Poll Result: Inaction by Divorced Dads & NCPs Biggest Challenge to Family Law Reform

Last month, the NCPForce! Blog asked readers "What are the biggest challenges to Family Law Reform efforts?".

Sixty-six percent said the inactivity of divorced dads and non-custodial parents.

Another thirty-three percent selected "all of the above" as their answer, blaming Institutionalized Hate, an apathetic public, inactive divorced dads and NCPs, and corrupt politicians.

Thanks to all who participated.

Our latest poll question is: Non-custodial parents must pay support for children they are not even allowed to see in order to teach "reproductive responsibility". Do you think parents who drop children at safe surrender sites should also be taught "reproductive responsibility"?

The poll can be found right here on the NCPForce! Blog and is open until midnight September 30th.

Do Americans Understand the Complexities of Family Law? Probably Not Suggests Poll

In order for family law reform efforts to work, activists will have to convince the broad American public that reform is needed to rectify a system of abuse and discrimination.

But first Americans will have to understand the complexities of the family law system. So the big question is: do they?

Probably not according to a recent Pew poll, whose results were featured on Raw Story at http://rawstory.com/2010/01/poll-americans-pretty-clueless-politics-world/. If the numbers are correct, most Americans are pretty clueless about their political system in general.

Sixty precent of respondents to the poll could not correctly identify Nevada Democrat Harry Reid as Senate majority speaker. Sixty-eight percent did not know that Michael Steele if the chairman of the Republican party. And fifty-nine percent did not know that Stephen Colbert is a comedian and not a real journalist.

This poll should be the subject of consideration for family law reform activists, because if the general public isn't even aware of the basic political playing field, we can also not expect them to understand why we are in dire need of change in the family law system.

Combine this with the hate that is disseminated to the general public, through our government and our mass media, and what you have is a toxic environment that family law activists must wade into every time they set out work.

The key to our battle, it seems, is cleaning up the environment through educational efforts which teach Americans about the daily operations of family courts and government agencies, which are repugnant to basic American ideals. And maybe, along the way, we can also let people know that Stephen Colbert is just a comedian.

Family Law Hypocrites: A Prime Example From Canada

Here's a prime example of family law hypocrites who seek to impose tough family laws on others while running their own families exactly the way they want to, free from outside interference:

It comes to us by way of Canada -- another first world country with a miserable record of fathers' rights abuses -- from the keyboard of columnist Diane Francis at the Financial Post (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438).

In her column, "The Real Inconvenient Truth: The Whole World Needs to Adopt China's One-Child Policy", Francis rails against religious leaders and the weak knees of politicians who reject state-imposed limits on human reproduction, saying that in order to save the world from global warming, we need to have a one family, one child policy.

Ignoring the recently leaked Climategate e-mails (which this blog addressed in its last posting, at http://ncpforce.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-do-divorced-dadsncps-have-in.html) which suggest that global warming is a hoax designed to enrich big business and promote world government, Francis states that the only way the ongoing Copenhagen Climate Conference will achieve any good is if there were to be a pronouncement of "a planetary law ... to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days". Francis then goes on to roll out numbers which suggest an end of the world scenario if people don't get with her program.

The kicker is that Francis herself is the mother of TWO children.

Like every dad-bashing politician, like every abusive family court judge, child support agent, and CPS worker, Francis is good at determining just how other parents should behave, but is unwilling to have those same standards applied to herself.

Read more:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17833

Conservative Phyllis Schafly Speaks Out for Divorced Dads & NCPS

It's not everyday a conservative speaks out in support of divorced dads and NCPs being ground to pulps by the Bradley Amendment and child support collection agencies.

But back in July, that exactly what conservative columnist Phyllis Schafly did. One of our readers informed us of her column which reads:

"Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?
Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?
Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?
Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?
Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?
These are among the injustices the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley."

Read the entire article at World Net Daily.

And thank you Phyllis!

And Her Views On Family Law Reform ... ?

This week, the latest corporate stooge to be nominated for the Supreme Court goes before Congress to face questions in what is supposed to be a confirmation hearing.

While the media is building this up as an event in which the unexpected just might happen, everyone knows that these hearings are entertainment. Her confirmation has already been rubber stamped by higher powers who, most likely, know she will be agreeable with big business and see tremendous potential in her ability to divide the masses along racial lines -- divide and conquer as they say.

But perhaps one of our elected leaders will ask her what her views on family law, and more specifically, family law reform, really are.

We won't hold our breath for this, because this is not one of the real issues our news manufacturers want discussed, and those doing the questioning are oblivious to the matter altogether.

If anyone out there is still watching this farce for entertainment, let us know if the most radical three-words in the English language -- FAMILY LAW REFORM -- are ever uttered by dropping us a line at mailcenter@ncpforce.com.