Feminist " pc" Media Covers-up Family Court"s Tyranny Against Fathers
The unconstitutional denials of fundamental rights that fit fathers face in family court are outrageous. Fathers, their children, and, of course, freedom are being destroyed daily. The feminist-instigated politically correct (PC) media doesn't want you to know about that. It's not part of 'the agenda'. So any such news is obscured, slanted or more generally ignored to enforce the PC view of how you should perceive what's happening.
*What the PC media programs you to know - and not know:
To many people, the idea that fathers face horrendous deprivations of their unalienable and constitutional rights under divorce and paternity suits doesn't even register. That's not surprising, because the press (including TV) simply won't let that idea get through to the public.
What does register on the public's mind is that there are a lot of 'deadbeat' dads who refuse to pay child support for their children; that they don't care about their kids; and, that they should be tracked down, have the money taken out of their paychecks, or immediately thrown in jail where such 'low-lifes' belong.
Also registering is that a lot of fathers are abusive to their children and wives; that such abuse is epidemic and requires women to have fathers restrained from their own house and from their children by a simple declaration of fear alone - and immediately held in jail if fathers object or violate a restraining order in any trivial way.
These issues register because that's what the PC press support for its news. Why?...because that's how the feminist agenda wants men and fathers to be perceived to keep their profitable tyranny against fathers going by maintaining and increasing the 'greater good' laws that privilege women over the fundamental rights of fathers. Those laws are the 'abuse' excuse and the 'best interest of the child' excuse - greater good 'excuses' to deny the fundamental rights and constitutional protections of fathers.
It doesn't want you to know about the unconstitutional processes that the courts impose on such fathers. The unconstitutional processes - instigated by feminists under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and maintained in family court to deny fathers their rights - including their right to directly parent their children. It wants fathers to be easily criminalized through unconstitutional and malicious family court laws and proceedings at the whim of women.
*Lack of analysis shows the PC press's feminist bias:
Most people don't have the time to analyze news events since they're busying making a living. But if they stop and think... can they really believe that so many fathers don't care about their children; that they aren't responsible, that they are so abusive - and how did they become that way if it were true?
Where is the 'fathers' side of these news events? I can tell you; it's ignored, covered-up, or obscured. That's because the PC press doesn't want the injustice that fathers face to be known.
That injustice is heralded by the fathers' rights movement. But the media mostly ignores this rights movement or tries to paint such fathers as abusers or simply 'unjustifiably' angry men. That way no substantial public opposition can rise up to address this feminist tyranny against fathers - to keep the women-privileged agenda of feminists going and growing at the expense of constitutional rights of men and fathers.
*Examples of the media coverup:
You know the story...The press loves to shows a father being captured who owes something like $50,000 in child support. They interview the mother and she invariably says 'I wish he would just visit his kids.
But the father is never interviewed. Never is it shown that the court and mother denied him his children; that they imposed on him huge payments which probably left him destitute and perhaps sent him to jail. Most likely, he fled just to protect himself from going to jail endlessly while being deprived of all this rights -including his kids- that everyone else enjoys.
If someone from the press wants an opinion, he interviews a representative of the state. It could be a family court judge. Of course, the judge is not going to undermine his predicament and unconstitutional court procedures. He's going to say that judges make orders based on the 'best interest of the child'. But this is a joke - and a provable lie if analyzed.
Judges are beneficiaries of the present tyranny against fathers. And so the reporter says OK, and goes home. That's it; case closed...and the tyranny continues because there's no constitutional due process or protection of a father's rights.
News reporters simply don't do their work - for one reason or another. They are NOT good reporters.
As another example, a number of years ago a popular weekly TV program in Boston called 'Chronicle' interviewed some fathers who were being denied their rights and sent to jail repeatedly - for doing no harm. One was being sent to jail for getting out of his car - a restraining order violation - to pick up his child who had just fallen when she left the car.
The program showed the extreme unfairness and injustice that fathers faced under tyrannical court orders. The program producer said that the show got the highest rating of all time and an enormous number of calls in support of the exposure the show gave to the injustice that fathers face. The producer said that there would surely be a follow up program because of the extreme popularity of the show... But, there was never a follow-up. It just disappeared as is typical. The 'powers that be' simply didn't like the exposure.
A recent example of media cover-up is its ignoring of the public suicide of Sargeant Tom Ball, a fathers rights advocate. He set himself on fire on the steps of a New Hampshire family court and left a 15 page statement explaining how present unconstitutional policies of Family Court influenced by the Violence Against Women Act destroys fathers and hurts children and some women too - and that men should stand against this virtual war on fathers.
Tom had mailed his statement, just before sacrificing his life for the exposure, to a local newspaper - the Keene Sentinel newspaper in NH who printed it on its online version. Fathers rights groups got hold of it and it spread like wild fire through the right's community.
His statement addressed universal issues that would provoke great public interest and concern about family court rules and procedures - and its rampant anti-father feminist sexism. This along with his life-sacrifice would be extremely newsworthy. But, of course, the major media ignored it.
