Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do

Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-01-31
In Reply to: The truth? (sm) - Just the big bad

Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????


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

Obama values life of babies AND their mothers.
I am not in the habit of debating with brick walls, but I will address your issue directly just as soon as you come up with something that will convince me that McCain's air quotes demontrate high regard for human life. Kill the mom, save the baby, then watch while it pulls itself up by its bootstraps, lest we turn our beloved country into a welfare state. P-U.
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.

Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.

The evidence?

The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.

So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.

Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.

What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?

Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.

The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.

It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.

This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.

Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.

The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?

Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?

In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.

What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?

The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?

If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!

I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.

Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!

Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.




We murder 4000 innocent babies by abortion each

and every day, 50 million total so far in this country and counting, and now we will pay for abortions worldwide.  Social Security is bankrupt but would not be if those 50 million innocent children had had a choice for life.  No one can deny that fact.


Add it up:  Abortion kills 4000 innocent babies each day.  Queers do not populate.


I would definitely say we are practicing population control, and Obama gonna see we practice worldwide. 


 


 


My belief? "late-term abortion" or partial-birth abortion" = infanticide, it is sickening
So in these cases I do think, as in most things, there is no ABSOLUTE, but a judicious guideline for this should be investigated and established by the medical community, as far as survival/outcome, but then we must be willing to prosecute mothers and doctors who go outside the guidelines...with established jail terms....and more money to house these "criminals" for years. Why not let God by the ultimate judge, He has the wisdom and the power, and eternity without God is worse than anything we as humans can mandate, don't you think?
meant is against abortion...didn't mean supports abortion (NM)

Is Obama losing support or winning support?
John Clodfelter of Mechanicsville, Va., whose son was among the 17 sailors killed in the Cole bombing, said he arrived at the meeting with apprehension over the decision to close the prison. But after listening to the president and being assured that the terrorism suspects would not be released, Mr. Clodfelter said his opinion changed.

“I did not vote for the man,” Mr. Clodfelter said, “but the way he talks to you, you can’t help but believe in him. He left me with a very positive feeling that he’s going to get this done right.”
hope a lot of these posters are not mothers
because they would be horrible role models for the younger generation.
Men and woman and mothers and fathers are speaking now. sm
Many of whom have fought in Iraq.  They are on television right now. But you won't watch it. It would be too hard for you.  YOu would be screaming obscenities at them.  Do you know, they had to bleep out part of the antiwar march yesterday in DC because of the obscenities and vulgar language.  That is what you are, obscene and vulgar and unpatriotic.
Do you think all mothers would choose their life over their child's?
A serious question.
No, I didn't....it was in response to all the attacks about unwed mothers..
but i guess you feel that is okay, right?
Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect







Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst


"Sheehan has been involved in protests against Bush since last year. She founded Gold Star Families for Peace...She said she decided to seek another audience with Bush when she heard his comments about the war last week, after a spike in American deaths. The fallen men and women "died in a noble cause," Bush said Wednesday. "Their families can know that we will honor their loved ones' sacrifice by completing the mission."


"Sheehan said she wants to tell Bush not to use her son's death as a reason to continue the war, and to ask "why (Bush's twin daughters) Jenna and Barbara and the other children of the architects of this disastrous war are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble." ArmyTimes.com, August 8, 2005


For some, Cindy Sheehan's lonely journey through the shock and sorrow of her son Casey's death in Iraq is of no interest. What, they ask, is the big deal? One soldier killed, one mother grieving – so what? Mothers have no business meddling in the manly business of war, or expressing inconvenient, disloyal, unpatriotic feelings like grief or anger. Get over it, critics command, and think about "the mission" instead, a mission that "we should see through" so that other people can't make fun of us for "cutting and running."


