They mentioned this story
Posted By: Chele on 2008-10-24
In Reply to: Attacked campaign worker - sm
on The O'Reilly Factor last night. I saw the picture of her. She says that she was at an ATM and was attacked by someone when they saw a McCain sticker on her car. Bill O'Reilly mentioned that ATMs have cameras and they said the camera didn't pick up anything. The B on her cheek was supposedly done by a knife. Bill O'Reilly said that it didn't look like a knife wound to him and I must agree. I'm a republican and I know that there are some wacko Obama supporters out there, but I just don't think this story is true. We will see though.
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
i mentioned it before
and there was an outcry that I made it up. I have no investment in it at all -- true or untrue. I do enjoy novelty information, though, and thought others might enjoy it also.
Consider them mentioned
They're as blad as the Black Power people. Not all blacks or all whites are lumped into the same mold donchaknow so don't be so defensive.
I have never mentioned anyone's looks!!! RU serious? never nm
some people are confused here
If you do all that you mentioned...........sm
such as paying your bills and providing for your family, then you wouldn't have to worry about the government telling you what you can or can't buy, etc. Only those who refuse to work and draw government assistance in the form of commodities would be told, in a sense, what they could eat. I look at it as an incentive to get folks to get jobs and provide for their families. In my opinion, if the government provides one's housing, medical care, food and other essentials of life, then the government has every right to dictate where one lives, etc.
CNN mentioned what?
?
Your name wasn't mentioned
I never saw the name gt mentioned in the post referred to.
Obama DID say what Sam mentioned!
nm
Thanks for sharing. All of this has been mentioned
before. When one actually looks at the facts, it is hard to believe that there are still people who believe in Barry's false hope and empty promises. So much for that change he keeps preaching about when him and his advisors are a big part of the current problems we have now.
I saw that mentioned last night
on TV. I didn't see the whole video clip of them singing but the little bit I did see was enough to show me how eerie and just messed up that is. This whole thing is just creepy.
well you mentioned those countries
in reference to our new socialist societies and you brought up the revolution, so ...
I mentioned nothing of Obama--I said that anyone
who thinks that socialized medicine is a good idea...
You mentioned Wal-Mart....
Unionize Wal-Mart and there goes your low prices. You can't have it both ways. Why do you think cars cost so much? You really think it costs that much to build them? The costs for those contracts is passed right on down to us, the consumers.
As to the teamsters union...can you say organized crime? Jimmy Hoffa sound familiar? The only rich people in unions are the people in the hierarchy of the union, and how many times have we heard about them stealing pension money?
And Barack Obama wants to do away with secret ballot voting in unions. You know why there is a secret ballot? So the union organizers won't be able to intimidate people. I worked at a hospital that a union was trying to organize. I have experienced first-hand how union organizers work, and it ain't pretty.
That being said, labor unions in their beginnings were needed and were a wonderful thing. But like many other good things, they have become about money and power and the rank and file are WAY down on the totem pole.
Problem is, all those good programs, pensions and health care are paid for by we the people. That is why plants close. That is why businesses go overseas, because there is only so much we the people are willing to pay. Wal-Mart knows that, that is why they don't want to unionize.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Yes, why hasn't anything been mentioned about that?
She had the meeting yesterday with them. I didn't hear a thing about it.
Okay, some of things mentioned is, nm
x
Yeah. Once he mentioned it.
But read the rest and tell me how many times he mentions Islam, Muslins, and the rest:
"As the Holy Quran tells us: "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do, to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar University that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed.
Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognise my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote: "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."
And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Quran that one of our Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: Epluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the US government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Same here, but the poster mentioned Republicans so that's why I
I just don't get what the big deal is. I'm not shoving my views down Democrats throats, I'm just commenting and for that matter, the Democrats could always participate in posts on the Conservatives board.
