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

Obama values life of babies AND their mothers.

Posted By: McC...well that's another story. sm on 2008-10-24
In Reply to: I realize this is probably lost on those who don't - value human life but sm

I am not in the habit of debating with brick walls, but I will address your issue directly just as soon as you come up with something that will convince me that McCain's air quotes demontrate high regard for human life. Kill the mom, save the baby, then watch while it pulls itself up by its bootstraps, lest we turn our beloved country into a welfare state. P-U.


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

British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

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

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

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

The evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.




If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do
Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????
Do you think all mothers would choose their life over their child's?
A serious question.
Lying and the Culture of Life. What Moral Values by Junaid Alam...sm

Lying and the Culture of Life


What Moral Values?


By M. JUNAID ALAM


Strong moral values, decency, propriety, and honesty: conservatives long ago declared these ideals essential to their belief system, achieving political ascendancy with promises of restoring honor to a government they view as tainted by liberal immorality and excess.


A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?


Barely a year into Bush's second term, the American political landscape is brimming with blatant examples of conservative deceit, dishonesty, cronyism, and hypocrisy.


Foremost among these examples is Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's right-hand man, who has been indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements before a grand jury. Not that this is cause for embarrassment among conservatives--indeed, many are relieved, pointing out that Libby is in trouble only for lying. It seems conservative standards on morality have slipped a bit.


Of course, the Libby indictment is but the tip of the beast's horn. The larger case is about a vengeful administration that was bent on destroying an undercover CIA agent's career by leaking her name because her husband, Joseph Wilson, also a CIA agent, challenged shoddy evidence buttressing the case for war in Iraq.


Let us forget for a moment the value of simple honesty. Let us forget also the importance of not undermining the nation's intelligence services when one's entire platform is national security.


What does this event tell us about the oft-invoked conservative call to respect the culture of life, so often invoked in abortion debates? Let us not pander to fools: this war was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on manifest lies and exaggerations. Therefore, can anyone seriously claim that this administration showed even the slightest respect for the lives of the 2,000 American soldiers, or the lives countless Iraqi civilians now lost to the war's horrors? Most intriguing, then, is this culture of life--a culture which champions life when it does not yet exist, and abandons it when it does.


Surely, however, could the Republican Party not redeem itself through its philosophy of Christian compassion? Apparently not. Congressional testimony two weeks ago revealed that when FEMA's sole representative in New Orleans--who was there only accidentally--found thousands of Americans stranded without food or shelter during the hurricane, he issued a desperate call for help to FEMA chief Michael Brown. Brown's aide replied--several hours later--with the following instructive example of compassionate conservatism in action: It is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner. The locale of choice? Baton Rouge. Marie Antoinette would have been impressed.


Equally impressive is the Republican Party's idea of taking responsibility and not blaming others--a key conservative tenet--in the case of Tom Delay, the House majority leader indicted for pouring corporate money into Texas' 2002 state elections, which saw the reconfiguration of the state's congressional districts along even more pro-Republican lines. Censured three times in 2004 alone by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, Delay nonetheless views the indictment as a kind of vast left-wing conspiracy, calling the prosecutor an unabashed partisan zealot. Heaven forbid.


It goes without saying that Republican contrition for any of the outrages outlined above is unlikely: the arsonists are running the firehouse, and they take great pride in fanning the flames.


We would be sorely remiss, however, if we ignored the role of the Democrats in this affair. They have sat on their firehoses and idled their fire engines on key issues, enabling Republican misbehavior to go unchecked. Most Democrats, it must be remembered, voted in favor of granting Bush unprecedented war powers. And it was the liberal New York Times, with its neo-con pseudo-journalist Judith Miller at the helm, who led the drumbeat procession to invade Iraq based on the thinnest of lies.


Naïve liberal Democrats were also quite pleased to see conservatives break ranks during the Harriet Miers debacle, taking it as a sign of some kind of impending right-wing implosion. They apparently forgot the basic fact that it was the far right--not what passes for the left--that tore apart Miers' chances for judicial confirmation. Now, a staunch conservative, Alito, has been nominated and the implosion has disappeared into thin air. As usual, we can soon count on the usual centrist Democrats--those Klan-minus-costume-crats and heirs to the Dixiecrat legacy--to help vote Alito onto the bench.


