I Thessalonians 5:20, 21

Do not despise expounding of scripture, but scrutinize all things. Hold fast that which is right.

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

- I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.

____________________________________________

See also Kerux Replies at Wordpress.com where all future missives will also be posted.

However, because Wordpress charges an outrageous $59.95 a year for a video upload upgrade, videos will only be linked, not embedded.
___


Monday, March 23, 2009

The Deadbeat Dad State and Child Support

_____________________________________

As mentioned in the missive, The Marriage License, once a couple marry, and get a government issued marriage license, they "enter into a three party contract - the man, the woman and the State. By getting permission to marry from the State, the man and wife - the married couple - voluntarily grant legal jurisdiction to the State [a corporation] over their marriage, that is, the marriage is a creation of the State and the couple grant the State authority over the entity the State creates - the marriage."

From that marriage license the State now "owns" the couple and any "fruit" of their marriage union, for example, any children that result from their marriage. Yes, when a couple enter into a three party adhesion contract with the State, the State "owns" any resulting children.

If the State owns the children, why then is a man, when "his" children are taken from him and given to their mother, i.e., the mother has custody, obligated to pay child support to the mother, when the children are not his, but the State's?

The answer is, he's not obligated. Although he is the biological father - the children are not his, they are the State's. The State does it's best to get the father to pay child support to the mother, and if the father goes along, usually feeling obligated, after all, they are "his" children, all the better. But if they are the dad's children, why and how can the State take them away and give them exclusively to the mother?

The State can do this because the reality is, the children are the State's - not the dad's - by virtue of the marriage license voluntarily entered into - and the State can do what they want with their "property," in this case, the children.

The further reality is, when the State takes children from the father and gives them to the mother, [who usually can not adequately support the children - if they could, they wouldn't need child support would they?] it is the State that is the deadbeat dad, because it is the State that is not supporting "their" children, not the biological dad.

Find this revelation hard to believe? Look in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Certificate

Etymology:
Middle English certificat, from Medieval Latin certificatum, from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare to certify
Date:
15th century

3. a document evidencing ownership or debt, e.g. a stock certificate>

or a Marriage Certificate or a Birth Certificate.
________________________________





When we get a Marriage License, Marriage Certificate or Birth Certificate, it is evidence that the government owns us. We are their slave, and collateral for their debts.

For more on how the State takes children from their dads, and dads from their children, read Deadbeat Dad http://www.lulu.com/content/315711

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich

Had we maintained the Biblical institution of marriage as between the man, the woman and God, by not going to the State for a marriage license or marriage certificate, the State would not be a party to the marriage. Not being a party to the marriage, the State would have no jurisdiction over the results of the marriage, i.e. children. Therefore, if the State tries to interfere with the marriage in any way, e.g. try to take the children from the father, the father would be within his God given rights as delineated in the Constitution, i.e., the right to life, liberty and property, to legally argue that the State has no jurisdiction in the matter. The divorce would be strictly between him and his wife.

Are you beginning to understand why our Jewish controlled government has been doing everything they can to get and keep God out of our lives? They are doing everything they can to replace God with themselves as our Masters, using every available means of deception.

2 comments:

Rob said...

This was clearly written not long after a divorce... Even making allowances for cynicism, though, it's a pretty wide stretch to say (a) that the biological father is not obligated to pay child support for his children, (b) that women can't provide for their children, and (c) that this has anything to do with our "Jewish-controlled government."

Kerux said...

See my reply to Rob's comments here:

http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2010/05/reply-to-comment-re-deadbeat-dad-state.html

Post a Comment