Here is a follow up to the first story... sm
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-08-28
In Reply to: U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Accused of Disloyaty for Doubts... - LVMT
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=448&z=56
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Follow the yellow brick road....follow....
the yellow brick road. The great and powerful O will take care care of you. Watch out for those flying monkeys he is surrounding himself with tho....LOL. You folks kill me. This is ALL on you. You gave him the power. Remember that....
I don't follow you? nm
.
Then it would follow that .........sm
conservatives not idjits since we cannot see that Obama is a natural born citizen! 
And no actually, if you follow the thread SM
I was posting to American Woman.
Hope you follow him
/
I don't follow your reasoning...because there are a lot of
gays you think God made them that way? Years ago, sex before marriage was unheard of, but so many people over the years have done it openly now it is accepted. The Bible speaks frankly against it. Same with adultery. The Bible speaks frankly against it. People still do it. And it is still wrong. The Bible speaks against homosexuality. People still do it, it is still wrong. More people kill and steal nowadays. Does that make it right? There are more serial killers today than 20 years ago. Does that make it okay? I believe you are rationalizing. Why would God call something an abomination and then make people that way? That is like saying people are thieves because God made them that way...people are killers because God made them that way...sorry, we will have to agree to disagree big time on that kind of reasoning.
And you wonder why those people follow
xx
You don't follow the board much, do you?
This has been discussed way below
You sound terribly misinformed.
Like I said, weak enough to follow
"
you need to follow your posts a little better
I didn't refer to the word "aspire" in my post and neither did the "the big bad"
Find somewhere else to troll.
If you are not able to follow my thread,
at least try to follow your own. I was replying to your right-from-wrong post where, in an attempt to avoid the points I had made about Israel, you stated I had listed all of Palestinian atrocities. My reply followed consecutive order.
The first item on the list you were trying to attribute to them began with occupation. Since you made the blanket, all-encompassing statement that I had just listed ALL of their atrocities, I began my reply with occupation and followed point-by-point with responses to the other listed items. You would probably have a vague understanding of that if you actually engaged in debating substance rather than simple vollies of empty, vacuous put-downs and denials.
Follow up to Tammy (Tom)
Okay Clarence Thomas!! You would have made a good house person back in the day. Ever heard of the word "Tom," as in Uncle Tom??
Hey there follow Oregonian
We may be heading up closer your way. Nothing down here in GP. No hopes for a future here but we hear further north it is better. Hoping within a couple weeks we're out of here.
That's what happens when you follow blindly....
you go in circles. By the way, wagon has only one "g." And quite frankly, all conservatives are not "pubs." The last election cycle should prove that convincingly...if you can look away from the blinding light that is your leader long enough to have an independent thought...key word here being independent. You might want to wait and see what JTBB has to say before you answer. :-) Blah blah about sums it up...lol.
I do not follow the 'party' system. sm
Consider myself true conservative (not Republican or a religious zealot), libertarian. Colbert shoved the truth in the face of power, media & government. Somebody needs to do it. The mainstream media does not have the guts to really put the truth in Bush's face. They are afraid of him, just like the rest of the world and America. Definitely something wrong with that.
May I suggest that you follow your own *instruction...*
and read a book before YOU spout off.
The National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), or NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers Party (DAP) before the name was changed in 1920.
The party's leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich, under which the party gained almost unlimited power.
THAT is what happens when an entire nation is tied to the government for every need...a check, health care, education, and on and on and on. Then they have you, my friend, and that is when socialism turns into totalitarian dictatorship. It happened in Cuba. It happened in Venezuela. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy under Mussolini. So, I would suggest, my friend, that YOU do your research before attacking someone else.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution where the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists.
Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including self-titled Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.
NO THANKS.
For those who follow foreign politics...
I just heard on NPR that Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Russia during a marching and protest of Russia's voting practice. This is NOT good. Putin is a very dangerous individual who has been funding the middle east conflict and selling weapons to those who really shouldn't have them. Kasparov is a potential light at the end of the tunnel for a more democratic and liberal Russian state. I am afraid for him.
