U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-05-14
In Reply to:
Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.
The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.
In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.
LINK/URL: Mentally ill troops
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
My rights haven't been violated
again, name someone's rights who have? Nobody can seem to answer that question.
I don't care how he protects us just so he does. We still don't know if what he did was illegal or not, but of course you've already tried and sentenced him.
Again, this is not going to be a winning issue with you all.
So now I'm a racist because I don't want the constitution violated?
Go figure.
So what happened to you? Violated by a priest?
n/m
Please give examples of people violated by the Patriot Act
like rr said, Nancy Pelosi said she knows of no one who has been abused by the Patriot Act.
You appear to be mentally ill
nuff said.
handicapped and mentally ill
You can call it liberal or socialism or whatever tilts your wheel - but I believe it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to help the handicapped and mentally ill. There are some who, due to no fault of their own, are in need of help by our government because by the looks of most complaints I am reading - We The People - are only out for ourselves and screw everybody else. Just exactly what are we paying massive taxes for? If it is not to help my fellow man.......then what is it for? They did everything on the cheap (including outfitting our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan) during our last administration - less government so GW and his cronies could steal us blind and walk off with the WH silverware in the last few days of tyranny. God help us all when the food riots start.
Mentally ill and Reaganomics
I, along with most Americans remember when Reagan decided to 'de-institutionalize' the mentally ill; turned them into the streets and when he did so, he made certain that the majority of these unfortunate souls were released into urban neighborhoods (I live in the Bay Area in California) - of course he did not turn them loose in cities like Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Concord, Orinda and other affluent suburbs, and didn't give a rat's patoot regarding the effect this would have on these already struggling urban neighborhoods, and cared even less about the type of care these institutionalized individuals received (most often than not did NOT receive). Every time I hear that man's name it sickens me..
Mentally ill and Reaganomics
I, along with most Americans remember when Reagan decided to 'de-institutionalize' the mentally ill; turned them into the streets and when he did so, he made certain that the majority of these unfortunate souls were released into urban neighborhoods (I live in the Bay Area in California) - of course he did not turn them loose in cities like Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Concord, Orinda and other affluent suburbs, and didn't give a rat's patoot regarding the effect this would have on these already struggling urban neighborhoods, and cared even less about the type of care these institutionalized individuals received (most often than not did NOT receive). Every time I hear that man's name it sickens me..
He is mentally disturbed.
nm
Mentally ill....? That is quite a bash, friend...
I was trying to be civil but the gloves are off now. You are so far embroiled into the liberal lockstep you don't even know what civil is, and you have demonstrated your own immaturity by this attack.
*I think you and your friends are playground bullies with maturity of a 5-year-old...*
This from someone who supports a so-called adult who let his johnson run his life...and then commit perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up. Yep, there is a MATURE role model for you and you are following him like the sheeple. Instead of talking about it intelligently (that presupposes you are capable), you whine, snipe, and run.
You are welcome to any opinion you have about the *far right* Republican party, conservatives, et al. I have an opinion about the *far left* (although I believe that the whole party is so far left there is no more *moderate* left, they have been so effectively silenced). I believe that the Democratic party will finish destroying this country if they stay in power. Bill got a good start, and you, like the good sheeple are, follow blindly. The upper crust of your liberal party could not care LESS about you, walked to power on your shoulders, and intend to keep you oppressed and under their thumb to stay in power. The truth is, the far right Republican party cares more about you than they ever will. Not bashing, an opinion!
*You guys don't play fair.* Boy, THAT is rich! Someone disagrees with you or takes a shot at that tin god Clinton you bow to, and you don't want to have an intelligent debate, you just want the naysayers to go away. It is that kind of blinder vision that lets people like Adolf Hitler take hold and suddenly it is all right to kill six million people. You spewed enough venom here to pretty much prove that point. But the bigger point is this one, and if you have one brain cell left that is not liberally indoctrinated, LISTEN. The far right Republican party, and conservatives, are AMERICANS too! For the love of mike, get a grip and take off that liberal hat for 10 seconds and realize, conservatives are people just like you, have families just like you, pay taxes just like you, and whether you LIKE IT OR NOT, have rights just like you. I cannot believe the tone you are taking. Read your own post! Sheesh. You are acting like these people (myself included) are your mortal enemies. What in the world is the MATTER with you??? This is a posting board, not a battlefield. Good grief!!
Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.
Olbermann? -the mentally deranged commentator?
nm
Nope...the mentally deranged comentator is
.
News flash, Jon Voight is mentally ill.
x
Because leftist extremists are not emotionally or mentally adults
They cannot hold their own in debate, so they throw fits and insults. They throw they pre-programmed leftist talking points that have nothing of substance behind them. They cannot have an adult conversation simply because they are not adults psychologically.
Do you know how mentally sick you are? You sound like a wild woman to me.
.
You are right. I will obey the rules from now on. sm
Have a nice holiday.
Sure you don't break the rules
Sure you don't. Your fingerprints are all over the conservative board, but that's neither here or there but I could really care less.
Some of Pelosi's new rules sm
This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.
The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.
Here are some of the new rules Pelosi wants:
No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.
No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.
No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.
Temptations resisted
To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.
House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.
Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.
Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.
What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.
Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.
At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?
Can it work?
No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.
But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.
Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.
Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.
This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.
They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.
Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.
These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.
The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.
rules, forum
dd
Where does one find the rules? There have been...
many posts that were quite lengthy. Is there a limit on length or just cut and paste?
I understand that is against the rules, but
the only way I can see that actually making a difference is if somebody went in completely undecided, but had prayed for God to show them a sign. 
I sure hope everybody has a clear picture in their mind of who they want to vote for and why before they drive to their polling place and punch that card.
they have not changed the rules yet
Hedge funds are still doing sneak attacks on companies, driving them into the dirt.
Citigroup got hit today, down 23%. It is worth 6 bucks and one year ago was 40. They need to change the rules on these hedge funds. They can pick on any company and kill it in a day.
Okay. Thanks. I understand now. Different rules for different boards.
nm
Majority rules not the minority
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
Just playing by liberal rules
It doesn't matter if something is supposed to be funny or not. In the liberal world every statement is taken literally. According to GT even thinking something stereotypical or racial should be grounds for dismissal from your job or worse yet a trip to the gallows, but in the next breath she posts a blatantly stereotypical article about our nations regions.
Oh did I take what GT said out of context? Did other people take what GT said out of context? Gee, gosh, sorry...but cccording to the LIBERAL rules nothing is ever taken out of context. If you utter the words like *black* or *abortion* in the same sentence. Then you're a racist...case closed.
Don't blame us for enforcing your rules. We didn't make them, but you have to play by them too, or we'll call you out...
Have a nice night....
Actually I agree about the rules. But don't use the first when you really don't respect it.
x
And the monitor obviously has one-sided rules.
All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally. You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.
It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above. Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.
At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board. Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.
All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude. In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue. All you're about is attacking. Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.
Says a lot about fairness on this board.
And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.
Will you leave? Sure. *RME* As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board. Choose one.
To Monitor: A CON says your rules are *stupid*
and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina). They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.
Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).
Please ask them to leave.
Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??
The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.
I already posted the one that said your rules are stupid
in my post to you above. Another example is the post below.
Never mind. Maybe the poster is *right.* I have a feeling if a liberal poster was trolling the conservative board and said your rules were *stupid* you would be telling them to stay on their own board.
There are other sites where the rules are enforced equally, even for liberals.
See ya.
He can't make rules by himself....obviously the rest of the...
legislature must have agreed with him. Again I ask you...if it happened in YOUR family, would you not use every means at your disposal to help your family member get the help they needed?
Seems he likes to make up the rules as he goes along (sm)
You know, like a child playing a board game changes the rules all the way through to make sure he or she will win? If he was going to improve his aquaintances he should have done that a loooong time ago. Not right now before the election, looks kinda....fishy.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post. Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board. Also, you said insults. I asked for examples of that. Again, you did not provide any. I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating. I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on. However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian. That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part. I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here. As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
Sounds like a petty, cruel god's rules
Actually this sounds like a human's idea of what a god would want. So obsessed with rules and regulations......
We haven't changed the rules at all. To what are you referring?
/
I follow the Old Testament and those rules aren't too
NM
Bush weakens EPA/ESA rules to pave way for
that would be mountain-top mining of the kind that has blown mountain tops off in the Appalchains. Ever seen a picture of this? Is this the kind of drill, baby drill you want?
Prop 8 --- majority rules problem...(sm)
Okay, I've seen several posts on here about how Prop 8 should be upheld because *the majority rules.* Almost every civil rights movement that was successful including the right for women to vote, the right for inter-racial marriage, etc would have never made it if we had gone by the idea that the majority rules. In fact, isn't that the point of civil rights? -- to protect minorities? Also, the constitution says *we the people,* not we the christians. ARRRRGGGGHHH!
My post is in accordance with forum rules.
Apparently, you have not read the moderator's post at the top of the Politics forum, which instructs you to keep religious posts where they belong on the Faith forum. The moderator has indicated that religious posts will be removed from the Politics forum and placed on the Faith forum, as they should be. If you have a problem with this, maybe you should discuss it with the moderator.
I don't make the rules, Sir Percy. The Administrator was. The fact is. sm
I agree with you. But this board has a history and as you can see, on both boards, the minute an opposing point of view comes on board, the moderators are summoned. It's a fact. This used to be a combined board but it was separated because of constant insults and failure to behave as mature adults.
And: Study the comma rules and capitalize 'European'
You see, every day you learn something new, from me.
Hehehehe!
I guess they figure if Bush doesn't play by the rules,
they don't have to, either. No big surprise here. They want to take over everything, just as Bush does: With Bush, it's the world. With them, it's this message board. I agree with you, though. They should stay on their own board, as the moderator has requested. 
Thank God our troops
Okay...so you are okay with troops in ...
Afghanistan...just not in Iraq...?
Yes, has nothing to do with the troops.
And no, it does not make her a resident expert. Explain the differences of opinions amongst our own troops. Not all of them believe what they are doing is justified. Not every mother believes it either. It has nothing at all to do with being prideful of our sons and daughters. My point being is that their job is done. My brother is a gunny and is doing his job, but he no longer feels justified in doing it, and he is not alone. And I believe HIM. If the other poster is a resident expert because her son is in Iraq, then I guess that makes me a resident expert as well, no?
Yes, Liberal Thinker, and proud of it. I have not abandoned compassion. My agenda is to stop this needless war. My compassion is expanded to all not just a few. It started in my brain, and I am letting it spill out my mouth.
Yes. I criticize that with which I do not believe. That is our right is it not?
And last time I looked, this is a political forum, and a liberal forum at that.
It has nothing to do with our troops.
Why are you taken it so personally? You must realize that for every picture of sunshine your son sends you there is one that depicts suffering and starvation and death. I have family fighting it Iraq. It's doesn't change my stance that I feel that they are there unjustly. That's the real deal. Not quite sure how having family there makes you the resident expert. The point to my post was that we shouldn't be there anymore. Our troops have done what the Bush administration wanted done on the initial invasion. Now we are there fighting for an ideal that doesn't exist. So, in that perhaps you don't have a clue. If you son dies at the hands of an insurgent, those same insurgents who benefit from keeping unrest in the country and keeping it destabilized, a situation that our government and you refuse to recognize or better yet do anything about, I wonder if you will feel the same? Would his death be justified then? We are not fighting terrorists anymore in Iraq. They've moved on to other countries. What happens if there is another strike? Our troops are too thin and they are tired. Draft? Getting on your patriotic horse isn't help us end this war any sooner. There is no pride in this war anymore, if there ever was.
We have been paying Pakistan since 2001 to help fight terrorism. They haven't done much with our 10 billion dollars have they? If Al- Qaeda is to blame for Bhutto's death, then Pakistan should deal with it, and I don't believe we should be sending them anymore money. We shouldn't have been sending them money to begin with.
This is a widespread virus of Islamic extremism that we have concentrated mostly in Iraq while Al-Qaeda has gained strength in other countries while our military is being depleted. It is to their benefit this war continues because it destabilizes OUR country. Unless we have a full coalition from other countries to help fight this war, it cannot be won and we are wasting our time and our money on a pipe dream.
We do not have infinite resources to fight a civil unrest that will probably never be rectified. This war was handled poorly from the beginning and it is getting worse by the day.
I don't think YOU are paying attention to what is really go on in Iraq. Do you want your son there indefinitely? How about your son's son? This is a religious war for them, it will never end unless we end it.
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
That's what the troops are supposed to be doing
The key word is *securing.* It's an extreme exaggeration to say that the U.S. was supporting Hezbollah by making sure a Suni and Shiite combined rally did not get out of hand, but it's par for the course of for the dramaticists known as the mainstream media. Poor and misleading reporting is what they specialize in.
|
