Ron Paul has been right on target with his economic forecasting.
He's the popular Republican Congressman from Texas, who is ripping into the president and Congress for what he sees as their “goal” with round after round of stimulus: complete economic collapse.
“From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration,” he said in his June 22, 2009, weekly address.
He added that Democrats who voted for the president’s war funding request, which gave an additional $106 billion to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — among other, unrelated items — were actually voting in favor of the wars, not just authorization of the president’s agenda.
He called it an affront to everyone who believed a vote for Obama was a vote for a peace candidate.
The president’s insistence on including an additional $108 billion in asset exchange with the International Monetary Fund is merely “buying global oppression,” he said.
Paul added that, “this [bill sent] $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan and $420 million to Mexico; and some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called peace keeping missions.”
In other words, the latest U.S. war funding was an “International bailout,” he said.
The legislation’s provisions for the IMF included 100 billion dollars for the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), a credit instrument providing the multilateral institution with additional resources to deal with exceptional risks to the stability of the international monetary system.
They also include an expansion of the nation’s special drawing rights by five billion SDRs, adding roughly eight billion dollars to the IMF’s financial firepower.
The 100 billion dollars for the NAB acts as a credit line for the IMF in case member countries need emergency loans that exceed the institution’s resources. As such, the money is not considered an immediate budget expense.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) had proposed to strip out the IMF funds, but his measure was defeated in May by a vote of 64-30.
“Not only does sending money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help,” Paul said. “Along with IMF loans come IMF required policy changes called ’structural adjustment programs,’ which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that brought our own country to its knees.”
This audio is from Congressman Ron Paul’s weekly address, released June 22, 2009:
As families across America celebrate Father’s Day, this year they will be honoring a right that our Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized as the “oldest of fundamental liberty interests.”
More than a freedom protected under the American Constitution, it is an inalienable right that derives from a time immemorial, a unique human relationship that has produced the very civilization we take for granted today.
Unfortunately, the proud heritage of fatherhood has undergone severe and undeserved disparagement in modern times. As our world morphs itself into an institutionalized mindest that supports a growing variety of parental substitutes, fathers are increasingly viewed as superfluous, dispensable and even antiquated.
The consequence of this is already being felt in our communities. A “Fatherless America” has been directly linked to increases in teen pregnancies, pathological behavior and a variety of social ills that have combined to reduce the productivity of this nation on a grand scale. Parents today are spending more time in domestic relations courts than they are in schools, churches and workplaces.
This can be traced to a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds upon the demise of parent-child relations. Statistically, fathers and children have been most victimized as the Census Bureau continues to report that between 80 and 90 percent of all parents paying “child support” are fathers.
In any other civil rights context, such reports would produce extreme outrage. However, in a leadership environment where one political party is able to demean the other as a group of “angry white men,” needful reform becomes remote. Fatherhood has become a suspect class of gender discrimination and the last vestige of institutionalized prejudice remaining unchecked in America today.
True reform begins not with a politically correct speech that one year ago laid the blame predominantly upon absentee fathers. Policymakers at all levels and branches of government must unravel the draconian measures undertaken to locate, stigmatize and criminalize countless mainstream fathers that have been arbitrarily removed from meaningful relationships with their children.
This silent practice comes from domestic relations policy that continues to embrace long discredited socialist philosophy. A state-created “custodial parent” is “awarded” with formula-driven welfare payments that have no child-based accountability. The payor, typically a male parent, is marginalized to “visitor” status and suppressed as a “non-custodial” creature of “law” in order to maintain a regular flow of money payments.
Such payments are necessary to support a growing bureaucracy of lawyers, forensic specialists and service providers. Title IV-D of the Social Security Act provides tremendous incentive payments for the states to increase the number and magnitude of “child support” orders mass produced in our state courts. A full range of protections under our Bill of Rights is trampled in the process. Meanwhile, the principal protectors of our Constitution in federal court remain dormant under a host of abstension, deference and state immunity doctrines.
Collectively, this has resulted in a barbaric process unknown to common law. A long-term monetary “award” is offered and potential “custody war” thrust upon all parenting cases regardless of any joint capacity to rear children in a separated environment. A custodial parent is given no incentive under this oppositional framework to involve the other parent meaningfully in his children’s lives out of fear of losing the same children to a “custody transfer.”
Above quoted phrases denote the propoganda employed to sustain this multi-billion dollar child industry. The “best interests” of our children are actually being promoted under a language scheme historically committed to prisons, funerals and lawsuits. Indeed, it influences otherwise model parents to conform to this institutional framework in a manner wholly foreign to a natural order of childrearing.
