Another example that I just thought of, as an example of "Interstate Commerce", is by utilizing a "Navigable Water of the United States".....A Publicly Owned Treatment Works; which is a sewer system in no way connected to, affiliated with, or even remotely close to a true "Navigable Water of the United States" has been and will be deemed a "Navigable Water Of the United States"; which on it's face seems ridiculous, far fetched, and, (Wait for it!) "Unconstitutional".
It's not.....These cases have been before the Supreme Court time and time again; to no avail. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > When I get a moment, I will read Barnett's article regarding the > "Original" meaning of what he perceives our Founding Fathers' > interpretation of the Commerce Clause. > > Having said that, please don't try and incorporate Uniform Commercial Code > and the general principles of Contract Law with the Constitution, and in > particular the Commerce Clause. The two are not even remotely similar, and > have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. > > My point is plain, concise and relatively simple. The Congress is taxed > with formulating laws in this Nation, all of which (as the Supreme Court > has ruled countless times) are governed by the two Clauses that I cited, > Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. The > Supremes have gone so far as to interpret the Commerce Clause as allowing > the Congress to regulate a zipper made in one State, assembled in another > State as constituting "Commerce" and therefore falling under the Congress' > dominion. The same applies to Title 21, the Drug laws in this Nation, > which can be produced, packaged, grown, marketed and consumed in one State, > bartered with locally obtained goods for trade, and yet still constitute > "Interstate Commerce". > > Whether you opine that such laws are Unconstitutional makes no > difference.....This is the Law of the Land, and deemed by those sitting in > the robes as "Constitutional". > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:14 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> This is you FIRST effort* misuse *of AIS8C3 in THIS thread. >> [Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, >> and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; >> >> Is the Individual (Owner) contracting with the Individual >> (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) a foreign Nation? >> Is the Individual (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) contracting with >> the Individual (Owner) a foreign Nation? >> Is the Individual (Owner) contracting with the Individual >> (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) a State? >> Is the Individual (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) contracting with >> the Individual (Owner) a State? >> Is the Individual (Owner) contracting with the Individual >> (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) an Indian Tribe? >> Is the Individual (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) contracting with >> the Individual (Owner) an Indian Tribe? >> >> As TJ correctly observes: >> >> *To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and >> with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are >> very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in >> its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of >> the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make >> a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for >> buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of >> regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal >> commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to >> Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of >> the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen >> and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its >> external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or >> with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does >> not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of >> considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by >> any other of the special enumerations."* In instances of use in what >> became the united States, one finds only that "commerce among the states" >> meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of >> a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another." >> >> The word "commerce" was almost never used in common parlance in the >> colonies or newly independent states. A search of newspapers, speeches, and >> letters of that time and place finds few instances of it. The word is >> originally French, and we have this from Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of >> Nations(1758), Book I § 92: ... commerce consists in mutually buying and >> selling all sorts of commodities. Vattel was well-known and often cited >> by the Founders. >> >> As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary >> production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not >> include labor, services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include >> manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of >> anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial >> effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to >> the actual transfers of ownership and possession. >> >> You might peruse the research of Randy Barnett: *The Original Meaning of >> the Commerce Clause* Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center >> http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=facpub >> >> >> Additionally, you CONTINUE with this absurdity that the COURT is NOT >> co-equal with the Executive and the Legislature AND that they are >> *magically* empowered to AMEND the Constitution -- all whole cloth nonsense. >> You have a strange theory/belief of the US Government -- apparently the >> Executive and Legislature may do as they please unless and until the Court >> decrees otherwise ... and even then it does not necessarily matter. >> >> It remains that there is no Constitutional basis for the unconstitutional >> Title VII and CRA of 64 -- both of which violate Amendments IX, X and XIII. >> >> Regard$, >> --MJ >> >> "[Y]ou wonder why anyone would make the mistake of calling it the >> Commerce Clause instead of the 'Hey, You-Can-Do-Whatever-You-Feel-Like >> Clause?'" -- Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals >> for the Ninth Circuit. >> >> >> >> >> At 03:00 PM 3/2/2015, you wrote: >> >> And equally, I've pointed out where Article One, Section 8 Clause 3, and >> Clause 18 allows for the Congress to pass laws necessary to effectively >> administer this Nation, especially with regard to interstate commerce.  >> >> It would fall upon an Article III Court to declare such a law >> unconstitutional; (which has happened on numerous occasions by the Court); >>  and to date, this has not happened, despite numerous occasions where >> individuals and entities have challenged the constitutionality of both >> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as other aspects of the >> CRA of 1964. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: There >> you go again. As noted several times, according to the Constitution. >> Regard$, --MJ >> >> "The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of >> consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution >> that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim >> no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, >> then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must >> be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could >> impose their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods >> >> >> At 12:56 PM 3/2/2015, you wrote: >> >> MJ wrote: >> As I already noted, CRA of 64 is unconstitutional. The Congress had ZERO >> authority regarding their whole cloth invention "public accommodation". >> Additionally, >> it violates Amendments IX, X and XIII. >> >> According to who? You?  >> That would make it, "Your Opinion". >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:15 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: As was >> obvious, I am well aware of the meanings of FOREGOING & VESTED. Projection? >> Really? There is no FOREGOING power from which to derive a necessary and >> proper law NOR is one otherwise VESTED in regards to Title VII or CRA 64. The >> failure on the part of those claiming such a power exists to identify it >> speaks volumes. Furthermore, Title VII and CRA of 64 violate Amendments >> IX, X and XIII. Perhaps an example will aid you: A bill is offered to >> purchase boats for the Navy. One READILY notes that there is no Power to >> 'buy boats for the Navy'. One does note AIS8C18 allowing for "Laws which >> shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing >> Powers" AIS8C13 provides a Power To 'provide and maintain a Navy'. Certainly >> it is necessary and proper to 'buy boats' in order to execute THAT power. I >> merely ASKED for the power related to THIS effort. All sorts of >> irrelevance was spewed, of course, but NO POWER was provided. Not only >> does your redefining of constitutional put the Constitution on its head as >> there is no possible LIMITATION had, but it allows the Judiciary to simply >> WISH anything contested away. The difficulty you worshippers are having >> is explained here: "As Justice William Brennan, the closest thing to a >> 20th-century Marshall, would say, with five votes, a justice can do >> anything. This "Rule of Five" was not enunciated in those terms before >> Brennan, but it might as well have been. Republicanism – rulle via elected >> officials; federalism – the division of powers between the state and >> federal governments; and limited government have been the perennial victims >> of judicial misconstruction of the Constitution. The case names and >> subjects under dispute have changed, but the tendency has been the same: a >> persistent power grab by the federal government, in the persons of federal >> judges. Over time, the arrogation has been increasingly bald-faced. "Suppose >> that a federal judge opposed this tendency of "constitutional law" to >> distort the constitutional system; might he not counteract it? The form of >> legal education in American law schools today makes that exceedingly >> unlikely. "Since the beginning of the 20th century, legal education has >> been dominated by the "case method" of instruction, which substitutes >> reading of judicial opinions for historical study. Thus, "Constitutional >> Law" classes feature a heaping helping of the opinions of John Marshall, >> William Brennan, and their ilk, and no consideration at all of the debates >> in the ratification conventions in which Federalists authoritatively told >> the American people how the Constitution would work. Only the >> mischaracterizations, in other words, and not the truth. "Lawyers-in-training >> are never told that Marshall’s opinions s came out exactly, precisely, >> completely, perfectly opposite where he and his fellow Virginia >> Ratification Convention Federalists explicitly and vociferously said they >> would, or that William Brennanâ€â„„¢s account of the Fourteenth >> Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause has ns no relationship to that >> provision’s intended meaning. Even "originginalist" judges, then, are >> unlikely to be very originalist." >> >> As I noted, the CONSTITUTION -- not the Constitutional Law substitution >> -- does not provide for Title VII NOR the CRA of 64. >> Regard$, --MJ >> "You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all >> Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which >> would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as >> honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same >> passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ... Their >> power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not >> responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The >> Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever >> hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would >> become despots. -- Thomas Jefferson >> >> >> >> >> >> At 10:20 PM 3/1/2015, you wrote: >> >> Not only must the court have standing but the person or entity that >> brings the case must as well. And Michael, I also have degrees in the law. >> Keiths interpretation is not only correct in the US but in the 30 or so >> nations I have practiced as well as in the World Court. The definition of >> "foregoing" is simple.... it means Congress has the power to make laws that >> enable the government in anything and everything mentioned prior in the >> Constitution that is not explicitly denied to Congress. It is not Rocket >> Science. The problem comes into it when idiots try to redefine words or the >> words that are in a definition to meet their personal agenda.  >> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:18:33 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: Luck? >> I don't need luck....I spent three years at Stetson College of Law, as well >> as an additional four years at the University of Tampa studying Political >> Science; plus an additional fifteen years practicing these skills; all >> aiding me in my quest to fathom and understand how and why our >> Constitutional system works. The bottom line? Whether you deem >> something "Unconstitutional" has no bearing unless a Court with standing in >> the United States mandates it as such. On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:14 PM, >> MJ <[email protected]> wrote: That is a good start ... Note it says >> "foregoing" and "vested". [AIS8C18 is another LIMITATION] NOW you need >> to find that power that would be the BASIS. Good Luck! Regard$, --MJ "The >> point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The >> people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was >> presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim no formal >> change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, then the >> understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must be >> presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could >> impose their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods >> >> >> >> At 01:07 PM 3/1/2015, you wrote: >> >> Here ya go Michael: The Congress shall have the power: To make all laws >> which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the >> foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the >> government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. >> >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1 On Sun, Mar >> 1, 2015 at 11:20 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: Opinion? Really? Here >> is the Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt >> >> Can you locate the BASIS for this legislation? [Hint: it simply is NOT >> there] Are you content with worshipping *whatever* an ever-changing >> majority of Justices decree? If one actually READS the Constitution, one >> discovers that it is GOVERNMENT that is prohibited from "discrimination". >> Additionally, >> Amendment XIII SPECIFICAALLY prohibits "involuntary servitude". >> Regard$, >> --MJ "Has anyone noticed that Gruber's approach to selling Obamacare has >> been liberals' approach to the Constitution since the Revolution of 1937? >> "We'll just say that it means what we want it to mean, whatever the issue >> and despite over 100 years of its meaning the opposite, every single time, >> because average Americans are too dumb to know we're lying." The only thing >> unusual about Gruber is that he was perfectly candid about having lied; in >> law schools, this is called "constitutional theory." "This reminds me of >> one of my mentors at UVA, the leading historian of 19th-century American >> politics (now retired). "Kevin," he once said to me, "there's one theme >> that runs through American political history: although I don't always think >> much of their opponents, I hate the Democrats."" -- Kevin Gutzman >> >> At 10:35 AM 3/1/2015, you wrote: >> >> Title VII is unconstitutional, "In Your Opinion"......Obviously the >> Supremes and the Twelve Circuit Courts around the United States don't feel >> that way. On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, MJ < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> The entire thing is nonsense. Title VII is unconstitutional. The CRA of >> 64 is unconstitutional. Regard$, --MJ "The bottom line is that the true >> test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he >> allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that >> commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate >> in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of >> association." -- Walter Williams >> >> At 11:02 AM 2/28/2015, you wrote: >> >> According to the 10th Circuit, (as Travis's article points out) >> ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢â€š >> >> "Title VII requires that employers have explicit, verbal notice of a job >> applicantÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’‚¢Ã’’¢‚¬™s >> s s religious neus needs that may conflict with company >> policy.ÂÃÆ‚ šÃ‚ ; Such >> direct notice is required, ted, the appeals court decided, so that the >> employer has ÃÆâ€â‚¬™ÃƒÆ’‚¢€œpar€œparticularized, d, >> actual l knowledgeÃeÚÂڢ€ that >> hat the applicant follows a specific faith practice and will need an >> accommodation for it.ÃÆ’â€â„¢â€šÃƒÆ’Æ’‚  šÃ‚ >> Becaucause Elauf did not provvide that in her crucial job interview, the >> appeals court ruled, there was no Title VII violation in the refusal to >> hire her." In other words, if XYZ Temps knew that John's religious >> convictions would be in conflict with its workplace dress code, then then >> XYZ Temps had no obligation to hire John. ÃÆ ’‚ >> >> br> >> http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-faith-and-a-workplace-dress-code/ >> On >> Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:28 AM, plainolamerican < [email protected]> >> wrote: Jon, a clerical worker who is an observant Jew, wears tzitzit >> (ritual knotted garment fringes at the four corners of his shirt) and a >> yarmulke (or skull cap) in conformance with his Jewish beliefs. XYZ Temps >> places Jon in a long-term assignment with one of its client companies. The >> client asks XYZ to notify Jon that he must remove his yarmulke and his >> tzitzit while working at the front desk, or assign another person to Jon's >> position. According to the client, Jon's religious attire presents the >> "wrong image" and also violates its dress code prohibiting any