Doubt they will follow your suggestion.
nm
And a follow up question for McPain,
WHICH country do you put first? (Heeheehee (McPain laughing) with his teeth all out there with that queer little grin.)
You both are absolutely right. Sheep(le) will follow each
other right over the cliff and we are heading that way quickly. If it was happening in another country people here would wonder why the citizens are so dense; not here, they just hear the mantra of change, hope and promises (that cannot be kept) and are so addicted the first time they hear it they don't take the time to educate themselves about the possible ramifications until it is too late.
Follow the link, oh lazy one.
You can see the Senate requistions for yourself. Barack's name is there there, along with the amount doled out, what the money is going toward, and WHO THE MONEY IS GOING TO. Doesn't take a braniac to copy and paste a recipient's name in and Google their relationship wtih Barack.
And I notice you didn't offer a link with any rebuttal informationl. Typical. "Ladies and gentlemen, I have 'investigated' this and the allegations are 'pure garbage.' What a joke. How much did YOU get from that corrupt dolt?
Sweep, sweep, sweep. The Dems shove ANOTHER Obama dirty little secret under the rug.
Just NOT smart enough to NOT follow the sheeps
__
Perhaps you should follow your own advice (last line)
nm
What you meant was don't follow links that
//
Try to follow the thread. OP said he/she was bored....
and felt compelled to post that he/she was bored. I merely said it was boring to read posts about people complaining that they are bored. If you are bored by my posts, don't read them. Simple fix.
follow up to the free part -
This information came from Obama's website. It says that people will have to do community service in exchange for that $4000 they are given for school and the free part means that $4000 would pay for a community college - nowhere does he say that a university education would be free.
Higher Education
Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.
Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: Obama and Biden will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.
Sorry Lauren but I couldn't follow that (sm)
You are not born into being a Christian. Being born to Christian parents does not make you a Christian until you convert, that is not true. You are not a Christian until you make a conscious decision to be one.
I was just saying to follow the lead of your hero
he lost but he is moving past it, unlike the RRs on this board
You did not follow who I was responding to!!!! YOU READ IT
dip
It's about time and other states should follow
Still is beyond me why all people who fall in love cannot marry the person they love because of their gender. I always think, what's next, you can't marry someone of a different race. It is beyond me why people dictate who can and cannot marry based on their religious beliefs. It should not even be a topic up for discussion. You want to marry someone then you should be allowed the same rights anyone else is. Talk about de-humanizing someone because of who they love.
More states need to follow suit
x
Would much rather intelligently question than blindly follow. NM
I follow the Old Testament and those rules aren't too
NM
Try to follow this logic. I support Obama. Therefore,
his platform and every single speech he ever gave, was and never will be MY issue. It is yours. MY issue is with the hypocrisy of Joe the unlicensed, the way he misrepresented his intentions to buy the business (seems to have completely forgotten that by now), misrepresented his income, the income of the business in question and the innocent bystander routine that you so strongly defend. Contrary to popular belief, it seems, ignorance IS NOT BLISS here. His cover was blown and you can't stop crying foul because the underlying agenda is out in the open.
Beyond that, McCain has lifted up JTP and is using him to further misrepresent his alleged concern for the middle class (a phrase which he has yet to utter in any speech) which is clearly the case, given his 24-year record of voting and his 90% undying devotion to the "commonly shared philosophy" with the shrub.
Pathetic are people who would follow this phony.
nm
Oh boy. WAKE UP. Follow the link before you post.
Both bills referred to here involve Equal/Fair pay remendies for WOMEN, not Congress.
Christian does mean to follow Christ Jesus. SM
You know, Jesus, the son of God, God in human flesh? Jesus, who answered Pilate "you say rightly I am king," Jesus, who answered the high priest when asked if he was the Christ "Yes, it is as you say." If anyone knew what Father God was thinking, it was Jesus Christ, God in human flesh.
