Oprah on child molestation laws...sm

I found this article on Oprah's website and thought this excerpt was powerful on the anti-child abuse/molestation movement.  The underlined areas are links, please help out with this as you can.

*This is a full circle moment for me. For me to have been raped at 9 years old … this is so big and so gratifying that I now get to put people behind bars who did to me what they've been doing to other children. This is it. And so I am going to spend my own resources, and I am going to work with law enforcement, and I'm going to change, with your help, the laws in this country state by state by state by state.

We are not going to be a country that talks the talk about how we care about children, and then we let these people back out on the street. It's Joseph Duncan all over again. We have got to let Shasta Groene and all the others be the last children. Let their lives not have been in vain. Let's stand up, and change the laws.

Take a look at these accused child molester profiles, and see if you can be the next person to put a fugitive behind bars.*

• Oprah on child molestation laws...sm - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

are not in a position to force the rest of us to share our wealth, punish us if we do not, while keeping their wealth for themselves.  Not a good comparison at all. 

Oprah is on record saying that (even with her multi-millions) she does not just hand money to individuals who tell her they need it.  Why should she think that would help someone who obviously failed to take care of their own money?  They want money?  They can go make it the hard way, as she has.  (Then she supports Obama.  Go figure!)

Obama is more like the minister who preaches fidelity, while having affairs with his parishioners.  He's someone who says that to help public schools, all children should have to attend them (except his own.)  Lectures on the evils of tobacco, raises taxes on it, while sneaking cigarettes.  Gets his own sweet deal on a mortgage, supports the bailout of deadbeats, yet penalizes those who have been responsible with their money.  Criticizes company executives for use of corporate jets, then flies on his own jet to Arizona just to sign a bill. 

Get the picture?  ''Do as I say, not as I do.''

Obama mainly voted for because ......

Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.

A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."

Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized.  The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone.  It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.

Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.

If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is:  Don't have one.

A president, vice president and most/all members of congress and the senate get to go to safe places in case of attack or threat of attack. It's the way the government can keep going in case of an emergency.

Don't post something you know nothing about. Come to this board with FACTS. That's what this board is supposed to be about.

President Has Issued 750 Statements That He May Revise or Disregard Measures.

WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.

Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.

It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.

A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.

Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..

Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

The president is not required to (veto), Boardman said.

Of course he's not if he signs the bill, Specter snapped back.

Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/meet-the-compulsive-service-orwellian-give-act-to-be-voted-on-this-week/

Next up on the agenda this week is the GIVE Act, short for the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”.

The ABC News headline ‘GIVE’ Act Would Give Back. Volunteer Programs Would Provide Jobs to Unemployed, Assist Those in Need says it all.

great joy. I am happy that you found a career where you can be home with your child.  The anti-choice people seem to think as long as every child is BORN things are okay.  It is the caring for them after they are born that does not seem too important to them.