Obama & New Police Reform

reposted from Canada Free Press by Moody Jim Rathbone

Mayors and city councils—in office largely courtesy of public apathy—are President Barack Obama’s boots on the ground in the ongoing, carefully orchestrated racial riots coming soon to a city near you. In their bid to rescue America from total Marxist eclipse, patriots, as it turns out, have been knocking on the wrong door.

Republicans, who surrendered to the Democrats even after taking over House and Senate in last Midterm elections, have no dog in the racial riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities, but Mayor Stephanie Rowlings-Blake, who ordered a police stand down in Baltimore, and a bevy of other Democrat mayors, do.

With the undercover help of activist municipal mayors and councils, Obama seeks not to reform the nation’s police—but to totally replace them.

While diverting public attention by snubbing senators, and overriding both Constitution and Congress, Obama is now hammering the final nail in the Fundamental Transformation of America coffin.

It’s a mission aided and abetted by mercenary ‘civil rights‘ activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and one largely conducted out of sight with White House help.

Local civic elections consistently have the lowest voter turnout, yet represent the level of government that poses the biggest threat to liberty and freedom. It is through complicit mayors and councils that the United Nations has been able to forge the road to Agenda 21 for all of Western society. here

As incredible as it may seem, it is with the cooperation of municipal politicians that Obama will get to replace every police force in the United States with a more military styled one that is answerable only to him.

‘We the People’ should have seen Baltimore and Ferguson coming on July 2, 2008, when Obama boasted in Colorado Springs, CO:  “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Most assumed he was talking about the military, which he soon began to hollow out.

Few realized the most anti-American president ever elected had his sight fixed on replacing thousands of police forces across the country, whose job it has always been to keep the public peace, with his own military-style police.

It’s the return of Fidel Castro, only this time in America.

By ridding the nation of its traditional police forces, Obama and his army of activist municipal politicians will be tossing into the trash can first responders who happen to wear the Serve & Protect badge.

Getting there has been Marxist Community organizing all the way.

First came the smear job spreading the fallacy that police deliberately profile only young blacks, and are addicted to the habit of randomly shooting them. Marxist propaganda leaves the disingenuous impression that racist rogue cops dominate most police forces.

Within days of the Baltimore riots, Obama made it clear he wouldn’t be surveying the damage; wouldn’t be lifting a finger to call for calm.

He didn’t have to with the mayor doing his dirty work.

One hundred police officers were injured in the Baltimore riots. Businesses up and running only the day before were left in burnt-out rubble, facts carelessly written off by Obama.

Obama’s reaction to what’s going on in Baltimore has been expressed in words as casual as they are well crafted:

“The communities in Baltimore that are having these problems now are no different from the communities in Chicago when I first started working” as a community organizer, Obama said. “I’ve seen this movie too many times before.” (National Journal, April 29, 2015)

The difference now is that it’s Obama directing the racial riot movie.

With the Republicans snoozing at the switch, and most unsuspecting folk not knowing that Obama’s boots on the ground are the municipalities, what’s going to stop him from accomplishing his latest mission?

Obama counts on the same kind of apathy that dogs municipal elections about racial riots that are being staged, right down to including outside protesters being rushed in to the scene of the riots.

Like in televised episodes of Hill Street Blues, when the Black Arrows, Shamrocks and Los Diablos came together when there was something in it for them, the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam came together in Baltimore.

That coming together of the three parties was unprecedented.

Yet, instead of asking why the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam would come together during the Baltimore riots, Rowlings-Blake thanked the Nation of Islam.

Talk show radio giant and patriot Mark Levin points out that Rowlings-Blake was in constant touch with chief Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett throughout the riots.

By throwing gasoline on the racial discord gathering steam in American cities, is Obama sending a message to America’s foreign enemies that the U.S. is now at its most vulnerable for a strike?

Are internet commenters like Richard Jackson who posits: “I think the riots are simply programming people to get used to a military presence (instead of police) and curfews, etc. for something bigger later on”, on the right track?

Should edgy folk be watching the Jade Helm 15 large-scale military exercise to be played out from July 15 to November 15, across seven states, with thousands of locals “participating or role playing in the exercise” wearing I.D. markings be watching the military instead of passively letting the military watch them?

Meanwhile, speaking to a group of schoolchildren at the Anacostia Library in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Obama said he might return to community organizing.

In truth, his plans to nationalize America’s police forces, prove he’s never left it.

