You are currently browsing the dads & things weblog archives for the day November 15, 2007.
- Abortion (14)
- Anorexia Nervosa (6)
- Censorship (17)
- Child Abduction (10)
- Child Murder (8)
- Child-Custody Awards (20)
- Divorce (31)
- Education (26)
- Family (78)
- Feminism (59)
- Feminist Jurisprudence (50)
- Gay issues (9)
- Health (20)
- Media Bias (15)
- Men and Women Work (14)
- Men's Issues (86)
- Paternity Fraud (9)
- Propaganda Exposed (81)
- Shared Parenting (13)
- Social-Destruction Enterprise (1)
- Suicides (1)
- The New World Order (85)
- Uncategorized (3)
- Women's Violence (47)
- May 10, 2008: You feel guilty about not donating?
- May 8, 2008: Men are more visually aroused than women?
- May 8, 2008: Der Untergang der Welt die wir kannten
- May 4, 2008: Torpedoed: The Titanic of gay-rights dialectics, "Born that way"
- May 4, 2008: MISSING CHILD
- May 2, 2008: Men have all the power?
- May 2, 2008: Vengeful mothers leave good fathers powerless to see child, says judge
- May 2, 2008: Divorce law robs talented spouses
- May 2, 2008: The Impact of Marriage and Divorce on Children
- May 2, 2008: The Way Our World Ends
Blogroll
Help Lines for Men
Men's and Family Rights Organizations
Archive for November 15, 2007
Diverging demographic trends
November 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.
A great and valuable article:
How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Radical Islam
By Fjordman….Fjordman is a noted Norwegian blogger who has written for many conservative web sites. He used to have his own Fjordman Blog in the past, but it is no longer active.
The preceding reference is to a fairly long article published in Global Politician. The article is required reading.
It is remarkable that the sentiments and observations relating to population and family politics in the West that the article by Fjordman presents appear like a fairly accurate summary of the themes presented at Fathers for Life.
However, Fjordman’s article contains one misperception that must be corrected.
Barbara Boyle Torrey and Nicholas Eberstadt write about a significant divergence in fertility between Canada and the U.S.: “The levels of Canadian and American long-term trends in age of first marriage, first births, and common-law unions are consistent with the divergence in total fertility rates in the two countries. But the divergence in none of these proximate variables is large enough to explain the much larger divergence in fertility.” “Changing values in the U.S. and Canada may be contributing to the fertility divergence. The stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion. Women in Canada enter common-law unions more often, wait longer than American women to marry, and have children later and less often.”
The significant divergence exists on a national (where it masks its true causes) but not at a detailed demographical level. Moreover, the divergence is between the US and all developed nations, not just the ones in the West, and not just Canada.
The main reason for the national divergence in the US is not, as the quoted excerpt speculates, due to the “stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion.”
The Caucasian population sector in the US experiences the very same deadly decline in total fertility rates experienced in all other developed nations, especially in those that prosper and are more culturally and racially homogeneous than the US is. The deadly decline in total fertility rates of Blacks in the US is even worse than that in the Caucasian population sector in the US.
However, the Hispanic population sector is the major influence on national fertility trends in the US. Hispanics’ fecund birth rates compensate for the deadly decline of total fertility rates in the Caucasian and Black population sectors in the US.
It is therefore not traditional American moral standards that contribute to the US holding its own with respect to maintaining population levels. It is the massive replacement of the declining population in American traditional population sectors with legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico that does so.
Moreover, per capita, the abortion rate in the US differs little from that of other developed nations. For instance, for every Canadian resident there are ten US residents, and for every Canadian abortion there are ten abortions in the US (roughly 120,000 per year in Canada vs. about 1.2 million each year in the US). Of course, nationally, the number of live births per capita exceeds the number of abortions to a far greater extent in the US than it does in other developed nations. On a per capita basis, US abortion rates are as high as those in Canada and in other developed nations. However, the high birthrate of Hispanic residents and immigrants in the US more than compensates for the relatively high abortion rates in the US that prevent 1.2 million much-needed children each year from being allowed to live and to continue the social and moral traditions of their parents.
Perhaps the moral and social traditions of those dead children’s parents are not worth perpetuating, it is just as well that they are not being perpetuated. That is a manifestation of the fact that birth control by choice and through killing is an evolutionary dead-end. To foist the culture of death and infertility on the American population and on the populations in other developed nations does nothing other than create a demographic vacuum that is being invaded by foreign populations and foreign cultural values.
That is what the article by Fjordman more than adequately illustrates, except for indicating that the US is an exception. It would be more accurate to state that the rate of population replacement through foreign cultures is the same in the US, in France, in the Scandinavian countries and in all developed nations, but that the invading culture that dominates all other growing foreign influences in the US is Mexican, not Islam; but even that may only be a matter of time.
Posted in Abortion, Health, Feminism, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »
A case of paternity fraud
November 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.
The following is a response to a complaint about real case of paternity fraud in the US. The names and locations have been altered to protect the victims of the fraud.
The man who wrote the original complaint is experiencing the whole gamut of the weapons of the divorce industry:
- Paternity fraud;
- Child abduction and move-away by the mother (involving an eight-hour trip - one way - by the father if he wishes to see the child whom he has come to see as his own);
- False allegations of domestic violence, to keep they alleged fathers at bay and away;
- The defrauded man duped into paternity;
- The mother of the child refuses any child access to the alleged father;
- The defrauded father has become very strongly bonded to a child who is not his, for whom he pays child support, but a child whom he no longer gets to see, and more.
If anyone reading about that case here has any good advice or pointers, please post a comment to this blog entry.
Here is my response to the man’s complaint:
Hello Bill,
Sorry for your troubles, but thanks for writing.
Don’t blame your misfortune so much on a miscarriage of justice due to your lawyer’s ineptitude as on a justice system in which the cards are stacked against you. That is because you are a man. The family-law system hates men.
That is nothing personal, but the more difficulties men encounter due to the justice system, the more money the players who inhabit the system and make it thrive can extract from men. Family law grew into a social cancer.
The most important thing you can do is to get in touch with a fathers-rights organization in Flatbush, Tennessee.
It is highly likely, almost certain, that you must file your case in a Tennessee court, as Flatbush is the place of residence of the biological parents of your child.
However, do everything you can to keep the case out of family court. Family courts were a response by the legal system to the large back-log of divorce applications that occurred in the 1960’s as a consequence of the implementation of the concept of “no-fault” divorce (in whom the fault for the divorce is always placed squarely on the shoulders of the man). Family courts are not in existence to help families and to dispense justice for families. They exist to pursue their original reason for existence: to help speed up the destruction of families. In family courts the precepts of normal courts — to follow the rules of the courts and the rules of evidence, your right to be judged a jury of your peers, your right to face your accuser, your right to own property, your right the enjoy the earnings of your labour and your right not to be forced into indentured labour and not to have you forced into forking over your earnings to third parties — have all been abrogated and no longer apply.
You need to get in touch with that fathers-rights organization in Flatbush to learn from them what you can do to help your case. You will most likely learn more from them than you can learn from a lawyer. More importantly, you can ask them and learn from them how to go about finding a lawyer that can help you the best to win your case. However, your chances of winning are slim. That is because you are a man. The system hates men.
That was in relation to your wish to obtain custody of your daughter.
As to what you must do to get compensation from your lawyer and to get him punished or fined for lack of action, for botching your case, and for being a bad lawyer all around, you will have to file that case in New York. That case will have to be brought to court in New York, perhaps in New York State.
I do not know who in New York will be able to help you. I am not aware of a fathers rights activist who may be able to point you into the right direction on that. It will not hurt you to ask more fathers rights activist about it.
A word on your choice of lawyer in the very specialized field of family law: Family law is not specialized because lawyers receive much training in family law (at some universities, family law is covered in no more than a day), but because it has become a sector of the justice system that, along with many other government bureaucracies nurtured by and living off it, grew into an enormously large and profitable industry that mainly extracts money from men and pretends that is justice, all under the excuse that it all is “in the best interest of the child.”
The relationship between you and any lawyer working for you is like that with any other contractor you hire. You are the boss and pay the bills and his wages.
A lawyer works for you according to your plan, your schedule, your objectives, your instructions and your supervision. For you to miss out in any of those aspects is an invitation to disaster and much like giving the lawyer a signed, blank cheque.
Moreover, you must select and choose a lawyer like you would any other contractor. With a construction or building-renovation project you may engage in a formal and tender and bidding process. You would receive bids for a given job from more than one contractor. You would evaluate the bids and pick the most promising contractor. If you were not to do that, you would have no assurance that the contractor you hired would be the best for the job you want him to do. If you don’t follow a similar process when hiring a lawyer, then there is no possible way that you can be sure to have hired the best lawyer possible.
As to going by the recommendation of someone who said you should pick that lawyer, “good advice” like that is cheap, and it is worth to you what you pay for it, but it may be worth more to the party offering the “good advice.” Medical doctors pay a referral fee to other doctors who bring clients their way. I don’t know whether lawyers operate that way, but I would be surprised if they did not.
As to how to find a fathers-rights organization, go to http://www.dvmen.org/dv-190.htm#help
Some general observations:
Given that your daughter is not your biological child, although you were duped into believing that she was, that will cause some special problems for you. It appears obvious that you were duped in order to make you become involved in a strong emotional bond with your daughter.
The fact that the bond now exists lays you open to blackmail and extortion by the biological parents of the child. Moreover, because you openly accepted the child as your own and are now even fighting for her custody and that of her sister, you are legally the father of that child and of her sister.
In all likelihood you will be paying child support until the girl comes of age or until she finishes her education, whichever comes later. Yet, you may not ever see her again. The “legal” system will insist that that is in the best interest of the child — not only that, but that your daughter is entitled to the level of comfort she became accustomed to while still in your care. That means also that the child support amount will be increased over the years as your income increases. It will be said that that is necessary because she would have the increase in the level of comfort if she were still with you, and that those increases in child support payments, too, are in the best interest of the child.
Moreover, it is relatively easy now to make you the father of not only the girl whom you believed was your daughter, but also of the one that clearly and quite openly was not your child. That doubles the stakes in the game that you became involved in.
If the biological parents are in the state of existence you described, they will have a very strong interest in having you make those ever-increasing child support payments for as long as possible. In fact, as far as they are concerned, the best thing that could happen would be for them to have your daughter(s) go to university for as long as possible. They could well afford that, because you will be paying for it.
Your child support payments will be their major source of income. It will be far better than receiving a government disability pension, and it is possible for them to use the power of the State to make sure the money you are able to pay will keep coming their way.
That will motivate the parents to refuse to hand the child(ren) over to you. Against their resistance it will most likely be impossible for you to gain custody of your daughter(s). The parents will have lawyers beating a path to their door to help them fight your application to gain custody. You will be paying your lawyer out of your own resources. Their lawyers will be paid out of the bottomless public purse. You will therefore fight against an opponent with unlimited financial resources.
Under those circumstances it will be difficult for you to maintain the pretense that the girl is your daughter. You will have little or no feedback from her to re-enforce your bond with her. The question now is for how long you can keep up the pretense that the child is your daughter. When that pretense ends, the child support you are paying will be seen by you for what it is, extortion money that you must pay because you were duped and defrauded.
If you were to consider all of that, you should then not fight for custody but for recognition of what happened. You were duped and defrauded. That is a crime.
You are not the father of that child and you should fight to have your status cancelled of having been made the father through fraud. Your legal paternity is a fraud.
If you were to base your future actions on the fact of that fraud and if you were to attempt to put an end to it, you would have a very small but slightly better chance to have your paternity declared null and void than you have to gain custody of one or both of the girls.
All the best,
Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
Posted in Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »