this problem? There is still time to pass legislation in each of our states that will change how candidates can gain access to the general election ballot. Because there is no agreed upon definition of natural-born citizen, each state can define it for itself. I promise that will lead to a lawsuit, at which point the courts will *have* to rule on a legal definition of the term.
I know the system seems rigged, but we must not give up. Find a state representative who is willing to look at ballot access laws with you. Show him/her the loopholes in your state's laws. Convince him/her that it's a Constitutional issue, not a partisan issue, and then ask him/her to sponsor a bill. You CAN find someone - some already are. We have time - we have dedicated individuals. We CAN do this. - October 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
In your efforts to educate the public about Judge Simandle's decision, emphasize that:
(1) He did not rule that Obama was born in Hawaii; and
(2) He did not rule that Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief. - October 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM
- Greg said...
Also, a person whose unalienable right to liberty, safety, and tranquility is deprived from such ineligible candidate occupying the Office of President...
The problem with the whole "everything that Obama does is unconstitutional because he's ineligible" is that it ignores the long standing de facto officer doctrine.
If an ineligible person is elected or appointed to an ACTUAL office, everything they do with the power of that office is valid.
By contrast, if anyone is elected or appointed to a NON-EXISTENT (improper) office, nothing they do with the power of that office is valid.
These qualifications clauses are, to a certain extent, self-enforcing. The electorate decides the meaning. If you convince 60 million voters, the electoral college, and Congress, that 30 is the new 35, or that natural born citizen means born anywhere in the world to at least one citizen parent, then that's what it means.
Scalia likes to point out in oral argument that not all injuries can be fixed in the courts. I couldn't sue Bush because I felt the Iraq war was unconstitutional, and you can't sue Obama.
Don't like Obama? Get out there and campaign. Picket. Demonstrate. Give money to the Republican candidate. And vote. Just stay out the courts. The courts are for people with real injuries. - October 21, 2009 at 5:42 PM
- Webmaster said...
judge Simandle: 5 Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an "injury in fact" sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction....
"The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over "all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ," and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516."
judge Simandle: Plaintiffs' claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs' frustration with what they perceive as Congress' inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
(a) "Petitioners' claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House's duty cannot be judicially determined since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517."
"(a) The Court's examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress' power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the "Qualifications of its Members" is a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government" (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548."
If the courts can find that they can determine a US House member can be seated per Constitutional requirements, then the courts can determine the same for a probable de facto president if he fails or meets Constitutional requirements.
from Poster Red Steel at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2367558/posts?q=1&;page=101 - October 21, 2009 at 6:31 PM
- Unknown said...
You should have pointed out ALL of the de facto officer doctrine. --If it is proven that Obama KNEW he was not a natural born citizen, or even that the DNC knew he was not a natural born citizen, that would indicate that Obama obtained his office by fraud. The de facto officer doctrine permits all laws created by one woh obtained the office fradulently would be void. - October 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
You said:
"The problem with the whole "everything that Obama does is unconstitutional because he's ineligible" is that it ignores the long standing de facto officer doctrine."
Evidently you do not know what my case is about. I am not challenging Obama's actions but rather is eligibility to hold the office. Hence, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply in my case.
Your attempt to address my point regarding the 35-year-old age requirement is pathetic. You are basically saying that the Constitution means only what the people want it to mean. You have got to be kidding. Your ridiculous response shows me that I have struck a nerve with you and you have no real response so you come out with such absurd reasoning.
Also, your bombastic statement that "the courts are for people with real injuries" proves nothing. You try to show that you are the champion coming to the defense of the court by showing that the court is an institution that gives aid and comfort to the people who have real injuries. Your rhetoric could work among your own kind and with the unknowing but not with anyone who is well informed on this issue. - October 21, 2009 at 7:26 PM
- FollowTheConstitution said...
""What about picketing the White House?""
If at least 500k people would picket and refuse to leave while all going on a hunger strike until they address the issue, that might do it. - October 21, 2009 at 7:35 PM
- Erica said...
How closely have you been following the legal research and FOIA attempts made by NJ attorney Leo Donofrio?
I would probably misstate or leave details out if I attempted to synthesize what he's been doing with regard to Hawaii's UIPA laws, so instead I will link you to pertinent details. If you aren't familiar with this particular angle of his research, then please, please read these links and tell us what you think.
Can you pick up this trail of evidence and run with it?
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/judge-carter-does-not-have-subject-matter-jurisdiction-for-quo-warranto-in-barnett-v-obama/ - October 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Thank you for the information. You can imagine how busy I will be working on the appeal. It would be nice if Leo can help us out on this by filing the Hawaii action. That way we can cover more ground. - October 21, 2009 at 8:10 PM
- James said...
I am disappointed by decision but not suprised by it. If one reads the decision it is truly a frightening, disturbing, and troubling decision that borders on complete utter nonstop insanity. I will explain why:
The Judge makes a Key Point the everyone must understand: "Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the
purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs."
If means for purposes of the case the court is assumming Obama is inelgible and Congress completely failed in its duty and assumes all other allegations to be true.
For the court to state they have no juristication, that citizens have no power to affect an ineligible POTUS and that Congress is the only one that can act, and if they won't do it your only remedy is to go to polls….
This reasoning is complete UTTER NONSENSE.
It implies that we live a Mob Rule democracy and that citizens have no rights under the constitution to do anything.
The constitution is truly dead! - October 21, 2009 at 8:18 PM
- Unknown said...
The "Obama eligibility problem" will soon dwarf "The Watergate conspiracy". It took over two years to uncover the dirt on Richard Nixon and force him from office, be patient - we must endure in order to conquer. OUR tax dollars are paying for the alleged "Obama grassroots support" bloggers : http://www.publiusforum.com/2009/10/07/the-obama-justice-departments-secret-blogging-team-is-it-illegal/
- October 21, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Mario et al,
In all of the court cases that have gone the furthest it always seems that there is soooo much and so many angles presented to these judges. They seem to be swimming in information that appears to mean nothing to them. So they look for the easiest way out, not wanting to be the one who would order discovery from this first black president.
What I've never understood is why there has never been a case that simply presents what has ALREADY been DISCOVERED and focuses seriously and ONLY on that. And that is what has already been admitted to by Obama himself - his British citizenship. It's the one thing he's not hiding and in need of discovery to find out! Present that one thing before a judge and then present alongside it ALL the precedent cases that have shown that this one fact is a disqualifier. Show that the fact is that all previous presidents demonstrate that that definition was acceptably known by all. The one ineligible one himself showed that even he was aware of that disqualifier by his own actions of hiding the true facts of his birth. Force them to rule on this main known fact which Obama has presented as even an "in your face" challenge.
We've already seen that pages and pages of all of the other reasoning mean nothing to these judges (which they see as mere speculation) - and some of their comments show they have blinders on for focusing only on place of birth RATHER than the British citizenship NO MATTER WHERE the man was born. - October 21, 2009 at 9:28 PM
- jayjay said...
Your comments are completely irrational and incorrect as well.
What you are saying is that Congress can override any part of the Constitution it chooses
That, my friend, is a gross absurdity!! - October 21, 2009 at 9:32 PM
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
The court will not rule on the merits of the argument that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" because of his father being a British subject/citizen and Obama himself being the same when he was born. The court simply and conveniently dismisses the case on standing or because of the political question doctrine and sends you packing without ever telling you what it thought about the real issue. I know this sounds unbelievable but this is exactly what is happening in the courts of the United States of America. - October 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM
- Unknown said...
Mario / James - I've followed this issue since before the election from the UK - yes I am English, but don't worry I am not the enemy and I agree Obama is ineligible.
In my opinion though, poster "Follow the Constitution" has highlighted something that I have been exploring myself and think you should be considering. I note thus far you have responded to the other questions within the responses to this article, but you have not responded to his comments. Is there any reason for this?
I appreciate discussing this in terms of corporations is a sensitive subject but surely you need to explore all avenues? Donofrio wrote numerous pieces on the need to action a Quo Warranto suit in DC yet I still don't see any of the "leaders" of this movement going in that direction. Why not? I mean no disrespect, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.
Regarding the argument you are putting forward in respect of everyone must have standing, I see this as flawed because of the corporation aspect. It seems to me that the court is not viewing the plaintiffs as human beings at all but is treating them as legal fictions (which is what citizenship really is no? it effectively means employee of the state). Therefore no standing is granted due to corporate status because as citizens you're corporate entity is registered to the US corporation and whilst you are free beings your name (your corporate identity for use within commerce) belongs to them. As such any cases of precident that you can show are irrelevant because the US corporation can overrule at any time it chooses due to property rights because it not the plaintiff actually controls the rights of the name and therefore decides if it has been injured.
I appreciate this may be concerning because it means that the Constitution does not offer the protection that people think it did. People signing up to social security are treated as having waived their natural rights unless they claim them whether they realise it or not. Is that not the reality of the matter?
A candid answer would be appreciated however I'm not sure if you're permitted to do so as a member of the law society. However I am sure this is a piece of the puzzle.
If it is all based on contracts, and because you're plaintiffs are not being put forth as human beings rather than corporate entities, for any plaintiff to have standing in the way you describe and for the US corporation not to have the power to overrule, your plaintiffs need to show that they are owners of their commerical corporate entity (name) ? What you think are your unalienable rights were lost when you became a citizen I believe unless plaintiffs have specifically claimed their rights by noticing the corporation? The constitution protects the people, but the court is not recognising plaintiffs as people only as sub corporations of the US corporation.
Of course for this to be so there must always be a remedy in law, - quo warranto in dc appears to be it - because it basically relies on a contract between US corporation and the sub-corporations (your names)(statutes are contracts) and gives the sub-corporations an avenue of seeking recourse. I feel you will never be successful with any other process unless US corporation DECIDES to let you win (or you can prove sovereign status of the plaintiff).
Of course the court will never come out and say any of this EVER because it will shatter a lot of beliefs. The excuse of it being a political issue is to prevent from exposing the truth of how government claims its authority and why there is no standing, in my honest opinion.
Any comments?
Just my 2 cents anyway - food for thought perhaps. - October 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM
- FollowTheConstitution said...
"As the Supreme Court has explained, "Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues." Id. (citing Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463,"
Public Issues??? What PUBLIC issues? When did a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE become merely a public issue? Did the court here not error in this assessment?
"Defendants argue in the alternative that the United States, the United States Congress, and former Vice-President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi in their official capacities, are entitled to sovereign immunity. Defendants Cheney and Pelosi are also entitled, Defendants argue, to legislative immunity, and Defendants Obama, Cheney, and Pelosi are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs' claims."
So if acting in their official capacty they are placed above the law and have full immunity against any laws they violate?
As for Pelosi, she signed the certifications from the DNC that was issued to every State certifying Obama was elegible. When someone tried to claim FOIA to obtain documentation the DNC used to determine Obama was elegible the DNC claimed they are NOT a public office and are in fact a PRIVATE organization and as such they are not subject to FOIA. Pelosi sat as the chair of the DNC who certified Obama being elegible and when doing so she was acting in her PRIVATE CAPACITY and NOT her official capacity. So her actions taken while acting as chair of the DNC in her PRIVATE CAPACITY would not entitle her to any immunity as a public official! Yes?
"These alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents. In fact, Plaintiffs' complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to "the people."4 As explained above, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
So what the Judge is really saying here, is, the constitution itself has no standing because the constitution applies to all the people equally!
"Plaintiffs' claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs' frustration with what they perceive as Congress' inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote."
So the code below has no meaning nor effect and merely exists for show?
District of Columbia Official Code
Title 16, Chapter 35, Subchapter I
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action. - October 22, 2009 at 10:59 AM
- Unknown said...
Take advantage of "Greg's" comment...he arms you
with a howitzer...
The eligibility issues found in the Constitution
are "ministerial duties" and no one is "in fact" responsibile
for ensuring that these "requirements" are met."
In fact the Constitution does not impose a duty on any body
to insure compliance, and failure to comply would make as the
current decision does, that it is meaningless, and the
US Supreme COurt has said nothing about it can be claimed
