Click For Obama is asking all Obama supporters to help us raise funds by clicking on our website sponsors. Just click, visit the site, and click out. We can raise $100,000 dollars for the month of November 09.Times are tough and money is tight, but if you Click For Obama we can generate funds without having to pay one penny. Click here then click around the sites links. Tell your friends and make this link viral.Thank you,
Click For Obama Team
Imagine if you will a nightmarish situation in which you or a loved one get ill; and even though you are covered by an employer-based health insurance plan, a treatment that will prevent a lifetime disability or even save your life is withheld by the plan, because they call the treatment "experimental" or "medically unnecessary" -- even though your doctors say otherwise!
Now compound the terror that scenario dredges up, from within your most deep-seated instincts of self-preservation, with the prospect of your not being able to sue the health plan for making such a devastating decision. In other words, there would be no downside to the plan for their denial of even life-saving care (other than the public relations mess stirred up by all-too-infrequent articles like this); in fact, there would, of course, be a great financial incentive to simply deny your care, your life be damned.
The fact is, health insurance companies administering employer-based health plans -- the very private insurance plans covering most Americans, even under the health reform bills being considered by Congress -- have that "license to kill": It is contained in Section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA -- little known to most Americans but very profitably exploited by health insurance companies, costing many people their life savings or even their lives (and shifting the costs of caring for those injured and abandoned by their plans onto state Medicaid rolls).
Corporations are NOT people.. NOT in the United States of America. If they WERE… they would have been MORE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE, ETHICAL, ACCOUNTABLE, LIABLE.
Think about the actions of corporations over the last few decades. Business that made it's fortunes on the backs of the American WORKERS and infrastructure paid for by the American TAXPAYER... decided to pay us back by moving to Mexico or Asia and the greener fields of SLAVE WAGE LABOR and unregulated toxic waste dumping.... The American PEOPLE will be watching Court decisions on this matter… Patriotism or Profit? Let the Supreme Court know you thoughts on this matter PLEASE! email gpoaccess@gpo.gov or call (888)293-6498 Forward to all your contacts... Thank you jinnbad.blogspot.com
9-9-09 upside down is 666,,, lol!
I'M JOKING, ya bunch of weak, humorless STIFFS!
Update 9-5-09 Obama/Biden Administration is showing WEAKNESS and the right-wing predators have NOTICED!Obama/Biden accepts the resignation from Van Jones? Are you kidding me? WHAT… are we putting down people who happen to have the COURAGE (balls) to be honest and speak their minds? The Republicans ARE assholes! (but most people are AFRAID to say it)So Van Jones made comments and statements that the Conservatives don’t like… well boo #*~/’n hoo. I can’t think of a Bush/Cheney Administration official or appointee that DIDN’T say things that made me want to put my boot into a TV screen. How come they never had to walk on eggshells or resign? I’ve been to protest rallies/marches all over the nation and at every one of them I've met a communist or socialist somewhere in the crowd. DOES THAT MAKE ME A bad guy?
I got copies of The Militant, People’s Weekly World, The Grassroots Press and the War Crimes Times in my files. (I think history has shown quite clearly that those who use the uncomplimentary communist label to destroy others are the worst kind of CONTROL by AUTHORITY FASCISTS)Speaking of War Crimes, WHO on the Left hasn’t thought or considered that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job? (Anyone’s who watched the movie “Zeitgeist”) Look into George W. Bush‘s eyes as he was sitting in that class room on 9/11. COME ON! One has GOT TO ADMIT something stinks. Especially with guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld in power and all that super secret, black op, highly paid military contractor, Neo-Con bullshit going on…Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that if Van Jones was a highly knowledgeable, right man for the job… WHY THE #*~/ SHOULD WE CARE WHAT THE MEDIA OR THE RIGHT-WING THINKS? Is this what Obama/Biden are all about… IMAGE rather than accomplishment?If Obama/Biden needs help with controlling BULLIES then I’m still open to an offer $… On the other hand maybe I should quit politics because I’m starting to dislike Democrats almost as much as the Republicans. if you don't have the ciones to fight... YOU SHOULD NOT BE IN POWER! (At the very least hire someone who does)
I’m going to give ONE more FREE example how hiring Conscious Man Consultants will solve the Conservative/Republican problem. We can put a specialized, personalized plan of action in motion that will keep the right-wing occupied attacking US instead of Obama/Biden Administration officials… (just in case you people actually want to do all those things Obama has been speaking about since 2007) PREMISE:Conservatives seemed to have LOST THEIR MINDS! From the local level to national spokespersons, even in the Halls of Congress, it’s nothing but FEAR and SMEAR. No new ideas, nothing good to say, nothing good to do. Only rabid hate and criticism of Obama/Biden, Democrats, Progressives and Liberals. Like a mad dog ready to attack anything that gets in it’s way.NOTE: This whole mad, hoo-hah paranoia Conservatives are making about Obama’s speech to elementary kids is the straw that broke the camels back. These people are f*~/'n INSANE!People in the age group have told me that when they were in school classes were stopped for the OJ trial verdict, aggghhhhhhagggg! AND YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS ARE upset about President Obama addressing the children in the beginning of their school year, ENCOURAGING the youth to make the best of their education?Many of these Conservative nutcases are on the verge of violent acts against all us COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS IN THE TRENCHES doing all the organizing legwork for Obama/Biden and the Democrats. WE NEED YOUR PROTECTION AND LOVE! (or at least let us defend ourselves WITHOUT law enforcement interference and criminal prosecution)The Obama Justice Department needs to (GROW A PAIR) draw the line and INVESTIGATE! Barack Obama getting elected President was NOTHING SHORT OF A REVOLUTION and the Obama people BETTER START TO REALIZE IT! CHANGE is not just a word in a speech to us, IT’S OUR LIVES! If YOU Democrats can't provide IT, then there's going to be a for real revolution... AND IT WON'T BE PRETTY!