Parents: Making Less Milks the System

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Tonight’s stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the “Evil Empire”, Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.” This excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper – it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world’s most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

Almost all welfare programs have websites where you can call up “benefits calculators.” Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family that makes $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than working one week a month at minimum wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.

This is great food for thought. Now add child support into the equation on either side. The more promiscuous you are, the more you have the potential to be rewarded if you are benefits dependent. Add disability to the promiscuity and you have a gold mine that is the envy of the third world, comparable to those that work hard for their money. A disabled child is also a great mix for extra pocket cash, especially if that child doesn’t require constant supervision. Children are great money makers in either the entitlement system or the middle class work-off-your-butt model…and the custodial parent or guardian always gets the gold.

 

Book Review: Children of the State

Children of the State by Joseph A. D’Agostino

There is no such thing as other people’s children. – Hillary Clinton

Conservative Americans fancy that socialism has been largely defeated or that its greatest remaining threat lies in taxation and spending. They forget that the dream of leftist revolutionaries for centuries has been not only to equalize wealth and social status, but to eliminate all distinctions among the citizens of their ideal republic. All of these revolutionaries from Marx on down have targeted the family for destruction.

Undemocratic Institution

The family is a highly undemocratic institution. The nuclear family consists of one man and one woman, a highly specific and unliberated straitjacket of a social structure. They have loyalty to one another greater than that to society at large and also dedication to their own children, over whom they have authority—and any private authority is a rival to the government’s. To a true democrat, this preference for one’s spouse and authority over one’s children violates the principle of equality, which proclaims that we must treat everyone exactly the same. For the modern democratic statist, these loyalties and authorities weaken his own power and inhibit the ongoing concentration of all authority in one central government.

Stephen Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House) details just how far leftists have succeeded in abolishing the family. Of course, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the state of the American family knows that it has been largely destroyed, with most children spending at least part of their childhoods without one of their biological parents at home, a divorce rate of more than 40%, an ever-increasing illegitimacy rate and no-fault divorce laws that render a marriage compact less legally enforceable than a cell-phone contract.

Yet what most do not know, even if they follow family issues, is that our family courts are nearly all-powerful, unaccountable star chambers that openly reject due process, traditional legal rights and the Constitution itself. Family courts are civil courts or courts of equity, not criminal courts, so most constitutional protections and procedures do not apply, even though these courts have been given tremendous power. They routinely take couples’ children away from them without trial on the flimsiest accusation of abuse from a teacher or neighbor, limit or eliminate one or both parents’ contact with their own children after divorce without any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents’ part, order parents to pay the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists they did not hire, and send parents to jail without a hearing.

Control of the Courts

This excellent book carefully documents the extreme control that these courts have and how faithless mothers—and, increasingly, faithless fathers—use them and are used by them to eject the other parent from the family and garnish his wages for themselves. Then, of course, these mothers must obey the courts’ every order concerning how their children are raised and educated, and the courts are not shy about imposing government-approved methods. Baskerville knows his subject backward and forward and provides 974 endnotes for documentation and further reading. He also provides intriguing psychosocial speculation on why parenthood, and particularly fatherhood, have come under such intense attack in recent decades as a culmination of the long-ago revolt against broader social fatherhood—organic societies and traditional monarchies—and against God the Father Himself.

Those who believe that the United States has, despite the occasional abuse, a just legal system will probably ignore the above. Yet in a country where the courts have declared abortion-on-demand a constitutional right no matter what legislators say and have authorized the government to effectively confiscate land without compensation if an official finds an endangered species on it, is this so unbelievable?

Baskerville repeatedly points out that it is no secret that family courts operate in this way. They officially have the powers that they use thousands of times every day. Unwillingly divorced fathers and children bear the brunt of the family court industry, which profits every time a family is broken but loses financially whenever one stays together. A mother who unilaterally divorces her husband receives primary custody of their children the vast majority of the time and child-support payments to boot. Under the no-fault divorce laws of the various states, wrongdoing on the part of the father is usually not alleged, much less proven. It doesn’t matter: When one party wants to destroy the marriage, the other pays—and now that more men are catching on to the game, mothers are beginning to lose out. Yet contrary to the image portrayed even by conservative journalists, at least two-thirds of divorces are desired by the woman and not the man. It is more women than men who are destroying families today.

Fathers Needed in Homes

The consensus among the vast majority of liberal social scientists, as Baskerville explains, is that children without their biological fathers in the home are far more likely to be abused, poor and develop psychological problems. More than race, income, or race and income combined, father absence is a predictor of juvenile delinquency, drug abuse and mental illness. Divorce harms children by reducing their fathers’ presence in their lives far more often than it helps them—and even scientists can see it.

