A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Battle Over Child Support – Republicans Not Your Friends

by Connor D. Wolf

House Republicans introduced a Bill Tuesday to stop the Obama Administration from Undermining Child Support

gas can“Late last year, the administration released a far-reaching proposed rule that would overturn a number of bedrock principles of child support enforcement and welfare reform, among them that parents should be financially responsible for their children,” a press release from the House Ways and Means Committee stated. “The measure would stop the administration from finalizing or implementing any feature of the proposed rule, which would make unprecedented changes to current child support policies and laws.”

The bill was introduced by Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Rep. Charles Boustany along with Republican Senate leaders Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn.

“This bill is simple,” Ryan said in a statement. “It insists that the administration work with—not around—Congress to enact its child-support policy priorities.”

The measure hopes to counter a 2014 proposed rule change designed to make the Child Support Enforcement program better aligned with a 2011 executive order by the president. Republicans warn the rule change could make it easier for some people to avoid paying child support.

“Last year the administration issued a proposed rule that, if made final in its current form, would make it easier for non-custodial parents to evade paying child support,” Hatch noted. “A move that could potentially force some American families to go on welfare. Deadbeat parents, not hardworking taxpayers, should be held accountable for their financial responsibilities.”

However, in their Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services along with the Children and Families Administration argue the rule change will be beneficial.

black-dad“The NPRM proposes revisions to make Child Support Enforcement program operations and enforcement procedures more flexible, more effective, and more efficient by recognizing the strength of existing state enforcement programs, advancements in technology that can enable improved collection rates, and the move toward electronic communication and document management,” the agencies noted.

What does this say? Republicans, in general, are not for child support reform. They want things are they are – tough for non-custodial parents to exist – with policies that are punitive rather than constructive. They are for the continuing to violate privacy of the nation, violate civil rights, debunk due process and other unconstitutional features of US statute and policy. They are pretending to be fiscally responsible at your expense using a system that rewards corporate government exploitation at taxpayer expense. It’s all a lie and a sham. – MJR

overthrow

Advertisements

Obama & New Police Reform

reposted from Canada Free Press by Moody Jim Rathbone

Obama police flagMayors 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.

obamas new dealWhile 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.

Baltimore riots 1‘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.

Scott-police-fatal-shootingFirst 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.

Baltimore riot policeOne 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?

debtor's prison - tyrannyObama 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.

gas canBy 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.

overthrow

police Baltimore letter

Avoiding the Truth: Domestic Violence Abuse

by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist

Because of many mandatory state arrest laws, police officers are strongly encouraged to make arrests on domestic violence 911 calls, even though many of these “emergency” calls do not involve geniune violence of any kind. Further, because of the “primary aggressor doctrine,” police officers are strongly encouraged to arrest men rather than women.

The plight of the family also involves “no drop” prosecution policies, where prosecutors move forward with cases that contain so little evidence that the case would never be prosecuted if it were any other “crime.” In the words of Glenn Sacks, domestic violence has become a political crime and that “crime” is handled in a political manner by authorities in charge.

nuclear family anihilation

nuclear family annihilation

Glenn Sacks also makes the case that men often plea-bargain so-called “family violence” cases by accepting battering treatment programs because they need to get out of jail and because they cannot afford to fight the case legally. The inability to hire or afford an attorney to secure ordinary citizens rights is just one travesty of Bradley Federal Law and punitive actions against men in the name of law.

The law has made it easy for a man to lose all of his rights where his children are concerned with an angry wife holding all the cards. The motivations of the angry wife are rarely, if ever, questioned. The result is that millions of men every year unjustly lose rights to their own children.

The fact is that Democrats have personally penned many of these Federal policies with the idea of personal and political empowerment. However, all politicians have proved to be entirely weak-kneed when it comes to standing up for the correct idea of family rights. While Barack Obama has announced his views which stand alongside the Democratic platform, John McCain, like his predecessor George Bush, has avoided breaching the topic for any reason. Even Pastor Rick Warren missed the opportunity to bring up the importance of the family as an issue. As a result, the issue of real family rights has become the largest election non-issue in recent history.

Politics has proved interest in its own empowerment rather than a real interest in preserving the importance of the family, often referred to in archaic terms as the “nuclear family.” The archaic title seems fitting as politicians seem hellbent on “nuclear annihilation” of the single institution that still binds this country as a cohesive unit. ~ E. Manning

Where is the Family Rights Agenda in Politics?

by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist

If you are an independent thinker that wants change, you might just want to love Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the Democratic party platform that he stands on is not a platform that is good for the family or its continued cohesion in any way. His experience with his own father blends with that of the Democratic platform. The platform deals with the profound legend of “mommyhood”: where any mom can and should do it all. Further, if mommy can’t manage for any reason, Uncle Sammy is right there with cash and assistance. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, does it not? If you don’t have a village to support you, Uncle Sammy certainly will. No effort is made at the promotion of the tired subject of “Republican” family values or the rights of the American family as a whole. The platform is all about the promotion of children’s rights and the rights of single parents, which usually happens to be the mother.

where are family rights?

where are family rights?

The reality is that this circumstance is more by design than by circumstance. When unhappy women, feminists and complicit Democratic politicians brought the initial round of federal welfare reform into play in the 1980’s, men were generally promoted as the bane and single cause of conflict and pain in the American family. Anyone that has a lick of sense in their head certainly knows that a women has a significant responsibility for the plight of her family along with the success of that family. This wasn’t on the minds of most women thirty years ago and most of America was conned into believing the clever lie along with the solution that never had a hope to work beyond empowering politicians and big government.

Now the Democratic National Convention is ready with a fine program for economic and social renewal. Unfortunately, men have been left out of the mix or at least in a positive sense. The platform’s agenda puts all blame for father absence squarely on men, while promising to “crack down” on fathers who are behind on their child support. It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws which often victimize innocent men and separate them from their children. Nothing has changed from thirty years ago, much less since the Clinton Administration, which forced much of the Bradley Amendment upon the nation.

Not a mention about family values on the religious front.

not a mention about family values on the religious front.

Research proves that the vast majority of divorces, as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples, are initiated by women, not by men, and that most of these do not involve serious male conduct of any kind. When a married or cohabiting couple splits up, the father is generally relegated to guest visitor status, participating in his children’s lives only if mommy allows it. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, while enforcing fathers’ visitation rights indifferently.

Democrats claim that we will gain billions of dollars in revenue by taxing the “windfall profits” of oil companies just like Ronald Reagan did back in the 1980s. That debacle didn’t work causing the loss of revenue rather than revenue gains. Similarly, the DNC promotes the illusion that cracking down on child support will create a windfall for single mothers and the ever-needy children of America. That myth hasn’t worked since this inception of Democratic legislation that Senator Bradley and his cohorts initiated so long ago, supposedly without any hope of success.

66 percent of parents behind on child support nationwide earn poverty-level wages. Less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by parents earning $40,000 or more a year. Starry-eyed politicians eye big income earners with the idea of promoting their cause as payback for rich, snotty and abusive fathers that could care less about their poor children. The promotion is all about inciting prejudice against fathers and men in general to promote a political cause and a monetary system.

domestic violence emphasis

domestic violence emphasis

The Democratic National Convention platform pledges to “strengthen domestic violence laws,” support the Violence Against Women Act, and increase funding for domestic violence programs. This writer says that this is a pander to the increasing number of single women with children, an act that is wholly unnecessary.

Society justly despises a wife-beater and child-abuser. This family policy scenario has been used to justify many destructive policies regarding the family as well as civil liberties violations like the Bradley Amendment. The system has provided easy ways for disgruntled women to kick decent, loving fathers out of their homes, exclude them from their children’s lives and work them over financially in the name of just law and individual rights for children and single parents.

