Federal Government – Be a MAN! Take political action to support men.

How do Red Flag Gun Laws REALLY Work denying MEN’S Rights?

Red Flag Gun Law are promoted as a means to prevent illegal use but in effect are designed to usurp Constitutional protections of individuals and due process rights. Many oppose these as a violation of the Second Amendment, which it is, but the intent isn’t specifically to prevent you from possessing a firearm as it is a means of government control of your individual actions and result in violation of many of your rights established under the Bill of Rights. While many think these are relatively new, those of us advocating for parental rights have been fighting these unjust “Red Flag” laws enacted under the guise of protecting women and children which are now being spread to a greater portion of society.

The first problem with Red Flag Laws is a denial of due process. The initial filing occurs ex parte, meaning the person seeking the order files it with a Judge without the targeted person allowed to present a counter argument in court. The filing is considered a civil matter and as such the standard of proof is greatly reduced to a preponderance of the evidence (51% for) but with no rebuttal and opposing argument it isn’t difficult to see that the person filing can reach that level of “proof.” Further Judges are reluctant to deny a request for an order as there are few, if any, repercussions to the Judge for issuing the order (He’s acting based on the “evidence” and further has judicial immunity from being sued). However, if he doesn’t issue an order and the firearms are sued illegally the Judge (many of these elected positions) faces public notoriety and backlash for not preventing the crime. The government is stealing your property without you being charged with a crime of given a chance to even address the allegations against you.

A discussion of standards of proof is needed to understand how this process violates the US Constitution. As a police officer I was supposed to establish a suspicion (usually an allegation by a person) that a crime was, or was about to be, committed before investigating a person. Next I had to develop evidence giving me a reasonable belief that this person committed a specific crime and I could present this to the court who, finding probable cause, would issue a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. While it could be argued that the process for “Red Flag” Laws is similar to this it ignores the fact that the processes for a “civil” matter do NOT rise to the same level of scrutiny that criminal matters do and it is the one sided allegation with no investigation which is presented to the civil judge.

Once issued the order needs to be enforced and here the “civil matter” is turned into a criminal matter as the police are the enforcers of the order and it is violation of the order itself which makes it a criminal matter. So possession of a firearm itself is not per se a criminal matter, but you failing to abide by the order (criminal contempt or contempt of court depending on jurisdiction) is the violation of law. Remember, the targeted person has no idea the police are about to show up at his door and seize his legally held firearms. And armed with an order that says he is a danger to himself or another is bound to cause the police (like the Judge) to err on the side of safety and respond in an aggressive manner.

An argument for these Red Flag Laws, which must here be rebutted, has been to prevent mentally ill people from harming themselves or another with a firearm but in these instances the government already has a process in place. A police officer who has probable cause (a preponderance of evidence) a person is a danger to themselves or the public can take them into custody on mental health grounds (again varying on jurisdiction) and deliver them to a health facility for evaluation, said facility able to hold them for 72 house for evaluation and if it is found they are a danger then the process to enforced mental health treatment starts. This an action totally separate for government criminal enforcement. One does wonder that if a person is a danger to themselves or another why it is reasonable to seize their firearms and then let them free to avail themselves of the multitude of ways one person can harm themselves or another?

There are many instances of Red Flag Order confiscations going awry but the fact is that most people, when presented with a court order and armed police officers, comply with the seizure and look to use the system to right the wrong. Many jurisdictions give a 2 week return date for a hearing but in practicality the 2 week return is a preliminary hearing only where people are advised of their “right” to “prove their innocence” and obtain legal representation towards this. And we can see that the government has moved the burden of proof, which criminally lies with the government and civilly lies with the petitioner, onto the defendant/respondent. The entire Bill of Rights has been turned on its head with you guilty until proven innocent. Pray tell, how does one PROVE that they are not going to commit an act in the future? Perhaps the government will develop a “Precrime” division with some “Pre-Cogs” to tell us all what we’ll do tomorrow?

Government regulation of individuals started with government regulation of fathers through (anti) family and divorce courts and the issuance of Orders of Protection (OOP). Initially (anti) family/matrimonial civil OOP’s were limited to persons married and those having a child in common, like above the civil action given to criminal enforcement. This was expanded to “persons in an intimate relationship” as defined by the person filing with ex parte filings allowed. But not allowing enough of the population to be controlled the ability to file for “civil” protective orders enforced by rule of criminal law the authority to file needs to be expanded and the persons filed against also. So the preferred government filers are “police, teachers, and mental health professionals,” the government controlled professions already interfering with parental rights and brain washing children, many of them gun control and advocates arguing no citizen should carry a firearm.

Like persons facing allegations of Domestic Violence (DV) we can expect the “Gun Red Flag” civil laws to work the same developing a data base of alleged violators. If arrested and found not guilty you can have your record expunged but allegation of DV exist in a data base in which you can NOT have allegations expunged. These allegations exist in perpetuity are used as a means to determine future violations and so allegations then become the basis of the preponderance of evidence used to deny you a Constitutional Right. The data base of allegations is used to determine “primary aggressors and future violators” and we can expect the same tactic to be used on legal gun owners. The fear is not government but is fear of your fellow citizens, brain washed friends and family members, and the public at large who will file complaints followed up on by “professionals” with no adjudication. Every anti gun person becomes a government agent just as every single date becomes an “intimate relationship” if she says so, subjecting you to government control.

Advocates for Red Flag Laws will tell you that OOP’s work, ignoring the fact that the crimes they are “preventing” carry higher sentences than violating the OOP does. So in effect if an OOP is issued the only person it will work on is the person who was not likely to commit the crime “prevented” in the first place. We can expect the same padding of statistics to occur in states which add Red Flag Gun seizures. And can anyone explain why we need to seize firearms from a man who is dangerous but then return the man into the public to harm himself or another with other than a firearm? If a piece of paper stopped a criminal from committing a crime we would not need to get bail on arrestees as a piece of paper would work against repeat offenders. We see how well that works in “no bail” states where repeat offenders run rampant.

I am a life member of multiple 2A Organizations and a 25 year parental rights activist in addition to being a 33 year (retired) Law Enforcement Officer and PBA Representative and have been writing kindred (or which should be kindred) organizations, Republican’s and Democrats, and civil rights organizations since the 1990s about the continuing encroachment upon due process of law and the US Constitution with no response. I was also victimized by this system, my story here. I also advocated for many parents going through this process, many with valuable gun collections which were seized, hunters and target shooters restricted from their recreation, and many police officers who were placed on “the rubber gun squad” being restricted from carrying a firearm and placed on desk duty, among others. Most spend thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, lost time and money from work, a public assault on their character which takes months, if not years to adjudicate.

With intimate partners and gun owners subject to “pre-crime” orders restricting our conduct I can only guess which class of people will be the next subjected to a Red Flag Law? Continue to ignore the warnings and you could be the next one subjected to tyranny and loss of liberty under the guise of “protection”.

Lt. James H. Hays (Ret)

Retired En-Con Police Lieutenant, past Investigator Governors LI Solid Waste Task Force, En-Con Police Officer NYS DEC DLE, Past SUNY University Police Officer, Past NYS Park Police Officer, Past Municipal Police Officer, Past Military Police Officer and Civilian Liaison with Killeen, TX Police Department, 33 years LE experience.

Founder, NYMAN (nymensactionnetwork.org), Co-founder and Past President of The Coalition for Fathers and Families NY, Life Member, American Coalition Fathers and Children, Life Member National Coalition of Free Men, Past President FRA Capital District Chapter, Past Board Member FRANYS, Founder and Past Treasurer NY Men’s Action Network PAC.

Life Member NRA, Life Member NYSRPA, Life member NAGR, Life Member 2A Foundation, Life member of Gun Owners of America, Life Member NYS Conservation Council.

Retired Member PBA of NYS, Past Chief Steward, En-Con Police Officers and Supervisors, NYSCOPBA, Past Executive Board Member Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO.

Member and Past regional representative for the NY Conservation Officers Association.

Certified Critical Incident Stress Management with 1000+ contact hours in individual and peer support for fathers and families in crisis.

Bachelors in Family and Society, SUNY ESC, AS Business Administration, AS Environmental Conservation and Law Enforcement, En-Con Police 8th Basic Academy, Certified Police Special Topics Instructor, (Domestic Violence, EVOC, ATVEOC, SEAVOC, Solid Waste Identification and Enforcement), En-Con Supervisors Academy, University Police Basic Academy, Military Police School, NCO Training School

Happy Fathers Day Now Let Me Define What You Need To Do To Be a Good Father

With fathers day upon us we’ll certainly see in the MSM a bevy of pseudo father stories of “father figures,” including mothers as father figures, who stepped up and “did it right.” This is one of the reasons I don’t read or watch any MSM. But even in so called father friendly pieces we see the gynocentric bias towards viewing fathers from the perspective of the wants and needs of women and how society thinks fathers should behave towards their children. The obligatory virtue signaling “I’m one of the good fathers” and social distancing from those other “deadbeat dads” will be loud while ignoring the pitfalls of marriage and fatherhood for men which are, in part, driving down marriage and birth rates.

As is the norm the writings regarding fathers on fathers day ignores the fathers who were there financially and emotionally there for their children, who were disenfranchised by a system which demands their financial contributions to the point of debtors prison and which does nothing to foster and reward active involvement, indeed a system which punishes any attempt to be more than a visitor. It will ignore the father who had a unilateral divorce forced on him controlling his assets and income in the present and future, losing his custody and children in a court system which sees him the same as the out of wedlock father, a wallet and a visitor. Marriage is now made a negative over out of wedlock couples as the married father is subject to alimony and loss of his residence and business in addition to being made to pay ‘child support” for children he isn’t allowed to raise.

ACFC Flyer distributed widely to national and state governments and multiple media outlets over 20 years ago

Misandrist gynocentric and chivalrous white knight views abound in all media outlets, the Epoch Times, New York Post, Heritage Foundation, and ABC/WFTS Tampa Bay examples follow. Being active in the parental/fathers rights movement for over 25 years I have submitted multiple op eds, letters to the editor, and rebuttals to coverage including to Epoch, the Post and Heritage and the response has been mostly crickets. And year after year we get the same “(’m a morally superior) married father and your should be also or the (I’m a morally superior) actively involved father unlike the “deadbeats” around me stories, which are many and the norm. Stories of disenfranchised fathers who are struggling and fighting to be a father are few and far between. Even if they do appear they have the obligatory “unlike those other deadbeats” commentary, as if active involved fathers are the exception and not the norm.

In From Neglect to Nurturing: A Fathers Day Transformation (6-16-23 Epoch Times) Adam B. Coleman relates his experience with his absent (deadbeat) biological father. He relates how he treated “his extramarital children as the least important.” From this I surmise he had extramarital siblings. While I can see the negative emotions his lack of relationship with his father placed upon him I see no similar negative emotions in this piece for having a mother who chose to have a children out of wedlock with a married man. Why is a man’s unwillingness to be a father denigrate while a woman is free to abort, abandon with no penalty, or give up for adoption without the “deadbeat” mom label?

He further speaks of the abandonment when they became homeless twice and he didn’t help them and how his mother would try to force the relationship. Missing here is the fathers perspective on the matter. Was the father paying “child support” which is actually an excise tax if the mother is on welfare as it returns to state coffers which financially strained him? Was he beholden to his current wife under threat of divorce, facing loss of access to his other biological children, loss of his house and further financial strain? If he paid his child support on time and in full didn’t he meet his paternal obligation as defined by government and much of society?

I’m glad to see Mr. Coleman had a good relationship with his own son but missing from his piece is did he marry his son’s mother and raise him (and his other siblings?) in an intact 2 biological parent home? If not, can we pass judgement on him for not doing so and for being an “absent” “visiting” father? He says his son understands he isn’t perfect and I can only wonder if his life circumstances cloud his understanding of why his father did what he did which removes his ability to see his father (and mother), as individuals? It’ not that I agree with what he did, but I wasn’t him so who am I (or anyone else) to pass judgement? One of the challenges of family is to accept and understand them as individuals with their own set of life challenges and move on in life not making the same mistakes as them as we ourselves mature.

As evidence of the one sided perspective of the media, even balanced or conservative media, Adam B. Coleman continues his discussion in This Fathers Day, let’s encourage dads to be in their kid’s lives – and maybe save some in the process (6-16-23 New York Post). His discussion here is more general regarding the problems of single parent (mostly single mother) homes and the decision to form them by divorcing our spouse is harming children. He has valid points, many of which parental/fathers rights advocates and disenfranchised fathers agree with. Yes, children do fare better in a 2 biological parent home and absent that a shared parenting arrangement (no less than 35% of access time for a parent).

He states Fathers Day should be a “day for advocating reconciliation for the fathers of America who regrettably choose themselves over their children” and further states, “Our Government can’t pass a law to make fathers get involved in their child’s life” showing ignorance of the federal government policies which have disenfranchised fathers and continue to do so. It is common to blame the father, this has been occurring since Moynihan’s Report pointed out the crisis of 25% out of wedlock birthrate in the African American community in the 1960s. Unfortunately across all communities and across time the focus is on “what is wrong with men and fathers.”

Mr. Coleman points out his mother told him that his father encouraged her to abort him. I highly suspect if she had considered it herself she would not relay that to him. That said, men have NO reproductive rights. Men who are willing to be fathers have their children aborted against their will. Further, men who do NOT want to be fathers are forced to be financially responsible regardless of their wishes. And in our gynocentrically oriented society we vilify a man who doesn’t want to be a father but is forced into it yet the over 620,000 women who chose to get an abortion in 2020 get a pass on the “deadbeat mom” label.

African American women are about 14% of the population and yet they are 36% of abortions, over 130,000 in 2020. Even given the lack of male reproductive rights, can anyone show that the number of “deadbeat” non involved dads is greater than the non involved through abortion “deadbeat moms?” My experience with out of wedlock fathers is they go to extraordinary efforts to try to be an active father in their child’s life, this with no support or assistance from the groups which are publicly cajoling them to be more active. The majority are at the hospital at the birth of their child and the majority sign on as father on the birth certificate.

Once a woman decides to have a child the federal government encourages paternity establishment by paying the states incentive dollars under Title IVd of the Social Security Act (SSA). This also provides incentive payments for the establishment of the total number of child support orders, amount collected versus owed, collection of arrears, and the cost of the program. What is missing is incentive payments to states for father involvement and/or marriage. Many fathers find out that paternity offers them NO protection to access and ability to parent and raise their child.

An example is “The Good Dad Act” in Florida, recently passed legislation which proclaims to give unmarried fathers the same rights and responsibilities that the mother has. That said, Bernard Jennings was on the birth certificate as the father of his child and was primary caregiver of him for 7 years when the mother took the child and moved away. He finally located her and served papers for “visitation,” said case being put on the calendar 5 months away. The primary caregiver reduced to 2nd class parent and, if he’s lucky, visitor. See New Florida law to give more parental rights to unmarried biological fathers (6-12-23 ABC/WFTS Tampa Bay).

Also highlighted is the story of Ulysess Carwise. His daughter was given up for adoption 2 days after birth without his consent. DNA paternity was conclusive that he is the fathers, but as the court battle drags on his child was allowed to stay with the adoptive parents and she is now 5 years old and believes the adoptive parents are her parents and her father a “visitor” as the battle to terminate his parental rights drag on through multiple courts. The adopting out against the wishes of the father is a common event across the country.

The terms “non custodial” parent and “visitation” are insulting and reprehensible to parents who want to exercise both their (supposedly guaranteed Constitutional) parental rights and their parental responsibilities and they are most often applied to fathers who are relegated to second class parental status. We label fathers a “non” parent and offer them every other weekend and one mid week 4 hour dinner visit, the standard “visitation” order across the nation, and then lament the fact that fathers are not more involved in their children’s life. The right of access and enforcement for interfering are non existent and so the visitation order is a suggestion “allowed” at the discretion of the mother. 50% of mothers admit to having interfered with a fathers time with his children (Sanford Braver 1995).

ACFC Flyer distributed widely to federal and state governments and multiple media outlets over 20 years ago

Deadbeat Dad was a term often used as a pejorative applied to fathers across the board as Title IVd of SSA put fathers into a financial provider role only and was designed, not to collect ‘child support” for the mother but to recoup payments made to “single mothers” who were receiving government benefits of any kind. When the system failed due to the fact that poor mothers needing assistance had poor fathers for their children who were unable to contribute financially, the system was expanded to capture the formerly married divorced (most against their will) fathers who were already paying child support direct to the mother of their children based upon individual state laws. As such it morphed into an income transfer from husbands to wives and is touted as a government “success” for women and children.

No Fault Divorce started in CA and moved east with NY being the last state in the nation to enact it. There is a perception that married fathers are treated better than out of wedlock fathers but in fact they are labelled “non custodial” and given the same standard order of “visitation” and “child support” as out of wedlock fathers. “Child Support” (Child Excise Tax) is set as a percentage of income based upon number of children (i.e. 17% for one child, 25% for 2, etc.) with the money paid through the child support system (a federal bureaucracy with 50 state bureaucracies in each state). Unfortunately for fathers the percentages were set pre tax and as such the payer suffered the tax liability and a father of 2 children could see his $50,000 a year gross income reduced to $7487 net income and the mothers pre divorce income of $25,000 increase to a $38,557 net. “Single mothers” have a perverse incentive to have multiple out of wedlock children with multiple fathers (i.e. 2 children x 2 fathers = 34%, 2 children x 1 father = 25%).

Thus the federal system placed perverse incentives for the states to make fathers “non custodial visitors and payers of child support” regardless of the former marital status and perverse incentives on women to divorce their husband or have multiple children out of wedlock. Historical two income blue collar families kept the father, mother and child out of poverty but now, by placing the father into poverty for the years of his children’s minority, and often beyond as many state mandated payments for “children” until 21 years old regardless of their relationship with their father, fathers are reduced to poverty to keep mother and child out of poverty. Further, arrears can not be reduced for any reason so a poor father in arrears often suffers collection by the state after his children reach majority and no longer need financial support, often until his children have children of their own.

The problem is not a liberal or conservative one with the federal uniparty giving incentives to the states to create single mother homes and then make fathers, and if not them, taxpayers pay for women and children. As Ronald Reagan would say, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” should strike fear in an individual, and in his case it is poetic in that as Governor of CA he initiated No Fault Divorce and as President initiated the federal child support system which put mandates’ and awarded perverse incentives to the states, to create “single mother” homes and “non custodial fathers” whose responsibility was only financial. The liberal government subsidizes “single mother” homes and the conservative government forces the disenfranchised father to pay the costs, at the risk of debtors prison, of her decision to marry the daddy state.

One need look no further than The Heritage Foundation, the useful idiots of Reagan policy, to see the federal think tank which pushes such ideology. Yelling from the roof tops, “marriage before carriage” and the “success sequence” (We Need Committed Dads To Quiet Our Cultural Chaos 6-17-23 The Federalist), colloquialisms of the just get married and be happy crowd as they fail to recognize that men have no reproductive rights, a large part of women control who gets married, marriage is a hostile environment for men, and women file the majority of divorces as it is financially in their interest and now socially acceptable to do so. Jump in boys, a mere 50% will burn a slow death, even odds, but it worked for (morally superior) me!

Worse they ignore the assault on parental rights which began with the denial of fathers rights. Heritage denied fathers rights while still holding them responsible while inversely claiming to uphold the parental rights of mothers while holding them to no responsibility whatsoever. Enter here the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, pushed forth by Heritage but excluding the “non custodial” parents, fathers, of course. Here is my updated version which includes all parents, sent to them in 2019 and several times a year thereafter with no response.

Early on I had been warning of the assault on parental rights, with both the left and right taking a blind eye to the injustice, as it was bound to impact BOTH parents, including married parents. Indeed, many a “custodial” parent found themselves (after much litigation and expense) reduced to “non custodial” status and to now be poorly treated by a system they once thought their advocate but quickly learning the system is out to benefit itself. In Albany, NY in the 1990s we saw married parents dragged into family court by a school system which demanded the parents do as ‘the professionals” said, which we warned was a harbinger of things which are occurring now. The denial of fathers rights and government control of them in the 1970s has been a slow crawl to the denial of parental rights and government control of children for ALL parents in the 2020s.

Coleman would show himself to be an involved father, morally superior to his own father even though admitting the reasons for his actions were never relayed. Jennings also makes sure he’s differentiated from those “deadbeats” stating, “There are some men out there that are not doing what they’re supposed to do to be a father, but there are other men who really want to be a part of their child’s life, married or not, they want to take responsibility, they want to parent their child.” Roberts and Squires with Heritage would lecture us fathers, “We need men who are unafraid to stand up for their wives and children and who see protecting and providing for their families as their most important vocation.” How will we do that if we can legally be beat dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised form out families? And will we see the same treatment for mothers who “walk away” from their responsibility by abortion, abandonment, or adoption of their children this next mothers day?

Here’s a thought for those men that think to virtue signal themselves as a superior father to other fathers, woman who thinks they can define what a good father is, and government which forces fathers into visiting wallets, yet all demanding fathers be more involved, get your head out of your gynocentric orifice and recognize it is a hostile environment created by government for men to get married and for men to have children that is the problem, not men and fathers. Morally superior chastisement does nothing to fix the hostile environment and fails to recognize government created this environment and caused the problems. You can save your lectures and virtue signaling, for us fathers who were willing to be financially and emotionally responsible for our children but were beat dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised from our parental rights and our children your hypocritical misandrist totalitarianism is just more of a reason for us to hold you in contempt on what is for us, Fathers missing our children Day.

The idiocy of Orders of Protection and seizure of firearms

The DOJ is asking SCOTUS to overturn a decision overturning a federal conviction for felony possession of a firearm due to restrictions by an order of protection (OOP). Zackey Rahimi had agreed to a civil OOP after a physical altercation with his girlfriend which according to 18 United States Code 922 prevented him from possessing firearms as it “prohibited” him from harassing, stalking, or threatening her or their child. Police later found him in possession of a rifle and a pistol and he was charged with a federal felony. On appeal his conviction was overturned as it conflicted with the SCOTUS Bruen Decision and the Second Amendment.

The left wing is in turmoil over this decision with many a headline shouting “domestic abusers” have a right to own firearms. The anti gun crowd has always worked in concert with the liberal feminists who perceive men as dangerous, and those with guns even more dangerous. A search of “female domestic violence use of firearms” reveals a bevy of left wing, anti gun (including government) sites framing the debate from the gynocentric perspective of female victims and male perpetrators. The anti gun lobby would like to make this into a public health debate and is willing to vilify men as dangerous perpetrators of violence to justify restrictions on firearm ownership.

The ignoring of male victims of domestic violence and abuse with the one sided portrayal of woman as victims and men as perpetrators has been pushed by not only the political left but also the political right with “white knight” TradCons stepping up to “protect women” at the expense of the rights of individual men. None of the national Second Amendment organizations, indeed no conservative or justice organization at all, advocate on behalf of men who are daily subjected to false allegations of abuse which restricts their right to possess firearms issued by biased judges in biased courts systems. Issued on the flimsiest of allegations of fear and based upon no evidence of actual violence the OOP’s remove mens Second Amendment Rights without due process.

It appears that Rahimi isn’t a good poster boy to argue the injustice of seizing firearms which occurs daily in the US under OOP’s and Temporary OOP’s but the case supports the argument that the only person limited by these orders are the people who would not violate them to begin with. It also shows how a civil matter can be made into a federal case and expanded into a felony. 18 USC 922 makes it a felony to possess a firearm if an OOP is in place prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening a “significant other” and it has been shown there is a reasonable fear of bodily injury. Civil cases are determined based upon a preponderance of evidence, often defined as 51% in favor. While entitled to a hearing, this low threshold allows a judge to believe a woman making a claim of fear in a he said, she said situation with no other corroborating evidence.

Rahimi agreed to a civil protection order in Feb 2020. In regards to harassing, etc. the mother of his child, it appears there were violations of the OOP with charges filed for violating the court order. However, in December of 2020 and into January of 2021 it is reported that Rahimi had at least 5 incidents involving a firearm, shooting into a residence after a narcotics deal, shooting a driver of a vehicle he got into an accident with, shooting at a Constable, and shooting into the air at a restaurant after a friends credit card was denied. When serving an arrest warrant he was found to possess a rifle and pistol in his residence and was charged with a felony and convicted under 18 USC 922, said conviction overturned under appeal.

There is no mention of Rahimi’s conviction for any of the multitude of firearms incidents that he had allegedly committed. In the ruling overturning his conviction it is noted that Rahimi is “hardly a model citizen,” however, he was not a convicted felon. It appears, for whatever reason, the decision was made not to pursue state charges which were at a felony level, at least at the time of prosecution under 18 USC 922 (g)(8). Conviction of a domestic violence misdemeanor for violating the OOP by approaching his ex (18 USC 922 g9) or conviction of a felony in state court (18 USC 922 g1) would have subjected him to enforcement under these federal regulations.

The actions of Rahimi post acceptance of his OOP shows that the OOP is pretty much a worthless piece of paper which does not prevent a person from committing violence as the violent acts themselves carry more punitive punishments than violating the order (if properly charged and convicted of the violence). What the OOP’s do is subject a person in a civil matter who is not inclined towards violence to criminal charges under the vague term of “harassing.” Many Temporary OOP’s are issue ex parte, often on exaggerated or outright false allegations to gain leverage in divorce or family court.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ho found 922(g)(8) difficult to justify because it disarms people based upon civil protection orders and not criminal proceedings. This has long been a problem with OOP’s issued in matrimonial and family courts as the preponderance of evidence standard requires much less evidence than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, trial by jury is mandated only in criminal cases thus people are subjected to the biases of the judge. Once an OOP is issued actions, such as a verbal disagreement over custody, can result in criminal charges against a man who is charged criminally with a domestic violence misdemeanor for which he has to spend time and resources to avoid incarceration and loss of his right to possess firearms. A second “violation” results in felony charges.

This I know from personal experience. At a custody dispute I was charged with 2 simple violations (akin to traffic tickets), charges so low I did’t even have to notify the police agency I worked for, I had a “temporary” OOP issued which seized my firearms and put me out of work for months until I cut a deal to carry a firearm at work but was otherwise restricted (Lets red flag unconstitutional red flag laws). Faced with a lifetime order of protection I agreed to plea to one simple violation and paid a $50 fine. Her repeated false allegation of “reaching where I keep my gun” and the one year OOP prevented me from accessing my children due to the possibility of arrest for a felony. And my story is not the exception but the norm.

As previously mentioned search “female – DV – firearms” and up pops #1 the Brookings Institute, 2 is The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence which is now the John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 3 is National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and on and on. Liberal anti male, anti gun organizations form a loose coalition all advocating for restrictions to your second amendment rights by arguing that gun ownership is a public health and safety issue. They would use incidents like Rahimi to blame all men and blame all guns and gun owners ignoring that Rahimi is an exception to how most gun owners conduct themselves. Justice is undermined under the guise of doing good by ignoring the innocent persecuted individuals.

In its Writ of Certiorari the AG’s office argues that the Fifth Circuit decision “misses the forest for the trees” but we can see in their argument the same biased “men are abusers of women” argument adding that guns add to the danger in domestic violence situations. Supporting the argument they are biased and gynocentric is the statement that “the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” It is the AG’s Office which misses the forest for the trees ignoring both male victims of domestic violence and persons involved in mutual violence. They also ignore the fact that civil matrimonial and family court do NOT provide due process, indeed, many are “courts of equity” not bound by the standards of criminal courts and often the “defendant” is forced to operate without legal counsel as none are provided free of charge as they are in criminal court.

If national gun rights organizations, conservative organizations, and individual justice organizations are serious about upholding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially due process for individuals they need to seriously look at their handling, or lack thereof, of persons (the vast majority men) who are denied due process and railroaded by government policies and government agencies which believe they can violate your rights under the guise of doing good. As to why they do so I close with a quote from C.S. Lewis, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Be Careful What You Ask For …

As President Biden signs the “Respect for Marriage Act” I am reminded that after NYS was the last state to oppose unilateral divorce we switched our support for marriage to advising MEN – DON’T GET MARRIED. Be careful what you ask for was authored by Randall L. Dickinson, FaFNY VP in 2004! Shamefully, the problems outlined are still relevant today. Here it is in its entirety.

The recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision granting gays the right to marry and the highly publicized same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in San Francisco, are only the latest examples of what some are suggesting may become the most important social issue of the upcoming presidential election. As the debate intensifies, those on both sides of the social and political spectrum continue to define their positions on gay marriage, indeed, on the very definition of the institution of marriage itself. While those on the political left, backed by the Democratic Party and aided by the liberal press/media attempt to frame the issue as one of civil rights, conservatives on the right, backed by the Republican Party, promote a more traditional definition of marriage. Indeed, most recently, President Bush, himself, has called for a Constitutional Amendment that would clearly define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Largely overlooked in all of the sound and the fury, however, is one aspect of the broader issue itself that gays and lesbians might want to ponder before proceeding much further on their quest for the Holy Grail of the homosexual agenda. Beyond the ideals of “marriage” and “family”, what are the realities associated with each in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries; how have they evolved, what are the implications for those wishing to enter into the bonds of matrimony, and what happens when it all ends, and couples no longer wish to remain married.

Changes in state laws beginning in the early 1970’s have given a legal preference to any spouse wishing to leave a marriage, even if the other spouse wants to preserve the marriage and has done nothing to give the deserting spouse “grounds” for a divorce. Such laws have essentially acted to empower whichever party wants out, leaving the spouse who wants to preserve the marriage powerless to prevent its dissolution and with no recourse but acquiescence.

The marriage contract has, thus, been described as having been reduced to little more than a contractual economic partnership devoid of any legal protection. Maggie Gallagher states, in her book The Abolition of Marriage, that it has become “less binding than the average business deal. Marriage is one of the few contracts in which the law explicitly protects the defaulting party at the expense of his or her partner”. If all of our business transactions were conducted in a similar fashion, our national economy would collapse. With the marital contract now worth less than the paper it’s written on, why should we deceive ourselves into thinking that it is not having the same devastating impact on our marriages and our families.

Adding to laws that help facilitate the divorce process are others that drive the decision to initiate it. Research has shown that the single greatest factor in determining which party is most likely to file for a divorce is the expectation of being awarded custody of the kids. Along with the kids usually comes a whole range of other financial benefits, as well, including child support, alimony, the marital residence, and one half of the remaining marital assets. With most states still adhering to the standard sole custody model, wherein one party receives the kids, while the other is left to pay, it’s not difficult to understand how at least one of them may perceive little or no downside.

The elimination of any need to establish grounds for a divorce was based on the presumption that both parties are equally motivated to end a marriage, and was supposed to make the process less adversarial and more amicable. Today, 50 percent of all first time marriages and 60 percent of all second marriages will end in divorce, 80 percent of them initiated against the wishes and the will of one of the parties. Ooops!

Such public policies as these have been supported by both liberals and conservatives alike. Ironically, many elected representatives, jurists, legal “experts”, and social services “professionals” who advocate for the right of gays to marry, at the same time continue to resist any reasoned consideration of the impact these same policies may be having on the dual institutions of “marriage” and “family” and the trap that may await those who sail blindly into these uncharted waters.

Nor has the institution of the Church been any great help. While continuing to pay lip service to the ideals of strong marriages and healthy families, most churches today appear reluctant to address the issue of divorce for fear of offending their congregations, large portions of which having experienced the phenomenon of divorce either directly or indirectly in some manner. Preferring to go along in order to get along, many churches that haven’t chosen to ignore the elephant in the room altogether, have simply adopted a policy of acceptance. Rather than providing assistance for couples struggling to save their marriages, and admonishing them that the Church will not condone divorce as an option, some churches have, in essence, begun to legitimize divorce by performing so called “New Beginnings” ceremonies designed to help divorcing couples “move on” with their lives. Today the divorce rate among those professing to be Christians and who claim to attend church on a regular basis is higher than it is for the general population overall. Coincidence? Maybe, but it’s difficult not to draw certain inferences.

Before the gay and lesbian community becomes myopic in its passion for the equal right to marry, it might be wise to consider, as well, the need to lobby for the equal right to certain protections under the law following divorce. Matrimonial and Family Law, including those dealing with the custody of children, the “equitable” distribution of marital property, and child support standards are in desperate need of a major overhaul. Without such reforms, rather than embarking on a journey toward nuptial bliss, many gays and lesbians may find that they have unwittingly entered into a Faustian bargain, ending in the inferno of Divorce Hell. The message for gays and lesbians is crystal clear: be careful what you ask for; you might just get it.

Randall L. Dickinson resides and works in the Albany, New York, area and is Vice President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. The Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. is a not-for-profit public information, education, and lobbying organization dedicated to the advocacy of family related issues and to preserving the relationship between fathers and their children. Its national affiliate is the American Coalition of Fathers and Children

Government destroyed parental rights and now we wonder where the defenders of children are?

In the late 1970s and I get hauled into the vice principles office to be interrogated for an alleged property damage offense as I was seen in the area. He tried the brow beat me, tough guy routine and at one point in my denials of guilt he said, “if you deny it one more time I’ll slap you backwards in that chair” so I shut up and said nothing. Sent home to “get a parent” I got my recently retired US Army veteran of 3 wars Master Sergeant father who was advised of the allegation and the threat of physical violence to me.

The meeting went along the usual lines, Dad, “How do you know he did it?” “No proof, So nothings going to happen to him then? …pause… “Now that that’s settled, did you threaten to harm my child?” The Vice Principle responded, “Well, yes but”… and Dad cut him off “Let me tell you something Mr., you ever lay a hand on my child or endanger him in any way and I’ll kick you ass up and down the street in front of this school for everybody to see! We clear on that?” “Yes sir” was the answer.

By the standards of 2022 my father, a hero of the greatest generation who fought for your freedom, would have been labelled a sexist and racist (the Vice Principle was an “oppressed” man of color). Dads reaction was a natural fathers parental response to protect his child, but now that would be unacceptable. At a minimum a complaint and criminal investigation would begin, the resulting legal expenses born by the blue collar working family. His “war record” would be used to show his “violent tendencies” and in spite of his depression era his life in the dust bowl of Oklahoma he would be portrayed as exhibiting “white privilege.” Being a male, of course, he had “male privilege.” Charges might be laid and if the drawn out procedure lasts long enough a plea deal would be made, not due to guilt but to stave off bankruptcy. Think not? Search “Loudon County Father” and “School Board.”

From 1970 to today men have been labelled as “deadbeats,” “abusers of women and children,” “patriarchally controlling,” and now “toxically masculine”. We disenfranchised fathers from families and made it so their sole responsibility to the family to pay their “child support” (which goes to the government and not their family) on time and in full. We have an 80% plus mother custody rate resulting in 30% of American homes being single parent, mostly single mother, homes. This is the highest percentage in the world. The erosion of fathers rights was the beginning of the erosion of mothers rights and eventually both parents rights.

Parents have police called on them and lose their children to “child protective” services (CPS) for letting their child walk home alone from school or go to the playground unsupervised. Schools turn parents into CPS for not putting their child on drugs for a school diagnosed Attention Deficit Disorder and are dragged into family court to which orders them to do it. Divorced parents have to place themselves under the courts and one of them is going to lose custody to the other resulting in both being regulated by that court. Out-of-wedlock birth mothers who get government services are similarly placed under the jurisdiction of family courts with Out-of-wedlock fathers also where the only expectation of them is to pay child support back into the state for benefits given to the mother.

With the destruction of fathers parental rights and “experts,” advocates, and Judges regulating parents actions as THEY determine the “best interest of YOUR child” is it hard to imagine that deterioration of parental rights wouldn’t continue with school boards, administrators, and teachers now believing that they determine what’s in YOUR child’s best interest? And when administrators determine that a Covid vaccine is needed will they listen to parents who say it shouldn’t be mandatory contrary to the “experts?” And is it any wonder that government, and especially law enforcement, would investigate any parent who tells these “experts” that they are wrong and the parents intend to do something different? Ask the mothers speaking out at school boards in Virginia.

The government subsidizes single mother homes and has made generations dependent on government benefits and looks to increase their control over people by increasing government dependence. Just search “Life of Linda” and you’ll see this administrations ideas for cradle to grave government dependence. Government provides perverse payments to states to break up families and drive one parent (usually the father) out of the child’s life. Erroneously labelled “child support” the money actually goes to federal coffers if the mother receives any assistance from them. It is government programs and policies which have broken up families and disenfranchised fathers from their children.

When you wonder where are the fathers understand that many have suffered great injustices in family court and have been beaten dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised from their families. The remaining men work under a system which considers them dangerous and “toxic” and as such they risk arrest, loss of job and income, and a long expensive fight with a large bureaucracy. With America having the highest rate of single parent households and the life of Linda showing a single mother with one son, do we really think these anti-male, anti-father, anti-family government programs were an accident? And do we think they will stop increasing unless we Citizen’s demand it to stop?

Memo in OPPOSITION to S4512 – Unborn Child Support Act

This unconstitutional denial of due process requires men to be responsible for children based solely upon the word of the mother with no opportunity to settle the matter through testing and/or DNA testing. The full text of the legislation and activity on it can be found at this link. The Mens Action Network urges all men, and all persons interested in truth and due process and the rights of children to contact their Senators and others in opposition to this proposed legislation. In addition to contacting the Sponsor and Co-sponsors also contact the Committee on Finance Members (especially if it is your Senator) and the Senators from your state. Information on finding your U.S. Senator, Leadership, Committees and members, including how to information click this link.

Simply copy from “The Mens Action Network is OPPOSED” (substituting “I am” or your organization name as appropriate), click on the link provided, fill out the form and paste this into the narrative section. Feel free to modify it to meet your views and/or those of your organization. Given this is an election season and both parties are vying for control of the Senate you stand a better chance of your views being paid attention to.

