Do you have any concept of what abuse of power is?
Posted By: Think Bush. Think Cheney. Think...sm on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: You said it! - sm
if you can turn off the hate machine long enough to remember how to do it. It was not Governor Palin's role to interfere in divorce/custody proceedings. Sister Palin could not have done what Governor Palin tried to do. She abuse the power of her office. We have already had 8 years of that kind of malarky. Most of us are not up for another 4. Got it?
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
then again, perhaps it's abuse of power like
nm
So abuse of power is OK by you?
x
Abuse of power/hypocrisy seems to be
What is clear is that, slimy or not, she still used her office in an inappropriate manner to influence the outcome of a family dispute. What's ethical about that? The slimy trooper and the disposition of his divorce/custody case is supposed to be left up to the family courts and it not typically resolved by manipulation and interference by the Governor's office, now is it? Ethically challenged ethics clean-up maiden. Not my idea of a great pick.
Abuse of power is SP's middle name.
megalomaniac behaviors. I am particularly impressed by the "woman scorned" tantrum she had against her opponents that ensued within moments after she took office. Looks like Alaska's busy little ethics maid overlooked her own glass house.
Agreed. It's abuse of power AND a crime
nm
Abuse of Power charges stick to Palin like glue.
So, what goes around comes around. After a hard week out on that campaign trail attacking Obama right, left and center, seems Sarah has a character issue of her own now to deal with. Oops!
Yeah, 'knowledge IS power". But, the power is
nm
Not a new concept
all kinds of stuff. Bush was blamed for Katrina (blowing up the levees and then deliberately not sending aid) and 9/11 (it was an inside job, you know - Ask Rosie O'Donnell.) According to a popular conspiracy theory, AIDS was created by the US government in the late 1970s (Carter's watch - go figure) to kill black people. Only fair to *spread the wealth,* so to speak, when blame is assigned and give Obama his share.
Hey wait a minute! Maybe none of these conspiracy theories is true and stuff just happens?
Do you understand the concept of some? SM
Apparently not. Evident on the board....let's see, how about wishing all the Bush family to burn in hell for starters? How about accusing Laura Bush of being drunk when she was driving and her friend was killed? Hummmm....how about saying repeatedly that President Bush planned 9/11 for his own nefarious reasons? And the list goes on. As far as Judge Robert's son, the NYT article was discussed on here and had you read it and the followup, you would know this is being discussed. The word SOME means NOT ALL. Look outside the box.
exercise - what a concept
Put down that liter of diet coke and that supersize bag of Cheetos and meet me at the teeter totter.
Do you understand that concept of
The economy, national security and human rights as promoted in the EU and US are SECULAR concepts. When contemplating international relations, it would be best to keep that in mind.
Clearly, the concept of NWO is not monolithic.
In the brevity of this article, the author cited 5 entirely different models as expressed by HG Wells, the American Presidents/League of Nations (LON), W, conspiracy theorists (CTs) on the blogosphere, and Kissinger. These separate sets of ideas are not interchangeable, nor are the mutually exclusive.
A common feature of Wells (benevolent global social democracy), W (imperial capitalism) and the CTs (a wildly elaborate weave of systemic paranoia and fear-based theories that defy logic or precise definition) is the idea of world domination, while the LON and Kissinger models are grounded in international diplomatic cooperation and, to a large extent, would preserve national sovereignties.
Supporters of the W and CTs models are pathologically phobic vis-a-vis the initiatives and agendas of the Wells, LON and Kissinger models. Resolution of territorial disputes, peace and security, disarmament, basic human dignities, human rights and humanitarian aid, definition, apprehension and prosecution of war crimes, outlawing torture, fighting global hunger, disease, illiteracy, educational and economic parity and such, all WAY too threatening for them.
You and I both know that the fringers, gloom and doom and Armageddon brigades will get themselves all whipped up into a frenzy over this, but apparently Kissinger has mellowed in his old age and is able to recognize a gifted leader with the capacity to renew our aspirations towards such lofty diplomatic goals and get back in touch with our higher purpose.
