Socialism and Child Support

Many people think that capitalism is the root of all evil. Some of these same people are victims of the child support system and had their own children taken from them legally? I am guilty as well, but I got smart and did my homework and I have scoured the internet for results and surprisingly most have failed to make the real connection.

Is this legal? For the state to take away a child from one parent without his or her consent? Or to decide who the child should be with without hearing the facts?

Legal? Apparently... But constitutional no.

Everyone has a right to a fair and speedy trial. Is this happening for non-custodial parents? No. You would be lucky if you even get a trial and furthermore it is expensive as hiring a Labor Union to do a simple task.

Furthermore after they have taken away your children, they impose hefty fines a man who makes minimum wage or less will pay at least 56,000 dollars in child support at least and thats before interest. Not to mention they will suspend your license and even throw you in jail if you don't pay up.

Is child support constitutional? No.

It by definition is called involuntary servitude.

en.wikipedia.org...

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Is this capitalism? No

It is socialism.

Did you know that before Republicans took the house their were at least 70 card carrying members of the socialist party in congress? All democrats.

battlefieldamerica.wordpress.com...

American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

So how many are in our judicial system?

Last but not least I will point out the main plank of socialism today. Feminism.

From the Socialist Party USA
socialistparty-usa.org...

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community.

ocialist Feminism and Women's Liberation

Socialist feminism confronts the common root of sexism, racism and classism: the determination of a life of oppression or privilege based on accidents of birth or circumstances. Socialist feminism is an inclusive way of creating social change. We value synthesis and cooperation rather than conflict and competition.
We work against the exploitation and oppression of women who live with lower wages, inferior working conditions and subordination in the home, in society and in politics. Socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and reproductive systems and to determine their own sexual orientation. We stand for the right of women to choose to have a safe and legal abortion, at no cost, regardless of age, race, or circumstance.
Women’s independent organizations and caucuses are essential to full liberation, both before and after the transformation to socialism. Women will define their own liberation.

socialistparty-usa.org...

People of Color
The Socialist Party recognizes the intimate link between racism and capitalism and demands the elimination of all forms of discrimination in housing, jobs, education, health care, etc. We are committed to the creation of a pluralistic society that defends and promotes a multicultural/multiethnic presence in both the public and private spheres. The Socialist Party rejects the social construction of race and we commit ourselves to the eradication of racism.

People with Disabilities
The Socialist Party recognizes the human and civil rights of all, without regard to physical or psychological differences. We deplore media stereotypes that focus on a person's disability rather than on their strengths and abilities, and the physical and social barriers that prevent the full participation by people with disabilities in vital spheres of life.

Seniors
The Socialist Party recognizes the right of seniors to a dignified life, free from economic hardship, social isolation, and discrimination in employment and credit. Sufficient income, housing, health care, medication, and access to social services must be guaranteed to all elders.

Women
The Socialist Party is a socialist feminist organization that recognizes that a struggle against habitual male dominance and patriarchy must go hand in hand with any struggle against capitalism. Therefore, we pledge our opposition to all forms of sexism, and demand equality in all aspects of life.

Youth
The Socialist Party believes that the right of all children to nurturing, protection, and education by caring adults must be staunchly upheld, and that a young person does not have fewer rights because he or she is a minor. Therefore, we believe that all Constitutional and human rights belonging to older people belong to younger people as well, and must be defended with equal vigor and determination

See no where does it say anything about the rights of a man. Does it? Thats socialism for you, but they are not really for human rights are they?

reply to post by thehoneycomb


What is your point?

I'm afraid to tell you that this is perfectly Constitutional and has been ruled on already by the Supreme Court.

www.acf.hhs.gov...

Doesn't mean you have to like it however.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


You must owe quite a hefty amount of child support. Or are you on the verge of having your children taken form you? Perhaps a combination of the two? What exactly in the wording of the Constitution or its amendments leads you to the belief that the framers believed that being held accountable for the consequences of your actions is not Constitutional?

reply to post by Hockenberry


I did not commit any crime and the rest is not any of your business.

Any child support order that is mandated by court is blatantly unconstitutional. It is not the governments job to make sure a man and women are responsible when the engage in intercourse.

It surely stands to reason that since the women has the sole decision on whether or not to have the baby or abort it, she holds the ultimate financial responsibility if the "father" does not want it. Problem is, thats not how it goes, women have the choice and men do not so child support is not enforceable because it violates our civil rights.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


That says quite abit. Perhaps you shouldn't use these forums for your own petty issues. Are you attempting to rally support for your cause because you don't want to pay support for your children. You must be quite the man. Children come with many burdens that requires an adult to tend to. If you don't want to pay your support, go cry somewhere else.

reply to post by Helious


Good point and also as the other poster tried to get me to do,

DO NOT POST YOUR STORIES HERE or this thread goes off topic.

reply to post by Hockenberry


You are ignored.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


What do you think that you are doing? Petty issues under the veil of socialism, statements as to constitutional or not. With a subtle undertone of, I shouldn't have to pay..... You should have a big cup of GTFU, go to bed, and get ready for work in the morning. Of course I'd wager that our taxes are supporting you for some time now. Cry baby cry.

Since women are the ones who can decide whether or not to murder their babies, women should be solely responsible for them.

Originally posted by 547000
Since women are the ones who can decide whether or not to murder their babies, women should be solely responsible for them.

Sounds like a real man.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Hockenberry

 

I did not commit any crime and the rest is not any of your business.

I never said you did. The wording of the Constitution is none of my business? Or you issues?

reply to post by 547000


I dont agree with that, but the socialists think that any women should be able to get an abortion on the tax payers dime regardless of term or circumstance.

socialistparty-usa.org...

1. We demand full support for every woman's right to choose when, if, and how to have children, including the right to free abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, without interference or coercion. Clinics providing abortion services must have the full protection of the law.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Hockenberry

 

You are ignored.

You are awesome.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


It's just silly. Fathers have no say when the women decides to carry a baby or murder it. Why should they be reponsible if they have no say over it? Those who say a man shouldn't have sex if he doesn't want the responsibility should realize it's not the man who carries a baby for nine months, but a woman. Maybe if women were financially responsible they wouldn't have sex so casually and lay all the blame of men.

reply to post by 547000


Well it happened before russia was communist and they were going through the same thing with the court system, thats where one night stands were coined, history repeats itself unfortunately america is following those footsteps.

Part of the reason is because the communists believe in lowering the birth rate by imposing such laws and if you look at russia now it has a negative birthrate, Americas birth rate is about 1% but it is low compared to many countries particularly in the middle east where in some countries it is up to 2%.

reply to post by 547000


Anyhow I do agree with you in a sense, but it is just as much a mans responsibility to raise a child as it is a womans. Problem is that a father not seeing his child and fully paying for it is not the answer by a long shot. If these so called child advocate groups really had the best interest of the child they would be promoting fatherhood not tearing it down.

Studies in countries like Canada show that suicide among males is often related to or reflects the numbers of child support and non custodial parents, which is a socialist system. Thats what the numbers show anyhow.