|
Only what I've heard on TV. Which is probably the same thing you've
heard. Looks like one more turn of the screws on the NCP. What they
need is a policy that if the NCP can support them without their being
on welfare, then the children should go to the NCP. But then that
would violate the Feminist Agenda.
Maybe when it gets bad enough that men will finally band together
in a political force, we can get something changed. Until then, we
just have to accept what they want to ladle out to us.
Sorry, but I'm feeling a bit sarcastic today. I spent an hour on the
phone last night with a guy who has his kids while the CP is in the
nut house being treated for drug abuse among other things. The whole
program form the Social worker to the judge seems to be geared to
her getting the kids back as soon as she is out, and this isn't the
first time she's been in. Amazing!. All I could tell him was to do
the best job he could while he had the chance. Build up a history of
taking care of the kids, and document, document, document.
fred();
|
| Yesterday evening, I got a chance to strike a blow for NCP. Governor
Roy Romer (D, Colorado) was on a local talk show sucking up some
free campaign time, and I was able to get through.
After making an enemy of him to start with by commenting on the expense
to taxpayers of his usage of a cell-phone to call in to the show, I
suggested that he may want to consider giving the children to an NCP
who was employed and wanted the children rather than put them on
welfare and try to soak the NCP for "child support". He started
to give me the tap-dance about all fathers supporting children,
and the children being in the place that was best for the child.
I responded that, yes the law said that the children were supposed
to go where it was best for the child but it was a problem getting
the judges that he and his predecessor had appointed to take note
of that law. He responded that he didn't think that was happening,
and I responded that he should go see for himself what is going
on--then they hung up on me :^}. It's amazing how hostile these
politicians get when you bring up support/custody. They know
the Femi's are out there watching their every move. Until men
get organized, they have nothing to fear from us as a group.
Well, I think maybe the next time he picks up that cell-phone,
or the next time he is looking at appointing a judge, he'll
be reminded that there is at least one person out here taking
note ;^). Also I will not only be voting against him in the
next election, I will be donating money (maybe not a lot, but some)
to whomever is running against him. If time allows, I will
be working for whomever is running against him.
'Til next time,
fred();
fred();
|
| It seems there's been a lot more organizing going on then I thought.
The friday before Father's Day there was a proposal made to a group
of senators by a Fathers Coalition wich include reps of many fathers
groups and some independent experts. They've evaluated all the
statistical data used to formulate the present Child support mandate
and exposed a lot of the inaccuracies about the data, especially the
"child poverty" issues. They were saying lets attack poverty, not
NCP's. They pointed out that most fathers would rather care for their
children directly instead of paying to have them cared for. They also
pointed out that in out-of-wedlock cases with complete data the fathers
wanted the kids between 30-50% of the time and divorced fathers between
50-80% of the time. They've also exposed the feminist attempts to
railroad draconian proposals and seem to have convinced congress to "do
it right" in regard to Support and Custody issues and will be part of a
commission to do more comprehensive study and come up with a more
balanced policy. Hopefully good news...
Dan D
|