Conflict in Parents' Constitutional Rights

Recently, a member of our Discussion Group presented this Reference:

PARENTING AS A PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT(*See Note a bottom of page)
When you read the above document; and my reply below, please consider these points:

• Is there a "Balance" between Parents' Rights & Children's Rights?
• Are Laws Really Needed to Guide us in Raising Our Family?
• When you Defend your Family, why is it so important to know the Statutes for Your State, particular to your concerns?
• We must become an Advocate, and yes, admit to ourselves there is indeed conflict, corruption, biases, etc in our government.  And then most importantly say OK, and ask ourselves, in knowing this>> "What are We going to do about it to Protect Our Families?? 

 Here is my reply in an effort to present ALL the story of Conflict in Our Constitutional Rights

This is indeed some good reference material for supporting the principle of "Due Process" in our Family Court system. A principle not currently in place in our Family Court.

I hope those supporting the Parental Rights US Constitutional Amendment have used this as a Reference. See more on this Amendment>> http://nfpcar.org/Rights/index.htm  An Amendment which is in battle with the UN Children Rights Proposal. And, to date, the US hasn't accepted this Proposal. "The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it.^[1]"  Link to more information>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child 

Of course, then there is CAPTA. For the group here is the status of the 2010 update of CAPTA>> http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3817:  Sarcastically, I always add "New and Improved"

So many conflicts that challenge our Rights as Parents for Our Children.

"Sometimes it just takes one small voice to make a world of difference...
I challenge you to be one of those voices"

*Note: PARENTING AS A PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT was authored by a civil rights attorney, as an argument in a case for a parent's rights. Currently it should not be using this argument at all (it is not a formal document, or is it a published article, just a part of someone's case). It is to show what a civil rights attorney wrote about parental rights, which is not one of our amendments, or BILL OF RIGHTS, as parental rights are implied in the 17th amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck
  Check Out Our Collectibles>> http://rscrapz.com
  My Family Rights Affiliation>> http://nfpcar.org/FPA/emails/Current.htm
  Defend Yourself>>

Again, So where is Our Bailout!!!!!

In a recent weekly email from Judical Watch goes into detail about the Bailouts. And one my want to subscribe to the newsletter. Each and every one of us "Common Folk" need to be aware of all the "Goliaths" out there taking Our HARD Earned money. (Link to site: https://www.judicialwatch.org/ )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'The Wall Street Journal on JW’s Bailout Lawsuit

The Wall Street Journal stated something in a lead editorial this week that Judicial Watch knows all too well: “On the key facts behind the bailouts of 2008, regulators have stonewalled the public, the press and even the inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.”

Judicial Watch is leading a focused and aggressive campaign to uncover the truth about the government’s massive bailout scheme. And, in fact, much of the Journal piece focused on a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits we have filed on behalf of former FDIC employee Vern McKinley.

Here’s a squib from the editorial:

A year ago we told you about former FDIC official Vern McKinley, who has made a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. He wanted to know what Fed governors meant when they said a Bear Stearns failure would cause a "contagion." This term was used in the minutes of the Fed meeting at which the central bank discussed plans by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to finance Bear's sale to J.P. Morgan Chase. The minutes contained no detail on how exactly the fall of Bear would destroy America.

He also requested minutes of the FDIC board meeting at which regulators approved financing for a Citigroup takeover of Wachovia. To provide this assistance, the board had to invoke the "systemic risk" exception in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and it therefore had to assert that such assistance was necessary for the health of the financial system. Yet days later, Wachovia cut a better deal to sell itself to Wells Fargo, instead of Citi.
So how necessary was the assistance?

That’s exactly what we intend to find out about the federal government’s bailouts. And we’re not only looking at Bear Stearns and Citigroup. We have FOIA requests and lawsuits involving Bank of America, AIG, Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Our client, Vern McKinley, sounded the alarm on Fannie and Freddie all the way back in 1997, but no one in Congress was listening.)

So we’re now trillions of dollars into these bailouts and the American people remain completely in the dark as to why they were necessary. Or even if they were necessary.

The Bush and Obama administrations, as to be expected, have been reluctant to shed light on these issues. Still, we have managed to unearth some key government bailout documents.

For example, Judicial Watch forced the release of Treasury Department emails related to the government-brokered acquisition of Wall Street firm Bear Stearns by JP Morgan. According to these documents, JP Morgan officials believed Bear Stearns to be "nearly worthless" just hours before the acquisition deal was announced. Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (NY FRB) supported the deal with $30 billion in funding at the direction of then-Treasury Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson.

Why did the government believe the collapse of Bear Stearns would cause a “contagion” in the financial markets? And why did Paulson think it necessary to “invest” $30 billion in taxpayer dollars to support the purchase of a “worthless” company? To date, we have no explanation.

In an interview for Judicial Watch’s monthly newsletter, The Verdict, Mr. McKinley said he doesn’t buy the government’s “contagion” theory. He believes government officials were “flying by the seat of their pants” during the financial crisis. They seemingly had little understanding of how investment banks worked, yet they were absolutely certain that there were companies that were “too big to fail.”

The response by the government’s financial agencies to the crisis set into motion a massive expansion of the size and scope of the federal government from which we may never recover. When President Obama took office, he doubled down on the Bush administration’s gamble and now we have a federal government with unprecedented command and control of an economy still in tatters, and virtually no answers from our leaders in government as to how we got here.

Developments in our investigations and litigation are fast-breaking, and I expect to have more for you over the next few weeks."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck
  Check Out Our Collectibles>> http://rscrapz.com
  My Family Rights Affiliation>> http://nfpcar.org/FPA/emails/Current.htm
  Defend Yourself>>