I warned you #*!~/s a year ago what would happen how you should come out of the starting gate STRONG… (READ MY OLD POSTS)
You should of held Bush/Cheney ACCOUNTABLE for their incompetent/criminal foreign, domestic and reckless economic polices from the start. BUT Noooooo… you pussies had to play NICE, all that bullshit about compromise and working with the Republicans. BAIL THEM OUT!Now look at the pitiful, mindless bullshit we have to deal with everyday. The very people who’s legacies Obama and the Democrats saved by voting for the Bush/Paulson Bailout are now using some of that money to work AGAINST the Obama administration. GETTING IN THE WAY OF OUR HOPES, OUR DREAMS, OUR CHANGE! motherfuckers! You cowards AVOIDED the FIGHT that would have made Obama/Biden GREAT!I can’t take this vile nonsense anymore. While Barack and Michele Obama are looking good for the media AND Ivory Tower crowd.. out here in the REAL WORLD the bullshit is almost unbearable and the economy REALLY SUCKS. It’s comes at me from all sides…EXAMPLE:I was doing some consulting work for a friend recently. While completing the job at the house of our customers, I noticed the dart board out on their back patio with a picture of Nancy Pelosi attached over the bulls eye. I asked the couple about it and they started on a rant about how much they despised Rep. Pelosi.Mind you this is NOT in California, so the couple knew only what the Conservative propagandists told them. No facts, no statistics, no legislative content, no legitimate cases or concrete examples… they just hated Nancy Pelosi and that was all there was to it. The lady of the house told me she just hates that stupid look on Nancy Pelosi’s face every time she talks to the media. (yea, stupid look) I was looking into the lady's smiling blank eyes… (it reminded me of Sarah Palin)Now these people are not some ignorant, southern state rubes. He was an engineer and she a retired teacher. They lived in a million dollar home on a hilltop with a priceless view and 5 expensive vehicles in the driveway… So I couldn’t UNDERSTAND their thought processes. When the woman said “Glenn Beck is god in this house”, it took my #*~/'n breath away.While we completed the final details of the job I was talking business but in the back of my mind I was screaming at the couple:“Why should I take ANYTHING you people say seriously? Glenn Beck is god? ARE YOU #*~/’n CRAZY? Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity/etc… are your way to justify the SHAMELESS HYPOCRISY and unrelenting guilt.(Or what the intelligence community calls “psychological warfare”)You morons voted for Bush/Cheney NOT ONCE but 2 TIMES… YEA, I’ll listen to what you suckers have to say when one, JUST ONE of your Republican leaders stands up and takes RESPONSIBILITY for 8 years of Bush/Cheney waste, fraud, abuse, incompetence, scandal, corruption, reckless economics, war profiteering, constitutional violations…”The man told me how the NEW and improved Republican Party had nothing to do with Bush/Cheney, whom he thought strayed from Conservative principles… (I didn't know they had any...)If it wasn’t that my friend had a lot of money riding on this deal, I would have grabbed the man of the house and tried to slap some sense into him.You can’t just separate yourselves from the elected officials YOU VOTED into power. Especially since your Republican Party isn’t offering ANYTHING different from the past mistakes and collusions. You brainwashed motherfuckers need to STOP, take a step BACK and re-think your situation. YOU CAN’T WIN! Right-wing assholes can shoot and blow up every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive you pious peons come across and WE’LL STILL BE THE MAJORITY! NO matter WHAT that asshole Glenn Beck tells you…“all politics is local politics” Tip O’Neil No one can save the Republican Party from itself… NOT the 20% of idiots that STILL support them, NOT the bought off media/news, NOT Radio Free Conservative or FOX News, NOT the police state, NOT the skinheads, NOT all the wealth YOUR LEADERS LET SLIP AWAY!Maybe Conservatives should just stick to local politics for now (get rid of your mayor or something small time like that. Remember what Frankie Sinatra said: “if you can make it there you make it anywhere”, lol) and stay the f*~/ out of national picture until the LEFT-WING (once again) FIXES THE MESS REPUBLICANS IRRESPONSIBLY LEFT FOR THEM!
as posted on blog: Comedy for Organizers, boatrockers....
jinnbad.blogspot.com
It may appear to be a cliffhanger for Obama’s appointment to the Supreme Court, but the word from the Washington Post Tuesday is, that with the assistance of Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, the one lone Republican and the twelve Democrats of the Senate Judicial Committee finally confirmed Sonya Sotomayor for the Supreme Court! That means six Republicans said no. Graham says that he feels good about Sotomayor. Speaking on judges, he said that “sometimes they have left our ideals down”. And they have often seen the larger picture through the Constitution, when many of us weren’t able to move away from our beliefs. He said the questioning of Sessions, although he was entitled to his inquiries, will tend to run individuals away, who would be good judges.
He said that his colleagues of the Senate Judicial Committee “have a chance to respond” and “being a judge is different”, “the law should be a quiet and unpopular place” because something more than 50+1 is going on. He referred to Sotomayor as “competent, not just qualified”, “left of center” “of good character” and pointed out that her 12-year record doesn’t show activism. The other story is that the speeches and advocacy needed to be put into context of what she was talking about, did bug the hell out of him, but she embraces her ability to speak on an opinion even though it may not be the position that he would take. “We are 200 years old as a nation and the fact that she is the first Hispanic woman to be chosen is very important”, “she meets the qualifications test”. If she can inspire other Latina women to seek law as a profession then America would be moving forward and a better nation for having done so.
Depending on whom you read, there is rumor that if Republicans block her nomination, they will have hell to pay in their Hispanic districts. Mind you these guys still have to go home and run for their positions. Others say that they are staying true to their base (conservatives) by looking at Sotomayor through moderate glasses. So hopefully the rest of the voting will be a formality at best for the rest of the Senate. The Supreme Court convenes in September so Judge Sista Girl, and I do mean this affectionately, can take her place, as one of newest human rights liberals, on the nine member high bench. I can see Judge Roberts, and crew reaching for the Maalox.
Sotomayor is only 55-years-old, appears to be in great health, has spunk and many years left to live (looking at the perseverance and sacrifice of her mom). We can only hope Sotomayor will continue reviewing cases and passing down her judgments as she has done for the past 17 years as a federal judge. Sotomayor will be replacing Judge Suter who was appointed by Bush
The conservative base of the Republican Party is disagreeing with Graham. They believe she is disguising her views and guarding her personal views. Now if you were in the running for a judgeship and there stood a chance that your personal views may direct your judgment, would you send off firecrackers and a strobe light to forewarn this squeamish bunch? After all of these caustic statements, is that all they have come up with?
I don’t think so. . . .There is still rumor though that there will be a last minute shockwave of revelation, but many pundits believe this is the usual Republican drama being played out, to keep us watching the CSPAN proceedings. And you can bet there are a few of us making time to watch the saga unfold.
She may not ideologically change the balance of the court, however, I’m sure she can write some hellfire responses. She is the third woman and the first Latina to be a member of the all boys club. Wow! Obama, will everything you touch create continual drama? Well, at least, they are paying close attention. Viva La Raza Sotomayor! Viva! Viva!
REFERENCES:
Picture from: http://www.voanews.com
http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=10812499
http://www.truthout.org/061009A
I understand the arguments and how our troops in additional harm's way and additional stain to our national image at a time when we are just starting to recover face in the world's eyes does us no justice.
At the same time, this has to be addressed-
The American taxpayer paid for and is still paying for Iraq...
June 2, 2009
FALSE ALARM NO. 2 - WHO WILL JOIN THE PARTY OF NAME CALLING AND UNPATRIOTIC BACKSTABBERS? WHO?
It’s another False Alarm. But I’ll tell you who will join em; the Voters who hate, scream, back-stab and who is unpatriotic; Wrong, o.k. how about the Voter that wanted a woman for President; Wrong again, o.k. how about the Voter who is a die-hard Republican for better or for worse, I’m still Wrong, huh? Then, who? What type of Voter does this type of screaming and name calling? What type of Voter wants the President to fail at all our expense and costs? The Boys who are crying wolf.
Shall I tell you that its o.k. to disrespect and name call our women, children or President of the United States? No. No, it is not o.k. to disrespect, women, children and our President of the United States. And no Radio Personality namely Rush Limbaugh or any other type Persons have the right nor shall be allowed to degrade, shout absurdities or attack and defame character of our women, children and President of the United States and Supreme Court Justice woman nominee.
There is no Freedom of Speech to do this type of defamation, slander and lies at all; its only blown out of proportion by The Boy Crying Wolf and over used by haters, naysayers and people who want to gain some sort of power and notoriety for themselves. The Freedom of Speech has been over blown and over used to name call and create a mockery out of people’s lives and people’s personal and private drama for years.
Constructive criticisms are welcomed and especially welcomed if you have a better solution and position. But just shouting, name calling, screaming, threatening and mouthing off rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric is sounding off about nothing (especially past nothings) is like the boy who cries wolf. It gets a little tiring and boring to hear and its gets old.
How dare we Voters allow this Unpatriotic Radio Personality to verbally abuse our President of the United States and verbally abuse and verbally attack our Supreme Court Justice woman nominee. How dare we allow this Rush Limbaugh guy to disrespect and call the Supreme Court Justice woman nominee a horrible name. We women especially should be very upset and outraged and come to her defense.
We voted our new President into office and we will live with our vote the next four years. And no one, no t.v., no radio personality shall be immune from reprimand of his shouts of absurdities, nor defame of characterizations of our President of these United States or our nominee for Supreme Court Justice. PERIOD.
Let’s put a stop to this Boy-Crying-Wolf. Let’s put a stop to this false, false, false alarm, number 2 is it? The first false alarm was shouted by Republican Chairman Michael Steele. Yeah, he was the Boy Who Cried Wolf number 1.
Sincerely,
The Supreme Court nominee, Diane Wood, that Obama is entetaining in the news, needs to be properly vetted for her political affiliations. It is concerning that Ms. Wood is included on the short list of some radical feminist websites, and Ms. Woods should be excluded from consideration for the postion of Judge at any level if it turns out that she does advocate Radical Feminist ideology.