The American family is in real danger from the very politics that claim to protect the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, men are not protected by federal law and are seen only as surrogate money bags for the system. Moms often design to milk the system for everything it is worth because they are entitled to it. The world owes the disgruntled for their displeasure. The rights of the family to exist or the promotion of the simple act to simply get along in harmony isn’t discussed or encouraged. Morality isn’t the job of the State and yet politicians claim higher moral ground. The Democratic Party line has obligated itself to family policies that don’t work and never did in the name of “feel-good individual rights” that violate Constitutional rights for millions of hard-working and now disadvantaged Americans. This is troubling. Republicans have simply stood by or endorsed the same politics. In the land of family law, politicians have generally proved themselves to be the of the same stripe. This is no less troubling.

right with a wrong

right with a wrong

You can’t make a right with a wrong and certainly few politicians have taken anti-family policies to task. The crisis in the family is the perfect opportunity for an election issue, but perhaps an issue that politicians feel is too hot to handle on the front lines. Republicans continue to address the same old family values politics without addressing the damage done by unconstitutional and abusive political policy and law. Politicians would do well to figure out that righting a wrong with a wrong is worse than bad politics before summarily promoting the same old policies that dismantle the American family in favor of political empowerment. Somewhere, somehow, a day of reckoning is in the mix.

~ E. Manning

Rick Warren and Family Values?

an observation by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist.

Pastor Warren treads moral water

Pastor Warren treads moral water

Pastor Rick Warren questioned each electoral candidate for an hour recently and failed to mention family breakdown and divorce. If there is any moral or religious issue for America, it is the breakdown of the family and the promotion of that breakdown by political forces. Many millions of children are being separated from a parent that they love and need, usually for entirely selfish purposes on the part of at least one parent.

Amoral policy and the right

Amoral policy and the religious right?


This concern isn’t about father’s rights, the rights of children or the rights of a mother to choose anything. The concern is about the supposed sanctity of the family by religious leaders in an election year during a period of great contention. As a rising star among prominent religious leaders, Rick Warren failed to make the family an election topic.

Constitutional Violations and the Patriotic Man

by E. Manning

Truthfully, there is no such thing as a “little Constitutional violation”, as if a violation can really exist in degrees. The legislative and executive branches of our government have grown rather fond of creating their own rules as they go, creating new rules of order with legislative precedence and simple rationalizations in violation of all laws written previously, even the big ones. The Constitution and successive Amendments are simply ignored in the name of tolerance and judgment, while little unchecked constitutional violations grow to become blight that is considerably more rampant. Laws that are drafted aren’t considered in light of the Constitution, but rather from expedience and the playground of good intentions.

One could suppose that if one wanted to be picky, this country has operated outside the Constitution in a rather complete sense from 1776 to 1865, as the annals of national slavery have proved. Slavery worked out very well for millions in this nation. The problem is that this was accomplished with what effectively became a huge subclass of people. During the 1800s, an outside party of foreign-controlled central bankers worked on and off to put this country in their back pocket in a very unconstitutional way. They succeeded fully with the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Yet, somehow the loss of freedom involved with Federal Reserve doesn’t seem too important or even very apparent. Yet, in both of these cases, a subclass of people is always being victimized by established authority whether you recognize them or not.

Just considering these two areas, the nation has only existed on a Constitutional basis for 48 years. However, that doesn’t include the myriad of other lapses, breaches and encumbrances too multitudinous to mention. The quantity could not be contained on this page. It’s almost like spitting into hurricane winds during Hurricane Katrina and few seem to care as long as they get what they want.

Americans can use a similar Constitutional debate with the Internal Revenue Service, government surveillance of citizens combined with other unwarranted surveillance and the creation of a subclass of citizens in the name of children’s rights and federal welfare. The Constitutional lip service by our presidential candidates is significant, notably by John McCain, but proves to be a mere attempt at placating citizens as the words roll off their tongues. When faced with real unconstitutional issues and provisions in this nation, duck and dodge is the order of the day. The presidential campaigns will discuss only what is considered to be most pressing and popular. Congress performs even more poorly. The approval rating of Congress is a mere 9% and they still remain in power to create more Constitutional subversion.

The two-party system in United States doesn’t really measure anything by the values of the Constitution. Perhaps the ACLU and other fine freedom organizations should suggest removing the Constitution and the Amendments in favor of something more workable so that the nation doesn’t continue as a nation of hypocrites. The real problem has been and continues to be accountability. However, as citizens of this fine country, ultimately and collectively, we are the decision makers whether politicians like the truth or not.

