You will be interested to know that none of the candidates have shown an interest in discussing the destructive and abusive Bradley Amendment or have responded to repeated inquiries for so much as a comment on the matter. Lawmakers want to ignore the unconstitutional abuse that has blighted our nation.
Two months ago, the Lakeland Florida Ledger happily accepted and posted two of our sponsored videos online. Sunday morning, we received an unceremonious notice that they were removing the informational videos from their Brightcove Video website account. The status of the videos were noted as “not approved”.
- The Repeal Bradley message is not a popular one. Politicians do not want to talk too loudly about the invasion of civil and human rights, nor care to deal with the controversy of unconstitutional family law.
-
We need caring people to help us turn up the pressure. Unconstitutional child support enforcement needs to be addressed as an election topic. If you have an opportunity to address any of the candidates, please do so. Please write your lawmaker and tell us that you have.
Your stand for the U.S. Constitution is a noble and just cause.
-
“Though he has been an outspoken critic of the sweeping welfare changes enacted by Congress in 1996, his last year in the Senate, Mr. Bradley did not propose rolling back that law’s major provisions, which include time limits on benefits and work requirements for recipients.” -
- Bill Bradley did not like the changes that the Clinton Administration made in his “pure” law that he and Democrat colleagues made from 1984 through 1991. Democrats worked overtime year by year to modify and recreate family law and welfare before the Clinton swept into office. Apparently, he doesn’t formally object to the enforcement measures that Clinton and the feminists made which violate the civil rights of every American on some level and the civil rights of some Americans on multiple levels. What did the Clintons actually change that made his welfare reform fail or is Bill Bradley simply playing both sides? More likely, he was offended by the Clintons hijacking his personal legal territory. He was running for president at the time, so playing to cover himself is likely. Welfare reform instituted over the years often uses similar tired statistics proposed in this New York Times article along with promises to reduce or eliminate child poverty. The promised results never happen and the welfare and family reform laws usually fails outright on virtually every count. Social engineering through federal tax law rarely works or is kept in place long enough to work. Politics and social engineering has become a large fools game.
Describing poverty as a ‘’slow motion national disaster,” former Senator Bill Bradley called yesterday for reducing the number of poor children by half over the coming decade by raising the minimum wage, increasing spending on child care programs and providing an array of tax benefits to poor parents who work. (more…)
A bill for a Clinton Campaign appearance at UC Davis in January remains unpaid. UC Davis is moving the debt to collections. Ms. Clinton has not covered the campaign debt and media pundits have not pounced. Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has said two words about the “accounting oversight”. The time may be at hand.
The expense is reported as $11,112 topped by security, cleanup and marching band expenses. When the Clinton campaign press office was called and reminded about the debt, the campaign refused to return calls.
UC Davis is planning to put its final bill out this week, and if the debt has not been settled within a month, they are going to turn the matter over to a collection agency. The appearance of former president Bill Clinton attracted 7500 people to the audience.
The appearance was designed as an outreach to young voters, a demographic that put Senator Obama over the top in Iowa. “America is not a race. America is not a creed. America is not even a place. America is an idea and you all are a part of it,” noted former president Bill Clinton.
Ms. Clinton has plenty of campaign expenses and the fact remains that this expense could have been overlooked. The public won’t overlook the oversight for long. Despite the fact that Ms. Clinton has been lagging in the contributions department somewhat, she has plenty of net worth to cover this debt. It would be better for the nation’s candidate “millionairess” to handle this debt before she is publicly labeled as a “deadbeat”.
Considering that she has already put this label on plenty of impoverished men in the past that have had trouble paying their child support, the deadbeat label being attached to Hillary Clinton is a tidy bit of poetic justice.
Repeal Bradley is pleased to announce legal research is available from 1984 through 1990 for those interested in details of Bradley and other related legislation. We will continue to add more research and fine tune a few details over the next few months.
This research involves related topics, legislative information, legislative text and floor action in the Senate. Individual voting data is available only after 1991. However, most legislation of this kind is not put to a roll call vote, so the information provided is quite accurate. Dr. Manning is working on this issue to find and republish alternative data for earlier years, notably the 1986 amendment which had a role call vote. Sponsors and cosponsors for all bills are noted with legislation for all years. Now you can begin to discover the truth about who voted for unconstitutional legislation!
Details are available by tapping on the “legal origins” image in the right margin.
The Repeal Bradley message is not a popular one. Politicians do not want to talk too loudly about the invasion of civil and human rights, nor care to deal with the controversy of unconstitutional family law.
Repeal Bradley is pleased to announce legal research is available from 1984 through 1990 for those interested in details of Bradley and other related legislation. We will continue to add more research and fine tune a few details over the next few months.
