News: Fathers’ Rights, Child Support, Custody

 This isn’t really a new thing, since most states have done this long ago.  It is most interesting how these people twist words, using an Orwellian newspeak.  Basically, political and bureaucratic tyrants want everyone to think they are good guys, working for the greater good.  So they use terms like, “It’s all for the children” to justify whatever they want to accomplish.

In the story here, it is blatant that family now means mother and child.  They don’t address it nor do they explain it in any way, they just simply refer to children and families as recipients of child support, which, as the governor who signed the bill into law said, “More avenues to collect child support payments means more Illinois children can have the childhood they deserve.”  Notice how subtle and masterfully phrased this is.  Then read here how there are “delinquent parents”.

Pantagraph.com | News | New Illinois law targets wheels of deadbeat parents
It’s a politically and culturally popular issue these days around the country, with states seemingly adding new tactics all the time to catch up with delinquent parents.

“There’s been a strong focus on it” in Illinois recently, said Teresa Kurtenbach, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. “We’ve taken a lot of drastic steps . . . We’re trying to make sure families are stronger by getting them the support they need.”

Notice also, these people no longer use “single motherheaded households”, or “father”, or single mom, etc.  They can then claim that this is not a gender issue.  Are there noncustodial mothers?  Of course there are, but not in any numbers that come close to comparing to the number of fathers excised from the lives of their children.

Let’s face it, a child support order means, almost always, a fatherless child.  The child support system, as it has evolved recently, is specifically designed to get the state further inculcated into the private lives of citizens, and for the state to ostracize children from their parents.  It is extremely effective (Think about it, we now speak of the rights of children outside the context of the fundamental rights of parents.  This means that in fact, single mothers are at risk of being estranged from the children too).  It is basically destroying any concept of family, and by so doing, will forever alter the way people relate to one another genderwise, as well as creates an atmosphere in which people seem to just accept whatever the bureaucrats and politicians want to do with respect to their personal lives.

If a parent chooses to abandon his or her family, they should of course be allowed to do so.  But they shouldn’t be rewarded for it.  So often it is the mother (in cases where children and custody are involved, it is the mother, three quarters of the time, who initiates the divorce).  Why?  because it is now OK to ditch the father, and trade him out for a new model, maybe a bigger schlong and a fatter wallet, who knows, “You go girl!”.  The thinking is, fathers aren’t that important, it’s a male role model that is important, and any decent man can fill the bill.

Personally, I don’t see any way to fix this situation.  I believe this is a case where the forces of darkness have won the day.  Perhaps it is time to totally ditch the concept of the nuclear family, and simply outlaw natural birth.  Maybe we should just make kids in test tubes, put them into surrogate mothers, until the time we can make an artificial womb, and then take the baby away from mom (we’d never even know who the father is), and rear the child in a collective.  Kids wouldn’t have moms or dads, those concepts wouldn’t even exist.

Spread the Word