The story behind change.gov...
Posted By: sm on 2008-12-22
In Reply to:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/20/document-drop-the-story-behind-changegov/
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
JTBB can change any story to match his/her
nm
Change and Hope: Obama wants your change and hopes you enjoy starving.... sm
...while he's partying like a rock star with the glitterati.
Meanwhile, some little old lady is hoping he doesn't get a dog and sends her the dog food instead.
Yes, they're all nuts. The change they'll get is not the change they thought
I want change. Chump change. I'm voting for Obama as far as the pollsters go.
Obama is change you can believe in until you have to take it to the bank.
Our jobs have been offshored until now because of greed. Under Obama and his taxation of small businesses, they will be offshored not because of greed but because of survival.
You could make a difference for our country by not voting for Obama, but instead, if you vote for him, you are selling out to deception. You are embracing a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a liar, a cheat, and someone who legally cannot run as President of the U.S., much less the Illinois senate. But, you make your choice. You believe the consumate liar and his lies who sat for 20 years under the teachings of a black racist preacher filled with hatred for the U.S., whose association with Bill Ayers is recent and documented down to the fact that Ayers himself wrote Obama's best-selling book (best-selling in the eyes of far left liberals that is), who is a documented member of the socialist party, whose friends and close allies are extremists who not only bomb innocent people and are unrepenetent but who intend to eliminate (kill) 25 million Americans who they cannot "re-educate" in communist ideaology (gosh dog it, those dreadful capitalists), who refuses to hand over a certified copy of his birth certificate and educational records (my goodness, don't you have to provide your birth certificate to any number of entities who want to know if you are legal, i.e., social security, DMVs, etc., and your educational records would show if you had received aid as a foreigner and in 1963 would have shown you were a negro instead of an African-American which Obama's falsified record shows, please speck up on history), and who thinks Joe the Plumber is so stupid not to realize that if he wants to achieve the American dream, he is going to achieve it only if he lets Obama take what he makes to give to those WHO WILL NOT WORK. I'd like to see you, liberals, give a share of your 7.5 cpl to those who don't work as hard as you, but then with Obama, that's what you will have to do. Don't be fooled by his rhetoric that only those making over $250,00 will be taxed. We will all be taxed, and there will be no incentive to work for any of us because we will all have to give up a piece of our pie so those who do not work can have a piece of our pie.
Here is the dividing line, folks. We are at a crossroads in our history. The Lord Jesus puts it this way, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction; and there are many who go in by it."
Choose which gate you enter, the wide or the narrow. It not only determines your eternal destination, but it determines the destination of this country. If anyone here calls themself a Christian and can vote for Osambo, I daresay you are a liar and cheat just as he. One cannot be a Christian and vote for a party and a political candidate who is in total rebellion to God's Word. That is a fact, and if you think any differently, then you, too, like the Obamanation, call God a liar. May He have mercy upon your soul. As He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust because He is no respector of persons, we will all suffer as this country is destroyed and our Constitution that guarantees our freedoms is trampled just as Bill Ayers is pictured standing upon our flag in total disrespect, and we will thank you liberals that we are all in bondage, reduced to third world status, just as the Israelites were in Egypt. Only Obama ain't no Moses but a Muslim and has no favor with God, and there will be no one to lead us to the Promised Land coming from the Democratic party.
I agree with change....change to socialism...
NO THANKS.
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT
RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.
As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.
With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.
Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.
RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:
Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record
What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Man From Illinois
In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:
There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.
SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:
create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):
design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.
"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.
(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-
`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.
It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.
Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]
Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.
In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]
I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.
I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.
Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically. She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor. She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly. That is not that unusual to me.
She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy. Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry. Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term. I understand that. I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby. That is typical.
As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time. I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant. I was shocked at how tiny she was. She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born. DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge.
I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well. Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection. It is very common. If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?
All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby. I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden. No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant. It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life. That is part of what is wrong with our society today.
thanks for your story
We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter.
What the..? What was there ONE story about someone
have been SP's doing ?? You make it sound like she handed down firings to several thousand. LOL But hey, if she's that powerful and good at putting her plans into action, then maybe I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Let me tell you a story
Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.
After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.
Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!
Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years. We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.
To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL
I actually got the story from CNN ....
Just sayin ... 
And in a related story...
...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites. Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....
U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET
The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.
It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.
The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.
Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.
The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.
The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.
Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.
The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.
Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.
Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.
Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.
The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.
Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.
The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.
I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM. I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him.
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this. Thank you!
I only found one story on this. sm
From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead. The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers.
Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
Here is a follow up to the first story... sm
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=448&z=56
Real story from the MSM?.....sm
Bush controlled, corporate crony owned media telling the truth - not going to happen. That only happens when you have a democratic republic, not a corporate plutocracy. TV news definitely lies, suppresses, and distorts news.
