Text of todays Op Ed in Schenectady Gazette RE: Trump and the elections

I’m posting this here as an issue that I believe men’s and father’s rights activists need to get their hands around.  Neither party supporting big government has the interests of men, fathers, or families.  Until such time as men get political, and look to vote out incumbents in BOTH parties who do not support men/father/family issues we will keep getting sucked into the quagmire of the government regulated family.  It isn’t a Republican or a Democratic issue, It is a MEN’S ISSUE.  For more on party and politics go to http://nymensactionnetwork.org/advocacy-get-active.shtml

Link to Op Ed (requires subscription) http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2016/mar/30/0330_online/ “Voting for Trump in protest of elite in major parties”

Article as originally submitted (name was changed by the paper)

The Unholy Alliance

The unholy alliance, as spoken by Rand Paul is the big government liberals and the big government conservatives getting together to compromise to make government bigger.  So when I see Linda Chavez: By predicting violence, Trump encourages it (The Daily Gazette 3-22-16 Viewpoints) labelling the violence at Trump rallies as self fulfilling prophesies I see the unholy alliance at work.

You see, Linda Chavez has connections back to the republican party establishment working in the Reagan administration and being the nominee of then president George W. Bush for Secretary of Labor so it is no surprise to me that she would take the party elite position of trying to derail Trump’s nomination by preventing him enough delegates to win outright.

In a CNN Live interview the reported asked Bernie Sanders about the violence at Trump rallies in Chicago being caused by Sanders supporters and pointed out that the person who rushed Trump onstage was a Sanders supporter, Sanders responded (rightfully so) that he can’t be held responsible for the actions of individuals based solely upon their support for his candidacy.  It appears when it comes to Trump we have a double standard for laying blame.

A social media post by one Brandon Tatum reports on his experience at the Trump Rally in Arizona (I’ll not vouch for the validity, but believe it as much as other media sources).  In it he points out that it was the protestors who were “outrageous and out of control” with one wearing a KKK hat hollering F… Donald Trump, with many cussing and screaming.  And contrary to as it is being reported the trump supporters were calm and respectful, just looking to see the candidate speak, many like him an undecided voter looking to make up their minds based upon fact.  He reports that there were multiple announcements for Trump supporters to not react to protestors and let police handle any incidents.

Given the fact that it is protestors, supporters of democratic candidates, who are trying to disrupt Trump republican rallies with intimidation and threats of violence and prevent people from hearing what Trump has to say, I find Chavez exhortations about suffering the same in her public speaking events to support Trump and his efforts to speak to the voters and let them decide.  But instead she tries to label Trump the same as autocratic despots and blame Trump for the violence.  Her stance is without merit.

In the interest of full disclosure, I quit the democratic party after 30 years due to their increasingly intrusive big government spending policies and eventually joined the republican party in spite of their big government polices because of candidates like Rand Paul.  As parental civil rights and shared parenting advocate for 15 years I have seen this unholy alliance of republicans and democrats up close and personal in the NYS Legislature, one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional legislatures in the nation.  I don’t like it at the state level and I don’t like it at the national level.

Both Trump and Sanders have hit a nerve with the American people who are sick of the status quo of government NOT working in the interests of the people.  Unfortunately for Sanders and his supporters, the democratic party elites “super delegates” give the party standard bearer, Clinton, the nod.  Not so with the republicans which thankfully saved us from another party elite supported Bush as the republican nominee.

When Trump speaks of their being “riots in the streets‘ he is talking about the response of people like me who are tired of both parties and their elite giving me no option to vote for, at best choosing what I see as “the lesser of two evils” and I must admit to being so disgusted that I often just write in a protest vote for neither.  The “riot” he speaks of is non violent and will be the loss of my support for the republicans at the national level, the streets will be at the voting booth where I abandon them.  But perhaps that is what they want, perhaps the elite republicans would take a Clinton over a Trump.

I was, up to today, undecided on who I would vote for in the republican primary.  I should probably send a thank you note to Chavez for making up my mind, for the unholy alliance, “big government republican (Bush supporters) and democrat (Clinton supporters) elites” working together against Trump has just moved me to pull the lever for Donald Trump in the upcoming NY Republican primary.  And should the republicans abandon the choice of the people, I’ll still vote for Trump in the national election when he runs as an independent.