Thus, while conservative wrongdoing is obvious, liberals must take a long, hard look at their own party's role in producing the present state of affairs. Americans are told, after all, that there are two major parties, and that one is supposed to act in opposition to the other.


A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?


M. Junaid Alam, co-editor of Left Hook, can be reached at alam@lefthook.org


Obama is not saying he wants babies murdered -
Obama is prochoice - that means each person has the right to decide for themselves. You all amaze me when you say you want the government out of your life and to quit telling you what you have to do, but then it is okay for the government to tell the other person that they can't do something they want to because it does not go along with your belief system.

I would never ever have an abortion. I think it is wrong. However, I think that each person should have the right to decide for themselves if they do it or not. In this case I agree, government stay out of my business!
Obama is criminally naive. "Upholding our values

Umm...and just who was being waterboarded prior to 9/11, Mr. Obama?  Or, putting it more precisely, we know now from the 9/11 Commission that the attack on that day was in the making long before Bush even took office.  So which of the numerous values that Clinton violated was it that led to that event?


Pathetic reasoning - a crime against your office, in fact.  You obviously do not know the first thing about either terrorists or terrorism - or else you think we don't.


Impeach Obama now.  Unfit to serve.


Obama is criminally naive. "Upholding our values

Umm...and just who was being waterboarded prior to 9/11, Mr. Obama?  Or, putting it more precisely, we know now from the 9/11 Commission that the attack on that day was in the making long before Bush even took office.  So which of the numerous values that Clinton violated was it that led to that event?


Pathetic reasoning - a crime against your office, in fact.  You obviously do not know the first thing about either terrorists or terrorism - or else you think we don't.


Impeach Obama now.  He is utterly unfit to serve.


OMG! Look what low-life Obama is planning to do!!

Such bad, bad taste!  Such a disrespectful man!  (I forget...what are the other names he's been called by his honor-challenged haters?)


Dinner Honoring McCain to Be Hosted by Obama


Saturday, January 10, 2009; 2:30 PM


President-elect Barack Obama will host a dinner honoring Sen. John McCain, the Republican he tromped in the election, the night before his inauguration, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced yesterday, saying the gesture demonstrates Obama's "commitment to bridging the bipartisan divide."


The dinner will be one of a series that night: Gen. Colin Powell and Vice President-elect Joe Biden also will be feted.


"In these times of great challenge and great change, leadership requires rising above the same old narrow partisanship," Obama said on the PIC Web site. "Each of these distinguished Americans has spent his life in service to his country, at each and every moment placing the interests of America before issues of political party."


Congressional leaders from both parties will attend the dinners at the National Building Museum, Union Station and the Hilton Washington.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/10/AR2009011001099.html


 


Family values....Obama's family can't even agree
@@
hope a lot of these posters are not mothers
because they would be horrible role models for the younger generation.
Men and woman and mothers and fathers are speaking now. sm
Many of whom have fought in Iraq.  They are on television right now. But you won't watch it. It would be too hard for you.  YOu would be screaming obscenities at them.  Do you know, they had to bleep out part of the antiwar march yesterday in DC because of the obscenities and vulgar language.  That is what you are, obscene and vulgar and unpatriotic.
No, I didn't....it was in response to all the attacks about unwed mothers..
but i guess you feel that is okay, right?
Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect







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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Support Our Wars or Else


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


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


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


Until now.


Protective Fury: The Tipping Point


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


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


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


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


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


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


Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm
z
I am not in your life....I am in the life of the baby...
and will continue to speak for the baby. Again, my right.
Cry babies
Your post is so true.  Cry babies, run to the moderator and get the posts they disagree with deleted, even though they are posted on the LIBERAL board.  
Cry babies
The posts that get removed are removed because they violate the rules for the boards posted by the administrator. Typical liberal response, follow only the rules you like, and to use your term, become a cry baby when the you don't like the rules. With all due respect, spend less time whining about who posts on what board and what posts are removed, and more time trying to figure out why you think it is more important to investigate Bush than it is to concentrate on terrorism. Still having a real difficult time trying to wrap my mind around that one. But..it does underscore why conservatives are so concerned and rightly so.
Cry babies
The two posts of last week were removed because a conservative who came on this board (you?) did not agree with them.  Both were articles from journalists and printed in major newspapers, so obviously cleared and approved by the editors of the newspapers and read throughout America.  However, the conservative did not agree with the articles, so whined and cried and ran to the moderator (flash back of junior high actions) and had them removed.  My opinion is, if a conservative cannot handle an article that was posted in a newspaper and obviously cleared by its editor, dont read it, go back to the conservative board and leave the liberal board alone.  I have never posted on the conservative board but have read some of the posts and some are definitely inflammatory and attacks on liberal/democratic politicians.  Liberals have not asked to have those posts removed.  Conservatives:  Do as I say, not as I do.   
How many babies do you think die in
the wars that Bush and McCain support? Or does it only matter when American babies die?


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

Let your "conscience" be your guide.



So were the babies
murdered. I don't see you making a case for them.
What values do liberals have?
While at a pro bush rally I knew I was surrounded by people who generally agreed with my morale values. I knew these people were pro life, believed in god, loved America, believed all nations and people deserved freedom, and finally supported our troops. I thought if the liberals generally disagree with the conservatives moral compass what do they believe?. They support the killing of children in there mothers womb, they have on many occasions attempted to rid god from the publics view, they opposed liberating the people of Kuwait and Iraq, and are quick to call our brave troops who would die for our nation war criminals.
Liberal values?

You asked about the values of liberals, so here goes ... at least from this liberal's perspective.  I value people's inherent ability to make decisions about their own lives, barring medical issues preventing same (i.e., mental incapacity).  I live by the Golden Rule.  I value the choice for people to practice whichever faith they choose ... or none at all ... and really mean it!  I accept people and their differences from the "norm".  I believe 2 consenting adults with the required mental capacity should be allowed to marry - with no litmus test.  And I sure don't care what people do in their own bedrooms as long as it is between consenting adults.  Most importantly, I value the principles set forth by the Constitution of the United States since, first and foremost, I am an American.


That about sums it up.  I hope it helps!


Our Endangered Values

By Jimmy Carter.  A MUST READ.


In reading the book, I was reminded of the saying that people don't remember what you said. They remember how you made them feel. In this Carter succeeds. That said, don't pick up a copy of the book expecting to find well reasoned positions backed with unambigous references to reliable data and statistics.

In Our Endangered Values, Carter describes a set of American values: equality, liberty, justice for all, individual empowerment, inclusion, generosity, forgiveness, and leadership by example. This is framed by a narrative which is personal and focused on people finding common ground on which to build a better tomorrow.

These values are then contrasted against what is described as a general trend toward fundamentalism. The fundamentalism Carter argues against is not the adherance to a literal interpretation of secular texts, but the practice of intolerance regarding people of differing beliefs.

Intolerance, he argues, becomes particularly dangerous where people choose to recognize their leaders and institutions as masters rather than servants. Such leaders and their institutions tend to combine their beliefs and intolerance into agendas which exclude, dehumanize and punish.

From there, it is just a hop, a skip, and a jump to a laundry list of ways in which the actions of recent administrations and highly visible religious leaders are tipping the balance toward fundamentalism and endangering the values he holds dear.

In summary, it is well worth reading, and is relatively light reading at that. Some reviewers have come down fairly harshly on the book for religious and/or political grounds. I think they miss the point. Carter isn't mandating that you subscribe to his beliefs. He is asking you to look for common ground and tolerate the differences.


Speaking of values

Golly how many times are you going to bring this up about Clinton like it is truly important in the problems our world faces?  It's like you are completely nutso about this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over......wow!


I think it is terrifying and heart-wrenchingly sad that with the genocide, starvation, astounding poverty globally PLUS this war we have created with how many hundreds of thousands of civilians killed including babies, pregnant women, children plus the US dead and countless with TBI and amputations....that the thing that you totally obsess over is Clinton and his sex and his lie to the court over something that should never have gone to court in the first place.  JFK would have been in deep you-know-what had he ever been brought to task for his philandering....and he probably would have covered things up, too.


How pathetic that this nation is more interested in sex scandals than the multitude of catastrophic problems facing our population on this planet.  It shows how shallow and value-less we can be.......impeaching someone over sex.....how about impeaching someone over the death of 1/2 a million people for dubious reasons and political gain.....   


family values

She was left unsupervised at a very critical age (like the Down baby will be) and did not receive enough parental guidance to prevent this tragedy.