I mentioned something about an athiest board and
she emailed me back and gave me websites of other places to go to for that. IMO you should not have one w/o ther other..After all there are conservative/liberal boards. I will stay here too and not be a part of her new website.
McCain mentioned the 800 thousand, but O
nm
It also mentioned a birth announcement
"Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4."
Now, while that may not be a legal document, I highly doubt that way back on August 4, 1961, Obama's mother decided to state that he was born in Hawaii because some day he might grow up to be president.
There was no legal reason why she would have done that. He would have been considered a citizen, even if he had been born in Kenya. Maybe not natural born, but legal, and she would have had no reason to lie ... way, way, way back then.
Either way, what you're stating is that several INDEPENDENT organizations, including a legal court of America, are lying or covering up the truth FOR Obama.
It's a paranoid accusation to a very high degree, and I think, if nothing else, the campaigns this year have done nothing but heighten these delusions.
On both sides, even.
The Obama birth question may forever live in the annals of conspiracy theory - along with the U.S. moon landing "hoax" and the presence of reptilians who can shapeshift at will - but it would behoove our country to recognize it as an unproductive, divisive conspiracy theory that deserves much less attention than, say, a strong, compassionate, united nation.
how many times was tea party mentioned? once?
much ado about nothing..............
Glenn Beck mentioned this
last week on his show. He is having a special show in New York this Friday. He is wanting all the people who care for their country to come together. We are to look at his website and join in on "We Surround Them".
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21018/?ck=1
It was the other way around: It is mentioned right here, in this article, that you quote
who were the aggressors and who the victims, in both wars, 1948 and 1967:
'Palestine became "the occupied territory" from which Palestinians were ejected and Israeli settlements built for "settlers." Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are full of refugee camps in which Palestinians driven off their lands by Israeli force have been living for decades.'
Everybody, by now, knows this or should know this!
It was mentioned that he was separated at the time
so I don't really know if I count that as an affair...
The woman he had the affair with was married...but wouldn't that be her bad?
You ascribe me feelings about people whose name I have never mentioned here.
His book is a bestseller. Evidently, many many people think he is credible. The world of credibility does not revolve around you, gt.
I should have mentioned I was a loyal Ron Paul supporter.
If that makes any difference.
Yep, the above-mentioned was just put on MSNBC. Hardly digging deep for
exist, as you said, and I was hoping to alert someone to that with my post. Thanks for the support.
I repeat...she mentioned upholding the Alaskan...
constitution twice. If she was one of "them" that is NOT what she would have said. Dailykos is a swamp with no bottom. They broke the nastiness about Palin's youngest child actually being the daughter's and ran with it, and the stuff there was vile. If that is "liberal opinion," and that is what you want to identify with, fine by me. Obama repudiated it...but he took their money.
Oh my, their leader was MURDERED. How many unexplained deaths surround the Clintons? Do we really want to go there?
Obama consorted with a known unapologetic anarchist/terrorist, William Ayers. And took money from him at a fundraiser at Ayer's house. So if you are going to blame Palin for making a video speech to this group, and not blame Obama for going to the house and taking the money of a man who bombed the Pentagon and police stations and caused deaths...does the term double standard ring any bells here?
Well, then aren't you sick and tired of the above-mentioned
Even those that in essence respresent ALL Americans, and not a particular party?
I know I sure am. I think it would be nice if we could all speak our minds on this board, without worrying about what little sammie is going to say about it.
The talking points must have mentioned using the word *impeach* as often as possible, too. NM
Another post below mentioned Hardball. This is an interview with parents
of a Marine who was killed this week in Iraq. Here is the transcript of the show. I think it's very compelling. These people certainly gave the ultimate sacrifice, and to me, their views are very important.
The interview with Ken Allard is also very interesting. This can all be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8838904/
MATTHEWS: Tonight, we begin with the parents of Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, who was among the 14 Marines who lost their lives in yesterday's attack in Iraq. His parents, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, join me now from their home outside Cleveland.
