Don't want you kids drugged? Thank the dems that voted for NFC

[Melodybe]

All but 1 democrat voted AGAINST adding language that would allow parental consent to to the New Freedom Commission.

All but one democrat in the house doesn't think that parents should have any say in weather their children are forced onto ritalin.

Why? Why would they do this? Maybe they were paid off by big pharmacy? Maybe they didn't read the legislation? I would like to know.

All I know is that they are in the process of making it mandatory to screen all children for mental illness and making it mandatory to medicate them if they find a mental illness. And that the MSM is being purposely hush hush about this. Only Randi on AAR and G. Gordon Liddy have mentioned it.

Apparently the legislation is so hush hush that not only can no one, not even the freepers can find it, but people have been fired for talking about it to the press.

All we do know is that Ron Paul's bill "Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act" which mentions the screening and medicating was voted down in the house 315-95.

Of the 95 that voted for his legislation, 1 is a democrat.

ONE!

Also way too many people on this board don't think that this legislation is real, for them I say give me one reason why Bushco would not do this?

It gives money to Eli Lily, the manufacturers of Ritalin.
It drugs all dissenters into submission.
And once termed "crazy" we can't have guns anymore.

Are you as pissed as I am?

[tx_dem41]

1. Ummm..who was the one that voted for it?

[Qanisqineq]

2. Who was the one democrat?????

[Melodybe]

4. Representative Gene Taylor from the 4th district Mississippi

I just called his office to thank him.

For those wondering about the Senate votes, Kerry voted against NFC but Hillary voted for it.

[fujiyama]

21. The way Hillary is goin

she'd be lucky to get my vote in a general election, let alone the primaries - where I think it's time to start a ABH (Anyone but Hillary) campaign in the primaries. Not only is she a bland right leaning centrist of the Lieberman kind, but she'd lose in a landslide.

[seabeyond]

35. i agree adn i really want a first woman president

but not her. not after listening to her. just every once in a while she sounds like a democrat. not good enough, every once in a while. and i mean great while

[LittleClarkie]

40. Elizabeth Edwards for President

I'm serious. What a wonderfully articulate woman.

I've got a bit of a mad on about John at the moment though, after hearing what he was saying on his goodbye tour. If I wanted another underqualified candidate with whom I could have a beer, I'd have voted for W. Talking about Kerry being an elitist and selling yourself as just a good ol' boy from down home doesn't fly, not when Kerry's still helping out with the recount and he's not. Plus that's another RNC talking point I never want to hear again, right behind the "flip/flopper" crap on the annoyance scale.

I want a president who has the knowledge and wisdom to do the job. I could care less what expensive tastes he has, or if I would like to have a beer with him, or if he drinks green tea. That's not going to save the country.

Eeek! I had a rant waiting to come out there, didn't I. Dang. But the man disappointed me. I thought he was sincere during his farewell speech in the Senate when he praised Kerry. Now I hear he's dissing the man and pumping himself up for the next campaign. We'll if that's a fact, then he can kiss my grits.

[fujiyama]

47. What did Edwards say?

I haven't heard anything about him "dissing" him...or did Edwards simply mean that Republicans made Kerry look like an elitest?

Do you have a link? Thanks.

[rkc3]

3. I've been pissed for a week since I read the articles on

worldnetdaily - these guys are RW nutjobs and they're upset.

[Old and In the Way]

5. I, too, am blown away about this.

When Tom DeLay understands the parental rights issue and our Democrats don't....something is very, very wrong.

Goddamit, I want someone, anyone to explain why the Democrats voted in lockstep on this. It is non-sensical. Is this yet another case of the entire Democratic Party (except for 1) not reading the legislation that they are voting on?

I know the original amendment was buried in the Omnibus spending bill....but Paul's bill was clear enough and in the open. So why didn't they vote to support us?

Something is very, very wrong and we need to understand what it is. I know this was Bush's pet project, but did each Democratic Congressperson get an anthrax laced letter asking for them to suupport the President?

I want some goddam answers.....

[MadHound]

7. It is the same answer that has been staring us in the face for years now

We are not living in a true democracy anymore friend, we are living under the two party/same corporate master system of government. We are living in the Second Gilded Age, which is busting through the records of corruption and crony capitalism at a rate that puts the First Gilded Age to shame.

And you know how the First Gilded Age ended? With the Great Depression. And with all of the record build up we're having now, when the bust comes, it is going to make the Great Depression look like the roaring twenties. It will probably be the end of our country as we know it.

This is why we need to support parties that have no corporate ties, and work for publicly financed election campaigns now. Otherwise the greedheads and corporate puppets on both sides will simply continue to sell us down the river at a record rate.

[gorrister]

11. well said, Madhound

eom

[Old and In the Way]

12. That doesn't explain the numbers.

Plenty of Republicans voted against it....the fact that every Democrat agrees with this legislation? I don't believe it...

[MadHound]

20. True true,

But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you went and researched out who got money from Big Pharma and who voted for this POS bill, you would have a virtual one to one corralation.

Party lines don't determine most votes these days, who lines our reps pockets is almost always the deciding factor.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

44. Poison Pill strategy? (pun intended) Keeping the bill unacceptable to kill

it by making it too offensive to parents to pass?
That's what I think. The Dems tried to keep it above the threshold of outrage to stop it.

Psy-Ops Threshold Politics is my latest idea to tie in with Lakoff's Family/Framing tools.

Politicians learn to escape acountability to people with secrecy and confusion and deception to keep us from reaching the:

1) threshold of AWARENESS

Because if people become aware of corruption, the next line of defense against accountability is:

2) threshold of OUTRAGE

Because outrage soon leads to the unthinkable:

3) threshold of ACTION.

when people are moved to become INVOLVED and take their government back.

That's why Dean's outraged voice and energetic yell brought on his character assassination. He was too dangerous for American politics.

He was effective in creating:
1)Awareness
2)Outrage
3)Action

So American Friendly Fascism scientifically avoids these three thresholds with psy-ops and media complicity the way nuclear power plant technicians maintain 'safe' operating temperatures to avoid an unplanned and uncontrolled 'event.'

And that 'event' is...Democracy.

[cry baby]

46. I'm have certainly been moved into the outrage phase

I have written my rep to get an explanation and if it is not satisfactory, I'll be in full "action" mode.

[Occulus]

51. We need a candidate who HAS *NO* corporate connections

and, I think I'll go so far as to say we need a candidate with no business connections of any kind, and a willingness to shun completely contributions from any business.

Such a candidate would be able to characterize himself honestly as uncorrupted, while at the same time calling into question the future motives of the guy who does suck the corporate teat.

For my
It simply will never happen.

[Booster]

36. Just my opinion, but I am beginning to think that our government

is trying to find a way to rid itself of paying for education, and in voting for this bill, they are hoping everybody (both sides) pull their kids out of school and homeschool them then they would only have the very poor kids in school and they could control them with drugs (I got my tin foil hat on). It could be a way for them to control gangs - who the Hell knows. It's truly becoming us vs. our own damn government. Why else would they vote for such a bill?

[NashVegas]

37. The Modern Dem Party Achilles' Heel

Is when it votes, with the best of intentions, to enact legislation that would be *fine* if the government were truly benevolent, but in reality is all too easily abused by a more cynical government.

This is a weakness in most modern liberal governing parties, but in this country, at least, it will be the party's undoing eventually.

Shit, even Bernie Sanders voted 'no.' So much for Mister Independent.

[standtogether]

48. Illinois has already passed it

It is the first state to pass it & the schools have til Dec. 30th to submit a plan to the Gov. of Il. This is Bullshit to the max! We should be pounding on this one! Think about how many parents are not even aware of this!! There will be riots in the streets when they hear this!

Wanted to add, Illinois Gov. is a Democrat too!

[candy]

6. I need a lot more info before I can weigh in on this subject--a lot more!

[superconnected]

9. my brother got told to put both his kids on ritalin

nearly a decade ago. He pulled them out of that school system and put them in another and was never told that again.

[candy]

10. Good for him! n/t

[Old and In the Way]

8. Here is the actual vote results

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll438.xml#N

read and weep.....

[candy]

13. Taylor from Mississippi-I don't know him/her.

Any info?

[DoNotRefill]

14. they'll dose my kids without my permission only....

when I'm in jail or dead.

The Second Amendment has NEVER been about duck hunting.

[loyalsister]

38. That's the thing people are missing

I think there are laws that would have to be repealed in order for the government to medicate children without the consent of their parents.

[Old and In the Way]

15. It's almost like the results were switched

Kucinich, Rangel vote for it.....but DeLay et al, votes against??????

We should send e-mails to our reps to explain their vote.....


Here's my e-mail to my 2 Democratic Reps who voted for it:

Honorable ___________________

Please explain your vote on HR 5006 (9/9/2004), Rep. Paul's Legislation to amend the forced mental health and mandatory drugging of our children. I cannot believe that Democrats voted 196-1 to allow this putrid legislation to pass. This is a handout to the major Pharma and this opens the door to drug any person who may not share the "normal" reality...whatever that may be.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll438.xml#N

I will await your comments with great interest.

Sincerely-

[sangh0]

19. There's a simple explanation

The bill doesn't have any provision to force kids to take drugs.

[Melodybe]

27. No but they agreed that $20 Million would go to the NFC

and that does talk about forcing kids to take drugs!

Giving money to a bull shit, Orwellian nightmare plan of Bush's own doing, should be an automatic nay vote with the house dems, unfortunately that is not the case.

[sangh0]

29. I'm sorry, but I did not understand your response

Could you explain?

[Melodybe]

31. Ok, in the Ominibus spending bill that passed on Nov 21

they talk about giving $20 million to states for starting the NFC, the NFC which can be found on the White House site talks about mandatory testing for ALL Americans, it starts in the public schools with public school children.

Ron Paul wanted parental consent added to the NFC, that was voted down by the house.

[sangh0]

49. So do I have this right?

No legislation mandating the drugging of children has been passed or even submitted for a vote. However, the omnibus budget bill gives some money to an organization that has proposed drugging our children, but the money being proposed is not enough to actually drug our children.

It sounds like something the bfee is getting us ready for by giving money to the NSF to promote the idea of drugging our children. IOW, I don't like this either, but I do think we'd be better off describing this more accurately. IMO, it's important that our criticism bear some resemblance to what's actually contained in the bill. I don't think we should be describing the NSF's proposal as a done deal when that's not really true.

And to be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't speak of the potential for mandatory drugging. I'm just saying that we shouldn't describe as part of this bill, but instead, we should describe it accurately as something this org wants to do in the future, which raises the issue of why we're giving them any money.

[Old and In the Way]

52. Thanks, that makes me feel a little better......

but not much.

I would be for mandatory mental health testing for Dimson, though.

[Old and In the Way]

42. So the bill stipulates mandatory testing, but optional chemical therapy?

Wow, I guess I need to find the original bill and Paul's amendment to understand just what the details are....your response pretty much refutes the whole gist of what I've read here and on the FR.

[sangh0]

50. OITW, please read MelodyBe's #42 and my #49

I think they outline the general situation pretty clearly.

[EC]

16. Ron Paul said

That they couldn't vote for his bill because the New Freedom Commission hadn't been approved yet. Well, now it has been so lets see if now they'll vote for Ron Paul's bill. Although that doesn't go far enough, I think the whole thing should be scraped. Who's to say what will be considered a "mental illness"? Dessent? Being gay? how far could they push this? A forced mind control? They are even talking about court ordered meds, to make sure the meds are being taken, or encapsulated into a time release form to be injected under the skin. This is Mind Control of the masses. They are already doing it in Texas under the name of Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). TMAP

I've been thinking this is how they took control of the fundies and the Herbal Life shit they take.

[Melodybe]

17. Kucinich we hardly knew ye...

Ron Paul's office said that had been getting calls from the MSM.

That is a start.

[Old and In the Way]

18. Couldn't vote for the Bill?

Then what is this HR 5006? Is this some kind of Democratic strategy at play? If so, I'd dearly like to hear someone explain what the thinking is.........

[derby378]

22. Uh...

Ritalin is manufactured by Novartis, not Eli Lilly.

[Melodybe]

24. Thanks I'll change it.

ARG! to late to edit!

Still it is a big pharm give away.

[ShaneGR]

23. KILL DEMS!!!!

We must not stop until there is nothing left but Republicans.

[Melodybe]

25. It's not about killing the Dems but I'don't know, making them do their job

Their is no excuse for any democrat agreeing with this legislation, none!!!

This only makes me feel like not being a democrat and I worked VERY hard this year.

[Gold Metal Flake]

26. Elect better Dems.

We must not stop until we have a party we can be proud of.

[sandnsea]

28. Contacted DeFazio

Requested a complete run-down on this New Freedom Commission and explanation of why he didn't vote for Ron Paul's bill. DeFazio is a very liberal guy, so I'm hoping he'll shed some light on this. I will probably hear within 2 weeks, that's about average when I request info. And he always responds. I'll post his response when I get it.

[Melodybe]

32. Hey could you e-mail me when you hear from him?

I have talked to Paul's office a few times now, and only feel somewhat clearer on the situation.

[sandnsea]

33. Absolutely

I'm concerned about this too. You know, what gets to me is the way a good idea always ends up being horrible policy. I fully support more mental health services in our schools. How that could be implemented into carte blanche to drug kids is beyond me. I fully support kids being taught the full responsibiliites of parenting and that kids need both their parents, responsible adult parents. How that goes to abstinence education, again, beyond me. Argh.

[LifeDuringWartime]

30. what the fuck?

is nader actually right about the differences between dems and repubs?

this makes no sense.

[LifeDuringWartime]

34. just a question

what is the exact language in the bill that requires mental health screening? im a little confused about this

[cry baby]

39. I wrote Marsha Blackburn (R) to ask

her opinion of the NFC. She voted FOR the Paul Amendment and I asked her to explain why. I'll post her explaination when I get one.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. There isn't any.

Not that you'd know this from reading this thread.

[Old and In the Way]

43. Melodybe, you should link the bills in question here.

There are posts on this thread that seem to contradict your and my understanding of what the legislation is doing. Enabling more comprehensive access to mental health screen is not necessarily a bad thing if there are no mandatory provisions overiding parental rights to veto chemical therapies on our children.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

45. See my above post about 'poison pill' tactics to kill the bill. I hope.

I want more info, too. Maybe the Dems are doing the right thing for a change so that some future generation will yet be able to save our asses. (Back to the future?)

Although the recent info of the DLC/PNAC connection wouldn't support that hope.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1203-15.htm

Our kids are the front line for fascist indoctrination.
OR-
In Doctor Nation

But just the name of the Bill having the word 'Freedom' in it is a warning that it is likely the Orwellian opposite.

New slogan for Big Brother-

"Freedom Is Not Free. It's Mandatory."