Instead of focusing on one poor misguided woman, or on how many more Americans and innocent Iraqi families will be killed in this war, we're told to think about how great it will be when other people admire us for killing every terrorist and future terrorist in the whole wide world. Instead of thinking about the new fundamentalist Islamic "democracy" that Bush's war has ushered in for the poor girls and women of Iraq, think about "the good news" way, way down the road when they get used to wearing the burqa and live happily ever after. In short, Americans should focus on "the big picture."


But for mothers – even those who've tried valiantly to believe the president when he exclaims that the war on Iraq is a "noble cause" – there IS no big picture. For mothers of slain soldiers, there are only little pictures: their lost child smiling at 10 months in his high chair; riding his first bike without training wheels; opening Christmas presents (Hot Wheels, Transformers, or GI Joe); and making silly faces for the camera.


The little picture encompasses all those times when parents stay up all night with their sick children, or protect them from bullies, or wipe away their tears after a friend's rejection. It's not just the happy times that mothers remember, it's the multitude of little moments, little pictures in a parent's mind, of time and love invested in one's offspring. When this enormous investment is squandered by reckless military adventures that zip kids into body bags, parents are owed great compensation. And they are owed the truth.


Do George and Laura Bush ever imagine how it would feel if all they had left of their beloved child was, as Cindy Sheehan has, a few snapshots and an abyss of sorrow in their hearts? Must they suppress their natural compassion in order to convince themselves of their own administration's spin – that it's "worth it" when American kids die far away from home for reasons that have consistently turned out to be false?


Do the Bushes feel the earth tremble beneath their feet at the mere thought that thousands of parents of slain soldiers are beginning to ask questions, to see the folly for which their children died…to find their voice?


Cindy remembers the little picture, which is why George has been hiding from her. She is his worst nightmare, for she is not just Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey. She is Every Mother. And, no matter how uncomfortable it gets, she's not going to dishonor her son by saying, "Well okay, if you say so, I guess this war was worth my boy's life."


Support Our Wars or Else


What does it really mean to "honor" a soldier's death…and life? To say that he or she willingly died "to end terrorism" (impossible), or "make Iraq a democracy" (ditto)? Unless they were suicidal when they enlisted (I know one boy who was), dying in Iraq is not the soldier's "sacrifice" because by definition, a sacrifice is something that we choose and willingly make. Most young people never imagined when they enlisted – often for reasons their recruiters understood but their parents didn't, such as finding a sense of belonging, or escaping bad neighborhoods or dead-end jobs, or finding a way to afford college some day – that they'd be dead within a matter of months.


To swallow ridiculous, ever-changing reasons for the futile war that has killed over 1800 idealistic youths with their whole lives ahead of them is to take the easy, socially acceptable way out. Pro-war pundits and politicians constantly threaten parents with social disapproval and even hatred if they dare to question those reasons – and it's worked for a long time. Parents have felt pressured to mouth the hawks' lines, lest their love for their child be called into question.


What a devilishly mean but perfect system for subduing the parents of fallen soldiers! Politicians and talk show hosts threaten: "Support our troops (the war), or we'll accuse you of dishonoring your dead child." The last thing that worried or grieving parents can bear is the suggestion that they're "dishonoring" the memory of the one they love. And so they have acquiesced. They have submitted. Archie Bunker would be pleased: Like Edith, they've learned to stifle themselves.


Until now.


Protective Fury: The Tipping Point


One day, back when Americans lived in peace and we'd never even heard of the Bush dynasty or the plotting neocons whose reckless ambitions it would serve, I was watching a nature show about grizzly bears in their natural habitat. I will never forget one particularly electrifying scene that comes to mind whenever I hear about Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Mr. Bush's gated compound.


A large male grizzly came upon two adorable little grizzly cubs, who looked up at him with wonder and naivete; clearly, they didn't realize the danger they were in. To my great surprise, however, the male grizzly stood bolt upright as though startled, then starting running away from those harmless little cubs. Why on earth did he do that, I wondered. The narrator explained that the male knew instinctively that there's nothing more dangerous than a mother grizzly who senses that her cubs may be harmed.


