in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency
talks with Al Qaeda have so far failed to produce an agreement.
The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the number of virgins
a suicide bomber would receieve after his death would be cut by 25% this month, from
72 to only 60. The rationale for the cut was the increase in the number of suicide
bombers and a subsequent shortage of virgins in the afterlife.
The suicide bombers’ union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs (B.O.O.M.)
responded with a statement that this was unacceptable to its members, and immediately
balloted for strike action. General Secretary Abdullah Amir told the press: “Our members
are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don’t ask for much in
return, but to be treated like this is a kick in the teeth.”
Speaking from the shed in Tipton in the West Midlands in which he now resides, Al Qaeda
chief executive Osama bin Laden explained, “We sympathize with our workers’ concerns but
Al Qaeda is simply not in a position to meet their demands. They are simply not accepting
the realities of modern-day Jihad in a competitive marketplace.
“Thanks to Western depravity, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife.
It’s a straight choice between reducing expenditure and laying people off. I don’t like
cutting wages but I’d hate to have to tell 3000 of my staff that they won’t be able to blow
Spokespersons for the union in the Northeast of England, Ireland, Wales and the entire
Australian continent stated that the strike would not affect their operations, since “there are
no virgins in their areas anyway.”
Apparently, the drop in the number of suicide bombings has been put down to the emergence
of that Scottish singing star, Susan Boyle. Now that Muslims know what a virgin looks like,
they are not so keen on going to Paradise.
This obliterates the line between Choich and State, and makes me whanna puke.
San Francisco, Calif., Mar 13, 2010 / 07:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A San Francisco court ruled Thursday that the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
The decision, made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, reverses a 2002 rejection of the phrase which was backed at the time by atheist activist Dr. Michael Nedow. Non-profit civil rights law firm the Beckett Fund began to argue the 2002 decision with the Court two years ago.
“The Ninth Circuit finally stood up for the Pledge,” said Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson of the Becket Fund who argued the case. “The Court has just said what was self-evident to Thomas Jefferson and the signers of our Declaration of Independence in 1776 – our rights are unalienable precisely because they come not from the State, but from the Creator.”
The Court was influenced in its ruling by the Beckett Fund’s argument for the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the pledge. The non-profit group stated that Congress’ purpose in devising the pledge was “to underscore the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers that God granted certain inalienable rights to the people which the government cannot take away.”
The Beckett Fund also acted in the case on behalf of parents and schoolchildren in the Sacramento public school district as well as the Knights of Columbus who spearheaded the initiative to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1955.
“This decision is a victory for common sense,” Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said on Thursday. “Today, the Court got it absolutely right: recitation of the Pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious prayer. Best of all, the Court said that the words ‘under God’ add a ‘note of importance which a Pledge to our Nation ought to have and which in our culture ceremonial references to God arouse.’ Every reasonable person knows that, and today’s decision is a breath of fresh air from a court system that has too often seemed to be almost allergic to public references to God.”
“This is a very good day for America,” Anderson added.
In their decision on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit also asserted that because saying the pledge is voluntary, efforts by the plaintiffs to remove certain parts of it is an attempt to suppress the free speech of others. “What is at issue is not saying the Pledge or affirming a belief in God. What is at issue is whether Roechild (Dr. Newdow’s anonymous client) can prevent other students, who have no such objection, from saying the Pledge,” stated the court.
First and foremost I’m thrilled to announce the appointment of Janis Moyer as CFO of People Care 4 Day Care, Inc. She joins me [Ralph Zig Tyko], Andrew Dosa, Barbara Read, and Yolonda Schamoni on our Board of Directors.
Raised in the San Joaquin Valley, Janis graduated with a BA in Business and a Honors in English from California State University, Chico. After training at Touche Ross, she became Chief Accountant at Soyster & Orenschall and moved on to become CFO of Tannery West in San Francisco. In 1978, she and her husband opened San Francisco Tom’s, a wholesale snack and vending company. When her husband retired from the business in 1994, she became and is presently the CEO of that business. Janis has resided in Alameda, CA since 1972.
We’ve created “Klassics 4 Kids,” a vehicle Donation Program to help make children “school ready.”
These are our the programs we have scheduled for the remainder of 2009.