Jim Hays,
Amsterdam NY

 

Advertisements

TEN MYTH’S OF THE CURRENT “CHILD SUPPORT” SYSTEM

The Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc.,  “Working to Keep Fathers and Families Together”, brings you;

 

TEN MYTHS OF THE CURRENT “CHILD SUPPORT” SYSTEM

1. Child support is for the children. [False]

Currently there is NO system of accountability by the custodial parent. Many parents can, and do, spend the money for the child on personal luxury items that have no bearing on child welfare. If we really wanted the children to have the financial support shouldn’t the custodial parent have to show how the money is spent?

2. Those “deadbeat dads” who have abandoned their children should pay for them. [True, but…]

There are very few parents who abandon their children. Actually most non-custodial parents were forced into being “non custodial” against their will as over 80% of divorces are against the wishes of the other parent. Over two thirds of divorces are filed by women and yet 90% of the time women “win” custody of the children even when they wanted out of the family. In New York State there is no SHARED PARENTING statute. No matter who files, one parent or the other will be forced into being a visitor and “non custodial”. The “winner” receives full control of the finances with no accountability. The overall vast majority of non-custodial parents did not abandon their children; they were forced away from them.

3. No matter who caused the divorce the child shouldn’t have to suffer financially. [True, but…]

Over 90% of parents who have shared parenting pay their financial child support on time and in full compared to under 70% for those with just visitation. Children of divorce fare better emotionally when they have TWO involved parents in their life. If policies promoted shared parenting for children they would receive both FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT FROM BOTH PARENTS. A win-win situation for all involved. If we want to ensure the child’s financial well being we need to promote both parents access to the children.

4. All that may be true for divorcing couples but, we need to get those “deadbeat dads” who are fathering these children out of wedlock and dumping them on welfare! [True, but…]

Studies have shown that over 80% of out of wedlock fathers are present in the maternity wards at the time of their children’s birth. Most acknowledge their paternity and are ready and willing to be financially and EMOTIONALLY involved in the upbringing of their child. And why aren’t these mothers equally financially responsible?

5. Fathers should accept their paternity and financial responsibilities! [True, but…]

Most fathers do accept their financial and EMOTIONAL responsibilities for their children but the system is gender biased labeling fathers as financial providers and discounting their emotional value to their children. The saying goes “mommy’s baby, daddies maybe”. Even in those cases where DNA evidence has found the man NOT to be the father HE IS HELD FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ONCE HE ACCEPTS PATERNITY OR IS MARRIED AT THE TIME OF BIRTH. DNA testing facilities report that 50% of paternity tests come back negative. FALSE PATERNITY IS ESTIMATED AS HIGH AS 18% IN BOTH MARRIED AND OUT OF WEDLOCK BIRTHS! Don’t children have a right to know who their real father is? Fathers should accept responsibility for their children and mothers should be held responsible for telling the truth when it comes to paternity! Responsible fatherhood belongs to the biological father.

6. OK, some fathers may have gotten a raw deal but there are a lot of them who just refuse to pay child support to children who need it! [False…]

The number one reason given, by both custodial and non-custodial parents alike for non payment is inability to pay.  6% of those in default in a recent government study that was released to show “the arrears problem” were found to be dead. In fact women are found to be in default of child support payments at twice the rate of men. The vast majority of default on child support is due to inability to pay not a refusal to pay!

7. The important thing is children are financially cared for to keep them out of poverty. [True, but…]

The number one indicator of child poverty is coming from a single mother household. Over 54% of children in poverty come from single mother families as compared to 11.5% of children in married households. If we want to combat child poverty we need to develop policies that discourage single parenthood.

8. If non-custodial fathers or mothers can’t afford to pay they can just get their support reduced. [False…]

Support is based on a percentage of income at a fixed point in time based on ability to earn. Once the amount is set non-custodial parents are rarely, if ever, afforded a reduction. The “Bradley Amendment” states that child support arrears can NOT be reduced no matter what the reason for the arrears! Courts have even gone so far as to “impute” income, that is add on other income or assets for inclusion in child support payments. An example of this is a non-custodial parent who moves into a relative’s residence temporarily without paying rent. The fair market value of the “rent” not paid can be added to the non-custodial parent’s income in computing child support. Non custodial parents who suffer unexpected interruptions in their income are often penalized for being “in arrears”. An example of this is Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed Employee and divorced father who was captured in the Gulf War in Kuwait and spent 5 months as an Iraqi hostage and prisoner of war. The night after his release he was arrested for being $1425.00 in arrears in child support. Non custodial parents are penalized including loss of driving privileges, suspension of automobile registrations, loss of hunting and fishing licenses, suspension of professional licenses even if needed to produce income, posting on public “wanted” posters, turned in as “bad” credit risks and arrested and incarcerated for six months at a time even if they can prove that payments were not made due to inability to pay! These same penalties are applied even when there are no arrears and the report is in error. Child support owed continues to build while the non-custodial parent suffers the above penalties, including while incarcerated.