As the huge male ran off into the woods, the narrator continued: "While the male grizzly is larger and could probably kill the female, he knows that in the process, her protective fury would leave him seriously, if not mortally, wounded. Mother grizzly bears will fight to the death for their young, ripping the flesh of any animal, no matter how large, that threatens their cubs. Coming upon the youngsters frightened the adult male so badly that he ran and hid because the mother, unseen but without a doubt somewhere near by, could at any moment sniff his presence and roar into action."


Human males can also sense danger, and know very well the hazards of facing protective mothers – particularly when other mothers are watching, too. This explains why the mainstream media has worked so hard to make antiwar parents of fallen soldiers look pitiful, and why George Bush is hiding inside his compound, hoping that Ms. Sheehan will lose interest and go away.


But what the president doesn't understand is this: She's not going to lose interest, and furthermore it isn't just Cindy Sheehan anymore. Parents of servicemen and women all over the country are beginning to see the little picture again. This is the tipping point, a showdown fueled by motherly devotion that will embolden other families to start questioning the integrity and fitness of this administration and this president: It's what I call the Sheehan Effect.


And that's the worst news ever for a man who can only see the "the mission," the big picture, and how noble it will look under "Bush, George W." in the history books.


Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm
z
New rule

Just saw on MSNBC they are polling Barack/Hillary agains McCain (who has the bigger leads).  Of course they only show PA, Ohio, and Florida (the 3 states she did better in). 


New rule - If they are going to show polls, they should show them for all states!  Not just the ones where one candidate is doing better than the other.


Hmm, protocol, rule of law,
Interesting concepts, pitty the administration you support has apparently never heard of them. So let's gut the constitution (no laws in there) so it suits you and your ilk. Outing a covert CIA agent isn't a felony, right? DeLay and Frist? They INVENTED proper protocol/rule of law/ethics. Telling the U.N. and the international community to take a flying leap also clearly falls within the parameters of proper protocol, rule of law, etc., etc. Boy, you might be on to something!

When asked what he thought of western civilation, Gandhi said something like, It's a nice concept. Hmmm...democracy, nice concept.
One Database to Rule Them All sm

Homeland Security, the Keystone Stasi, Now Tracks and Enforces Local Police Warrants


June 20, 2006: For many years, those working to create a total surveillance state have employed the salami tactic of taking away our freedoms one slice at a time. Laws that directly challenge constitutional rights, like the USA PATRIOT Act, are the spectacular exception. Agencies like FEMA quietly prepare plans for martial law, and have built a Shadow Government for military rule without need of a written order. The Bush administration for its part has constantly tested the waters, establishing new realities by fiat (as in its creation of the enemy combatant category to justify unlimited detention without charges), or floating test balloons like the Total Information Awareness program (which was withdrawn officially, even as the NSA's telephone surveillance proceeded to implement its spirit behind the scenes).


Now we must all realize that at some point, the salami runs out. It no longer makes sense to say that our government is creating a police state. The fact is, that state has arrived, complete with One Big Database and the establishment of universal jurisdictions. In an editorial published this week in New York Newsday, Ray LeMoine tells a memorable story of how he was detained by Homeland Security for several hours because of outstanding local police warrants relating to his sale of unlicensed T-shirts (Yankees Suck, among others). We dare not dismiss this as a minor matter; it shows that there is nothing about us in electronic form that Homeland Security does not know. Though he is clearly a believer in the official story of 9/11, LeMoine doesn't let his humorous tone hide the true meaning of his story: Homeland Security, the agency set up to combat terrorism after 9/11 has been given universal jurisdiction and can hold anyone on Earth for crimes unrelated to national security... erasing the lines of jurisdiction between local police and the federal state. If we do not fight back, the day when Homeland Security can detain people for being behind on their credit card payments is not far off. A national ID card with a chip of our complete financial, health and criminal records seems almost superfluous. Once again, 9/11 was a useful pretext for those who exploit terror to wage war on freedom. (nl)


