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, May 03, 2010

Reply to Comment Re: "Deadbeat Dad State and Child Support"

For some reason, the ability to post comments here is not working. That, and the expanded post option, stopped working both at the same time, for reasons unknown and I have not been able to troubleshoot and fix either problem.

However, Rob sent in a comment on May 3, 2010 to my blog post The Deadbeat Dad State and Child Support which I would like to reply to.

Thanks much Rob for your comments, which were:

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."

Well, no Rob, this post was not made "not long after a divorce." The divorce in question happened 12 or 13 years earlier.

No where in the post did I say that "the biological father is not obligated to pay child support for his children." What I did say, and do believe is, no father should be obligated to pay child support for children that the State took away for no reason, even for visitation: or when the mother prevents the children from seeing their father, and the father their children, with the approbation of the State family legal system. Anyone with two working braincells should be able to see that a father has the right - "the pursuit of happiness" - to be an important part of his children's lives, especially if he is being forced to provide support to the mother, for their care.

In my case, I offered and should have been granted dual custody and therefore would not have been obligated for any child support, which, in my opinion, is a euphemism, for extortion. The courts remove the children from the father and then, by threat of force, demand that he pay the mother support, even though she refuses to allow even visitation. That activity is what is known in the criminal world as racketeering.

Further, I never said all mothers can not provide for their children. Some can, some can't. In my case, the mother could not. I could. That alone used to be reason enough to let the "children follow the condition of the father." It should have been reason enough in my case. It wasn't. No reasons given.

And lastly, anyone familiar with the history of "no-fault divorce" which is in actuality, "his-fault divorce," knows full well that the Jewish dominated feminist movement of the 1960s and '70s was fully behind the separating of children from their fathers and still is. I was a Court Appointed Special Advocate and know from first-hand experience how the system works to separate fathers from their children simply because their mother seeks a divorce, even, as in my case, for "un-reconcilable differences," which so often simply means that the mother can't have her way 100% of the time.

Kevin MacDonald has documented fully and in detail how Jewish influence in American society has been detrimental to our culture. I recommend his book, The Culture of Critique, for anyone interested in further details.

For anyone interested in more information on how this scam works, I refer you to my book, Deadbeat Dad, found at Deadbeat Dad where I go into great detail, documenting how the Family Law system destroys families.

I know, because it happened to mine.


Post a Comment