No they didn't.....FOX covered it from minute one....

• The sicko who shot the army soldier - sm
  • The reason the media covered - Trigger Happy
    • Speaking of psychos...(sm) - Just the big bad
      • You're right. They're all wack-jobs... nothing - of real value going on in their lives - SM
      • How are anti-abortion people nuts - sm
        • How are they NOT nuts? Those points could be counted - on 1 finger. No wait, NO fingers.
          • I will admit that there are some - Trigger Happy
      • Murdering near-term babies isn't violent? - WHAT A HYPOCRIT!!!! NM
        • You people are the hypocrits. Why don't you try - supporting mother & child financially,than?
    • The point is Obama NEVER thought it was important - either.................nm
    • Amen. nm - Tired
  • there's no media coverage because they issued a gag order - - Amanda
    • A gag order on the media? Doubtful. - GhostMom
      • No they didn't.....FOX covered it from minute one.... - Obama's true colors coming out.....nm
        • Ummm....(sm) - Just the big bad
        • So now Obama is also repsonsible for the media? - Do you expect him to wipe windows too?
          • Are you just deluded? - sm
    • who and why? - cj
      • It's a gag order to protect the dolt - AnnuderMT
        • Why would they want to protect him. - sm
          • Guilt doesn't eliminate rights - AnnuderMT
        • thank you.. - cj
      • If a gag order were issued............ sm - m
        • The media seem to voluntarily - C. Mudgeon
          • If they cannot get information from the courts, there is nothing to report! - Amanda
            • How many times have we seen - reporters standing on the courthouse steps
              • Maybe you've just missed it? - AnnuderMT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

health care plans.  My husband pays a portion just like everyone else.  We hardly use the health coverage, only for minor sinus infections, and I did have a hysterectomy last year. 

There are others walking around that have had multiple surgeries including bypass, and they pay the same amount towards the plan. 

How is that fair?  I feel the contribution should be paid on the usage, per se, and not so much (everyone is equal) because we are not.  I had a friend that had a lap band (fully covered), thyroid surgery, neck surgery, and goes the doctor every other week for something or other.  So, when we worked together, we both paid the same; yet, I did not go to the doctor or have any surgeries. 

Is that fair?  Why not look at something like that for cost effectiveness?  Would this turn people away from receiving the healthcare they need (not likely)?

Rush said that's why they went after him.  Seriously, for those who have never explored talk radio, it's like getting your doctorate in history.  It's so different than what many think.  Of course, I like all of it, but this is a fabulous encyclopedia for sources other than the "drivebys."  Of course, that's why the far-left Dems want that so-called Fairness Doctrine.  The centrists (what few are left flailing with little or now face time, for obvious reasons) know full well that if it happens to the conservatives, it'll come right back around and hit them in the butts, too. 

The Dems are very divided but put on a show for the cameras.  If a centrist or a new Rep. doesn't follow The Pelosi Principle, he/she will never get $ for another run, and certainly won't get to introduce anything of interest to that Rep.  The domino effect on that trickles down to the Rep's state, which in turn essentially gets nothing. 

It's quite refreshing to be able to have a friendly exchange here.  What on earth happened?  Let's hope it lasts!

Tiller like they did was so they could push this horrible accusation about how conservatives are to blame for this psycho gunning down Tiller.  However, this Muslim who attacked those soldiers doesn't benefit them by truly reporting on it.  Just like the Muslim who beheaded his wife because she was going to leave him....you barely heard a snitch about that story. 

I think the news should have covered Tiller's murder.  No one has the right to gun down anyone like that.  However, it would have been nice if they would have given the same respect to an American soldier who was gunned down as well.  It truly does make you wonder what is happening to our country.  Pretty sad when we care more about the death of a man who had no trouble killing babies and yet we have no problem with one of our soldiers being gunned down by a Muslim. 

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that rambles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it can always run back to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts

Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.

See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.

In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.

This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.

"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.

"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."

"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."

Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.

Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.

"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.

The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."

The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.

The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.

"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."

"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.

"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.

But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.

Jon Ward contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that toddles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it's up to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts

Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.

See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.

In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.

This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.

"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.

"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."

"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."

Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.

Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.

"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.

The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."

The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.

The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.

"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."

"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.

"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.

But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.

Jon Ward contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

This man has changed his mind (that's a nice way of saying he lies) as much as Biden did in the debate last PM.  Keep in mind that literally anything that is "gov't-sponsored" is actually YOU sponsored.  You take home less money (less than you do now, that's for sure), you hand over even more control to "the gov't," etc.