9. These non-custodial parents are just trying to get their child support payments reduced. [False…]

The number one complaint by non-custodial parents is that they were forced to be non- custodial against their will. Of those who have accepted the non-custodial status the number one complaint is that there is no access (visitation) enforcement. Even when it is spelled out in a court order, there are no penalties for the custodial parent who denies the non custodial parent. Complaints of being labeled a paycheck and a visitor fall way behind access enforcement and lack of time with their children. Prior to separation both parents cared for their children financially without a child support unit.

10. Overall, child support payments are based on the needs of the children. [False…]
Child support payments are based on an arbitrary “ability to earn” income of the non-custodial parent. It has no actual basis in the costs to raise a child or even in the actual expenses paid towards the child. New York does not even have a proportional offset for non custodial parents who spend more time, or spend money directly, on the care of their children. Non custodial parents are assessed 17% of their gross income (35% of net) for one child and 25% of gross income (48% of net) for two children. This assessment is the same for a non-custodial parent who spends no time whatsoever with their children and the non-custodial parent who spends 49% of the time with their children with increased direct expenses for the children. The NY Court of Appeals has even gone so far as to rule that when two parents spend equal time (50%) with the children that the “custodial” parent can be determined for the purposes of child support by who makes more money, even when the financial needs of the children are being met in both households. The guidelines are strict application regardless of circumstance.

Conclusion:

The child support system is based on the premise that after divorce/separation one parent or the other will be the sole custodian of the children and the other parent will be the financial provider. This fails to address the real world where both parents are actively involved in the child’s emotional upbringing and share in the financial responsibilities to the family. Current policies reduce the value of one parent or the other to children and in fact contribute to child poverty by promoting single parent households. Not only are these single parent households financially distressing to children but they are also emotionally damaging to children in ways that are to numerous to mention in this short hand out.

In fact the system is actually causing problems and is destroying families and is fixing no problems.

Go To www.FaFNY.org, or find us on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fathers4Kids/ for more information on this and other topics relative to “Non Custodial Parents”, children and families or to network and get help and advice from other parental rights activists.

Memo in OPPOSITION to S0309A

NYS Senator Kathy Marchionne, a “republican” working off the “1 in 5” campus hysteria, which is being debunked all across America, is fostering the same type of hysteria in NYS high schools.  Here in NY we have a domestic violence agency which only advocates for teen female victims of domestic violence as evidenced by their media campaigns which are directed at male perpetrators, with no similar campaign for female perpetrators, and relying on the “Duluth Model” which has also been debunked by many recent studies which show equal victimization rates.

“Republican” Senator Kathy Marchionne (“my” former Senator which I openly refer to as a RINO) has also pushed sexually biased legislation such as women’s equal pay legislation, which is counter to her own parties platform as that issue being “junk science”,  but in NYS it is important to pander to the “women’s vote”, even if you lose the “men’s vote”.  More on the lack of attention by democrat and republicans alike to men/father/family/children issues will be forthcoming in future posts.

For the purposes of the discussion here, as parents we should understand that this legislation will do nothing to protect our daughters and may in fact lead them to believe falsehoods which place them in harms way.  Our sons, and ironically often our daughters,  will be similarly be placed into a system that will criminalize their adolescent behavior.  I encourage all parents to cut, copy and paste this into correspondence to this, and THEIR, legislators.

*******************************************************************

NY MAN-The New York Men’s Action Network     jh@nymensactionnetwork.org   http://www.nymensactionnetwork.org

Memo in OPPOSITION to S0309A

Senator Kathy Marchionne
919 LOB Albany, NY 122

Dear Senator;
The NY Mens Action Network, a statewide political action and grass roots lobby group is opposed to this legislation, S0309A without assurance that male victims and false allegations of abuse are addressed.
Currently the NYS Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence is working with a flawed model (the Duluth Model) which shows domestic violence as a “pattern of control by men over women”.  Current research has, however, shown that men and women have generally equal victimization and perpetration rates (see http://menwebjournal.com/NISVS.htm, and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020).
In the area of dating violence the myth’s surrounding sexual assault are running rampant, distorting policy and legislative decisions (see http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/myths/) and these decisions are undermining our due process protections (see http://www.saveservices.org/camp/false-allegations-on-campus/, and http://www.mediaradar.org/restore_civil_rights_to_dv_laws.php).

Even though there is equal victimization rates among men and women, including teens, there is no recognition of male victims and there are no services available for men (see http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?683).

Until such time as there are is a recognition of male victims, equal services available for male victims, the issues of false allegations are addressed including the erosion of civil rights and due process, I oppose this legislation.

Sites for Reference include http://www.saveservices.org/, http://www.mediaradar.org/index.php, and http://www.stopabuseforeveryone.org/.
Please place this in the bill jacket and make this opposition part of the record.

Memo in OPPOSITION to S4489/A6587 No Fault Divorce Bias towards “Victims of DV”

Many years back in the days before no fault divorce was the law of the land, yet being pushed by the NYS Bar Association, The Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) and the New York Men’s Action Network (NY MAN) opposed no fault divorce unless the issues of sexual bias towards mother custody, arbitrarily high arbitrary and capricious child support awards, and the problems with false allegations of abuse (child and domestic violence) were addressed.

Eventually, no fault divorce passed, but as we know none of the issues we raised have been addressed.  Indeed, one Betty Little, Republican Senator from the Adirondack Region of NYS was in part responsible for the parliamentary maneuvers in the NYS Senate which derailed shared parenting legislation in committee.

Now, none other than Betty Little would put in a no fault divorce “repealer” for one class of people, that is “victims of domestic violence”, who would be able to declare no fault divorce null and void.  Knowing that both men and women are the victims of domestic violence in equal numbers, I can’t imagine a scenario where a victim would want to stop the process which would help free them from their abuser.   But, NYS Courts or the DV system don’t address male victims, so it is obviously pandering to “the women’s vote”, an action that will be beneficial to women only in a sexually baised system which serves females only.

And if passed I can only imagine that each and every recipient of a unilateral no fault divorce action will claim to be the victim of domestic violence as leverage in that action.  Indeed, every filer will need to file allegations of DV to protect themselves from a counter allegation.

It’s not hard to see who will benefit from this legislation, lawyers who need to address “these issues” will rack up billable hours.  And of course the politicians here would be able to point to this legislation in their pandering for the “women’s vote”.

Just another example of the NYS Legislature, the most corrupt and dysfunctional in the nation, doing unnecessary business as usual.

NY MAN has issued a memo in opposition to this legislation and is asking it be placed upon the official record in the bill jacket.  Feel free to cut, copy and paste this to these, and more importantly YOUR, legislators.   And in the process, ask them why shared parenting, which has the support of 80% of NYS population, has been stalled (and why are they in the pockets of the NYS Bar Association?).

**************************************************************************

NY MAN-The New York Mens Action Network
jh@nymensactionnetwork.org      http://www.nymensactionnetwork.org

Memo in OPPOSITION to S4489/A6587

Senator Betty Little
310 LOB Albany, NY 12247

Assemblywoman Sandra Galef
641 LOB Albany NY 12248

Dear Senator and Assemblyman;
The NY Mens Action Network, a statewide political action and grass roots lobby group is opposed to this legislation  S4489/A6587.
This is in effect a repealer of no fault divorce which flies in the face of the intent of that legislation, which was to not force a party into into a marriage which was broken down and place the parties in a situation of continuing conflict, which is what this legislation would do.  It creates a class of protected person such that any and all non filers of a divorce action will be able to claim victim status, and at a minimum delay proceedings for adjudication of the allegations.  Perjury and false allegations of abuse already run rampant in family and supreme courts in matrimonial, custody and support matters, and are used to gain leverage.  This legislation is only bound to add to that existing problem and one can envision filers making allegations of abuse to negate the non filers possible claim. (see http://www.saveservices.org/camp/faam-2011/research-on-false-allegations-of-abuse/ and also http://www.saveservices.org/key-facts/).
The NYS Courts already have great oversight authority over individuals when a divorce action is filed, including the issuance of protective and restraining orders, and orders over the dissipation of assets.  This legislation is unnecessary, would not protect victims of domestic violence, would endanger victims of domestic violence, would contribute to an already overworked system, and foster more false allegations to gain leverage.  As such we oppose this legislation and further request that this official opposition be placed upon the record (in the bill jacket).