See inside for news story.
Posted By: oldtimer on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: I know my ignorance is showing, but what is ACORN? nm - anon
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-vote-fraud_frioct10,0,2159694.story
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
Here's the same story on ABC.?. see inside
I thought AOL was considered a liberal site, but I guess not. Here's ABC with a bit more information, but basically the same story:
Inside the White House: What Went Wrong?
Sources in the Meeting Tell ABC News Why the Talk Turned Into a Screaming Match
By JONATHAN KARL
Sept. 26, 2008
If all had gone according to plan, Thursday's White House meeting would have been a triumphant photo opportunity, where top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders come together with the president and the two presidential candidates to support a plan for stabilizing the financial markets. Instead, the meeting devolved into a shouting match that nearly derailed the economic bailout plan.
Here's an account of what happened, based on conversations with several of those present, both Democrats and Republicans:
The first sign of trouble: Twenty minutes before the White House meeting, Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say there are problems with the agreement reached earlier in the afternoon. Pelosi is miffed. Democrats believed the issues Paulson raised had already been resolved.
President Bush opens the meeting at 4 p.m., quickly turning it over to Paulson who gives a status report on the markets and says, "We need to get this done quickly." Paulson turns it over to Pelosi, who defers to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who defers to Sen. Barack Obama. Obama starts things off for the Democrats by reiterating his principles on what the plan should include. Obama agrees with Paulson on the need to act quickly but says some on the Hill "don't understand the need for the rush." Some of the Republicans took this as an attack on them.
Obama then defers to Sen. John McCain, but McCain defers to House Republican Leader John Boehner to speak on behalf of the Republicans. Boehner says House Republicans have "a lot of problems" with the plan and "most of my caucus is not there."
At this point, the meeting is still fairly cordial. Pelosi even compliments the president on his speech Wednesday night. But the meeting starts to devolve.
After some more give and ake, Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, presents a five-page list of 192 economists and business school professors who oppose the plan. Bush isn't impressed. "I don't care what somebody on some college campus says," Bush says. Instead, he says he trusts Hank Paulson, who, he says, has more than 35 years of experience and access to more information than those academics on Shelby's list.
Boehner says House Republicans have a different idea: providing federal insurance for mortgage securities instead of buying them outright.
Obama chimes in again, asking Paulson what he thinks about the insurance idea. Paulson says he thinks the idea is unworkable, and adds, "We can't start over."
After 43 minutes, McCain finally speaks. He says there are "legitimate concerns that need to be listened to" and that there has been "significant progress" in incorporating his principles into the bill. "We have one shot at getting this done right," he says. McCain does not get specific. "He said a whole lot of nothing," says one Republican in the room.
Shortly after that, things get a whole lot worse. Rep. Spencer Baucus, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, speaks in favor of the Republican alternative, setting Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the committee, into a rage. Frank accuses Republicans of "sandbagging" him by bringing up a plan he's never seen. There's more shouting. The president brings the meeting back to order and urges everybody to get back together because "we need to get this done." The deciding factor for him on any final deal, he says, is whether or not Hank Paulson says it will work.
The meeting ends, but the fireworks are yet to come.
Democrats go back into the Roosevelt Room to discuss whether to go out to the cameras waiting on the White House driveway. Paulson comes in and literally begs them not to go out and criticize the meeting. For dramatic effect, Paulson gets down on one knee and says, "Please, I beg you, don't blow this up."
Barney Frank, shouting, "Don't give me that bulls**t."
More Frank: "Hank, you've got a problem here. Republicans want to torpedo this."
Pelosi is also outraged, but the Democrats decide not to go out as a group to the microphones.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5895827&page=1
Raw Story? Hardly a MSM news source I would say. SM
I will wait for the real story.
How is a news story such as this attacking
the other candidate?
while I am sure that you have the inside scoop on Fox news
I have not seen a riot yet (at least not recently), so what riot incitement are you speaking of?
I hate to butt in but one story seen on the news and
really scared me was when Obama was in Germany and a German citizen stated, "He's the new Messiah." This was on the evening news when he was on his around the world blitz. He really had no reason to do all that traveling as if he was already the President. What was he trying to prove??? That he can charm the world? It won't work if he becomes President.
'Nuff said.
What?! She was reporting a local news story from
nm
Excuse me. All I did was post a link to a CBS news story
the ideas you brought up in your original post trying to imply that O's AG nominee was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think that kind of inaccurate accusation deserves some sort of defense. You evidently have a tough time digesting data that in any way contradicts your thinking, so now we have gotten to the place where I am a pouncing, bug-squashing know-it-all who slaughters innocent insects with my windshield? For posting a link to a reputable news article written directly in the aftermath of 9/11 (YEARS before Mr. Holder's nomination). Really? Don't you think you may be over-reacting just a tad?
You didn't read the AP news story on Ogden?
I posted it below in a post yesterday.
See link to article from Women's News inside.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2046/context/archive
Story about Wasilla meth labs from Juneau news sm
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/030805/sta_20050308002.shtml
Troopers dub Mat-Su area the meth capital of Alaska
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASILLA - The Matanuska-Susitna area is the methamphetamine capital of Alaska, according to Alaska State Troopers.
In 2003, authorities uncovered nine meth labs in the area. Last year, the number increased to 42, said Kyle Young, an investigator with the troopers who works with the Mat-Su narcotics team.
Officials with the Office of Children's Services in Wasilla said the problem affects children. The office receives about 40 calls a month from people reporting abuse or neglect involving some aspect of the highly addictive drug.
In late February, the Mat-Su narcotics unit arrested a couple at their Willow home. Michelle Motta said for years she tried to warn authorities that her three young nieces lived in the midst of a methamphetamine operation run by their parents, Phillip Dean and Laura Jackson.
Alaska State Troopers reported finding a "large active meth lab" in a detached garage shop. The house was a frigid mess, with piles of dirty dishes, clothes everywhere and frozen pipes, investigators said.
Through a hatch in the shop floor, the team found an underground room with a meth lab in one corner, as well as old marijuana root balls and lights from a past pot-growing operation.
An investigator said the team didn't find the children at home but saw signs of them there. Motta said the girls - ages 14, 8 and 6 - at times slept in the garage with the lab.
A year ago, the oldest girl detailed the household's rampant drug problems and squalid living conditions in a handwritten letter to a judge.
"My parents grow marijuana and crystal the(y) did the drugs that they bought in front of (my sisters)," the letter begins. "They spent most money on them instead of food or doing laundry. I got left home with nobody there I got left home with drug(g)ies..."
Motta now has custody of her three nieces. The Jacksons are jailed at Mat-Su Pre-Trial Facility in Palmer.
Children sharing homes with meth labs face the risk of contamination, fire, explosion, neglect and hazardous living conditions. Caseworkers report little children complaining of breathing problems from toxic fumes rising off chemicals such as acetone, ammonia and hydrochloric acid.
When authorities surrounded a converted bus housing a meth operation in Big Lake in January, a 13-year-old boy who answered the door bragged that his mom cooked the best meth in the valley, according to the troopers.
During a 2003 bust at a house outside Wasilla, officers discovered five children living inside, all younger than 8 years old.
The calls about meth to children's services in Wasilla accounts for as many as 40 percent of the agency's total monthly child protection calls.
The troopers are aggressively going after meth labs, said Capt. Ed Harrington, the supervisor of the state's drug and alcohol enforcement unit.
"It's just not a simple process," Harrington said. "Just because somebody calls in and says 'So and so's cooking meth' doesn't mean we're going to kick the door in the next night."
FOX news IS the news. The only 1 that tells BOTH
nm
It's all over the news - and I mean ALL news stations.
not just the ones you don't like.
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.
thanks for your story
We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter.
What the..? What was there ONE story about someone
have been SP's doing ?? You make it sound like she handed down firings to several thousand. LOL But hey, if she's that powerful and good at putting her plans into action, then maybe I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Let me tell you a story
Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.
After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.
Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!
Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years. We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.
To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL
I actually got the story from CNN ....
Just sayin ... 
inside
I don't think there's anything wrong with laughing at something that is not only very funny but also happens to be true. Unfortunately, this Administration hasn't given us very much to smile about.
When I read this, nothing led me to believe that Google has a liberal's brain. By the way how much DID that "poor schlump" part with, since you seem to have all the answers?
See inside
From your posting:
"So if you and Chomsky are comfortable with putting every man, woman and child in this country at risk to satisfy whatever beef you have against freedom and democracy, fine. Your freedom of speech had a most terrible and high price tag. Something tells me that many of these fine men and women, if they could speak now, would not thank you for your thoughts."
I do not recall stating anything related to your above quote. As I said, you may have me confused with another poster.
(Inside)
In the first place, I'd like to say thanks for posting here, and you're welcome here any time.
As far as supplying topics to discuss, YOU seem to be the one who is actually supplying the topics. Today the Conservative board is a pleasant place to be, and even I felt safe responding to a post in your thread. The topic was excellent, and nowhere have I seen you attack a poster for his or her opinion.
You haven't come across as confrontational and hateful. Unfortunately, to a lot of people, these three have done so.
People can debate without personally attacking a poster that doesn't agree with them. You seem to have done that. I hope the Conservative board is able to get more posters like you. You've made it a comfortable place to be. 
(inside)
Chill! LOL. Gee, you sure are defensive. I wonder where that came from! 
You are NOT on the conservative board any more, and you don't have to walk on eggshells here (although I seem to have acquired a "fan" who has been following me around on this board, taking swipes at everything I say and just generally being unpleasant and contributing nothing of value to any conversation). If you read the posts here, it's obvious to see whose agenda it is to discuss and debat and whose agenda is restricted to creating discomfort and attacking.
I thought your post was great, and there wasn't one word or phrase in your post above that would imply any lack of respect for a soldier.
Some people just can't understand that others support the troops by wanting to keep them alive, honor their lives by only placing those lives in jeopardy when absolutely critical and necessary to protect America. It's obvious you're not "against" our troops, but instead you're trying to fight FOR THEM while they are fighting for HIM and what I believe in the core of my soul to be his personal grudge war. I believe more and more people are coming to this realization every day and share your thoughts (and mine), as well.
I come here because I like to see what a few certain posters write. I've been reading these posters' thoughts for a few weeks now, and I find them to be genuine, original and heartfelt. (If you have any doubt as to who these people are, just follow the long trail of the hateful responses to their posts.) It's a source of relaxation to me after I finish working. I've actually made a list of whose posts aren't worth reading any more because they totally lack value and are designed to do nothing but attack and harass. I'm no longer willing to feed their addiction to hate, and I simply won't respond to them any more. Again, if you read the board, I'm sure you will see who I'm referring to and why. Wouldn't surprise me at all if you are their next target. They can be very upsetting and cause normal, intelligent people to become very defensive. They bait posters, and it seems to me if they're ignored, their posts will just stand alone, making their motives very, very clear. (Just my personal opinion, and I only mention it because I don't want anyone to get to you or chase you away from here because they simply aren't worth it.)
I'm really glad to see you here. Now I have one more reason to continue visiting this board. I hope you have a great day!
P.S. I noted in your first post you mentioned you're a "military brat." I'd just like to personally thank you and your family for the sacrifices you made for your country and for me as one of its citizens!
Inside.
I'm posting the entire post, since I'm not sure if I copied the link correctly. It was posted by vs, followed by additional attacks on gt and Brunson complaining of the *bog of eternal stench* that she claims *tends to drift on over here* on the Conservative Board, after nobody from the Liberal Board has bothered them. Not once.
This is the post on the Conservative Board from vs, but it's not the only objectionable one.
Sorry to see you go
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]
Posted By: vs on 2005-11-28,
In Reply to: I agree with you, MT. SM - Brunson
I understand why though. It's a darn shame that one or two people make this an intolerable place for everyone. Well, if the post count goes down on the boards then maybe they will revisit their policies. At least on these boards the two-initialed Nazi is allowed get away with her genocide of anything conservative, but that's not helping the post count on the board at all.
BTW, I went to the Extremely Politics board, and only a person with a self-esteem death wish would dare post there. I can see why the two-initialed Nazi likes it there. She's free to practice her hate. It's not a place I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole.
http://www.forumatrix.com/ads/frame.cgi?action=main&target=www.forumatrix.com/Channels
See inside. SM
Yes, forgiveness does mean that we have to realize our sins and confess them. But, unless you are either George Bush himself, his pastor, or his God, how do you know he hasn't? That is conjecture on your part. None of us knows what has transpired between this man and his God. I realize what I am saying will not be popular here, but I don't see a whole lot of Christianity in what I am seeing. Quoting from written sources is not addressing the fact that you are sitting in judgement of someone who is not you. We aren't supposed to do that. I hope you all have a blessed Sunday. I am off to church and will certainly pray that God releases from your hearts the hatred you carry.
See inside. sm
Here is some more from the conference. So shines a light in a sometimes dim world.
The sanctity and infinite worth of every human being is a quintessential Jewish value, grounded in the biblical notion that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Against this background, it is ironic and vexatious for many pro–life activists that American Jews tend to line up on the pro–choice side in the struggle over abortion. Affirming the Sanctity of Human Life, a conference held November 12 in Washington, D.C., brought together a hundred or so Jews who are troubled by the Jewish community’s stance toward the unborn, particularly concerning the gruesome late–term procedure known as partial–birth abortion. The morning session consisted of panel presentations by three Orthodox Jews and a maverick Reform rabbi. Marshall Breger, a law professor and political writer, lamented the fact that Jews support abortion rights more than any religious or ethnic group: they are consistently 15 to 20 percent above the norm, he said, even when controlling for various factors such as religious belief or unbelief, political ideology, social class, etc. He attributed this support, in part, to fears that governmental restrictions on abortion would abridge personal autonomy and impose Christian religious standards on Jewish life. He said that gray areas in Jewish law—its combination of silence and ambiguity regarding the fetus’ status, its handful of exceptional situations allowing abortion—have confused Jews about the permissibility of abortion in general.
Barry Freundel, an Orthodox rabbi from Georgetown, seconded Breger’s sociological account of Jewish fears about abortion as being symbolic of the wider Jewish culture clash with conservative Christian movements. It’s hard to have a conversation about abortion, he said, that doesn’t become a conversation about something else. Even among his own Orthodox congregants, Freundel said, his pro–life preaching is treated as the rabbi getting up on his soapbox again. Nevertheless, he said, he feels obliged to inform them that the absolute license to abort, as practiced in the United States today, is simply impossible to reconcile with traditional Jewish teaching. Judaism, he said, permits abortion in a few limited circumstances, such as to save the life of the mother. He indicated that there is some difference of rabbinic opinion about these circumstances, but stressed that there is no warrant for the overwhelming number of abortions now performed in the U.S. He said that classic Jewish sources really don’t say much about the general moral or metaphysical status of the fetus; but, he added, we have an intuitive response that the fetus is not like an appendix or an in–grown toe nail that can simply be removed at will.
Thanks, A.G....(msg inside)
Yes, I figured it out, but I kept thinking surely to goodness he/she would be able to come back with something other condescending mush, but alas, no. The original post could have meant 3 things: (1) he/she was a card-carrying member of the liberal Hate America first club; (2) he/she was championing minorities and their mistreatment 200 years ago, which I find strange when they tell us we can't go back 20 years to support a position; or (3) he/she was comparing what happened with Native Americans and blacks in our past to what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, which is absolutely ridiculous, they are nowhere near the same. Since he/she came back in a post with how he/she *I generally avoid using the racial/ethnic I'm being picked on because of my race/country of origin/gender/you name it cliche also but I'll make an exception in your case.* so I don't much think she champions minorities very much...that rules out #2. I am leaning real hard toward #1, but after some of her later posts, it could well be #3. Or a combination of #1 and #3. I am still waiting for her to give me the name of one of those several countries she said she knew about who did not have any kind of mistreatment of their own citizens at some point in their history. I didn't ask for several, I just asked for one. Have a good day, AG!
9-11 Inside job
You posted a laundry list. Can you support any of that? Where did this come from? What is your source?
Uh oh...LLD :-) see inside
good post. I agree.   with just one exception...I think there ought to be something included in the program that makes allowances for the cost of living where the recepient lives. At least some kind of adjustment to level the playing field. I know someone can get decent housing where I used to live in Oklahoma much more reasonably than they can were I now live in the Northeast...so a bigger chunk out of the $80 grand where I live now than where I used to live. What do you feel about that? (not baiting you, really interested) That is basically why I did not think expanding the program higher up the income ladder was a good idea...that coupled with it needing to be fixed to get illegals out of it and from more illegals getting on it.
see inside...
1. Yes.
2. Most of them, yes, they have been needed, whether you or I think so or not.
3. Yes, although McCain will not be exactly that same kind of leadership.
Why?
At this point in time, this country is still in need of the Republicans (or what is posing as Republican this election year, as McCain is more of a centrist than true Republican, much to my chagrin). However, he has what we need, at this point in time.
If he's smart, McCain will chose Romney as his VP, as economy is sorely in need of someone who knows what they're doing.
Obama, is not what we need. He cannot fix anything, has not ever run anything, has no real experience, and quite frankly, I have no desire to have a socialistic pseudo-communist president, thank you very much.
My gut feeling tells me that Obama is not presidential material, period, no matter how much the liberal media tries to coronate him and cram him down our throats. (Hillary isn't prez material either, by the way...too much baggage, and "it's my turn" mentality)
I am an Independent, have voted for all parties, at one time or another (even though it may pain me to say I voted for Anderson, lo all those years ago...lol...in hindsight, I should have voted Reagan.)
But believe me, if Obama was the real deal, I would be right there for him, but sadly, he is not. He has made too many fatal errors of late, the most recent was caving to the Clintons and giving them free reign over the DNC. He is not a true leader, in my eyes.
He will not win in November, mark my words.
please see inside
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up
see inside...
Her youngest son is named Trig Paxson Van Palin. After Trig was born, a spokesperson for Palin said that Trig is Norse for true and brave victory. His middle name, Paxson, is the name of an area of Alaska that Palin and her husband think is "one of the most beautiful spots in Alaska," according to a report on MSNBC.
Palin is on record joking that she was naming Trig "Van Palin" after eighties rockers Van Halen.
Bristol, Palin's oldest daughter, 17, means "meeting place by the bridge," according to thinkbabynames.com. Bristol is Old English and is the name of an important town in England, which many US cities were named after as well. It has not ranked in the top 1000 baby names in the US in the last 100 years. Bristol is also the name of a bay in Alaska where Palin's brother-in-law is a fisherman.
I have not found out about the rest yet.
see inside
I kinda like that name ... ROTFL
ok .. I'm finding this is difficult to put into words.
It's his tone of voice and his mannerisms at times. It's his attitude about why things are as bad as they are -- it's like he wants to blame Bush solely for it ALL, and that is just not the way this country operates.
I guess my answer is it is just my gut reaction to him.
I'm sure this is not an an adequate explanation (going to put the flame suit on, LOL)).
I sincerely apologize for not giving you a better answer, maybe later I can. I have to go to work now..
really gone this time!
yep, see inside
“I make [decisions] as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”
see inside
Slash teen pregnancy funding:
Washington Post’s false accusation that Gov. Sarah Palin “slashed” funding for a teen pregnancy program, when in reality, there was “over a threefold increase from the government funds they received from all sources in 2006 (FY2006 ending 12/31/06).”
She and her husband each owned 20% of the car wash so it was not controlling interest. Who owned the controlling interest?
Don't know about the books...everything I read that was on a blog and basically said she asked the question, but it can't be verified that I can find.
see inside
It seems to me you would like to justify how "innocent" this is by posting a link of someone who said "don't read into this". I know the poster isn't actually linking the two together, but there are a lot of "less informed" people who read Osama bin laden and Obama/Biden...yup, gotta be the same, they must be alike, Obama must be a terrorist. Believe me they are out there because I have read different web sites (can't remember where) that were saying they were connected together. This is why I take offense at it. Because there are stup!d people who can't tell the difference. Besides...this subject already came up with a big uproar the last time. How many times are we going to keep posting the same thing. And the last time it came up the poster said it was "freaky" and this is what this poster said so it leads me to believe its the same poster that wants to keep stirring up a hornets nest. When someone is offended by a post why can't others just say "I'm sorry it offended you" and drop it. That's all I'm asking to drop it. Not bring it up every other day or so.
No it's not....see inside
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2008/02/global-warming-wrong-again/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
There's a lot of scientists against global warming. Inform yourselves of the facts, not scare tactics by the media and AL Gore.
Right on - see inside
Its like the inquisition is in full gear once again.
I guess Pagan would be a good way to describe me. I believe that life is in everything. I love going into the woods and just sitting by the trees by myself and listening to the earth spirits talk to me. I respect Mother Earth and all her beautiful gifts she gives us. The last time I went into a church the hair on my neck stood up. Never went back there.
See inside....
"Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Even early in the fifth month, babies who are expelled by premature labor will often be born alive. At that stage the baby's lungs are too undeveloped to permit sustained survival, but if the baby draws breath it is a LIVE BIRTH." To my definition, the 5th or 6th month is late-term. Semantics maybe.
Even with the existing partial birth abortion ban, it is still recognized as a procedure that can be used to save the life of the mother, even though no physician will go on record saying they EVER had an instance where that procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother.
That is why the baby is turned around so that it is breech, so that the brain can be collapsed inside the mother...because if the head comes first and it takes a breath it is considered a live birth and protected by the Constitution like the rest of us...until the practice of infanticide came along and was practiced until that nurse in Illinois threw a fit and brought it to public attention.
So I am not wrong, and it is not a lie.
Here it is (inside) ... the one from
DELETE: Don't open!
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/028_Obama,%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20and%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
see inside
I can't find a video on it, however, it made the rounds on news shows today....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=31736
see inside....
Yes, McCain has a refundable tax credit for health insurance. Is it aimed at a specific income group? No. Does it eliminate anyone's tax liability? No it doesn't. It isn't welfare.
Obama's refundable tax cut says specifically it will eliminate federal taxes for 10 million low income workers. People who heretofore WERE paying taxes, you have assured me repeatedly. Taxing "the rich" more to make up for that loss of revenue is marxist redistribution of wealth. There is nothing remotely like that in McCain's credit. It is basically welfare...giving a tax credit to eliminate taxes and making up the lost revenue by taxing others who make more.
You explain to me how that is NOT redistribution of wealth. He said it himself. Spreading the wealth. At least he IS honest about it.
see inside
First off, when you have a private conversation with a sitting president, it should remain private. One should be able to keep private, sensitive matters private...or in other words, to be able to keep your mouth shut.
Does anyone really want so much transparency that we know exactly what goes on every time Obama sits down to talk to a world leader, especially when it comes to our enemies? Does anyone really think world leaders will want to sit down and be honest with someone that leaks their conversations out right after they've had them?
But if it's "transparency" that you want, then Obama in this case, was just trying to make Bush look bad. But it blew up on him, and he had to retract.
This paragraph tells the lie. The first report of the leak was that they "horse traded"...see below...when in reality, no such think occurred, and the white house made them retract, as the articles state.
Barack Obama's transition team described as inaccurate news reports that irked President Bush claiming that the two had been horse trading over signing a second economic stimulus bill in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade deal.
But you know what, I really do give up. Obama supporters will never find any fault whatsoever with anything that he does. He's not perfect, and I just wish his supporters would at least agree that he's human, and that he's going to make mistakes.
See inside
Amanda, I'll try one more time. Only two people were in that room. Bush and Obama.
Obama came out of this first, private, oval office meeting and what was leaked to the press was that Obama urged Bush to get relief to the auto indutry and a stimulus plan I believe. Obama said that Bush said he would only do it if the Columbia trade agreement was pushed through Congress first.
So.
There is no way Bush or Bush aides would leak any of this information.
This information came from Obama. From a private conversation. To Obama aides. Who leaked this to the press. Who lied and said that Bush wanted the Columbia trade agreement signed before he would sign any other agreements.
This was a lie.
The White House was upset and asked for a retraction, as it was a lie.
It was retracted. By the Obama camp.
I personally do not want such transparency from a president. It shows me what little character he has.
I know it seems different to an Obama supporter.
So with that, good night. I don't blame you or the just the big bad poster for not being able to see what I see.
Night and take care.
Please don't anyone bash me, I can't take it anymore..............
see inside
Careful, Just me, we'll be called racist if try to link the O to treason. Not that I disagree with you at all........
see inside
In the realm of religious fanaticism a whirling Dervish was somebody who spun round and round until they got so dizzy they entered a prophetic state. This is what is also known as an obot.
And in a related story...
...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites. Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....
U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET
The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.
It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.
The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.
Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.
The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.
The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.
Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.
The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.
Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.
Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.
Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.
The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.
Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.
The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.
I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM. I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him.
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this. Thank you!
|
