I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes.– Colin Powell, Former Secretary of State under the Bush Administration, on Meet the Press, Sunday October 19, 2008
What did Colin Powell have in mind, exactly, in stating his belief that the Republican Party has moved further starboard? Expansion of government and uncontrolled spending? Dramatic Increases in entitlement programs, such as social security, food stamps, and medicare drug benefit? Dramatic increase in education spendings (“I believe that education is the new civil right.”– President Bush) under the current president? Faith-based intitiatives aimed at benefiting the poor? A soft “compassionate conservative” approach by the Administration in dealing with illegal immigration and immigration reform? More financial relief to fight AIDS in Africa as well as helping local farmers in Africa, doing more to help people living in Africa than any other previous U.S. president?
President Bush has behaved rather liberally on not just spending, but on supporting programs that have been beneficial to minority groups.
Rove recommended books to Bush to read, including Murray Myron’s The Dream and the Nightmare and Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion. Both mirrored Bush’s thoughts, arguing that the feel-good, permissive values of the 1960s undermined the strength of families and helped create dependency on government, ultimately harming the disadvantaged classes. As an antidote, Bush, in discussions with Myron, Olasky, and others, fashioned the concept of “compassionate conservativism.”
It was not a catchy phrase, and conservatives didn’t like it because it implied that there was something wrong with being a conservative- like calling someone a realistic liberal. But the phrase accurately described Bush’s philosophy. His goal was to help people. He believed the best way to do that was to develop government programs and policies that allowed them to help themselves. He did not see government as an enemy, as traditional conservatives did. But he did not believe the solution to problems was necessarily to throw money around.
– Pg 58, A Matter of Character, by Ronald Kessler.
Guest host Wayne Perryman (author of Unfounded Loyalty) for the Michael Medved Show, October 9, 2008, questioned “What do Obama critics mean when they say they “don’t want more of the same”?; then ran through a list of unacknowledged positives that President Bush has done on behalf of liberal blacks, sometimes to the consternation of his conservative base.
In 2000, The NAACP launched an unprecedented $10 million voter education and registration project; Democrats and unions pumped several millions more into black communities in “get out the vote” operations. In the end, Democrats received more votes for their candidate than they received in the previous 2 elections: 90 percent of the black vote while 8-9% went to Republicans, the lowest share for Republicans since Goldwater in 1964; for Hispanics, it went 64-35, Democrats. In 2004, Bush received 11% of the black vote.
McCain is supposedly taking a different strategy than Bush in ’04, to woo the black vote; but he has one problem: He’s white. His political opponent is….not quite that white. And the lure to see a historical glass ceiling broken is tempting even to black conservative Republicans.
In 2000, the GOP had woefully mismanaged its appeals to black and Hispanic voters. George W. Bush was the most minority-friendly candidate Republicans had nominated since Abraham Lincoln. He had showcased his concern for minority problems throughout his governorship, both by the appointments he had made and the policies he’d pursued. And he had won unusually high vote shares among black and Hispanic Texans.
But in 2000, none of that history was communicated through the media that mattered. Democratic ads on minority stations accused Bush and the Republicans of intimidating minority voters, of promoting hate crimes, and of incarcerating minority youth en masse. GOP consultants seemed frozen in place. Unwilling to expend the emotional or financial capital to counterattack in the relevant venues, Republicans neither refuted racially charged allegations nor promoted a positive conservative agenda.
By absenting ourselves from minority media, we Republicans gave the Democrats carte blanche to paint us as they chose. And they chose to paint us as bigots. In 2002, pollster Kellyanne Conway measured the consequences. Black voters did not associate the GOP with any of its traditional issues: “Republican” meant bigotry, plain and simple.
Adding irony to angst, GOP platform issues polled well with minorities. Millions of blacks supported traditional marriage and school choice. Millions of Hispanics were pro-life and anti-tax. In fact, there was hardly an issue in the Republican arsenal that did not receive higher approval from minorities than the party itself did. But this gap between minority patterns of thinking and voting mattered not a whit unless conservatives mustered the will to politicize it.
How many black babies have been aborted, on account of groups like Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice policy of the Democratic Party? Why do black voters continue to vote against their self-interest:
A new Zogby Poll on abortion indicated that 56 percent of Americans believe abortion should never be legal, be legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or be legal in cases of rape and incest. But when African Americans were asked these same questions, 62 percent answered in kind, identifying themselves as measurably more pro-life than the population at large.
Bush has supported and signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Conversely, John Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban six times; voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and voted 25 times in favor of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. If elected president, Kerry has vowed to only nominate jurists who will uphold unabated abortion rights.
Even more significantly, African Americans continue to voice a strong desire to protect traditional marriage. A recent CBS News poll found that 55 percent favor a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. Interestingly, that same poll found that African Americans oppose same-sex marriage in considerably greater numbers, with 67 percent favoring a constitutional amendment.
