Wednesday, March 23, 2005

The New Deadbeat Dad

Let me tell you a story about a man named Gary. He is a loving father, a U.S. Navy Seal, and an all around good citizen. Gary got deployed to Afghanistan. While there he wrote lullabies for his son. A son that he is no longer allowed to see.

Apparently, his wife visited family in Israel, and decided to stay, and requested a divorce from abroad. Gary has been fighting in the California courts (which may explain SOME of the problem) to gain some form of access to his son. He's not asking for full custody, but we're talking visitation. Oh yeah, let us not forget that Gary must pay $2,100 a month in support.

Gary is the new deadbeat dad. He lost his wife and child while on deployment, and was given the deadbeat moniker while nowhere near where he could defend himself. No longer are deadbeats the wife beaters, the uncaring scum that have been portrayed through the years. While they still do exist, today's deadbeat dads tend to be stable upright citizens, which the "family" court system has punished just because they are the father.

What is saddest is that Gary is not alone. There are thousands of Reservists out there who are facing government sanctions, huge back payment debts, and even possible jail times because their active duty military pay is nowhere near the amount they made in their civilian jobs. Of course the Family Support Act of 1988 allows non-custodial parents to request a child support modification for decreases in income; but most state agencies do not honor the requests. One of the main reasons they do not is that the agencies are reimbursed by the federal government for every dollar they collect. That is a lot of incentive for them to keep the child support payments high.

This is all due to the idiocy of zero-tolerance laws. Rather than having intelligent guidelines, the government places hard and fast rules which must be applied regardless of circumstance. A good example of that would be Mr. Bobby Sherrill. Mr. Sherrill worked for Lockeed in Kuwait prior to the first Gulf War, and was captured and held hostage in Iraq for about five months during that conflict. When he was released, and finally made it back to the states, Mr. Sherrill was arrested by our government. What did he do wrong? Well, while he was being held hostage, he did not pay his child support.

While I think Child Support laws are a good thing, especially with the advent of the no-fault divorce, they need to be fair to non-custodial parents, especially fathers. Without this fairness, all you have is prosecution of fathers, which is of course what the feminists want.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

For The Children

In all the hype and hoopla concerning Mrs. Schiavo there is an issue that is even bigger and direr than that one. We know Congress loves making laws and what not, but I have to say this one does not fall under Congress' purview (though I doubt that will bother them, they love passing laws that according to the Constitution, Congress is not allowed to pass). This is something for each and every state of the union.

Our states need to start imposing death sentences on Child Rapists and Murderers.

How many of our children must we sacrifice in the blind rush to attempt to rehabilitate these monsters? I realize that to the Loony Left (who support pedophiliac organizations such as NAMBLA) that it is just a child, something they believe should have been aborted a while back. Of course to me, I think we need to have these monsters drawn, quartered, shot, hanged, stabbed, poisoned, and castrated. Not necessarily in that order either.

Of course maybe I am biased. After all, I am a father, and would have no compunctions doing such to anyone who harmed my son. Yet I fail to see exactly what's so bad about being biased.

Regardless, we all need to write our state legislatures and demand they instill mandatory death sentences for those who destroy the lives of the most precious, and innocent, among us. We must remember that our children are our future, and they must be nurtured and protected. Letting the monsters that have destroyed a child in the past, free so they are able to do so again is the height of irresponsibility and needs to be put to a stop.

As well, until we get these laws passed, then we need to be vigilant in identifying the sexual predators among us. State Laws require that they register with the police, and that information is public record. Go to the court house, some website, whatever, get that information for your neighborhood and ensure that it is released for all to see. Do not allow these very real boogeymen to thrive in your neighborhood because none knows they are there.

Remember Jessica Lunsford, Samantha Runnion, and all the others who have been raped and killed by these monsters. As well, do not be afraid, but rather be mad. Mad that these monsters have been allowed to destroy so many children over the years. Mad that there are thousands out there ready to do so again. Mad that they can so easily escape the requirements for registration (as Jessica's killer has done). As Jessica's father said, it is now time for these monsters to go away and rot in hell.

Labels: , ,

Friday, March 4, 2005

U.N. Peacekeeping

The United Nations has a funny way of keeping the peace. It appears that when the U.N. went into the Congo to stop a war there that the UN officials proceeded to start rapping women and children. What is even more shocking is that even though there are allegations involving hundreds of children, the UN is still saying that it’s just the work of one misguided individual.

Of course, this is neither the first nor the last event involving sexual impropriety and UN officials. Just recently a woman was fired from her position with the UN when she accused her supervisor of sexually harassing her. Only when the U.S. press started investigating, found out that it really happened, did top UN officials decided to do something. That something was of course, to ASK the supervisor to quit. He did, I just wonder what would have happened if the guy had said no.

As well, there is evidence it is happening not just in the Congo, but has occurred in Burundi, Liberia, the Ivory Coast and Haiti.

And to think, this is the organization responsible for human rights affairs. Is it no wonder that they hate Judeo-Christian ethics and the United States? It is within these two social forces which human rights originate.

Of course, I do have to admit, the UN is doing some things, such as issuing a ban on sex with minors (because we all know it was permissible before the ban), and there was the additional training (maybe this is why the UN Peacekeepers targeted the most helpless in the situations, good training), oh and we cannot forget the UN hampering third party investigations into the allegations. Also there was my personal favorite thing the UN has done in this situation, denigrate a commentator for writing on the story. Michelle Malkin wrote a commentary called “U.N.’s Rape of the Innocents” and it evoked the UN’s Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations to call Mrs. Malkin “negligent” for not reporting all those wonderful things the UN has done to improve measures. You know, the UN is upset that she didn’t say how great the UN’s training programs, which turn out these rapists, are.

Of course, Mrs. Malkin is probably surprised that her commentary actually got official notice and recognition from the UN, since it is more than the poor 12 year old Congolese girl with gonorrhea is getting. Unless you count a STD as official UN Human Aid, and all things considered, it appears that the UN does.

This has been a banner year for the UN. Between the Oil-for-Food scandal, in which the UN paid Mr. Hussein billions to the uncovering of all these sexual issues, the UN’s is finally displaying exactly what type of world they are after. One does have to wonder if the UN is in bed with NAMBLA. Apparently their goals, of adults having sex with minors are compatible.

Now, the question remains, is the UN the organization that should be in charge of human rights? Does the UN have the moral ground to tell other nations how to treat women? Also there is an even bigger question of is this organization one in which the United States should be involved? After all, there is guilt through association. If we’re supplying a huge portion of the funding for the UN (and we are) then is this the return we want on our investment?

I have to say no on all counts.

Labels: