The Election and the Family Rights Blight

Elected officials aren’t listening where family rights are concerned. Have you noticed?

little constructive family rights interest

For some time, beleaguered Americans have sought a measure of legal refuge through their federal and local representatives and largely are turned aside. Those lawmakers that are favorable to fair family law while caring about what has become an abusive system of law, do little beyond posting their constituents comments on their Congressional websites. Even worse, those lawmakers are few and far between, a minority among a majority that have their minds on enriching themselves and painting a rosy picture of life for their constituents to obtain reelection.

Where the federal Bradley Amendment, abusive family and child support laws and the family rights blight on America are concerned, no review or consideration of past policy exists. No electoral campaign has mentioned positively, much less championed the plight of an abused subclass of Americans that will only decline with a declining national economy. The topic has been entirely ignored despite the desire of Americans to bring the issue to the forefront in an effort to seek some resolution.

Several opportunities have availed themselves, like the event at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and even religious leaders have failed to champion the needs and rights of the American family by entertaining the idea of decent law. Instead, some have contested gay rights in lieu of family issues.

The current political myopia is already evident where economic matters are concerned. Americans are embroiled in debate because the financial blight affects everyone. The political nearsightedness of lawmakers is no less startling regarding the Bradley Amendment, child support law and the systematic cooperative destruction of the American family.

Political leaders are interested chiefly in social engineering through tax law that invariably involves the Internal Revenue Service. That is the endstop and a huge means of control for government socialists that seek to force their hand. Now economic stimulus is divided through the same means. Tax law assumes that every American must be responsible for his or her own finances when the same government does everything that it can to deny that responsibility. What America has is a dichotomy that destroys the American family from both ends designed by either ignorant or malevolent politicians.

For decades Americans have been taught that if we play by the rules that we would reap significant rewards. We have been sold the fantasy of trickle-down economics as an excuse to promote Big Business and government control. Independence through personal business acumen in the small business world has been sold down the river in lieu of government monitoring and control through Big Business, payroll law and the IRS. The needs of the nuclear family, a family with a husband, wife and children, has evolved into little more than a political charade in the legal world.

There is still time to pull this country out of the political grist mill that has debilitated the American family, but time is running out. Even financial wealth has proved insufficient to keep families together under the pressure and selfishness of the nation at-large. The nation must remedy the oppression of the American family and the value that the family holds. Your voice is needed to make a difference. Contact your lawmaker and let your voice be heard. If you are ignored by an incumbent politician where your concerns are made known, vote them out of office now. Tell them that you will not hesitate to do so. Only by standing up for American civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution can this nation be reclaimed for Americans and real family life, free from legal blight and oppression. ~ E. Manning

Freedom Under Attack by Lawmakers

Everyone knows that a protective order is commonly issued under all kinds of circumstances. A protective order can be fraudulently issued as well. This kind of topic is likely to affect the lives of custodial and non-custodial parents alike as federal lawmakers seek to invade your civil rights and privacy under the pretense of safety and justice. Repeal Bradley has enclosed the name of the lawmakers that are concerned about taking your freedoms away and imposing draconian laws.

New York State Senator Andrew J. Lanza, R, District 24 (Staten Island), has introduced Senate Bill S4796, which, if passed into law, would require that anyone who has had an order of protection issued against them must wear at all times a GPS monitoring/tracking device. Further, tampering with and/or disabeling the device would constitute a Class E Felony. “Justification” for the measure is the puported “need to put more teeth into orders of protection in order for them to mean more than just a piece of paper”.

New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D, District 51 (Kings County/Brooklyn) has introduced a “same as” bill in the Assemby, A5424.

Each bill proposal is currently in the Codes Committee of its respective chamber. Both are said to have broad bi-partisan support in each house of the Legislature. You need to be aware of this fact.

This legislative insanity should send ice water surging through the veins of anyone who has ever had the dubious pleasure of having experienced the Kafkaesque world of the restraining order. Simply put, it means that anyone – whether guilty … or totally innocent – accused of domestic abuse will be put under police surveillance 24/7 via an electronic monitoring/tracking device, with no due process, no, trial, no recourse, and no remedial and/or statutory protections.
These bills are co/multi-sponsored by:

Senators John J. Flanagan, Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr., Joseph A. Griffo, Kemp Hannon, William J. Larkin, Jr., Elizabeth O’C. Little, Serphin R. Maltese, George D. Maziarz, Frank Padavan, Dale M. Volker, Catherine M. Young

Assembly Members: Lou Tobacco, Ginny Fields, Ellen Young, David Koons, Sandra Galef, Michelle Schimel, Dennis H. Gabryszak, Alan Maisel, Steve Englebright, Ivan C. LaFayette, Janele Hyer-Spencer, Nettie Mayersohn, David G. McDonough, Annette, Robinson, Robert K. Sweeney, Harvey Weisenberg

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO ASK WHAT HIS/HER NEXT STEP NEEDS TO BE, NOW …, AND REMEMBER, NEXT NOVEMBER IS ELECTION TIME AGAIN. IT WON”T SIMPLY BE A NEW PRESIDENT THAT WE”LL BE ELECTING OR REJECTING. WE’LL ALSO BE VOTING FOR THOSE WE WISH TO HAVE REPRESENTING OUR INTERESTS IN THE LEGISLATURE AS WELL!!! Be alert!

Fox zeroes in on 'Bad Dads'

Fox Network zeroes in on ‘Bad Dads’

Check out the dangerous and subversive mentality of this show…

After embracing the dark side of reality television with its marriage-busting hit “The Moment of Truth,” Fox’s newest project taps the power of its unscripted division for the forces of good.

The network has ordered a pilot from 3Ball Productions, in which an avenger of penniless single mothers hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support.

Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, functions as a sort of “Dog the Bounty Hunter” for tracking deadbeats. In the pilot, a financially destitute mom is contrasted with her wealthy ex-husband, who is living the high life. Durham confronts the man at his country club to shake him down in front his friends. It’s ambush reality TV — but for a noble cause.

“(Durham) calls them on the phone and gives them the chance to do the right thing,” said executive producer JD Roth (“The Biggest Loser,” “Beauty and the Geek”). “Of course, those calls are never met with anything but yelling. Then he goes into their life, finds out what kind of assets they have and makes their lives miserable — foreclose on their house, repossess their car. He will squeeze them until the women get paid.”

Roth sold the idea to Fox with the title “Deadbeat Dads.” But Fox president of alternative entertainment Mike Darnell famously concocts his own catchy titles for his shows. (“Nothing but the Truth” became “The Moment of Truth,” and “Do You Remember 5th Grade?” morphed into “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”) Darnell has rechristened “Deadbeat Dads” with the very-Fox working title “Bad Dads.”

Sluggish government agencies often fail to persuade financially liable fathers to pay child support. As of 2006, the nation’s cumulative uncollected child support stood at about $105 billion, according to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Last year’s federal budget cuts could make the problem even worse, potentially adding about $11 billion in uncollected child support over the next 10 years.

Durham’s National Child Support Center is one of several collection agencies that serve as a last resort for neglected single mothers. Some critics say such companies do more harm than good. Child support collectors have been accused of charging steep fees and using ultra-aggressive tactics. Durham bills his clients 34% of whatever he collects.

Roth counters that Durham’s clients typically feel so abandoned by the court system that they’re relieved to get any money at all. Plus, he said Durham is the only collector who extracts interest owed on the outstanding debt, so his clients often receive more money than if the absent dads had simply paid their bills.

As for the aggressive tactics, child support is not considered a debt per se, but an order of the court. Collectors are therefore not subject to following the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which regulates what tactics a collection agency can employ to collect a debt.

“I’m hoping that eventually this show changes how courts see deadbeat dads and how moms have to deal with it,” Roth said.

If greenlighted to series, “Bad Dads” will provide Fox a fresh take on the law enforcement reality show, a genre the network pioneered with such Saturday night staples as “Cops” and “America’s Most Wanted.”

“I’ve seen ‘Cops,’ and I want to watch more than a crack addict with his pants around his ankles running away from a police car,” Roth said. “These guys owe money, and they should pay.”

TO PROTEST THIS PILOT SHOW CONTACT GLENN SACKS WEBSITE.

Protest Fox’s New Reality Show ‘Bad Dads’ !

FROM GLEN SACKS

PLEASE SEND A PROTEST EMAIL BY CLICKING HERE

Fox recently announced its intention to launch a new reality show called Bad Dads. According to Reuters, in Bad Dads Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, “functions as a sort of ‘Dog the Bounty Hunter’ for tracking deadbeats…[Durham’s role is as] an avenger of penniless single mothers [who] hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support…

“In the pilot, a financially destitute mom is contrasted with her wealthy ex-husband, who is living the high life. Durham confronts the man at his country club to shake him down in front his friends. It’s ambush reality TV.”

According to Reuters, Durham will target fathers who are behind on their child support by “making their lives miserable — foreclosing on their house, repossessing their car. He will squeeze them…”

This news was brought to our attention by our friend at Killing Marriage for Votes.

Repeal Bradley Amendment Under Silent Opposition

You will be interested to know that none of the candidates have shown an interest in discussing the destructive and abusive Bradley Amendment or have responded to repeated inquiries for so much as a comment on the matter. Lawmakers want to ignore the unconstitutional abuse that has blighted our nation.

