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

Bush could seize absolute control of government

Posted By: PK on 2006-01-14
In Reply to:

 
 




From Capitol Hill Blue

The Rant
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 13, 2006, 07:42


President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.

Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.

These “national security initiatives, hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.

John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in “relocation camps.”  Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.

Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking points supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would could allow imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.

Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and misapplied” and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the “full and absolute authority” to send troops into American streets to “enforce order and maintain the peace.”

Bush used parts of the plan to send troops into the streets of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. In addition, FEMA hired former special forces personnel from the mercenary firm Blackwater USA to “enforce security.”

Blackwater USA, in its promotional materials, describes itself as “the most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world,” adding that “we have established a global presence and provide training and operational solutions for the 21st century in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”

Blackwater is also a major U.S. contractor in Iraq and has a contract with the Bush White House to provide additional security work “on an as-needed basis.”

The Department of Homeland Security established the “Northern Command for National Defense,” a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency.  Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law “in times of national emergency.”

The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.

The White House press office would neither confirm nor deny existence of Bush’s executive orders or the existence of the Northern Command for National Defense.  Neither would the Department of Homeland Security.

But my sources within the White House and DHS tell me the plans are in place, ready for implementation when the command comes from the man who keeps telling the American public that he is a “war time president” who will “do anything in my power” to impose his will on the people of the United States.

And he has made sure that power will be absolute when he chooses to use it.

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.




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

Bush has no control over this. This is

Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, and Paulson's baby. They're the ones who calls the shots on how this money is to be given out and used. They were the ones with the first bright idea for this bailout.


Even yesterday, Frank decided he would give the automakers $25K with governments ownships of the automakers. Yet last night, I hear it's only a loan to them to be paid back. So, which is it?


*Whatever It Takes* by Peggy Noonan re: Bush's out of control spending

 


WSJ.com OpinionJournal



Warning: This is a L-O-N-G article, written by a conservative former speech writer for both President Reagan and Bush's daddy. The condensed version for the conservative trolls with admitted limited attention span:  Bush is a very UNconservative BIG SPENDER with no means or concern how all this will be repaid.  In other words, he represents the complete ANTITHESIS (opposite) of conservative values that you all claim to have.  I guess that's what happens when you elect a spoiled, rich kid who was born to privilege and never had to worry about paying for anything.


PEGGY NOONAN


'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?

Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.

George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--But where's the money going to come from?--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying Republicans don't care about black people, and They're always tightwads with the poor.


In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.

That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--whatever it takes--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.


hspace=0


George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.


This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.

Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.

Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.

As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.


hspace=0


Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.


A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.

The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.

Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.

At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration the pre-Bush era. See where it got them.

Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?

The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger. That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.

But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.


hspace=0


Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.


First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.

Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.

Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.

The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.

Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it. We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.

Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.

Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--Here's a check? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy. Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?


hspace=0


At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a compassionate conservative. The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.


But conservatives also understood compassionate conservatism to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.

I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.

I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.

The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: We're having some trouble with part of the base but--smile--we can weather that.

Well, they probably can, short term.

Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.


hspace=0


Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.


If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;

If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;

If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;

If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is Whatever it takes;

If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?

And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?

It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



 


Conservatives are for control over their own children and less control by govt

That is absolute nonsense.

Obama is the one making promises he cannot keep.  Obama is the one connected to people and organizations like Rasheed Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Rev Flager, Farrakhan, ACORN, Rezko.  You people are so consumed by this promise of change that you can't see what is right in front of you.....a man who is lying and telling you what you want to hear just to get elected into the White House. 


I will give Obama credit where credit is due.  Obama is an excellent speech giver with a teleprompter.  He is great when no one is there to question him.  When he can just spout out his usual rhetoric without actually answering any questions....Obama is top notch.  I think Obama's infomercial was a smart move.  He did a great job so I've heard.  It saddens me that people are going to take the word of any candidate without doing fact checking.  Obama is a liar.  He is telling us what we want to hear and is misleading us. 


If you want change, you will get it with him but it won't be the change he promised.  False hope, broken promises....that is the real Barrack Obama.


from an absolute expert on the subj

nm


 


One hopes that no one has absolute power one day...
over whether you live or die.
I guess you have absolute proof.......sm
of all these accusations?

Laying that aside, conservatives have just as much right to voice their opinions without being referred to as "certifiable loons" as do liberals. Come back in a couple of years and let's talk about how your paycheck is looking and how hard it is to make ends meet in the Obama economy. I have a feeling there will be a lot of disillusioned folks.
you want it both ways, it is dem fault with control, and when they had no control
it was their fault as well. yes GB did not get anything done, no deregulation, no war, no shift of power to the corporations, nothing.

so you are saying he was utterly incompetent?
How about if some of us are using birth control to be responsible and control.......sm
the size of our families, as almost every family has to do? And believe me, I tried the "rhythm" method, and I have my beautiful son, Alex, as a response. And I adore him, and thankfully we found ways to afford him, care for him in every way, etc., but some sexual aides and birth control are actually used by Christian couples who have been married for 28 years, gong on 29 in May. sex is also important in a loving marriage, not just to "do whatever feels good." There is nothing shameful in married, committed sex.
Control? If you mean, control of putting our country
nm
and he wants to control it all.....
the banks, the insurance industry, the automotive industry, the health care industry, the finance sector, and our entire lives. You call that strength. I call that dictatorship.
Gun Control
John Lott, Jr., a Yale social economist, did the largest study on gun control laws covering all 3000 counties in the US. His findings astounded the author himself, who had reviewed many other studies - all of which had been extremely small - that suggested guns don't deter crime.

The title of Lott's published study tells his findings in a nutshell: "More Guns, Less Crime". It's an exhaustive book filled with much more data than most of us would ever care to see, but the findings were unequivocal: the more guns there are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, the lower the rate of gun crimes committed against them.

On the strength of what he found, Lott, who had never even owned a gun or fired one except one time at a summer youth camp - purchased a handgun and got a license to carry it. Consequently, the gun-banning crazies who howled bloody murder at his research (but who haven't been able to mount a single credible counterargument in the intervening years) called him a "gun nut".
Pro birth control....s/m
I'm definitely not pro abortion, but am pro choice in, what should be, the rare event of unexpected pregnancy, and in that case I think that the woman herself should be the one to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not, and if so, it should remain a safe, and legal option.  It's an extremely emotional, and difficult decision for most women to have to make in that situation.. I did a quick look and see that the abortion rate in the US has declined from 1996 to 2002. I'm going to look for statistics from 2002 to the present when I have more time. I think the key in the main is stressing birth control measures, and also making those measures affordable to all women across all socio-economic groups.
Birth control is....
used to prevent pregnancy......not kill an innocent child AFTER it is conceived.   BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!  How do you people sleep at night?
You are correct...he wants to control...
the situation, questions asked, etc, because he knows he couldn't come up with any anwers on the fly without knowledge of them first. He told Bill O to his face after one of the debates that he would come on his show after the primaries...hmm, so much for Michelle stating in her speech that he was a man of his word. Anyone who can't answer the tough questions without being prepped and coddled is not ready to lead this country.
Yes indeed. Lot of RNC damage control going on.

How do the Pubs turn Gustav into a political advantage?  We already see them shameless working all the angles and considering their options, but let's face it.  They need all the help they can get now that Gustav has blow the wind out of the sails of their copy-cat showcase celebrity VP pick.  It's just as well.  A 48-hour ride on that boat was just about all the excitement JM could stand at one time.   


Any political capital the RNC is trying to get out of Gustav is doomed to fail.  What's a party to do?  The collective sigh of relief they all are breathing over the Bush and Cheney speech cancellations to go put on their compassionate conservative hats and polish up their leadership image is producing wind gusts up to a Category 10.  How can they celebrate the debut of their golden girl on a split screen they share with the drowning of New Orleans Part II and hold their collective breaths at the same time and pray those levies don't break again?  One would think they would have the sense to postpone the event until all the ruckus dies down, but if they did that, people might actually start expecting the Prez and VP to deliver their speeches again.  They can't have that, now can they? 


The dems will not be too worried about Bush/Cheney speech cancellations one way or the other.  The RNC opening night and the leadership image role down south are equal opportunities for Bush and Cheney to show their true colors and there is no way the media is going to be polite enough not to be reminding us all about the screw ups last time around, no matter how presidential they try to appear.  It's a lose/lose situation no matter how you look at it.   


Must have skipped over all the sam control,
nm
As far as birth control....I have not seen anything about...
people wanting to remove birth control. Just because an individual elects not to use it does not mean they do not want anyone else to have access. With this permissive society liberals have created there is really no choice but to provide it.

Yes, there are natural causes for miscarriage. That is leaving it up to God. For us to put the life of an innocent child totally in the hands of someone else to choose whether it lives or dies, just as a personal choice, I believe is wrong. Just as those in these orphanges murdered children...it is murder. Killing an innocent for no reason other than "oops" is wrong.

What overturning Roe vs. wade would do is put it back in the hands of legislators who, by the constitution, are the only ones who can enact laws. The Supreme Court should not be enacting laws. They are to interpret...not legislate. I believe it should be overturned because it is unconstitutional. Then put it to a state-by-state vote. Some states would outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother. Some would outlaw it, period. Some would allow it in all forms. But at least it would be the will of the people.

Why do you think congress has never tried to pass an abortion law? Even when the democrats had control? Even before Roe vs. Wade? The truth is in the pudding.
Republican control
Excuse me but aren't the House and the Senate Democrat controlled since 2006?  They haven't helped this country one bit since they took control, in fact it has gotten worse.  By your own reasoning you are wrong about why this country is in such bad shape, it's not the Republicans alone.  And the Democrafts do not concern themselves at all about the middle class, just the people who have no pride and can't get off their asses and work, only lip service in election years.  Heaven forbid the lazy class take on a part time job when things get rough.  I'm sick of carrying the lazy class on my back...
Look where out-of-control capitalism got us.

Hello...tightening gun control is not a ban.
out of hands of criminals and gun-free zones (that already exist, such as federal buildings, airports, etc) do not threaten your precious pistols. AK-47 assault rifles REALLY necessary for hunting and protection? If you are not a criminal, you have nothing to fear. For heaven's sake, ever hear of compromise?
By those organizations that want control.
*
Spending under control...huh?

Yeah.....an 825 billion dollar stimulus package that won't really work....sounds like spending is under control to me.  Holy crow people!  Nothing like adding that to our huge deficit now and how many days as he been in office?  Is that like a new record of making the deficit shoot up so fast within the first month of a presidency.  Impressive....NOT. 


Control of Congress???
If you don't know what you are talking about - maybe you should venture to a safer topic, like, I don't know, knitting? Bush vetoed and obstructed the Dems at every turn (do you read?). Just like right now - the pubs are obstructing and delaying at every turn. Same old games just a different President. Obama is getting a crash course in "Politics as Usual." He may have been woefully mistaken in believing the 2 parties could work together. Won't happen. The pubs will trumpet their BS and obstruct everything they can all in the name of trying to exert their power. They don't give a rats about what happens to the American people. They really don't. They want to keep big corporations and banks in power - not We The People. Do you really think they care if people stay in their houses or not? NO. The problem is all these banks with empty houses they can't sell. Gotta save the mortgage companies and Banks - screw the people. There will be some kind of bendover in the new mortgage contracts with lower interest - watch and see. WHAM! It'll hit those people right between the eyes just when they thought things were going good, that is, if the economy turns around - which I doubt. Not enough cooperation.
BTW, there are much better birth control
options than birth control pills. One of them IUDs, when those are in, there is nothing to 'forget' about them.
Gun Control Article

My, read nothing about it in our newspapers around here. Please pay attention to the paragraphs following these:


His feelings about House Bill 375 are the same, according to his Philadelphia office manager, Joe Evangelista.

Similar to House Bill 375, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois in January introduced Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.


http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/234644


No. I just wish we could get some union control
nm
Did someone mention anger control....

Corporations control the media.sm
Wonder who controls the corporations? I do not watch mainstream television news because it is censored and compromised, so I could not tell if you if they are left-leaning or not. Republican/Democrat same thing to me - divide and conquer.
He looks a few questions away from losing control...nm

Nothing silly about population control.
BTW....we ARE animals.
Not everyone has the same access to birth control. sm
I guess you didn't watch 20/20 this past Friday night? You can view it on their website. Go to http://abcnews.go.com/2020 and click on Watch: Babies in Memphis

I think everyone who is interested in this current thread would find it interesting, whatever your opinion on abortion is. It was called "Babyland" because that's what the locals call the cemetary where all the premature babies who die are buried if their mother can't afford to bury them.

It was about how the poverty-striken areas in Memphis, TN have much greater rates of premature births and deaths of babies than the more affleunt areas. Why? Lots of reasons, but probably the main one is lack of money, which means lack of prenatal care. No insurance and no easy access to a free or low-cost clinic. Lack of education. The girl they profiled was 18 and pregnant, and they showed another girl who had gotten pregnant at 12 yrs old, now a mother at 13. I mean, yeah, a 12 y/o shouldn't be having sex - she's still a child, but how in the world would she have access to birth control? She wouldn't.

It showed how the closest clinic is only open during the day (and only 1/2 day on Sat., to cut costs). No evening or weekend hours, so what are you supposed to do, take time off work, which you can't afford, to go get birth control (or prenatal care, etc.) which you also can't afford? I mean to you or me it may seem like a no-brainer - if nothing else go to the drugstore and get a box of condoms for $10.00, or the Today sponge thingie, but maybe they don't even have an extra $10.00 (or the time and $ to take 2 buses to get to the drugstore?).

