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

It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to

Posted By: be made by gov'mt. or relig. zealots. on 2008-09-15
In Reply to: Face it, this is a political issue.....NM - another oldtimer

.


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

But what is this PRIVATE

forum doing on an MT site?? Anyway, I have researched and contacted someone at ForuMatrix. I just want to know why a privately owned conservative board is on an open MT board masquerading as a **politics** board, all inclusive. I have never paid much attention to how these things were run but if the politics board is really the conservative board, then it needs to go somewhere else or there should be another board for the rest of us, moderated and administrated by a liberal, a green, an independent. Not many people of any stripe come here anymore and that is because the board has gotten so heavy handed conservatively. It does not matter what we say, we get the same rhetoric back from you. We're idiots, we ooze hate and loathing, we hate democracy, we love the terrorists, we are socialists (at least I get that a lot), we hate capitalism...The board has gone downhill progressively since 2004. The only opinions that matter are yours and Brunson/Nan's.


P.S. Why makes you think I am crying. I am inquiring and I intend to find out what I want to know.


Public or Private?
This is a direct quote from the TOS, accessed through the above link provided by Goldbird: *All posted articles and replies are PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE on the Web*

...yet in one of the MQ threads, Goldbird stated this board was PRIVATE and financial discussions, real or speculative, were not allowed.

So is MTStars a PUBLIC board or a PRIVATE board? Choose one -- Can't be both at the same time.
PP comes out of our taxes. NOT a private org.
Why do you think so many taxpayers are sick of it?  When does the "tax us til it bleeds stop?"
Okay, I get it. You are for a private citizen....
being subjected to a background check for asking a question. That says more about you than what you say about Joe.

The difference between you and me is...I would be as outraged by this if had been done to someone who asked Obama and a question and was subjected to this. But of course, we know that isn't going to happen, now don't we?

So much for liberals championing civil rights. What a joke that has become!!
Private insurance and SCHIPS not the same.
SCHIPS is for CHILDREN, not parents. Federal mandates that seek to raise the age of allowable coverage for natural children of parents with PRIVATE insurance makes perfect sense. Parents (not the govt) pay premium on young adults who would otherwise not be able to afford insurance. What's the problem here?
Hello. They are referring to PRIVATE insurance.
Do you have kids? Would you like to see them go to college? Graduate school? Law school? Medical school? Would you or would you not like to have the option to carry YOUR OWN CHILDREN on your insurance beyond age 17? I think that parents who want to cover their kids (and other members of their family, for that matter, like parents, in-laws, sisters, brothers, etc) should have that choice under a group rate that would be cheaper than individual policies that some of them otherwise would not be able to afford. It's called medical care reform and the aim is to INSURE people, not exclude them. got it?
I actually went to a private CHRISTIAN school.....

Throughout high school.  I'm not saying I would never put my children there, but at this point they have a good school and I am happy with it.  BTW, at their school they actually pray still, say the blessing, pledge the flag, etc.  Not sure how they get away with it, but yea they do it.


Capitalism is when private owners run businesses
xx
Taxpayers will pay for Gonzales' private attorney
This is incredible.

Lawyers from the Justice Department's civil division often represent department employees who're sued in connection with their official actions. However, Gonzales' attorney recently revealed in court papers that the Justice Department had approved his request to pay private attorney's fees arising from the federal lawsuit.

Dan Metcalfe, a former high-ranking veteran Justice Department official who filed the suit on behalf of eight law students, called the department's decision to pay for a private attorney rather than rely on its civil division "exceptional."

"It undoubtedly will cost the taxpayers far more," he said.

According to a person with knowledge of the case, the Justice Department has imposed a limit of $200 an hour or $24,000 a month on attorneys' fees. Top Justice Department attorneys generally earn no more than $100 per hour. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Asked why Gonzales made the request, Gonzales spokesman Robert Bork Jr. said that his client "values the work that the department's civil attorneys do in all cases" but thinks that "private counsel can often be useful where (department) officials are sued in an individual capacity, even where the suit has no substantive merit."

