Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Depending on what your definition of concentration camp is, the U.S. probably has a lot more than the article states. If you look at Guantanamo (not sure on the spelling), it's really quite clear that the U.S. is running at least ONE concentration camp. I'm curious if the U.N. will ever make any headway regarding that.
They're a place to house unruly American citizens in the event martial law is declared due to, say, a crash in the economy, another terror attack, pandemics, biological terror attack -- all the things that Bush mentioned in his "Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-21," most recently updated on October 18, 2007 (I believe was the last revision).
The U.S. military has also been stationed within the United States for a little more than a month now.
You might want to Google "Mount Weather," as well.
I'm still wondering if any of this will happen before Obama takes his oath of office.
Concentration Camps??
My husband was "surfing" and came across these concentration camp-like facilities all across this country. What are these? He watched a video of an old lady questioning then-President Bill Clinton, "what are all these concentration camps you're building?" He said I should have seen the look on President Clinton's face. Does anybody know about these and what they are being built for?
800 concentration camps in US and here they are:
Maybe used for Martial Law down the road. Here is a video of some of the camps and one in Indiana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4
The article below is about 800 camps in the US and executive orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights such as electricity, news media, farms and food, etc.
Disturbing info about concentration camps in U.S.
Now, I know what you might be thinking - U.S. concentration camps?? Really the stuff of tin-foil hatters on the Internet fringe! I've been hearing about them for years but sort of wrote it all off as the wackiest of the wackiness out there - after all where are they? Who has seen them? Couldn't happen here.
So, I'm really not sure what to make of this - it's the third or fourth report I've heard recently and getting harder to ignore. Article:
____________________________
Early Warning! Is Bush Preparing to Wage War on Americans?
He has asserted his power to do so amid reports that there are some 800 detention camps throughout the US, staffed, as yet empty but ready for operation. Armed guards are reported to be in place. [ See: INN World Report (Free Speech TV), February 7 broadcast]
The official cover story is that FEMA maintains these facilities in the event of a mass influx of illegal immigrants or in case of national emergency. It is more likely, that the detention camps are created to house political subversives.
(1) The President is now claiming, and is aggressively exercising, the right to use any and all war powers against American citizens even within the United States, and he insists that neither Congress nor the courts can do anything to stop him or even restrict him.
—Glenn Greenwald: The NSA Fight Begins - Strategies for Moving Forward, The Huffington Post
The Pacific News Service meanwhile reports that Homeland Security had awarded a $385 million dollar contract to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.
That's only part of the article but gives the gist of the story with several more references for the subject. I find it very chilling. Not surprising particularly, but still very chilling. Six years ago I didn't believe it at all. Now? I might! Iraqi terrorist training camps?
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commissionand the Pentagon. There was never any real proof of training camps in Iraq. As far as terrorists having been in Iraq at one time or another....it's a middle eastern country.....they were way down toward the bottom of the list of terrorist hang-outs.
Meanwhile, volunteers are *begging* FEMA not to shut down camps in Louisiana. sm
Katrina Volunteers Beg FEMA Not to Shut Down Camps
By Mark Martin
CBN News Reporter
CBN.com – ST. BERNARD PARISH, New Orleans - Carolyn Pitre is grateful to find her Bible among her belongings, piled up in the street in front of her home in St. Bernard Parish.
Carolyn says, “I'm drawn to try and find something of value because we have nothing left... (cries)… Because we have nothing left... Everything was gone. Everything.”
All along Carolyn's street, and in the entire area, it is the same: Destruction everywhere you look. Piles and piles of trash and debris. Gutted homes.
Lt. Colonel David Dysart is the director of recovery for St. Bernard Parish, which is near New Orleans. Dysart stated, “I have no residents living here right now, and I have had absolutely no businesses which have been able to return.”
The Marine reservist also had a part in the rebuilding of Fallujah, Iraq. He says there are several similarities. Both were completely evacuated, and both had their infrastructures completely wiped out.
The Lt. Colonel says it is going to take another six months to finish gutting thousands of homes to remove health and safety hazards. And that's where volunteers come in.
Dysart says it takes 10 to 12 volunteers a day to a day-and-a-half to gut just one house.
Asked if he needed volunteers right now, Dysart replied, “Absolutely. It's critical that we keep this up. We have approximately 800 homes to date that we've managed to move these items, out of the approximately 5,000 that applied.”
Volunteers need a place to stay. Right now, they live in base camps set up by fema. The problem is, local relief coordinators say, fema wants to close them soon -- in just a few weeks.
FEMA told Dysart that it wants to close these base camps because, Dysart said, “It is not FEMA's responsibility to provide support to volunteer agencies.”
Operation Blessing Disaster Relief Manager Jody Herrington says that not being able to provide a home means turning away a volunteer.
“Each volunteer that we turn away is another home that's not gutted, another resident that's not helped,” Jody declared. “It's another neighborhood that's not coming back. It's another city that's not restored. The reality is the volunteer help is crucial and critical to the success of recovery out in these parishes.”
Brenda Puckett is a missionary to nearby Plaquemines Parish. “There's so much to do,” Brenda stressed. “There's so much devastation. The need for volunteers is tremendous.”
She, too, says the camps need to stay.
Around 500 people live in one camp alone. A FEMA representative says it one houses contractors, people who are here to clean up and rebuild. I asked him where they would stay if these tents were not here. He said in their vehicles, wherever they could find.
Brenda said, “It just breaks my heart. We need the contractors here, we need the volunteers here in order to build our Parish back.”
Pastor Randy Millet helps run a disaster relief center in St. Bernard Parish. He says the volunteers are vital in making sure that residents get the food and clothing they need to survive.
“Please don't close the base camps,” Randy urged. “Allow us to house our volunteers. They're not looking for a Holiday Inn. They're looking for a cot with a pillow and a meal.”
In addition, Randy says that without warning, fema stopped providing ice and filling up their generators with fuel.
“What we’ve got to do in order to get diesel fuel right now -- we have to go across the street to fill up our buckets,” Randy explained, “and bring them back to fill up our generators... three or four... and that takes four or five trips.
Obstacles, these workers say, that are making it tough to serve others.
“The sheer economic recovery of this parish is dependent upon the volunteer effort,” Dysart commented.
Herrington said, “Our plea would be to please consider extending the closing of the base camps so that would give us time for transition and preparation to come up with some other accommodations.”
Carolyn Pitre does not want to see volunteers turned away. She's grateful for those who helped remove her belongings from her home.
“We need all the help we can get. It's not over... not by a long shot,” Carolyn stated.
CBN News tried to contact a fema representative to ask about the base camp closings and other issues facing volunteers, but no representative was available.
LEGAL
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMMIE!And yet it is still legal....
@@
abortion will always be, whether legal or not
What these anti pro choice people dont seem to realize is, termination of pregnancy will continue whether it is legal or not. The only difference is it will go underground, performed by people who are not licensed and the rich women, they will just make an appointment in a progressive not backward country like America and have their abortion. Essentially women will be baby makers for the government, their bodies controlled by the government. What it comes down to is..the neocons need to mind their own business.
Legal or not, there will always be abortions.
Abortions will always be performed whether they are legal or not. When I was in college, abortion was illegal. Several students became pregnant and had illegal abortions by back-alley butchers, and they almost died from hemorrhage and infection. Others tried to abort their pregnancies with wire hangers, knitting needles, and other drastic measures. I would much rather have legal abortions performed by licensed physicians than force young women to resort to barbaric procedures to terminate their pregnancies.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
it's not stealing - it's legal!
They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
If Joe Legal is married and has 2 children
and 2 parents, whom he probably supports, why else did you mention this, anyways, Joe Legal does NOT pay 30% taxes.
After I read this statement, I did NOT continue to read your rant.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
He has no legal recourse to "recall" bonuses.
Unfortunately, because these are private companies, they have contracts with the CEOs and they are absolutely within their rights to honor those contracts. However, if Obama can find a loophole to keep them from getting paid, then we'll see what happens then.