Well, it's a terrible thing to do, but I want to talk to you both about the war in Iraq and the loss of your son.
Ms. Palmer, did you sense that this war was very dangerous for your son, even before yesterday?
ROSEMARY PALMER, MOTHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, war is always dangerous. And there were so many deaths that it was starting to mount to the point where I was actually thinking yesterday that if Auggie (ph) were not among the 14 killed, I was almost to the point of calling the Department of Defense and just saying, for mental health reasons, he had to come home, that I couldn't handle it anymore. It was just too much.
MATTHEWS: What made you feel that the danger was growing?
PALMER: Well, it's the old game of the fewer. And the 325 unit that he's in has been having more and more casualties. And if you have fewer guys and the same number of people, well, then, the other—the chances are growing that your person is going to be the one that's hit.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Mr. Schroeder, why do you think we're in this war? What do you think is the real reason for this war in Iraq?
PAUL SCHROEDER, FATHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, I really don't know why. I could guess, which might be unfair. But I would guess it has to do with oil. It has to do with deposing a dictator that we used to love and came to hate.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
SCHROEDER: That goes on repeatedly.
MATTHEWS: What did your son say was his motivation for fighting? Was it just patriotism to our country or a belief in the mission?
SCHROEDER: He did not have a motivation to fight. He had a motivation to do his duty to the Marine Corps and to be part of the Marines. His entire life was devoted to doing what he promised he would do.
MATTHEWS: What did he tell you...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What did he say about how the war was going?
SCHROEDER: Well, early on, when his unit arrived there in March, he was talking about the friendly Iraqi people. After May and June, he stopped talking about the friendly people, not that they weren't friendly. But he stopped talking about it.
Two weeks ago, in the last conversation I had with him, he simply said, the closer we get to coming home, the less worth it this is.
MATTHEWS: How did you interpret that?
SCHROEDER: I took that to mean that his participation in Operation Matador, Operation New Market, Operation Sword, Operation Spear, and a couple others that I don't know the names of were failing. And that's, basically, the operations were intended to go into these towns, kick out the insurgents, take their weapons, arrest whoever they could, and then they would withdraw.
They only had to go back and find more insurgents in the same places. The fact that these 14 fellows were blown up indicates to me, logic would say, that this policy, this strategy, this tactic has failed.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Rosemary...
SCHROEDER: If it was successful, if it was successful, then he would still be alive, as would all those other kids.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Rosemary, let me ask you about the—what is your feeling about this war and the goal of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? And do you think that was a smart thing for us to try to do?
PALMER: It was a very naive thing for us to do.
You don't go to another culture and try to impose yours and expect it to work. We're not Iraqis. We don't have the same culture. And while I understand that we're a multicultural nation, we don't act like it sometimes. We act like the whole world thinks exactly the way we do.
MATTHEWS: Do you think that the war is going to get any better now that your son—I mean, you have paid the ultimate price? And, by the way, thank you. I don't know what it means to say thank you for your service, except I mean it. The courage of these young guys and some women over there is unbelievable. And I guess everybody wonders about the conduct of the war, whether they're being—these lives are being wasted or these lives are being put to good purpose.
What is your feeling about that now?
PALMER: Well, I personally believe that, since it is not working, then we have to make a change, that it is not worth the sacrifice if it is just more bodies on to the heap.
Like President Bush said, he wanted to stay the course and honor the memory of the ones who died by continuing to fight. If it didn't work before, why does fighting more—you know, you do the same thing over and over, that's—expecting a different result is, I think, the explanation of insanity.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
Well, the way you describe it, it is like pouring water into a sand hole on the beach and having it drain right through and start over again. It seems like a repetitive process that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
PALMER: Exactly.
SCHROEDER: Well, the repetitive process has been going on for 27 months, since the active invasion phase ended, 27 months of doing the same thing over and over and over again, with no evidence that it is getting better.
