RUSH: Yep, there it is, folks, right there, the Washington Examiner. The DC Examiner and the headline of the story: "NAACP Crowd Calls Romney Demeaning and Insulting." Posted on 07/12/2012 3:18:59 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We have another one: Amos Brown. Amos Brown, an NAACP board member, is criticizing Romney for "his references to the importance of family. 'For him to come here and lecture us about the family -- he doesn't need to be talking to Negros about that,' Brown said. 'Who tore up the family?'" Amos Brown said that, implying that Romney and the Republicans tore up the black family.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yep, there it is, folks, right there, the Washington Examiner. The DC Examiner and the headline of the story: "NAACP Crowd Calls Romney Demeaning and Insulting."
By the way, this is gonna be the last on this for a while. We're gonna move on to other things. I gotta tell you about Amos Brown of San Francisco. Amos Brown is a board member of the NAALCP. Well, let me say he's a member of the board. A board member could mean he's bored with the whole thing and I wouldn't blame him, but we'll call him a member of the board.
NAACP, Amos Brown called Romney's address to the NAALCP an insult to them, including Romney's references to the importance of family. So Romney goes in, treats 'em as adults, treats 'em as equals, talks to 'em about his policies, and they're insulted. This guy, Amos Brown, said, "For him to come here and lecture us about the family - he doesn't need to be talking to Negros about that. Who tore up the family?" Well, we all know who tore up the black family. The American welfare state tore up the black family. The American welfare state, as personified by the federal government, assumed the role of father and husband. That's how the black family got torn up. The Democrat Party did it, Mr. Brown, and you damn well know it.
So here once again, Romney goes in, what's he supposed to tell 'em? "You know what? I'm gonna bring you 15% unemployment. I'm gonna put even more of you on food stamps. I'm gonna give you more of what Obama's done," and they would have applauded him? I'll tell you what, the more these people at the NAACP speak up and give us a chance to tell people what they said, 'cause the Drive-Bys are not gonna report this. You're not gonna see this or hear audiotape. You're not gonna read this in mainstream media publications. You're not gonna read about this Stoker babe and her comments. You're not gonna read about Amos Brown here. But as long as they keep talking this is gonna end up being a bigger win-win for Romney. These people come off as just small, inconsequential, and really out of the mainstream.
END TRANSCRIPT
The Democrats couldn’t do it with the Ku Klux Klan, so they did do it with the “Great Society”.
Yes, but their intentions were good, right?
Keep em weak, keep em on the plantation. Dem 101.
It’s so pathetic. They drove the black illegitimacy rate from 15 to 75% and they wring their hands about how badly their peeps are doing.
The society has broken down and is disfunctional.
Let's not forget that those same policies are now breaking up the white family. Illegitimacy among whites is now about what it was in the sixties among blacks when Senator Moynihan first raised the alarm.
very sad
one of my daughters is an elementary teacher
I know the schools get trashed on FR, but consider that her class of 28 (in a pretty good suburb, NOT the inner city) had 13 intact families with two parents living in the home.
When our supposedly compassionate federal government pokes its nose into areas that, under our principle of federalism, should be none of its business, the result is often unintended consequences, gross injustices, and of course massive costs. A prime example is the 1986 federal Bradley Amendment, which mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see his children, or loses his job or suffers a pay cut.
The result of this incredibly rigid law is to impose a punishment that makes it impossible for any but the very rich to get out from under a Bradley debt. Thousands of fathers are sentenced to debtor's prison (a medieval practice we thought America abolished centuries ago), and thousands more have their driver's license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job).
There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child's needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed “child support”; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal-state bureaucracy.
Take the case of Larry Souter as reported recently in the Grand Rapids Press. He was released after spending 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of second-degree murder.
He was then summoned to court to explain why he should not be convicted of contempt for non-payment of his Bradley debt that kept rising during his years in prison: $23,000 in back support plus interest and penalties that raised the total to $38,082.25. The ex-wife’s attorney argues that Larry should pay because she “has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.”
Since the children are now adults, this case proves that the Bradley debt has nothing to do with child support. It has to do with court-ordered transfer payments from which the state gets a cut.
This case is not an anomaly. Clarence Brandley spent ten years in prison before he was exonerated and released in 1990, whereupon the state hit him with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support debt that accumulated while in prison.
Many other cases prove that men cannot escape the Bradley debt even if DNA proves that they are not the father. The law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt.
Three years ago, a Maine court ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his. But Maine nevertheless demands that Fisher pay $11,450 in back child support and Maine took away his driver's license for failure to pay up.
The Bradley debt makes no allowance for the growing problem of paternity fraud committed by mothers, estimated by some to be up to 30 percent of DNA-tested cases. Our compassionate government demands that a mother seeking welfare identify the father of her child and, like greedy lawyers, greedy women often target the man with the deep pockets.
A few states have passed a recent law to end so-called child support if DNA proves a man is not the father, but that doesn't get rid of the Bradley debt accrued before DNA results came in. We haven't heard of any women being prosecuted for paternity fraud, and of course the man who was cheated doesn't get any refund.
There is no excuse for Congress and state legislatures allowing these injustices to continue. Court-ordered child support should not be final until DNA proves paternity.
Feminist defenders of the Bradley Amendment claim that the Bradley debtor could have reduced his debt by going into court and challenging the amount of support when his income decreased. That argument is legalistic cynicism taken to the extreme.
Most Bradley debtors cannot possibly afford a lawyer to advise them about and to defend their rights, yet they are up against government or government-paid lawyers; the system has built-in incentives to set the support as high as possible because collections bring bonuses to the state bureaucracy; and, according to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 70 percent of fathers in L.A. County are not present when the court (not biology) rules on paternity and irreducible monthly obligations are set in concrete.
President Bush's initiative to promote marriage is a non-starter so long as the Bradley Amendment exists. Who would marry a man with a Bradley debt hanging over his future?
Shakespeare famously wrote, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” Since the author of the Bradley Amendment, former Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), is still alive, he should tell his pals in the Senate to terminate his evil law before any more injustices take place.
Sin is a reproach to any nation...
Of COURSE!
We SUBSIDIZE bastardy now!
That thar wuz a bunch of words; sayin’ whut I jes said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