This is why the government shoulder NEVER get involved in private businesses. Once they start handing on money, they think they own private businesses and dictate everything to them, so now we are caught in a catch 22 so to speak; government has no business in private businesses but yet they have given private businesses OUR money with NO stipulations beforehand and are now "surprised" the bonsues will continue?! Pleeeze!!!
Again, the screw up here is letting the screwed up American legal system handle legal cases that are best served by military tribunals.
McCain's legal adviser has already voted for Obama.
Yet another high-profile Republican has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama — and this time, it’s one of Sen. John McCain’s own advisers.
Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
GOP Pays Legal Bills in Vote-Thwart Case
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Republican Party says it still has a zero-tolerance policy for tampering with voters even as it pays the legal bills for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to thwart Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.
James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.
The Republican National Committee already has spent more than $722,000 to provide Tobin, who has pleaded innocent, a team of lawyers from the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. The firm's other clients have included former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Republican Party officials said they don't ordinarily discuss specifics of their legal work, but confirmed to The Associated Press they had agreed to underwrite Tobin's defense because he was a longtime supporter and that he assured them he had committed no crimes.
"Jim is a longtime friend who has served as both an employee and an independent contractor for the RNC," a spokeswoman for the RNC, Tracey Schmitt, said Wednesday. "This support is based on his assurance and our belief that Jim has not engaged in any wrongdoing."
A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.
At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.
"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.
The Republican Party has repeatedly and pointedly disavowed any tactics aimed at keeping citizens from voting since allegations of voter suppression surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000 that tipped the presidential race to Bush.
Earlier this week, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director, reiterated a "zero-tolerance policy" for any GOP official caught trying to block legitimate votes.
"The position of the Republican National Committee is simple: We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position," Mehlman wrote Monday to a group that studied voter suppression tactics.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Thursday questioned Mehlman's commitment to the policy. "This is just another example of his say one thing, do another strategy. Ken Mehlman tells crowds his party is against voter fraud and intimidation, while in the backrooms he supports Republican officials who engage in these dirty tricks," Dean said.
Dennis Black and Dane Butswinkas, two Williams & Connolly lawyers for Tobin, did not return calls seeking comment. Brian Tucker, a New Hampshire lawyer on the team, declined comment.
Tobin's lawyers have attacked the prosecution, suggesting evidence was improperly introduced to the grand jury, that their client originally had been promised he wouldn't be indicted and that he was improperly charged under one of the statutes.
Tobin stepped down from his Bush-Cheney post a couple of weeks before the November 2004 election after Democrats suggested he was involved in the phone bank scheme. He was charged a month after the election.
Paul Twomey, a volunteer lawyer for New Hampshire Democrats who are pursuing a separate lawsuit involving the phone scheme, said he was surprised the RNC was willing to pay Tobin's legal bills and that it suggested more people may be involved.
The new development "really raises the questions of who are they protecting, how high does this go and who was in on this," Twomey said.
Federal prosecutors have secured testimony from the two convicted conspirators in the scheme directly implicating Tobin.
Charles McGee, the New Hampshire GOP official who pleaded guilty, told prosecutors he informed Tobin of the plan and asked for Tobin's help in finding a vendor who could make the calls that would flood the phone banks.
Allen Raymond, a former colleague of Tobin who operated a Virginia-based telephone services firm, told prosecutors Tobin called him in October 2002, explained the telephone plan and asked Raymond's company to help McGee implement it.
Raymond's lawyer told the court that Tobin made the request for help in his official capacity as the top RNC official for New England and his client believed the RNC had sanctioned the activity.
Fox news is barely legal and on its way out and RUSH is a lying druggie sm
and that is so obviously the source of your info. I am trying to feel sorry for you but it's all too ridiculous. Ethics and Legal Ethics
You obviously understand nothing about "legal ethics", confusing it with "ethics". Obviously, arguing something to be true that you know to be false is extremely dishonest and unethical. But legal ethics demands it. Similarly, legal ethics demands that you do everything in your power if it will help your client -- or at least this holds for legal ethics in some cultures, and the whole point of legal ethics is that no one should be criticized for doing something in its name. He was representing his clients which does not prove his *gasp* moral compass.
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_messenger/2005805_57541_1_300x250_lrec_freewwcalls_love.gif")