Again, it is Bush who has called for amending the U.S. Constitution to preserve and protect traditional marriage. Bush is convinced that passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment is the only way to ultimately ensure that a single judge cannot override the will of the vast majority of Americans.
Charles Dharapak, AP
President Bush has had the most racially diverse cabinet in U.S. presidential history. On July 27, 2006, he signed a 25 year extension of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.
It is the Republican Party that has a profound history of support for blacks; not the Party of Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations:
The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. In their abuses of power, they have even used threats and military violence to thwart the Democrat Party’s attempts to make this a progressive country. As you read the following Republican atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.
March 20, 1854
Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican PartyMay 30, 1854
Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican PartyJune 16, 1854
Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican PartyJuly 6, 1854
First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policiesFebruary 11, 1856
Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s CabinetFebruary 22, 1856
First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policiesMarch 27, 1856
First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policiesMay 22, 1856
For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recoverMarch 6, 1857
Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”June 26, 1857
Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacksOctober 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nomineeOctober 25, 1858
U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation ProclamationJune 4, 1860
Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of SlaveryApril 7, 1862
President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave tradeApril 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote noJuly 2, 1862
U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington CarverJuly 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”August 19, 1862
Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipationAugust 25, 1862
President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. ArmySeptember 22, 1862
Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation ProclamationJanuary 1, 1863
Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect
February 9, 1864
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slaveryJune 15, 1864
Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil WarJune 28, 1864
Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave ActsOctober 29, 1864
African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat oppositionMarch 3, 1865
Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slavesApril 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat oppositionJune 19, 1865
On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation ProclamationNovember 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discriminationDecember 6, 1865
Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratifiedFebruary 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slavesApril 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes lawApril 19, 1866
Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slaveryMay 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote noJune 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans [Senate] vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no [96% of GOP House members also-ws]July 16, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rightsJuly 28, 1866
Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymenJuly 30, 1866
Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-AmericansMarch 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”May 20, 1868
Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electorsSeptember 3, 1868
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican CongressSeptember 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican CongressSeptember 28, 1868
Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editorOctober 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux KlanNovember 3, 1868
Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation ProclamationDecember 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public officeFebruary 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of raceMay 19, 1870
African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policiesMay 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rightsJune 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the SouthSeptember 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John CampbellFebruary 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American votersMarch 22, 1871
Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South CarolinaApril 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-AmericansOctober 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousandsOctober 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux KlanNovember 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate governmentSeptember 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killedMarch 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat oppositionSeptember 20, 1876
Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919July 14, 1884
Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slaveryAugust 30, 1890
Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the SouthJune 7, 1892
In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegatesFebruary 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to voteDecember 11, 1895
African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-AmericansMay 18, 1896
Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”December 31, 1898
Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schoolsMay 24, 1900
Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-AmericansJanuary 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-AmericansOctober 16, 1901
President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the countryMay 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACPJune 18, 1912
African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventionsAugust 1, 1916
Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief JusticeMay 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats noApril 18, 1920
Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob PreusAugust 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislaturesJanuary 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibusterJune 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native AmericansOctober 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National ConventionDecember 8, 1924
Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the countryAugust 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmationJune 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order itOctober 20, 1942
60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primariesApril 3, 1944
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election systemFebruary 18, 1946
Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schoolsJuly 11, 1952
Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial mattersSeptember 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of EducationDecember 8, 1953
Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of EducationMay 17, 1954
Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education
[GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas’s black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended “separate but equal” classrooms.]
November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travelMarch 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregationJune 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” lawOctober 19, 1956
On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for PresidentSeptember 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights ActSeptember 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schoolsJune 23, 1958
President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rightsFebruary 4, 1959
President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many DemocratsMay 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate DemocratsJuly 27, 1960
At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platformMay 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rightsJune 1, 1963
Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of AlabamaSeptember 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High SchoolJune 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the SenateJune 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equalityThe Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
[According to Congressional Quarterly, only 61% of Democrats in the House of Representatives supported the act, while 80% of Republicans voted in favor. In the Senate, 69% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans voted in favor. Among the Democratic senators who voted against the legislation were J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton’s mentor), who was a racist- pg 82, Do-Gooders, Mona Charen]
*[Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.]
Goldwater was also a founding (lifelong) member of the Arizona chapter for the NAACP.
June 20, 1964
The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights ActMarch 7, 1965
Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, ALMarch 21, 1965
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George WallaceAugust 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats opposeAugust 6, 1965
Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favorJuly 8, 1970
In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefitsSeptember 17, 1971
Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murdersFebruary 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWIISeptember 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programsJune 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights ActAugust 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDRNovember 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislationAugust 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes lawApril 26, 1999
Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to PresidentJanuary 25, 2001
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”March 19, 2003
Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic ConferenceMay 23, 2003
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and CultureFebruary 26, 2004
Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men…you all look alike to me”National Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed for a 25 year extension by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006.
