Obama: Church Shouldn’t Focus on Protecting the Unborn & Marriage

by Barry Silver

A couple of weeks ago President Obama took part in a panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University where he launched into an attack on the focus of the Christian church in America. I’m not certain what makes him an expert exactly. I know he claims to be a constitutional law attorney. Funny though, the prez and the first lady were both attorneys, disbarred by the State of Illinois. Why is an attorney disbarred? An attorney is disbarred because of conduct unbecoming. It’s like being a soldier and being dishonorably discharged.

The prez said that his comments were based on his “own Christian faith.” The panel was moderated by a famous Washington liberal, so the panel gravitated to praising the left while attacking the right when it comes to poverty. No discussion was made about the disparity in charitable giving between red and blue states, but simply to the fact that conservatives didn’t believe the government should be used for charity, while the left believes the government should be the main source of charity. Obama criticized churches for how they engage politically, focusing on “divisive issues” such as protecting life and preserving marriage.

“The president argued last week that churches would gain more followers if they embraced the “powerful” idea of helping those in poverty. “I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on [poverty] in a more forceful fashion,” he said.

The president also said that advocating the redistribution of wealth is “vital to following what Jesus Christ, our Savior, talked about.”

More often, he engaged in double-speak like this:

“When it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you’re talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, [poverty] is oftentimes viewed as a nice to have, relative to an issue like abortion.”

The ignorance of the president knows few bounds. To imply that ending poverty should be of greater concern to Christians than ending the holocaust of innocent lives through the eugenics of abortion is repulsive. All you hear liberals talk about is human rights until it comes down to actually considering what those rights are. Essentially, the unborn have no rights because they don’t have the capacity to vote.

Men don’t have rights either. They can vote, but they’ve been emasculated unless they want to tow the Washington line. The state can rob and plunder anyway it pleases. It sees itself as Robin Hood, especially as the champion of the children that it wants to own. It does this fully through single mothers. It champions the Bradley Amendment. It robs from parents and tolerates the church – for now. Government wants your faith. The church is simply poor competition. By deduction, Christians are pains in the arses to compete with the state in any way. Prez knows best.

As far as same-sex marriage goes, homosexuality is just another sin, conveniently listed among those sins, of which Yahweh says that no man or woman will enter His Kingdom. Many churches are already on a wide road to destruction according to scripture, but that’s another topic beyond the stupidity and corruptibility of American leaders and obsequious stone-headed church leaders. What a real Christian would best do isn’t covered much in public.

Owe Money? You’re A Deadbeat

by Moody Jim Rathbone

these are the ‘good guys’

They want you shaking in your boots. If you owe child support in the United States, authority claims you are a “deadbeat.” People owe money for all kinds of debts, but that doesn’t make the person a deadbeat, nor are they called one. In fact, the current Administration wants you in debt to grow the economy, but most “deadbeat” parents with an average or less income don’t have any money to spend to support the dreams of the state. In fact, they don’t even have the mythology of the “American Dream” that American Presidents push like candy. They are too busy supporting the state and Federal government to prop up unconstitutional child support. It’s all about “justice” they say.

For example:

Early Wednesday morning, a group of Montgomery County sheriff’s deputies went around the county seeking “deadbeat” parents who have failed to appear in court for failing to pay child support. The nine parents taken into custody owe a total of $66,382.90 to nine children.

In fact, as far as these authorities are concerned, you owe them money. That is because according to Federal Law, you do owe the state. Child Support is federal debt per the Bradley Amendment for Social Security Administration. The Federal government pays the state corporations handsomely for collecting what debt they can, all backed and funded by federal taxpayer funds. It’s Constitutionally illegal, but justified by fed and state alike (as statute or policy) as they work together to pry money from “deadbeats” any way they can. The Feds may be financially bankrupt themselves, but you won’t have that privilege, if and when you decide to file bankruptcy. That is because President Bush signed eternal child support into law by modifying bankruptcy code. The state has all the rights. There is no way out in their eyes… you know, the death and taxes sort of thing. That is the sad path that this nation has taken – the path of exploitation, extortion and tyranny.

In this day, depending on the local authority around you, the sheriff is seeking to shame anyone that is behind on child support for any reason. They post your name, address and face on a billboard or online with your local newspaper. To authorities, your debt of child support is a public issue that is all your fault. The reality is entirely different. The state persecutes you because of corporate policy. You see, each court, each government department is a corporation that seeks to make money off of you. Many of them have decided that you will be cuffed and slapped in jail, with the expectation of coercing you to pay up your child support. The court doesn’t even need to be right. Much of the time, the ‘judge’ isn’t right – not even close.

Actually, these “family courts” are wrong 100% of the time. American ‘citizens’ are supposed to have Constitutional guarantees that preclude evil treatment by the authority of courts, family judges and those that take their orders from them. Due process has become fiction. Most attorneys are fearful of standing up for real justice. That justice certainly isn’t oppressing non-custodial parents, even if they are ‘guilty’ before the law (that means what they want it to mean). For that matter, human rights have become fiction too – even as the Feds point a finger of accusation at China or Russia. The Feds have made themselves the holy arbiter of ‘human rights,’ the church of morality. In the case of any court-ordered child support, your human right is for you to pay up and shut up. That is called tyranny.

Everyone is affected. Nobody is immune. They just think they are – immune that is. The only vaccination is to overthrow the tyranny.

Man Forced to Pay Child Support for Kid Who Isn’t Even His

by Linda Fogarty

There are a lot of good guys out there. Men who will step up to the plate and treat children who aren’t theirs as if they are their own. But, as one dad from North Carolina is learning after being told he has to pay child support for a child he didn’t father, some will take advantage of kindness.

Allow me to explain this somewhat complicated story. Randall Smith met, fell in love with, and married a woman shortly after he was hospitalized with lymphoma. Not long after their wedding, she came to him with some happy news—she was pregnant—hip-hip hurray, right?

Eh, not so fast. Smith had a vasectomy years before her announcement. We all know what that means, right?

Shocked beyond belief, we’re sure, Smith made an appointment with his urologist, who confirmed that he didn’t actually have sperm.

Instead of high-tailing it out of his marriage, he stuck around and showed he was more committed to his wife than most would have been if they were in this same position. He promised to raise the child as if he were his own, but says he also made it clear that if they ever split, her son would be her responsibility and he wouldn’t have to pay child support.

Seems fair, doesn’t it? After cheating on him, which I realize is only an assumption since he has yet to get a DNA test (say what?! I know), I would consider her pretty darn lucky to get a second chance with a man who was also willing to be a father figure to her son.

I think you know where I’m going with this. They eventually broke up and the woman wants him to pay child support. Not only is Smith angry because he says he isn’t the father and they had an agreement (which, unfortunately, wasn’t in writing and signed by attorneys), but also because his injury left him disabled and $7,000 in arrears.

The biggest problem here is that Smith didn’t get a DNA test as soon as his wife’s son was born. He now has to scramble to get one in a certain amount of time for the court to even consider exonerating him from paying child support. What was he thinking?! Is he really that trusting that he assumed he could have faith in his wife’s word? Maybe he didn’t want to put the child through the trauma of a DNA test?

This is such a sad story. Any man who is kind enough to take care of a child who isn’t his deserves better than this—especially when there are many biological dads who aren’t acting responsibly and feel they are within their right to walk away when the duties of parenthood get in their way.

Do you think this man should be forced to pay child support?

Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat.

by Framces Robles and Shaila Dewan

By his own telling, the first time Walter L. Scott went to jail for failure to pay child support, it sent his life into a tailspin. He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000.

That warrant, his family now speculates, loomed large in Mr. Scott’s death. On April 4, he was pulled over for a broken taillight, fled on foot and, after a scuffle with a police officer, was fatally shot in the back.

