Have you ever seen me post anything about the Kenyan brother story?
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-01
In Reply to: Yes it is. That family off limits rule did not - Apply to the Obama/Kenyan brother story recently,
I don't remember seeing that on this board at all. Maybe I missed that. I realize there are those on both sides who engage in this kind of thing...but does that mean that everyone has to en masse? Could not individuals decide that was not the thing to do, like your candidate asked?
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 posted under Libby's post which brother up *other* families
Libby made it fair game. She brought it up...
Excuse me. All I did was post a link to a CBS news story
the ideas you brought up in your original post trying to imply that O's AG nominee was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think that kind of inaccurate accusation deserves some sort of defense. You evidently have a tough time digesting data that in any way contradicts your thinking, so now we have gotten to the place where I am a pouncing, bug-squashing know-it-all who slaughters innocent insects with my windshield? For posting a link to a reputable news article written directly in the aftermath of 9/11 (YEARS before Mr. Holder's nomination). Really? Don't you think you may be over-reacting just a tad?
Interesting story regarding a post below about the so-called "racist" John Gibson...
A reporter for an NBC affiliate in Baltimore who inserted a racist remark into a video clip of FOX News' John Gibson and posted it on YouTube is no longer employed A reporter for an NBC affiliate in Baltimore who inserted a racist remark into a video clip of FOX News' John Gibson and posted it on YouTube is no longer employed by the station.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499525,00.html
His father was a Kenyan citizen. We all know that. What is ...sm
your point. He was not adopted by his Kenyan father. The point is that his mother was an American citizen. It doesn't matter where he was born. What is it that you don't understand about that? Mexicans and Canadians, as well as students and others from many other foreign citizens give birth every year and their children are American citizens. If what you say is true, and I do not believe it for a minute, why would you think that an American citizen giving birth in a foreign country would not automatically convey citizenship onto her baby? Get real. This is not what the constitution intends. This is just a diversionary tactic by desperate people.
He had the right to accept his Kenyan citizenship... sm
at age 21 and since he didn't, it expired. Hence his only citizenship is his American citizenship.
His sweet little Kenyan grandmother was there....
and she said herself that she is so proud to have witnessed the birth IN KENYA of her grandson who will be the next POTUS. Can't deny that one.
Obama is an adopted child of a Kenyan man
not have US citizenship once he was adopted. You need to go work on that one. Only way he could be a US citizen after that is going through the immigration dept process again, applying for citizenship, of which they ALSO do not have any papers on that.
His father was a Kenyan. His mother married an Indonesian man who adopted him. However, no one...s
no matter who adopts you, gives up their US citizenship. Only that person at age 21 can do that. Obama had the choice at 21 to adopt Indonesion or Kenyan citizenship, but he chose to remain an American citizen.
LOL!!!! Oh brother. nm
oh brother !!!!!!!!
Don't you ever search out the truth or do you just ignore it altogether. Obama has come out and denounced Farrakhan. He doesn't agree with him and he has told Minister Farrakhan this. He finds Farrakhans comments disgraceful and not something he wants in his campaign. However, he can't stop someone from saying they like him and want him as president. There are lots of biggots out there with enough money to get their opinion heard whether its garbage or not. Spreading malicious garbage like this is so disgusting it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I guess you would rather have a president who is a socialist (you should read about her background).
SP brother in law
Anyone see the interview on CNN last night with SP's brother in law (the one she tried to have fired). I did not see it. What did he say?
SPs ex-brother-in-law....
This is a man wearing the uniform of the state police. The issues involved were: He tasered his 11-year-old stepson (who asked him to, but what kind of responsible adult would do such a thing?? And one who would should NOT be wearing the uniform of the state police in my humble opinion), he was found drunk on the job in his patrol car, and told his ex-father-in-law if he got his daughter a lawyer he would be eating an f'ing bullet. Now Palin says she did not fire the man who SHOULD HAVE fired this lowlife for that reason, but for other reasons. I choose to believe her, HOWEVER, if she HAD fired him for not firing this lowlife I would be in agreement with her 110%. This guy's boss was obviously NOT doing his job. It is a no-brainer. This man SHOULD have been fired. He has no business being in the state police. His appalling lack of judgment should be reason enough.
No, brother.
Well now, let's see. Is it that high-pitched nasal quality, the cheerleader lilt, the putred perk, the colloquialisms, the rambling, the echoes of Minnie Mouse, the shrill screech, the squeal, the Fran Drescher (Nanny) interludes, the nagging quality, the snide conceit, the holier-than-thou undertones, the sarcasm, the audible sneering, the condescension, or the arrogant tone that chaps you so?
Oh brother
So let me get this right...you ridicule and cut down anyone who posts a link from Fox yet you continue to post from BSNBC????????
Say it ain't so Joe.
Brother Bill
Apparently people have forgotten their outrage over Clinton's zipper problem in the White House and now he's revered regardless of the fact that he made us the laughing stock of the world. So why the outrage about Edwards? I'm outraged that he would do this to his gravely ill wife. As for Clinton, I lost all respect for Hillary for "standing by her man."
HE DOESN'T HAVE A BROTHER!
He has a half-sister.........................................Jeezus......it is raining stupid
tolerance...........oh brother!!!
Listen, I don't give a rat's butt about all this political PC garbage. Muslim countries hate us..... plain and simple. They so-called "religion" teaches hatred, not love, not tolerance, but pure hatred!! What about that don't you get?
After 9/11 everyone got to PC about profiling. We're worried about profiling? H@ll with that.....I saw profile them to death. If I happen to be on a plane, you better believe I, just like everyone else, was watching them like a hawk. You can be PC about everything if you want, but this is my country, not the Muslims. They have a country. They do not teach tolerance of ANYONE but themselves.
This has nothing to do with intolerance of those different than me. What an idiotic statement. I live in a community with people different than me in so many ways, it would take a while but one thing they all agree on.....they love this country more than they care about being PC. I posted a few days ago about a Muslim couple in our neighborhood. And, they said they would go back to their country any day if they felt safe. They feel no allegiance to this country. They will tell you they do not agree with bin Laden's hatred, but they do admit their sons are taught the Q'ran, which does not teach love of anyone but other Muslims. They fear their daughters could be stoned or raped and they know no one there will protect them. They take comlpete advantage of our schools to educate their children, but there is no allegiance to this country. You need to get off your PC pot because as you can see, that'll get us nowhere real fast!!!
Tolerance, what a joke. Why don't we just tolerate them coming on over here and taking another 9/11 blow at us? Will that be enough tolerance for ya?
That should read: No brother,
That's the second time I messed up the name line this morning. Must need a 3rd cup.
Oh brother - where to start is right.
His father left his mother when he was a baby? Yet Obama was able to write a whole book based on him? He has some communication with Kenyan relatives but not all? Where did you hear this? Wait...from him? Is that his explanation? So where did you study African Tribal Family Structures and the American family strucures? I think maybe people should take a break from the Survivor TV show. If the sheeple want to be led around blindly and actually buy into the same ol retoric of oh poor Obama, he didn't know he had an aunt or a cousin or an uncle because that's the way the "tribes in Africa" are, but he knows about all these others relative (Cheney & Irish ones). Glad I'm awake through all of this. Staying away from Survivor and doing some research does the mind some good.
Am I my brother's keeper?
Am I My Brother's Keeper
I find it interesting that he does not help his family. He has a brother living in poverty. CNN is not the station I would listen too as they are not going to tell you all about the candidates, or is MSNBC.
But it is true he has a brother living in poverty. My question is...why is he so willing to spread everyone else's wealth around but not his own.
Interesting.
Oh brother - get off the kool-aid
This is even weirder than the OP message.
Where's that icon of someone throwing up!
Oh brother. Obama is doing something,
You cannot spend and spend and think you are going to get out of a recession, but will cause inflation/depression.
If you are in debt, would you keep on spending more and more and get more into debt? No, you cut things out to reduce costs and try to pay off things. You find out you are in so much debt, you ask family and friends to bail you out. It works for awhile, but you are still in debt and now in more debt because of owing money to family and friends and before you know it, you are bankrupt which is just what is going to happen with this country. It is happening now.