Baskerville, a longtime fathers’ rights activist and now a professor of government at Patrick Henry College, provides one horror story after another: The unwillingly divorced father ordered to pay two-thirds of his income in child support, the man innocent of any crime jailed for saying hello to his children in the street. Since family courts usually operate in secret without oversight, there is no way of telling how common such atrocities are. But the real horror is the routine process: The power of the courts to control parents’ access to their children and determine their financial lives once the betraying spouse decides to abandon the other.

Clinton: Hiding Behind Children

If the idea of subterfuge in politics is new to you, I recommend reading this article that is loosely based on children and the use of children in politics. Unfortunately, our friend Hillary Clinton happens to be the topic. What can I say? History speaks for itself.

Whether you agree with this article or not, this article is worth your time and makes valuable points that any honest-thinking American must consider. Since this is election time, your knowledge and opinion are more important than ever. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Sweetness and Light Article

Memo: Kid Care Precursor To Hillarycare

 

From the Politico:

Battle of sound bites reaches health care

By: Martin Kady II

October 2, 2007

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle, who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camel’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured. 

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”

The memo was sent to Politico by a Republican congressional office.

But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign did not dispute the intent of the 1993 memo but pointed out that Clinton herself never publicly pushed the Kids First concept and that covering children first was just one of several options laid out during the mid-1990s debate…

“Everyone knows that Clinton has had government-run health care on her to-do list for at least a decade,” said Ryan Loskarn, a spokesman for the Senate Republican Conference. “The memo helps make clear the reason Democrats have pushed SCHIP legislation that includes coverage for adults and upper-income families. This isn’t about helping poor kids. For them, it’s about making big government even bigger.” …

Not that this should surprise anyone. Hillary has always hidden behind children.

It’s one of the tactics she learned from the Communist Saul Alinsky.

From the late Barbara Olson’s great book, “Hell To Pay” (pp 113-5):

Village Socialism

What comes through in [Hillary’s] essays is the arrogant voice of the social engineer, the activist who believes that reshaping the most intimate of human relationships is as simple as rotating crops. There is more than a little foreshadowing here of Hillary’s future effort to centralize the management of Arkansas education from the governor’s office in Little Rock, and of her great socialist health care debacle in President Clinton’s first term.

In a 1978 article Hillary wrote that the federal school lunch program “became politically acceptable not because of arguments about hungry children, but because of an alliance between children’s advocates and the association of school cafeteria workers who seized the opportunity to increase its membership.” Children, she concludes, deserve similarly “competent and effective advocates.” It doesn’t seem to matter to her that the cafeteria workers were not interested in the children, but the power of their work force. Children and their real interests don’t seem nearly as important to Hillary as the power of the political lever they represent…

These advocates, to the extent not motivated by high fees, would come to each case not essentially as representatives of the child-client, but as activists looking to see how this little boy, or that little girl, fits into a greater strategy to expand an entitlement or control how a government agency functions.

“The notion,” Christopher Lasch commented in his criticism of Hillary’s writings, “that children are not fully capable of speaking for themselves makes it possible for ventriloquists to speak through them and thus to disguise their own objectives as the child.”

Hillary wrote in a 1978 book review for Public Welfare, “Collective action is needed on the community, state and federal level to wrest from machines and those who profit from their use the extraordinary power they hold over us all, but particularly over children.”

The idea that power must be wrested from “machines” is peculiar, ignoring that, at bottom, Hillary’s children’s crusade is a hard-nosed exercise in expanding power in a different direction, in the direction of public interest trial lawyers with a social engineering agenda. Children are useful, just as migrant workers and the indigent elderly are useful, as tools to pry loose the controls, to get into the guts of the machinery of law and governance. Children are the rhetorical vehicles she still uses as first lady, whether pressing for national health care or to get Congress to pay UN dues…

This has always been Hillary’s modus operandi. She has always used children as her sword and (especially) buckler to bully through her socialist agenda. But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Just imagine how much more information we would know about Mrs. Bill Clinton if her records from her days as First Lady were not hidden away under lock and key at the Clinton Library.

Amendment Creates an American Criminal Subclass

The 1986 federal Bradley Amendment seems innocent and helpful to Americans on the surface. The federal law is purported to collect child support that could normally never be collected, with the idea of decreasing poverty in America. It was hatched from the national hysteria whipped up in the 1980s, derived from the legendary and abusive behavior of “deadbeat dads” as well as the intense need for welfare reform.