All I'm saying is, the situation is different for everyone. I've personally never had an easy time with any method of birth control I've tried, and it's a bit of a wonder to me that I've never had an unplanned pregnancy because of that. Maybe because of that, I try to be less judgmental of others. Oops, more to say but I've got to go...


Sam busy w/damage control this a,m.
nm
I disagree. Since the dems got control, nothing
x
40% (all individuals earing less than $57,400/yr) control
More than likely, that would include you, if you are an MT. Ask yourself this question. Do 40% of the population do less than 1% of the work? No? Then why do they control less than 1% of the wealth? This is about preventing the middle class from disappearing off the face of the nation. It's not welfare. It is about fair pay for fair work. MTs are constantly complaining about being paid what they are worth for the work they do. The relief they deserve will never come from the "right" side of pub. Don't you get that?
Birth control would have been nice.
.
I knew about birth control.
However, was I willing to go to my mom and ask her to put me on the pill.  I knew my mother would have suspected my sexual activity and I didn't want her to know.  Most teens also have the belief that "it won't happen to me."  Now that I'm older, I see how some of the decisions I made back when I was 17 were poor ones, but at that time I thought they were great ideas.  Do I blame my mom and dad for the bad decisions I made back then....no.  Those were my decisions, my choices, and I had to deal with the consequences. 
She supports birth control and ..

supports abstinence-only education in schools, but she has also said she does not support tax payer dollars to distribute birth control in schools. She is a member of Feminists for Life, which is an pro-life group.

Feminist for Life is a pro-life group that has had its positions distorted to show that they are against birth control. Palin critics (including many in the media) have cherry picked in order to smear Gov. Palin.


Dems are in control in Congress
If you're looking for someone to blame, you're going to have a short walk to the nearest mirror for voting those boys into power.

Out of control being the operative words....
said control denied JOhn McCain and republicans by democrats.
but Democrats control congress.
Did you miss that?
William Shatner on gun control sm
Short clip from the show Boston Legal on gun control. LMAO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AYG4y5et5g
so now abortion as population control...
lovely thought! As far as my daughter getting pregnant--there are options other than abortion. Plenty of people who want babies can't have them--or there is always the good old fashioned taking responsibility for your actions. I have one child that was a surprise and don't know what I would do without him. With my second "surprise" on the way, I am certain that I will never feel that keeping my baby was a mistake, but I am certain that I would have thought killing him was! The timing is bad, I was a little irresponsible, but babies have an uncanny way of making people happy. It seems to me that our world could use a little more of that.
No, not population control, Einstein. But in
an already overcrowded world, what sense does it make to bring an UNWANTED child into the world? Babies dont automatically make people happy when their birth is a mistake and it ruins their lives.
whose insurance does not pay for birth control?
Mine sure as heck does. It is much cheaper to prevent births than pay for them. It makes fiscal sense.
Yeah, and look at the democrats in control for
nm
I think McCain lost control....(sm)

or better yet, never had control.  I actually like McCain to a certain extent.  I don't like his policies, but I do like his ability to get some things done.  I think McCain's real pick for VP would have been Leiberman.  I think he knew he would have to run a *middle of the road* campaign after Bush, but I think he was overruled by the pub party.  This is evidenced by the fact that Palin seemed to be running a completely different campaign than McCain.  McCain also voiced disagreement with other activities such as robo-calls.  McCain has been on the ugly side of a campaign before, and I really didn't get the impression that he was happy with the way things were going.  This makes me think he had no control.


Who the master mind behind the Palin pick was, I don't know yet, but I'm sure it'll come out sooner or later.  Another possibility is that the pub party knew they couldn't win this election so they pretty much used McCain, and in the meantime tried to show some versatility by choosing Palin -- that didn't work out as planned I'm sure. 


Either way, I don't think McCain is at fault for the Palin pick.  A major concern during the election was that he had exhibited bad judgment by picking her.  I tend to believe that the real problem was that he didn't have any control of the situation and wouldn't have had control as pres. 


Dems never had control of congress.....
With Cheney's vote and the veto pen - but that's convenient to ignore, isn't it? All about family values? right? No child left behind? Sure, uh-huh. Talk about swallowing the Kool-Aid - all that Rovian campaigning propaganda brought Kool-Aid to new heights.
too bad i'm not the pres - i'm control freakish enough 4 it
:)
The dems obviously didnt have ENOUGH control, or else
n
What is scary is having a govt so big it can control
nm