The warrant, the threat of another stay behind bars and the potential loss of yet another job caused him to run, a brother, Rodney Scott, said.

“Every job he has had, he has gotten fired from because he went to jail because he was locked up for child support,” said Mr. Scott, whose brother was working as a forklift operator when he died. “He got to the point where he felt like it defeated the purpose.”

Walter Scott’s death has focused attention not just on police violence, but also on the use of jail to pressure parents to pay child support, a policy employed by many states today. Though the threat of jail is considered an effective incentive for people who are able but unwilling to pay, many critics assert that punitive policies are trapping poor men in a cycle of debt, unemployment and imprisonment.

The problem begins with child support orders that, at the outset, can exceed parents’ ability to pay. When parents fall short, the authorities escalate collection efforts, withholding up to 65 percent of a paycheck, seizing bank deposits and tax refunds, suspending driver’s licenses and professional licenses, and then imposing jail time.

“Parents who are truly destitute go to jail over and over again for child support debt simply because they’re poor,” said Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights, which filed a class-action lawsuit in Georgia on behalf of parents incarcerated without legal representation for failure to pay. “We see many cases in which the person is released, they’re given three months to pay a large amount of money, and then if they can’t do that they’re tossed right back in the county jail.”

There is no national count of how many parents are incarcerated for failure to pay child support, and enforcement tactics vary from state to state, as do policies such as whether parents facing jail are given court-appointed lawyers. But in 2009, a survey in South Carolina found that one in eight inmates had been jailed for failure to pay child support. In Georgia, 3,500 parents were jailed in 2010. The Record of Hackensack, N.J., reported last year that 1,800 parents had been jailed or given ankle monitors in two New Jersey counties in 2013. (The majority of noncustodial parents nationwide are men.)

Unpaid child support became a big concern in the 1980s and ’90s as public hostility grew toward the archetypal “deadbeat dad” who lived comfortably while his children suffered. Child support collections were so spotty that in the late 1990s, new enforcement tools such as automatic paycheck deductions were used. As a result, child support collections increased significantly, and some parents rely heavily on aggressive enforcement by the authorities.

But experts said problems could arise when such tactics were used against people who had little money, and the vast majority of unpaid child support is owed by the very poor. A 2007 Urban Institute study of child support debt in nine large states found that 70 percent of the arrears were owed by people who reported less than $10,000 a year in income. They were expected to pay, on average, 83 percent of their income in child support — a percentage that declined precipitously in higher income brackets.

In many jurisdictions, support orders are based not on the parent’s actual income but on “imputed income” — what they would be expected to earn if they had a full-time, minimum wage or median wage job. In South Carolina, the unemployment rate for black men is 12 percent.

The Obama administration is trying to change some of these policies, proposing to rewrite enforcement rules to require that child support orders be based on actual income and consider the “subsistence needs” of the noncustodial parent, to bar states from allowing child support debt to accrue while parents are incarcerated and to finance more job placement services for them.

“While every parent has a responsibility to support their kids to the best of their ability, the tools developed in the 1990s are designed for people who have money,” said Vicki Turetsky, the commissioner of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. “Jail is appropriate for someone who is actively hiding assets, not appropriate for someone who couldn’t pay the order in the first place.”

Under a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, courts are not supposed to jail a defendant without a specific finding that he or she has the ability to pay. But that process does not always work as intended, especially when the client does not have a lawyer, advocates for the poor say.

In the Georgia class-action case, the plaintiffs were jailed in civil contempt-of-court proceedings in which they did not have lawyers. They included three veterans — one who had paid $75,000 in child support but fell behind when he lost his civilian job because of combat-related stress and family deaths; a second who was mentally ill and had a letter from a Veterans Affairs doctor saying he was unable to work; and a third who was incarcerated despite having paid $3,796 toward his debt by working odd jobs.