If nothing else, look how everything "the gov't" does gets more screwed up every time "they" touch it.  The bailout they just signed had thousands of pages added to it.  That's the name of that tune.  Hope this helps. 

Incidentally, I don't give anyone a free pass.  That's something I've never understood.

in a different way.

Let us say that your son or daughter are in school.  They are very good students.  They do their homework, study, and get good grades.  In fact, they get an A.  However, another little girl or boy didn't do so well in class.  Instead...they got a D.  Now an A is above average and a D is below average as I'm sure all of you aware of.  So the A student can afford to lose part of their grade right because they are above average.  So let us say that we take a bit of the A grade to up the unfortunate child who received a D so that way they get a C.  That would make the unfortunate child have an average grade.  Now the child earning the A but having it taken away is very upset.  They worked so hard for that A but because others felt she could afford to give up part of her A so another child could bring a below average grade up to an average grade would make the whole school a happy place because everyone would be average.  No one would be below average.  But the A student gets very down and stops trying because what is the point.  The A they earned will be taken away any way.  The D student continues to get below average grades because....hey...no big deal...teacher will just take it from an A student and I'll be average.  No harm done except now the A student is getting lower grades because their hard work has been penalized and they have stopped trying.

If this were happening in our school systems each and every one of us would have an absolute fit but that is exactly what Barrack Obama is wanting to do to us.  Instead he is doing it with our hard-earned money. 

First, $60,000 per year is not exactly in the wealthy category but even in this day it is or should be enough to pay for the necessities with some money left over.

Do I pay for everything with cash?  You betcha!  We have done so for years while we scrimped and saved to pay off the mortgage, get the cars paid off, etc.  Then that money instead of going into finer living went into savings.  We still live frugally because we fully expect that we will have to help our kids who are not yet old enough to have followed our advice...I might add that of 4 only 1 (Joe the real life plumber) has the desire to follow in our footsteps.  People these days want bigger houses, newer cars, more "stuff" to keep up with the Jones and have kept buying what they can't afford...when their credit runs out then what?  Bankruptcy?  Bush pretty well took that option off the table.  I fully expect debtor's prison to be the next thing on the agenda.

Use your head.  If the middle class does well everyone does well.  Where's the middle class now?  But the greed is still there and that includes greedy people as well as greedy big business.

As for the rebates.....I was NOT in favor of the rebates and said they would do no good........they didn't.  Mine went into the mattress and I'd gladly give it back if it would help this economy.  I imagine the majority of people threw money at the credit card bill collectors hoping to stave them off another day or so.  So who benefited from that?

even figure out who's WITH you, as evidenced by the little hissy fit above between you and another CON!!!

Please keep posting.  You're getting whackier with each post and revealing yourself for the nut case you truly are!!!

Plus, I'm intrigued by all the different voices in your head who surface at different times.  I guess tonight TM is doing the talking, and TM seems to be even more rude and angry and hateful than you usually are.

Why so angry, MT?  Roberts was confirmed today.  Why aren't you happy?  Or do you just have a terminal case of chronic bitterness, no matter what? Have you ever been nice to ANYONE?

PLEASE keep posting.  You're quite entertaining, even if in a pathetic sort of way.

Just think of what he spent on that.  That could be your hard-earned dollars at work in his big spending.  2 million bucks per station.  For 30 minutes of the same old stuff. 

Yeah, he's going to cut your taxes after he reverses Bush's tax cuts.  You will end up paying more than you do now, that is for sure. 

I wonder where he was sitting in the ad?  It looked like it could have been.....the Oval Office....

Okay, I get it.  The wholesale slaughter of babies does not bother you.  You have no care for them whatsoever.  Better they are sliced and diced than to add to the population problem.  What if some of them were serial killers?  Sheesh.  What if some of the dead Iraqis were going to be terrorists?  Good grief!

Talk about oversimplification.  Are you saying that every war that has been fought was for naught and should not have been fought?  Is that your stand?  Or is it just Iraq you are concerned about?  I have asked numerous times and you have never answered.  Should we never for any reason go to war? 

Personally I think Roe vs Wade SHOULD be overturned, because it is unconstitutional on its face.  It was enacted by activist judges overturning a state law ad taking it nationwide, which they have no right to do.  Only Congress at state or local level can enact law.  For that reason alone it should be overturned.   Then, if individual states want to change/stop/whatever abortion law they should be able to do it.  We are talking about killing of human beings here.  You can shoot someone in your house who is a danger to you in some states and face jail time for it...yet we slice and dice innocent babies in the womb who are defenseless and say no harm, no foul?  How contradictory is that may I ask?  And when, oh when, can we just ask people to show more responsibility?  With all the birth control methods there are available, we should not be seeing half a million abortions a year that are second, third, and fourth abortions.  That is just nuts.  And, though it probably does not matter a hoot to you, my work is done with women who find themselves in a situation where a choice has to be made, and work with organizations who offer a different choice.   I would like to change minds because that is where the true answer is.

All that being said, my active work is not going toward overturning Roe v Wade, though it should be for the reasons stated above.  Judges need to be reined in.  At least then if people are going to condone abortion (pro choice) then let them go to the polls and put their vote where their mouth is, so that we know the true will of the people.  If, as you say, over half the country does agree that abortion should be legal, that thought should not scare you and I don't know why it does.  And if abortion remained the law of the land, then I would continue the work I am doing, and that is trying to change minds and hearts, and give women in that situation a choice different from abortion.  Because I do believe in following the law of the land.  Hence, no picketing of abortion clinics, no bombings, no shooting doctors, no demonizing women in that situation.  I want to offer a different choice, to give them time to think about what they are doing and the long-reaching effects.  And I see nothing wrong with that.  If a woman decides to go ahead with an abortion, she is certainly able to do so and receives no condemnation from us.  It saddens us, of course.  But the women/girls we work with are not sent away with ridicule and condemnation and if they return later with regret they are welcomed and counseled.  And we see a fair amount of those as well.  And, wonderfully, we are beginning to see more women making a choice for life, whether keeping the child herself or choosing adoption.  I realize on the national level it is a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket...but one life saved, to me, is worth it.  I cannot concentrate on the many who are lost, or I would never get anything done.  I have to concentrate on the ones saved.

The real purpose of an abortion law is to encourage responsibility, because obviously something is haywire when half a million abortions a year are repeat abortions.  If that is not using abortion as birth control, kindly tell me what is.

And as a final note....the June Cleaver thing is a really old chestnut.  You can't tell me that 1.2 million women a year would turn into horrible mothers and the child would be better off dead than alive with their mothers.  There are far more success stories than not, and there are many, many families looking to adopt newborns.    There are many stories of girls/women who make that hard choice, and instead of the their lives being ruined, the child is the impetus for change in their lives.  The good stories far outweigh the bad.  And like I said...I am a glass half full kind of person.  If we can save even a portion of those 1.2 million lives, then I believe the efforts are worth it.  I certainly cannot just stand by and act like it does not matter to me.  Because it does.

We are never going to agree on this subject.  You can't understand why I would want to save babies and still think defending this country is okay, and I can't understand how you feel such empathy for casualties of war and feel none for aborted babies.  I certainly feel empathy for casualties of war.  However, I feel that war is sometimes necessary.  I have no trouble with that decision.  And I cannot equate the two...abortion and war.  And I don't know how you can. 

I personally don't make the decision to go to war.  You don't personally make the decision to get an abortion.  Either way, people die, although the numbers dying are much higher on the one side.  And, frankly, I don't think even with the war the number of dead Iraqis has caught up to what Saddam did when he was in power.  And that was not collateral damage, that was planned wholesale murder...very similar to abortion.  Gas them all, men women and children, defenseless and unable to fight back.  Line them up on the side of a pit, shoot them all, cover them up.  Torture, beheading.  Slice and dice, partially born, suck their brains out.  There is a similarity.  Murder.  Barbarism.  Same result.  Dead human beings.  When all is said and done, if a free Iraq emerges and that sort of behavior does not occur again, then I am willing to bet the Iraqis, down the road, will believe that it was worth it.  They thought so when they were waving American flags and hugging soldiers and toppling Saddam statues.   Just like we believed after the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, horrible and bloody though they were, were worth it. 

I sleep well at night and am comfortable with my decisions.  I assume you do too. So at least I will agree to disagree.

:)

My husband gets a pretty good retirement check each month so I would argue they didn't QUITE steal all the pension money.

It’s something of a tradition– administrations using their final weeks in power to ram through a slew of federal regulations. With the election grabbing the headlines, outgoing federal bureaucrats quietly propose and finalize rules that can affect the health and safety of millions.

The Bush administration has followed this tradition and expanded it. Up to 90 proposed regulations could be finalized before President George W. Bush leaves office Jan. 20. If adopted, these rules could weaken workplace safety protections, allow local police to spy in the “war on terror” and make it easier for federal agencies to ignore the Endangered Species Act.

What’s more, the administration has accelerated the rule-making process to ensure that the changes it wants will be finalized by Nov. 22.

That’s a key date, Nov. 22. It is 60 days before the next administration takes control — and most federal rules go into effect 60 days after they have been finalized. It would be a major bureaucratic undertaking for the Obama administration to reverse federal rules already in effect.

“The Bush administration has thought through last-minute regulations much more than past administrations,” said Rick Melberth, director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that tracks federal regulations. “They’ve said, ‘Let’s not only get them finalized; let’s get them in effect.’”

So what are the new rules?

The Washington Independent has highlighted five regulations notable for their potential effect and the way they slipped through the regulatory process. Four could to be finalized by Nov. 22. One was already — on Election Day.

1) The Dept. of Labor proposed a regulation Aug. 30 that changes how workplace safety standards are met. Labor experts contend that the administration, which previously issued only one new workplace safety standard and that under court order, is trying to make it a bureaucratic nightmare for future administrations to make workplace safety rules.

Here’s what it would do:

Currently, if the Occupational Safety and Health Admin. or the Mine Health and Safety Admin. want to introduce a new safety standard on, say, the level of exposure to toxic chemicals, it issues what is called a notice of proposed rule-making. This notice is published in the Federal Register and then debated by labor, business and relevant federal agencies.

The new regulation would add an “advanced notice of proposed rule-making,” meaning OSHA and MSHA would have prove that, say, the said chemical was seriously harming workers.

This would open the door for industry to challenge the validity of the risk assessment and then, if necessary, the actual safety standard that may come from that risk assessment.

“The purpose of this sort of rule is to require agencies to spend more time on a regulation which gives them less of a chance to actually regulate,” said David Michaels, a professor of workplace safety at George Washington University, “You’re adding at least a year, maybe two years, to the process.”

The regulation has not been finalized.

2) The administration proposed a rule that changes the employer-employee relationship laid out in the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.

Here’s what it would do:

The Family and Medical Leave Act says that employers must give their workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave if they are sick or need to take care of a family member or newborn. The employer’s health-care staff can check the legitimacy of the family or medical leave claim with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider.

The proposed regulation would allow the employer to directly speak with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider. The employer could also ask employees to provide more medical documentation of their conditions.

Why such a rule — which may threaten an employee’s privacy– is needed is unclear. The only study the Labor Dept. has done on the act was in 2000. The department collected comments from employers before issuing the proposed regulation, but a report analyzing the comments was never issued.

The regulation also would gives employees the right to waive their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, making it the first national labor law to be optional. A worker, for instance, cannot waive his right to earn a minimum wage or get paid more for overtime.

The regulation was finalized on Election Day.

3) The Dept. of Health and Human Services proposed a rule Sept. 26 that would expand the reasons that physicians or health care entities could decline to provide any procedure to include moral and religious grounds. The language of the regulation says the department hopes to correct “an attitude toward the health-care profession that health-care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination.”

Here’s what it would do:

The rule change seems to apply to abortion. But they are already several rules that say physicians or health-care entities can deny an abortion request. Some women’s health advocates contend that the proposed regulation’s broad language is meant to increase the number of physicians who not only don’t provide abortions but don’t provide contraception.

“Contraception is certainly the target of this rule,” contends Marylin Keefe, director for Reproductive Health at the National Partnership for Women and Families. “The moral and religious objections of health-care workers are now starting to take precedence over patients.”

The regulation is notable for another reason. A rule involving an employee’s religious rights must be referred to the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, yet the commission was never told of this proposed regulation.

A bureaucratic battled erupted when EEOC’s legal counsel, Reed Russell, wrote a regulation comment (pdf) blasting both the substance of the proposed rule and its disregard for the rule-making process.

The regulation has not been finalized.

4) On July 31, the Justice Dept. proposed a regulation that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect “intelligence” information on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to a criminal matter.

“This is a continuum that started back on 9/11 to reform law enforcement and the intelligence community to focus on the terrorism threat,” said Bush homeland security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein in a statement.

Critics say it could infringe on civil liberties.

Here’s what it would do:

“It expands local law enforcement’s ability to investigate criminal activity that it deems suspicious,” said Melberth of OMB Watch. “But what’s suspicious to you may not be suspicious to me. They could be investigating community organizations they think are two or three steps away from a terrorist group.”

The regulation has not been finalized.

5) Before a federal agency approves any construction project– anything from building a dam to a post office — government officials must consult the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These two agencies enforce the Endangered Species Act, and they can veto any project that adversely affects an animal on the endangered species list.

Here’s what it would do:

A regulation proposed by the Interior Dept. Aug. 12 would end this approval process. “It destroys a system of checks and balances that have been in place for two decades,” claimed Bob Davison, senior scientist at Defenders of the Wildlife. “[A federal agency] wants to go forward with a project that [it wants] to do. So you need an independent agency to look at the decision.”

Davison is not the only conservation advocate up in arms. The Interior Dept. has received 200,000 public comments, which may affect the final rule.

Or not — the department shortened the comment period from 60 to 30 days in its effort to get the regulation finalized.

In May, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten vowed that the administration would propose no regulations after June 1. He and White House spokesman Tony Fratto have repeatedly stated their contempt for what they call “midnight regulations.”

Yet with the exception of the Family and Medical Leave changes, each of these regulations were proposed after June 1. And if finalized, they will effect worker’s safety, women’s health-care choices, local police powers and endangered species.

“It was a pretty resounding election,” said Keefe of the National Partnership for Women and Families. “But this administration acts like it still has a mandate.”

you use Hitler to illustrate your point.  This "occupation" you speak if simply a myth created and perpetuated by the Palestinians.  Aside from the history I posted below, allow me to post more on the subject of "occupation." 

The Jewish perspective on Palestine was that with proper development there would be room for all. Many of the early settlers were Labor Zionists and they identified with the poor Arab fellahin. In 1920, David Ben Gurion (who would later declare the State of Israel and become its first Prime Minister) stated: "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them... Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

Thus the focus was on the purchase of uncultivated lands, often swamps or barren sand dunes, and with no tenants (e.g. the Hula valley, Tel Aviv).

In 1930, John Hope Simpson (chair of the Hope Simpson Commission) noted that Jews "paid high prices for land, and in addition they paid to certain occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." (P. 51, Hope Simpson report)

The next year, after Arab cries about being dispossessed from their land, Lewis French led a British effort to provide land to Arabs that had been displaced. Of the 3,000 applications received, 80% were determined to be invalid. Ultimately, only about 100 landless Arabs were offered alternative plots. (from French's Supplementary Report submitted to the Palestine Royal Commission.)

In 1936 the Peel Commission arrived on the scene. From its PRC report (p. 242): "much of the land now carrying orange groves were sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased.... there was at the time... little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."

The vast majority of Jewish owned lands had been uncultivated, often thought to be uncultivatable. Jews, who comprised roughly a third of the population, only held 11% of the land that was defined as "arable." The Peel Commission found that any land shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population."

This increase far exceeded population increases in neighboring countries and, not surprisingly, took place in areas where development by Jews was at work. While Jewish immigration was regulated, restricted, and at times totally forbidden by the British, scores of thousands of Arabs crossed into Palestine from miles and miles of poorly patrolled land borders.

So this was the glorious country of Palestine that the Palestinians (most of them great, great grandchildren of those who live there now) talk about. Most of their ancestors were immigrants, brought to Palestine between WWI and II by the British at the request of the other Arab countries who promised them cheap oil if they helped. They did.  In the meantime, Jews had started settling there and building up the land.

The myth that the area was thriving prior to Jewish development is false.  It had its moments, but alternated between desert and malaria infested swamps.  So much for the claim that the land had been held, or at least worked if not owned by a family, for "generations." Plots were changed "annually."

Thus, while most people who don't know the history of Israel, think Jews stole the land, they are very much mistaken. It was purchased. Israeli land was developed into orange groves from swamps, from sand dunes into cities. And now, the Palestinians who hadn't the least interest in that land until the Jews developed it. wanted it. While the Israeli population increased slowly, the Arab population increased ten-fold both from immigration and very large families huddled into poor neighborhoods. Instead of building infrastructure, US aid was pocketed by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders to increase their bank accounts and to wage wars.

Arafat himself was no Palestinian. Like most Palestinians he was also an immigrant; an Egyptian. After the UN partitioned Palestine, and declared Israel a state, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, armed to the teeth, declared war on Israel. Though Israel had few weapons, and no help from any other country, they won the 1948 War of Independence. The Arabs have waged 5 wars on Israel, and lost all of them. In addition there have been many multi-terrorist attacks. Though won in bloody battles, Israel was forced to return the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, the Sinai and other territories which they gained with their lives in wars that the Arabs started.

That's the story. Most of you know the rest. The Intifada, the suicide bombers, the constant attacks of Arabs on Israeli settlements, the canons from the Golan Heights, which, rained down on Jewish kibbutzes, (farms) and the theft of all the money supplied by the US to Palestine which enriched Arafat's pockets and is now in the hands of his young late wife and a Swiss bank. To blind the people as to what he was doing (stealing American money) Arafat ( a terrorist himself who in his younger days blew up Jewish children's school buses) encouraged Arab Palestinians to terrorize the Israelis. Arafat continued his terrorism from Jordan and Lebanon (two Arab countries), and was kicked out of both for causing anarchy and chaos. He returned to Palestine, and more terrorist groups formed and developed, most under his directive.

Palestinian groups that support and carry out acts of political violence include Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, - General Command, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Abu Nidal Organization, all of which are officially listed as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Until 1993, the PLO was also listed as a terrorist group, but in 1988 Arafat renounced violence. (duh) Didn't happen. The PLO Charter's full text of this infamous document negates Israel's right to exist and calls for its destruction through violence. Peace Watch has explained, the PLO's vote on April 24, 1996 did not satisfy its legal obligation to amend the charter.

Terrorism was picked up by other Arab countries. Now it goes on around the Arab world.

"Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage "ever since their illegal coup" against the forces of (Palestinian Authority) President Mahmoud Abbas."  In the AP report, they attempted to scour this lie by stating that Rice pinned the blame for the violence on Hamas, the Islamist Resitance Movement that "seized power" in Gaza in June 2007 after "ousting" the US-backed Palestinian Authority of Mahmud Abbas.  Neither statement even remotely resembles the truth. 

Hamas won control of 28 municipalities in both the West Bank and Gaza in the municipal elections of 2005, including control in the West Bank's largest cities (Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah and East Jerusalem).   They achieved a stunning victory in the legislative elections in 2006,  which yielded a yielded a 78% voter turnout.  Hamas won 76 out of 132 seats on the Legislative Council.  Factoring in the 4 seats won by independents who support Hamas, they seized 80 seats, giving them control of 60.6% of the council.  In other words, they did BETTER than the US democrats in 2008. 

Hamas benefited in the election from the fractures in the secular, US-backed (kiss of death) Fatah party of Mahmoud Abbas.  Fierce in-fighting between Hamas and Fatah factions erupted in the election aftermath.  Israel and the US (along with Egypt) immediately tried to undermine Hamas and force them from power, even going so far as to arm and train Fatah for a war with Hamas!  They hatched a plot that involved smuggling US arms for Fatah strongholds in Gaza through a suddenly porous Egyptian border with Israel's blessing.   

As with countless other ill-advised US attempts to rearrange the political landscape in the Middle East, this stunt backfired all over the place.  When this engineered conflict erupted later in the summer, Fatah and Hamas officers and leaders (including Abbas) were targeted by their respective militia's opponents.  Things got really nasty and Abbas HIMSELF dissolved the Palestinian-Hamas unity government, declared a state of emergency, tried to dismiss the prime minister and declared himself ruler of Gaza by presidential decree.  Can you say US-backed coup?  Of course, this went over like a lead balloon with the newly elected Hamas leadership.

Ultimately, this led to the current division of government between Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Palestinian National Authority), who the US and EU normalized relations with and began sending direct aid.  Abbas relocated to the West Bank and is still the President of the Palestinian National Authority.  In the meantime, he has found it increasingly more difficult to sustain the more moderate status quo support of US-brokered peace initiatives with Israel in view of the absence of such during Bush's second term.  He has announced he will not run for office again at the end of his current term.  In May 2008, he stated he would resign if Condi's impotent so-called peace talks did not produce results within 6 months.  In July, he spoke not only of resigning, but also of dismantling the Palestinian Authority all together. 

As a footnote, Gaza is held hostage by Israel occupation of Palestine and its 18-month blockade, which Condi failed to mention in her statement this morning, not by their democratically elected representatives. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/16/israel.comment http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412813,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/international/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=d28cff5caa1702fa&hp=&ex=1139979600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0525/p07s02-wome.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/14/MNGIPMV3N61.DTL

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article640747.ece

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/806603.html

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.