to be meaningless.
Hence I would pose in the appeal that a certified
question be presented to the US Supreme COurt
since Marbury vs. Madison claims it is up to the judiciary
to say "what the document means."
The Court needs to say why it is not the Judiciary who
should say "who" is responsible for ensuring compliance.
I more importantly believe that you need to attack this
ridiculous "standing issue" much like there was an attack
that led to Six Unknown Federal Agents, which put the feds
into a liable position for violating citizen's rights.
Just as you make the argument RE: age, of 35 years, it is not
a secret, his B/C is irrelevant...but the COurts cannot turn a
ministerial task into a political question, because there is
no one charged with the duty to perform this task...contrary
to your complaint, nothing in the Constitution or Federal laws
assigns this duty to any one or any body, and the US Supreme
Court must "find who and assign who" this duty belongs to,
....the right to petition for redress of grievance...is being
violated, if the politicians refuse to comply with provisions
that the Supreme LAw commands....they have no discretion, and
by the same token...the Courts have no discretion to punt...
because black letter law is if it is a requirement, it must be
followed, and if he can state, he was born in direct conflict
with the eligibility requirements, make Greg's argument to
the Appellate Court that Greg must be right....if they are
going to refuse to certify the question to the US Supreme
Court..... - October 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM
- Unknown said...
Whatever happened to Constitutional Rights being a matter that
does not require "immediate harm" for standing???
Maybe a little harder examination of Ex Parte Young, only as applied to the Feds rather than the States is in order here ???
Remember thats the case where the law was considered unconstitutional by those subject to it, and the AG Young wanted to press the argument that the parties had no standing to bring any action unless and until they had actual damage of fine or imprisonment after testing it ???
We need to use that case for the unique problem here...we have infront of us a factually correct violation of the Constitution in our face....and the Courts will do nothing...not even order Congress or someone else to "do the ministerial duty" using the Court's guidance as to the meaning of NBC...
What kind of Treason does the COurt commit when it has a crime placed in its face...and it does nothing????
What does a court do when during a civil federal suit...there is an admission against interests by one of the defendants that they committed "robbery, or perjury.." even if the plaintiffs were not directly harmed by the "unlawful act." ?????
Do Court's just ignore these matters, or should the Curt refer the matter to the US Attorney of DC to Act on a Quo Warranto action....
AWESOME...push the Appellate Court to refer the matter because otherwise they are committing treason, are they not ????
BIg Problems require bold moves....and well
What say you Mario ??? - October 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM
- cfkerchner said...
Thank you all for your kind words and support. We have lost a battle but not the War. As per the words exchanged between the two sides in a famous struggle in our past for the protection of our Liberty and other inalienable rights, ""Has your ship struck?" To which Captain Jones answered, "I have not yet begun to fight!"
Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR (Ret) - October 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM
- Survey Seeker said...
After reading what the Judge said I see a loophole he left open that should be able to be used to bring a related but entirely different case, one of a class action lawsuit representing all American's injury by allowing a individual who is legally not allowed to hold the office of president to continue in his position.
Notice what the judge said: "Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction," he explained. "The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an 'injury in fact.' It added that plaintiffs' alleged injury is 'only a generally available grievance about government' and 'is one they share with all United States citizens.' Finally, it said that plaintiffs' 'motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged,"
I read this to say that while individually these individuals may not have a case, a class action lawsuit representing all of Americans might have legal standing and allow the proper court to take action.
Considering the nature of the individuals being accused that action will be limited unless the people of the country use the remedies available to them to enforce compliance after the courts have handed down their opinions on the rule of law.
This is not a political issue, it is a civil issue that unless it is handled properly will eventually become a criminal negligence issue that if then continued to be ignored will become an issue of treason by the entire congress.
I am not a lawyer nor would I want to be, but the court (pun intended) is wide open for an appeal and and expansion of the case into an class action suit: The American People vs. The House of Representatives, The Senate, and perhaps the Justice Department for criminal neglect.
I do understand the confusion jurisdiction in this case and the judge as much as said so. Another comment mentioned the need to sue them in the federal court in the District of Columbia and this very well might be necessary. It is the role of the court to rule on law, not to tell you how to make your case.
In this judge's ruling what he did say negatively toward the case says as much as what he said positively toward the case. Don't doubt that this judge probably thinks similar to the people who filed the suit, more so that he is not in the position to make a ruling on the suit. - October 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM
- Webmaster said...
To summarise.
All the lack of standing Judges:
The Constitution affects everyone equally.
A Constitutional wrong affects everyone equally.
No-one has standing for a wrong which affects everyone equally.
No-one has standing at Law to redress a Constitional wrong.
A Constitutional wrong is a Political matter.
Courts cannot determine Political matters. - October 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
- cfkerchner said...
Surprise, surprise ... not!
One day after Judge Simandle issued his lame and flawed dismissal decision in my case the DOJ has quickly filed a copy of it by way of a Judicial Notice to Judge Carter in the Barnett v Obama case in CA. If Judge Carter now quickly rules to dismiss the Barnett v Obama case, can anyone say "orchestrated set of court decision events by some unnamed grand conductor in the sky". Smells totally rotten to me. Cloward-Piven Strategy in the works for our Constitution and court system. This is a disgrace. The DOJ should be working to protect the Constitution and We the People per their oath of office and not work to promote the status quo usurpation of the Constitution by Obama, a complicit Congress controlled by the Marxist Progressive Caucus, and an enabling Main Stream Media and press. If Obama takes over as Dictator in the model of Castro and Chavez as President for Life, which I have no doubt is his goal, he will discard these enablers as his no longer needed useful idiots. The lessons of history and National Socialism have not been learned by these people who support the Usurper in Chief.
A copy of the cover pages of that Judicial Notice filing in CA at this link:
We intend to appeal Judge Simandle's opinion within the next 30 days and pray and hope the higher courts have more courage and respect for the Constitution than the Federal Trial Court Judges to-date seem to do.
Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress - October 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM
- FollowTheConstitution said...
"The DOJ should be working to protect the Constitution and We the People per their oath of office and not work to promote the status quo usurpation of the Constitution by Obama,..."
This is true, BUT, we no longer have a government so they have no constitution by the people to uphold for the people. The entire congress and usurped our government.
If the United States, Inc, the United States Congress, Inc., the United States Senate, Inc, The bar inc, every single court being a corporation, every local, county and State police being a corporation, every elected official being a corporation, every city, town, county and State being a corporation, and everyone of them all being a foreign corporation, then how can they being a foreign corporation possibly have any jurisdiction to hear any of these cases filed when we the people are considered as foreign to their corporations?
Go to dunn & brad street and look them up! Look up United States Corporation. Look up the United States Congress, the United States Senate, The IRS, The Supreme Court, the district courts, county courts, local police, county police, State police, your State offices, like your State government, senators, etc, etc, etc.
Every single one of them are all listed on dunn & brad street as private corporations doing business.
So if these are all corporations, then HOW could they possibly have jurisdiction over us as the people?
There is only ONE court that has jurisdiction and that is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In order to file civil suit against a foreign corporation you must file the suit in their jurisdiction which is within the 10 mile square of the District of Columbia. In order to sue any of these officials you have to sue them in their corporate capacity. You can't sue them in their official capacity.
Look up Obama on Dunn and Brad Street. He is listed as a corporation. The President of the United States is listed as a corporation. They are ALL a foreign corporation in the District of Columbia.
They even have each of the citizens listed as a corporation! They issues bonds on each one of us and we are all traded on the stock market!
The entire thing is nothing but a big fraud against the people of this country.
There is a case pending right now in the Superior Court that exposes this fraud. They are suing the United States DBA Corporation. Suing elected officials in their corporate capacity. Served Eric Holder in his corporate capacity. Eric holder is now in default. He has failed to respond to the complaint. Why did he not respond and allow themselves to be in default? Because there is no possible way he can respond to this case!
We are waiting on the Judge to enter the motion of default that has been filed.
You can look the case up.
It is listed under, DALE, RODNEY PLAINTIFF vs. UNITED STATES CORPORATION DEFENDANT
2009 CA 005391 B DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES
https://www.dccourts.gov/pa/ - October 22, 2009 at 5:18 PM
- FollowTheConstitution said...
I typed in Obama for District of Columbia on dunn & bradstreet.
Here is what comes up:
Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA
Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA
Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA
Also Traded as BRACK OBAMA
HEART SENATE BLDG RM 713, WASHINGTON, DC - October 22, 2009 at 6:42 PM
- Sallyven said...
Wake up, people! We must put more into this fight than just our words here and on other blogs as comments. Donations to further this lawsuit and the education of the public on this issue can be made at http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm . I contributed yesterday--I challenge all those here reading this blog to consider giving as well. This case is solid and Mr. Apuzzo is one of the most knowledgeable attorneys on this subject in the country. His writing style is eloquent, articulate and intelligent, his research is top-notch, and we are so fortunate to have his dedication and compassion on this issue—arguably the greatest and most symbolic Constitutional crisis of our lifetime!
If you have been paying attention to this issue, as well current economic indicators, the value of our dollar is declining quickly. If Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade pass, we can expect further erosion and possible hyperinflation. Our dollars, in a few short months, may not be worth the paper they are printed on. Let's make them count today, while they still have value.
In addition to informing everyone we know of the true facts on this issue, when we have an opportunity like this to support this case, not just with encouraging words here or comments and thoughts—we must give our financial support. It is one thing that most of us can do, very easily, by going to http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm and clicking on "donate." This can be done so easily, without wasting the precious time he and Mr. Kerchner need to spend working on the Appeal, instead of answering all of our questions here. Imagine the impact if thousands of dollars, in addition to thousands of citizens, were dedicated to this cause!
Let's show our support for Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, two of the truly great patriots of our time!
Don't let this be our nation's gravestone:
Journalism died in 2008.
The Constitution died on January 20, 2009.
The Mob Rules. - October 23, 2009 at 9:39 AM
- Unknown said...
Our Constitution setup a system that inherently has checks and balances against the kind of usurpation that has taken place by Obama. Where the Legislative Branch of government may have abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to candidates for the Executive Branch, that is where the Judicial Branch of government provides the "check."
The question before the court is not "who has suffered damage" by way of usurpation, but rather "by what authority" does Obama claim the seat - quo warranto. This is purely a LEGAL question that goes back directly to the Consitutional requirements of presidential candidates, which question can only be decided by the Judicial Branch. This is not a political question at all. It's as purely legal in nature as can be.
Where courts abdicate their responsibility under the Constitution, they are violating their oath under the Constitution. Such is nothing more than treason against the way our Constitutional system is supposed to operate. - October 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM
- cfkerchner said...
Hi all,
Ignore the biased political party shot headline but read the first paragraph of this latest poll and survey. 30% of all Americans polled believe that Obama was not born in the USA. That is hardly a fringe percentage. When is the Main Stream Media and so called free press and 4th estate of our government going to investigate this matter with the power of the press. And when are our federal judges and Congress going to live up to their oaths? Will they wait until 55% of the People don't believe the Usurper in Chief is not eligible and was not born in the USA and 5,000,000 people are marching in the streets of Washington demanding the Usurper's removal. What does it take to get our media and government to uphold Article II of the U.S. Constitution?
Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Help me get the word out. Visit this site and do what you can to help. And spread the word and link to other blogs. We need your support and help to get the message to the print media and its readers where it cannot be scrubbed by Obama's Blog Squad and helpmates at Google:
http://www.protectourliberty.org - October 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
- USMJP.com United States Marijuana Party said...
Hi! (SECONDLY) An additional cause of action missing is that allegedly Nancy Pelosi has no legal right to be Speaker of the House, Third in Line to the Presidency, because she is allegedly a dual citizen of the Jewish State of Israel and therefore has a conflict of interest so serious as to adversely affect national security;
likewise U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and others of the U.S. Congress, are all allegedly dual citizens of the Jewish State of Israel (some because the Jewish State of Israel gives citizenship to people whose mother and grandmother were Jewish under Jewish Law). Isn't it an illegal conflict of interest for members of U.S. Congress to be dual citizens? Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is allegedly seriously and willfully and intentionally concealing her own dual citizenship under alleged threat by Obama that he would expose her if she exposes him?
Cris Ericson http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com
http://vermontnews.livejournal.com - October 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Ms. Cris Ericson,
"Natural born citizen" status is determined at birth. It does not matter what the person does later in life, provided that one does not renounce U.S. citizenship. - October 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM


text:
Boston led 3-0 when Troy Glaus homered in the 4th. Bottom half of the inning: Hinske belted a solo shot.
Toronto slapped Dice around for three runs in the sixth (back-to-back doubles from Frank Thomas and Glaus and a home-run by Aaron Hill), tying the game at 4-4. Then the Sox sent 10 men to the plate in the bottom half. The rally was kicked off by a long, two-run home run from Jason Varitek.
Julio Lugo had three hits, David Ortiz homered and doubled, and Coco Crisp tripled and scored twice.
Dice left after six innings (6-9-4-2-2, 110). Manny Delcarmen pitched two innings, allowing a single and striking out a career-high four batters. Jeemer took the ninth.
The Yankees came from behind and beat Tampa 6-4, so the Jays and MFY flip-flopped in the standings again. New York stayed 10 GB, while Toronto fell to 11 GB.
Dustin McGowan (4.65, 98 ERA+) / Daisuke Matsuzaka (3.84, 117 ERA+)
Four big-league teams have faced Matsuzaka more than once. Of them, the Blue Jays have fared worst. Toronto has managed just three runs in Matsuzaka's two starts against them, spanning 13 innings, eight hits, 18 strikeouts, a win and a loss.
... Since his first quality start on May 23, McGowan has lowered his ERA from 7.17 to 4.65, nearly throwing a no-hitter on June 24 in a complete game against Colorado. That breakout performance against the Rockies followed a 1.2-inning shellacking by the Dodgers and a five-run clunker at Seattle. He finished the first half with seven shutout innings in Oakland.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
After nearly twenty years of homeownership, I've spent the past ten months renting an apartment. I like it. And I don't. There are pros and cons to renting a place, just as there are pros and cons to owning a home. For me, one of the biggest cons is the close proximity to my neighbors — especially the guy upstairs, who stomps around like an 800-pound gorilla.
At first I thought that buying a home would also be a smart financial decision. The more research I do, however, the more I realize that the notion of homeownership as a magical path to wealth is a marketing ploy of the real estate industry. In fact, home prices (like gold prices) generally barely keep pace with inflation.
There's no question that buying a house makes sense for some folks, but mainly for non-financial reasons. Owning a home gives you stability (you're not at the mercy of a landlord) and freedom (you can do what you want with the place). But financially, it's not always the best bet.
(MORE: Are We Watching Another North American Financial Crisis Unfold?)
Here in the Pacific Northwest, I'm finding that the annual cost of owning a home — taxes, interest, insurance, maintenance, HOA fees — is often greater than the cost of renting. Sometimes significantly greater.
Assuming you want to make a purely financial decision whether to rent or buy, how do you begin? There are a couple of ways to stay objective.
One way to tell whether it's better to rent or buy is by checking the price-to-rent ratio (or P/R ratio). This number gives you a rough idea whether homes in your area are fairly priced. Figuring a P/R ratio isn't tough. All you do is:
- Find two similar houses (or condos or apartments), one for sale and one for rent.
- Divide the sale price of the one place by the annual rent for the other. The resulting number is the P/R ratio.
Say, for example, you find a $200,000 house for sale in a nice neighborhood. You find a similar house on the next block renting for $1,000 per month (which works out to $12,000 per year). Dividing $200,000 by $12,000, you get a P/R ratio of 16.7.
(MORE: 5 Reasons Your Top Employee Isn't Happy)
But what does this number mean? Writing in The New York Times, David Leonhardt says, "A rent ratio above 20 means that the monthly costs of ownership will exceed the cost of renting." That's a little opaque, but what Leonhardt means is that the higher the P/R ratio, the more it makes sense to rent — and the less it makes sense to buy.
During the housing bubble, the national P/R ratio came close to 20 (and went far above that in some cities). In other words, you could rent a $200,000 house for $10,000 a year (or just over $800 per month), which is a pretty good deal.
The normal range nationwide is between 10 and 14 (meaning it would cost between $1,200 and $1,600 to rent a $200,000 house). During the 1990s, just before the housing bubble, the national P/R ratio was usually between 14 and 15 (about $1,100 to $1,200 to rent a $200,000 house).
Price-to-rent ratio data isn't widely available. If you search long enough, you can find some recent-ish info on the internet, but for hard numbers about your area, you'll probably have to contact a real-estate agent.
Another way to gauge the cost of housing is to compare it to your family's income. From 1984 to 2000, median home prices were about 2.8 times the median yearly family income. (In other words, the typical house cost about three times what a family earned in a year.) During the early 1970s, home prices were about 2.3 times median family income. During the housing bubble, this ratio jumped to 4.2.
These numbers don't mean much on their own, but they can give you some sort of idea of whether housing is overpriced in your area. Plus, it seems safe to assume based on past figures that most families can comfortably afford a home that costs about 2.5x their annual income. (So, if your family makes $80,000 a year, you can afford our theoretical $200,000 house.)
The New York Times has a great rent vs. buy calculator that can help you decide which is best for you. Just plug in the numbers for your situation, and the calculator tells you how long it would take you to break even if you bought a house.
(MORE: What You Can Do to Prevent Layoffs)
Discussions of homeownership should be grounded in reality. Buying a home isn't some magical financial panacea. You can waste just as much (or more!) as if you were renting, and you lose a lot of the flexibility and freedom you might otherwise enjoy. If you want to buy a home, do so. But don't let anyone persuade you that you're throwing your money away by renting.
As for me, I still plan to buy a home in the next few months. It's not the best financial decision, but if I'm careful, I should be able to score a good deal, one that makes as much financial sense as renting. Best of all, once I own my own home, I won't have to put up with the clump-clump-clump of a lead-footed neighbor upstairs.