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart “P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.
August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America’s first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).
October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, “White women may receive attentions from Negro men.” As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: “The Choice Is Yours.”
GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.
November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.
President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.
President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.
“The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire,” Rice has said. “He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.”
“it is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections.”– Mona Charen, Do-Gooders
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Thanks Wordsmith for exposing the truth. Sorry for last night, you are a decent man after all. You have reconciliated me with this blog. Yesterday, I asked Mata a question in your other thread “October surprise”, comment No. 46. Here is that question:
“For Powell, the conservatives went too far in one direction”. (Mata)
What do you mean by too far? What was so different between Bush and Reagan. They are my favourite Presidents.
And I never got an answer from her or nobody else. I knew I wouldn’t get one because I have read many books on Georges W Bush. I know what a Great President he was. I guess only Americans didn’t know it because of your leftist biased MSM.
Thomas Jefferson once said: “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”
Somebody should be doing some cleaning in your MSM before they destroy your country. American’s MSM are your worst enemies.
The books I have read on G.W.Bush:
GUY MILLIÈRE:
– Ce que veut Bush.
– Le futur selon Bush
– Pourquoi Bush sera réélu.
MARK STEYN:
– America alone: The end of the World as we know it.
Here is a citation and a critic of Mark Steyn’ book:
“The future, if the West has one, belongs to America alone—with maybe its cousins in brave Australia. But America can survive, prosper, and defend its freedom only if it continues to believe in itself, in the sturdier virtues of self-reliance (not government), in the centrality of family, and in the conviction that our country really is the world’s last best hope.
Steyn argues that, contra the liberal cultural relativists, America should proclaim the obvious: we do have a better government, religion, and culture than our enemies, and we should spread America’s influence around the world—for our own sake as well as theirs.”
You’re my hero words. You finally said what no one else will. Sad day when the minority speaks for what is still considered the majority.
Hey Craig. You asked…
Well, Craig… the reason I didn’t respond is I decided… as I said… to avoid that thread for it’s tangent racial misconclusions there were becoming embarrassing beyond association.
But I will answer you here, as I don’t want you to think I am avoiding your questions. And what you are missing in my response is the two key words… “For Powell…”
Do not assume that because I believe Powell has the right to support Obama, and outright state (finally…) he is a liberal, that I agree with him. I don’t. Period.
But I will defend to my death his right to disagree with me politically. This is what America is about. And I personally will fight any opportunity for him to have influence in government.
But I am but one voter… ignored by Congress, like everyone else. As a “peon” and one of the US “economic foundations are strong” carbon units, I can only do so much. But I do know where to draw the line on limiting freedom of expression and choice.
Meaning: I will not defeat myself just to defeat Obama.
Frankly, it boggles my mind that Powell believes the GWB admin is further “right” – or conservative – than Reagan’s. (Remember, I support his right to be incorrect, and perhaps downright stupid) And that is the admin and party where Powell got his start. I will say that the Reagan GOP and today’s GOP are light years apart. But definitely not “more right”. But that’s my opinion… not Powell’s. And Wordsmith here has demonstrated beautifully why Powell’s personal conclusions are flawed beyond defense (even tho he has the right to be “flawed beyond defense” in America).
But then, if we want to analyze Powell… altho I don’t, but since he won’t “go away” in discussions here… you might want to remember he comes from military from the bulk of his life. Therefore military, and his involvement under Dubya with foreign policy, dominates his emotions/political beliefs. When he says they went “more to the right than I’d like to see”, I suspect Powell is primarily discussing foreign policy and US response to the global jihad movement.
Or, in brief, he disagrees with Iraq and Gitmo. And you know the DNC. They love a reformed “drunk/drug addict”, so to speak. The one who hit bottom and recoups.
Unless, of course, that recouperatiing drunk/drug addict is a Republican/conservative.
Now, I don’t want to presume I can articulate Powell’s personal thoughts, dictating his decision to support
Powell… sorry, meant Obama. But it’s just a guess. And frankly, to most of us who have been less than enthralled with Powell’s wishy-washing political loyalty for quite some time now, it’s just no surprise.And, it’s no issue either.
ADDED: BTW, just so you know… other than this “bail out” socialist crap Bush pulled – and his “veto” pen running out of ink for too long – he is also one of my favorite POTUS’s in my lifetime. And I shall miss him in many ways.
Powell was just making excuses. The republican party is definetely not going right, they are going more to the left. What Powell really means is he is going more to the left than the republican party is and/or sees an opportunity to advance in an Obama administration. And maybe an Obama administration will be more to his taste.
In regard to all the efforts the republican party has made on behalf of the blacks. That was then. This is now. Now they favor the dems because of the freebies they get. And this FM/FM debacle has shown the freebies are more extensive than I knew about. I understand completely why they support the dems; free housing, free health care, free food stamps, free welfare, etc.
Thanks for your answer Mata. I do believe that Powell has the right to choose his Party, no doubt there. What I was arguing about, was that people seemed to think that he was right to choose Obama, since Republicans where going more to the right. Now, I know by facts, that this is a lie; Republicans are getting better and better every year. And Powell knows it to, but he didn’t seem to care about Obama’s evil associations. This is the only reason why he lost all my respect. I believe like attracts like. Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. Obama is not better than his friends: Wrights, Farakan, Resko, Ayers and all the Chicago mafia. So if Powell endorses him, he is no better either. That was my point. His right to choose wasn’t my point. My point was his poor judgment for wanting to be part of that evil group of Obama’s friends.
So I guess, Mata, that we are on the same side now. We just didn’t understand each other on the subject, that’s all.
Sorry my computer keeps trying to paste something from my windows document. I was wanting to respond to your comment about the recupperating drug addict. Doesn’t anyone remember GWB and his addiction to cocaine? Or is he exempt?
Sorry, doesn’t anyone remember GWB and his problem with cocaine and alcohol? Or is he exempt, because he is born again? He has even been arrested a FEW times due to drugs and alcohol.
Powell said that?? That’s surprising, because I’d given him credit for having more observational skill than that. But then, he DID decide to climb on The One’s adoration parade.
The Republicans haven’t shifted more to the right. It’s just that the dems have shifted so far to the left that it may appear that way. I’m personally convinced that JFK would be a Republican if he were alive today. No one can convince me that any of the current crop of dems would ever stand up in front of a crowd and pronounce that they would bear any burden, defend any friend, defeat any foe for ANYTHING, much less liberty. Modern democrats are a party of shameless, immoral self-service.
Voter Erika…. don’t know what your point is with your statement:
My comment was that the DNC always likes to idolize those that hit bottom, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The typical “came from broken home and city ghetto to become a success” type stuff.
And my point was they only like those success stories if they are Democrats. When a Republican does it, they just like to continually bash them. i.e. Democrats will never give Bush credit for being an alcholic that no longer drinks. But they’ll give Chappaquidick Ted a pass even today. They’ll damn Rush Limbaugh for pain killer addiction, but give kids addicted to drugs from being ritalin kids from school a pass. They’ll bad mouth Cindy McCain for her addiction to pain killers in the past, but never blink an eye at Obama’s recreational cocaine use.
Or, as in the case of Colin Powell, they love a “reformed neo-con”…. So he will be their darling. Tho personally, I was ever hard pressed to call him conservative.
@MataHarley: I was just saying, because I see people talk about drugs.(in other threads as well) And Obama admitted to using as a youth, not as an adult, how many have used something or other as a youth. I am not saying EVERYONE, I didn’t. But alot of people have as child experimented. I can’t really get into it too much, I am having complications in my pregnancy, so I can’t get to worked up. So all I am saying when people throw around drug use, (any addiction is an addiction) they should remember, both sides have struggled with some form or another. And youths will be foolish, some more than others.
As a former government employee (military), I can answer that question. Drug use history is always a valid question when vetting any government employee or official, particularly when assigning and approving of security clearances.
How serious of a factor it is depends upon many things; the drugs used, self-admission, etceteras. Self admission that a person experimented with some drugs, marijauna and cocaine for example, may not necessarily prevent them from being granted a security clearance. However, if the use of them was denied and the investigations reveal that they were used by that individual, that could certainly kill their chances of getting the necessary security clearances to take and hold a position. The administration might push that person’s appointment through under a lower security clearance, however, it could be detrimental to that office if something arose involving higher security clearances they are not allowed by law to be privy to.
A person who admits to, or is found to have criminal or medical history of partaking of a so called “gateway drugs” will also be investigated more vigorously for more serious or damaging drug. A few instances of infrequent casual use/experimentation may not be as critically examined as an addiction. Use of “Legal” drugs, such as alchohol, caffeine, and nicotine, will usually not be a barrier to getting a security clearance except in cases where it contributed to several judicial actions. There were some members of the Clinton administration that never granted security clearances because they refused to co-operate with the vetting security clearance investigations.
There are some drugs such as acid (LSD), that are extremely unpredictable and may lead to random unpredictable flash-backs at a future time that might be debilitating to that individual’s ability to do their job. Because of this, it is nearly impossible to be awarded a security clearance if a person was a former LSD user.
Historical Data:
Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy of Massachusetts was an alcoholic and in a well-know Chappaquiddick incident, his alcohol abuse led to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a former campaign worker for his brother, the assassinated U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York. In July of 1969, her dead body was discovered inside an overturned car belonging to Teddy Kennedy underwater in a tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts. This event destroyed any ambitions he might have had for the presidency.
William Clinton admitted to marijuana use to investigators; “When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’ t like it. I didn’t inhale and never tried it again.” His admission was accepted.
G. W. Bush was arrested for DWI, but denies every using cocaine. What complicates things is during the time of Dubya’s suspected use, his father was in a high position of the FBI. Could Bush Sr. have allegedly cleared his son’s files? Possibly, but over 25 years after the fact, it may be impossible to prove.
Palin has said she smoked marijuana but didn’t enjoy it and doesn’t smoke anymore. “I can’t claim a Bill Clinton and say that I never inhaled,” she told the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. At the time, marijuana was legal under Alaska’s liberal drug laws. A 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision allowed adults to possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use. In June 2006, a law signed by then-Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski re-criminalized the drug. The American Civil Liberties Union later sued the state, alleging that the law violates Alaskans’ state constitutional right to privacy.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml
Since Palin admitted using it and marijuana use was legal in Alaska at the time she partook of it, It will not effect her security clearance.
Obama had written in his first book, “Dreams From My Father” (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine (“maybe a little blow”). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him. So he admits to inhaling marijuana and using cocaine, and by inference in what he wrote his book he considered heroin use. However the difference here is use of both drugs were was illegal in the state where his drug use occured. And if he considered heroin, it increases the likelyhood that he used other drugs that he did not admit to. This would suggest to anyone investigating him for a security clearance to look deeper into his past.
I hope this answers your question voter erika.
Important Update:
Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit – Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President
Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President
For Immediate Release: – 10/21/08 – Complete contact details and a pdf are at the end of this article
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania �” 10/21/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
More Information: http://www.obamacrimes.com
@AdrianS: You should really do some research before you spread the VERY untruthful right wing propaganda. Look this guy up in Penn. and you will see he is not registered with the Penn. State Bar Association, nor does this case number even exist. Hope you didn’t donate any money for the “cause”. I noticed he had a nice size advertisement for donations, just another guy trying to scam. Too bad so sad.
I believe your “research” may be incomplete, Erika/voter. I did a brief post on this a while back, and a Hillary supporter… per some forum… says she confirmed the brief was indeed filed.
Here is the brief, filed in US District Court, Eastern PA district
I haven’t been following it, but remember seeing a list of the ensuing legal actions, motions, etal that have been filed since.
Fact is, Philip J. Berg exists, and so the suit. Berg, nor any US citizen, does not have to be an active bar member to represent him or herself in a court of law. So his Bar status is a moot point.
@voter:
Berg, a 30+ year Democrat, is licensed to practice throughout the Commonwealth of PA, and qualified to argue cases before SCOTUS. He’s ran for Governor of PA and for the Senate as a Dem.
Here’s a video he did, stating his qualifications and giving information about the case.
~~~
Mata Note: Thought I would embed this video for reader ease, Missy… hope you don’t mind
Perhaps in the “world of Erika” Berg is not licensed.
Perhaps in the “world of Erika” the case doesn’t exist.
Perhaps in the “world of Erika” Berg is not a life-long Democrat.
Here in reality, not so much.
@MataHarley: Okay, so I did some more research, check this out. So, maybe thats why I didn’t find anything, because this “lawsuit” got squashed in september. So no need for Obama or the DNC to respond, since their motion to dismiss was granted.
@voter:
Ummmm….
Erika…
You’re beclowning yourself again.
Did you stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night?
Can you show anything to indicate that the “Motion to Dismiss” was granted by the Court?
Didn’t think so.
Sure, a motion was filed but unless the Court has granted it, then it’s just a piece of paper.
Back to the research room you go.
@Aye Chihuahua: I’m not sure why I’m responding to you, but obviously you didn’t read the entire 2nd link. At the bottom shows the courts ruling, happy reading. And this is the last time I am responding to you. I don’t need to be stressed out by your hateful responses right now. If you have something to say keep it to yourself or direct it towards someone else.
@voter:
Erika,
Again, with the beclowning yourself.
Copy and paste the link you are referring to if indeed there is one there that says the court granted the Motion of the Defendant(s).
Hint… There’s not a ruling from the Court granting the Motion.
I can fully understand why you don’t want to answer my questions.
They are intentionally pointed.
They are intentionally direct.
They are intentionally difficult for anyone who is:
a) not in command of the facts,
b) engaging in a snow job,
or
c) both.
Perhaps in the “world of Erika” things are a little more sugary and soft around the edges.
for the second time.
@voter: Erika…thats the motion, the court has NOT granted the motion
Read the bottom, under the motion to dismiss, (this site has all motions and orders on this case), it has the courts ruling. “Motion to dismiss, is hearby ORDERED, that said motion is GRANTED” To qoute the order exactly.