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department wouldn't have any comment on the reasons for the approval and wouldn't answer questions about the cost to taxpayers.

private pilots laid off just before the holidays!?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/bs_nm/us_gm
If those were my children, I would send them to private school too -
Can you imagine the nightmare of keeping those children safe now in a public school? The interruptions to scheduling and life the other children would have to go through every day to be able to go to school with the president's children?

I don't blame him one bit for putting his children in a private school! And yes, I know they were in private school before too and if he can afford it himself, then that is okay too. Don't subsidize private school for people with my money though...
If your in public office, you have no private life (mn)
.
If you want to have a private conversation with JTBB, take it off-line.
If you post to the forum, it's fair game for anyone.

Oh, and incidentally, if I felt comfortable posting my CV on a public forum, you'd be very embarassed by the "clueless" characterization.
Homeland Security opening private mail





  MSNBC.com

Homeland Security opening private mail
Retired professor confused, angered when letter from abroad is opened


By Brock N. Meeks

Chief Washington correspondent

MSNBC

Updated: 5:55 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006



WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary. 


But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.


Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.


“I had no idea (Homeland Security) would open personal letters,” Goodman told MSNBC.com in a phone interview. “That’s why I alerted the media. I thought it should be known publicly that this is going on,” he said.  Goodman originally showed the letter to his own local newspaper, the Kansas-based Lawrence Journal-World.


“I was shocked and there was a certain degree of disbelief in the beginning,” Goodman said when he noticed the letter had been tampered with, adding that he felt his privacy had been invaded. “I think I must be under some kind of surveillance.”


Goodman is no stranger to mail snooping; as an officer during World War II he was responsible for reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command and censoring any passages that might provide clues as to his unit’s position.  “But we didn’t do it as clumsily as they’ve done it, I can tell you that,” Goodman noted, with no small amount of irony in his voice. “Isn’t it funny that this doesn’t appear to be any kind of surreptitious effort here,” he said.


The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her.  And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government’s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.



A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection division said he couldn’t speak directly to Goodman’s case but acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary.


“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,” says the CBP Web site.  That includes personal correspondence.  “All mail means ‘all mail,’” said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.


“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site.  “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said. 


However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, “obviously it’s a security-related criteria.”


Mohan also declined to say how often or in what volume CBP might be opening mail.  “All I can really say is that Customs and Border Protection does undertake [opening mail] when it is determined to be necessary,” he said.


© 2006 MSNBC Interactive




src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69728&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f10740935%2f

src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s27230400008802?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=8/0/2006%208%3A25%3A24%200%20300&pageName=Story%7CU.S.%20News%7CU.S.%20Secur%7C10740935%7CHomeland%20Security%20opening%20private%20mail%7C&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=U.S.%20News&c3=Brock%20N.%20Meeks&c4=U.S.%20News&c5=U.S.%20Security&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=10740935&c16=Story&c18=17&pid=Story%7CU.S.%20News%7CU.S.%20Secur%7C10740935%7CHomeland%20Security%20opening%20private%20mail%7C&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2710740935%27%29&ot=A&oi=589&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

© 2006 MSNBC.com




URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/


Remember when they declared family private and off limits
It's a can of worms I don't think they really want to open. I am looking forward to seeing what kind of light Aunti Zeituni can shed on the REST OF THE STORY (that is if she ever gets the chance) after the election. seh obviously holds nothing but the highest regard for her nephew and sounds like a really interesting person.

What is amazing about the fallout is that no one seems to be questioning that "highly unusual" shrub directive to ICE to issue as many deportation orders as possible before Tuesday. To me it's sort of like calling for mass executions in the Texas gas chambers (hurry up, hurry up) before anybody finds out that a couple of the death row inmates are innocent. One has to wonder what he meant by "politically sensitive" deportation cases.

Hopefully, it is a moot point. An executive order from a lame duck president with approval ratings in the low 20s is likely to be ignored by the ICE anyway.
Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
More control coming?  Thanks, but no thanks.  I have a brain and like to think for myself.  See link below.
Ummm. Hello. Anybody home? SCHIPS is not private insurance.
since the bill has not gone through the Senate or signed into law, state guidelines have not changed either.
what decision?? nm
nm
Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm)
x
Not O's decision...(sm)
the supreme court's decision.
Obviously, the right decision. I'm sure you still
Here, the cruel choice would have been to let this poor infant go to term.

Let not your heart be troubled; this child is with God and has been made whole. You'll be reunited one day, I'm sure.
But who and how would that decision be made
From a legal perspective? Say "convenience" abortions are made illegal. I get pregnant and decide I want to have a "convenience" abortion. However, I know these are illegal, so I say the guy raped me. Who gets to pick in which cases abortion is permitted and in which cases it's not?

This is my main concern. You're preaching to the choir on the rest of it, because it used to disgust me when I would type reports and a woman would've had 15 abortions. I do not agree with that at all, and I don't think there are many who do. But, logistically speaking, again, it's either legal or illegal.
Seems like a logical decision

to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost.  There is a lot at stake here.  I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman.


making right decision

This is my first post on the Politics board.  I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R. 


I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org. 


First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home.    I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about... 


I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is.  I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions.  A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman.  On and on and on. 


I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel. 


I'm happy for you and that your decision
Had your family or the father tried to force you to abort, you would have acted accordingly and not listened to them, rather to your inner voice. There is no one-decision-fits-all when answering this question. For that reason, it is only fair that each woman is given the same consideration, to listen to their own gut and act in accordance to what it is telling her. She too will face the outcome, regardless of what the resolution will be and that is as it should be. If you are "tired" of hearing "my body, my right," don't listen. You made your choice. Let others have the same.
I have made my decision -

I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working.  They just do not want to believe.  And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking!  It is ridiculous.


I will no longer try to help people see the truth.  If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway.  I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...


I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!!  The America that other countries envy and want to be!


 


But it isn't your decision to make, is it?
Trot yourself down to DC and make a REAL difference if you feel so strongly about it. It is an attorney's job to represent his client's INTERESTS. Get it? They are in it for the money - just like you work for money. I'm not too worried about his moral compass after witnessing Larry Craig, Foley, Abramoff, Libby......need I go on?
I think he made the right decision...
in not releasing the alleged abuse photos yesterday.

Other than that, I've not been his biggest fan and have to agree with A. Nonymous as to where he's taking this country.
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?

The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
There was no decision to be made. I was dealing with a
human life and no way would I ever have killed that baby.  We will never agree, so we should probably just agree to disagree on this one.  Have a blessed day!  
Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m
We can all only vote for what we hope (there's that word HOPE again) that we have made the right decision.  I do have FAITH in the American people that all of us will come together and take it in our hands to clean up this country at some point.  Neither candidate nor member of Congress is going to look out for "we the people" until we stand up on our hind legs and DEMAND it.  That is our right under the Constitution of the United States of American and I HOPE we will do it.  We did it on a small scale after 9/11.   I say "small scale" because while everyone came together, it didn't last long and we all went back to business as usual.  If the prediction of us being in such dire straits as we are "warned" about on a daily basis if Obama is elected, I think we ain't seen nothing yet as how the AMERICAN people will band together and DEMAND change.  However, if McCain gets in the White House, as I think he will, we'll continue right on down the garden path just as we have the last 8 years.  AND it won't surprise me if before this election is done  Bush declares martial law and then we are for sure in a fine fix.  Use your noggins for a change instead of just trying to get McCain elected, we ain't rid of George W. Bush YET.
And if you read the previous decision on this
the judge raled on and on for pages about Berg and frivolous law suits.
Could be, but it's their decision to make, not yours, not the govt
x
I agree with O's decision. Showing this
awful tortures, yes, they were very awful, might endanger the American soldiers, especially if they get caught and might be exposed to the 'same' tortures.
I commend you on a courageous decision
It doesn't sound like it was an easy decision for you to make. But sounds like you did what was right.
you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm
nm
sorry, Obama did not make this decision -
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html

It was decided in 1916!
War is a Partisan Decision (and more on amnesty for terrorists)

Now here's an honest Republican.  Very refreshing!






URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4781865,00.html
Duncan: War is a partisan decision


Knox Republican opposed successful GOP bill aimed at testing Democrats




WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.

I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.

Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.

In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.

The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.

Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.

Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.

Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.

Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.

Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.

Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.

Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.

But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.


Have you been watching the convention and does this help you in your voting decision

Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far?  I watched it last night.  Lots of commentaries that were a little boring.  I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else.  Loved the tribute to Kennedy.  His health condition is tragic.  He's done so much good while in the senate.  Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person.  She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised.  She knows the struggles we Americans face every day.  I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.


On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention.  I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is.  I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.


Does the convention help you in your choice of who you will vote for.


It is a fair question. The decision will have to be made during the next...
President's administration. All I asked is, would you support him? Why are you afraid to answer?
I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one...
As far as the fairness of evaluating a nominee who is a lawyer based on the argument that they advocated for a client or who they represented and the standard it sets for future nominees, I’m a big believer in reciprocity. If Obama ever opposed or criticized any of then President Bush’s nominees or any other President’s nominees because of who they represented or the arguments they made on their client’s behalf, then what’s good for the goose. . .
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?

JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
I agree with Obama's decision to not show them. (sm)

It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists.  I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision.  If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.


I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos.  Last I heard, the complete opposite was true.  Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?


Republicans favor giving poor families subsidies to afford private schools. Obama opposed.
Yet Obama sends his daughters to a private school, 29,000 for EACH KID. Hypocrisy, here we come. Geesh, not even in office yet.
Typical, let someone make a decision in a free country..
to support the person he believes is best and his party turns on him like he is a traitor. How can you call yourself Democrats with a straight face?

I am raising my hand...I certainly give a flying frito if someone wants to send this country down the road to a Marxist government. How is that working for Cuba? For Venezuela?


Obama Decision to Move Census to White House...
GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House
A number of Republicans are joining the fight to put the census issue into the political spotlight "before it's too late."

FOXNews.com

Monday, February 09, 2009

1 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
199 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPhotos

The Census Bureau's U.S. Population Clock (Census.gov)

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Stimulus Package Clears Key Procedural Hurdle in Senate
[2009-02-09]
gop sounds off on 'spendulus', gop, gop sounds off on stimulus, stimulus, stimulus passes senate test vote
987 visitors also liked this.
Private Sector Likely to Have Role in Government Bank Bailout Plan
[2009-02-09]
84 visitors also liked this.
Leahy Calls for 'Truth' Panel to Investigate Bush Administration
[2009-02-09]
72 visitors also liked this.
Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate
[2009-02-05]
graham slams obama calls him 'awol on leadership', this process stinks, obama, graham slams obama callshim 'awol on leadership', graham obama 'awol' on stimulus debate
6345 visitors also liked this.
Schumer Calls for Ticketmaster Probe Over Suspicious Springsteen Sales
[2009-02-09]
help find the 'spendulus' pork, help
298 visitors also liked this.
powered by BaynoteUtah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.


The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.


The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm
"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way," Obama said. "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action."


You shouldn't take it there...

We shouldn't sit through any but nothing you said...sm
offers up a reason why we invaded Iraq. I expect the usual Sadaam was evil, brutal, murderous, and his sons ... (and all of it is true). So it is a good thing that out of this all we've taken them out, now what is holding us there. Let's face it, these folks are going to have to fight it out one day. The strongest will win, whether we leave today or ten years from now. Right now they have a PM who is a prior islamic extremist (see Lurker's post titled Disturbing) - we should not support that. Can you not see history repeating itself? Did our current leaders not shake hands with Saddaam? Did we not train up bin Laden? The way we are going about things in this war is not going to leave us any safer - if anything less so - the region is now even more incensed with hate than it was under Sadaam's thumb. I think our best chance at survival (though when our time is up, it's up) is protecting our homeland. Of course we need to keep our hands and ears in the Middle East, and definitely retaliate against any attacks on our soil or Embassies. It's the preemptive idea that I can't get down with.

We should never ever sit through a 9/11. If
Sadaam was responsible then by all means go after him and anyone willing to fight for him. What we are doing in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. In my mind, they are two issues until it can be proven that Saddam had a hand in the Twin Tower attack.

I was young during the Clinton Admin, so I didn't keep up with foreign affairs as much as I do now and I still do not indulge in them a great deal. But now as I look back I think he did a poor job in retaliating against anti-American attacks.