Tea Party Favorite Loses First ‘Deadbeat Dad’ Hearing
September 14, 2011
By Wendy Gittleson

US Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) was ordered by a Chicago judge to prove he doesn’t owe more than $100,000 in back child support.

The Tea Party spokesman and alleged fiscal conservative’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh sued the Congressman once she heard that he had loaned his own campaign $35,000, despite claiming that he was too broke to pay child support.

Much to the dismay of Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega, Walsh didn’t show up for court during Wednesday’s hearing.

In court, Walsh’s attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.

Vega gave her a puzzled look — to which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge replied.


Walsh has been ordered to appear at the next hearing.

If the Congressman is not able to prove that he does not owe the back child support, he will be held in contempt.

________________________________________________________________


You know considering that welfare and medicaid get paid back by the child support collected in cases of people who have received those benefits. You would think that those who are so dead set against tax payers footing the bill, which they don't in most cases since it gets paid back from the absent parent, they would be horrified at one of the "their own" not paying child support or supporting their kids anyway.

Talk about hypocrisy and ignorance

Ah, the American way.

Would be interesting if the so-called Pro Choice crowd actually fought for choice for everyone, since the 14th Amendment gives men the equal right to choose to support the kid or not. Since women say it is their body and their choice, then they should have to accept all of the consequences, financial and otherwise, of that choice. I believe men should have the heart to take care of their children, but should not be forced to do so.

its all about money,, women terminating pregancies saves us money that would potentially be used to help support them


men being forced to provide also saves us money that would potentiall be used to help support them


the great american motivator , is the american tendency to NOT want to HAVE to take care of anyone but thyself,,,,


I wouldnt be opposed to a legal process by which the father should have to sign off on an abortion and if he chooses not to he should be forced to care for the child

likewise, once a child is born, A father should be able to sign off his rights(which I think he already can) and therefore be excused from all connection to the child, financial or otherwise,,,


its sad, and Id rather just see parents take care of the lives they create instead of ending them and abandoning them,,but I guess until we can figure a way to take the female body out of the initial incubation stage of the equation, we will probably not see such a time,,,

Actually, the choice was made by both the man and the woman when they decided to have sex. Conceiving a child is a possible outcome of that act and the responsibility falls equally on both parties.

They do have the choice to use a condom. And I believe they are working on male birth control. They also can choose to have a vasectomy.

That needs to change.

They have the choice to stick it in without a condom on it, right? So they have the choice to make a child or not at that moment.

Maybe they should take that moment seriously so they don't feel abused later.

thats not consistent though, because the woman who didnt want the child had the same choice to abstain from the act

after there is conception, the choices are not equally applied

It is completely consistent....The man's choice is to not have sex without a condom if abstinence is not an option. Just as a woman's choice is to use birth control if abstinence is not an option for her and him.

After that the responsibility shift since the man cannot carry a child so the woman has a choice what she wants to do with her body.

If the man doesn't want to get to that point, he best wear condoms faithfully and be careful where his body parts go.

YES, that is how it is, however it is not an equally applied standard in my opinion


similar to how the argument that biology shouldnt determine the right to marry

I dont think biology should give a PREFERENCE when it comes to parental obligation,,,,

but as it stands, biology does,,,thats why I said until we can figure out a way to use something other than a womans body as incubator, that part of parenthood will almost certainly always giver preferential rights to her,,,

Ignorance will never change, no one can know everything. We just need our people to work on being less ignorant.

Hypocrisy comes with age. I said I'd never smoke when I was 12 and yet here I am 12yrs later puffing away. We need to work on spotting that hypocrisy when it shows up. Saying one thing and then 3 months after the election, they vote for the opposite, that's a red flag.

Sadly, I don't think things will ever change. If only we could be better judges of character and spot the frauds. Instead we sit around argueing over Rep. and Dem. and let the poloticians do as they please behind our backs.

The government is a complex system that takes complex answers and methods to keep it functioning correctly. There should be no black and white way to looking at ways to solve our problems. Yet, today all we seem to look at is Red and Blue.

And don't even get me started on how we vote based on who is the better celebrity and not the better candidate.