The constitution and laws of the United States purportedly support marriage and parental rights, but in reality these precepts are undermined by whores of Radical Feminism that pervades our courts. "Whore" is a word that evolved from the prehistoric Germanic word 'hraz' meaning "one who desires" to the later christainized meaning "adulterer." The feminine of this, 'hrn', became 'hre' in Old English, the ancestor of Modern English word 'whore'. Modern meanings include: 1) A prostitute. 2) A person considered sexually promiscuous. 3) A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. Promiscuous was long defined as lewd conduct or any sex outside of marriage, a similar meaning exists today for sex outside of a committed relationship. Whoredom was frequently the basis or grounds for a divorce, in accordance with biblical precepts. A very strict definintion of whore would be any sex outside of marriage, thus all prostitutes are whores, but not all whores prostitutes. An exceedingly strict view of prostitute would only exempt married persons who avail themselves to thier spouse with no conditions or restrictions, as many relationships exist where sex is often playfully bartered as a reward for something, such as a gift, cash, or mowing the lawn.. a practice even within marriage. No fault divorce ignores grounds for divorce, so a woman seeking divorce for the desire to have sex outside of marriage (whoredom) has the same legal standing as an abandoned loyal, faithfu,l wife, or a woman who was abused, neglected or mistreated in a marriage. No fault divorce takes no account of which party violated the marriage contract, nor which party was injured by the breech of marriage contract. Radical feminism proclaims all women are the abused, exploited, coerced victims of all men, and in so doing has reduced all women to the status of trafficked whores and prostitutes, which is essentially the Radical Feminist definition of marriage. Radical Feminism diseminates propaganda to target and villify all men as abusers, with women a privildged victim class with special rights and benefits. This is exactly the same propaganda used by the Woman's Klan to justify slavery and often violent discrimination of blacks, who were portrayed as irresponsible, aggessive, hostile beasts, who basically needed to be beat down to protect 'white womanhood'. The book Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, was written by MARGARET HAGEN, PhD. She is an expert in this field, and teaches Psychology, Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychology at Boston University. Her book provides an excellent analysis of venal ’whores’, usually feminists, who work for the courts and provide biased, fabricated, and false testimony. Many family courts consist of layers of lawyers, judges, therapists, counseling, visit centers and other venal whores who's livihood is spewing radical feminist ideology that advocates divorce and single parent motherhood as preferable to marriage, paternity, shared parenting, or fatherhood as it is alleged by our laws. In effect, whoremongering courts may easily reverse the intent and meaning of laws purporting to support marriage and fatherhood, by merely trotting out their favored whores, who provide biased, lewd , vulgar or unsupported testimony in favor of maternal custody over shared parenting. Child Custody, is the main determinant to the distribution of marital assets, the house, and the future income of both parents. Feminist whores consistently advocate sole or majority of custody to women, because this outcome results in financial benefits to the mothers, and funding to the other whores, whoremongers and thier feminist programs. Despite the word whore more often used to describe women, it applies equally to men, no differently than would adultery. In American society, and especailly the media, whoring is so common and accepted, it is now regarded like a recreation or sport, or lifestyle which one should aspire to, and barely has the negative stigma it did years ago. Even adultery barely registers as vice in the TV media driven morals of today. We as a nation, should however take care how we cross that fine line of tolerating vs. advocating whoredom as a cultural value. Whoredom is directly opposite to the social units of marriage, family and paternity upon which civilization is based. Poverty, crime, violence, disease, unemployment, illiteracy, early death are social ills spawned largely in the matriarchal ghettos of most major cities in the world. Father absence is the cause of these social ills, and not fatherhood, as coniving feminists would have you think. Many credible studies conclude violence, and to a lesser degree crime, are behaviors learned as children, from mothers and not fathers. It is the absence of fathers that is most directly linked to poverty and every other measure of social decay that radical feminism malignantly spreads. A whoremongering judicial system that that advocates and encourages divorce, sole custody, and whoredom over marriage and paternity directly conflicts with laws which allege just the opposite.
Marriage represents a substantial risk to men. Investing in a family is likely the most substantial investment of time and effort a man can make. Women typically 'win' no-fault divorces, and walk away with everything including the house, the marital savings, the car, the children, and even his future earnings. Men prudently view marriage as a unilateral debt obligation that women may 'cash in' at any time, and leave men broke and distressed over the loss of children. Accumulation of marital assets such as home equity could be viewed as detrimental as it provides incentives for the wife to divorce. Renting, secret acounts, or concealment of finances may be viewed as a financial hedging strategy for divorce risk. The decision to be a single custodial parent is largely a financial choice made by women who perceive a benefit from filing a divorce or declining a marriage. Marriage represents risk uncertainty to women, while government programs (Child Support Collections, ADF, etc) are a sure thing. The security of government programs is more attractive than the uncertainty of getting or staying married, they are a government divorce incentive system. In some jurisdictions, 80% or more of divorces are filed by women. This is opposite to feminist propaganda that portrays typical divorces as a 1950's era phenomenon of the husband running off with the cute young secretary. Women are divorcing to secure financial benefits for themselves. The U.S.C.B. reports (Pub. P60-230) that 83.1% of sole custodial parents are female, and this knowedge is the assurance to women that she can file with high confidence in the outcome. The divorce incentive system works for women because the expectation of winning most or sole custody. It must be known that the no-fault divorce petition will most probably exclude the husband from the family for women to make this choice. This is 100% opposite to a request upon the judge for permission to leave the family, as divorces are portrayed by feminist propagandists. If women percieved a high probability of shared custody, shared assets and no support payments this would proportionally reduce the financial incentives of divorce. Margaret F. Brinig, in "These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women", describes "expectation of sole custody" and its effect on divorce filing decisions. Much of the analysis is biased, for example it presumes all reports of 'cruelty' made in a divorce are true. It still provides some fairly reasonable conclusions: "filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce..... We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, .... custody coefficients were the largest by far, family law reformers may want to concentrate on formulating custody rules that will alter the spouses’ relative gains from marriage." In other words, they did a study, ran a regression on divorce filers, and found that that child custody was by far the largest determinant causing the divorce. The parent that gets cusody is almost always the parent that files for divorce. If skewed determinants such as 'reported cruelty' were dropped the custody determinant would likely increase further.
