Child Support?

The term "child support" is the term forced upon non-custodial fathers by judges, courts, and legislatures, allegedly including monetary contributions paid directly to ex-wives for the "support" of the children. Even though ex-wives are not held to account for how the money is spent, even though the practice created and preserves the world's highest divorce rate bar none, even though the practice cannot be shown to benefit children, even though responsible men who take on the risks of marriage and family adequately "support" their children free of government dictates pre-divorce, even though it sets a bad moral standard for children, even though it destroys fathers and their businesses and careers, fathers are summarily imprisoned for failing to "support their children" if they don't pay this amount--regardless of the circumstances. The term is not a creation of fatherhood. The concept is repugnant to concerned fathers worldwide, to the basic precepts of the US Constitution, and to the core tenets of all Christians.

The Bureau of the Census estimates that "Weekly Child Care Expenditures" for families with employed mothers (the families likely to spend the most for child care) averaged 6.8% of average income per month for 2 children. This is an average of $180.40 per month across all income strata, races, and children's age (The World Almanac, 1990, Pharos Books, page 842). This is prima facie evidence that the government is aware of and acknowledged the fact that any payment which averages more than $180.40 per month disqualifies that payment as "child support", and that any amount exceeding $180.40 is illegal.

If it is technically, practically, and legally not "child support" by the government's own terms, statistics, and definitions, then what is it? Is it "ex-wife support", "back-door alimony", "blackmail", "extortion", "bribery", "slavery"--or is it all of the above? Are the courts willingly participating in a scheme which would put the average citizen in jail if convicted of a similar practice? Imagine GM saying to its customers "We know the actual payments on this car are $180.40 per month, but you must pay $1,250 per month for 'corporate support'". Imagine an insurance company billing its clients for "insurance support" by tacking $1,069.60 onto its $180.40 per month insurance premium. They would have to worry about more than free market competition if they even thought of such a thing.

Why aren't judges, courts or ex-wives held to account, while fathers are literally tortured to death with accountability? Fathers are imprisoned for not paying money which is used to deny children paternal guidance--courts stand by and jeer, ex-wives consciously, irresponsibly, and persistently subject their own children to the social pathologies of fatherlessness, politicians pretend they value "family values". Any person or any dollar denying God-given paternal guidance to children must be accorded our highest contempt.

As moral leader of the free world, President Clinton issued more than 270 communications from the White House using the term "deadbeat dad". He warned "We will find you. We will make you pay." He paid not a dime for his illegitimate black son Danny. He destroyed American families through politics, law, adultery, perjury, hipocrisy, feminism, homosexuality, drug use, and his disdain for God. He is living proof that "child support" benefits politicians, judges, and lawyers--and never children, be they black, white, Hispanic, nor Asian. He spouts out one end that he "cares for children" while he uses and abuses them with the other end. He has more respect for a used rubber than the Bible, and treats Christian principles worse. His discovery of religion during impeachment is the ultimate hipocrisy. Calling him the "anti-Christ" is a gross understatement.

But--as moral leader, radical advocate of "equality", father, nation's top lawyer, officer of the court, President Clinton established with finality that not imprisoning a father with the means of the President of the United States for failure to pay "child support" for his black son Danny means that no father with lesser means can be imprisoned, that those who have been must be released and compensated, that all money paid in excess of the official government estimate of the cost of child care must be refunded. Politicians who assert that adultery and perjury by the highest official is not an impeachable offense cannot allow non-government employees with Constitutional rights to be imprisoned for the far lesser "crime" of failing to pay a bill which that government estimates to be up to ten fold too high.

Adultery and perjury destroy nations. Elected officials who assert that such violations of the Ten Commandments are minor or private matters are repugnant to the 85% of citizens who are Christians. It is *your* wife or future wife whose vow to God to "honor and obey until death do us part" is trivialized by such a positon. No elected American official will be allowed to stomp all over the First Amendment to the Constitution with such impunity. They will be known throughout history as amoral as the President.

It is well established that ending the entire concept of "child support" now would discourage immorality, adultery, perjury and family breakdown. There is no question that this would immediately begin a reduction of the US divorce rate. It is clear that this would quickly reduce the percent of children in fatherless households by 90%, and create a far healthier future environment for them. There is no other way to begin the process without removing this cancer. Those who stand in the forefront of the effort MUST be recognized as the opposite end of the elephant, as different from President Clinton as night and day, as different as criminals and fatherhood, as anti-Christ vs. Christ.