The Brutal Truth. Articles, stories, commentaries, videos, etc. are all Conservative based. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information. The opinions expressed through the thousands of stories here do not necessarily represent those of The Brutal Truth.
We are not going to censor the news and information here. That is for you to do.
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
The claim: Democrats held the nation’s longest filibuster for 75 days to attempt to prevent the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
When senators want to put the brakes on legislation, they talk. And talk. And talk some more. That's called a filibuster.
Who holds the record for the longest filibuster? Recently a claim has made the rounds: "In 1964, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Democrats held the longest filibuster in our nations history, 75 days. All trying to prevent the passing of one thing. The Civil Rights Act."
One Facebook user shared a post with the claim on social media on June 5. She did not respond when asked if she had any additional comments.
The Senate’s website states that the “longest continuous debate in Senate history” was about the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Prior to passing the act, Southern congressmen signed the “Southern Manifesto” to resist racial integration by all “lawful means,” states the Library of Congress’ exhibit, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom.”
The Library of Congress website states the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights led to an attempt to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
The Senate site states President John F. Kennedy supported the act prior to his assassination and that President Lyndon B. Johnson encouraged Congress to pass the act in honor of Kennedy and to “end racial discrimination and segregation in public accommodations, public education, and federally assisted programs.”
Emanuel Celler, a New York Democrat, introduced the House’s version of a resolution on June 19, 1963, that would become the Civil Rights Act, according to an article in Smithsonian Magazine.
The House passed the bill on Feb. 10, 1964. It moved to the Senate on Feb. 26, 1964, and was placed on the Senate’s Judiciary Committee’s calendar, the Senate’s website states. The committee was chaired by civil rights opponent James Eastland of Mississippi.
According to Senate history, the issue was moved for consideration on March 9, 1964, when “Southern senators launched a filibuster against the bill,” with debates lasting 60 days.
What’s real right now is a political and legal escalation around the Clintons and Epstein , but the “referred to DOJ for arrest” line you’re seeing is mostly a spin on a narrower, procedural step. Here’s how it breaks down in plain terms: The House Oversight Committee , chaired by Rep. James Comer , has issued subpoenas for Bill and Hillary Clinton to sit for depositions about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, along with subpoenas to the Department of Justice for Epstein-related records. These subpoenas are part of a broader Epstein investigation on Capitol Hill, not a criminal indictment. Congress is demanding testimony and documents; DOJ is being compelled to turn over files. The Clintons have so far refused to appear for the requested depositions, which has triggered talk among some Republicans about treating them like Steve Bannon was treated (i.e., contempt of Congress referrals to DOJ if they keep defying subpoenas). This is where th...
He is heavily associated with Epstein in the records and emails, but investigators say they have found no proof of Trump committing a crime with Epstein. Political commentator Jack Cocchiarella reacts to the latest Trump Epstein scandal. Trump PANICS As Fox Host ADMITS Epstein CHILD CRIMES On Air! Here’s the breakdown. 1. What the official investigations say A recent DOJ/FBI memo reviewing the Epstein case states there is no evidence of a “ client list ,” blackmail operation, or additional uncharged co-conspirators that they can credibly pursue. When the DOJ and FBI release a memo insisting there is “no evidence” of a client list, no blackmail network, and no additional co-conspirators to pursue, many observers question whether the statement reflects the truth or simply the limits of what the government is willing to acknowledge. The Epstein case has always operated in the shadows of powerful interests, with sealed files , destroyed records , and...
In recent months, the California Democrat’s public language has taken on an unmistakably biblical tone. Even his mocking “patriot shop” — created to parody the merchandise sold by President Donald Trump to fund his political efforts — includes a Bible for sale, though it remains permanently “sold out” as part of the long-running joke. Newsom has long pointed to his Catholic upbringing as a guiding force in certain decisions, most notably citing his faith as the motivation for halting state executions in 2019, one of his earliest major actions as governor. He has also, on occasion, mentioned his Jesuit education at Santa Clara University. But the explicit, repeated invocation of scripture is something new, emerging only in the past few months as a consistent element of his messaging. “It has become a much more frequent reference point for him,” said Dan Schnur, a longtime Republican political operative and professor at UC Berkeley. This rhetorical shift comes at the same time Newsom ...
Comments
Post a Comment