The basic premise underlying the women's studies - radical feminist perspective concerning fathers is that they view dads as inherently bad parents, and only useful to provide income payments to women, and programs run feminists and feminist ideology. Radical feminists oppose marriage and the 'traditional' 2 parent family. Men are berated and profiled as 'Deadbeat Dads' , regarded little more than child support slaves, and 'irresponsible' for not providing women and the feminist nanny state with income sufficient to meet their demands. This logic breaks down on many levels, the least of which is the fact that non-custodial moms tend to be even more behind on child support than non-custodial men. A rational analysis of the child support issue is more helpful in explaining the child support problem than is the typical feminist demagoguery that claims to own the issue. Page 40 of The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments By William S. Comanor addresses the phenomenon of the 'Deadbeat Dad' starting with the welfare scenerio. Dads pay money to the state, and AFDC pays the mother, and there simply is no incentives for a father to pay support thru the system. Every $1 paid contributes $0 additional benefit to the child. Only payments 'under the table' directly to the mother or child have any real benefit to the child.
Populist 'Child Support Civil Disobedience' reaches a similar conclusion. Many Non-Custodial-Parent's (NCP) argue that all parents should and do have a responsibility to care for thier child, but that making payments to the state is the least responsible course of action, because doing so funds a corrupt and evil machine that feeds off of the destruction of families, and keeps parents away from children. This argument further holds that the only 'real' support a NCP gives a child is the time and money actually spent with, and on a child. In other words, the forced 'child support payment' to the state has little or no benefit to the child, while 'direct' payments such as time and money spent during 'visits', going on outings, buying the child clothing, schools supplies, etc.. is viewed as the only 'real' means to satisfy a parent's moral obligation to support their child. The book by Comanor explains 'Child Support Civil Disobedience' phenomenon thru an analysis of the difference between individual and collective consumption preferences. In a marriage, many 'collective' economic decisions are made by parents, which reflect not only the individual preference of each parent, but each parents concern for the 'collective' preferences of the household. Likewise, the amount each parent allocates to spend on the child is likewise dependant upon collective resources. Child support payments raise the income of the custodial parent, thus raising the consumption preference of that parent, so that only a portion of the NCP's child support payment is now allocated to the child. Each $1 dollar of NCP support payment is no longer $1 going to the child, but rather only a fraction now gets apportioned to the child, with the remainder enhancing the consumption of the CP due to the increased income. Thus, the NCP views 'off the books' support payments directy to or on the child as the only 'real' dollar for dollar contribution to the child, while forced state run 'child support payments' are viewed as contributing little or nothing to the child. In the case of high conflict divorce, a NCP’s state run 'child support payment' may be viewed as doing nothing at all for their child. The Wall Street Journal published a recent study showing the average legal fees for divorce to be about $78,000. In other words a $500/month child support payment by the NCP to the CP would in turn only make payments on the legal fees (assuming 0% interest). In this example it would take 13 years to payoff typical legal fees needed to 'win' the custody battle and resulting child support payment. Thus the $1 of 'lawyer support' payment goes to creating the non-custodial parent = $0 benefit to the child. The cost of a typical custody dispute legal fees is also about the cost of sending a child to a decent college for 4 years. Both the consumption preference and expenditures on children by the NCP must diminish accordingly.
A custodial parent frequently must enroll a child in daycare, hire a babysitter or other paid supervision after divorce, to replace the child caring role of the NCP who has restricted contact after divorce. In this scenario the 'support payments' do not enhance, but instead decrease the benefit to the child. This is a transfer of both the income and the role of the NCP to a third party, often against the wishes and preferences of the NCP. When a NCP shares the care of a child, he may have preferences to vountarily care for the child and spend say $500 a month on the child, and the child directly benefits $500 and quality parental care and guidence. When forced out of the family by the state, the forced, involuntary, $500 a month 'support payment' taken from the NCP pays a 3rd party, babysitter or other minimum wage quality caregiver, to replace the father's natural preference to care for the child. In this common scenerio the child recieves $0 benefit from this transfer. The child is actually deprived the $500 benefit previously provided willingly by the NCP, and quality parental time is replaced by lower quality institutional care. Matching federal funds, and other programs funded by removing one parent is a main source of income to the often corrupt and abusive family law 'machine' that profits from, and is responsible for, divorce incentives and destruction of parental bonds. States are beneficiaries of a federal program (42 U.S.C. 658a) that pays them money in proportion to the size of their Child Support programs, which is dependent on the number of divorces. More divorces or more single parent households with child support payments = more money for states. Creating sole or unequal custody results in greater child support collections, and also increases the 'kickback' earned by the states and courts. States have an incentive to preserve the preference for mothers in sole custody awards, in order to enhance the numbers of divorce, and the inbalance of custody awards, as both enhances income to the states, and directly enhances funding of the Judge’s salary. The need to strike down 42 U.S.C. 658a is a no-brainer. There should never be a financial incentive for states to destroy families, period. If the federal government really wants to do something to help families or children, it should simply provide funding on a straight and simple per capita basis of the numbers of children residing in a state, a simple dollar per child funding program. If any 'incentives' are offered, they should be in the form of a bonus for reduced administrative and legal costs, and rewarding states that allocate the most money directly to children and families that need it the most.Rather than viewing child support as a sort of competetion between states on who can generate the most support payments, we should view child support payments as a last resort, and a very poor substitute for direct parental care. We should view collection of child support payments as an example of a failure in our society, and one of those necessary evils that we may have to tolerate in some instances, but our efforts should try to minimize, rather than encourage child support payments.
