Well sugar, it becomes anti-Semitic the minute

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.

• Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Zionism - Lu
  • Correction...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Does really need to be said that Israel is predominantly Jewish? - Lu
      • No dear, it's anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. - sm
        • Well sugar, it becomes anti-Semitic the minute - Lu
          • OK, hon, this is the deal. - sm
            • Israel is anything but doomed, and you are totally deluded. - Lu
              • Until you acknowledge the occupation - sm
      • There is an obvious reason for using Hitler..(sm) - Just the big bad
        • First, Israel is not committing genocide. History shows - Lu
          • Ummmm.....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Of course, you forgot to mention, the - source was MSNBC,
            • Those "schools" are also where Hamas hides and - uses civilians as shields!! then blame Israel!.nm
              • UN provided GPS coordinates and has - jj
              • That has yet to be proven...(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Wanders the desert for 40 years before occupation of the land - I agree
              • There was a truce. Hamas broke it and sent - missiles into Israel. What is wrong with you?nm
                • Maybe you should check your facts...(sm) - Just the big bad
                  • Maybe you should check yours. - jj
                    • Oops. This should be posted under "Thre was a truce." - jj
            • Wow. What an interesting question. - jj
              • This might help...(sm) - Just the big bad
          • Do you share the same gene pool as - sm
            • Baloney. Israel is targeting Hamas, who are - terrorists. Hamas to blame for palestinian deaths.
              • We hold these truths to be self-evident - sm
              • Yeah, and Isreal took its own out of Gaza, yet - Hamas uses Gaza to shoot missiles at Israel!.nm

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

Below is a Jewish editorial.  One of the comments made by a reader of the editorial, also a Jew, was that Israel ITSELF felt the Gaza pull-out might help abate some level of terrorism.  So, you're saying that Israel itself is anti-Semitic?  Could you PLEASE stop with your lying and constant twisting of the truth?

Cindy Sheehan is purported to have said that if Israel pulls out of Palestine it will contribute to a reduction in terror. That sounds like a pretty reasonable statement to me. If I hear another white, right-wing, Christian pundit speak for the Jewish community again and call Cindy Sheehan an anti-Semite for that statement, I think I am going to explode. The same goes for the Jewish pundits who are part of a radical minority of Jews in they way they come down on this issue. It is obscene and wrong to call her anti-Semitic, and all Jews in the country should pay close attention to and not forget the arguments that the GOP and its mouthpieces are trying to make on this occasion.

As a member of the Jewish community I can say that it is likely that the vast majority of Jews in this country (76% of whom voted for John Kerry) realize that the separation between George Bush and Cindy Sheehan on the Israel issue is minimal at best. Bush did better with Jews than his predecessors, but to come away in 2004 with just 24% of the Jewish vote, and then to try to play the “religion-card” in this circumstance leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. There is an underlying feeling of anti-Semitism emanating from the person playing the “religion-card”.

A small minority of Jews believe in a manner similar to Republicans and the George Bush administration. They believe that anything goes; the ends justifies the means; ethics is not important as long as you win; caring for the poor, sick, and helpless in the community take a back seat to capitalism, and it is better to get a tax cut during war than to shoulder a heavier weight to prepare our government (and its budget deficit) for our children. Most Jews do not subscribe to this philosophy.

We are by and large Democrats and we by and large share the values of Cindy Sheehan, and to tarnish her as an anti-Semite and associate her with the likes of racist-Republican David Duke, as some have done, is obscene. Some Jews in this small minority may speak out against Cindy Sheehan. While they are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to speak for the vast majority of Jews. The voices of this radical minority are much louder right now, and in fact this is a direct result of the Republican Party having a superior message machine and media infrastructure than the Democrats.

A brief history lesson might be instructive as to why the political party in America with a “religion problem” and a “race problem” is the Republican Party. Howard Dean called the Republican Party mainly a "white-Christian party". One can argue about whether he was tactful or not when he said it, but what he said was essentially true. One of the ONLY demographics Republicans win consistently is white, Christian men. Lucky for them it is a large demographic. Democrats, on the other hand, win with Latinos, blacks, immigrants, gays, and Jews (pretty much everyone else).

These voters are not stupid. They vote the way they do for reasons. Most Jews support Democrats for the very reason that there is no component of racism or religious persecution in that party. Moreover the Democrats by and large believe in peace, social justice, social tolerance, religious tolerance, minimum wages and standards that can improve the lives for the weakest among us, cheaper health care for the sick, dying, and mentally ill, and an education system that works in a manner that is equal for all, and without any external religions pushed on the students.