Sheesh, at least try to know what your talking about with your retorts.
you don't follow politics/economic very closely then
First - signs were not hateful. Signs were truthful but the Kool-aid drinkers don't want to admit it. You consider calling us teabaggers, hillbillies, and rednecks as perfectly fine, but the minute someone points out that he is following the same path as socialist leaders you label that as "hate". What's worse is other countries are pointing it out too, not just Americans. Unfortunately it's the truth no matter whether you want to believe it or not. Last night I was watching a special about Hitler and his henchmen, and how a lot of people think he escaped. Well listing to the people talk about what he and his henchman did, I kept thinking...wait a minute...that's going on right now - (no not the genocide thing), but the way they ran their government back then. The reason you might have seen those signs on Fox was because there were no other channels covering it. BSNBC and the Communist News Network didn't cover it. Our local channels didn't cover it either. Between 250,000 to 300,000 people attended and they pretended nothing happened. What's amazing is they'll cover a story of some ducks crossing a road in some town I've never heard of, or some little kiddy motor scooter race in another unknown town, but over 2000 cities host the tea parties where there are peaceful demonstrations because people are unhappy with the government and they are excersing their right to freedom of speech (you remember the same things democrats were fighting and pushing for when Bush was in office). But there comes a double standard when only democrats can do it but republicans and independents are suppose to remain subservient and not say anything and let us be starved and unemployed and lose our homes and have to go live in shelters and we're suppose to be happy and never say anything???
As for inciting hate and racism...that is exactly what BSNBC is doing when they have Keith Olbermann show or Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews. And then to have people like J Gorofool speak her utter hatred and racism and stupidity is unleashed. Now what she and Olbermann and the other clowns at BSNBC do...that there is inciting hate and racism. Pure and simple, no two ways about it. Why don't you actually watch Fox news before critising it. There is no hate and racism. What is racist about saying... I'm sick of congress and government taxing me to death, sending my job overseas, and I'm now having to foreclose on my house. I'm tired of them taking my money in taxes which I have no control over and they are spending it on themselves and their friends. What is racist about that???
The nature of faith is that it is a crutch for those who follow
x
I have been trying to follow this Rove vs Wilson thing and I'm not sure what's going on, but I hope
they keep the pressure on, because IF our govt has behaved irresponsibly we need to know.
Follow the thread back up. The original question was not about CS's son. nm
.
I posted links...you can follow them to the candidate's stand...
on the issues. Let him speak for himself. It is not Obama bashing to post his stand on issues. How is that bashing?
And pointing out the truth of the DNC agenda is not bashing either. If you research you will see that Obama has practiced the alinsky technique throughout his career...even taught it. alinsky's son openly congratulated him on how well he applied at the Democratic National Convention. I did not make that up. It is the truth.
That, with ayers, with black liberation theology and its Marxist leanings...all that together does give me pause. It would give me pause if it were John McCain. It would give me pause if it were ANYone running for President of the United States.
Don't follow links posted under faulty premises.
and his camp are bailing right and left from that sinking ship.
Oh honey, sorry I can't follow your trailer trashy talk..
your ilk are all alike!
Oh honey, I can't follow your trashy trailer talk..
you and yur ilk are all alike
Do you automatically think all white Christians follow these evangelists you mentioned? nm
x
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT
RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.
As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.
With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.
Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.
RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:
Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record
What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Man From Illinois
In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:
There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.
SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:
create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):
design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.
"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.
(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-
`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.
It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.
Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]
Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.
In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]
I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.
I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.
Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically. She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor. She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly. That is not that unusual to me.
She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy. Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry. Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term. I understand that. I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby. That is typical.
As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time. I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant. I was shocked at how tiny she was. She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born. DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge.
I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well. Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection. It is very common. If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?
All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby. I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden. No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant. It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life. That is part of what is wrong with our society today.
|