text:
Vuze (formerly Azureus) is a free BitTorrent client used to transfer files via the BitTorrent protocol. Vuze is written in Java, and uses the Azureus Engine. Vuze offers multiple torrent downloads, queuing/priority systems (on torrents and files), start/stop seeding options and instant access to numerous pieces of information about your torrents.
In addition to bittorrenting, Vuze allows you to view, publish and share original DVD and HD quality video content. You can see content through channels and categories containing TV shows, music videos, movies, video games and others.
If you publish your own original content through Vuze, you can charge for it and make money.
Please note:You must have Java installed to be able to run Vuze.


text:
It's that time again -- help us pick the contest finalists for Your Best Family Recipe!
Any Food52 member is welcome to help us test our Community Pick candidates, so go call dibs on the recipe you'd like to test that is in the list below! We'd love to see some new testers in the mix -- remember, we accept up to 3 testers per recipe. And, if the recipe is worthy of a Community Pick, we'll publish the best headnote, so make your notes count! Don't forget to email us your headnote (no more than 100 words) to [email protected] by next Wednesday at 5pm (EST).
When you've figured out which recipes are calling your name, in order to sign up, all you have to do is follow the link to that recipe's page, and on the left-hand side, you'll see a "Test This Recipe" button. Your job is easy: Just click the button, and you'll receive a confirmation email that officially crowns you a Food52 community tester. If for some reason you decide you cannot test, simply press the button again, and your name will be removed from the list. Act fast -- this button will disappear on the Tuesday before your testing notes are due.
We'll collect your comments, name the finalists and official Community Picks and publish the best headnote for each Community Pick (with credit, of course!). If the recipe you test isn't chosen as a Community Pick, please feel free to leave your testing notes in the recipe's comments section. Constructive criticism is always encouraged!
Photo by James Ransom
See what other Food52 readers are saying.