The feminist/PC media methodically ignores any news that may reflect badly on the women-privileged 'greater good' laws that rely on denying fathers their constitutional and parental rights.
*What the PC media programs you to know - and not know:
To many people, the idea that fathers face horrendous deprivations of their unalienable and constitutional rights under divorce and paternity suits doesn't even register. That's not surprising, because the press (including TV) simply won't let that idea get through to the public.
What does register on the public's mind is that there are a lot of 'deadbeat' dads who refuse to pay child support for their children; that they don't care about their kids; and, that they should be tracked down, have the money taken out of their paychecks, or immediately thrown in jail where such 'low-lifes' belong.
Also registering is that a lot of fathers are abusive to their children and wives; that such abuse is epidemic and requires women to have fathers restrained from their own house and from their children by a simple declaration of fear alone - and immediately held in jail if fathers object or violate a restraining order in any trivial way.
These issues register because that's what the PC press support for its news. Why?...because that's how the feminist agenda wants men and fathers to be perceived to keep their profitable tyranny against fathers going by maintaining and increasing the 'greater good' laws that privilege women over the fundamental rights of fathers. Those laws are the 'abuse' excuse and the 'best interest of the child' excuse - greater good 'excuses' to deny the fundamental rights and constitutional protections of fathers.
It doesn't want you to know about the unconstitutional processes that the courts impose on such fathers. The unconstitutional processes - instigated by feminists under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and maintained in family court to deny fathers their rights - including their right to directly parent their children. It wants fathers to be easily criminalized through unconstitutional and malicious family court laws and proceedings at the whim of women.
*Lack of analysis shows the PC press's feminist bias:
Most people don't have the time to analyze news events since they're busying making a living. But if they stop and think... can they really believe that so many fathers don't care about their children; that they aren't responsible, that they are so abusive - and how did they become that way if it were true?
Where is the 'fathers' side of these news events? I can tell you; it's ignored, covered-up, or obscured. That's because the PC press doesn't want the injustice that fathers face to be known.
That injustice is heralded by the fathers' rights movement. But the media mostly ignores this rights movement or tries to paint such fathers as abusers or simply 'unjustifiably' angry men. That way no substantial public opposition can rise up to address this feminist tyranny against fathers - to keep the women-privileged agenda of feminists going and growing at the expense of constitutional rights of men and fathers.
*Examples of the media coverup:
You know the story...The press loves to shows a father being captured who owes something like $50,000 in child support. They interview the mother and she invariably says 'I wish he would just visit his kids.
But the father is never interviewed. Never is it shown that the court and mother denied him his children; that they imposed on him huge payments which probably left him destitute and perhaps sent him to jail. Most likely, he fled just to protect himself from going to jail endlessly while being deprived of all this rights -including his kids- that everyone else enjoys.
If someone from the press wants an opinion, he interviews a representative of the state. It could be a family court judge. Of course, the judge is not going to undermine his predicament and unconstitutional court procedures. He's going to say that judges make orders based on the 'best interest of the child'. But this is a joke - and a provable lie if analyzed.
Judges are beneficiaries of the present tyranny against fathers. And so the reporter says OK, and goes home. That's it; case closed...and the tyranny continues because there's no constitutional due process or protection of a father's rights.
News reporters simply don't do their work - for one reason or another. They are NOT good reporters.
As another example, a number of years ago a popular weekly TV program in Boston called 'Chronicle' interviewed some fathers who were being denied their rights and sent to jail repeatedly - for doing no harm. One was being sent to jail for getting out of his car - a restraining order violation - to pick up his child who had just fallen when she left the car.
The program showed the extreme unfairness and injustice that fathers faced under tyrannical court orders. The program producer said that the show got the highest rating of all time and an enormous number of calls in support of the exposure the show gave to the injustice that fathers face. The producer said that there would surely be a follow up program because of the extreme popularity of the show... But, there was never a follow-up. It just disappeared as is typical. The 'powers that be' simply didn't like the exposure.
A recent example of media cover-up is its ignoring of the public suicide of Sargeant Tom Ball, a fathers rights advocate. He set himself on fire on the steps of a New Hampshire family court and left a 15 page statement explaining how present unconstitutional policies of Family Court influenced by the Violence Against Women Act destroys fathers and hurts children and some women too - and that men should stand against this virtual war on fathers.
Tom had mailed his statement, just before sacrificing his life for the exposure, to a local newspaper - the Keene Sentinel newspaper in NH who printed it on its online version. Fathers rights groups got hold of it and it spread like wild fire through the right's community.
His statement addressed universal issues that would provoke great public interest and concern about family court rules and procedures - and its rampant anti-father feminist sexism. This along with his life-sacrifice would be extremely newsworthy. But, of course, the major media ignored it.
The feminist/PC media methodically ignores any news that may reflect badly on the women-privileged 'greater good' laws that rely on denying fathers their constitutional and parental rights.
Source...