But the Georgia Supreme Court ruled against them, saying they did not have a categorical right to a lawyer.

Walter Scott

Walter Scott had four children, two in the early 1990s outside of marriage, and two in the late 1990s with a woman to whom he was married. The marriage crumbled when one of the children was still a toddler, and Lisa Scott, his estranged wife, began writing letters to family court asking for help.

“My husband bears no responsibility for his family,” she wrote in 2000.

In an article about a parenting program published in The Post and Courier of Charleston in 2003, Mr. Scott said that he had fallen behind when the checks he sent to a state agency for his ex-wife were mistakenly directed to the mother of his first children. (The South Carolina Department of Social Services, citing privacy laws, said it could not verify his account.)

Mr. Scott eventually spent two weeks in jail — a stint that cost him a $35,000-a-year job at a filmmaking company and sent him into isolation and alcohol abuse, he told The Post and Courier.

“I got mad at everybody in the whole world because I just lost the best job I ever had,” he said. “I just stopped doing everything.”

In 2002, Mr. Scott, further behind on his payments, agreed to participate in a parenting program called Father to Father and pay $350 a month. Mr. Scott reunited with his family, turned himself in for the unpaid child support and served another five months in jail.

Still, Charleston County Family Court records show that he remained in a cycle of unpaid child support debt, stints in jail and more threats of time behind bars. The records also show that when Mr. Scott was working in 2011, $125.76 was deducted from his check each week. He paid $11,411 that year, which included a lump-sum payment. But he was behind again in July 2012, and he paid $3,500, his last recorded payment, to avoid jail. The money came from his parents, Mr. Scott’s brother Rodney said.

Rodney Scott said his brother resented that his ex-wife was not required to work and that the pressure was always on him to pay support. Critics of the child support system say this imbalance is reflected in rules that say that if a mother receives public assistance, the father must pay it back, even if he is also poor. In many cases, though not in Mr. Scott’s, child support actions are brought by state officials seeking welfare reimbursement.

Lisa Scott could not be reached at addresses or phone numbers listed in her name. Samantha Scott, a daughter from Mr. Scott’s first relationship, said she had never heard her own mother complain about a lack of support. “If he had money, he would give it to us,” she said.

Ms. Turetsky, the head of the federal child support office, said the system should be based on the expectation that both parents would contribute toward their children’s needs. “It’s nuts,” she said of the policy of making destitute fathers repay welfare. “She gets the assistance; he gets charged with the bill.”

Jahmal Holmes, 28, is a current participant in the Father to Father program in North Charleston. He has two children, 4 and 8, and said he had agreed to court-ordered child support because he had been told that it was a requirement for their mother to receive Medicaid. The two have since broken up and share custody of the younger child, but he is still required to pay support for both.

Mr. Holmes said he did not realize that if he fell behind on payments, he would face jail. “I am behind now, and they are threatening to suspend my driver’s license — and I’m a truck driver,” he said. “When I saw that Walter Scott died, and he was in this program, that touched me emotionally. I see myself trying to get out of that situation.”

Rodney Scott said that he sometimes thought his brother did not do everything he could to catch up, but that Walter seemed to consider it a hopeless cause. He recalled seeing his brother plead to a judge that he just did not make enough money.

“He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”

Who Will Liberate America?

Obama, the Human Rights Hypocrite
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/15/obama-the-human-rights-hypocrite/

Is Obama a hypocrite or merely insouciant? Or is he an idiot?

According to news reports Obama’s White House meeting on Valentine’s day with China’s Vice President, Xi Jinping, provided an opportunity for Obama to raise “a sensitive human rights issue with the Chinese leader-in-waiting.” The brave and forthright Obama didn’t let etiquette or decorum get in his way. Afterwards, Obama declared that Washington would “continue to emphasize what we believe is the importance of realizing the aspirations and rights of all people.”