text:
There's been lots of discussion on this blog recently about what to do with offensive comments but not nearly enough about the 99% of comments that are constructive.
In my post about ESORS last week I threw in this at the end:
"I'd love Six Apart to make it simple for me to elevate a comment to a
post. So many great comments get wasted behind the front page."
Tom Watson picked up where I left off and ran this great post about elevating comments.
In that post, he mentions my good friend from my teenage years, Tony Alva (that as you must have figured out is a handle). Tony is an interesting case study in blogging. He doesn't have a blog but he must read a bunch of blogs. And he comments often.
His comments are often better than the posts themselves. Tom has never met Tony. I never even mentioned Tony to Tom. I just pointed to Tom's blog one day, Tony clicked thru, and their blog relationship was born.
Now Tom is talking about the quality of Tony's comments and he's right.
So back to my original point which Tom makes in even better terms. The comments are the reason we keep coming back and we read them. We wish there was an easy way to highlight the best ones for our readers in the posts, not on the sidebars.
The problem with Typepad's recent comments feature on the sidebar is that my blog is so full of comment spam that my current recent comments list would be full of ads for horny goat weed (whatever that is), internet strip poker games, and pheromone (whatever that is).
I don't need a list of recent comments, I want to be able to elevate the really good ones with links back to the original posts. That's how to stimulate conversation.


text:
User talk:Powershart
From D&D Wiki
Welcome to D&D Wiki![edit]
- Welcome!
Hello Powershart and welcome to D&D Wiki. I hope you have been enjoying D&D Wiki and I hope you have been finding the information here useful. I am an admin (and, actually, the owner as well). Everything relating to admins can be found here.
- Questions
If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that pages talk page. All other questions should be asked to another; user, admin, or me, the owner (ask me a question).
- Formatting
Formatting on D&D Wiki (or any wiki for that matter) can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is Help:Editing on Wikipedia (or even their Introduction page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. Again, if you have any questions about formatting on D&D Wiki please ask them as, I imagine, anybody will be more than happy to help you get them answered.
- Community
A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I am sure you will find it rather nice. Most discussions take place on content talk pages, however please feel free to ask specific D&D-related questions on DnD Discussions. Anyway, possibly since discussions are never deleted, people try to be nice. This means follow Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and etiquette when discussing anything. Also, on a pretty different note, to ensure people know who posted what, please sign your name after a post with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature icon (). This will automatically produce your name and the date. Anyway, I hope you come to love D&D Wiki and the community and welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --Green Dragon 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


text:
- Vishnu
Karunthwakadavu Sree Krishna Temple
- Chirayinkeezhu,Kerala
- View on map
- Tell us about this temple
Karunthwakadavu Sree Krishna Temple is Vishnu temple located at Chirayinkeezhu,Kerala
Devotees visit this temple to seek fulfillment of the following:-
- Salvation
- Wealth
- Relief from diseases
- Purchase of vehicles
- Gain Knowledge
Achutham Keyshavam Rama Narayanam Krishna Damodaram Vasudevam Harim Shridharam Madhavam Gopika Vallabham Janaki Nayakam Ramachandram Bhajey
Meaning -Oh Lord who cannot be perished, who also has names like Keshava, Rama, Damodara, Narayana, Sridhara, Madhava, Krishna, Ramachandra the beloved of Janaki, let me say your name regularly.
Vasudeva Sutham Devam Kamsa Chanoora Mardhanam Devaki Paramanandham Krishnam Vande Jagathgurum
Meaning -I bow to you O Krishna, the ultimate guru, Devaki and Vasudeva's son, and the destroyer of Kamsa and Chanur.
Adharam Madhuram Vadanam Madhuram Nayanam Madhuram Hasitam Madhuram Hridayam Madhuram Gamanam Madhuram Mathuraa Dhipate Rakhilam Madhuram
Meaning -Meaning - Sweet are Your lips, sweet is Your face, sweet are Your eyes, sweet is Your smile, sweet is Your heart, sweet is Your gait, O Lord of Mathura, everything about You is sweet.
Alokya Mathur Mukha Madarena Sthanyam Pibantham Saraseeruhaksham Sachinmayam Devam Anantha Roopam Balam Mukundam Manasa Smarami
Meaning -I think of this Balamukundan as the one who looks lovingly at his mother's face while taking milk from her, who has eyes similar to the red lotus, who is the embodiment of truth and intelligence and other forms.


text:
Resources for Professional Advisors
In your work as a professional advisor, you value professionalism, integrity and honesty, taking the utmost care when serving your clients. As a nonprofit organization, we share your values and take the same care when it comes to helping our donors plan charitable gifts to DAP Health. Please use these tools as you help your clients with their charitable plans, and feel free to contact us for more information or assistance.
Tools for Professional Advisors
Legal name: Desert AIDS Project
Legal address: 1695 North Sunrise Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262
Federal tax ID number: 33-0068583
See the Benefits Today
Provide your clients with a free, no-obligation illustration of their gifts to DAP Health with our Gift Illustrator tool. Instantly calculate deductions, tax savings and other benefits for multiple gift types.
Official Language for Including DAP Health in a Will
If your clients are interested in supporting DAP Health with a gift in their wills, we have provided sample bequest language that they can bring to their estate planning attorneys.
Partner With Us
We understand that gifts to charities such as DAP Health can be an important part of your clients' overall financial and estate plans. That's why we're committed to working with you to ensure that your clients find the charitable arrangements that best meet their needs. We believe that charitable planning is a process that ideally involves the donor, professional advisors and our gift planning staff—all working together to arrange the best gift possible.


