It helps a lot.

further, I think it shows how scared the Bushists are of thee revelations about their illgal activities.

Why do the Republicans hate us for our freedoms?

;>)

Did the preznit lie? asks Wolfie.

Camera 1 on Leslie…

Cue the theme…

;>)

The final triupmh will come when the government and The Party are synonomous. While the currently are there is still the slight possibility that such isn’t permanent. All in good time. All in good time.

I’ll give you a nod even if no one else will. Funny shit. Christ knows there are lots more Clockwork expressions in this administration:

a bit of the old ultra-corruption
a bit of the old ultra-incompetence

etc.

The fallacy of the majority’s reliance on Rosenberger’s understanding of Rust doctrine, moreover, portends a bloated notion of controllable government speech going well beyond the circumstances of this case. Consider the breadth of the new formulation:

“Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.” Ante, at 10.

This ostensible domain beyond the pale of the First Amendment is spacious enough to include even the teaching of a public university professor, and I have to hope that today’s majority does not mean to imperil First Amendment protection of academic freedom in public colleges and universities, whose teachers necessarily speak and write “pursuant to official duties.” See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 329 (2003) (”We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition”); Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967) (”Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. ‘The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools’ ” (quoting Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 487 (1960))); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957) (a governmental enquiry into the contents of a scholar’s lectures at a state university “unquestionably was an invasion of [his] liberties in the areas of academic freedom and political expression–areas in which government should be extremely reticent to tread”).

Now I don’t pretend to understand the legal stuff here, but the issue he’s raising is Academic Freedom. Is he seeing further down the road? Like next week when one of David Horowitz’s brown shirts decides to take a professor to court for his speech?

“Think not that you can remain passive and indifferent to the common danger, and thus escape the common fate.” ~ Tecumseh