We know that is the exception rather than the rule....
and I sympathize with your plight....however, it is acceptable to abort (kill) 1.2 million babies a year to cover those few who are resistant to all forms of birth control? Okay, so if we add women who are resistant to every form of birth control, women who have been raped or involved in incest, or life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy....that would still probably be roughly 25%-30% of all abortions performed. So why can't we legalize it only for those cases? Why do we have to use it as a relieve-all-responsibility oops form of birth control because some women/men take absolutely NO responsibility where sex is concerned? why can't we address the issues that cause 1.2 million unwanted pregnancies every year? Assign some responsibility? What is so terribly wrong with that??

And finally...why can't people admit what it is. It is killing babies. That is the choice everyone wants. To say it is a blob of cells or tissue is not accurate. And even if that WAS true, it is alive, and would continue to live and grow if it was not killed. If you have been pregnant you know at what stage you feel the fluttering of movement and there is no doubt in the mind of a mother who wants her child that that child is alive inside her. So now we are supposed to believe that it is whether the woman WANTS the child or not that determines whether it is alive?
Exception to the rule
You are so right. I think people are so blown away by Sarah Palin because she is a politician that actually does what she says. What a novel idea! How refreshing.
There's also talk that she won't rule out - sm
going to war with Russia if they invade Georgia. Just what we need, to be fighting THREE wars simultaneously.

And of course, don't forget the possibilities in Pakistan or Korea.

Fun, fun, fun.

Maybe it's time to quit MT and start selling bomb shelters again.
I think you are the exception to the rule then, and I...
commend you for holding feet to the fire. Would that there were more like you. Money hungry greed may have brought us here...but it was lack of oversight that allowed it. Some saw it coming, called it by name and were ignored. You seem to be opened minded to a degree and you have seen what McCain said in 2006. He described the situation we are in to a tee. He warned them, as did Allen Greenspan, as did John Snow. He had it right, and he was ignored. Say what you want about him...he had that right and the Dems on the banking and finance committee had it wrong. And because of that mistake, here we are. I would be much more willing to cut slack if they would own up to their part in it and strive to do better. But they STILL want to blame Republicans totally and accept absolutely NO blame. I'm sorry, oldtimer. That is dishonest and morally bankrupt in my opinion.
Not republican rule
It hasn't been republican rule for 8 years even though we do have a republican president. The Congress and Senate are democratic and they do not allow President Bush to do what he wants much of the time.
I wish there was a rule that the candidates HAVE TO
avoid them and go off in a direction of their own choosing. Especially when it's something they already said before. This second debate had me yawning.
Mustangs Rule!
Cool car; uncool carmaker!
O's votes support his claims. JM's votes support Bush.
Believe what you like. Voting records tell the tale. Could use a few more details on that budget. Just what programs will he slash and and how many tax dollars will be directed away from middle class and in the direction of the rich? How much longer can the infrastructure afford to crumble?

JM adopted O's withdrawal plan when he saw how well it went over with the public in an election year. He flipped on the war once. What's to stop him from flipping again once elected? The nation is war weary. Some prefer a surge in diplomacy, not military answers to diplomatic failures. Ask the Iraqis who have lost more than 100,000 among them how sucessful the war has been. Obama has always understood that the OBL/Taliban live in Afganistan, not Iraq. JM, a little slow on the draw there.

I see nothing in JMs platform that backs his claims about transparency. I see specific plan on the O side under technology initiatives, continued initiatives which originated under Clinton and were reversed during the undercover Bush administration. Pork barrel spending for pubs means something different than it does to dems. Slash the poor to give to the rich? Hard seel in the current economic frefall. Also find nothing in JM's plan to address runaway contract corruption in Iraq. Having Halliburton and companies there props up those struggling American corporations. Show me the plan.