In what is supposed to be the nation’s most respected body, military servants are often cowed on both sides, by the authority of their superiors and the authority of law. A patriotic military man has few rights that he can count on other than those he can find. Economically speaking, the military is still the best way to get out of a life of abject poverty and build a better life. What’s more, if you want to live life on the edge of adventure, it can be argued that there is no better place. The military is one place to truly learn the lessons of life.

Drawing men into the military continues to be a challenge. Many men are not entirely ignorant to the problems in the military. They have learned that patriotism is not rewarded, at least not if they are married. When they join the military, the chances are better than 50% that they will end up divorced, with a huge child support debt and in a jail cell on criminal federal child support charges. While this and other statistics can be contested, established fact dictates that government statistics are often skewed and highly arguable. Since the military is a cross-section of the nation and military marriages are under much higher pressure than average, no less than the national average in this area of statistics is acceptable.

Easy divorce provisions, child support entitlements and the inequities of law chronically mistreat men and patriotic men alike. This is a fact that is often downplayed, notably by feminist society and government sources. A gold-digger can marry a military man for one day to take a nice chunk of support when the divorce is final. The argument can be made that military men are not wealthy. That isn’t the point. The gold-digger can dig for gold at the military till without limit, developing a means of self-support through the bearing of children. While this is reprehensible, even more so in the military, it is not entirely uncommon. What is worse, this is often done when the man is on the other side of the world defending and serving the country. The little woman can do as she pleases while the husband pays in spades. The cash comes from his military pay, but if not, it will come out of his patriotic hide when he returns home via the godless Bradley Amendment. Notable are the proved cases where child support is no longer collected by the military and when the ex-husband returns from the hands of the enemy, terrorists or similar circumstances, he is faced with prison at home for non-payment of child support. The decision of a man or woman to stop paying child support after he or she has returned home is not in the direct scope of this commentary.

The man on duty overseas can be hit with a surprise divorce by the little woman, lose every worldly thing he owns while being victimized by a temporary child support order that has little to do with real income. While any child-support is based on income in the beginning, but the reality of income can change quickly based on a large variety of scenarios. The division of real property while the patriotic man is overseas is entirely dependent on the decision of the judge combined with immediate pull of legal strings. The system never automatically address the payment issues after the initial court order beyond the concerns of collection. The burden “of proof” is on the non-custodial parent, yes even the patriotic man, a direct violation of Constitutional Law within itself. He is guilty until proved innocent. As a result, a man can end up owing more in support than he makes and there isn’t a thing that the patriotic man can do. A patriotic man has little help from authorities as they collude to solve their common “problem”. Getting a support modification can be next to impossible in the States, but a modification isn’t any easier in Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a sad fact, not the stuff of fiction.

The authorities have decided that since the patriotic man volunteered to go into service, he bears full responsibility. This is the government position. The patriotic man won’t get a better shake in a system that is designed by default to work in the favor of women and children only. There is no excuse for non-payment of any kind and rights to see children are virtually non-existent, even though decrees are carefully worded to have you believe otherwise. The patriotic man quickly becomes a felon, often without knowing. Strangely, neither the Feds nor the States have taken any action to alleviate the problem of the patriotic man. It’s all about personal responsibility, even if dad is working behind-the-scenes as a Navy SEAL or held prisoner by terrorist factions and presumed missing.

The Bradley Amendment that cements all of this abuse in place violates the Constitution on so many counts that there is no excuse. Yet, feminists and surrogate lawmakers in the 1990s, with the help of George Bush, Sr. and the Clinton Administration brought the debacle together in grand style in the name of welfare reform. The reform has never worked other than to enlarge the size of big government.

Every taxpayer knows that taxes change based on income that is easily proved. If you are employed, the Internal Revenue Service often knows as much about you as you do. Why shouldn’t child and spousal support adjust in the same way? Yet, because of a court order that often cannot be corrected, millions of men and women have become a subclass society of America. There is no justification for treating a divorced man or woman differently from a married one through the violation of Constitutional Rights. Support that is garnered should be against actual income and resources, not figures from a court order at a previous point in time. The impoverished or sequestered have lost the ability to defend themselves and there is little interest in change. There is no forgiveness for the patriotic man, much less the working men of America. The Congress doesn’t concern itself with emergency legislation for patriotic misfits, much less a subclass of American jurisprudence.