 


family values

Barack and Michelle have been married for years with not a hint of scandal.  they have two beautiful age-appropriate children. Joe Biden has a beautiful blended family that truly loves each other. McCain dumped his gravely injured first wife for a beauty queen.  Then he was pressured into picking another beauty queen with an Down infant who obviously needs a full time mother and pregnant teenager for his running mate.  Family values, family values, family values.


 


So you are saying now that they have NO family values because their...
daughter is pregnant and not married? Are you REALLY saying that?
Nobody's forcing their values on you.
Nobody's making you to become gay.  Nobody is forcing an abortion on you.   Nobody is compelling you to join their church.  Nobody insists you drive a Honda.  I won't tell you what books to read. You can listen to any music you like. Nobody's requiring you to do anything, not even give your permission.  If you think what you have is diminished by someone else having it as well, that's rather.... infantile.
Anchor babies. sm

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


Where do babies come from? 1 man and 1 woman
I understand these relationships, but I don't think traditional marriage between a man and a woman should cover gays/lesbians.  They have civil unions in my state and now they want marriage.  Leave the tradition of marriage alone.
Yeah...that and family values!

Because Bennett's *values* match their own.

They must be very confused by the WH's response.  Probably don't know what they're allowed to *think* about this.


My hunch, based on their own posts, is that at this moment in time, they'd all vote for Bennett because his inner prejudices and hatred match their own.


Then how come so many are being found out? What was that again about moral values? nm
:
Bush Family Values

Bush Family Values


MICHAEL DONNELLY | September 8 2006


It's astonishing to see how desperate our homegrown fascists have become. The entire cabal is in full-on media blitz mode with Rummy, Dick and Theodosius, er, Bush slamming their foreign opponents with the latest absurd tag Islamic Fascists; and, their domestic ones as Nazi appeasers. Or, in the deranged mind of Condi Rice; domestic opponents are tantamount to folks who would have stopped the Civil War and allowed slavery to continue in the South.


It's not just desperate; it's monumentally moronic, given the real history. This bizarre trip on the Wayback Machine demands a deeper look--though don't look to the mainstream media. Given the opening, one would think that everyone by now would be fully informed that the Bush Family took Nazi appeasement to far greater heights and were actually part of an American faction of documented Nazi SUPPORTERS.


We're also unlikely to see much mainstream media analysis of the new Islamic Fascist branding of those opposing the Empire's designs on the Middle East. As Sir Winston Bush gets a media pass as he tries to conflate fascism, communism and Islam while also trying to ironically tie his criminal wars to WWII and the Cold War, it warrants our own trip on the Wayback Machine to see just what the Bush family was doing during those earlier good wars.


Samuel Bush: arms merchant


George W. Bush's great-grandfather, Samuel Bush was charter member of the military/industrial complex. In 1918, he was chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammunition Section for the War Industries Board, with oversight responsibility for Percy Rockefeller's Remington Company. Rockefeller had helped get Bush's son, Prescott into Yale and Skull and Bones in 1916.


A 1926 Senate Munitions Inquiry (the Nye Committee) into the military/industrial complex's WWI windfall examined Samuel Bush's dealings with Remington as part of his War Industries Board duties. Virtually ALL of the records of Samuel Bush's efforts were destroyed by the National Archives to save space.


Prescott Sheldon Bush; George Herbert Walker: Nazi collaborators


George W. Bush's grandfather, former Connecticut Senator Prescott S. Bush was a Wall Street banker with Brown Brothers Harriman. (Averill Harriman was also instrumental in getting young Prescott into Yale and S&B.) Bush's maternal grandfather George Herbert Walker was the bank's first president. Walker built the famed Bush family estate at Kennebunkport on Walker Point. Prescott Bush joined W. A. Harriman & Company in 1926 and became its CEO.