Hon. Ron Wyman (D-OR), Chairman, Committee on Finance

Hon. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ranking Member, Committee on Finance

Bill Sponsor: Hon. Kevin Cramer, (R-ND), Co-sponsors: Hon. Steve Daines (R-MT), Hon. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Hon. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Hon. Rick Scott (R-FL), Hon. Roger Marshall (R-KS), Hon. James Lankford (R-OK), Hon. Roger Wicker (R-MS), Hon. Mark Rubio (R-FL), Hon. John Hoeven (R-ND), Hon. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS).

The Mens Action Network is OPPOSED to S-4512 the Unborn Child Support Act and we submit this memo in opposition to be included as part of the official record.

As a knee jerk reaction to the recent SCOTUS decision on Roe and many red states restricting or eliminating abortion Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and some Senate Republicans have introduced the Unborn Child Support Act. And just as “Child Support” is government double speak for an arbitrary child excise tax placed upon fathers who have been forced out of their child’s life by government laws and policies, so too is the “Unborn Child Support Act.” The bill would allow a “pregnant parent” (so called in the bills summary) to have the state enforce child support obligations of the biological father of an unborn child to the mother with the amount “determined by the court, with consultation of the mother” and providing further that “any measure to establish paternity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be required without the consent of the mother.”

The latter part is so egregious that the bill should be called the Denial of Due Process while Supporting False Paternity Act. Further, the bill doesn’t set any guidelines on the amount of “child support” and, just as we have seen with child support standards act add ons and imputed income, we can expect many Judges to award amounts which will render the man impoverished and unable to pay resulting in draconian measures being used to collect the debt, up to and including incarceration. And just as in Child Support the amount has no basis on the needs of the child and if the mother is receiving ANY welfare benefits the amount paid is returned to federal coffers providing no benefit to children.

An unintended consequence of the bill will be that women will be able to file for “child support” for children they can subsequently abort, as always this regardless if the father wishes to raise the child. And while many red states have limited or abolished abortion the “child support” ordered will offset costs of travel, etc. to a state that allows abortion. And to maximize the amount she will receive the “pregnant parent” has incentives to extend the pregnancy as long as she can, choosing a state which allows abortions in the third trimester and scheduling it just before the birth of the child. Ironically, this bill by Senate Republican’s will undermine red states which have restricted abortion and provide perverse incentives in blue states to delay abortions to the last legal minute.

Paternity Fraud and False Paternity: Paternity fraud is where a woman knows she has had relations with more than one man yet intends to label another the father suspecting he is not the biological father. This often, but not exclusively, occurs in marriage. False paternity is when a woman has relations with more than one man but thinks he may be the father and the man accepts paternal responsibility, most often occurring in out-of-wedlock cases. 80% of out-of-wedlock fathers are at the hospital at the time of the birth of their child and many sign on the birth certificate as the father, most unknowing that paternity testing at a later date will not alleviate them from the financial responsibility.

Unscrupulous women will name a man with financial means as the father and many men have paternity testing done before they accept responsibility for a child which may not be theirs. This bill would negate the ability to establish paternity above the statements of the mother as any measure to establish paternity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be required without the consent of the mother ( bold and italics added). Reasonable estimates at the false paternity rate in out-of-wedlock cases are as high as 10% and given the perverse incentives here we expect that to increase as unscrupulous women name the highest earning male she knows as the father as he will have no means to establish actual paternity. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg better get ready for the onslaught of filings which they will not be able to disprove due to the law.

Mommy’s baby is Daddy’s maybe. Currently the law does NOT allow a man to escape his financial responsibility when he is the victim of paternity fraud or false paternity. To stop false paternity we should have mandatory at birth DNA testing. A CHILD has a right to know who their biological father is. Further, any man who finds he is NOT the biological father of a child which he has been acting as a father should be relieved of any and all forced financial responsibility while at the same time, at the courts discretion, retaining his rights to access and parent the child.

The “Child Support” Standards Act, when enacted, was designed not to provide financially for children but to return to federal coffers from fathers money that was given to mothers in federal aid (Welfare, AFCD, Food Stamps, etc.). Based on a percentage of income per child it is an excise tax and has no bearing on the money needed to raise a child. In cases where the money doesn’t go to the government, it again has no bearing on the needs of the child but is an income transfer from fathers to mothers, with no accountability on how it is spent, and with the fathers bearing the weight of the taxes. As such it is a financial windfall for the mother, see ‘Child Excise Tax Freedom Day for “Non Custodial” Parents’, and often poverty for the father.

The number one reason a disenfranchised father doesn’t pay child support is poverty.

The anti-father, anti-male, gynocentric perspective is evident in the bill when it states it is, “taking into account the best interest of the mother and child” ignoring the needs of the father entirely and also the fact that BOTH parents have equal rights and RESPONSIBILITIES for their child. It is in the child’s best interest to live in a household with BOTH of their biological parents providing for their financial and emotional needs and contrary to working towards this end the bill will further drive fathers from their families and children, deny due process, and encourage fraud in establishing paternity.

Equal Rights and Responsibilities for Men and Women: Selective Service

As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2022, H.R. 4350 passed by the House, wording for equal responsibility for both men and women to register for selective service has been included and forwarded to the Senate. We can expect that, as has occurred in the past, the radical left will remain mostly silent and allow the conservative right to be vocal and derail equal responsibility for defense of the country.

Many of you may not be aware, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the National Coalition For Men V. Selective Service System lawsuit deferring to Congress to act. The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service recommended ending male only selective service registration stating, “[m]ale-only registration sends a message to women not only that they are not vital to the defense of the country but also that they are not expected to participate in defending it.” In spite of this recommendation, last years NDAA was modified in the Senate to remove responsibility for females to register for the draft.

For those of us who believe in equal rights and responsibilities for all U.S. Citizen’s this is a non partisan issue and as such Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike should be voicing their support for equal rights. With SCOTUS punting the issue our remaining avenue to achieve equality is to move this legislation past those in the Senate who are blocking this legislation. As such I encourage all to contact their Senators in support of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women. Below is a copy of a letter I sent to my (Mississippi) Senators modified as a template for your use in whole or in part. My Senators are both Republican so I framed my argument from that perspective and you should modify your argument to fit your views and convince your Senators.

Date:___________________

Senator _________________, and Senator________________,

Dear Senators;

I am writing in support of equal protection under the law. Specifically, Selective Service (SS) Registration which is mandatory for males but excludes females, a fact which would be corrected under the recently proposed NDAA. Through the years the right to vote has been limited to citizen’s and tied to the responsibility to defend the country and homeland, a history of such is here for those unfamiliar, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/11/rights-with-responsibilities-voting-and-selective-service/. Today we are giving the benefit of citizenship to non citizen illegal aliens and the right to vote to females with no corresponding responsibility and in some local elections also the right to vote for illegal aliens with no corresponding responsibility.

Let me first address the fear purveyors who have responded to equal rights and responsibilities for men and women with the usual “daughters will end up being cannon fodder,” the “it will undermine unit cohesiveness and effectiveness,” and the added the inflammatory to protect the helpless women, “pregnant women will be forced into the military” portraying equal responsibility to country as a left wing anti-family agenda. Chauvinistic male chivalry and feminist gynocentrism walk hand in hand in the objections for females registering. Ironically, the radical feminist left remains publicly silent on the “equality” issue while letting Republican’s carry their water, dividing Republican’s on the issue. This propagandist rhetoric flies in the face of fact and common sense when we separate selective service from military service and assignment to duties for those drafted.

The forced registration with selective service carries with it severe penalties for non compliance, including some of the benefits granted to citizens, and individual rights up to and including possible incarceration, at this time applied only to men. Those males that are unable to serve in a front line combat role due to physical or mental ability, and those that will not be called up due to manpower needs being met, are NOT excused from registering as it is at the time of need that we determine each ones ability to serve in what capacity. To require men to register who will not be called to serve, with no corresponding requirement for women to register and be subjected to penalties for not doing so, creates an arbitrary and capricious unequal treatment under the law as a male physically unfit for combat duty and a female physically unfit for combat duty are treated differently in spite of equal inability to perform. Registration of men only is discriminatory and on its face unconstitutional. As such, registration needs to be applied to all male and female citizen’s with them both being subjected to the same penalties for non registration or the requirement for registration eliminated.

Prior to the Vietnam era the draft was run by local boards with exemptions for those in college. During Vietnam this was found to be discriminatory as minorities were disproportionately drafted and the SS instituted a lottery draft based upon date of birth to correct this. Historically SS has had exemptions from service such as the sole financial provider for a family. I expect that SS would develop rules and regulations regarding the exemption or deferment of pregnant females and parents solely, or jointly, responsible for the care of a child. And just as the last remaining son historically was restricted to non combat duty, parents of young children could also be similarly treated and any legislation should properly indicate this.

In any discussion of the military it is important to understand that it takes many persons to keep one person in front line combat. In today’s military only 10% of personnel are in a war zone and only a small percentage of these are front line combat troops. A major war with a major power would certainly increase the percentage of front line troops directly in harms way including those not assigned to combat roles. While I do not intend to belittle those who serve in any fashion the fact of the matter is that even in the worst of conditions most will not be in danger of being “cannon fodder” unless we were in a major war against a world power threatening the US itself and in such instance the entire US population would be in danger justifying all who can to serve in defense of the homeland.

The military service assignments are (supposed to be) based upon merit and ability. Many persons in the Military are in positions that they had not primarily been trained for as if there was a need for manpower and they show an aptitude to perform the duties required they are reassigned. The argument that women are smaller and weaker than their male counterparts only means that those who are will be placed into non physically demanding assignments consistent with their abilities, which is already done for males. How is it equitable and right to draft a 19 year old black male with a high school diploma and make him a cook serving stateside while exempting a white female 19 year old from being drafted to be a cook stateside?

The argument that drafting females will undermine unit cohesiveness and ability flies in the face of the fact that women are already allowed into combat positions. That argument means that the current military is already incapable of performing its duties. If drafting women would cause this is true then the argument is made that women should be restricted from joining the military to begin with. You simply cannot make one argument without the other. The fact is that 83% of the jobs in the military are non combat and can be performed equally by males and females with an aptitude for that position. In addition to combat roles it is reasonable that more men would be serving in strength necessary positions such as laborers moving heavy supplies and materials as they have the ability to do so. But this should NOT be an excuse to exclude the females who can perform those duties.

In an effort to show that women are “equal” to men in outcome I fear and believe that standards were reduced for military personnel. But this is a military command and performance problem, not an equal responsibility when it comes to the draft problem. Both men and women in an unprepared military, indeed also the citizen’s they are sworn to protect, will suffer the consequences of improper training, drafted or volunteer alike. The critical feminist theory and the woke critical race theory which is infecting the military is a readiness issue that needs to be addressed by Congress. Indeed, an unprepared military which suffers personnel losses in conflict supports the need to draft all able bodied and competent men and women to defend the country.

The military is increasingly full of high tech careers driven by mechanization and electronics. Women are now 65% of college graduates and it seems to be a waste of talent to exclude them from these high tech positions which do not require strength to perform. How is the military served by drafting a male college graduate to sit in a facility in Nevada and fly a drone while we pass over a similarly educated and able bodied female college graduate? Females also disproportionately enter the medical care fields. Are we to exclude these very necessary personnel from the draft which will require the positions to be filled by men, many having the abilities to perform front line duties?

The short sighted view that we will not need females to serve in defense of the country ignores the fact that war with one or more super powers may result in our country being attacked. Communist China, our greatest adversary, has over a billion more people than the US, 2 million already in the military (600,000 more than the US), and 35 million excess males with which to draw on in a major conflict. Conflict with China opens the door to opportunistic conflict with Russia. Hostilities with China or Russia, or BOTH, are certain to put our Pacific territories, Hawaii, and Alaska in danger and even the West coast of the continental US. Are we going to draft 50 and 60 year old males for homeland defense against invasion while leaving 20 and 30 year old able bodied females to sit home and do nothing?

The gynocentric “daughters will end up cannon fodder” argument shows a value being placed upon females while showing a misandrist view towards “expendable” men. Simply, why would your son being used for cannon fodder be acceptable and why is ones son required to sacrifice while the daughter not? It is also contrary to the US Constitution, SCOTUS aside which bypassed the issue and punted to Congress (who also failed to uphold equal protection under the law in the last NDAA). But just as discrimination against minority men during Vietnam resulted in reduced combat effectiveness so too will discrimination against men in future conflicts. And how is discrimination against men not discrimination against the subset minority men?

The US already has a lack of patriotic support for our Constitutional Republic and Country problem. 50% of Democrats polled stated that if the country was invaded they would flee instead of fighting for the homeland. As during Vietnam one would expect a large portion of them, unwilling to stand against invasion, would dodge a draft forcing them to serve and fight overseas. Especially with the precedent that a future President will issue a blanket pardon for their illegal actions. Woke ideology is driving Conservatives and Christians from the military, these categories fostering many who volunteered to serve negating the need for a draft. All branches of service are now report having recruitment problems and recruitment goals are being missed. Clearly the patriotic are avoiding a hostile military work environment. And the millions of illegal aliens entering the US, male and female, are by circumstance excluded from defending the homeland, here for the benefit but not the responsibility, nor loyalty to the Republic.

Excluding females and draft dodgers from the draft leaves about 4% of the entire US population, roughly 13.5 million males aged 18-25 years old to fight in defense of the country. How long before a male blue collar carpenter realizes he has been forced to dodge bullets while another 18-25 male dodges his responsibility to the US in Canada? How long before a minority male realizes he is being pounded by artillery while his job at the furniture factory pounding nails is being filled by a male illegal alien, enjoying the benefit of citizenship at the citizens expense? How long before a male college graduate realizes he is forced to lead a combat platoon into battle before he realizes his counterpart female college graduate is working her way up the corporate leadership ladder, a non dangerous career path he wasn’t allowed to get on? Discriminatory draft policies undermined military effectiveness in Vietnam and we are forgetting our history and dooming ourselves to repeat it.

If the federal government is going to maintain a data base of possible persons required to serve in the time of need they need to apply it to men and women alike with the same penalties for avoiding the registration. At the time of induction, which should be based upon manpower needs, the person should then be separated into military basic training for ALL and then individual Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) training based upon aptitude and ability. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm) lists one category (MOS class) for combat personnel (164,000, about 17% of military personnel in 2021) and 12 for non combat personnel (970,584 personnel in 2021). Certainly minimum mental aptitude and physical qualifications have been developed for each specialty, as previously stated most being able to be completed by men and women regardless of sex according to the abilities of the individual.

As early as WW II the US Government used females in support roles in non combat areas to free up men to fill the personnel needs in combat areas. I am not suggesting that females be universally excluded and restricted from hostile combat areas but inversely I am also arguing that they should not be universally included. The MOS and units where men and women work side by side should be based upon effectiveness and if women should reduce the effectiveness of a unit involving males, or men reduce effectiveness of a unit involving females (a factor not even looked at) unit staffing should be then adjusted according to sex, but not otherwise.

Regarding standards for each MOS, as previously stated they should be based upon the minimum qualification needed to complete the tasks and assignments at hand and, absent unit cohesion issues as stated above, sex of the individual should not be considered. All should be required to serve but each according to their ability to serve the needs of the entirety and complete the tasks, goals, and objectives of the unit. The failure to recognize the importance of support roles undermines the ability of the whole to achieve the objectives.

By requiring all to register for selective service we would be supporting patriotism and announcing that all have a duty to OUR country in the of need. We would also be valuing past, present, and future sacrifices of each and every individual who has served, in any capacity, our country in the time of need. It would also be upholding the view that we are all created equal, with equal rights and responsibilities under the US Constitution which is what brings us together in common as citizens of this Republic.

The only failure of our Constitution has been a failure to apply it equally to all persons individually for the God given rights it defines, rights which come with a corresponding responsibility to the Constitution and the individual citizen’s of this country. The extension of the rights of citizenship without the corresponding responsibility to serve equally, each according to their ability, is undermining allegiance to the Constitution and to this Republic, and to each other. I encourage you to stop the sexist bias which undermines our military and make selective service equal for all.

Sincerely,

Fathers – the first Great Reset Victims

Parental Rights Activists could see this “Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum (WEF) coming for everyone else as it was applied to them many years ago. Many are becoming aware of the “new socialism” of the WEF which uses high taxes and burdensome regulations combined with a surveillance state to control you (instead of Marxist direct control of business and individuals). That is what has been done to fathers and families and it is the reason we have such a high out-of-wedlock and divorce rate and why many young people are not getting married nor having children.

Marxism has at its roots a desire to destroy the nuclear family which they proudly proclaim publicly. While Marxist Critical Race Theory (CRT) is now being used to undermine parental rights and raising of your own children it was Marxist Radical Feminist Theory (RFT) which first assaulted the family. Both evolved from the Frankfort School’s Marxist Critical Theory to create a world which “satisfies the needs of human beings” and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see when placed side by side the Great Reset, RFT, and CRT are the same, socialism with a differently named bourgeois and oppressed proletariat.

Just as the Great Reset has been in motion moving slowly over decades, the government regulation of the family and driving fathers out of the family has been occurring over decades, each decade getting more onerous in directing individual behavior. In the 1950s White Fatherless Homes exceeded Black Fatherless Homes. Enter President Johnson and his “Great Society” of social programs for women and children. Black Fatherless Homes skyrocketed to 20% in the early 1960s, labelled a crisis, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan published “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action,” now known as the Moynihan Report. The report received pushback from the African American Community as it was viewed as blaming African American men for the breakdown in the African American Family.

Enter the RFT in the 1970s and the war on “the patriarchy.” Far from being a war on those who held the reigns of power in government and industry it was a war on men in general, including fathers and blue class working families. Who needs a man was the common refrain. In 1970 No Fault Divorce was enacted in California and quickly spread to most other states. Even in NY, which didn’t enact No Fault Divorce until 2010, a woman only needed to go to family court and make ex parte allegations of an unfit spouse and was virtually guaranteed to get child custody, child support, and a separation agreement which would be turned into a divorce after one year of constructive “abandonment.”

The standard for awarding custody in family courts was the Tender Years Doctrine, that being young children would go with the mother for their tender years but older children would go to the father and his “firm hand” as they were learning to navigate in the world. But over time the standard was changed state by state to the best interest of the child standard. This shifted decision making on what is the best interest of the child from the parents to the judge. Through the 1980s and 1990s bias in the courts had them awarding mother custody over 85% of the time in divorce cases and almost 100% in out-of-wedlock births, in all cases making one of the child’s biological parents “non custodial” with limited parenting time. Parental rights stripped without cause.

And over this time, increasingly, 2 parent families were dragged into family court at the request of child social agencies and the judge’s opinion inserted over those of both parents. Cases are easy to find where parents left a child unattended but in a safe place yet the police were called and child neglect charged. Schools started to refer cases where parents refused to follow the dictate of the administrative state, such as one whose parents declined to put a child on drugs for ADHD preferring to try alternative methods first. Parents have been hauled into family curt because they made their child attend church too often even though in accordance with their beliefs. Once the courts made one parent a “non” (custodial) parent it became easier and easier for the Judge to impose his opinion of the best interests of the child on both parents. How long before parents are dragged into family court for NOT teaching their child CRT?

Increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and exploding divorce numbers had “single mother” homes increasing, and increasingly they turned to daddy government to help them financially. As federal coffers were strained government looked for a funding source to replenish expenditures. Enter the “deadbeat dad” under the Reagan administration where popular media was used to portray fathers who “abandoned their financial obligation” to their children. Never mind it was the “single mother” who decided to get pregnant and rely on daddy government, it was “deadbeat dads” fault. As the money was to go to federal coffers the amount of “child support” wasn’t based on the needs of the child but assessed as a percentage of gross income of the father, a per child excise tax.

Even though marriage and divorce were state issues, a Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement was developed and a counter office in each and every state in the nation working under the federal guidelines with reimbursements of money to the states to ensure compliance. Before this a father was ensured access to his children as that was when he picked up his kids he delivered the child support check directly to the mother, no kids, no money. Now she could, and many were, refusing to deliver the children at court ordered times but as his “child support” went direct to the state he was thus forced back into family court to try to get back the lost time with his children, which caused greatly overburdened courts to admonish mothers to not do it again with no penalties.

Initially directed towards out-of-wedlock births the Child Support System couldn’t get any returns as it turns out poor women have out-of-wedlock babies with poor men who can’t pay in to the system due to lack of income. So to show that they were “successful” the system increasingly looked to include those fathers, mostly from divorce cases, where they were already paying child support on time and in full. Many states now directed that ALL child support payments had to go through the government. When the federal government included an incentive for cases with a health insurance order, millions across America were served with an administrative order directing they provide health insurance for children already on their health insurance. “Problem” solved with a windfall to the states.

In 1984 the Duluth Project was begun to address domestic violence against women, ignoring violence in families with child and/or father victims. Even though early domestic violence shelter operators were reporting that the mothers were often as violent as the fathers, the Duluth Model was developed along RFT and it held that ALL domestic violence was because a man wanted power and control over his wife and children. When (then) Senator Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) it was based upon the Duluth Model. VAWA passed in 1994 and has dutifully been reauthorized by both Republican and Democrat alike to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which funds radical feminists and RFT, CRT, and the Great Reset.

When police on the street weren’t arresting enough men due to women not filing complaints (or not showing up in court to testify) mandatory arrest laws were passed which required an arrest if any party was injured. This in spite of the fact it is considered prosecutorial misconduct to arrest a person who obviously can’t be convicted. When police started arresting both parties as much of domestic violence is mutual the laws were changed to arrest only the “primary aggressor” which was defined as the larger person, more intimidating, in effect describing men. To help identify the primary aggressor Domestic Violence registries were set up in every state. Unlike relying on adjudicated cases the registries rely on domestic violence reports, often by one party, with no opportunity to have the case adjudicated by the other party. There is no expunging your name form the record for the innocent.

The socialist daddy state has been very successful in destroying the African American Family as it is widely reported 80% are “father absent” homes. Like in the Moynihan Report we keep blaming Black Men for this. CRT would have us believe that it is “institutional racism” yet the greatest income disparity isn’t between Blacks and Whites, it is between college educated Blacks (who run the cities that Poor Blacks live in) and non college educated Blacks. Having decimated Black Men and Boys and their families the New Socialists need to move on to the rest of families. 15% of White families are headed by the mother, 5% by the father with CRT and school control of children looking to undermine the remaining 80% of 2 parent families. Using “toxic masculinity” and “believe all women” they are looking to drive fathers out of families. Families are dissipating just in time for the Great Reset.

Marriage is hostile to men, and can also be to a female spouse out earning her husband. Many forego marriage not because of men or women but because government controls it and thus controls the finances of the family. Many are foregoing marriage but still creating a home with 2 biological parents of their children. 75% of White families have 2 biological parents while only 39% of Black families* do. We don’t know how many of these families Black and White Fathers are actively involved in the raising of their children for the government keeps no statistics on that, indeed most states have no access enforcement for court ordered parenting time for parents labelled ‘non custodial.” It is apparent the next “critical theory” has to attack the White 2 biological parent families and I believe the Marxist CRT combined with the Great Rest is designed to do just that. The issue isn’t one of race or sex, it is will we allow the “educated class” to dictate to us working class folks how to live our lives and raise our children?

We have gone from “shiftless” black men, to “deadbeat dads”, to “toxic masculinity” and I think it’s time for men and boys, and the women who love them, to say enough. This led to conservative families being labelled “right wing” zealots, parents opposed to CRT being labelled “domestic violent extremists,” and I say it’s time for parents and traditional families to say enough is enough. We’ll bond with a mate, have our children, and raise them as we see fit. And we don’t need your theories and government regulation of the family, we can figure out life on our own based upon our heritage and beliefs, free individuals entering into our social contract of a family beholden only to God, family, country, and community.

*Note there are discrepancies in reported numbers of homes by head of household and marital status and/or unmarried long term biological parents or those separated households that have both parents active in raising their children. The last federally funded research on fathers was in the 1990’s (Sanford Braver) and updated, unbiased, and accurate statistics and studies are needed.

Canadian Truckers, Parents Speaking at School Boards, Jan. 6 Protestors, and “Deplorable” Trump Supporters, welcome to the false narrative.

It is imperative that you understand how your government is labelling you, passing objectionable laws (rules, regulations, policies, or emergency declarations) based upon that label, persecuting you, receiving an overreaction from the fringe element of “your group” (or driving you to overreaction or making it up if there is no overreaction), then labelling the entirety of you individually and your group by association as the fringe “radical”. The label, now a false narrative, is then inflated and the process repeated, again, and again, and again…

Welcome to government definition inflation labelling and persecution. As a 25 year fathers rights activist (and definition inflated labelling and persecuted father) let me explain what I observed the big government-big media-big business cabal is doing to keep you under control and to maximize their power and profit. Government, and this includes all 3 branches at both the federal level, and its agents, big business and media, will first label you (Canadian Truck Drivers are a “small radical fringe”), then persecute you and violate your rights to silence you (police over response to peaceful Ottawa protests), hoping to get a fringe element to overreact (protestors didn’t so police attacked them then labelled them as “violent”), then paint the entire movement as the same as the “radicals,” (National Security Acts invoked to “protect from possible future acts”) all with the ultimate intent to silence you, and others, completely. Once labelled the media will parrot the terms used and inflate their use and then big business, at the behest of government, will use this as a means to attack your business dealings and finances and ability to earn a living (sound about right?). The labelling is inflated and the entire process is repeated, again, and again.

In the 1980’s government decided to go after absent fathers (US and Canada) for the federal aid money paid out to single mother homes. The “child support” system was developed, child support in quotes as the money collected did not go to children but to federal coffers. Fathers were forced out by a lack of protection for their biological parental rights post separation/divorce or out-of-wedlock births and did not abandon their children. But to justify their actions the government created the “deadbeat dad” to justify removing a father from his family and then pilfering his assets. Ironically the deadbeat dad myth was debunked in a 1990s US Federally authorized study (Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths by Sanford L. Braver). But that didn’t fit government interests and so the report (and his book) was drowned out by the government-media- big business cabal and the persecution of the “deadbeat dad who abandoned his kids and doesn’t pay support” continues to today. Given that a child has a right to BOTH parents and there are “non custodial” mothers, most fathers rights activist today recognize themselves as parental rights activists. Ironically the removal of parental rights without cause is the same reasoning used by so called “experts” to interfere with parents involvement with their children’s schooling as the knowing experts are acting “in the best interest of the child” regardless of the parents views.

Back in 2016 H. Clinton coined the term “basket of deplorables” to describe Trump supporters. As this didn’t result in her election the definition inflation labelling went with “Right Wing White Supremacists” which continued for four years but they didn’t get their violation of rights until the 2020 election and their overreaction until the January 6 protests when a fringe element of useful idiots were led into the Halls of Congress by Agent Provocateurs. The label of “insurrectionist” was then added to white supremacist, not to only those who entered or damaged the Capitol Building but to all supporters of President Trump. The attempt to solicit further overreaction by Jan. 6 Protestors continued with the FBI using SWAT Teams to effect arrests of non violent individuals who would have readily turned themselves in if advised to do so.

The Covid restrictions made parents aware of what their children were being taught and many didn’t like the curricula especially Critical Race Theory (CRT) and did what good American’s do, voiced their objections at school board meetings. Immediately they were labelled as “racist,” ironically regardless to their race or nationality, for speaking against CRT which is a marxist ideology applied to race. An overreaction was attempted when a father of a sexually abused teen daughter was baited into arrest but that didn’t solicit enough of an overreaction so the Education Secretary goes to the National School Board Association which at his behest writes a letter to the Department of Justice labelling parents as violent and “domestic terrorists,” thus a made up labelling. Federal investigations then ensued by the DOJ and FBI in addition to parents being doxxed and harassed on social media.

Next up was the Canadian Truckers whose peaceful protest was immediately labelled as violent and “illegal”. In a sea of kids bouncy houses, dancing, and Canadian Flags, Trudeau upped the labelling to NAZI and Racist as one NAZI flag, which was immediately removed from the protest area, was presented and photographed by big media. The entirely peaceful protesters were put upon by police who created the overreaction roughing up their own citizens for passive resistance to orders to vacate. Trudeau imposed martial law to “protect Canadians from white nationalists and foreign influence.” Canadien Banks and the financial system have now joined in and are seizing accounts, in the digital age rendering those people “non persons.”

And now the Department of Homeland Security, the agency which allows our southern border to remain open which directly threatens us all, has issued a threat warning that citizen’s are spreading “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” speaking about those that question the Covid mandates or question the validity of past and future elections. It labels any who do so a “domestic violent extremist” and warns we will “justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists to target government, healthcare, and academic institutions that they associate with those measures .” Of course, providing no examples of this.

Fathers labelled as deadbeat for advocating for their right to raise their child, parents labelled as racist radicals for invoking their parental rights to raise they child and control their education, 1/2 of Americans labelled deplorable for supporting a presidential candidate, truck drivers and peaceful Canadian protestors are labelled NAZI’s by their own Prime Minister, applied to even a Member of Parliament who’s parents were holocaust survivors. The big government-big business-big media Cabal has used definition inflation to the point that over 1/2 of North America is a “right wing white supremacists”, “racist NAZI’s” and we all are now a “domestic violent extremist” and a threat to government, both north and south of the American-Canadian border.

Over 70% of Americans oppose further mandates of lockdowns and 50% of Americans don’t have confidence in the honesty of elections as we head into the 2022 election season, including many Independents and some Democrats. Canada’s protests indicate the similar views there. The current American President, Senate, and House sit in office with very scant majorities. Trudeau’s Liberal Party won the smallest share of the popular vote in Canadas history and he had to get the support of a third party to get a majority in Parliament to rise to Prime Minister. Yet they act as if they are “mandated” by a supermajority to tell us what to do as individuals. In other words, neither country has a government which is popular with the majority of its citizen’s and neither government has a mandate to do anything, especially authoritarian mandates.

It is plainly apparent that the Canadian Cabal and the American Cabal are driven by the same policies. That would be the World Economic Forum which advocates for a “Great Reset” of capitalism and who spoke of the Covid-19 outbreak as a “unique opportunity to push this great reset”. I encourage everyone to look at the weforum.org web site and see the dangers this oligarchy (the Davosians) are to the national governments of both Canada and America and the free world. We are each others largest trading partner and allies in all other things so a great reset in one or both effects us all. Instead of the great reset I say lets all go for a Great Awakening, like the Great Awakenings in early America. It has worked before in North America to bring the citizenry together and can do so again.

American’s individual rights are God given and enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enumerates their individual rights. Yet these are just pieces of paper with worthless words unless we, as citizen’s of our respective countries, stand up, speak out, and work together to protest peaceably. And this mean by all means register and VOTE in each and every upcoming election no matter how high or low, national representatives to school boards. It’s time for citizen’s to take back control of their government and remind them that they are mandated to protect our God given individual civil rights.

I stand united with and I speak out in support of Canadian and American individuals united for our God given individual rights of liberty and freedom for individuals, parents, and families. God bless you all and may God bless Canada and America.

James Hays, Retired Police Lt. NYS Environmental Conservation Police, Quasi-Retired Parental and Family Rights Activist (I still write and speak out), Historian and Genealogist.

The Life of Married to the State Linda

The current administration is promoting the complete replacement of a husband and father with daddy state subsidies to single mother homes. For those of us advocating for the Father/Men’s/Parents Rights this attack on the family is no surprise for we have seen the steady destruction of individual and parental rights under the guise of “protecting” women and children and fighting the “war on poverty”. Indeed, one can put the 1960’s federal government war on poverty and subsequent programs on a chart showing increased “family” programs and it corresponds with the increases of single parent homes. Following the trend, this next round of government programs should get us near to no nuclear families by 2040.

As part of its Build Back Better plan the current administration promotes the fairy tale “The Life of Linda” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/) showing a single mother, Linda, and her son Leo from his birth to her end on earth subsidized by funds from the daddy state. Missing from this once upon a time is the husband/father and any male influence in their lives as the story paints a fantasy world of happiness for her and her son from her pregnancy to her need for elder care, overseen by Leo, or course. It is obvious government propaganda on a par with Stalin’s completely made up Pavlik Morozov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov) which duped a generation into support of a communist police state in the Soviet Union.

Presented in 7 panels in comic fashion we are introduced to Linda who’s pregnant and working in a factory. In panel 2 Linda is seen grocery shopping with her toddler son Leo, subsidized with $300 a month for essentials. #3 Leo is happy in day care, subsidized by the government capped at 7% of her income. #4 a happy Leo enterers a “high quality” Pre-K program for “free” at 3 years old. Next we fast forward to Leo graduating high school and entering community college subsidized by extended Pell Grants. Panel 6 has Leo getting a good paying, union job. And lastly we find an old Linda, arm in arm with Leo as she spends her last years taken care of by government which is paying for her elder care.

The true story of the life of Linda is more like this. Linda meets Lenny and they date. Linda wants a child but not a husband so Linda lies about her reproductive status. Once pregnant Linda breaks it off with Lenny without his knowing of the pregnancy. At birth Lenny learns he has a son and files for paternity and DNA shows him to be the father, using all of his savings to pay for an attorney. It is then that Lenny gets hit with a child support order and is assessed at 17% of his $60,000 income is to be paid to the Child Support Unit. He also learns that the child support is after taxes so he is assessed 22% federal and 5% state income tax. This has reduced Lenny to $710 a week.

Both Lenny and Linda have health insurance through work but it is Lenny who is ordered to maintain a family plan to cover Leo which is $85 a week for the family plan as opposed to $20 a week for the single plan. After Social Security, union dues, and other mandatory deductions Lenny’s is reduced to $600 a week take home pay. Lenny also has to file as single for tax purposes while Linda gets to file as head of household thus reducing her income for tax purposes. As Lenny’s income is higher than Linda’s he has to pay 60% of all out of pocket expenses such as child care and co-pays and Linda pays 40%.

Linda’s after tax weekly take home after mandatory deductions is $675 a week as her tax is reduced by her head of household, standard deductions, and child tax credits. On top of this she gets $196 a week tax free in child support giving her $871 a week in income. Lenny has filed for visitation and he is allowed to visit every other weekend and every Wednesday for 4 hours. To maintain his visitation Lenny needs a two bedroom apartment so his son Leo has a bedroom of his own on the 4 days a month he is sleeping over with his dad. Even though Lenny’s mother is available for child care and wants to spend time with her grandson, Linda chooses to put him in day care at $270 a week, and Lenny has to pay $180 of that but Linda’s child care is capped at $1880 (7% of her income), a cap which doesn’t apply to Lenny. Together with co-pays for doctors and such, Lenny’s weekly income drops to $510, 2/3 of which is used to pay rent on a 2 bedroom apartment (about $1800 a month).

Linda gets a new boyfriend and he owns his own house and she stays with him rent free. Unfortunately the rent or other financial benefits she receives from him don’t affect what Lenny has to pay her in child support nor does it count against the government benefits and tax breaks she receives. The house is two counties removed and Lenny has to spend extra time and money traveling farther to pick up Leo. At 3 Leo is placed into pre-K and Lenny doesn’t like the facility they chose as what they teach are counter to his beliefs. He finds out there is nothing he can do about it as he is a “non custodial” parent.

Leo was smart and good in math but with limited father involvement he started to use alcohol and drugs. When Lenny tried to intervene Leo just pulled away and would skip his visitation time with his father. Lenny thought with supervision Leo could work hard and earn grades to get him into a 4 year college and earn an engineering degree. But Linda didn’t want to pay the 40% she would be assessed to send him to college and encouraged him to go to the free community college which Leo did. So instead of earning $150,000 a year as an engineers Leo earned $60,000 a year as a technician.

Working until she was 62, in retirement Linda could only afford a one bedroom apartment on her retirement and social security, the boyfriend long gone from her life. She has a nice photo of her and Leo from the last time he visited 2 month’s ago, luckily she gets elder care in her home. It’s not the quality care one gets from a caring relative, but it’s enough to keep her out of the nursing home. Leo has 2 children with 2 different women, both of whom moved away from where he works. He is assessed 17% for each kid, 34% of his gross pay before taxes. Both his “baby-momma’s” are on welfare so what he pays in child support goes back into federal coffers to offset the costs paid to the mothers. He lives in a one bedroom apartment in the bad part of town as that’s all he can afford. He still drinks and uses drugs to escape his reality. He’s “to busy” to visit his mother working extra to try to keep ahead of the bills, besides, she has people who from the government who take care of her. Linda has a photo of each kid as a baby and she hasn’t seen either in over 2 years. She sits alone, counting the days.

Lenny paid his child support for 18 years and became estranged when Leo pulled away as he started the partying, drug lifestyle. Lenny warned him about gold diggers looking to get pregnant by him as he had a good job. Leo didn’t listen and blames his problems on his father “for not being there,” even though it wasn’t the fathers choice. Lenny had lived on so little for so long when he finally didn’t have to pay through the nose he started saving and investing. He built up a nice little nest egg, including long term care insurance so he wouldn’t be stuck in a state nursing home when he’s very old and feeble. He sees both his grand kids when he wants as he can afford to travel to them and free babysitting for the weekend and a gift certificate to the spa to mama is enough to get him a weekend. His last girlfriend gave him the marry me or I leave speech. He has a new girlfriend.

Unfortunately the real world outcomes for boys of single mothers is far from the happy idealist scenario presented by the government. By choosing a state subsidized single mother lifestyle the Linda’s of the world are setting themselves and their sons up for negative consequences from increased domestic and child abuse to possible gang participation, drug and alcohol use, and poverty. While negative or positive outcomes are not guaranteed, the statistics are clear that a child raised in a 2 biological parent household have a much greater chance at a successful and happy life. Single mother homes are the bulk of families living in poverty and no person ever got out of poverty by living off of government programs. Some may seem to do better financially up front with government subsidies, but the back end financial and social costs for all are steep.