Antiglobal/antidiplomacy. No surprise there. This is about the futureworld, not American imperial delusions of grandeur. So much data on the drilling scam being an immediate relief for gas problems out there it is not worth addressing. Can you say T-Bone Pickens, i.e., we can't drill our way out of this one. He should know. Been an oil man all his life.

Since these are just a few, what else do you have up your sleeve?
Yes it is. That family off limits rule did not
nm
exception proves the rule

 do that phase strike a familiar note?


Hmm. Under the last 8 years of republican rule, MY
being send to INDIA, PAKISTAN, and the PHILIPPINES. My pay is less than half what it used to be. I lost my 1-bedroom apartment and am now squeezed into a tiny studio. My car is falling apart. My 401K has had nothing added to it in over 5 years. My emergency savings is almost dried up. And now it looks like the MTSO I work for is just about to chip away at our pay once again.

Yeah, my hard work is being "rewarded" alright, thanks to the no-holds-barred, free rein big business has been given for the last 8 years.

I sure do hope McCain wins. I've gotten so used to having nothing but hot dogs and macaroni & cheese for every meal, that I just wouldn't be able to deal with the change if things ever got better. Plus with more of the same for the next term, I might finally qualify for food stamps. I sure wouldn't want to miss out on that opportunity.
The rule is that you are requested not to slam on other boards. sm
Conservatives and liberals are welcome to post on each other boards if it is done with respect.
I agree. I think they should make a rule that a candidate...sm
can only talk about and show pictures or video clips of himself/herself, no opponents' names allowed at all. That would force them to tell us what their platform is and let us make the comparison.
The Supreme Court first has to decide whether to rule...sm
on the case. They do not hear every case presented to them. They are very likely to send it back to the lower court if they think it is frivolous.
Obama set to undo "conscience rule" sm

for healthcare workers who refuse to participate in performing abortions or dispensing birth control methods which disagree with their religious convictions.  So now a woman's right to choose whether to abort her unborn child trumps a healthcare professional's right to adhere to their religious convictions?  The article even mentions Catholic healthcare facilities as not being exempt, and we know how the Church feels about abortions.  Unbelievable!!! 


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/politics/28web-abort.html


Cry babies
Your post is so true.  Cry babies, run to the moderator and get the posts they disagree with deleted, even though they are posted on the LIBERAL board.  
Cry babies
The posts that get removed are removed because they violate the rules for the boards posted by the administrator. Typical liberal response, follow only the rules you like, and to use your term, become a cry baby when the you don't like the rules. With all due respect, spend less time whining about who posts on what board and what posts are removed, and more time trying to figure out why you think it is more important to investigate Bush than it is to concentrate on terrorism. Still having a real difficult time trying to wrap my mind around that one. But..it does underscore why conservatives are so concerned and rightly so.
Cry babies
The two posts of last week were removed because a conservative who came on this board (you?) did not agree with them.  Both were articles from journalists and printed in major newspapers, so obviously cleared and approved by the editors of the newspapers and read throughout America.  However, the conservative did not agree with the articles, so whined and cried and ran to the moderator (flash back of junior high actions) and had them removed.  My opinion is, if a conservative cannot handle an article that was posted in a newspaper and obviously cleared by its editor, dont read it, go back to the conservative board and leave the liberal board alone.  I have never posted on the conservative board but have read some of the posts and some are definitely inflammatory and attacks on liberal/democratic politicians.  Liberals have not asked to have those posts removed.  Conservatives:  Do as I say, not as I do.   
How many babies do you think die in
the wars that Bush and McCain support? Or does it only matter when American babies die?


You say you think McCain is the lesser of two evils because he is against abortion, right? Well if you are against the concept of killing innocent life, you should be APPALLED at the number of innocent children the US has killed in IRAQ, and will kill in Iran if Mr. 'Prolife" McCain gets in power.