@voter:
Ummm….
Again, that is the Motion to Dismiss that was filed with the Court.
It is a standard format.
It MUST be granted and signed by the judge.
That has NOT happened.
Also, this would be HUGE, why am I not seeing it on msnbc or cnn or fox or any other BREAKING news channel. That would be huge if Obama had to pull out of the race two weeks before election. Because it is simply not true. It was dismissed.
@voter:
Oy Vey!
Let’s look at it this way Erika.
If your claim that the case was dismissed back in Sept is true (and it’s not) then why did the FEC file a Motion to Dismiss today?
If the case went away back in Sept as you claim then it would be over with.
As to why the big news people are not carrying the story. That answer is self-explanatory. They are carrying the water for Obama and will not air anything that is damaging to him.
No matter how much “water they are carrying for Obama”, Their main objective is to carry the green for themselves, and the ratings they would get for that story, would supersede ANY partisan opinion. To answer the FEC’s filing for dismissal, they were not on the motion for the DNC, and Barack Obama, therefore they were not included in the order for dismissal. So in short the FEC is a totally different entity.
@voter:
In reality the news of Berg’s suit has been carried by some of the smaller outlets but the bigger ones will not touch it for a myriad of reasons.
Again, you’re going in circles with your assertion that the suit was dismissed.
The FEC was sued at the same time as Obama and DNC.
One suit, not multiples. Obama and the DNC would not file Motions on behalf of the other Defendants.
Where is the signed dismissal order from the Court regarding Obama and the DNC?
With your research skills you should be able to find it if indeed it exists.
The only problem for you is that there isn’t one.
Finally, if Obama has nothing to hide then why did he not simply produce the documents to the Court and be done with it?
Why all the foot dragging and legal wrangling?
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Erika, the Oct 9th motion to deny Motion for Protective Order filed by Berg was in response to the Obama legal teams Motion for Protective Order, asking the judge to “stay” discovery… ie producing the documents Berg requests… until *after* the judge rules on the motion to dismiss. This makes it quite obvious that the suit has not been dismissed, as you claim.
And you are incorrect on the FEC’s filing for dismissal. The agency was a named defendant on the original suit filed by Berg. As a govt entity, they were given until today’s deadline to respond. So they (the legal team) waited until the deadline, then did the same as the Obama legal team Asked the judge to dismiss the case. This is absolutely related as they are a named party to the suit.
In order to understand the legal process, you need to read briefs from the beginning. Not just jump in somewhere and figure that’s the finale.
There is no fat lady singing on this legal action. It is ongoing, and both the FEC and Obama are trying to delay this at least until after the election, is my guess.
And of course the media’s not covering it. To them, it’s not news unless the judge *doesn’t* dismiss. In the meantime, it’s not an issue they want to bring up… the fact that Obama is very secretive about much of his past, and has not coughed up documentation in many areas.
This is a candidate that we know the least about in the history of the US elections. And what we do know is quite troublesome about his political philosphy. Yet people like you don’t seem to care.
And I’m not sure what scares me more… that the press doesn’t want to report and vet this man thoroughly, or that the Obama faithful don’t care to know.
@MataHarley: I’m not saying that the FEC weren’t included in the lawsuit, at some level, but in the motion to dismiss, the FEC was not listed with the DNC and Barack Obama, so the order of dismissal did not include the FEC.
@voter:
There was no order of dismissal.
The case is still pending.
It has NOT been dismissed.
Why is this so very difficult for you?
Here is the original PDF as filed with the Court.
(Notice that it’s blank at the bottom just like the one you linked.)
Here is a link to Justia.com which has the entire series of documents which have been filed related to this case.
If you read through, you will find that no dismissal has been granted.
voter/Erika:
and prior
Of course they were “different”entities, Erika. Every named individual defendant generally has their own counsel. And there is no “at some level”. The FEC is as much a defendant as Obama himself.
So I truly do not know what point you want to make. The suit is still alive and well until such times as a judge dismisses… or not… followed by whether Berg files in an appellate court to battle any dismissal.
But the FEC is merely another motion to the same lawsuit, still in motion… and still very much alive.
Dismissals are based on sundry charges that either Berg has no “standing”, or the US District court does not have jurisdiction. Both are unrelated to the centerpiece that Obama has not provided sufficient documentation to meet the Constitutional requirements for a POTUS candidate. Thus, if the court dismissed for those reasons, the alleged argument has not been resolved, and Berg can take it to an alternative jurisdiction… provided he passes muster for the “standing” issue.
So again I ask… what’s your point?
Voter,
I guess this is the reason why Obama is disapearing for to days to go to Hawai. To see his ill grandma, how convenient! Maybe he is just going there to try to buy himself a false birth certificate.
@MataHarley: In the earlier post, I said that the DNC and Obama filed for the dismissal, (Obama and the DNC have the same attorneys, for this issue)I was explaining in the second post that the FEC was not on that motion, therefore the FEC would not be included in the dismissal. It was dismissed in the United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Penn. For Obama and the DNC. So, my point is, if it is dismissed, then Obama, and the DNC do not have an obligation to answer the suit, within the 30 days. If they had this time frame to address this and did not, and the court found them admitting all accusations by default, then we would be hearing this, we would need to have a new candidate. That is not the case. Berg, may have filed in a higher court, but that would take time, most likely beyond the election day, but he is stating that Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for the President of the United States. Again, don’t you think this development would be ALL OVER the news? The msm would not worry about tarnishing his image if he were not going to be the democratic candidate. They would be all over the ratings.
I can’t believe people would not have empathy for his grandmother, she is ill, and fell and broke her hip, he has EVERY right to visit her, he may not have another chance. I WANT our next President to care about his family, if he didn’t care about his family, how could he care about mine? We do not agree about Obama, that is obvious, but give the man some slack and give him his visit with his ill grandmother. My grandmother is my rock.(even though she is voting for McCain;) I would be there in a heart beat as I’m sure any of you would.
Voter,
Blablabla…. you’re going to make me cry. You really know nothing about manipulators, do you? It’s obvious to me. Obama is a manipulator, a real one and a good one. I don’t even believe his grandmother is sick or even living, this is how much I trust the guy. And don’t count on the MSM to give you the facts. He’s probably just trying to buy himself a false birth certificate in Hawai to face the Berg’s lawsuit.
Voter Erika, there is no dismissal of this suit… for any one of the defendants. Period. Say it all you want, it it’s still not true. And I have no intention of wasting my time arguing the obvious with you.
ADDED: BTW, you obviously have no justice/court experience. If the suit were dismissed, Berg can refile with appellate court the same day. Most on the ball attorneys have briefs ready to go.
@Craig: ALL politicians are good manipulators, but you would feel pretty bad saying that, if she dies.
No, I wouldn’t feel bad at all. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t even believe it. When you are a liar, it is normal that nobody believes you.
And McCain and Sarah Palin are not manipulators. Get your facts right and go play somewhere else. You are boring me with your stupidities.
@MataHarley: I understand he could file on the same day, but, there’s the matter of the 30 days from the date of filing, with the election 2 weeks away, it would be after the election and too late. The thing is ANYONE can file a frivolous lawsuit to take peoples minds off of the real issues, and that is exactly what this is doing. I looked on google and saw a birth certificate for Obama, from hawaii. So I guess he wouldn’t need to “but himself a fake one”
Speaking of frivolous law suits. Just like that stupid lady filing a suit against the republican party for the negative adds. Just another crackpot.
I have to go to bed now. Take care, as always its a pleasure.
@Craig: Sarah Palin and McCain are not manipulators? You are the one “with the stupidities”. I guess you haven’t heard about Palin using Alaska’s money to take her daughters with her on official business, and later doctoring the records. To the tune of over $20,000. Just because they are republican does not mean they are angels. They All spin information to make themselves come out on top. Thats the game of politics. If you don’t agree with me thats fine. Don’t be an ass.
Interesting, Erika. Surely you don’t believe that just because there is an election, that the judicial system ignores the case away, do you?? In the justice system, there is no “too late” unless it’s beyond the statute of limitations.
Now, think a minute. What do you think would happen if Obama was elected, and a court did find him ineligible after the election?
Welcome to the inauguration of President Biden. Lordy… I’m depressed already.
BTW, INRE the birth certificate you found on Google… the same that was posted on Obama’s campaign site. I know you’re busy with your family, as you should be. But you really should take some time to read the original brief from Berg, and you’d know why Berg discounts that version. More than a few of us here have read the brief quite a while ago. So when you say things like you googled the birth certificate and pronounce that adequate for the courts, you’re opening yourself up for a lot of abuse here.
It’s a tough room… er saloon, girl. Best to have more info under your belt that you have on this one. Remember, you started out saying this was a hoax (#14)… morphed into realizing it was a real lawsuit, and erroneously stumbled into thinking there was a dismissal on the case for any named defendants in the suit.
I really recommend you read the original brief to know where Berg is coming from… before you pronounce any further judgments or “facts”.
As you can see by my original post on this lawsuit, I don’t know if this suit will go anywhere. One thing is obvious. Obama’s lawyers could have just sent on the documentation requested and the issue would be resolved. They didn’t… why? Too easy? Or is the evidence too vague to clear the the charges Berg laid out in his brief? Obama cannot afford a high profile court battle about his naturalization status at this moment.
So whether this is a frivolous lawsuit remains to be seen thru the court’s eyes. If Obama’s birth, along with the naturalization laws at that time, are questionable, it’s a simple matter to clear up by merely providing the documents. That they haven’t may indicate a court battle would be necessary. And Berg requested a trial by jury.
Because this has to do with Constitutional qualifications for a POTUS, and the evidence is being withheld by Obama, it differentiates it from the genuinely frivolous lawsuit of the Missouri woman. She is demanding $6 mil in punitive damages for mental anguish merely because a McCain supporter yelled “kill him” when Palin was referring to William Ayers. This is hardly on a par with whether a candidate is meeting Constitutional qualifications for leader of the free world.
One has some grounds in reality and import. The other is a publicity stunt.
Oy! From the frying pan to the fire, Erika..
Sorry… no “travel’gate” here.
Or per the Byron York at the Corner/Nat’l Review:
Bottom line, she was not only frugal by precedessor standards, all her per diems were within her rights to do so. OMG… a politician who is frugal? Give me one of those any day…
But made for a great headline to catch your attention and give you the wrong impression, eh?
@MataHarley: First, you can’t deny this guy Berg is a quack, or I guess shyster would better suit his profession. Isn’t he the same guy that sued Pres. Bush for 9/11? Or do you think he was just in that one to? And Palin took a per diem while she was at her own home and not out on official business, Also, her bridge to nowhere…she may have squashed the project, but still received the monies for the project. If the money was allocated for that, then why not give the money back, since the project is non-existent? I’m sorry but her taking her children with her, when not necessary and putting it on the states dime, is inexcusable. Not to mention she changed the documents to make it look like it was official business, smells like a cover up to me. I’m a mother and I would love to take my children to work with me, (if I worked)so I would find a job that would enable me to do so, if that was a priority to me. She stayed in luxury hotels, girls in seperate rooms, all on the states dime. If that’s not pork I don’t know what is. A former Governor of Alaska, the only other one with school age children, said he took his children with him ONE time. And didn’t charge it to Alaska. I understand that she had to keep an eye on her daughters, too bad she didn’t keep a close enough eye on Bristol. Maybe she’s just not up to the job to manage her family and politics, in my opinion, her family should come first.
Also, if frugal equals $150,000.00 for clothes and accesories for the campaign trail. I’d hate to see what a spending spree looks like.
First, voter, Berg is not a crack, he’s a lifelong dem that is qualified to argue cases before SCOTUS. He’s one of your’s.
Second, the campaign paid for Palin’s and her family’s clothing, the items are planned to be auctioned off for charity after the campaign.
The rest of your nonsense is covered quite extensively in Mata’s archives, thinking Mata mentioned that she is vacationing, be glad it’s me, not she, responding.
ADDING, looks like she’s still here, thankfully.
I dunno, Missy. I do consider Berg a leftist crackpot. LOL But then, if what he states is true, Obama’s qualifications are in question. And even crackpots have their day in court. This is America, afterall.
Voter/Erika. I really can’t talk to you about Palin. What I’d need to undo in your soundbyte education, and replace with facts, is not only time consuming… you’re just not worth it. Frankly, I can already tell with you that Obama could commit a murder before your very eyes, and you’d find some excuse to justify it. That kind of blind mentality no facts can penetrate. So forgive me if I just don’t bother….
Voter Erika,
Your just another jealous woman who can’t stand to see a woman succeed. I really pity you. And don’t try to tell me that you where all for Hillary, I will not believe that BS. You are an Obama Junkie, that’s all. And I don’t know why you even bother with this blog. Grow up! Get real!
@MataHarley:
The last half of your post reminds me of a story told to me by my Grandfather.
There was a woman who had 11 children. One fell into the septic tank.
His mother walked over, grabbed him by the collar, pulled him up a little, and then let him go saying, “It would be easier to have another one than to try and clean you up.”
Erika/voter is a full fledged Obamaton.
She cannot give any good reasons to support Obama other than the ever present HopeyChanginess.
No amount of reasoning, discussion, fact sharing, debating, discourse, shaming, or derision is going to change her mind.
Furthermore, her victim mentality gets in the way practically every time someone responds to her nonsense.
I’m still waiting for her to post that signed decree from the Court showing that Berg’s case has been dismissed.
***
@voter:
I just want to point out to you that one day that cute little two or three year old of yours will also be a teenager.
As a parent who already has two teenagers in the house (soon to be three), let me tell you that they don’t always do what you teach them is right. No amount of home training will guarantee that they will never stray from what they’ve been taught and unless you lock them away in a closet or chain them to you they will make bad decisions.
Some decisions will be worse than others, but there will be bad decisions.
Take it from someone who knows.
Be careful how far out on the limb you walk when it comes to criticizing a parent because one day you may look back and say, “You know Aye Chihuahua was right about that too”.
ROTFLMAO, Aye!