While it may take a village to strengthen our resolve as a nation, it takes a committed family unit of diverse types to properly raise our children. This requires our leadership to restore the dignity of fatherhood so that men are not fleeing those same villages.
In the words of one progressive Family Court judge, this custodial framework has “outlived its usefulness.” Debtor prisons and parent locator services will not justify the resulting oppression any more than slavery and an underground railroad did in a not-so-distant past.
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully, Ken McKay Republican National Committee Chief of Staff
The We The People Congress is a nationwide, non-partisan, not-for-profit membership organization of constitutional activists committed to "institutionalizing" citizen vigilance through civic education, monitoring of governments, and organizing grassroots programs of civic resistance to confront and repel tyranny.
Based on the life work of Thomas Jefferson, the Congress is organized into local state and county "ward republics." The Congress works closely with the WTP Foundation to achieve its mission to restore Constitutional Order and reclaim Liberty.
Our current work focuses centrally around the long-forgotten First Amendment Right to Petition. The Congress is determined to resurrect the "Capstone Right" of the Bill of Rights as an exercise of the People's natural Right to Sovereignty over their servant governments.
The Right to Petition is the profound, peaceful and constitutional solution that will save our Republic and restore Constitutional Order to our nation.
Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.
As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased.
Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.
Ever since this practice of appointing czars began years ago, it has always been considered possible that they are all unconstitutional. But it never built to a critical mass to elicit a court fight. These czars were few and far between, and rarely did anything that seriously ruffled any feathers. But President Obama has taken this to an unprecedented level, to the point where these appointments are dangerous to our constitutional regime.
This has become too much for the longest-serving senator in U.S. history to stomach. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.
Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)
And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.
Only globalist central bankers can assassinate a president. If Obama were to institute a policy of constitutional money and the resurrection of the gold standard he would be assassinated within a week. Of course Obama would never do such a thing. Who do you think he works for?
I agree blackmon. As are the terms "custodial" and "noncustodial." Many states like New York have had shared parenting legislation pending for the last twenty years. The real issue, as in most cases, is "money." States and municipalities are reluctant to pass shared parenting legislation because of matching Title IV-D funding. A state gets a dollar for dollar match on every dollar it can collect through DSS Child Support Enforcement. States manage and control this more effectively by anointing one of the parents (typically the female) as the custodial parent. Through this insidious arrangement they create a parental hierarchy which establishes the custodial parent as a defacto representative of the court. When you hear a family court judge spout the "best interest of the child" mantra, he is basically full of fecal matter.
"H/W then they will have to come up with an agreement on how they can share the child that works for both parties but mandatory child support would not be part of it."
I believe shared parenting is the right way to go if there is mutual agreement. It takes money right out of the equation. Many states have not adopted shared parenting legislation because it would mean that states and municipalities would lose Title IV-D matching funds. It's apparent that Title IV-D creates a conflict for the courts "best interest of the child" mantra.
To blackmon's point. Conversely it would also empower women to make better choices. Look at it from this perspective: Would a women knowingly and willingly engage in a sexual relationship with a man understanding that there's a good chance she could become pregnant, and that he could walk away by renouncing his paternity?
Let's say a man asks a woman to sign a pre-conjugal agreement, that would hold up in a court of law, stating that if she became pregnant, it would absolve him of any responsibility. How many women would sign it?
If men and women are equally responsible for creating the child why is it that only the woman has the right to decide if that child is born or not? Even if the man desperately wants to be a father and offers to absolve the woman of any responsibility, her choice still trumps his. I agree with blackmon. It seems there's a serious inequality in the law that punishes a man for his gender. Could be the making of a civil rights milestone.
Rikker, Although it's my personal belief that life begins at conception and abortion is killing; you make a very interesting and compelling libertarian argument. This same scenario is played out in family court arenas all across the country. Statistics bear out the fact that the overwhelming majority of children in custody cases are awarded to women. Why is that? Don't fathers have the same natural right to be equal parents in a shared parenting arrangement with their children without the consideration of paying the court defined superior parent (custodial parent) a bounty? Family court judges will exclaim that their objective is what's in the "best interest of the child" Really? As in a majority of custody judgments, I find it difficult to believe that a father who typically only sees his children once a week and every other weekend is in the "best interest of the child."
I agree with you wholeheartedly that if men had the ability to renounce paternity before the child was born, there would be a HUGE drop in unprotected sexual encounters which in turn would translate to fewer abortions. Great post man!
Looks Promising!
I'm Not So Sure...
Report Abuse
Close