Most Jews support Cindy Sheehan because she is acting in a manner that is consistent with (and even required by) the bible. She is speaking out for peace in a non-violent manner, and almost shaming the President to finally devise a plan for Iraq. Anyone who would attack her for that is suspect at best. From a Christian perspective you should ask yourself “what would Jesus be doing?” Would he be protesting the war right now or flying a fighter jet to carpet-bomb Fallujah?

The "white-Christian" Republican Party is supported mainly by the “white-Christian” Southerners--the same descendants of former slaveholders, with an only partially changed mentality. Abraham Lincoln called himself a Republican, but everyone knows that the Republican Party of Lincoln is now the Democratic Party, and the descendants of the Democratic Party of the segregated-South, make up the current Republican base.

The anti-Semitic, anti-black Southerners, from Zell Miller, to David Duke, to Tony Perkins, to Trent Lott, to Jesse Helms, to Strom Thurmond, are all remnants of the racist past of the Democratic Party, who are now firmly implanted at the highest levels of the Republican Party. Some of these Republicans have even switched parties in our lifetime from Democrat to Republican, ala Strom Thurmond and David Duke, or switched this millenium ala Zell Miller, providing even further proof that if Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would be called a “liberal” by James Dobson and would be a key component of the Democratic Party.

This shift is not unnoticed to Jews, and apparently other minorities see it as well (88% of African-Americans voted for Kerry). The base of the segregated South is now the Republican base. The family-values, anti-gay, Christian prayer in school crowd, who are a danger to Jewish culture and an overt threat to the African-American descendants of the freed slaves, are the people that should be worried about the label of anti-Semite, not Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy Sheehan's statement on Israel, if she even made them at all, sounds exactly like Bush's public position. She wants Israel to leave Palestine and she thinks that will contribute to peace in the Middle East. Guess what, big shocker, SHE IS RIGHT. Israel pulling back will not be an end all to terror, nothing will, but certainly it will help. If Cindy Sheehan understands this fundamental concept, why doesn’t George Bush?

This post is also available at RAFC.org and

I wanted to address an exchange below that occurred between myself and a couple of others on the board (just the big bad and another poster who did not use anything to identify herself) last night.  In response to my post about the righteous prevailing meaning the Israeli's would prevail because they are the "righteous", just the big bad responded "So was Hitler righteous?"  She was likening the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as being akin to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews.  I then pointed out her anti-Semitic rhetoric.  To which I was blasted for accusing an anti-Zionist as being an anti-Semitic.

I want to point out to many of you who hold strong opinions regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there is a very fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, a line that was very clearly crossed when just the big bag posted her Hitler remark, a line many have crossed in this discussion by likening the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp.  When you say these things you have become an anti-Semitic.  Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ami Isseroff:

If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else; if your neck veins bulge when you denounce Zionists but you've done no more than cluck "well, yes, very bad about Darfur";

if there is nothing Hamas can do that you won't blame 'in the final analysis' on Israelis;

if your sneer at the Zionists doesn't sound a whole lot different from American neoconservative sneers at leftists;

then you should not be surprised if you are criticized, fiercely so, by people who are serious about a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and who won't let you get away with a self-exonerating formula "I am anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic" to prevent scrutiniy.  If you are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, then don't use the categories, allusions, and smug hiss that are all too familiar to any student of prejudice.   

I think that sums it up.

I'm someone who believes in minding my own business.  What others do in their family lives is none of my business.  There hasn't been one single (or married) gay person who has ever hurt me.

On the other hand, the policies of the last eight years have hurt me a great deal.  I don't have health insurance, so McCain can't tax mine, but he will tax everyone else's.

I want a President who can speak English (for a change), one who is intelligent and even tempered, and one who not only acknowledges that there is a huge problem with the middle class but whose entire platform has been devoted to solving that problem.

One day, McCain says the "fundamentals of the economy are strong."  The next day, he's canceling a debate to rush back to Washington to fix the "crisis," except that he doesn't really "rush," and he didn't cancel the debate.  He's running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Obama's slogan has always been change, from the very beginning, and McCain has stolen that slogan.

I'm just personally sick and tired of politicians who are pro-corporations and anti-Americans.

Corporate tax breaks simply don't work.  The beneficiaries of these breaks pocket the money.  They don't create jobs; they outsource them.  As MTs, we should know that more than anyone.

Obama wants to reward businesses who KEEP jobs in America.  That's why I voted for him, along with the other reasons above, and that's why my daughter and son-in-law also voted for him, so he has received three votes from this household alone.

The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work and depends on the non-existent benevolence of greedy executives.  It's time to try the "trickle-up" theory, IMHO.

Everyone is so upset at the thought of rising taxes.  I wish someone would tell me just HOW we expect to pay for all Bush's wars, as this will fall to the next President, along with the present financial fiasco.

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.”