As for creating jobs, sure, I am going to apply now to help make bridges and roads. Sorry, not my line of work.
If Obama fails, he stated at a town hall rally in Fort Myers, Fla, where the president promoted the bill, he said that in "a few years from now" if his prescriptions haven't worked and people don't feel like he's led the country in the right direction, "then you'll have a new president."
Hello, of course not, no one will vote for him again.
That was a clear reference to his likely re-election bid in four years.
Obama said he won't make any excuses if he fails in his effort to turn the economy around or improve the health care system.
"I won't lie to you," he said.
Obama hailed the Senate's passage of the massive stimulus bill.
"That's good news," the president said repeatedly in announcing the Senate's action to the crowd, as people jumped to their feet and cheered.
By the way, McCain is running for re-election and stated:
Being the Republican nominee for President was one of the great honors of my life and an experience I will never forget. Some have wondered, after my hard fought presidential campaign, if I plan to run for re-election to the United States Senate.
I want you to know that I do intend to seek re-election. The magnitude of the financial crisis that many American families are facing makes it clear to me that I want to continue to serve our country in the Senate.
The economic challenges currently confronting our nation are immense and unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress propose addressing these challenges through increased spending that wastes billions of taxpayers dollars and saddles our children and grandchildren with a staggering debt. Their proposals will not stimulate economic growth or create jobs. While the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, has pledged to change business as usual in Washington and spoken of bipartisanship, I have been saddened to watch as Congressional Democrats try to use their majority to advocate more of the same failed policies and wasteful spending of the past. With so much at stake, now is not the time to step away from my work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Oh brother. Obama is doing something,
heading us for a major depression.
You cannot spend and spend and think you are going to get out of a recession, but will cause inflation/depression.
If you are in debt, would you keep on spending more and more and get more into debt? No, you cut things out to reduce costs and try to pay off things. You find out you are in so much debt, you ask family and friends to bail you out. It works for awhile, but you are still in debt and now in more debt because of owing money to family and friends and before you know it, you are bankrupt which is just what is going to happen with this country. It is happening now.
As for creating jobs, sure, I am going to apply now to help make bridges and roads. Sorry, not my line of work.
If Obama fails, he stated at a town hall rally in Fort Myers, Fla, where the president promoted the bill, he said that in "a few years from now" if his prescriptions haven't worked and people don't feel like he's led the country in the right direction, "then you'll have a new president."
Hello, of course not, no one will vote for him again.
That was a clear reference to his likely re-election bid in four years.
Obama said he won't make any excuses if he fails in his effort to turn the economy around or improve the health care system.
"I won't lie to you," he said.
Obama hailed the Senate's passage of the massive stimulus bill.
"That's good news," the president said repeatedly in announcing the Senate's action to the crowd, as people jumped to their feet and cheered.
By the way, McCain is running for re-election and stated:
Being the Republican nominee for President was one of the great honors of my life and an experience I will never forget. Some have wondered, after my hard fought presidential campaign, if I plan to run for re-election to the United States Senate.
I want you to know that I do intend to seek re-election. The magnitude of the financial crisis that many American families are facing makes it clear to me that I want to continue to serve our country in the Senate.
The economic challenges currently confronting our nation are immense and unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress propose addressing these challenges through increased spending that wastes billions of taxpayers dollars and saddles our children and grandchildren with a staggering debt. Their proposals will not stimulate economic growth or create jobs. While the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, has pledged to change business as usual in Washington and spoken of bipartisanship, I have been saddened to watch as Congressional Democrats try to use their majority to advocate more of the same failed policies and wasteful spending of the past. With so much at stake, now is not the time to step away from my work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Lastly, I just have to say this. I bet those 3 pubs were blackmailed. Probably did not pay their taxes either. LOL.
my ex-brother-in-law got SSI because he had a temper! nm
x
Answer to Brother!, not Skeet
You sound like Big Brother! Creepy!
Lawsuit...Biden's son and brother....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082302200.html?dbk
oh, brother. just some nice photos,
for crying in a bucket!