A NWO is in order. The time is now to make a clean and distinct break with the past. The leader is there and the conditions are ripe for fruition. It will drive the detractors to distraction and despair, but they cannot hold back the hands of time any more than they can stop the evolution of the human race.
Are you familiar with the concept of
For example, African Americans, who are 1 in 13 of our pupulation, comprise every 2 out of 3 death row inmates. Do you honestly think they commit 2 out of every 3 murders punishable by the death penalty?
If a truly a serious discussion is to be had on this topic, the racism practiced in the criminal justice system when it comes to arrest, sentencing, time served, parole and execution rates disparities must be factored into the equation before assuming that the AA population commmits 40% of the nation's crime.
To answer your question, I do believe that Obama will make the greatest strides to date of leveling the playing field in the education, health care and poverty arenas and that it will undoubtedly enable that sector of the population to which you refer to strive to achieve better/higher goals by their own initiatives. He has already had a huge impact there just by virtue of having been elected and in the future, I believe his lead by example approach to this will have an even greater impact. I also think his message of hope rings the loudest where it is needed the most.
Very disturbing concept.
I don't believe it will pass the constitutional smell test, but you're right to be concerned about the potential for abuse - i.e., being used against citizens in the name of "national security". This very possibility is the reason the military services are strictly prohibited from conducting anything but humanitarian operations within the contintental US. It is also one of the reasons we have never had a federal police agency (as opposed to federal investigative and special enforcement agencies).
The record of such paramilitary organizations in other countries is rife with examples of abuse and we should absolutely march in the streets if necessary to prevent such an organization from ever being formed in this country.
What a concept, a politician who come to the Senate.....sm
with tons of experience in screwing people....and is not ashamed to record it!! I say she is uniquely qualified for the politics! IMHO
Abuse of children and the right
Hold on just a minute....from your post you are making it sound like conservatives and the right condone molestation of children. If that is what you were implying you are absolutely wrong. Please, please, please do not categorize all Christians and conservatives with the wacko extreme cults that dare do these things to children. I believe a few weeks ago there was a long thread on the C-board about child molestation. Personally, I think anyone who hurts a child should die...period. If it's sexual molestation the very least that should happen to a male offender is castration...I'd prefer the death penalty...
Again, this implied generalization that all conservatives are racists, homophobes, and child molesters is absolutely wrong.
I am not saying that there are people who abuse
the system and what not. I am just saying that there are real, honest, hardworking people that are having a hard time right now - regardless of their political affiliation. I'm not saying Obama would be superior or vice versa, I am just saying that some people would not find his remark funny.
Agreed. Problem is that concept consistently
nm
The concept is similar to any group plan.
without compromising the care. It is the FEHB (Federal Employees health Benefits) program. It is really good coverage, low deductibles, several choices. Heres the home page website:
http://www.opm.gov/insure/05/index.asp
WELFARE for the country as a nation, what a concept.....sm
a president with who is really fighting to find a way for the suffering folk, those that are down and out, or should we "just let them eat cake," Marie Antoinette? Now there's a leader who used her head, right to the chopping block, and it seems that the corporate raiders who raped this country into this mess were thinking the same thing, "Hey, I got mine!!"
Abuse in Iraq as bad or worse
What I would like to know is this: Where is the outrage from all those who were so eager to go in and get *the brutal dictator*?
Abuse in Iraq as bad or worse than in Saddam's day: Allawi
LONDON (AFP) - Human rights abuses in Iraq now are as bad, or worse, than they when Saddam Hussein was in power, the nation's first post-Saddam prime minister was quoted as saying.
In an interview with the Observer newspaper in London, Iyad Allawi pointed an accusing finger at the interior ministry, and alleged that a lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed during interrogation.
People are doing the same as (in) Saddam Hussein's time and worse, said Allawi, an prominent opponent of Saddam who steered the US-backed interim government in Baghdad until April this year.
It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam Hussein and now we are seeing the same things.
Allawi's remarks came two weeks after US troops raided a secret prison in Iraq and found about 170 detainees in need of water, food and medical attention.
Graphic pictures released by the Committee of Muslim Scholars, the main Sunni religious organisation in Iraq, showed prisoners with severe burns, massive bruising and welts on their bodies.
US military commanders and diplomats called the abuse intolerable, pressuring elected prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari into ordering a joint Iraqi-US inquiry.
Interior Minister Bayan Baqer Solagh has denied claims that he commands death squads targeting the Sunni minority, adding that only a few detainees were punched and hit in the prison and that US forces knew of its existence.
Allawi told The Observer that the interior ministry, though not Solagh, was at the heart of the matter.
I am not blaming the minister himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place, he was quoted as saying.
He also said: We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated.
A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.
He said that if immediate action is not taken, the disease infecting (the interior ministry) will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government.
More broadly, Allawi warned of the danger of Iraq disintegrating in chaos, saying: Iraq is the centrepiece of this region. If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the United States will be safe.
Yes, there are people who abuse the system, but...
you can't apply that to everyone on welfare. There are a lot of good people who don't abuse the system who have to be on welfare.
You seem confused, dear. Militant is a military concept.
As soon as you and your party sports its bigotry and hate toward an entire religious population and their culture, attempt to pass it off as some sort of twisted, chest-beating patriotism, add insult to injury by labeling that patriotism as an universal American value and then proceed to use that to justify defaming a fellow American of such extraordinary class and character, you have earned every single drop of anger that you receive in return.
Wanna know who is truly angry and bitter? That would be those "lower bracket" citizens who have lost their homes, are 3 months behind on their mortgage payments, are unemployed, have been outsourced and sold out by their own government and are not making a living wage in an economy of runaway housing, gas, food, drug and medical costs. They are the ones who will be giving the boot to the party that would expect them to endure 4 more years of being lied to about the obscene, senseless wars they wage, politics of fear, corporate corruption and bankrolling tax cuts to help their struggling rich upper crusts and prop up their their trickle up economic schemes. We are down to counting lame duck days in measures of months, weeks, days, minutes and seconds. We have jumped the Hope Train to a better, brighter future and our destination is just around the bend.
Pathetic is knee-jerk support of a concept
just as long as you think it will serve some sort of political gain. If you can't defend you, your party of its candidate can't explain or defend their viewpoints, how then can they expect to win an election. I'm pathetic because I am calling you and the rest of the posters here to simply explain what it is they are endorsing? NOT.
So souls are inhaled at the hospital? Interesting concept. (sm)
I don't think any of the Jewish people I know believe that but I will ask them.
Whoa, that is actually like a Christmas Present from the IRS, what an unheard of concept!!!....sm
True, you can do it yourself, the IRS just makes so daunting and intimidating with all those forms, and then you worry if you make another mistake, you will get another penalty.....Just those three letters together give most folk the heebie geebies.
Also, taling about not needing a service, most people do not know that you DO NOT need those miriad of services who will "talk down your credit bills" and renegotiate. Especially in these times, banks are very eager to get payment and work with you, most banks have a "hardship" department where you can talk to reps who can negotiate lower settlements, eliminate fees, figure out a very good payment plan without fees, etc. You can do it yourself without paying a debt relief service.
because slander is the 1st stage of violence and abuse...sm
the next step is physical abuse, the next is murder.
As it happens so often.
Cutting waste, fraud and abuse...They should be
Not only do I have a thicker skin - I also have a FULLY DEVELOPED brain-what a concept!!
I know it's hard a concept for the dems/libs, but Rush says what he means.
He doesn't sugar coat. He's got his problems, but he owns them. He doesn't dance around them, sweep them under the carpet, double talk his way out of it. I mean, we aren't going to wake up tomorrow and find out Rush has been hanging with terrorists, is a closet muslim, or the antichrist.
There's a certain honesty to Rush that some people like and others don't.
Hey, all you liberals out there! It's YOUR fault that priests sexually abuse
I'm sure the usual suspects from the Conservative board also agree with the conclusions of THIS Pennsylvania nut case and will be ready to blame Kennedy for starting trouble. LMAO!
Conservatives are getting weirder by the hour.
Kennedy slams Santorum for church sex abuse remarks
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press Writer | July 13, 2005
WASHINGTON --In a rare personal attack on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum self-righteous and insensitive for his remarks linking Boston's liberal reputation to the clergy sex abuse scandal.
In recent days, Santorum has refused to back down from comments he made in a 2002 column, in which he said promoting alternative lifestyles spawns aberrant behavior, such as priests molesting children. He went on to say that it was not surprising that liberal Boston was at the center of the scandal.
"The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say," said Kennedy, D-Mass., in a speech from the Senate chamber.
Kennedy called for Santorum to apologize to the people of Boston and across the nation, noting that the clergy abuse happened all across the country, in "red states and blue states, in the north and in the south, in big cities and small."
On Wednesday, Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham said the Pennsylvania conservative recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston.
He said Santorum "was speaking to a broader cultural argument about the need for everyone to take these issues very, very seriously."
Santorum's initial observations were in a July 2002 column for Catholic Online, and came back to public light last month and earlier this week in newspaper accounts.
"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote in the Catholic Online column. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., accused Santorum of abject ignorance, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the senator's rationale bizarre.
"As a prosecutor in Massachusetts, I saw some of the worst criminals who had abused children and not once did I hear them hide behind Sen. Santorum's bizarre claim that the state was responsible for their acts," Kerry said.
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said Santorum's column tries to minimize the abuse scandal, and imply that "some vague, larger societal defects" somehow caused clergy to assault children.
"In 2002, we gave Sen. Santorum the benefit of the doubt, assuming he was not aware of the scope of the abuse crisis," said Clohessy. "In 2005, it's hard to understand how he could repeat and stand by such misguided and harmful comments."
The scandal began in Boston in early 2002 when internal church files released under court order revealed abusive priests were transferred from parish to parish rather than removed from ministry. Cardinal Bernard Law resigned as archbishop later that year amid criticism over his handling of the crisis.
A 2003 investigation by Attorney General Thomas Reilly found that at least 1,000 children were abused by more than 235 priests and church workers between 1940 and 2000. And the archdiocese has paid out more than $120 million to settle abuse claims since 1950.
Reilly, a Democratic candidate for governor, also criticized Santorum on Wednesday. "For him to equate liberalism with child abuse is disgraceful," he said. "It's embarrassing for him and embarrassing to his party and his party should disown him." !["](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif")
!["](http://nytbglobe.112.2o7.net/b/ss/nytbglobe/1/G.5-PD-S/s37600548580704?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=13/6/2005%2017%3A34%3A29%203%20240&pageName=News%20%7C%20Local%20%7C%20Mass.%20%7C%20Kennedy%20slams%20Santorum%20for%20church%20sex%20abuse%20remarks&ch=News&events=event2&c1=News%20%7C%20Local&c5=News%20%7C%20Local%20%7C%20Mass.%20%7C%20Kennedy%20slams%20Santorum%20for%20church%20sex%20abuse%20remarks%20%7C%20PF&c6=Article%20Page%20%7C%20AP%20XML%20Story&pid=News%20%7C%20Local%20%7C%20Mass.%20%7C%20Kennedy%20slams%20Santorum%20for%20church%20sex%20abuse%20remarks&pidt=1&oid=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/13/kennedy_slams_santorum_for_church&ot=A&oi=164&g=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/13/kennedy_slams_santorum_for_church_sex_abuse_remarks%3Fmode%3DPF&r=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/13/kennedy_slams_santorum_for_church_sex_abuse_remarks/&s=800x600&c=16&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=800&bh=442&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]")
![](http://te.boston.com/tte/blank.gif?0.524127249012653&snippet_version=1.3a&referrer=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/13/kennedy_slams_santorum_for_church_sex_abuse_remarks/&page=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/13/kennedy_slams_santorum_for_church_sex_abuse_remarks%3Fmode%3DPF&timezone=240&clist_TID=3ldm0oo114vt6l&var_t_section=News%20%7C%20Local%20%7C%20Mass.%20%7C%20Kennedy%20slams%20Santorum%20for%20church%20sex%20abuse%20remarks&var_site=boston.com")
And yet you STILL refuse to condemn child sexual abuse!