As long as the government system is fat and happy combined with a subdued and appeased class of women, even presidential candidates could care less. All presidential candidates have ignored the plight of oppressed non-custodial parents because of fear. In the meantime, men and women continue to be looted without regard, the patriotic man even more so. Soldiers are even being charged for their own equipment, as the patriotic man continues to burn his candle at both ends in the name of God and country, for the honor of the land of the free and home of the brave. The “pressure” of personal responsibility and sacrifice never ends while the authorities take the profits home and use them as they please.

Barack Obama Attacks Non-Custodial Parents

Senators say men must take responsibility for raising their children.

Back on Father’s Day, Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama made what was supposed to be inflammatory comments against absentee fathers, notably African-American ones. Barack Obama, like many Democrats, seems to have plenty on his mind that he isn’t saying clearly.

Democrats are sponsoring an effort through Senators Barack Obama and Evan Bayh to intensify child support enforcement. On the surface, this appears to be a good idea. However, what is not said is that major areas of child support law are absolutely unconstitutional, sponsored by Democrats and others as far back as the Bradley Amendment in the 1980s. None of the federal law has been repealed.

The country has a national epidemic of absentee fathers. This much may be true as statistics reveal, but Senators are looking at a symptom rather than a cause. However, creative Democrats have designed “The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 as their latest social engineering effort.

The legislation claims to offer support for fathers trying to do the right thing while cracking down on men that avoid “parental responsibility”. The bill is designed to provide fathers with “innovative job training” and other nameless economic opportunities while using a typical social engineering tool called the “Earned Income Tax Credit.” Hillary Clinton favored the same kind of tactics. The idea is to “help” non-custodial parents to support their families.

Combined with the unconstitutional Bradley Amendment and other similarly-styled state laws, the idea is designed to encourage the idea of outright slavery to government authority in the name of doing the right thing because, after all, the government is always there to help honest men. The track record of politicians since the Clinton presidential daze has proved otherwise as feminists took advantage of opportunities to oppress men in the name of child law, welfare reform and rightful propriety.

The “Bayh-Obama legislation” is designed to strengthen violence prevention services, once again looking at symptoms rather than causes. The proposed law is supposed to ensure that money paid for child support goes “directly to children and their mothers”, without loss of food assistance for eligible families. The same old stinking thinking that mothers are without cause in the whole process of divorce and child-rearing is offensive. The fact that politicians want to green-stamp domestic violence by supporting negative parental attitudes, including sexual immorality is even more reprehensible. Women and men are not saints and law needs to stop treating them like saints.

Senator Evan Bayh stated, “Fatherlessness is an issue many politicians would prefer to avoid, but elected officials have a moral obligation not to sit idly by while communities crumble because of the epidemic of absentee fathers. I am not naïve enough to believe that government alone can solve this problem, but together we can play a constructive role in crafting policies that attack the root causes of this epidemic.” Unfortunately, government tactics of the past have not and do not encourage family-building, but rather societal destruction.

It can be argued that the welfare system and even child support measures are a wonderful thing for many. However, the cost to the country cannot be unconstitutional state and federal laws that are supported by politicians. For example, the federal Bradley Amendment along with a flotilla of state laws that support the violation of a number of Constitutional Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Currently these Constitutional Rights are actively violated as well as other civil rights:

1. violation of due process under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
2. deprives equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment

In a typical multi-pronged attack, the U.S. House of Representatives has companion legislation that is being introduced by Democrats Julia Carson and Danny Davis. Earmark spending is certain to follow as the legislation is crafted and agreed upon between the two legislative bodies.

Last year, Congress passed legislation based on a proposal introduced by Senator Bayh that provided up to $50 million each year for the next five years in funding for responsible fatherhood programs nationwide as part of a spending reconciliation bill to prepare for future legislation that is on the board now.

Does this political scene sound like the new politics of hope to you?

Tag Cloud