Ran this past my brother who is a lawyer and...sm
a republican I might add (much to my chagrin) and he said it is a frivolous lawsuit. He added, which I already knew, it does not matter where he was born, who his father was, who he was adopted by, or where he went to school. His mother is an American citizen and he is therefore an American citizen, period. This is all just smoke and mirrors, lies, diversions from the real issues.
I didn't know Pete had a brother. LOL!
God bless!
BTW, how many adoptions has your brother dealt
NM
Oh brother. Dems are launching a
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Oh, I forgot, we have to "change" to socialism. Well, I did not vote for it and proud of it. YES I CAN.
Oh brother!...now you're really stretching..
What a silly statement.
Oh brother - president of death???? please
Because our president believes in a woman's right to choose you call him a president of death??????? Because he's fighting so that children themselves who get pregnant and not emotionally or physically or financially able to have a baby don't have to have one you say he's a president of death?????
Your other post was religious oriented, hence with all the talk of God and how we're all doomed and are going to he!! that belonged on the faith board.
Our president is not a president of death. We have a president who is on the side of a woman being able to choose.
Obama does not want to "murder" babies. You really need to get your facts straight before proclaiming something that is incorrect. You may disagree (as I do about some of his policies - who doesn't), but to say the things you are saying is outrageous and bordering on lunacy.
Obama does not want babies murdered and he certainly is not a president of death. You are certainly the one who is misinformed (not uninformed).
If you want to protest taxes, health care, the spending bill, foreclosures of homes, loss of jobs, etc, that's one thing, but abortion is a religious viewpoint and by your posts professing to know that Jesus is alive/here (or however exactly you said that) and god this and god that and you'll be praying for all of us, etc. That is a topic for the faith board so take it there.
Oops - my slip it was OBL's brother - thanks for correcting me
On Sep 11, the morning of the attack, Bush Sr. meets with members of the Carlyle Group in Washington. Bin Laden's own brother was at the meeting.
Sorry about the mixup, thanks for pointing it out.
Did read it. So what? Take a chill pill, like my brother used to say....nm
x
He DOES have a half-brother living in Kenya
nm
Oh brother - it amazes me how many are caught up in a fantasy
.
WHERE DID I SAY I WAS WAITING FOR FREE MONEY...Oh brother...
I was making fun of your conspiracy theory regarding paid "SMs", but I think you know that.
As someone who watched my brother die in great pain......
and nausea, morphine not helping, dying of cancer, I would have given anything to give him relief. And now that I have systemic lupus, RA, Sjogren's and sarcoid, I at times wonder if pot would help (although I HATE smoking and never liked any drugs), but sometimes you just want so much to function.
I agree. We all know the ravages of cirrhosis and other alcohol-related diseases, I have had loved ones killed in car crashes involving alcohol, I see my kids losing friends to it, and I know of many "responsible adults" who still think nothing of driving after "only having a couple." If it were medically managed by a physician for documented conditions, if it helps in pain (I mean, like OxyContin, Percocet, and morphine are NOT being abused, sold on the street, etc?), I think it would be worth a shot with strict regulations, could be a HUGE cash crop for California as well as other states. And I am sick of the argument that it encourages people to be drug addicts. Come on, how many people become alcoholics because it is legal, and solely for that purpose? If someone has addictive behavior disorders and genetic predisposition, they are going to abuse Robitussin, alcohol, sex, ANYTHING. And how about how cigarette smoking affects the economy. There are millions of people on Medicaide and disability with emphysema, lung CA, and heart disease that can be attributed to tobacco, but because of tobacco lobbyists for decades and decades, we will never outlaw cigarettes. JMHO
Our sympathies to your lame brother. But shouldn't this
x
I visited this site. My brother, who is schizophrenic, goes to sites like this. sm
Sorry, but I don't care for this kind of site on the extreme right or left. It has no believability.
Big Brother is I believe a covert force infiltrating each and every one's personal lives without
their knowledge. That is hardly the same thing as a poster on an MT board noticing that 4 different names post the same thing. I think that is creepy. I have been on this board for a long time and I recognize patterns, phrases that are repeated verbatim from far in the past, things people remember about me and say something like ***weren't you the one who ....*** and it is posted under a name different from the original. I leave Big Brother to our shadow government, wherever they are.
What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.
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.
|