Actually that's not the complete story...
You did not mention that when Summersby was dying of cancer she stated that it had been a romantic affair after all and wrote about it in her book. This contradicted what she had earlier stated. Who knows what really happened, and does it really matter? I doubt it. It only proves that we're all flawed humans, even some Republicans!!
I like the semaphore story better....nm
nm
yes, he changed the story
"just a bit" to better prove his point that she was a reformer. Like his cross in the dirt story as a POW. When he first told it, it happened to someone else. It went over better when he changed it to first person. That is dangerous behavior. We have been through 8 years of information manipulation. Please no more.
This whole story is absurd, more like a
fairytale or wishful thinking, right is running scared is all.
That's not the whole story/reason. (sm)
I, for one, do not want to pick produce from the fields and do many of the jobs that migrant workers do. I'm not lazy, per se, but I have other opportunities to make my income in ways closer to how I want to live.
Many Americans do not want to do those menial jobs. So, we do need migrant workers who are willing to fill those positions.
That isn't the whole story, though. And it doesn't make it acceptable to allow illegals in regardless of the job situation, etc.
Is this a true story? LOL
nm
Here's the rest of the story.
1. No soup for researching the breakdown on appropriations and who came down for and against as they progressed through time. That "congress did" cop-out does not cover for the fact that between 2002 and 2007, Dems were outnumbered by war zealots with glazed-over eyes as they followed a leader of liars and prevailed on the money issues. Answer: The pubs dominated and ARE credited for building up a $400B debt, no matter how fast you spin it.
2. Thank you. Obama voted against. Vision, conviction and courage to place principle over politics. Biden voted for, but has since stated he believes it was a mistake because of the W administration mismanagement of the war. Go here for Biden on the issue of Iraq: Does not appear to be part of the fleeced flock anymore. http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm.
3. Obama. Ahead of the curve. Petraeus is not running for president.
4. Petraeus is a military man with a military agenda and a reputation to protect, just like McCain. Trouble is, public is war weary and are looking for nonmilitary solutions…or at least somebody who is willing to consider such notions. There has to be a plan for what lies beyond the surge, which is not an everlasting solution. Question is whose plan? Bush and McCain NOW get it that Obama gots it and are going with his flow. According to you, Petraeus is onboard too. By the way, the Iraqi leadership just might be entitled to weigh in on this one. After all, it IS their country. They backed Obama on international television this past summer, lest we forget.
5. Well then, according to you, Petraeus is onboard troop draw-down. No highjack here, but a bit slow on the draw.
6. There has been no political resolution. Iraqis have not taken control of their own nation. Exactly what do you think will happen after troop withdrawal? The Sunni, Shia and Kurds will throw farewell flowers at the troops and each other in gratitude for all the help and Iraq will become the "oasis of democracy" in the Middle East? All the surge has done is prolong the inevitable. We need to step aside NO MATTER WHAT the consequences and hand the Iraqis the keys to the kingdom and let them sort themselves out.
A story I like to tell about the Ivy League...
I earned a BBA (Bachelors of Business Administration) from Temple University. Many years ago, I had a pretty high-powered job. I'll never forget a young lady who came in to interview with me for a job in our department. It seemed as though she couldn't mention often enough that she had earned her BBA from the University of Pennsylvania. So, following her lead, I spent quite a bit of time talking to her about her time at Penn, and it didn't take her very long before she was expressing her opinion that an Ivy League education was better than any other, and so she was the best candidate out there. I admired her spunk, but not her flawed logic.
I told her that the BBA degree was accredited by a single organization, and that the study curriculum at all schools offering the degree was the same. One could argue that faculty in some schools were better or worse than in others, but there was no hard and fast measure of that opinion. The curriculum, however, was the same in every school.
I asked her what her University of Pennsylvania tuition had been. This was in the early 1980s, and she proudly said it was around $30,000 a year. I told her that tuition at Temple University was about $4000 a year. So the cost of my BBA had been roughly $16,000. The cost of hers had been roughly $120,000. I told her that in my opinion, we had purchased the same product, but that there was a significant difference in the cost of that product. I then asked her if as an employee of our company, I might expect her to likewise overpay on budget items in our department.