text:
HLS Professor Jon Hanson and Adam Benforado '05 wrote the following op-ed "Right or left, judges are activists" that appeared in the May 20 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Benforado is an assistant professor of law at Drexel University's Earle Mack School of Law and Hanson is director of The Project of Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard Law School.
The attack is on. Supreme Court Justice David Souter may still have his robe, but a conservative rabble has already begun its effort to influence who will wear it next. Their weapon is a tested one: the claim of "judicial activism."
Over the last week, conservative pundits and bloggers have set their sights on Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. By most accounts, Sotomayor, who was first nominated to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, is an accomplished, respected jurist with a compelling personal story. Nonetheless, some on the far right have assailed her for daring to speak honestly and insightfully about the judicial process and what judging entails.
What precisely has drawn their ire? Sotomayor has challenged the popular illusion that a judge's job is simply to apply the precedents and principles that the law provides to the facts at hand. She has publicly acknowledged what legal scholars have recognized at least since Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s famous observation that "the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."
As Sotomayor has explained, "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see," and true impartiality may be impossible "in all, or even in most, cases." Her point is not that a good judge should surrender to those influences, but that to pretend they do not exist is to surrender to them.
More generally, to give unexamined weight to the experiences, worldviews, and ideologies of those who tend to occupy the bench is to favor the privileged. It is bias in the name of neutrality and a thumb on the scale in the guise of equality.
Thus, while Sotomayor has continually questioned her own "opinions, sympathies, and prejudices" in a struggle to approach objectivity, she has nonetheless wondered "whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."
Sotomayor's statements are hardly grounds for disqualification; indeed, they are supported by a century of legal scholarship that is now the stuff of many first-year law classes. All judges by necessity resort to their own moral and political values when analyzing complex factual questions and ambiguous statutory language. And all judges are susceptible to cognitive proclivities and limitations – often beyond their awareness and control.
The judicial behavior associated with "activism" is not exceptional; activism is just the term conservatives use for judges whose experiences lead them to interpret the facts, decipher the doctrine, and construe the language in ways they disagree with.
In a recent study of more than 20,000 federal court decisions, legal scholars Cass Sunstein and Thomas Miles discovered significant partisan bias (both liberal and conservative) in judicial rulings upholding or striking down the decisions of federal agencies. And, somewhat surprisingly, the conservative members of the Supreme Court demonstrated the most judicial activism, as measured by the share of agency decisions they voted to overturn.
It's time to extinguish the misconception that the law is something that exists "out there" in its own right, and which judges merely observe and apply. Sotomayor has shown the courage to speak the truth – that the law is subject to interpretation and, "whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
Being honest and acknowledging the biases we all bring to interpretive tasks is a critically important step toward fair and equal justice. For this, Sotomayor deserves our respect and admiration.
Benforado and Hanson can be contacted at email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Limited-Time Offer: Up to 75% Off Coursera Plus!
7000+ certificate courses from Google, Microsoft, IBM, and many more.
When John F. Kennedy entered the presidential limousine at Love Field in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, he began his ride into history. That journey continues even today and we call it the Kennedy legacy.
This course will explore the Presidency, assassination, and lasting legacy of President John F. Kennedy. Students will learn how JFK's life, administration, and tragic death have influenced the general public, the media, and each of the nine U.S. presidents who followed.
Understanding the Kennedy legacy and being able to identify elements of his legacy within the context of modern politics helps understand many of the vexing problems that developed over the last half century as well as many of the challenges that confront us today.
November 22, 1963 was so powerful a moment that in the fifty years since the assassination, every U.S. President that followed JFK has used Kennedy's words and actions in an effort to craft their own political image. Why does Kennedy's influence persist, and will it continue? What are the effects?
We'll address these questions and more as we explore The Kennedy Half Century.
Follow on Twitter: @JFKclass.


text: Benchmade's EDC knives are carefully crafted to be durable, convenient, and compact to fit easily within your pocket. Choose from our assisted-opening, manual-opening, or automatic-opening folding knives. Benchmade's everyday carry knives are designed to perform a variety of daily tasks at any given time. Browse and customize our top Bugout and Griptilian knives to match your everyday needs. Everyday carry knives are our daily drivers, accumulating a lifetime's worth of stories with every cut.