Harriman Bank was the official Nazi financial conduit in the US. Closely tied to Fritz Thyssen, who proudly claimed in his 1941 book I Paid Hitler that he was the Nazi Party's first and greatest financial backer. The Union Banking Corporation (UBC) was a subsidiary of Harriman created by Walker and it was used for Nazi financial matters. Thyssen provided 100,000 gold marks ($10 million in today's dollars) to the Nazis in 1923 just prior to Hitler's failed putsch. By 1941, UBC held a private Nazi stash of over $3,000,000 ($36 million in today's dollars) in its New York vaults.


After the war, a Treasury Department investigation reported that during the two years after the Stock Market crash; Thyssen dedicated his fortune and his influence to the single purpose of bringing Hitler to power. In 1932, he arranged the now famous meeting in the Düsseldorf Industrialists' Club, at which Hitler addressed the leading businessmen of the Ruhr and the Rhineland. At the close of Hitler's speech, Thyssen cried, `Heil Herr Hitler'. By the time of the German elections later that year, Thyssen had succeeded in eliciting contributions to Hitler's campaign fund from all of the big industrial combines. He himself is reported to have spent 3,000,000 ($30 million today) marks on the Nazis in 1932 alone.


During 1933 Thyssen served as intercessor between von Hindenburg, von Papen, and Hitler. He brought them together at a secret meeting which laid the basis for the appointment of Hitler as Reichschancellor.


It was Thyssen, not Prescott Bush as some now claim, who was called Hitler's Angel by the New York Herald Tribune. He later fled Germany in 1939.


Even though Hitler had declared war on the US, it was still legal for UBC to conduct finances for the Nazis. But, after Pearl Harbor that outrage finally changed. After another ten months of Bush/Harriman/UBC work for the Nazis; in November 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, all of the Harriman business interests were seized by the government, including UBC.


The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war and then quickly returned. Prescott Bush' interest in UBC consisted of One Share--worth $1,500,000 ($19 million in today's dollars) at the time UBC was disbanded in 1951. (The Harriman family garnered $4 billion!) It was the money used to start the Bush Family Texas oil empire.


Another Harriman subsidiary through Silesian Holding Co.; Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation saw the Harriman-Bush group owning one-third of a complex of steel making, coal-mining, and zinc-mining activities in Germany and Poland. The other two-thirds were owned by Wehrwirtschaftsführer (Military Economy Leader) Friedrich Flick. Silesian Holding Company's president was George Walker and its sole directors were Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman.


Silesian Steel used slave labor from Auschwitz (even before the concentration camp was built there) in its coal, iron and zinc mining operations. At Nuremberg, Flick was sentenced to seven years for Silesian's role in building up the Nazi war machine. Harriman, Bush and Walker were never charged.


June 14, 1940, nine months after the Nazis conquered Poland, the IG Farben Company opened an Auschwitz factory and slave labor camp in occupied Poland, to produce artificial rubber and gasoline from coal. This was done in a partnership with Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company (EXXON).


The millions made off the labor of hundreds of thousands of Nazi victims were inherited by William S. Farish III, grandson of William S. Farish, the head of the IG/Standard cartel. Farish III is George H.W. Bush's best friend and the person who took over Bush's assets and managed them in a blind trust after Bush was elected vice-president.


Investigator John Loftus has said, As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman to be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany.


I've yet to take the Wayback Machine back to investigate Rice's whopper that decrying the carnage of the U.S. Civil War meant supporting leaving Slavery in place. But, I'm pretty certain that the same unsavory links to what John Trudell calls, the colonial industrial class were just as odious in the 1860s.


Clinton and his party's values?

You refer to a morally bankrupt Clinton and his PARTY.  I assume you mean the Democrats, all guilty by association.  So then am I to draw the same conclusion that you believe that Foley and his party are also morally bankrupt? 


I believe you have another post also generalizing the Democrats as all being sleazy, for lack of a better word.  Perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am wrong.


Despite being a liberal, I feel that Foley is not representative of his party's values in general. 


Those small-town values are
EXACTLY what the big bad world needs to take it on.  Resolute, firm in beliefs, freedom, country first. 
Sex, Drugs and Oil - How's that for Family Values????

Oil man in office - SURPRISE!!!!


http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/10/news/economy/oil_officials.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008091015


What a hypocrit! Family values?
You think a man who has no problem with a baby left to die after a botched abortion has values of any kind?