The kicker was, my degree was hanging on the wall in my office. She couldn't help but see it. It really wasn't the way to warm up to the interviewer. My impression of her was that someone paid a lot of money for her education, but she wasn't too smart.
thats your story and your sticking to it...
x
Yours is a compelling story....
and is indicative of why assistance is needed to help those truly in need. I have never said welfare needs to be stopped. What I said is able-bodied people who want assistance should have a job or job training attached to it, so they can get OUT of the cycle of poverty. I said that assistance SHOULD be used for those physically or mentally unable to work. However, if any of us are honest, we know that there are thousands upon thousands who are on assistance who are completely capable of working. They take benefits from those who truly are physically unable, like you were, or lessen those benefits and make it harder to get benefits. Assistance programs need to be fixed so that those who really are physically or mentally unable to work can get the help they need.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Yep. there are two sides to every story....
you just have to choose the side that fits your view for your country. Godspeed in your search. :)
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
half the story
Refuted.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/WSJletter111003.html
Try reading this one.
Here's the same story on ABC.?. see inside
I thought AOL was considered a liberal site, but I guess not. Here's ABC with a bit more information, but basically the same story:
Inside the White House: What Went Wrong?
Sources in the Meeting Tell ABC News Why the Talk Turned Into a Screaming Match
By JONATHAN KARL
Sept. 26, 2008
If all had gone according to plan, Thursday's White House meeting would have been a triumphant photo opportunity, where top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders come together with the president and the two presidential candidates to support a plan for stabilizing the financial markets. Instead, the meeting devolved into a shouting match that nearly derailed the economic bailout plan.
Here's an account of what happened, based on conversations with several of those present, both Democrats and Republicans:
The first sign of trouble: Twenty minutes before the White House meeting, Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say there are problems with the agreement reached earlier in the afternoon. Pelosi is miffed. Democrats believed the issues Paulson raised had already been resolved.
President Bush opens the meeting at 4 p.m., quickly turning it over to Paulson who gives a status report on the markets and says, "We need to get this done quickly." Paulson turns it over to Pelosi, who defers to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who defers to Sen. Barack Obama. Obama starts things off for the Democrats by reiterating his principles on what the plan should include. Obama agrees with Paulson on the need to act quickly but says some on the Hill "don't understand the need for the rush." Some of the Republicans took this as an attack on them.
Obama then defers to Sen. John McCain, but McCain defers to House Republican Leader John Boehner to speak on behalf of the Republicans. Boehner says House Republicans have "a lot of problems" with the plan and "most of my caucus is not there."
At this point, the meeting is still fairly cordial. Pelosi even compliments the president on his speech Wednesday night. But the meeting starts to devolve.
After some more give and ake, Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, presents a five-page list of 192 economists and business school professors who oppose the plan. Bush isn't impressed. "I don't care what somebody on some college campus says," Bush says. Instead, he says he trusts Hank Paulson, who, he says, has more than 35 years of experience and access to more information than those academics on Shelby's list.
Boehner says House Republicans have a different idea: providing federal insurance for mortgage securities instead of buying them outright.
Obama chimes in again, asking Paulson what he thinks about the insurance idea. Paulson says he thinks the idea is unworkable, and adds, "We can't start over."
After 43 minutes, McCain finally speaks. He says there are "legitimate concerns that need to be listened to" and that there has been "significant progress" in incorporating his principles into the bill. "We have one shot at getting this done right," he says. McCain does not get specific. "He said a whole lot of nothing," says one Republican in the room.
Shortly after that, things get a whole lot worse. Rep. Spencer Baucus, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, speaks in favor of the Republican alternative, setting Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the committee, into a rage. Frank accuses Republicans of "sandbagging" him by bringing up a plan he's never seen. There's more shouting. The president brings the meeting back to order and urges everybody to get back together because "we need to get this done." The deciding factor for him on any final deal, he says, is whether or not Hank Paulson says it will work.
The meeting ends, but the fireworks are yet to come.
Democrats go back into the Roosevelt Room to discuss whether to go out to the cameras waiting on the White House driveway. Paulson comes in and literally begs them not to go out and criticize the meeting. For dramatic effect, Paulson gets down on one knee and says, "Please, I beg you, don't blow this up."
Barney Frank, shouting, "Don't give me that bulls**t."
More Frank: "Hank, you've got a problem here. Republicans want to torpedo this."
Pelosi is also outraged, but the Democrats decide not to go out as a group to the microphones.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5895827&page=1
Video story
Found interview with REAL PEOPLE about this. Click link below for story, then video next to story. I had a hard time getting vid to play, but viewed another story's video then went back to this one and it worked.
The FBI is investigating and Obama's camp had no comment.
Click below.
I don't believe this story for one minute!
The "B" carved in this young lady's cheek is more like scratch, and it is backwards. Have you ever looked at writing in a mirror? It's backwards! This young lady may have been mugged, but she scratched the "B" in her cheek all by herself. She is also a college Republican field representative, which makes this story even more fishy and explains her motive for doing this. Talk about stooping low...this is as low as it gets!