text: angler_science.jpg Angler Science defined:"Anglers gathering scientific information about the fish and the places they love"Citizen science is a rapidly expanding field where millions of participants each year gather data on hundreds of topics ranging from the weather, to water quality, threatened and endangered species, and such far off topics as the shape of galaxies. Trout Unlimited members have been gathering data on water quality and fish populations since the organization was established in 1959 but only recently have we expanded the opportunities for anglers and actively marketed the potential for anglers to assist in the science-based management of trout and salmon and their habitats.In 2016, TU scientists wrote a feature article in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation about some of our larger Angler Science projects and how participation among anglers produces more knowledgeable advocates for better stewardship of coldwater fisheries resources. As demonstrated in this Angler Science video, TU's grassroots members grow in strength and capacity when they partner with management agencies to help fill data gaps and improve our understanding of trout, salmon, and their habitats.Check out the following opportunities for anglers to contribute to the scientific understanding of trout and salmon conservation. Environmental DNA (eDNA):Aquatic species can be difficult to detect using traditional methods (angling, electrofishing, netting), but sampling for environmental DNA (eDNA) allows us to detect a species without the need to capture or handle the fish. The concept is simple: biological material is continually shed by aquatic organisms and suspended in the water column, and can be captured and concentrated as water is washed across a laboratory filter. DNA isolated from this material can later be used to detect the presence or absence of one or more species of interest with high accuracy (assuming a DNA 'bar code' marker has been developed for that species, as it has for many trout). With proper volunteer training, this approach provides a relatively simple way for TU volunteers to contribute to our science and conservation efforts in many ways. Environmental DNA collections can be used to refine our basic understanding of species distributions, especially for rare species which can be particularly difficult to detect with other methods (e.g., we are already contributing to a Forest Service-led effort to sample eDNA of bull trout in the western US, see: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/BullTrout_eDNA.html). It is also useful for determining the effectiveness of common conservation actions we undertake in various TU programs. For instance, eDNA can verify a species of interest is now using habitat that has been recently connected or restored; that efforts to eradicate non-native species were successful (i.e., the non-native species is no longer present) before moving forward with reintroduction of a native species; or whether or not an aquatic nuisance species is present in trout waters.See https://www.fs.fed.us/research/genomics-center/edna/ for a (non-exhaustive) list of DNA markers available and a sampling protocol.Staff contact: Helen Neville Steelhead Angler Science Perhaps no fish in the Pacific Northwest is more revered and sought after than the wild steelhead, and the angler science programs of TU are well positioned to harness the passion and sense of responsibility in steelhead anglers. While state agencies work hard to monitor trends in wild steelhead abundance and distribution, many data gaps remain. A well trained dedicated group of angler scientists could help fill some of these gaps, providing needed information useful to guide conservation actions and shape management strategies. Some work is underway, such as efforts to count steelhead redds on Oregon's Salmonberry and Molalla Rivers. Various aspects of stream habitat, including stream channel complexity, riparian features, water temperature, and instream cover, are important to steelhead health. Information on habitat, particularly when coupled with redd count or snorkel survey data, can be used to help determine why steelhead use particular areas within a watershed and to predict how conservation actions in riparian areas and stream channels may affect steelhead abundance and distribution. Data from Steelhead redd counts can be used to determine the spatial and temporal distribution of breeding and population abundance, and there are numerous opportunities for redd counts to provide new information that would not otherwise be available without citizen scientists. Our goal is to train a league of anglers to collect and report important data on steelhead populations and their habitat in a systematic and repeatable fashion, according to strict scientific principles. For more information, check out our steelhead angler science brochure.Staff contacts: John McMillan, Kyle Smith, Nick Chambers, Jack Williams Stream Temperature Monitoring Trout prefer cold water, often less than 65°F, and stream temperature has a strong influence on their well-being. TU restoration projects often target improving stream temperatures, and keeping a record of temperature variability and trends can be an important tool to help confirm the success of these efforts or identify where further work is needed. Waterproof data logging thermometers offer a simple, affordable means to fill this need. Check out our Stream Temperature Monitoring Handbook. TU also works closely with US Forest Service scientists and their NorWeST stream temperature network. Their website includes loads of suggestions for help in starting a stream temperature project and in interpreting results.Also consult TU's Stream Temperature Monitoring Resources Page.Staff contacts: Kurt Fesenmyer or Dan Dauwalter in the West and Jake Lemon in the East Discovering Didymo's Distribution Didymo is a small diatom that causes a big problem: large algae mats that smother stream substrates and reduce fishing quality. Scientists used to believe that Didymo was an invasive species but the latest data suggest that this diatom may have a broader natural distribution. Our Discovering Didymo's Distribution project is an effort to get to the bottom of this puzzle and determine the native range of this diatom and under what conditions it tends to produce stalks and algal mats. TU is working with Dr. Brad Taylor and his students at North Carolina State University to fully understand what is going on. Anglers collect algal samples from stream cobbles, the samples are mailed to North Carolina State University in prepaid envelopes, and as samples are processed info is posted at the Didymo website on campus. Habitat photos can be taken at algal sample locations and uploaded to iNaturalist following this instruction guide. Our pilot project in North Carolina began in 2016 and is likely to spread to other states in the near future. TU Canada also is working on this project through their volunteers and the University of Calgary.A summary of the project from TU Canada can be found here. Staff contact: Matt Barney Culverts and Road Stream Crossing Assessments Our objectives through assessing road stream crossing infrastructure are threefold: first to evaluate a stream's aquatic organism passage, second to understand its geomorphic compatibility with restoration work, and lastly to evaluate its hydrologic vulnerability. Ultimately, our desire is to reconnect trout habitat and at the same time help communities become more "flood resilient".The New England Culvert Project (NECP) has been working with TU Chapters and state agencies across the northeast to field assess road stream crossings on a landscape scale. Large drainages, such as the Deerfield River in MA and VT and the Ammonoosuc and Piscataquog Rivers in NH, have been completely evaluated for the metrics mentioned above. This information is then shared throughout the watershed community in an effort to help towns, with assistance from the NECP team, proactively restore vulnerable infrastructure. The Piscataquog River project, encompassing 218 square miles, utilized over 800 hours of TU Chapter volunteer time to assess over 525 culverts. TU Chapter volunteers are trained, supplied with the necessary gear, and assisted in the field by TU National staff. For more information on how to help create a project in your community, contact Colin Lawson of our Eastern Conservation Staff.Staff contact: Colin Lawson Eastern Shale Gas Monitoring Development and transmission of shale gas threaten stream systems from Pennsylvania to West Virginia with potential contaminant spillage and erosion and sedimentation issues. Through Trout Unlimited's Pennsylvania Coldwater Conservation Corps, members there have been actively monitoring streams for signs of shale gas and pipeline development, including changes in basic water quality parameters. Meanwhile, volunteers in West Virginia and Virginia are monitoring areas currently experiencing shale gas and pipeline development, as well as collecting baseline data in areas which are likely to be developed in the future. Catch up on their activities on the Eastern Shale Gas Monitoring Program page.Additional info:Check out a new short film that highlights those who guard our waters.An interactive story map lets you explore volunteer pipeline monitoring efforts.The Crowd and the Cloud is 4-part PBS series about citizen science that features Trout Unlimited's shale gas monitoring volunteers. Staff contact: Jake Lemon Stream Water Quality Trout Unlimited believes that angler-based, citizen science water quality monitoring efforts will play a large role in the preservation of coldwater fish species and their habitats as well as ensure years of recreational opportunities for future generations. To this end, TU has developed a Water Quality Manual to provide chapters, members, anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, and others interested in water quality with the information necessary to monitor their local streams. Unfortunately, many state agencies and environmental organizations simply do not have the resources to adequately monitor our nation's bountiful flowing freshwater resources. Trout Unlimited chapters, members, and other volunteers can help fill information gaps by collecting water quality information and collaborating with state agencies, environmental organizations, and local universities to promote the health of rivers and freshwater ecosystems and ensure the enjoyment of these resources for generations to come. Learn more about monitoring water quality in your local area in TU's Water Quality Manual.Staff contact: Jack Williams River's Calendar Trout Unlimited, the University of Massachusetts and partners are developing the River's Calendar, a community science program in which trout anglers record the seasonal timing of aquatic insect emergence, fish movements and riparian plant flowering while fishing. This is another TU Angler Science project that works through the iNaturalist observation platform. You can follow the River's Calendar project and participate through iNaturalist. This information will be translated into detailed calendars of hatches and other riparian life for each river studied – suitable for use by anglers and other river recreationists. This information will also form the basis for an objective, science-based examination of the phenology of streams – the timing of life cycles and how they are influenced by environmental and climate change. Check out the River's Calendar Starter Kit, which includes field guides for select aquatic insects in Massachusetts and Oregon.Staff contact: Matt Barney Angler Drought Survey (ADS) Much of the Western United States has experienced intense drought for the last several years leaving small headwaters stagnant to dry and trout stressed or stranded. Trout Unlimited has partnered with Deep Creek Fly Fishers and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct angler drought surveys in California. The project is piloting in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountain ranges located in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto National Forests. We need anglers to collect basic data while they are out fishing, including location, trout species seen/caught, stream flow (simple method instructions provided), and water temperature. These data will help inform state agencies of stream conditions so that they can better protect and manage coldwater fish species.Download the ADS training presentation and datasheet.Staff contact: Jessica Strickland TroutBlitz TroutBlitz is a project aimed at cataloging the rich diversity of North America's native salmonids, including trout, steelhead, charr, whitefish, and salmon. Through photography and angling, TU members can help document the presence of native and introduced coldwater fishes. Using iNaturalist, anglers can upload geo-referenced photos of fishes or their habitats for a variety of purposes including, documenting the presence of native or introduced fishes for management agencies, determining the effectiveness of restoration or reintroduction projects, or to build a library of native salmonids across their geographic range. Check out TroutBlitz on iNaturalist!Staff contact: Matt Barney