Think about that for a minute. Washington is now in the second decade of murdering Muslim men, women, and children in six countries. Washington is so concerned with human rights that it drops bombs on schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals, all in order to uphold the human rights of Muslim people. You see, bombing liberates Muslim women from having to wear the burka and from male domination.

One hundred thousand, or one million, dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, a country with destroyed infrastructure, and entire cities, such as Fallujah, bombed and burnt with white phosphorus into cinders is the proper way to show concern for human rights. Ditto for Afghanistan. And Libya.

In Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia Washington’s drones bring human rights to the people.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prison sites are other places to which Washington brings human rights. Obama, who has the power to murder American citizens without due process of law, is too powerless to close Guantanamo Prison.

He is powerless to prevent himself from supplying Israel with weapons with which to murder Palestinians and Lebanese citizens to whom Obama brings human rights by vetoing every UN resolution passed against Israel for its crimes against humanity.

Instead of following Washington’s human rights lead, the evil Chinese invest in other countries, buy things from them, and sell them goods.

Has any foreign dignitary ever raised “a sensitive human rights issue” with Obama or his predecessor? How is the world so deranged that Washington can murder innocents for years on end and still profess to be the world’s defender of human rights?

How many people has China bombed, droned, and sanctioned into non-existence in the 21st century?

Will Syria and Iran be the next victims of Washington’s concern for human rights?

Nothing better illustrates the total unreality of life in the West than the fact that the entire Western world did not break out in riotous laughter over Obama’s expression of his human rights concern over China’s behavior.

Washington’s concern with human rights does not extend as far as airport security where little girls and grandmothers are sexually groped. Antiwar activists have their homes invaded, their personal possessions carried off, and a grand jury is summoned to frame them up on some terrorist charge. US soldier Bradley Manning is held for two years in violation of the US Constitution while the human rights government concocts fabricated charges to punish him for revealing a US war crime. WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is harassed endlessly with the goal of bringing him into the human rights clutches of Washington. Critics of Washington’s inhumane policies are monitored and spied upon.

Washington is the worst violator of human rights in our era, and Washington has only begun. Who will liberate Americans from Washington’s clutches?

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.  His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached through his website.

With all this in context, millions of American citizens no longer have the same human rights as the rest of the nation. Your rights have been steadily eroded since the 1990’s. An assortment of Republican and Democrat Presidents have seen to this through the unconstitutional federal Bradley Amendment as well. You are continuing to lose your ‘human rights,’ as you sleep, hoping against all hope for a better tomorrow, without doing a thing.

US Child Support: The Loaded Gun

Where child support law is concerned skeptics abound. However, the attitude of the court flies in the face of the law ideal that you are “innocent until proven guilty.” You are guilty because the court log says you are. You are late in paying support, no excuses accepted. The nation in the grip of an economic crisis has no bearing in their view on your personal situation. Your ability to afford an attorney even though the cost is prohibitive at best is not their concern. Even after the court has determined that a “payor” has legitimately lost his job or suffered an involuntary decrease in salary for any reason, the court system of oppression is not content. They assume you are a shiftless, lazy, deceptive person that wants to take every opportunity to leach money from others and that you purposefully intend that you will not pay child support unless they squeeze you hard enough. The inquiry into your work condition and personal circumstances never ends once the child support amount is NOT received exactly on time.

The system doesn’t care about your personal difficulties, or even if you have a place to live or the means to get a job to support the government child support industry. However, if you fail to make a payment or do anything that is insisted that you do, you do yourself an injustice by letting them rake you over the coals without any opposition, or without so much as a response or communication. Giving up is giving up on yourself. Negatively speaking, they intend to bring the full burden of law against you if they can, to make the prospect of your life worse. The idea is that they intend fill you with fear, and that fear is what will get you to comply whether you are able or not. They will inquire continually as to what steps the child support “payor” has taken to secure new employment or to address the reduction in income. In other words, once you have a court order for child support, they expect you to pay the full amount no matter what or there will be hell to pay with financial and physical oppression as they deem appropriate. The court will be unsympathetic and skeptical, even when the “payor” has become disabled and cannot work. The contempt the court has for “payors” who were unable to reverse the downturn in their financial position is aptly demonstrated by the trial judge’s choice words for the “payor”:

“The court finds that the defendant has no intention of finding substantial employment in his or any other field. This court finds that defendant has found his niche in this world, in that he is maintaining a high lifestyle without having to work for it. To use the vernacular, he has made it. This court finds that defendant is content to sit back and become a complete human parasite…permitting a succession of fiancées, friends and relatives to provide for him so as to enable him to live in and maintain a lifestyle commensurate with his self-imposed high standard of living, while his children are reduced to the status of virtual beggars. He professes love and concern for them, yet this court finds a complete lack of same. Defendant’s application for modification of child support is denied.” (Harris v. Harris, 235 NJ Super 434 (Ch.Div. 1989)

Proving a legitimate decrease in income is not enough. The “payor” must show that he has actively sought to redress the situation and that he continues to do so:

“[O]ne cannot find himself in, and choose to remain in, a position where he has diminished or no earning capacity and expect to be relieved of or to be able to ignore the obligations of support to one’s family. We do not scold defendant for the loss of his previous job. What we do say is that this apparently able-bodied defendant cannot sit back and allow his child to go without support, while he somewhat complacently waits for a job only in his field.”

In cases where the “payor” has been terminated from his job, the “payor” is expected to provide a list of all employers to which he has applied since the termination. Copies of job applications should be attached as exhibits, together with call back or rejection letters from potential employers. They intend to make your non-compliance and life-reversal as painful and difficult as possible. Business owners who have suffered from decreased business should explain with specificity the steps they have taken to foster new business through advertisement, solicitation, and client incentives, or to decrease business expenses by making across the board cuts. “Payors” who were employed in a specific niche should explain the limitations on their employability and why they may not be attractive to various employers outside their given field. In the event a “payor” totally abandons his prior field and changes careers, the “payor” must be ready to justify this career change as the best alternative under the circumstances, and only after attempting unsuccessfully to find employment in his prior field and at his prior income.

A well-worded acquaintance of mine referred to United States law making in this way: “If a certain ideology wants unauthorized Constitution power, or wants to overcome rights forbidden by the Bill of Rights, then let the faction obtain a consensus and change the law under Article Five. It is unacceptable to use rationalization and sophistry for judicial activist law-making from the bench. It is unacceptable to establish progressive precedence and then capriciously use stare decisis to persist with an unconstitutional agenda.”

As it stands, when deciding modification applications for even the most just purposes, judges will demand more than “conclusory statements” about the state of the economy without any detail as to how the economy has specifically affected a particular applicant’s job or business. You will have to walk the plank. When you find yourself in difficulty, you will find yourself on trial in the face of bad attitudes across the board. You are useless trash to the system because you have not delivered the required demands of the system in place. This and actions like it against American citizens are part of an ongoing eugenics movement that wants to control not only what they view as undesirables, but also to control the children of the nation as much as possible. You may want to live a peaceful life, but that isn’t what they want. They seek to eliminate the slum elements of society or those that refuse to comply eagerly with their demands. They want you to be eager to satisfy their demands. The rights of an American citizen and the protections afforded him or her are ignored, and disregarded wholesale. That is the dark legal world that Americans live in since the advent and corruption of the legal system through the ‘myth of legal precedence.’  The terms of the past is exactly what is required for all time until your obligation is spent. As far as adherents of legal precedence are concerned, you are a slave of the system without a way out, no matter what. After all, it’s your life, not theirs. You exist to be exploited based on whatever terms the system deems fit. Whether this is ‘legal exploitation’ or not matters not a whit. The Constitution no longer matters. We live in a brave new world. That is the legal spawn of the Bradley Amendment and legal precedence.