Reminds me of a story. s/m
Wealthy (Republican no doubt) race horse breeder sent his prize horse to England with his trainer for an important race. Being frugal (or a tightwad) breeder told trainer to send him a telegram and let him know how the horse did in the race but to keep it brief to save money. By and by the breeder received a telegram which said "SFSFF." Upon his return home the breeder gleafully met the trainer and demanded to know how much money he had won. The trainer reported that he had won nothing. The breeder said, "but I got your telegram, SFSFF, started first, slowed, finished first." " No, no, no said the trainer, SFSFF, started first, stumbled, farted, fell."
They mentioned this story
on The O'Reilly Factor last night. I saw the picture of her. She says that she was at an ATM and was attacked by someone when they saw a McCain sticker on her car. Bill O'Reilly mentioned that ATMs have cameras and they said the camera didn't pick up anything. The B on her cheek was supposedly done by a knife. Bill O'Reilly said that it didn't look like a knife wound to him and I must agree. I'm a republican and I know that there are some wacko Obama supporters out there, but I just don't think this story is true. We will see though.
I've not been following that story........ sm
maybe because I've been too absorbed in conspiracy theories? 
While Nixon was by far not my most favorite president, I really don't see any point in digging up stuff in the past on a dead president that really does not have anything to do with today's issues, except maybe to poke fun at him. I doubt there is much in them of further historical interest.
With that said, what appeared to be a sincere effort at starting a discussion on something other than what has been gone over and over here the past few days, I was interested to note that it was nothing more than yet another Bush bash. I'm disappointed in you, BB. 
Here is the WHOLE story on "taxing"
health care benefits...
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Will-John-McCain-Really-Tax-Your-Health-Care-For-the-First-Time.htm
Story about to break....
whistle blower from Project Vote/Acorn...testifying in PA yesterday...supposedly has documents proving direct link between Obama campaign and Acorn/Project Vote...who this person says are virtually the same....saying Obama campaign gave the maxed-out donor list to Acorn/Project Vote so they could get donations from them for their voter registration program. So much for "I have no connection to Acorn or their voter registration programs." If I was that woman I would hire bodyguards.
Here is the link to story..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/mccain-camp-busses-in-sch_n_139300.html
My voting story
So I got up at 7am this morning to go with my husband to vote. Now, on our registration cards it told us we had to go like two towns over to vote. Since we just received them a couple of days ago, I didn't bother calling. I figured we would just take a nice little 20 minute drive. No biggie.
Well we arrive at the voting precinct, stand in line for 30 minutes (they had a whopping three voting machines set up!) and we get to where they check you in and are told "sorry, you're not on our list". So the polling manager takes us outside and we stand there for 20 minutes in the freezing drizzle as she tries to call the court house and find out why our registration cards sent us there and where we were supposed to be. Finally, they tell her we are supposed to go 8 miles down the road (further away from our house) and go vote there. She tells them that it's wrong (mind you we passed three other voting precincts on our way to this one!) but we told her that it was fine we would go. So we get down there and stand in line for another 20 minutes or so and finally got to vote!
IT'S OVER!!! IT'S ALL OVER!!!!!! WOOOOHHOOOOO!!!!
Get used to it. She's the story that just keeps on giving
there will be plenty more where that comes from.
I think I have the other side of the story.
I've been watching all those other stations for years. I just started watching Fox lately. How much more "open-minded" do you want me to be???
Do you not know the story of Chicken Little?
Get off your high horse, Joan. It's you who's being "all snotty" by playing playground monitor.
And if you honsetly can't see the correlation between someone's absurd comments about 'the most daunting challenge in U.S. history' and Chicken Little running around sqwaking 'the sky is falling' then maybe this well help:
Metaphor (from the Greek language: metaphora, meaning "transfer") is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. It is a figure of speech that compares two or more things not using like or as. In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second object in some way. Thus, the first subject can be economically described because implicit and explicit attributes from the second subject are used to enhance the description of the first. This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context. In a simpler definition, it is comparing two things without using the words "like" or "as."
There now. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Here is a link to the story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29170141/
The Rest Of The Story
The civil jury rejected most of the claims against Roger Barnett but found him liable for assault and infliction of emotional distress. He was ordered to pay $77,804--$60,000 of it in punitive damages.
Barnett is a well-known vigilante who flashes a fake police badge and has been sued a number of times, including detaining some Americans who were on a hunting trip. Apparently to Barnett, if you look Mexican then you're an illegal alien. Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch includes private and federal lease holdings and almost 14,000 acres of state-leased land.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-border-confrontation,1,5753960.story
The idea of having US troops patrolling the Mexican border is ludicrous and will never happen.
Yawn....this story is getting about as old as
Need to give it a rest. The Palin bashing should be ending by now. My gosh, she and McCain lost. Let it be. Otherwise be prepared to be hearing about the birth certificate issue all over again.
|