A Short History Lesson
Government administrators decided that instituting the Amendment was not enough because enforcement measures were not in place at the inception of the Amendment. In 1993, as part of an ambitious and aggressive initiative by the Massachusetts State Administration to improve child support enforcement in advance of welfare reform, the first financial institution data match was made. It began as a pilot program and after the program implementation was mastered, was unleashed on the country as a whole in 1994 by the Clinton Administration. The illegal enforcement of the Amendment proceeded with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The program involves the extraction of financial institution data as a requirement for banking in all states as the determining method to execute the garnishment of money for enforcement on a national level. A data match identifies account holders with child support debts by social security number and allows the child support agency to issue a levy to the financial institution, with notice to the account holder. The financial institution freezes the funds in the account up to the amount of the child support debt and forwards the funds to the child support agency for distribution to the “family”.

The Government Invasion
This provision has been extended to the paycheck of every American in the system as well and through the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Bradley Amendment enacted by Congress in 1986, a child support obligation becomes a judgment by operation of law as of the date that that it is due and unpaid. In addition, under Section 368 of PRWORA (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(4)), an administrative lien also arises by operation of law against any unpaid child support on an ongoing basis. Because of this, it not necessary to return to court after each payment is missed to get past-due support reduced to a judgment in order to obtain a lien or enforce a judgment. The funds and assets of all non-custodial parents are spotted and can be quickly seized without passing through a hearing process of any kind. The information is assumed to be correct and is updated once yearly according to government sources based on information that is available through the system. What is broken is never fixed or changed.

The Resulting Civil Rights Carnage
Naturally, this puts the burden of proof upon the non-custodial parent as a guilty criminal for all time. There is no concept of innocence, nor can there be. The presumption is that an order exists and that the order will be collected by any means necessary on a federal level. The law does not allow for adjustment in court or by any means. The debt can never be cancelled. Even after the demise of the parties involved, the debt exists in perpetuity. Information that is incorrect cannot be corrected without the expense of hiring an attorney and making the correction. A correction can never be made after the fact and no credit can ever be issued. If an attorney cannot be hired, no change can be made. The Bradley Amendment sets the information in place to be correct for all time without the possibility or option of revision on any level.

Government Recklessness and Abuse
Congress, the DHHS, the OCSE, nor any government body has ever commissioned or performed any study on the target: the non-custodial parent. The government has simply imagined reasons for the measures that have been exacted. Six billion federal dollars a year, plus billions more by the states, are spent on a legal target with no research at all. The Federal Government is spending billions of dollars each year on something they know little about and based many assumptions by polling custodial parents. This reinforces the approach that the inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt that they will never be able to pay for all kinds of valid reasons. The program moves endlessly forward with heartless efficiency, crushing all in its hold. This oppression is a violation of due process and is both cruel and unusual because the program removes the use of human discretion and compassion from dealing with individual cases in the present or in the future.

A common “solution” for non-payment of child support is jail. In 1798, John Adams signed into law the elimination of debtor’s prison. Sending “bad men” to jail for child support without paying money and creating state and federal expense is why some proponents want failure to pay child support added to criminal law, even though it is clearly a civil matter. This is national hysteria, an abuse and waste of millions in tax dollars with no benefit to anyone. It is vindictive blood-lust and wanton misuse of power.

State child support agencies act in behalf of private citizens as financial intermediaries. However, these agencies are not subjected to the same accounting as banks. Financial accuracy remains unchecked and the errors are legion. Recent studies have proven that more than $500 million in funds have been held in public coffers without distribution. That is 4% of funds collected by the year 2000. If a financial institution had made a 4% error, the government would have closed them down. Furthermore, the whole program was designed from the outset to reduce the cost of welfare. This has not happened as the cost of welfare spirals upward without reform, cost-containment or reduction in sight.

Non-custodial parents are monitored and regulated as though they are criminals. The Bradley Amendment mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see the children, loses a job or suffers a pay cut. The Amendment has resulted in unintended consequences that have never been corrected, gross injustices that are never dealt with and massive costs, especially to non-custodial parents that are already under the financial gun. Poverty has not been eliminated or the poor truly assisted in a substantial way. The evidence shows that the Bradley Amendment has had the opposite effect. The spiraling costs within government supply no gain and only enhance bureaucracy. The Bradley Amendment must be repealed because it violates the rights of millions of American citizens at huge expense to the government, under the pretense of abolishing poverty and collecting child support for the nation.