Human Slavery & Trafficking in the USA

US Child Support: The Loaded Gun by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.

Human Rights and Child Support in the U.S.

The concept of child support was originally designed to be dynamic and flexible, going up and down as parental income changed. This is no longer the case. The Bradley Amendment has become an anathema to human rights propogated by the U.S. government, presented as responsible parenting and care for children. The reality is that the system promotes fear and the trampling down of human rights on multiple levels.

Child Support has become a national battleground for human rights that is being ignored in the United States. The United States cannot stand as a champion of human rights. In the case of the family and parents, non-custodial parents have become an oppressed and distressed object of  political disdain, designed for political support and convenience through the division of families, often augmented by controlling maternal sociopaths. 

Non-custodial parents have become social targets of envy and jealousy. The social, financial envy and oppression of parents has become big business to government and business alike.  Coupled with the criminalization of poverty in the United States, oppressed and distressed parents that become unemployed or have life-changing events fall into a government-ordained economic and social trap as the wealthy of the nation look away or promote as a device for their own personal satisfaction. There is a grass-roots movement to change the oppression of human rights in America. Someone does care and has been taking action, whether you approve of their methods or not.

 

The Reality of Parental Alienation Blight

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

“I don’t care if the judges and the lawyers die of heart attacks in the process of getting their job done. They are corrupt, inefficient, lazy, stupid — they’re the most God-awful people.” These are the words of popular actor Alec Baldwin after a minefield experience in the U.S. family courts. Regardless of how many men have felt the same way, Alec Baldwin finally lends a voice to abused men in the court system.

According to ABC News, Baldwin believes that many family court lawyers and their manipulations and delays make the child custody duel much worse than it needs to be. “The judges are like pit bosses in Vegas casinos. Their job is to make sure everybody stays at the table and keeps gambling.”

The casino reference is based on the fact that the family court debacle is neverending: a heartrending, expensive and impossible situation for most men, particularly when the “little ex” proves to be vindictive and abusive, even turning children against fathers.

Most divorced dads have become strangely familiar with a national disease referred to as parental alienation syndome. In most cases, nothing could have prepared newly divorced dads for what they would face in the land of the free and home of the brave.

Yet, neither freedom or bravery come to mind as men are continually beat down by a system that dispassionately disregards men as nothing more than beasts of burden. Thoughts of leaving the country, sinking into the mires of endless depression or ending life are common responses to the negative reenforcement that the federal government and judges across the board show divorced men. Baldwin was so distraught that he lashed out hysterically at his daughter in a famous phone call promoted by the national media. While Baldwin might have been a little over the top, he creates a national identity for abused dads in a system that favors only women and children coupled with the political expedience that continues to destroy the family long after the family is dissolved.

This tale is not one of complaint, but one of real hope and change. Men are not debris in a maternally-ordered society. America has built itself up as a champion of freedom. Recent years of corruptive politics and negative press have turned politics and family courts into a socialist regime, undermining the freedom and civil beauty that made the idea of the United States great. Society has corrupted itself, fashioning the tools of order into weapons of abusive emotion and policy grounded in nothing more than entitlement attitudes. Feminists and other socially-oriented individuals and corporate bodies have promoted children’s rights over any other in the vain attempt for power and influence to radicalize the political scene in their favor.

Insane jealousy and hatred always need vindication. For the last thirty years, America has become a hotbed of everything it used to hate: unconstitutional laws and hurtful abusive policy that eliminate human and civil rights instead of promoting them. Until America resolves these laws and works to reverse the blight of parental alienation, the nation has no right to promote itself as a lover of freedom and human rights to the world regarding the lack of freedom and oppression that it actively promotes. Until this blight of parental alienation is reversed and the Bradley Amendment is repealed, we are a nation of hypocrites. ~ E. Manning

Read an excerpt from Alec Baldwin’s new book.

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.

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.