Supreme Court appointment:
At this time, I would officially ask the former Bush administration for their list of candidates for Supreme Court; get everyone to work really hard on that list of possibilities, the key word being WORK.
Hopefully, it will-not make/drive anyone who does not yet have a meaningful Health-care option to have a nervous breakdown first.
It’s become a depressingly predictable event. Every few months, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a branch of the US Department of Justice, releases new figures showing that the US prison and jail population has grown yet again and has reached a new all-time high. The latest statistics, released last week, show that as of June 30, 2008, more than 2.3 million people were behind bars in this country — an increase of almost 20 percent just since 2000. This gives the United States an incarceration rate of 762 per 100,000 residents - the highest rate in the world, dwarfing those of other democracies like Great Britain (152 per 100,000), Canada (116), and Japan (63).
The aforementioned is quoted from an article appearing within the Huffington Post, entitled: “Prison Nation” and authored by David C. Fathi. This ever increasing prison population demands immediate action as to “why” our country is producing so many incarcerated individuals within our society and “how” can prevent this increasing trend of penalized peoples.
Mr. Fathi’s article also sites:
Of course incarceration doesn’t affect everyone equally. Black men in the United States are 6.6 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated. More than 10 percent of all black males ages 25 to 39 were in prison or jail as of June 30, 2008. And a 2006 BJS study showed that prisons and jails have become the new asylums, with more than half of all prisoners suffering from mental health problems like major depression and psychotic disorders.It wasn’t always like this. For much of the 20th century, the US incarceration rate remained fairly stable. It began to climb sharply in the late 1970s, as a result of policy changes like mandatory minimum sentencing and the widespread abolition of parole. In the 1980s and 1990s, the “war on drugs” and “three strikes” laws fueled further growth. More people were going to prison, and staying there for longer periods of time. By 2004, the incarcerated population was six times what it had been in 1972.Contrary to popular belief, the growing prison population has little or nothing to do with an increase in crime. In fact, crime rates fell steadily between 1991 and 2006, eventually reaching levels not seen since the 1960s. Yet the incarceration rate increased by more than 50 percent in that same period. It’s clear, then, that political choice, not crime, has given the United States its massive prison and jail population.
Of course incarceration doesn’t affect everyone equally. Black men in the United States are 6.6 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated. More than 10 percent of all black males ages 25 to 39 were in prison or jail as of June 30, 2008. And a 2006 BJS study showed that prisons and jails have become the new asylums, with more than half of all prisoners suffering from mental health problems like major depression and psychotic disorders.
It wasn’t always like this. For much of the 20th century, the US incarceration rate remained fairly stable. It began to climb sharply in the late 1970s, as a result of policy changes like mandatory minimum sentencing and the widespread abolition of parole. In the 1980s and 1990s, the “war on drugs” and “three strikes” laws fueled further growth. More people were going to prison, and staying there for longer periods of time. By 2004, the incarcerated population was six times what it had been in 1972.
Contrary to popular belief, the growing prison population has little or nothing to do with an increase in crime. In fact, crime rates fell steadily between 1991 and 2006, eventually reaching levels not seen since the 1960s. Yet the incarceration rate increased by more than 50 percent in that same period. It’s clear, then, that political choice, not crime, has given the United States its massive prison and jail population.
As you can read, our past political environment seems to account for these numbers and hopefully will begin to decrease once attention is directed by our President to these alarming statistics.
Our dysfunctional criminal justice system has been a long time in the making, and no one should have any illusions that it will be fixed overnight. But a National Criminal Justice Commission would be an important first step toward ending our shameful status as the world’s leading prison nation.
The following video presents Janet Reno, former Attorney General in the Clinton Administration presenting her views on concerns within our present day legal system.
Janet Reno: Improving the Legal System
Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:
A couple of months ago (February 2nd to be precise), I authored a posting entitled, “John Yoo A Tough Decision to Defend for the President” regarding the redemption of America’s justice system in wake of all the miscarriages of justice which occurred during the Bush Administration and in particular those pertaining to John Yoo. Yoo was Bush’s lead legal adviser authoring legal memos concerning the treatment, incarceration and trial (hearings) proceedings of Iraqi and Afghan detainees.
Following up on my past posting I’ve learned others share equally in my interest of Mr. Yoo’s all encompassing ability of embarrassing our country in the eyes of the international community. In an article posted within Hoffington Post, Mr. Martin Garbus, a Trial lawyer, authored an article entitled: “The Times May Be Changing” where he states some of the following excerpts:
Now six years after Iraq started, nearly one hundred days into the new presidency, more and more information is coming out about the involvement of the Bush people in Iraq-related criminal acts. The legal memos and the statements of tortured detainees are only the beginning of what will soon be a flood of information. The legal machinery is starting to build, case by case, a rejection of Bush’s legal theories. Today’s decision from Federal Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that those detained in Afghanistan will have access to American courts builds on the recent cases that allow Guantanamo detainees access to the federal court. Judge Bates rejected both the Bush administration’s view and the recently articulated view of President Barack Obama that habeas corpus is not available to imprisoned non-Afghans who are arrested beyond Afghanistan. We are seeing a pattern in the Washington federal courts. The judges are not shying away from tacking tough issues. The concept that a man sitting in Baghram has a right he can enforce in an American court seemed impossible a few years ago. The constant rat-a-tat of the media, with pictures of the tortured prisoners clearly influences judges along with the rest of the population. Judges respond also when the president too set a higher standard. Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who must start the criminal process against Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo and the others. He does not shy away from difficult choices, given backing that lets him know he is not alone. He can, and has, taken positions that are ahead of Obama.
Now six years after Iraq started, nearly one hundred days into the new presidency, more and more information is coming out about the involvement of the Bush people in Iraq-related criminal acts. The legal memos and the statements of tortured detainees are only the beginning of what will soon be a flood of information.
The legal machinery is starting to build, case by case, a rejection of Bush’s legal theories. Today’s decision from Federal Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that those detained in Afghanistan will have access to American courts builds on the recent cases that allow Guantanamo detainees access to the federal court. Judge Bates rejected both the Bush administration’s view and the recently articulated view of President Barack Obama that habeas corpus is not available to imprisoned non-Afghans who are arrested beyond Afghanistan.
We are seeing a pattern in the Washington federal courts. The judges are not shying away from tacking tough issues. The concept that a man sitting in Baghram has a right he can enforce in an American court seemed impossible a few years ago. The constant rat-a-tat of the media, with pictures of the tortured prisoners clearly influences judges along with the rest of the population. Judges respond also when the president too set a higher standard.
Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who must start the criminal process against Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo and the others. He does not shy away from difficult choices, given backing that lets him know he is not alone. He can, and has, taken positions that are ahead of Obama.
Attorney General Holder’s decision today is easier than it was yesterday, and as more and more stories of brutalized prisoners come out, it will get even easier, especially with our President’s recent executive order of allowing wider windows to be opened to the public through the “Freedom of Information Act.
Judge Bates, and the judges before him, including the Supreme Court, have rejected the rationale of Bush’s Attorney General and supporting lawyers that gave the President “unitary powers.”
The public should let Eric Holder and the president know they support criminal prosecution of the Bush people. This may be accomplished by contacting the Department of Justice here.
Not to my knowledge dose any of our elected officials have me on their private contact list, nor have I requested such a privilege be extended to me; however, I do follow our country’s online political news very carefully and I don’t recall either President Obama or our Attorney General, Eric Holder mentioning candidates for Federal Judgeship. I could be wrong?
So, this bring to my mind; why would the Republican members in our Senate ever bring up the issue of rejecting our President’s selections for Federal Judges, “other” than those chosen by the Bush Administration. What a bunch of spoilt children!
I think these boys and girls should devote more of their concentration on solving the ever increasing and pressing problem of the economy than concerns that may happen on the horizon.
My foundation for this argument and posting comes from an article posted on Politico stating the following:
Federal Judges
Republicans warn Obama on judges By MANU RAJU | 3/2/09 6:56 PM EST
President Barack Obama should fill vacant spots on the federal bench with former President Bush’s judicial nominees to help avoid another huge fight over the judiciary, all 41 Senate Republicans said Monday.
In a letter to the White House, the Republican senators said Obama would “change the tone in Washington” if he were to renominate Bush nominees like Peter Keisler, Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond. And they requested that Obama respect the Senate’s constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by seeking their consultation about potential nominees from their respective states.
“Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee,” the letter warns. “And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.”
In other words, Republicans are threatening a filibuster of judges if they’re not happy.
The letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years. Democrats regularly complained that Bush nominated conservative judges without consulting them, then the Republican-controlled Senate ran roughshod over them even if the nominees lacked support from homestate senators. Obama’s lawyer Gregory Craig has begun his outreach with senators about potential nominees, and several Republicans have warned Obama that the quickest way to squander bipartisan goodwill is to nominate far-left judges.
To complement the aforementioned posting the following YouTube video, which brings back many a memories regarding how bitter bipartisan fighting can become when Senators were in disagreement over the confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick.
Judge Leslie Southwick
I watched an HBO special last night called "Right America" it was quite an insight on the beliefs and reasons as to why certain people especially from the south didn't vote correctly on Nov. 4th (namley voted republican) here are some of the reasons given.
1) He's not a man of God he believes in murder. And will ellect all new supreme court judges to support him.
(obviosly the "God Squad" that don't believe in "free will" and dosen't know how the judical system works)
2) I don't like the fact that our taxes are going to go up.
(this was a school teacher, she must be REALLY rich or just watches fox news)
3) He's not an American, he's going to be sworn in using the Qur'an and since those were Muslims that attacked us on 9/11 I think he's in bed with terrorists.
(I think everyone in the south should be sent a version of the Constitution, then when they get past 3rd grade be made to read it, especially the part about only a natural born citizen can become president!)
4) America isn't ready for a black president.
(notably these were NAS-CAR enthusiasts that think going in circles really fast is cool and they also wanted to repeel the woman's right to vote, nuff said)
5) He'll turn this country Socialist just like Hitler and Marx did to Europe!
(What the ...... BLEEP!)
At this point my interest then laughter turned into utter shock. First, Hitler was a fascist and Marx was a communist, which by the way wasn't even living at the world war two stage, I think the name they were grasping for was Stalin! That would be about as far left and far right as you could politically get. Second, The "Evil" word of "Socialism", thanks to the republicans most people in the US think it means communism, it dosen't, it just means "ecconomic equality".
We have a socialist police force & fire service because it's considered good for everyone, why not a socialist health care system. Basic human rights should be covered by the government, my favorite quote, "A government FOR the people BY the people" should include taking CARE of the people.
Now i'm not saying that ALL socialist things are good, we don't need ALL electric power handled by the government but an option might lower some electric bills and maybe water and gas as an option. It would sure stop some summer price hikes when your air is running or winter gas hikes when you need to be warm. Just a thought.
Back to healthcare, my sister-in-law is a republican and my wife and I democrat, last year my wife was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, it took the administration more than two hours to get her to her room and most of that time was filling out paperwork and waiting around for return phone calls from our insurance provider. I asked my sister-in-law, "wouldn't you like to see a free health care system?", she said, "Hell no we have much better healthcare than other countries", lets see. My cousin in England is doctor, i asked him how long it takes, he sent me the form needed to enter an NHS (National Heath Service) hospital.
Name: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date of Birth: xxxxxxxxxxx
NIN: xxxxxxxxxxxxx (stands for National Insurance Number, same as SSN)
Ok, the Dr will be right with you, that's it, done, no phone calls, not more waiting, off to your room.
Everything is on a central database (which no-one has ever hacked by the way, just like a bank, totally secure)
My wife has had her opperation and is now on her chemo and her radiation ($3000 per session, total with insuance $36,000, our insurance paid thank god, total in England $0) She's now taking four perscription drugs everyday one of them costs $105 per pill, thankfully the insuance covers them. I told my cousin what the medication was and he told me, "it doesn't matter what the drug is it's $10.00 per perscription". I asked him what about the $105 pill what if she need 30 of them, he said, "$10.00 per perscription no matter what, 10 pills, 100 pills same price".
"The taxes must be really high to have such a socalist healthcare system?"
5% extra tax and everyone is covered, not even perscription charges for children under 16 and people over 65, they pay nothing at all. I can hear people saying "5%" that's a huge chunk of my money, is it? is it really? think about it, if your employed you pay for a medical plan, A chunk comes out of your pay check each month and your employer pays the difference. Look at your pay stub next time you get paid and calculate how much your paying, it's about on average 2% of your income and your boss foots another 5%, that's 7%, 2% more than what you would pay, 1% on your side plus your employer could pay you more as they save money by not having to insure you!
Just do the math, if you paid a little more your employer could save money and maybe not offshore your job!
Unemployed people pay nothing, small business people get a tax rebate.
I lived and was born in England for more than 30 years, I think the longest i waited was about an hour without an appointment. As for long waiting lists, not true, if you have elective surgery then sure you might need to wait a while but for serious medical needs your seen right away, do Americans really think a heart attack victim has to wait a month before he gets treated?
Don't get me wrong I love this country and England is far from perfect, England is rated 18th best in the world for healthcare but America is listed at 37th?
Most Americans couldn't name 36 countries, Africa isn't a country by the way and neither is Europe:-)
Are we as Americans really sure we wouldn't want to have some free healthcare, sooner or later everyone gets sick, do you want to have to sell your house to pay for it?
Back to the five questions I heard above, one thing sticks out more than anything I heard, dis-information & lies. Any well educated person knows that there are two parties, not people but parties, there was Bush and then McCain, just because McCain is a likable fellow does not mean he thinks different, his "Party", is the same. Most of the people interviewed didn't like Bush alot but thought McCain could be trusted. Now i'm no magical wizz on politics but isn't republican being replaced by republican the same policy? Education, Education, Education. It's not the man/woman it's the policy then the person. If Joe the Plummer was running and won the nomination for the democrates I'd still vote democrat. I must admit though voting for someone that came from nothing make me tingle a little, least he knows how many houses he owns (the words silver & spoon spring to mind for McCain and wife).
A very smart man by the name of "Tony Benn" once said a very profound statment and it's happening right now in America, he said. "There are only two ways to control the people if your in government, fear and lack of education, scare the people and they will let you do anything even if it infringes on there civil liberties. Don't educate the people so they believe what you say"
Think about it, wire taps, getmo, people not knowing the facts, people not asking questions, people looking for WMD, wars started, terror, terror, terror. and the last thing the republicans wanted removed from the stimulus package, less on education. We have become a nation of sheep looking for a leader I hope we have found one, the fat cats in washington have raped this country enough, the private companies have transfered the public funds via a war not needed, American lives have been wasted in the name of corperate greed and the world has become more unstable than ever. Unless we realise that our government is broken we can never fix it. The french did just that several hundred years ago now they are ranked number one in human rights including healthcare. There government is afriad of it's people, Americans seem afriad of it's politicians. I hope we have the right person, I personally think so but like i said the fat cats want to keep there wealth, it's going to be hard to take it from them.
The Power is Yours.
Hey there!
There are 3 new videos on my blog.
1st video is about Obama's Supreme Court http://obama-videos.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-supreme-court.html
2nd video is about the Republicans who support Obama's plans http://obama-videos.blogspot.com/2009/02/gop-mayor-for-obama-plan.html
3rd video is an old one, but it reminds of the grassroots movement http://obama-videos.blogspot.com/2009/02/barack-obama-on-60-minutes.html
Bill Richardson has decided to remove himself from Obama's cabinet nomination and remain in his current job as Governor of New Mexico. In some respects, this is good for Bill Richardson, because the Secretary of Commerce was not really his ideal job.
Bill Daley served as Bill Clinton's Secretary of Commerce from 1997 to 2000, and he was a supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 primary campaign. He is currently a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. Perhaps Bill Daley could return to his former Cabinet position as Obama's Secretary of Commerce.
When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, Obama could nominate Hillary Clinton to become Chief Justice and then nominate Bill Richardson to replace her as Secretary of State. Bill Richardson would certainly prefer serving as Secretary of State over Secretary of Commerce.