Two months ago, the Lakeland Florida Ledger happily accepted and posted two of our sponsored videos online. Sunday morning, we received an unceremonious notice that they were removing the informational videos from their Brightcove Video website account. The status of the videos were noted as “not approved”.

–
The Repeal Bradley message is not a popular one. Politicians do not want to talk too loudly about the invasion of civil and human rights, nor care to deal with the controversy of unconstitutional family law.

–

We need caring people to help us turn up the pressure. Unconstitutional child support enforcement needs to be addressed as an election topic. If you have an opportunity to address any of the candidates, please do so. Please write your lawmaker and tell us that you have.

Your stand for the U.S. Constitution is a noble and just cause.

E. Manning

Archive: Bradley Challenges Child Poverty

–
“Though he has been an outspoken critic of the sweeping welfare changes enacted by Congress in 1996, his last year in the Senate, Mr. Bradley did not propose rolling back that law’s major provisions, which include time limits on benefits and work requirements for recipients.”
–
–
Bill Bradley did not like the changes that the Clinton Administration made in his “pure” law that he and Democrat colleagues made from 1984 through 1991. Democrats worked overtime year by year to modify and recreate family law and welfare before the Clinton swept into office. Apparently, he doesn’t formally object to the enforcement measures that Clinton and the feminists made which violate the civil rights of every American on some level and the civil rights of some Americans on multiple levels. What did the Clintons actually change that made his welfare reform fail or is Bill Bradley simply playing both sides? More likely, he was offended by the Clintons hijacking his personal legal territory. He was running for president at the time, so playing to cover himself is likely. Welfare reform instituted over the years often uses similar tired statistics proposed in this New York Times article along with promises to reduce or eliminate child poverty. The promised results never happen and the welfare and family reform laws usually fails outright on virtually every count. Social engineering through federal tax law rarely works or is kept in place long enough to work. Politics and social engineering has become a large fools game.

Bradley Challenges Nation To Eliminate Child Poverty

By JAMES DAO
Published: October 22, 1999

Describing poverty as a ”slow motion national disaster,” former Senator Bill Bradley called yesterday for reducing the number of poor children by half over the coming decade by raising the minimum wage, increasing spending on child care programs and providing an array of tax benefits to poor parents who work.

Clinton Millionaire to be labeled a Deadbeat?

A bill for a Clinton Campaign appearance at UC Davis in January remains unpaid. UC Davis is moving the debt to collections. Ms. Clinton has not covered the campaign debt and media pundits have not pounced. Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has said two words about the “accounting oversight”. The time may be at hand.

The expense is reported as $11,112 topped by security, cleanup and marching band expenses. When the Clinton campaign press office was called and reminded about the debt, the campaign refused to return calls.

UC Davis is planning to put its final bill out this week, and if the debt has not been settled within a month, they are going to turn the matter over to a collection agency. The appearance of former president Bill Clinton attracted 7500 people to the audience.

The appearance was designed as an outreach to young voters, a demographic that put Senator Obama over the top in Iowa. “America is not a race. America is not a creed. America is not even a place. America is an idea and you all are a part of it,” noted former president Bill Clinton.

Ms. Clinton has plenty of campaign expenses and the fact remains that this expense could have been overlooked. The public won’t overlook the oversight for long. Despite the fact that Ms. Clinton has been lagging in the contributions department somewhat, she has plenty of net worth to cover this debt. It would be better for the nation’s candidate “millionairess” to handle this debt before she is publicly labeled as a “deadbeat”.

Considering that she has already put this label on plenty of impoverished men in the past that have had trouble paying their child support, the deadbeat label being attached to Hillary Clinton is a tidy bit of poetic justice.

Revisiting the News: Hillary's Children Crusade

Hillary Clinton, Directing a Sweeping ‘Children’s Crusade’

Prediction 4; Integrating the government’s role in education, health and safety
By Thomas Toch

Posted 12/20/92

(see commentary below reprinted article)

During their first post-election trip to Washington in November, Bill and Hillary Clinton attended a glittering fund-raiser for the Children’s Defense Fund at the resplendent National Building Museum. But it was Mrs. Clinton, not the president-elect, who delivered the gala’s keynote address. “All of us have to recognize that we owe our children more than we have been giving to them,” she told an audience of 1,500 seated at tables decorated with little plywood replicas of schoolhouses.

In a break with Washington tradition, the Clinton administration is planning to merge its education policies into a much broader children’s agenda that also addresses the health and safety of the nation’s young. Hillary Clinton is likely to play a key role in this children’s crusade. In a two-decade career as a legal and social activist, she has pressed for a larger government role in protecting children’s rights and well-being. Once in the White House, she is likely to lead a presidential commission that will attempt to broaden and better coordinate Washington’s work on behalf of the nation’s children.

Over the years, Clinton has written a number of scholarly articles urging an expansion of children’s legal rights, a record that drew attacks at the Republican National Convention last August. In the early 1980s, she headed a commission in Arkansas that led to sweeping school reforms in the state. As first lady, she will almost certainly play a key role in shaping a children’s federal agenda that is likely to include:

Head Start. The president-elect has pledged to expand the popular federal program that supplies health screening, meals and learning activities to 622,000 disadvantaged preschoolers. With a $2.2 billion budget, Head Start serves about a third of the 3-to-5-year-olds who qualify for the program, and Bill Clinton has promised to persuade Congress to “fully fund” the program. Clinton is likely to be pressured to raise the quality of Head Start programs as well.

Health care. Prenatal care and expanded childhood immunization against smallpox and other diseases are Clinton administration priorities.

Child support enforcement. In a 1992 report, a national commission urged tough sanctions against “deadbeat dads,” fathers who fail to make required payments to support children they don’t live with. The commission’s recommendations are likely to be drafted into legislation in 1993.

Child welfare. George Bush in 1992 vetoed a $2.3 billion bill to both improve and find alternatives to the nation’s costly and often poorly performing foster care system. Children’s advocates expect Clinton to sign the bill in 1993.

Family leave. Bush twice vetoed legislation granting employees the opportunity to take unpaid leave to care for newborns and sick family members. Clinton is expected to sign the legislation early in 1993.

School reform. The 103rd Congress must reauthorize more than 50 federal school programs funded at $9.2 billion in fiscal 1992. The Clinton administration is likely to press for national exams, public-school choice and, in particular, substantial reform in the $7 billion Chapter 1 program for disadvantaged students. Its likely proposals include targeting funds to schools with the highest concentrations of impoverished students, slashing the program’s red tape and instituting higher academic standards and sanctions for schools that perform poorly.

Hillary Clinton has been involved since the early 1970s with the Children’s Defense Fund, both as a lawyer and a member of the board. The nomination of University of Wisconsin Chancellor Donna Shalala, the current chair of the advocacy group, as Bill Clinton’s secretary of health and human services sends a clear signal of the administration’s desire to pay close and immediate attention to the needs of the nation’s disadvantaged kids.

Fully 14 million American children, or 1 in 5 under the age of 18, live in poverty.

This story appears in the December 28, 1992 print edition of U.S. News & World Report
U.S. News & World Report

My thanks to U.S. News & World Report for the archived article. You will notice that little has changed since the 80s and 90s except that poverty and all the things that politicians were “trying to repair” have not worked. Oppressive and detailed regulations have compounded all the problems that Democrats and the Clinton Administration claimed to want to fix. When you look at old articles from the 1980s, it is almost as if the same pathetic figures are being recycled to prove the same old points for problems that never see any form of resolution. It is time to wise up to these wiseacres and get opponents of American freedom out of office. ~ E. M.

Thank you for your support. Please write your lawmaker and tell them to REPEAL BRADLEY and unconstitutional Title V law.

A Fair Role for Fathers?

Boston Globe Editorial on Divorce and Parenting

“Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, soundly argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis. ‘You don’t need a presumption when you have facts,’ Kindregan says. The relevant facts include children’s age, temperament, emotional development, and medical needs, as well as how parents get along and how far apart parents live from each other. A judge looking at an infant will have to make very different decisions than a judge looking at a teenage boy.”

translation:
“Dad can see the infant or young child an hour or two a week if mom allows it. Men don’t have the temperament for children. We might give good old dad a chance when his kid is a teenager. The kid will already be damaged from growing up without a father and the father-child relationship may be strained or non-existence from limited contact and negative talk from the mother. It’s okay for dad to spend time with the kid as long as they live within 1,000 miles of each and mom is not unhappy about the visits.”

The Globe editorial and the expert it quotes are out in left field. There is absolutely no reason why a father should be kept away from his baby or toddler under normal circumstances. This is the kind of discrimination that men deal with every day in America. If courts want to take rights away from fathers, then fathers have the right to be free. Naturally, you won’t see the courts go in that direction. Changes must be made. Why?

Fathers are not indentured slaves to an ex-wife in the name of children. Yet, the popularity of unconstitutional federal law among divorced mothers and feminists has brought this attitude of disdain towards men to its current reality. The Bradley Amendment and all unconstitutional Title V law must be repealed. This should be a Presidential election issue!

Hillary Clinton: the federal Bradley Amendment

This video features closing video from the Democratic debate on CNN from 2/20/2008. The federal Bradley Amendment violates the Constitution of the United States. Bill and Hillary Clinton were and are chief promoters and enforcers of this legislation. They don’t get it. As politicians, they have violated the trust of Americans, as well as the human and civil rights of millions of Americans without apology in the name of children. Repeal the Bradley Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: the federal Bradley Amendment by repealbradley