When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards. Still, there was no response.
You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.
Yet you're AFRAID to post outrage over child sexual abuse?
I guess we can leave it at that. You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.
And THAT speaks volumes.
Pure Race Definition: One Without Neglect & Abuse
nm
I saw a documentary on the abuse of boys in United Arab Emirates...sm
as donkey racers and it was downright heartbreaking. I would adopt them ALL if I could.
I don't think the US should throw a penny their way. Only the rich would benefit anyway.
Los Angeles Files Recount Decades of Priests' Abuse...sm
see link.
Germany seek charges against Rumsfeld for prison abuse sm
Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .
A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.
Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.
Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.
In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.
The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.
Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.
U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
So you find the sexual abuse of children funny? Pretty sick. NM
Oregon Christian Coalition Head Resigns - Family Sexual Abuse
If these are *family values* then the right is RIGHT. I'm proud to say I
don't have 'em!
These people get scarier and scarier every day, and I'm keeping my children
away from them!
Christian Coalition head to withdraw from political life
10/10/2005, 5:50 p.m. PT
By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI The Associated Press
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The longtime head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon
said Monday that he is withdrawing from public life, a day after news reports
detailed accusations of sexual abuse against him by three female relatives.
I am thankful for a family that loves and supports me, and intend to withdraw
from public life until this is resolved, Lou Beres wrote in a statement posted
on the organization's web site, at http://www.coalition.org
Beres has denied any criminal misconduct and wrote that he will pursue the
Biblical response and do all within my power to reconcile with that person.
Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk told The Oregonian
newspaper that officials are investigating the complaints against Beres.
The three women — now adults — allege they were abused by Beres as preteens.
Their families called the child abuse hot line last month, after the three
openly discussed the alleged abuse for the first time.
I was molested, one of the women, now in her 50s, told The Oregonian. I was
victimized and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the
same room with him.
Beres, 70, has blamed personal and political enemies for the complaint.
Only one of the three cases appears to fall under Oregon's statute of
limitations on sex abuse, which expires after six years. Authorities said that
case involves a young woman who was allegedly abused by Beres when she was in elementary school.
A nephew of Beres' is standing up for the three women.
My family has gone through hell, said Richard Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif.,
who told detectives that his uncle had molested several female relatives over
the years.
Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been
ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination...It must
stop, he said.
In response to Galat's statements, Beres said on the Christian Coalition web
site Monday, I am grieved by the false allegations of my nephew, Richard Galat.
I am attempting to determine the source of each claim.
Beres, who did not immediately return a phone message from The Associated
Press, is the former head of the Republican Party in Multnomah County, the
Democratic stronghold that includes Portland.
Jim Moore, who teaches political science at Pacific University in Forest
Grove, said Monday that Beres has not been particularly influential in Oregon
politics.
In fact, under his leadership, the Christian Coalition in Oregon has gone
downhill.
In state legislative races in 2004, for example, Moore said that, we found
that Christian Coalition candidates basically did not do as well as they did in
the past.
Oregon Republican Chairman Vance Day said Beres hasn't been much of a factor
in state GOP politics since he stepped down as Multnomah County chairman about 10 years ago.
I don't view this as having any major impact on politics here in Oregon; I
don't think the Christian Coalition has a big footprint here at all, he said.
The group did support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that
passed handily with voters in November of 2004, but support for that cause was
rallied by another conservative-leaning group, the Defense of Marriage
Coalition.
Tim Nashif, the political director of that group, said he has few details
about the allegations, and added that his group is not associated with the
Christian Coalition.
Anytime any family goes through anything like this it's a pretty grievous
situation and our hearts go out to them, he said. The truth has a tendency to
come out.
More Power To Them!
Makes me want to cry. They have been there..done that..dont ever want to again..They know the pain they will carry for the rest of their lives..More power to them..May they carry on to government and change this government and country for the better..Chickenhawks they are not..
TAKE away their power!!
There are kinds of folks in this country. There are right-wing kooks, religious kooks, left-wing kooks, serial killers, child pornographers, bigots/racists, right-wing militia people-whose-exact-names-I-forget and all types worse and better.
The thing is, in this country the decent people are the majority, whether right or left in politics/beliefs. That's why this country is so great.
When you fixate on folks who are overly negative you give them power. Please rise above the comments of those who represent a very tiny minority. I pay no attention to those who voice unreasonable beliefs and I advise you do the same. Take the power away from those people.
You have no power
run for congress, but spare me the eloquent opinions, gag.
you say that like we have any power now - nm
x
Exactly what power will he take away?
What power is Obama going to take away, eh?
Our right to guns?
Or is it his communist plan or his socialist plan - both of which I posted earlier (as Obama MT) that are already present in our government under both Dem/Rep long before Obama came along?
Or is it that he's a Muslim mole about to take us over?!
Or maybe it's that he will let black people rule over white people?!
Or is it that he will force abortions on us all or make like gay people or let them all get married?
Wait, is it the one where he will force Boy Scouts to have homosexual scout masters and have to sleep in the same tent with them??!! (you've got to be joking)
Or is it he won't let us homeschool our children any more?
Or is it the one where he will actually end this war and let our soldiers come home with dignity without more of them dying?
Which power is it that he will take away?
More than half of this country feels empowered and evidently, the rest don't.
I refer you back to the website to read Homework for the Fearful. I would be doing just that if McCain were my president - and letting go of my fear and hoping for the best of all, for all.
Haven't you all had enough fear mongering from the right to last a lifetime?
Thanks for listening.
the man has only been in power sm
for two months for crying out loud! You wait and see what happens. He sits in the white house throwing money around like he has a "money tree" on the white house lawn, he wants to suddenly remove all military from Iraq (which a lot of the military are against) further exposing this country wide open to attack and you think this is a strong president. The only thing he is "strong" in is trying to promote himself, the Obama AGENDA
Wow - I wish I'd know before that I had so much power! _ SM _
If I'd known that I and others like me had the superpowers to cause the economic crisis, then I'd have also used that power to will myself about $50 million in cash beforehand.
Yes, we have power
Although this story doesn't emphasize the fact, others do. The outrage that exploded when the conservative teacher in Kansas lost his job has caused school officials to reverse their decision:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528484,00.html
Never buy into the lie that demon-crats and the media try to sell you that conservatism is dead. Not only ain't we dead, we ain't begun to fight! We're the same handful of colonial militia who defeated the whole durn British army a long time ago. First they laughed at us...and then they died.
Especially the power workers
God bless those people who came all the way down there, slept in their trucks in stifiling weather (because the media and gawking politicians hogged all the hotels that were left) and helped string line and get our power back on. They are heros, as well as all those who donated time and goods.
On the other hand, SHAME on the people from Indiana who printed up a bunch of Katrina T-shirts and had the nerve to come down there to sell them! Those who survived Katrina need no darn T-shirt proclaiming they did!
The power structure ,,,,,,, sm
This is an old clip (20 years old), but Ron Paul to goes into who they are a little bit. They do own the media so you won't see this stuff on the TV. Dr. Paul is a congressman so he is in a position to know.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4245169480003136735&hl=en
Sue does. The power to become more of a liability to McC
nm
Honestly, it's all about power
for the democrats in office, in my opinion. They want people to depend on the government so they have more power. That's what should scare the heck out of all of us much more than if they are helping someone in need or not.
Power not granted to Bush
Power We Didn't Grant
By Tom Daschle
Friday, December 23, 2005; A21
In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done.
As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.
On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States. Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words in the United States and after appropriate force in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request for an unprecedented grant of
authority.
The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.
All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion.
If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.
In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day.
That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat
terrorism.
The writer, a former Democratic senator from South Dakota, was Senate majority leader in 2001-02. He is now distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
|
!["](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif"){kind=spacer}
