There was a shot of Peter Dunne taking a seat in front of microphones, a fat report in his hand and the commentary ‘the big plan for child support and how it affects you’ (or something like that).

This could be the plan he hinted at a week or two ago as being close. That’s all I’ve got – you’ll need to keep an eye out to get the rest: TV3 6pm.

On the front page: ACC adviser silent on links to sex abusers
Special Investigation, section C: Conflicting interests?

The central message of these two stories; that Felicity was influential in the recent changes to ACC payments for sex-abuse counselling; is a fabrication, and will no doubt be corrected by ACC in due course. All the old dirt about Centrepoint is just that.

We first became aware of this rumour at the beginning of 2009, when we learned of an email circulating among AUT counsellors.

In August last year it was published on the web by the Luddite Journal website (run by “journalist” Sandra Dickson), under the title: Should COSA psych out abuse survivors?

On July 16th this year, it was further promoted by psycotherapist Kyle MacDonald on his own site, and another site called The Swamp Report – Information about changes to ACC’s Sensitive Claims Guidelines, where it was titled: Ideology of denial.

Last week, I was informed it was being publicised by “Maggie”, on Radio Live talkback:

Listen to Maggie

Falsely connecting ACC’s attempts to properly apply the law with the promotion and encouragement of pedophilia has proved to be a successful tactic, however. ACC counsellors obviously have friends in very high places!

A letter to the editor of the Dominion Post by Gordon Waugh on 23rd August sums up the situation succinctly:

ACC has shamefully surrendered to the rants of a petulant sex-abuse industry and backed down over changes to the way claims are handled.

The legislation is clear. Cover for sexual abuse depends on a sexual crime having been committed and a consequent mental injury. Evidence of that crime is the starting point for claims. Mental injury must be correctly diagnosed. Those fundamental criteria are being conveniently ignored. In the absence of evidence of the claimed crime, every counsellor who submits a sex abuse claim to ACC commits the offence of using a document to gain financial advantage.

Counsellors are unable to detect sexual crimes. Most cannot diagnose mental injury. But based on their amateurish beliefs, assumptions and claims of competence, ACC accepted more than 120,000 sex abuse claims in the past 20 years. That must stop.

ACC must stick to its legislative guns and ensure all sex-abuse claims are based on testable evidence of the claimed abuse and correct diagnosis of mental injury by genuine mental health professionals. Only then can appropriate treatment be provided.

Fathers ‘stereotyped’ by Child Support Agency

Paul Bibby WORKPLACE

August 26, 2010

THE government watchdog responsible for overseeing child support payments has been unfairly focusing on parents who do not pay enough while ignoring those who are getting too much, the Commonwealth Ombudsman says.

In a report that might not be well received by some single mothers, the acting Ombudsman, Ron Brent, found that the Child Support Agency had at times been unduly influenced by stereotypes about fathers not meeting their obligations.

Most contributors use what is caused a deficit research approach characterised by :

• Identification of problems
• Analysis of causes
• Analysis of possible solutions
• Plan of action (How will we “treat” this
• Issues are seen as problems to be solved.

The issues with this paradigm are best summed up by a quote from Einstein

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Or put another way:

• Focus is on yesterday (past)
• Responses are fragmented
• Positive images of the future are rare
• Resources (people) are exhausted before the problem is solved
• Teamwork tends to be weakened and inter-group relationships poor (Blame Culture)
• Leads to a negative identity and culture – e.g woman are the enemy and the cause of all evil
• Effecting change is very slow

Men’s issues become problems to be solved.

What could we do differently – how can we change the paradigm and effect real change for Fathers and men?

Its summed by a quote from Robert Kennedy

Some men see things as they are and ask why I dream things that never were and ask why not!

It’s a different paradigm called Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

It involves:

• Appreciating the best of what is.
• Focusing on the solution (what might be)
• Dialoguing on what the solution should be
• Innovating the solution (what will be)

Men’s issues become opportunities to be embraced

AI innovates real change not pointless arguing by:

• Remaining positively focused on the solution
• Is highly participative (all knowledge is valued)
• Focuses on the whole system
• Builds strong teams
• Simulates vision and creativity
• Transforms the dialogue to focusing on the solution (not personalities)
• Creates cooperation and synergy

From a change management perspective  Positive solutions focus leads to positive action.

Our culture is a collection of the stories we tell about ourselves : Cultures on the rise are characterized by :

• A belief that people can positively influence their future
• Freedom to come together as a web community (Not individuals posting on the web lost in their own story)
• Encourages the creative, artistic and spiritual qualities (Utilising each others strengths)

 So its a challenge to you guys to change your thinking and look to a new paradigm for MENZ .To move beyond blame to solutions focused action and be real change agents.

All the greatest and most important problems of life are fundamentally insoluble…They can never be solved, but only outgrown. This “outgrowing” proves on further investigation to require a new level of consciousness. Some higher or wider interest appeared on the horizon and through this broadening of outlook the insoluble problem lost its urgency. It was not solved logically on its own terms but faded when confronted with a new and stronger life urge. Carl Jung.

 I looked for help and stumbled across many articles on PAS. Some of you may remember me having uploaded my daughter’s inhumane and shocking hate mail on your sight. It attracted over 50 responses and I felt that I was not alone.

 After nine months, I got a random call from my daughter, outlining that she wanted to be my daughter again. It was like a bad spell that had come to an end. My daughter was back. ..She called me “dad” again, after calling me by my first name for nine months. (Her mother actually supported this) It was uplifting for my soul.

My life had changed radically and I was uncertain how she would fit into my new life, especially because I had a new partner with three children of her own.

My daughter tried to fit in for a while and then things started to fall apart. Like an African child soldier, trained to kill the enemy, the words that came from her mouth were aimed to kill my new partner and to destroy my new life.  She was asked to leave our home.

 Three months later, our doors opened up again. Only a parent would forgive, love a child and have hope for change, but, is it reasonable to assume that a new partner would do the same, when she was called a slut, thirty times over in one session and that my daughter would dance on her grave?

 Endless lawyer and court action leaned on my side and the judge granted shared care for me, for all of my three daughters, despite the angry ex’s obsession to  fight for full custody. The ex lives with the phylosophy that the children don’t need a father.

 I felt I had won a victory, however I was concerned that the ex had moved 35 km away from the school zone, two weeks before the court case.

 The judge granted an interim order to be reviewed three months later, to see whether this arrangement would work. Would it? Considering the girls would be in traffic three hours a day? Of course the kids would say that they had no trouble travelling, because they did not want to loose their mother, who already said that she wanted to die and kill herself from all the misery.

 I offered the court two thousand dollars for their mother to move back into the area, in order to save the unnecessary agonising travel each day. This was declined by the ex and the children were told that she had moved far away, because I stalked her at her home. (this coming from my daughters mouth)

 Yet, the ex insisted that I fetched the children once a week from her home, because it was too far for her to travel. Not only was I threatened by her with a protection order to stay away from her home, I was also expected to fetch the children every week from her home. Does that make sense?  Can a stalker fetch his children with a protection order?

 Waiting for three months, then, waiting another three months for the review, it never came. The kids drove and drove and drove, day after day, three hours each day and sometimes longer, depending on the traffic from East Auckland to the end of the North Shore. The legal system, through its ongoing slackness prolonged the agony for my daughters. Yet, my daughters “enjoyed travelling”, knowing that they’d loose shared care if they hadn’t.

The girls were being abused by their mother without knowing it and started blaming me for the long rides, because they learnt to justify their mother’s move.

 I was getting sick of writing notes to the school that school belongings were forgotten, knowing that it was too far to remedy.

 Shared care does not work over a long distance and should be prohibited by any court, irrespective of what the children or mother/father want!

 Jealousy from the ex escalated. It was brought to my attention that my 11 year old received coaching from their mother. “Repeat after me. Say:  you fckng bitch”, “you sit on yr arse and don’t pay anything” “yr girlfriend controls you”, “choose between her and us” etc.

 The idea was for the child to use these phrases in our home and then to retalliate. Is this sick?

 Like a little soldier, her words parroted her mother’s words in the heat of a moment one day.

This shocked me!!…my little girl had turned. My partner sprung into my defence and told her off.  Being the female head of the house, why should she not?  No child should show such disrespect in the family home. Good parenting requires boundaries.

Minutes later the ex was outside the house, hooting to rescue her daughter and of course rewarded her with her affection and love.

 The work that the ex had plotted finally paid off, because in no time at all, I got a letter from my lawyer that claimed that my new partner had assaulted my daughter. and that the ex would call CYFs on her.

 Two years later, I want a divorce. In order to file for a divorce I need a marriage certificate, which is held by the ex. Do you think that she will give me the marriage certificate? No, of course not…she wants to make my life a prolonged misery and expects me to get my own version from an overseas consulate. (which will take up to nine months).

 Knowing what I know and thanks to my new partner who is loving, caring and understanding (the best in the world), I have become stronger and I have survived the wrath of a manipulative, vindictive, psychotic, violent woman.

 I have decided to push the pause button for now and give the ex custody, before it destroys my new relationship with my partner and to save what I have left with my girls. They have been brainwashed and I cannot do or say anything to reverse it. I cannot discipline them or lay down my boudaries, because they are rewarded by the ex for bad behaviour.

 Please give me your support. What are your views?

Part 5 (continued from Part 4, Wed. 30^th June 2010)

(Like previously this story is not about the malicious mother (syndrome) since that is something I can’t do anything about. This post/story is part of exposing and dealing with the corruption of the Nelson FC and is only step 2 out of many more to come.)

(Continued)…. After my daughter and me not having seen each other for 2 years- because of the court having suspended contact and not allocated a hearing for that long, the judge now decided that: “there is no reason why the father can not have contact “, (meaning they admitted now that there was no reason (apart from the persecution of me) to have suspended contact to start off with), and ordered 10 sessions of counselling to reintroduce the child back with her father,

After a couple of sessions with the counsellor my daughter and me were back to normal again.                                                                                                                With stalling and excuses for holiday from the mother it took 5 month to complete all the sessions.                                                                                                         Later after requesting a statement from the counsellor she advised that: “The sessions with XXX’s father were very very positive and that XXX loved seeing her father”.

The judge had also ordered 4 supervised contact sessions after the counselling before normal unsupervised contact would resume.

Now those supervised contact sessions went also very well with the 4 written reports from the supervisor saying things like: “XXX is always keen to see her father, …they spend their time together with great joy, …when we pull up she’s out the car and cuddling, …they have big cuddles when we are due to leave, …she then proceeds to claim her dad’s undivided attention, …she is always so happy to see him looking forward to each session, …XXX tells her Dad she loves him … etc”.

By now we had clearly documented 6 month of a relationship between child and father that was as good as it can be.

But then came the first day of unsupervised contact and that shouldn’t have been anything special since we previously have had 4 years of that twice a week that went all well.

When I tried to pick up my daughter from school she didn’t want to come and it turned out that she had in one week gone from loving her father to hating him (!).

The supervisor from the previous supervised contact who was to drop the child back to her mother after unsupervised contact commented in her report that the child had told her “Mum and the teacher were trying to stop her Dad from having the time with her”.

And all of the last 6 month of my contact had been under the eye of either the counsellor or at supervised contact and no negative evidence existed of anything I had done possibly being the cause of our daughter’s sudden change of heart and mind.

It was of course clear to all who were neutral what had happened: The mother had brainwashed the child into hating her father and as such had committed nothing less than emotional rape on her.

Long story short…a Short Fixture was scheduled and guess what the judge did…did he at the very least order the supervised contact to resume, as one would logically expect? No.  Surprise surprise the judge followed the strategy in tune with the previous blackmailing from CfC (see Part 4) that he had sanctioned, did his corrupt thing like previously and carried on with his persecution and suspended all contact again with the stupid reason given that “…it was at the moment not in the best interest of the child…”.

What ‘they’ had been waiting for was an excuse to ‘make me pay/get rid of me’ (with the real result being: abuse of a child). And because I had given them no reason/excuse, the mother had simply decided to emotionally rape her own child to accomplish the obvious task that she and the court were after.

And you would think that because the counselling and supervised contact had gone so well up until then that a proper hearing would have been scheduled for the ‘very near future’ so as not to loose all the good work done…No, because that was not part of their plan…so it took a whole (1) year until we had a proper hearing to try and address the issue and of course I hadn’t been allowed by the mother to see my daughter for all that time.

The residing judge from Nelson now replaced the judge from Wellington.

This new judge at least ordered supervised contact again even if just for the purpose of a section 133 report so that the report writer could observe  my daughter with me.

I also ask the judge to order counselling again for our daughter and me for the purpose of reintroducing her back with her father like the last judge had done but surprise surprise he said that he could only order counselling for the both of us if the other party agreed (and they didn’t) and I said that the previous judge had ordered it without the other party even being asked and he didn’t answer and changed the subject and I knew then that either he (!) or the previous judge had violated the law.

It became clear later that their plan was to resume supervised contact only for the purpose of writing a S133 report so that the court would have a psychologist (‘professional’) back them up (after being corrupted) and help them justify their decision to stop contact all together and get rid of me, even if it mend sanctioning the emotional rape of a young child by her psychopath mother.

Naive and hopeful as I still was then, I trusted that the psychologist/report writer would surely figure out what was going on and write so in her report but I didn’t count on how corrupt everybody really was.

So when the report writer interviewed me her second sentence was: “The court (CfC) has told me you are a monster” (!!! – Report writer had 20 minute conversation with CfC before interviews, as listed in her report/timesheet).                                                                                                        (Dumb for her just to have said that…hence always carry a voice recorder, secretly, even if not for the court then for the complaint to the Psychologists Board…)

And two sentences later she said: “I will recommend to the court that no more physical contact between father and child should happen…” (???!!!!!!!!!!).

She said that before she had even interviewed our daughter…(or observed father and child together…).

Then she even tried to talk me out of having supervised contact (the interview was before supervised contact restarted) because ‘it would not be good for my daughter because she clearly hated me so much…ra ra’ and because my head was spinning by now I said I would think about it.

It became clear to me a day later that this had been part of the strategy of CfC that he had talked to the report writer about because he had wanted (see blackmailing) that no more contact whatsoever occur.

The report writer then send a letter to court asking for my consent for cancelling supervised contact but she lied to the court by saying that cancelling supervised contact had been my idea, and gave me credit for being so considered…ra ra.  She of course lied so that she couln’t be quoted later on having disagreed with the judge’s original suggestion of reinstating supervised contact.

So supervised contact started again but nothing I tried seemed to change the attitude of my daughter towards me permanently and it was clear to all the neutral people involved what really was happening.

(Most people at the Supervised Contact Agency‘ CARE Solutions’ in Nelson became neutral (after initially not seeming so) ones I told them ‘the story’ about my discovery of the first CfC’s serious conflict of interest for over 3 years and the court having swept that fact under the carped and the consequent persecution of me for wanting  justice and therefore the court being exposed as corrupt)

But one or two people at ‘CARE Solution’ I am sure ‘worked together with CfC/court’ because they told lies about me to the court, invented stories and tried to give me a bad name. (CfC surely had ‘talked’ to them like he had to the report writer and everybody else who had something to do with my daughter and me e.g. first report writer (see part 1), Counsellor, schoolteacher etc.)

So a 2-day hearing was next on the list and this time it didn’t take 22 month of waiting for it like a previous one. 2 month later it was all on and I tested the court on the issue of whether they would postpone the hearing again like they had done previously because a complaint about CfC was presently before the court, but this time they didn’t delay it so it was clear that the court had broken the law on the first occasions and that they had used that just as an excuse to delay the hearing and suspend the consequent contact for as long as possible (…over 2 years).

The judge then at the hearing, as expected, stopped all physical contact between my daughter and me for the foreseeable future.

The only contact allowed is by writing letters, email etc. and twice a year supervised contact for her birthday and Christmas none of which my daughter will attend because she has been brainwashed into hating me (Self-pity is not an issue for me…).

BTW, I also put two official written complaints to the court about the report writer and CfC and got confirmation from the court that they received those complaints yet the judge violated the law of court again by simply ignoring those complaints completely.

And because the judge sanctioned and encourages the emotional rape of the child by her mother, he therefore is guilty of it him himself together with the other two judges, the two CfC’s and the last report writer.

NOBODY ABUSES MY DAUGHTER AND GETS AWAY WITH IT.

After all that is part of my responsibility as a father and I take that responsibility very seriously.

I haven’t even changed into 3.gear yet and just got going in 2. (2. Gear is a bit tedious but 3. gear will be a lot more fun…(5 Speed’s!).

A few nice quotes to finish off with:

‘If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them’.    B.L.

‘A fight is not won by one punch or kick. Either learn to endure or hire a bodyguard. Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life. Do not be concerned with escaping safely — lay your life before him’.   B.L.

All 5 parts of the presentation of the corruption of the Nelson FC here are compiled together at: standupforkidsnz.blogspot.com

Cheers to everybody at MENZ.

Mr Dunne has introduced the bill as leader of the United Future Party, and he has government support to get it through a first reading and into a select committee for public submissions.

It allows parents with children up to age 18 to combine their income and split it down the middle for tax purposes.

That would move each income into lower tax brackets and a tax credit would be paid out at the end of the year.

Because of the way the tax system works, the maximum amount that could be gained is just over $9000 a year.

The latest from our Child Tax Minister – meanwhile we continue to wait for reform of the child tax system.

I can imagine the child tax police taking numerous Commissioner initiated reviews to stop liable parents income splitting.

Hey if your on a high-income earner a $174.61 per week tax deduction must look appealing. 

Regards

Scrap

The decline of the male economy — and of fatherhood — arises less from the empowerment of women than from the government’s usurpation of the family.

By Stephen Baskerville

In “The End of Men,” the cover story of the July/August Atlantic, Hanna Rosin describes “how women are taking control of everything.” Suggesting that “the economics of the new era are better suited to women,” Rosin believes the fair sex are winning the struggle for the survival of the fittest. In what is apparently cause for celebration, she writes, “three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men” in the ongoing Great Recession. “The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance.” She contends that the economic crisis “merely revealed—and accelerated—a profound economic shift that has been going on for at least 30 years.”

The Atlantic used the same issue to ask, “Are Fathers Necessary?” Pamela Paul cites a widely publicized study purporting to prove that fathers are harmful in rearing children and that lesbians do it better. The study is politics camouflaged as social science—its authors acknowledge that the parenting virtues they extol are defined “in part in the service of an egalitarian ideology.” Their message echoes Rosin’s: within the home, as in the national economy, men are unreliable at best and pathological at worst. The Atlantic assures us that the decline of men is the product of impersonal forces against which we are powerless to respond, even if we wished to—which apparently we do not.

Rosin, whose essay is #1 on the magazine’s “Biggest Ideas of the Year” list, certainly identifies an important trend. But the phenomenon she describes is the result not of inexorable social forces but of conscious political decisions. The end of men is the consequence of the most profound trend in public life today: the sexualization of politics and the politicization of sex.

The emergence of sexual politics has elicited strikingly little critical treatment. Yet it represents the most radical change in the nature of government in modern times. The economic effects are only symptoms. More far-reaching are the vast shifts in political power at every level. Feminist ideology pervades every item on the public agenda: not just “women’s issues” like abortion but everything from gun control (think of the “Million Mom March”) and DWI laws (Mother Against Drunk Driving) to foreign policy (Code Pink). “Women have the most to gain and the most to lose in the climate crisis,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed during the Copenhagen conference. “The impacts are not gender-neutral… . Women feel the consequences first.” Not an issue in public life has not been “gendered.”

The transformation of society wrought by sexual politics is most readily apparent where Rosin begins her article: with what she calls the “matriarchy” of the inner cities. Government policies produced this matriarchy: the men who are “increasingly absent from the home,” as Rosin writes, have been removed by welfare agencies and courts. The women are “making all the decisions” in inner-city households because the men have been forced out and government has usurped the role of father and husband, providing protection and income directly to the women and children. This produces in urban America not a “working class,” as Rosin terms it, but a class of government dependents whose living arrangements have been engineered by state officials.

As single motherhood spreads from the lower to the middle classes—among whom it is growing fastest—so does Rosin’s matriarchy. In the suburbs as in the cities, it is promoted by government machinery originally justified as helping the poor: child-care services, care for the elderly, public education, and publicly controlled healthcare.

Rosin insightfully observes that “the U.S. economy is in some ways becoming a kind of traveling sisterhood: upper-class women leave home and enter the workforce, creating domestic jobs for other women to fill.” This is an economic bubble about which G.K. Chesterton long ago warned. “The whole really rests on a plutocratic illusion of an infinite supply of servants,” he wrote, “Ultimately, we are arguing that a woman should not be a mother to her own baby, but a nursemaid to somebody else’s baby. But it will not work, even on paper. We cannot all live by taking in each other’s washing, especially in the form of pinafores.”

Like the recently burst bubbles in banking and housing, this one is a creation of state regulation. It reveals the trajectory of the new sexual politics: not toward eliminating gender roles—which the welfare state has not done and can never do—but toward politicizing and bureaucratizing feminine ones.

While elite feminists did assume previously male occupations, many more women have entered the workforce in professionalized versions of traditional homemaker roles. This has transformed childrearing and other domestic tasks from private family matters into public, communal, and taxable activities, necessarily expanding the size and power of the state and leading to the creation of vast bureaucracies to oversee public education and social services.

These are precisely the professions now being expanded by the Obama administration’s massive stimulus expenditures. The effect is to amplify the intrusion of the state into the home—indeed, the displacement of the home by the state. For as feminists point out, the feminine functions were traditionally private. Professionalizing feminine roles has therefore meant institutionalizing in government bureaucracies responsibilities that were once characteristic of private life. The politicization of children and the usurpation of parental rights under the guise of child protection are the clearest manifestations of this.

Fathers have been marginalized, and their lives are ever more directly administered by the state. They are not simply “absent,” as Rosin writes—they are increasingly likely to be under the control of the judicial and penal systems. Rosin’s article provides a telling example of a particularly state-feminist form of punishment now meted out to men: therapy.

None of the 30 or so men sitting in a classroom at a downtown Kansas City school have come for voluntary adult enrichment. Having failed to pay their child support, they were given the choice by a judge to go to jail or attend a weekly class on fathering…. This week’s lesson…involve[d] writing a letter to a hypothetical estranged 14-year-old daughter named Crystal, whose father left her…

What is clear from Rosin’s account is that the therapy, like the penal system, has been designed less to punish the alleged crime than to psychologically recondition men. The class leader grew up watching Bill Cosby living behind his metaphorical “white picket fence.” “Well, that check bounced a long time ago,” he says. … He continues, reading from a worksheet. What are the four kinds of paternal authority? Moral, emotional, social, and physical. “But you ain’t none of those in that house. All you are is a paycheck, and now you ain’t even that. And if you try to exercise your authority, she’ll call 911. … You’re supposed to be the authority, and she says, ‘Get out of the house, bitch.’ She’s calling you ‘bitch’!” … “What is our role? Everyone’s telling us we’re supposed to be the head of a nuclear family, so you feel like you got robbed.” … He writes on the board: $85,000. “This is her salary.” Then: $12,000. “This is your salary. … Who’s the man now?” A murmur rises. “That’s right. She’s the man.”

This is not law enforcement. It is government indoctrination.

Rosin neglects to mention that none of the men in Kansas City has been convicted of any crime. They have not run afoul of police, prosecutors, and juries through the normal criminal-justice process. Instead, they are subject to welfare officials who exercise quasi-police and quasi-prosecutorial powers. They are brought—in what is sometimes described as an “expedited judicial process”—before a judge (or a black-robed lawyer known as a “judge-surrogate”) who may spend a few seconds glancing at some documents before entering orders to evict them from their homes, separate them from their children, confiscate their earnings, and sentence them to re-education or incarceration, all without the benefit of due process.

Attorney Jed Abraham calls this system of bureaucratic adjudication “Orwellian”: “To [enforce] child support, the government commands … a veritable gulag,” he writes in From Courtship to Courtroom. Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University agrees: “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support … have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state.”

Preventing crime and aggression is evidently not what state-feminist ideology is all about: at its heart is economic redistribution and political power. Near the end of her article Rosin notes, quite approvingly, that “violence committed by middle-aged women [has] skyrocketed.” This is taken as a sign that “the more women dominate, the more they behave, fittingly, like the dominant sex.” Rosin references an ultraviolent Lady Gaga video that “rewrites Thelma and Louise as a story not about elusive female empowerment but about sheer, ruthless power. … She and her girlfriend kill a bad boyfriend and random others in a homicidal spree and then escape in their yellow pickup truck, Gaga bragging, ‘We did it, Honey B.’”

Rosin and her allies are more subtle—and most importantly, they have coercive state power at their disposal—but the bragging sounds remarkably similar.

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.

Close Up revealed tonight that more than 500 parents earning more $100,000 dollars a year haven’t paid child support debts, and Inland Revenue seems powerless to do anything about it.

Dunne said the child support system has become “outdated” and “unreasonable,” and wants the issue addressed.

Make sure you watch the video, particuarly when Dunne is asked how long till change is on the Cabinet Agenda – “the next few weeks-I hope”.

Believe it when I see it!

Regards

Scrap