Let your "conscience" be your guide.



So were the babies
murdered. I don't see you making a case for them.
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove

Dirty politics equals dirty water.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove13jun13,0,1520344,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines


From the Los Angeles Times


EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove


The White House says the executive's appeal had no role in changing a measure to protect groundwater. Critics call it a political payoff.


By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers

June 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.

The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.

In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo, wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity.

Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and get a response ASAP.

Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a keen awareness within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the economic, energy and small business impacts of the rule.

Environmentalists pointed to the Rove correspondence as evidence that the Bush White House, more than others, has mixed politics with policy decisions that are traditionally left to scientists and career regulators. At the time, Rove oversaw the White House political office and was directing strategy for the 2002 midterm elections.

Angelo had been mayor of Midland, Texas, when Bush ran an oil firm there. He is also a longtime hunting partner of Rove's. The two men first worked together when Angelo managed Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign in Texas.

In an interview Monday, Angelo welcomed the new groundwater rule and said his letter might have made a difference in how it was written. But he waved off environmentalists' questions about Rove's involvement.

I'm sure that his forwarding my letter to people that were in charge of it might have had some impression on them, Angelo said. It seems to me that it was a totally proper thing to do. I can't see why anybody's upset about it, except of course that it was effective.

Asked why he wrote to Rove and not the Environmental Protection Agency or to some other official more directly associated with the matter, Angelo replied: Karl and I have been close friends for 25 years. So, why wouldn't I write to him? He's the guy I know best in the administration.

White House spokesmen said Monday that the rule was revised as part of the federal government's standard rule-making process. They said the EPA was simply directed by White House budget officials to make the rule comply with requirements laid out by Congress in a sweeping new energy law passed last year.

The issue has been a focus of lobbying by the oil and gas industry for years, ever since Clinton administration regulators first announced their intent to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than five acres, including oil and gas drilling sites, as a way to discourage water pollution.

Energy executives, who have long complained of being stifled by federal regulations limiting drilling and exploration, sought and received a delay in that permit requirement in 2003. Eventually, Congress granted a permanent exemption that was written into the 2005 energy legislation.

The EPA rule issued Monday adds fine print to that broad exception in ways that critics, including six members of the Senate, say exceeds what Congress intended.

For example, the new rule generally exempts sediment — pieces of dirt and other particles that can gum up otherwise clear streams — from regulations governing runoff that may flow from oil and gas production or construction sites.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who joined five Democrats in objecting to the rule, wrote in March that there was nothing in the energy law suggesting that such an exclusion of sediment had even entered the mind of any member of Congress as it considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Moreover, Jeffords wrote, the rule violated the intentions of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act 19 years ago.

White House and administration officials disagreed.

At the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles said the rule responded directly to congressional action. He cited a letter from Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, endorsing it. He added that the rule still allows states to regulate pollution, and that it continues to regulate sediment that contains toxic ingredients.

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for another senior lawmaker, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday that the rule was designed to hold oil companies accountable for putting toxic substances in the soil, but not for dirt that results from storms.

When it rains, storm water gets muddy, regardless of whether there's an oil well in the neighborhood, Miller said. Congress told EPA to do this, and now they have. If there's oil in the water, a producer has to clean it up. If it's nature, they don't.

The change in the rule occurred last year when staffers in the White House Office of Management and Budget began editing an early version drafted by EPA technical staff. The Office of Management and Budget oversees another division, the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy, which critics complain has served as a central hub in the Bush White House for making government regulations more business-friendly.

A spokesman for the White House budget office, Scott Milburn, said Monday that the White House's involvement in making rules was intended to ensure that agencies issue regulations that follow the law.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the suggestion that Rove was involved in the rule change. Rove frequently receives requests, she said, and that he tries to reply and direct those requests to the appropriate people. She said that for environmentalists to accuse Rove of manipulating the EPA rule was a typical overreach by administration critics.