Left to die in a bucket? Maybe you need to ask yourself what his true family values really are.
No, some of us have values and common sense.
nm
On that morals and values question...
May I point out one way that Emanuel is most definitely NOT left wing liberal. On the issue of Israel, he is more to the right than even Bush is. To be honest, the idea of his being Chief of Staff to Obama is concerning for me in THAT regard. However, that post is a very broad one and I do not pretend to know precisely what Obama's motivations may be for considering him. What I do know is that Emanuel is only one voice in many that Obama will be listening to. I have not heard that Emanuel has accepted the position but I know that he has expressed his passion for the legislative branch, has his eye on the Speaker's position and has personal considerations of being the father of small children. This is in the wait and see mode. I feel I do not have enough information on him yet and am trying not to focus on what I consider to be a strong negative about him.

In terms of your fear, I will gently suggest to you that you might try broadening your base of information sources beyond O'Reilly, if you haven't already done that. It is not surprising that Bill O's guests are calling Obama a puppet. I hear none of that anywhere else but Fox. As difficult as it may be, a good dose of balance AND extreme viewpoints may be helpful in this respect. I hold my nose quite often and listen to Rush Limbaugh (ugh), Bill O and Hannity, though I confess I have a pretty low tolerance to them. I also tune into Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Cafferty, Joe Scarborough (not terribly fond of him either), Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Naomi Klein and innumerable independent journalists. I find that approach very effective in soothing the fear factor and to be much more engaging.

You may be right to a certain extent about the morals and values. We are not living in the same world and our nations best interests will not be best served if we try to pretend we are. That is what the dynamics of change is all about. As a species, human beings have survived BECAUSE of their capacity to adapt to change. The internet and free trade act has transformed our country into a vital component of a global economic and cultural system. We must now take on the task of defining what role we want to assume within that context. The diversity of our nation's culture can remain a point of contention and division, or it can become a new source of our strength and pride. This choice is ours to make and I believe this election has been a mandate on where the younger generations stand on this issue. After all, they are the ones who have grown up in the midst of these population dynamics.

In this respect, it seems that our most basic and cherished values and beliefs do manage to endure as a nation, and what does not can always be elaborated in how we lives our personal lives. In the past, as a country we have managed to survive quite well during "liberal years." However, that is not what I believe is in store for us now. Whatever tectonic shifts we have undergone in the past (and we have had our share), never once have we been able to negotiate them against a backdrop of a house divided, as gourdpainter pointed out earlier. We unite, we rise to the occasion and we get past it.

I think part of our peek into the future will inevitably require us to place much more focus on new energies and phase out our dependence and relentless and, at times, fatal search for fossil fuel resources. I cannot think of a better way to diffuse the power that those "not so friendly nations" hold over us now. Jobs do not necessarily have to come from the oil patch and there are alternatives to trying to drill our way out of these problems as T. Bone Pickens so eloquently reminded us recently. Any new jobs creation will have that domino effect you describe.

Obama hardly is a one-issue candidate (tax) the way Bill O would have you believe. I will not spend my time trying to promote the president-elect, except to say you may find some comfort in at least reading his Blueprint for Change, whether you trust him to carry it out or not. He has put this is writing and no doubt the media and the electorate will be holding his feet to the fire with those words and promises. So it looks like we are back to wait and see again.

BTW, a good antidote to fear is hope and faith....and that does not necessarily mean Obama style hope. Being hopeful and drawing strength from faith is also a very personal choice one makes in life. It is not that hard to talk yourself into a more positive attitude. Just talk the talk and walk the walk and pretty soon, it becomes second nature.

The "family values" party?
In one neighborhood in Los Angeles last night, every car and home that had an Obama bumper sticker or yard sign was spray painted with swastikas, racial slurs, and other messages of hate. Very similar to what is posted on this board by the rabid, right-wing, Bible-thumping Republicans. If racial intolerance, fire and brimstone, and seething hate is what "family values" is all about, count me out!!
I am not willing to assume that 1.2 million babies...
would have horrible lives. I can't see killing them all just in case some might suffer. But how is our choice to decide whether or not someone lives based on what kind of life they might have? I think it should be the choice of the creator, myself. I am curious as to what you think your creator thinks about choosing to kill an unborn child? I think mine's heart breaks every time one happens...over 2000 times a day. Yes, that's what I think.

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

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

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