headgear and >> requiring "appropriate business attire." XYZ Temps may not comply with this >> client request without violating Title VII. The client also would >> violate Title VII if it changed Jon's duties to keep him out of public >> view, or if it required him not to wear his yarmulke or his tzitzit when >> interacting with customers. Assigning Jon to a position out of public view >> is segregation in violation of Title VII. Moreover, because notions about >> customer preference (real or perceived) do not establish undue hardship, >> the client must make an exception to its dress code to let Jon wear his >> religious garb during front desk duty as a religious accommodation. XYZ >> should strongly advise its client that the EEO laws require allowing Jon to >> wear this religious garb at work and that, if the client does not withdraw >> its request, XYZ will place Jon in another assignment at the same rate of >> pay and decline to assign another worker to the client.[9] 1. What is >> the federal law relating to religious dress and grooming in the workplace? >> Title >> VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. >> ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢â€šÃƒÆ’Æ’‚§ ‚§ 2000e, , et seq., >> as amended ("Title VII"),prohibits employers with at least 15 employees >> (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well >> as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from >> discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or >> national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain >> of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to >> religion, Title VII prohibits among other things: disparate treatment >> based on religion in recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, >> job duties, termination, or any other aspect of employment (except that >> "religious organizations" as defined under Title VII are permitted to >> prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom to employ); denial >> of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious practices, unless >> the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer; workplace >> or job segregation based on religion; workplace harassment based on >> religion; retaliation for requesting an accommodation (whether or not >> granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, for testifying, >> assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC investigation or EEO >> proceeding, or for opposing discrimination. There may be state or local >> laws in your jurisdiction that have protections that are parallel to or >> broader than those in Title VII. 2. Does Title VII apply to all aspects >> of religious practice or belief? Yes. Title VII protects all aspects of >> religious observance, practice, and belief, and defines religion very >> broadly to include not only traditional, organized religions such as >> Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, but also >> religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or >> sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or may seem illogical >> or unreasonable to others. Religious practices may be based on theistic >> beliefs or non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or >> wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious >> views. Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending >> worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying >> religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or >> other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. >> Moreover, an employee's belief or practice can be "religious" under Title >> VII even if it is not followed by others in the same religious sect, >> denomination, or congregation, or even if the employee is unaffiliated with >> a formal religious organization.[1] The law's protections also extend to >> those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they >> profess no religious beliefs. For example, an employer that is not a >> religious organization (as legally defined under Title VII) cannot make >> employees wear religious garb or articles (such as a cross) if they object >> on grounds of non-belief. Because this definition is so broad, whether >> or not a practice or belief is religious typically is not disputed in Title >> VII religious discrimination cases. 3. Does the law apply to dress or >> grooming practices that are religious for an applicant or employee, even if >> other people engage in the same practice for non-religious reasons? Yes. >> Title VII applies to any practice that is motivated by a religious belief, >> even if other people may engage in the same practice for secular >> reasons.[2] However, if a dress or grooming practice is a personal >> preference, for example, where it is worn for fashion rather than for >> religious reasons, it does not come under Title VII's religion protections. >> 4. >> What if an employer questions whether the applicant's or employee's >> asserted religious practice is sincerely held? Title VII's accommodation >> requirement only applies to religious beliefs that are "sincerely held." >> However, just because an individual's religious practices may deviate from >> commonly-followed tenets of the religion, the employer should not >> automatically assume that his or her religious observance is not sincere. >> Moreover, an individual's religious beliefs - or degree of adherence - may >> change over time, yet may nevertheless be sincerely held. Therefore, like >> the "religious" nature of a belief or practice, the "sincerity" of an >> employee's stated religious belief is usually not in dispute in religious >> discrimination cases. However, if an employer has a legitimate reason for >> questioning the sincerity or even the religious nature of a particular >> belief or practice for which accommodation has been requested, it may ask >> an applicant or employee for information reasonably needed to evaluate the >> request. On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:02:09 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote: >> While >> they are at it, I hope the Supreme Court will make decisions regarding >> dress codes for work, school and home......after all they don't have >> important issues to deal with! ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÂ¢€š In a message >> dated 2/26/2015 5:36:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] >> <http://??> writes: >> >> >> BareNakedIslam posted: "Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by >> designated terrorist group CAIR, have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to >> go on job interviews without wearing a bag on their head, only to start >> wearing it at work AFTER they have been hired. If the company fires t" >> >> >> *New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether employers >> have the right to fire Muslim women who decide to defy the >> companyÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’‚¢Ã’’¢‚¬™s >> ¢s s dress ress code after beingÃÆ’â¬â„¢â€š hired? >> <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/>* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> by BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> Supremacist >> Muslim women, encouraged by designated terrorist group CAIR, have been >> engaging in a sneaky scheme to go on job interviews without wearing a bag >> on their head, only to start wearing it at work AFTER they have been hired. >> If the company fires them, they take the company to court. A business has >> the […] >> >> Read more of this post >> <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/> >> BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> | February 25, >> 2015 at 4:38 pm | Categories: EnemyWithin-America >> <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?taxonomy=category&term=enemywithin-america> >> | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-1cf4 >> >> Comment >> <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#respond> >> ÃÆâ€â„¬â„¢‚ ÃÆâ€â¢â‚¬â‚¬™‚ ÃÆâ†>> ’â€Ã¢€™ÃƒÂ¢‚¬â„¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢‚¬š ââ¢â‚¬š ¡ See all comments >> <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#comments> >> Unsubscribe >> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com&b=LLV%26%5Bh1%263RKK8ZmsWEM%25L%26i.nOxKfqimvY%5DVB%2BceJCVX42TPCkU> >> to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM. Change your email >> settings at Manage Subscriptions >> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com>. >> Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: >> http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/ >> -- >> -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For >> options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÂ¢€š >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> <http://www.politicalforum.com/> * It's active and moderated. Register >> and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You >> received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected] <http://??>. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of >> "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see >> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum ÃÆ’â™â€š >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's >> active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest >> breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are >> subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe >> from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected]. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of >> "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see >> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our >> other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and >> moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking >> news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed >> to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this >> group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected]. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of >> "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see >> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>  >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>  >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * >> It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the >> latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because >> you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To >> unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. For more options, >> visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of >> "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see >> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other >> community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. >> Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and >> more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and >> stop receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected]. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of >> "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see >> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other >> community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. >> Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and >> more. >> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected]. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For >> options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's >> active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest >> breaking news, and more. >> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected]. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For >> options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * >> Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's >> active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest >> breaking news, and more. >> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected]. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For >> options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * >> Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's >> active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest >> breaking news, and more. >> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to >> [email protected]. For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