If there were evidence it was getting better—and I have yet to see it—and I—frankly, if it was getting better, these fellows would still be alive after all of this strenuous effort. Then it is time to make a change. Either put the number of troops on the ground that you need to really do the job or get the heck out.
MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense...
SCHROEDER: We have a saying—we have a saying in the Midwest, piss or get off the pot.
MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense, because of your son's tremendous, permanent, total sacrifice of his life and his experience in these months fighting this war, that the middle-level officers, the majors, the captains, do they have a sense of a clear vision of what they're getting done over there?
SCHROEDER: I can't speak to those fellows. I have great respect for the Marine officers at that level and the sergeants who made these troops, great respect.
I would tell you that they probably are frustrated, just like a lot of the ground troops, the lance corporals and the privates are. I would say that one thing that we have to make crystal clear, which is why we agreed to talk today, is that there is a—you cannot equate. There is a clear difference between supporting the troops on the ground and supporting the policies that put them there.
The president likes to make those—to equate those two things. If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. And too many American people are buying into that. I don't buy into that. Rosemary doesn't buy into that. It is time that we say, look, we can support the troops all until the cows come home.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHROEDER: We don't support the policies that put them there.
MATTHEWS: You two have more right to answer this question than anybody else in the country today. After reading those headline—and to most of us, they're just headlines. They're American G.I.s, Marines in this case, giving their lives for their country, 20-some this week, in that one part of the country in Iraq.
What should be the reaction of the American people who pick up their newspapers, watch television, and learn of these horrors? What should they do as a result of seeing that news, Mr. Schroeder?
SCHROEDER: They should stand up and tell President Bush, enough is enough. You've had your chance. Now let somebody else come up with a different plan. If you can't come up with a different plan that is going to work, in my view, that is more troops, then get out.
MATTHEWS: Rosemary, is that your view? Is that how we, all of us, not in the news business, regular Americans from your part of the country, across the country, getting this horrible news, how should they react to it?
PALMER: Well, I think most people are just saying, you know, the latter, just get out, because it is clearly—well, it is obvious that the politicians are not going to institute a draft. And with the number of deaths and the dangers being what they are, they are not going to get the recruits.
So, therefore, if you can't—you can't get enough guys to do the fighting, well, then you have to get out. Do it or get out of the game.
MATTHEWS: I got you. I heard your views and they sound similar.
Thank you very much for this hour of—this time of anguish, to be giving this information. I think the public needs to hear from folks like you.
Thank you very much, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, who lost their son, Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, just today, last 24 hours.
We'll be right back with HARDBALL.
You guys say mentioned this oil domination thing constantly, but
nobody explains exactly what the details of this oil domination are? Please, do explain. I'd love to know the details, not just the sound bite.
And yet when Christianity is mentioned, many on the left promptly point to the right.
Why is that?
Just as the other NEVER mentioned conservatives, this one doesn't mention liberals... at all. nm
nm
Do you automatically think all white Christians follow these evangelists you mentioned? nm
x
I heard work requirement mentioned a long time ago - nm
x
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT
RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.
As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.
With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.
Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.
RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:
Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record
What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Man From Illinois
In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:
There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.
SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:
create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):
design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.
"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.
(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-
`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.
It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.
Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]
Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.
In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]
I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.
I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.
Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically. She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor. She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly. That is not that unusual to me.
She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy. Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry. Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term. I understand that. I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby. That is typical.
As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time. I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant. I was shocked at how tiny she was. She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born. DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge.
I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well. Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection. It is very common. If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?
All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby. I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden. No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant. It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life. That is part of what is wrong with our society today.
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.
Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
Here is a follow up to the first story... sm
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=448&z=56
Real story from the MSM?.....sm
Bush controlled, corporate crony owned media telling the truth - not going to happen. That only happens when you have a democratic republic, not a corporate plutocracy. TV news definitely lies, suppresses, and distorts news.
|
