This woman, Phyllis, is a friend and former
co-employee of a very good friend of mine. My friend went to her trial on
Monday. We'd been following this for the past year. I was surprised
they found here guilty so easily, but I guess rules are rules. Now
remember, Phyllis is a retired teacher from Fox Valley Technical
College and her description was that the guard kept touching her breasts and
crotch over and over like she was enjoying it. Now bear in mind that this
guard was investigating the privates of a 62-year-old gray-haired retired
schoolteacher from Appleton at the Appleton, Wisconsin airport - a very
small airport. Wondered what you all thought --- as for me I'm
undecided. I see this made the national headlines.
Woman Convicted of Groping Screener
GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) - A woman who was upset over
being searched bodily at an airport was convicted Tuesday of assaulting a
security screener by grabbing the federal officer's breasts.
A federal jury heard the case against retired
teacher Phyllis Dintenfass, who also allegedly shoved the screener during the
search at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton in September 2004.
Dintenfass, 62, faces up to a year in federal prison
and $100,000 in fines. The judge set sentencing for Nov. 1.
12px>On Monday, Transportation Security Administration screening supervisor
Anita Gostisha testified that Dintenfass activated metal detectors at a
checkpoint, and she heard Dintenfass say she thought the problem was bobby pins
and barrettes in her hair.
Gostisha said she took the woman to another
screening area, where she used a handheld wand. Gostisha said she was following
protocol when she also performed a ``limited pat-down search.''
Gostisha said she was using the back of her hands to
search the area underneath Dintenfass' breasts when the woman lashed out at her.
``She said `How would you like it if I did that to
you?' and slammed me against the wall,'' Gostisha testified. ``She came at me
and grabbed my breasts and squeezed them.''
Distenfass claimed she acted in self-defense.
``I said, 'What are you doing? No one's done that to
me before,''' she said. ``And she kept going ... for what felt like an
interminably long time.''
Dintenfass denied shoving Gostisha, but admitted
putting her hands on the agent's breasts.
``I was mortified that I had done that,'' she said.
``I was reacting to what felt like an absolute invasion of my body.''
U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said TSA officers
perform a vital service and are entitled to protection from assault.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
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.
This admin. doesn't ALLOW itself to be put on trial.
What a copout! - it's only accusations! And that's all it's ever likely to be because this administration with the help of its corrupt and partisan congressional majority simply refuses to allow any independent inquiry into its crooked dealings. Let's not pretend that we actually have a balance of power in the federal govt. sufficient to allow normal due process to occur. So go on with your just accusations simpering - try these crimes in an international court and see how long they stay that way.
I should have said Lunsford *investigation*, not trial...sm
I don't think that crumb cake has had his trial yet.
They haven't been brought to trial yet....(sm)
because a) some of them would be innocent and would have to be set free, and b) Bush obviously had no plan for those who would be found guilty. Actually, about half of them haven't even been charged yet, much less had a trial. I honestly think the whole point of Gitmo is torture. I think that Bush actually thought it was a viable means for gaining information, which has been proven to be incorrect. Basically, the longer they can keep them there, the longer they can torture.
WARNING!!
This video should not be viewed by older women with bladder control issues. Trust me on this one.
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.
Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.
He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.
Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.
Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.
The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.
Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.
That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.
Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.
Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.
Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.
In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.
Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.
The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.
trial date set for muzzammil hassan
The "moderate Muslim" who beheaded his wife right here in New York because she served him with with divorce papers and an order of protection. And it's only second degree murder????
This board is not moderated for niceness. Opinions are allowed, welcomed and encouraged. Difficult subject matter is expected. Disagree, argue, debate but do it without name-calling and without cursing, lewdness or childish tit-for-tat posting.
With every post you make, you should do so with the expectation that someone will have a response and it may be the exact opposite of yours.
Stop threatening each other with Moderator action or trying to flag posts on the board. Use the Report Message button at the top of the page.
This is a hot-topic board and we can have some lively debates and arguments without getting so personally insulting.
The President wants the detention center closed within a year. Now the search is on to find new places to hold detainees while they await trial.
One of the places under consideration is Fort Bragg. It's not hard to image the base being considered a possibly site to relocate Gitmo detainees. In the past, Bragg has sent PAO teams and military police units to the detention center in Cuba.
North Carolina congressman David Price says the center should have been shut down long ago.
"it's just unacceptable to have that facility remaining open with people detained indefinitely with no resolution of their cases, no rights at all to even know what they're accused of," he offered.
But Price isn't sure that Bragg should be a serious consideration.
"It will have to be a very high security facility and my understanding of Fort Bragg is there is nothing like the kind of facility that would be required, but I don't know. I'm not going to presume what facilities will be chosen," he said.
Price is right. Right now, soldiers awaiting trial at Fort Bragg on a variety of charges are held in the Cumberland County detention center. Folks who live in Fayetteville have mixed views about bringing suspected terrorists to the community.
"That can be kind of scary actually... having that type of element here in our homeland and where we live," Offered resident Marco Clark.
"Well, we've got to put them some place and in that case Fort Bragg wouldn't be a bad idea," said David McCune.
Military leaders have a year to figure out where they're going to put the detainees. Sources say Camp Pendleton, Charleston Naval Base, and Fort Leavenworth might be better choices than Fort Bragg. Leavenworth may be the number one choice because it's the military's only maximum security prison.
institution that does not follow our strict definitions of correctness. All or nothing thinking. For us or against us. Faux cult. True Believers.
WARNING about opening links some
got a nice, nasty worm on my computer for my trouble. Attacking verbally is one thing, but attacking people's computers is pretty low. That poster better hope like he!! her employer doesn't get that same worm from her.
Not to mention...how about a 25,000 year warning?....sm
The Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012.....the year Obama's term as president, will be nearing its end....
Hubby was telling me last night that China's economy is now tanking because ours is. Factory workers over there were showing up for work only to find their business had closed because of lack of orders from the U.S. India may be next. You never know. I don't see it happening with MT but like I said, you just don't know. Did you see their work days? 6 days a week and something like 12 or 14 hours a day?
I hear lip service from Nobama/Maobama about cutting taxes to bring our businesses back but don't see him acting on it. He's a one-termer. Carter got us in a heap of trouble which Reagan (I know union employees aren't fond of him) had to get us out of. All Nobama is doing is having construction/building jobs sprout up here and there. And where does the money come from to pay for his multi-trillion dollar spending? You got it - us. Those jobs will eventually fizzle out, our country will be poorer and those people will once again be unemployed..
Dems coined the phrase Voodoo Economics for Reagan's Trickle Down Economics. Whether or not you liked the man, he did a world of good for this country. He did cut capital gains taxes and cut taxes for the rich. Trickle down 101: You cut taxes for the rich, they can afford to hire more employees, more often than not, at better wages. Unemployment is down. People go out and spend more money because they are employed and can afford to. During Reagan's terms in office, he cut taxes immensely yet the government took in more money. People would much rather spend their money the way they want than have the government take it and spend it.
Folks, we work for our government. Our government should be working for us. We should not live in fear of the IRS. I attended a TEA party on April 15 and will attend more such events. We should have a government for the people, of the people and by the people. The protest was very peaceful and guess what? Not a bit of litter was left to be found when it ended, like the disgrace that was left after the inauguration in Washington, DC.
We are getting so far away from a constitutional government, it's not funny. Actually, my opinion is that we are currently a socialist government. You know the next step after socialism? Communism.
I read the most recent list of who they consider a terrorist. Hoarding food? Um, yep. Better buy it now in case a depression hits. Glad I have a breadmaker. Wouldn't want to have to spend $50 on a loaf of bread. Buying lots of ammo? Sure, but then again, we do competition shooting. Guns? Yeah, we have our share, but variety is the spice of life (Hubby bought me a Macarov but I didn't care for the way it operated (too hard to load the mag), especially after the slide came back and sliced my thumb open 5 times, bad lacerations - my fault, was handling it wrong, so I got a Glock). My husband is an Iraqi war vet. That makes us both domestic terrorists. Yet neither one of us even has the heart to even discipline our dogs. We're both very gentle people. Of course if someone broke into our home, we would defened ourselves.
I'm sorry for the rant but I just don't see Nobama caring much about outsourcing. I really really really hope I am wrong and what he is doing for our country is the right thing but I truly resent being labeled a domestic terrorist because I see us headed for a depression and am stocking up on food, and my husband happened to be in the military during the Gulf war.
Everything below is from their official, sanitized website, but for the real view of this group read their forum which includes lots of photos of firearms, many with children alongside them.
________________
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
(From the Mission portion of the website):
War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.
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.
Do any of you watch Survivor? I love that show. I think Im in pretty good shape but there is no way I could survive for a month on an island like they do but I like to watch and make believe that I could (smile). Snakes and alligators and bugs..YIPES.
Don't know who you are referring to but I suppose all countries have residents who don't wish it well but I assume that statistically they would be a very tiny minority as really, why would they live in a place they wish to see destroyed? Seems silly.
This country seems to be unable to educate itself about the nature of our foe. We rely on leaders who seem to flaunt their ignorance about the middle eastern culture. So perhaps you are right, there are those who wish us harm.....by utilizing repeatedly the same failed techniques/agendas that as you stated, continue to stoke the fires of hate that have been burning for a very very long time -- the agendas of ignorance and unwillingness to learn from history. As long as this runaway ignorance prevails our soldiers will continue to die along with the Iraqi civilians and our world will become less safe.
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.
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.
It is kind of sad, really....
As virulent a Bush hater and advocate for pulling out of Iraq immediately that Murtha is, for him to say what he said, and the fact that you don't give it a bit of creedence is a pretty sad thing, piglet. And you can bet if they had picked and chosen spots in Baghdad to show him, he would have been on the Senate floor saying so. He sure hasn't been shy about castigating and condemning to this point. You just absolutely are unwilling to accept ANYthing positive, even from a Bush-hating pull out of Iraq now Democrat. WOW. 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 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.
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.
SM is kind of right
There is a world of heartache ahead in the very near future. In case you haven't been following the trend, there is one church that has been advising its members for over 100 years to stock pile food and supplies, be self-sufficient, and otherwise make nice with the world. The holocaust is coming, but there isn't going to be some saving-grace rapture first. The righteous people will collect into specific locations to survive while the unrighteous have a slug fest and kill each other off. Its very real and it is likely going to be within this lifetime.
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
Kind of the same ol same ol
My understanding is if you used to be a Muslim and then change (or say you have changed for whatever reason) that is a big problem for them. I've known for a long time that OBL would put out threats and he has.
This goes to prove that he has more to worry about from the outside than within the US.
You are so so kind - thank you
Thank you for your post. I know what you mean about feeling stuck.
My dad. He lives in CT. He was working for Foxwoods Casino since the day it opened. When they were first talking about building the Casino back in 1986 (I think that was the year). He received a letter from the Indian tribe asking if he would like to be a poker dealer (they paid for training and meals). At that time he was unemployed and could not find work anywhere (he was in the Army during the Gulf War and when that ended the military "dumped" thousands and thousands of people and he found himself jobless, homeless, and hopeless. Then he received the letter and accepted and he was the third person to be hired to work at the Casino. While he worked there after he had an illness because he worked in an environment filled with cigarette smoke, so they transferred him to a department (marketing I believe) and he has worked there ever since. He loved his job sooooooo much. When I talked to him at Thanksgiving he said he was going to take a computer class (he said he doesn't even know what the on button looks like on a computer. HA HA.) He said he was learning the basics of email and stuff, but the last time I talked to my sis she said he tried checking his email from her computer but didn't know how to do it, so not sure how the computer class went.
I know he's working with some guy at the unemployment office, but my dad said he's going nuts not having a job to go to and spend the day at. He is checking the local stores (greeter, bagger, cashier or whatever they need). I'll check on the AARP program and send him some information. He's talking now about possibly having to sell his truck so he will have some money for food. I wish I could help him out more, but with one income we are barely making it ourselves, and my dad is a kind of proud person and not sure if he would accept any money from his kids.
I think that lumping people together and making gross inaccurate generalizations does nothing but prevent any intelligent discourse from occurring, and that's very sad because these issues are very serious. Our very ability to keep BREATHING may be in jeopardy, particularly if we don't start concentrating on our own safety. Bush has made Iraq much less safe place to be, and he hasn't done much to make the United States a safe place to be. If we truly NEED our military someday to protect US in a homeland attack, where will they all be?
What also worries me is that our enemies might consider this a bilateral "religious" war. They already believe it is, yelling and effecting "Jihad." But the current focus on one particular brand of Christianity in this country -- not religion in general, but one particular BRAND of Christianity -- makes me wonder if Bush himself doesn't think this is a religious war. The fact that he might think so is what scares me the most, as history tell us they are the most deadly, bloody wars of all. I personally don't want the U.S. to be known as a "Christian" nation. One of the things I love the most about this country is the freedom that we're SUPPOSED to have to worship freely, and I will personally oppose anyone who tries to take that away from us.
It's sad that tolerance and respect aren't in more people's hearts and souls.
Thanks, that's kind of what I thought...
dede
I responsed in kind. NM Kind of off topic
Do any of you ever watch subtitle South Korean shows? Out here in CA, we have a channel that is for mainly Indian/Asian shows and I gotta tell ya, I have gotten to like the South Korean mini series..they last about 18 shows, twice a week..They are so good and have made me understand the Asian culture so much..I have a Japanese friend and I was astonished when I went to her home, you take your shoes off and sit on the floor for eating, sleep on the floor..all the things I thought were in the past..Plus, a big bonus, at least I think so, Asian guys are so cute. Hey, conservatives, if you are gonna attack me for this post, save it..okay? IMO, learning about others will keep us alive and not bombing each other.
wow the holidays must not be kind to you
yikes
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.
marks the location of current message within thread
!["](http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_01.gif")
!["](http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_02.gif")