That is quite an overreach, when it was the United States Congress that passed the Energy Act in a bipartisan way to ask the EPA to undertake this rulemaking, she said.

In their March letter, Jeffords and his Democratic colleagues asked EPA officials whether the correspondence with Rove influenced the final rule.

A response written by Grumbles did not directly address the Rove question. But the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups assert that they know the answer.

We can't say that Karl Rove walked over to OMB and demanded these changes, said Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. But it is clear that there was direction coming from the top of the White House, and this was a result of the thinking of the White House as opposed to environmental experts at EPA.

Buccino called the rule yet another example of the Bush administration rewarding their friends in the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and the public's health.

In his letter to Rove, Angelo did not hide his political feelings. He thanked Rove for all you do, and added words of encouragement on another topic: The president has the opposition on the run on the Iraq issue.

His letter appeared to gain notice at the highest levels of the administration. Three months after Angelo sent it, a top EPA official wrote to tell him that the agency had decided to impose the temporary delay on the construction permitting rule for oil and gas companies.

The letter was copied to Rove, White House environmental advisor James L. Connaughton and then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.


 


Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to
.
Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to

Golden Rule? Didn't realize that was rob peter
xx
Anchor babies. sm

You mean to tell me, gourdpainter, that you don't celebrate this country's great  cultural differences and rights for every American born citizen?  I'm shocked!!!! 

Seriously, yes, I do see this as a problem, but doing away with the 14th Amendment is not the way to keep this from happeniing.  I'm not sure what the correct procedure for handling this would be or even if it could be done as anchor babies are automatically citizens, but I would think writing your congressmen would be the place to start.  This is one of the tragedies this country might face because of weak borders and law enforcement's seeming inabiilty to send illegals back where they came from.  It goes deeper than that, though. 

You know, you mentioned in another post that no Native American has ever run for POTUS.  Actually, they probably have more right than Caucasian American citizens to hold this office as they were here first. 


anchor babies are ---
Anchor babies are babies born to foreigners on American soil. They by virtue of being born here are automatically American citizens even if their parents are not and even if their parents are here illegally. Thus, one day, we could very well have a president whose parents are here illegally, whose parents do not speak English, and he will be legal to be the president! Think that's right?
The law concerning anchor babies....sm

In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller’s dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Based on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. An effort in 1997 failed in the face of intense political opposition from immigrant rights groups. Apparently, the question remains open to the determination of the political and legal processes.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm


Where do babies come from? 1 man and 1 woman
I understand these relationships, but I don't think traditional marriage between a man and a woman should cover gays/lesbians.  They have civil unions in my state and now they want marriage.  Leave the tradition of marriage alone.
I am not willing to assume that 1.2 million babies...
would have horrible lives. I can't see killing them all just in case some might suffer. But how is our choice to decide whether or not someone lives based on what kind of life they might have? I think it should be the choice of the creator, myself. I am curious as to what you think your creator thinks about choosing to kill an unborn child? I think mine's heart breaks every time one happens...over 2000 times a day. Yes, that's what I think.

It's quick? It's horrible but its quick? Good grief!!

You keep discounting the right of the child to live. Who are you, the mother, or anyone else, to say that child has no right to live? Do you think your creator endowed you with that right? Just curious.
How many unwanted babies have you adopted, sam? (nm)
???
but there was already a law in place to protect the babies -
nx
wow -- that's as sad as 1/2 aborted babies being left
nm
No, most of those murder enough babies legally as well.....
@@
They cant stop having babies if they have no forms

Remember the babies in dumpsters?
We had a 17-year-old come in our hospital, full-term and in complete denial she was pregnant. She got mad and left when told she was pregnant. She came back a few weeks later and they could not save her - she never went into labor, the baby was stillborn in her for god knows how long and it subsequently killed her. This kid was living here and there - her parents did not care. The ills in society will remain regardless of the laws.