text:
It's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Melissa Block.
Today, a Justice Department ruling opened the way for the Veterans Administration to extend benefits to same-sex married partners of veterans. This comes the same week that gays in the military can start applying for spousal benefits. But the process has not gone smoothly for National Guard members in Texas and Mississippi. In those states, Guard spokespeople say they won't file the paperwork for same-sex couples requesting benefits. From member station KUT in Austin, Ben Philpott reports.
BEN PHILPOTT, BYLINE: Tuesday was supposed to be exciting for First Lieutenant Judith Chedville and her wife Alicia Butler. The couple planned to fill out paperwork to get official military spousal benefits mandated by the Pentagon. Butler describes what happened when they tried to sign up.
ALICIA BUTLER: Drove over with all the documentation that we were required to have, but were told at the ID office that because we are a same-sex couple, the Texas National Guard would not process our registration and provide me with an ID card and so forth.
PHILPOTT: The couple was told they could still get benefits but would have to apply at a federal facility, not one run by the State of Texas. So they must drive to San Antonio or Killeen, both about 90 minutes away.
BUTLER: Well, I think it's petty, and this is just a little dig at our National Guard members' families to try to make a point for somebody.
PHILPOTT: Like Texas, the Mississippi National Guard made the same decision.
TIMOTHY POWELL: We're not trying to prevent anyone from applying or stall or anything else.
PHILPOTT: Retired Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Powell is spokesman for the Mississippi National Guard.
POWELL: We're here to serve. And we have not denied anybody of benefits. We will never deny anyone of benefits that they're entitled to. Not going to happen. Never has, never will.
PHILPOTT: Texas National Guard officials say benefits will be recognized in Texas too. The Guard just can't fill out the paperwork. A spokesman for the governor says that's because Texas Military Forces must adhere to state law, which only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.
Chuck Smith is with Equality Texas, a gay rights advocacy group. He says filing paperwork doesn't actually recognize a same-sex marriage.
CHUCK SMITH: None of this, you know, the State of Texas is not confirming benefits. The state of Texas is not going to be paying benefits. You know, the state of Texas is not recognizing these couples as being married.
PHILPOTT: The policies in both states are under federal review, and changes could be made soon. For Austin's Alicia Butler, it's another frustrating delay for equality.
BUTLER: It's humiliating to have to wait outside the base to have lunch with my partner or make other arrangements if we need to take care of our daughter and I can't bring her up there. It's just an affront to our dignity.
PHILPOTT: She says the same about having to travel out of town to sign up for those benefits. For NPR News, I'm Ben Philpott in Austin. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
O Ski Mountain Park oferece aos visitantes a oportunidade de desfrutar dos prazeres deste paraíso ecológico, além da linda vista panorâmica de São Roque.
Nesse cenário natural, o parque apresenta diversas atrações para todas as idades e gostos; tanto para quem procura adrenalina como também os que apreciam a boa gastronomia e desejam relaxar.
Opções de lazer são Pista de Esqui, Pista Treino, Tobogã, Alpinismo, Rapel, Mountain Bike, Paintball, Teleférico, Playground, Trilha Ecológica, Arco e Flecha, Passeio a Cavalo, Viveiro.
Visite meu site e veja muito mais no blog, fotos 360 graus panorâmicas para visita virtual: Vista Panorâmica.
Here's your soundtrack. Okay, maybe they're not exactly brazillian but their music is awesome and their live shows legendary.Now, Brazil covers almost half of South America and its Amazon rainforest is the world's largest jungle... which is rapidly getting cut down. The country is basically one giant botanical garden with some bangin' cities on its edges.Brazil was colonized in 1808 by the royal court of Portugal, which was fleeing Napolean's troops. They didn't stay long, and Brazil won its independence in 1822.Its biggest city, Sao Paulo, is the financial hub of South America. Brazil is the "b" in BRIC -- Brazil, Russia, India and China. These four were labeled the world's fastest developing large economies in the year 2001.Brazil is known for three things: amazingly beautiful women, carnival, and Pele -- King of Football, Athlete of the Century, football ambassador of the world and a declared national treasure.Brazillians can tell foreigners a mile away, by the way their hips move. Samba is built into the soul of brazil and carnival is when it bursts out into twenty-four hour undying explosions of sound on every street.This picture of mask diving at the Taipus reefs makes me shed hot and salty tears all over my calendar, which is set on "January" right now.Text by Steve Smith.


text:
Fleet Services
If your business, big or small, owns a fleet of vehicles, you know that maintaining a list of cars, trucks, vans, or SUVs that are regularly on the road can be demanding. Besides oil changes, tires, and brakes, there's always something else that needs attention. Fleet vehicles tend to suffer more abuse than personal vehicles, and issues are left to escalate more often. At Ewing Auto Service in Mount Vernon, serving the southern Illinois Area, our team of qualified ASE certified technicians can ease some of your burden. Check into our fleet service program for prices and information on full fleet servicing and keep your vehicles reliable and running strong. A reliable and well-maintained work vehicle means things get done on time, and unexpected and expensive problems won't suddenly arise. Replacing a vehicle is expensive; replacing several of them costs a fortune. Make sure your fleet lasts for years to come by scheduling with Ewing Auto Service today.


text:
Custom drawstring bags have caught the eye of a wide range of audiences before and can do so for your brand as well. Good for all types of advertising occasions, promotional drawstring bags are able to carry all types of miscellaneous items that your clients and employees may need for professional or personal circumstances. Our promotional drawstring bags represent the kind of fashionable qualities a business wants to show: trendy, modern and active, a combination that will draw well-rounded audiences with whom your company could do business.
All types of logo promotional items can give a positive impression, but IASpromotes.com's styles of promotional drawstring bags are superior to others out there. When your organization distributes your custom imprinted drawstring bags, you are guaranteed positive brand impressions with every person who sees your logo.


text:
D'oh! Interleague! How could I neglect to mention it below?! Perhaps because some of the novelty has worn off... and I live in the home of the Subway Series, for god's sake...
The best news for those rooting for the Suns?
Pistons KO Bulls: No matter who wins the Cavs-Nets series, the Pistons have to be the favorite to advance to the NBA Finals.
It's the fifth year in a row that
As for the Bulls, this can be chalked up to a "growth" experience for a young team. They'll be an even better contender in '08. (One suggestion: Lose the Skiles-style grind philosophy and adopt a little more Nellie-style free-flow.)
Jason Giambi says baseball – owners, players, everyone – should have apologized to fans years ago for the sport's PED problem.
That strikes me as slightly disingenuous from a guy who would never have admitted to cheating if it wasn't forced out of him.
I'm all for 'fessing up and taking responsibility, but any apology would ring hollow if it wasn't coupled with decisive and effective action.
MLB's problem is that PED cheating has been so widespread for so long -- so pervasive – that I'm not quite sure when that apology would have been appropriate... or the depth to which that apology should go.
I'm curious whether Giambi's new teammate thinks he (or baseball) owes anyone an apology. Speaking of which...
MLB Stud: Kyle Farnsworth. The Yankees reliever called out the Roger Clemens "Family Plan" clause in Rocket's contract.
MLB Dud: Josh Beckett. As foreshadowed yesterday, the Red Sox' 7-0 ace was sent to the DL with "Beckettypical" finger problems.
(But the Red Sox get a "stud," too, for sweeping the Tigers in a double-header. Still: How will the absence of Beckett affect the best team in the
Hank Aaron wants to attract more black kids to play baseball. Great idea, but I'm waiting for the compelling plan as to HOW.
Preakness: Is it too morbid that when I think of the Preakness, I think of Barbaro's injury last year – and not Street Sense's potential? (My "Anyone But Street Sense" pick: Hard Spun. And if I was picking by "Best Name": Mint Slewlep, followed by Flying First Class.
Floyd Landis Scandal: So Greg LeMond was going to testify against Landis, and apparently the Landis camp was going to use the little-known history of LeMond's sexual abuse as a child to try to intimidate him from talking. As if this story couldn't go further down the rabbit hole.
NCAA LAX quarters:
Have a great weekend everyone. I should have typical "Very" Quickie posts on both mornings.


text:
UKMSSB Answer Key 2022 | @ukmssb.org Technician Exam Answer Download
Download UKMSSB Answer key paper PDF 2022 for Technician Examination. Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board (UKMSSB) conducted the Technician Examination. ...
Read moreDownload UKMSSB Answer key paper PDF 2022 for Technician Examination. Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board (UKMSSB) conducted the Technician Examination. ...
Read morespeedraftaar.com is India's news and educational blog that brings its viewers the best and quickest information in all of India. We are at the forefront of information technology. The blog shares updated material related to on-going news and education in just a few clicks. Our mission is to provide you with the best available knowledge and in the quickest manner possible. Speedraftaar makes it easier for our readers to navigate through the website, saving their time and money.
Disclaimer: The Content on our website speedraftaar.com is provided by using various Official web sources. However the website does not hold any legal responsibility for the usefulness, accuracy, or completeness of the information. We try and ensure all the information contained in our website [ speedraftaar.com ] is accurate and up to date. We do not hold any responsibility of miscommunication or mismatching of information. Please confirm the updated information from the official websites. The Speedraftaar Informative LLP is not an official website of any Lottery, University and Teer Numbers. We do not sell lotteries. We do not encourage users to purchase any lottery tickets. We just publish the lottery results for informational purpose only. We are not affiliate of any lottery sites.
If you have any queries contact us :
E-Mail: email@example.com


text:
Bringing your own accommodations with you ? Camping is a great way to enjoy the WDW experience, whether your preference is a tent or a luxurious motor home. Ask questions and share your camping tips here.
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules