That sure tells the story in no uncertain terms...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-27
In Reply to: The Tip of Iceberg in FMae/FMac Facts - Frannie May
what is amazing is, KNOWING this, people will vote for him anyway.
We should send that link to everyone we know.
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
Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
I am appalled, and would hope everyone on this board is too. These are the people who hate us and want to kill us, and the liberals/democrats/Obama, want to close down this base, bring them to America, and give them the same rights that we have.
Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
By Catherine Herridge
* E-Mail
* Print
* Share:
o Digg
o Facebook
o StumbleUpon
o Post to MySpace!
o
o
AP
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The soldiers who guard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed say he is a calculating man, a monster in a monk's habit and a leader of the prisoners locked away in Guantanamo Bay, where he's on trial for the murder of thousands.
With rare access and interviews, FOX News has learned new and sobering details about "The Sheikh," the man known simply as KSM.
"I was there when they read him his charges," said Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti, deputy commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. "Pretty sobering moment — charged with murder, terrorism, conspiracy. He looked at the sheet and said 'I did this, I did this, I did this. I did more than this. I'm guilty. I feel sorry for my defense attorney.'"
Zanetti told FOX News about life behind the wire at Guantanamo Bay's maximum security camps. Camp 7 is home to the most notorious, including Mohammed, the master planner of 9/11.
"He's very compliant, he is very studious and he is very calculating. He thinks things through very well, he plays things out. When you watch him in court, he has all of this choreographed," Zanetti said.
"He wants to die — he wants to be a martyr for the cause. He believes his story is being written right now, to be laid down side by side next to [the Prophet] Muhammad," Zanetti told FOX News.
Inside Guantanamo, maximum security cells provide an arrow pointing toward Mecca to orient the prisoners for prayer. Mohammed prays constantly, apparently a devout man, which Zanetti finds mystifying.
"The guy's got a long beard, studious glasses — he looked like a professor. ... You see him in a cell and he'll pray hours on end. What God are you praying to? What are you thinking, what is going on up there?" Zanetti wonders. "But if he could do it all again, he would."
Even in captivity, he still is leading members of AL Qaeda, who fall in lock-step with his plans.
"He knows what he's going to say, the message he wants to get out, what he's going to have his followers do. You've seen him in court — very quickly people fall in behind him."
Sketch artist Janet Hamlin's brush with Mohammed came at his first court appearance at Guantanamo in June. As a courtesy, the military allowed KSM to review the sketch. He quickly sent word to Hamlin that he hated it.
"He doesn't like it. He's saying he won't approve of it, it cannot be released until the nose is changed," she told FOX News. Mohammed made his demands clear: "'Tell her to find my FBI photo off the Internet, use that as reference. Fix it.'"
Mohammed's concern about his image is fundamental, but it can also breed rivalries among the detainees.
"You see this inside the camps; they get jealous of each other: 'You were in the news more than I was in the news.' It drives [Mohammed] crazy if he thinks no one cares. He thinks he's part of this much bigger picture," Zanetti said.
But the picture inside Guantanamo is often an ugly one. Some prisoners do all in their power to violate the guards.
"What they do is stuff that you and I would find despicable. They save up their bodily fluid, feces and so on, and then when the guard comes to deliver food, they get a feces cocktail thrown in their face."
It's something Zanetti says occurs almost daily, and weighs heavily on the guards, who are tasked with feeding and clothing the prisoners and tending to them when they are sick. Hospital staff get the worst exposure of all from the detainees, he said.
"You ensure that their life is as comfortable as possible while the detainees are trying to make the guards' life as miserable as possible."
Those daily doses of hatred are a stark reminder about some of the men locked up inside the camp, including Mohammed, who has claimed responsibility for decapitating Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.
"We have more than our fair share of Hannibal Lecters around here," Zanetti said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468125,00.html
Let's put this in MT terms........
All things being equal, that being that the whole MT industry would crumble if something weren't done, would you take a cut in pay to save the industry?
Unless the GOP comes to terms with
its failed campaign tactics, anachronistic platform, leadership vacuum and the specter W's looming legacy and, instead, stay focused on their vigilante O witch hunts and endless smear tactics, that election may as well be skipped. I can't see any evidence on this forum, in the media, on the net or in the chambers of Congress that they are even aware of those problems, let alone any efforts to address them.
For that reason, I will be continuing to keep my altercount based in that reality, so plesae spare me the civics lectures. You have every right to believe in fairy tales, but they won't win elections either.
You are speaking in terms of only 1 ...
Calm down and have another drink of your Obama Kool-Aid and watch the other 2, maybe you will catch it.
I was thinking more in the terms of...(sm)
G-O-P -- yeah, you know me.....ROFL. Steele not only has no clue about the hip hop community, but his following obviously has no clue what he's trying to do. Yeah, I'm gonna enjoy this one.
The terms used against Bush can only be described as hatred. sm
 I can truthfully say, this place sounds like the DU and that is not a compliment. Oh, I know, I know, this is the liberal board. Gosh, I long for the days when we talked on the same board. Fights or not, it was challenging. Anyway, I am back to school next week, so I won't be hanging out anymore. Bet you'll miss me!!! Not!
McCain is not 80. He would be if elected 2 terms (nm)
x
Please address the 4 key points raised in terms of
x
No, I was correct 1473 days - If you want to keep it real you have to come to terms that
Don't you get it? Don't you understand the basic concepts of our political election system here in the US. Every four years there is an election. The next election is 2012. That means 1473 days.
Don't you realize that Obama has not taken office yet so we don't know yet whether he will be a good president or not. Why don't you just want before assuming he will be in for eight years. As you know what they say about people who assume.
Yeah, let's keep it real. Next election will be 11/4/2012. As far as I know America has not changed our laws and just decided to skip that election.
It also tells me
he may have a back alignment problem....big difference in the wear pattern! LOL
That's what he tells us isn't it?
x
Someone tells you how to think?
How unfair and unbalanced.
article tells it like it is
Yes I am sure that is why this article was written, to bring the whole republican party down. It is about false information on buying uranium, Mr. Wilson and his wife are being used to try to undermine the real story, the lies that got us into Iraq. I do not care if a person is republican or democrat, when there is a question of lies that got us into war, it deserves being investigated. Thankfully, the prosecutor is republican, that way if some are found guilty, it cannot be twisted into a partisan decision.
Your last sentence tells it all
Your last sentence concerning ammo, in my opinion, sums up your beliefs, i.e., republicans, versus democrats. Everything to you righties is fight time, attack time, war time whereas we lefties post something for people to read or debate, not to fight. I cant speak for all, but I believe negotiating, talking out problems, trying to understand each other works better than slinging insults, attacks, and using ammo. A nonpartisian person reading these posts would be able to see, the attacks more often than not are from the right wingers.
try not to believe everything the media tells you to....
x
I think she tells untruths
and I don;t like that in anyone. Bridge to nowhere, earmarks, etc. Don't like a hypocrite. What I really do not like, which is not actually her fault, is the fact that she is being foisted on us like she is so exceptional and we are lucky to have her. I don't think a woman whose main goal in life was to a sports reporter on TV has the brilliance and love of country we need in a leader. To be able to state with a straight face that she can see Russia from Alaska qualifies as foreigh policy experience is an insult to my intelligence. She entered a beauty contest and then wanted to coast along on her looks by looking pretty and reading a teleprompter on TV. That is just not a combination worthy of such a high office.
Tells you something troubling is going on
xx
I don't believe everything the media tells me to...
What it tells me is that you are interested in
naysaying, innuendo, division, polarization and the like. Sam, what matters to most of us savoring this incredible moment in our history is not what happened in the past. In this way, even the shrub gets a get out of jail card. My interest lies in the future and I see nothing suspicious or scary about Obama despite your best efforts after all these months. I also am not interested in preaching to the choir from either side. What I think matters now is that we try our best to get past this election and on with the business of uniting ourselves behind our leadership and start tackling the very difficult challenges we face on so many fronts. The economy is an equal opportunity crisis. Addressing global warming, the environment and alternative energy offers the promise of benefit for us all, and peace on earth is a goal that we share with the peoples of the world. Those matter to me. Not the implied, possible nefarious ties Rahm Emanuel may or may not have with the boogey man.
She can be harsh, but she tells it like it is.
nm
It tells me three things off the top of my head.
First, it tells me that he has an excellent work ethic. He worked very hard to be the best lawyer he could be, which leads me to believe if he were President, he'd work just as hard to be the best President he could be. In my opinion, Bush has NO ethics -- work or otherwise.
Secondly, it tells me that I don't believe in popularity contests. If he won or lost his own state is irrelevant to me. I respected what the man had to say, and the thought of a President Edwards over a President Bush has been looking better and better on a daily basis every day for the last year. If we can't have a leader who has firsthand experience as a combat veteran in a foreign war, then the next best thing is to have one who actually HAD to work for a living, someone who went from being poor to being rich by virtue of hard work and dedication, instead of someone being born, as Ann Richards once said, with a silver foot in his mouth.
As far as bankrupting any STATE, the most damage Edwards could have done was to decrease some PROFITS of insurance companies (easily recouped by raising malpractice insurance rates). I doubt he did any financial harm to the state. Because of him and his lawsuits, though, there might be a few more doctors practicing CARE now when they practice medicine. Don't forget. Million dollar verdicts are handed down by juries, peers of plaintiffs, in these matters. Maybe you think it's okay for doctors to get richer and richer as a result of getting sloppier and sloppier, but I don't. Negligence should be punished. That's what punitive damages are for. If the lawsuits were meritless, they would have been thrown out of court. Simple as that.
The third thing it tells me is that I'm entitled to my liberal opinion, on the LIBERAL BOARD, whether CONSERVATIVES like it or not.
Oh, something tells me you'd love to be at that judgment. ...sm
I think nothing would delight you more.
>> of all these babies aborted, could one of them have been the person that cures cancer? Or becomes the next great leader? >>
That seems wildly optimistic to me. I think it's just as likely that of all those babies aborted, one could have been the next Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh (sp?). Or, more likely, just your average low-life criminal, or not-so-productive drain on society. I mean, I don't mean to be negative, but most people are just, well, I think "average" is putting it nicely. Have you been to the mall or any other public place lately? Wow.
>> Abortion is an easy way out. If you can't make the correct choice to have sex or not, to use protection or not, then you should have to live with the consequences>>
You should have to live with the consequences? So... pregnancy and parenthood as punishment, then? You sound awfully vindictive. So, have sex without protection like when you're a stupid teenager, or even with protection and it fails, and be punished for it for the rest of your life and the child's? Yeah. That sounds like a great recipe for the neverending cycle of misery and poverty that some people get stuck in.
Former POW with McCain tells of war experience..sm
http://www.thenma.org/blogs/index.php/theveteransvoice/2008/07/05/former_pow_with_mccain_tells_of_war_expe
.....Though he seldom speaks of it, the only reason Knutson retells the horrific tale of his time in North Vietnam is to help people, especially children, realize the sacrifices others have made for their freedom. It’s a sacrifice he’s made, and it’s one McCain has made.
And that in itself tells Knutson what kind of president John McCain would be.
The same SP who tells Couric she is a feminist and
while she chafes and bristles during the Williams interview (when seated next to McC)? Keeping track of one's own stance on gender issues should not present such conflict and challenge to a VP pick. SP does doesn't blink and eye at McC's air quotes and sneering "mother's health" utterance, in view of her own stance on women's reproductive rights, whereby she cuts no slack, even in the case of rape and incest victims. In addition, she supports McCain's views on the issue of equal pay for women.
More than four decades after the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay men and women different wages for the same work, the fight over equal pay has not been put to rest. Although the wage gap has narrowed since the days when full-time working women made 58 cents on average to the dollar earned by men, women's wages have remained stuck at 77 cents to the dollar since 2001 (the shrub era).
McCain's contribution? In 1985, McCain voted against a study to investigate pay differences among federal employees, and determine whether they were the result of discrimination. His progress in the last 23 years? In April 2008 McCain voted against Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, stating it “opens us up for lawsuits, for all kinds of problems and difficulties.” "We do not need to put this burden of equal pay on business. Women need more education and better training.
Failin Palin is no suffragette. As a matter of fact, a McCain/Palin administration would set back the gains women have made toward equality at least 35 years. For many of us, we may as well keep right on going, straight back to the turn of the 20th century.
My conscience tells me that it is murder.....sm
and that is even apart from what my religious beliefs tell me. I believe in life at the moment of conception as I stated in my post above. I won't go into all that again.
As far as amounts and agencies and how monies from my taxes and every one else's taxes are distributed to help provide medical care for those who receive free (to them) medical care, of course I can't provide that. I am not privy to where each of my tax dollars go and how much of it is spent on various government agencies or governmental salaries, etc., and neither do you. Funny, though, you're not asking Obama to produce his birth certificate or from whom he received campaign contributions, huh.
Ann can be harsh, but she is so smart and tells
nm
He tells us who he is every single day. And it isn't pretty.
Your mother really was right, wasn't she? She always taught you to judge character by what people do and not what they say. BO exemplifies Mom's wisdom.
God tells us not to publish our good deeds.
,
A separate issue entirely. History tells us that
nm
Life experience tells me 90% over 8 years =
su
Well I guess if you pray to the same Allah who tells others
to chop off the heads of Americans and those who are not Islam, then yes. Somehow that's not the God I pray to. But if that's the one you do - more power to ya. There are different gods.
Agree! Rush can be harsh, but tells it like it is.
nm
Bush tells Larry King that Ken Lay was a *good guy*
Video at: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/07/bush-lay/
Transcript:
KING: The death of Ken Lay.
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: I know he was your friend. How do you feel? Were you shocked?
G. BUSH: I was. I was very surprised. You know, just — my hope is that his heart was right with the Lord, and I feel real sorry for his wife. She’s had a rough go, and she’s now here on earth to bear the burdens of losing her husband, a man she loved.
KING: Was that whole thing, the whole Enron story shocking to you?
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: Because, I mean, you knew him pretty well from Texas, right?
G. BUSH: Pretty well, pretty well. I knew him. I got to know him. This — people don’t believe this, but he actually supported Ann Richards in the ‘94 campaign.
KING: She told me that.
G. BUSH: She did?
KING: She liked him a lot.
G. BUSH: Yes, he’s a good guy. And so what I did — then did was we had a business council, and I kept him on as the chairman of the business council. And, you know, got to know him and got to see him in action.
One of the things I respected him for was he was such a contributor to Houston’s civil society. He was a generous person. I’m disappointed that there was this — he betrayed the trust of shareholders, but…
KING: Did you know him well, Mrs. Bush?
L. BUSH: I knew him. Not really well, but I did know him.
KING: Did you know his wife?
L. BUSH: And I know Linda and I’m sorry for her.
KING: Did you contact her?
L. BUSH: I haven’t.
G. BUSH: I haven’t yet. I’m going to write her a letter at some point in time.
All that tells me is he doesn't want to break in a new pair of shoes...
can't say as I blame him. lol.
He tells the truth. has guts. Shows compassion
nm
Okay, so only Fox News tells the truth. I see where you're coming from. nm
nm
Pelosi tells illegal immigrants that work site raids are un-American
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/pelosi-tells-illegal-immigrants-work-site-raids-american
so if lies he is condemned, and if he tells the truth he is condemned
interesing reasoning
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 ... 
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!
I only found one story on this. sm
From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead. The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers.
|
