Newsweek's lies about divorce

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=84810

Newsweek's lies about divorce

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Stephen Baskerville
© 2009


Divorce is the main cause of family destruction today, and fatherless
children are the principal source of virtually every major social pathology.
Yet divorce is ignored by the mainstream media to the point of blackout.
Now, Newsweek magazine offers a revealing exception that proves the rule.
Newsweek's depiction of divorce is so trite and clichéd that it seriously
distorts what is happening.

Most Americans would be shocked if they knew what takes place today in the
name of divorce. Indeed, millions are appalled when they discover that they
can be forced into divorce, lose their children and even be jailed without
trial - all without having violated any law and through procedures entirely
beyond their control. Comprised of courts, bar associations and federally
funded social services bureaucracies that wield police powers, the divorce
machinery has become the most repressive and predatory sector of government
ever created in the United States and today's greatest threat to
constitutional freedom.

Yet, we hear not a word of this from Newsweek. As is de rigueur in
journalism today, reporter Susanna Schrobsdorff begins not with objective
facts or disinterested analysis but by publicly displaying her own divorce.
And what a joyous occasion it was. Despite pretentious pathos (also
obligatory in today's media), it is clear that no one forced her into this.

The usual assortment of divorce lawyers and feminists are then trotted out
to mouth the standard clichés of the divorce industry: parents must
"cooperate" and "put the children first," caring courts are now generous to
fathers, etc. "Their dad and I had read the divorce books and rehearsed our
speech about how none of this was their fault, that we loved them," she
recounts. "All of this was true, but it seemed insufficient."

It was insufficient (by her own account, the children went berserk) because
it was not true. Love demands we put the needs of those we claim to love
before our own desires. If divorce proceeds from love, then the word has
become meaningless.

Fifteen-year-old Amy Harris, quoted in the Sunday Times, offers a scathing
rejoinder to Ms. Schrobsdorff's rehearsed speech: "Parents always say they
are not leaving because of the children. Is that supposed to make the
children feel better?" she asks. Amy continues:

Does that take all the guilt off the child's shoulder? No, it's all
rubbish. Children feel that they weren't enough to keep their parents, that
their parents didn't love them enough to keep them together. I know I did
not drive my father away, but I did not keep him either.
Newsweek offers no recognition that parents who oppose divorce in principle
are simply divorced without their consent, whereupon their children (with
everything else they have) are seized without any further reason given. What
Newsweek presents as cooperation "for the children" in reality means
"cooperate with the divorce if you ever want to see your children again."

The mendacity is especially glaring regarding fathers. "Changes in
child-support laws, and a push by fathers for equal time, are transforming
the way this generation of ex-spouses raise [sic] their children," claims
the carefully worded headline. Yet, Newsweek provides no evidence of any
such changes; in fact, it concedes that "Most often, children still end up
living primarily with the mother" and that "moms are the official primary
residential parent after a divorce in five out of six cases, a number that
hasn't changed much since the mid-'90s."

One divorce lawyer claims that "most states have provisions that say gender
can't be the determining factor in deciding who is going to be the primary
custodial parent," but he does not tell us that such provisions are ignored.

The magazine's account of child support is likewise distorted. Advertised as
providing for children who have been "abandoned" by their fathers, child
support is in reality the financial engine driving divorce, offering
generous windfalls to mothers who break their vows, while criminalizing
fathers with debts most have done nothing to incur and that are far beyond
their means.

"Most states have passed legislation that ties child-support payments to how
much time a child spends with the nonresident parent paying the support,"
says Newsweek, commenting that "if a father spends more than a given
threshold of nights with his kids, he can have his child support adjusted
according to formulas that vary by state." No, what this means is that he is
less likely to see his children, because both the mother and the state
government will lose child support money. Both have a financial incentive to
reduce his time with his children as much as possible. Child support makes
children fatherless.

A lawyer from the American Academy of "Matrimonial" Lawyers claims that men
want custody half the time so that they can pay half the support. This
dishonest slur on fathers constitutes an open admission that child support
payments vastly exceed the cost of raising children.

Divorce destroys many more families than same-sex "marriage" - which itself
has arisen only because of the debasement of marriage through divorce. It is
time for the responsible media to expose the unconstitutional divorce
apparat. Otherwise, our professed concern for marriage and the family will
ring hollow.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=84810

Newsweek's lies about divorce

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Stephen Baskerville
© 2009


Divorce is the main cause of family destruction today, and fatherless
children are the principal source of virtually every major social
pathology. Yet divorce is ignored by the mainstream media to the point of
blackout. Now, Newsweek magazine offers a revealing exception that proves
the rule. Newsweek's depiction of divorce is so trite and clichéd that it
seriously distorts what is happening.

Most Americans would be shocked if they knew what takes place today in the
name of divorce. Indeed, millions are appalled when they discover that
they can be forced into divorce, lose their children and even be jailed
without trial - all without having violated any law and through procedures
entirely beyond their control. Comprised of courts, bar associations and
federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield police powers,
the divorce machinery has become the most repressive and predatory sector
of government ever created in the United States and today's greatest
threat to constitutional freedom.

Yet, we hear not a word of this from Newsweek. As is de rigueur in
journalism today, reporter Susanna Schrobsdorff begins not with objective
facts or disinterested analysis but by publicly displaying her own
divorce. And what a joyous occasion it was. Despite pretentious pathos
(also obligatory in today's media), it is clear that no one forced her
into this.

The usual assortment of divorce lawyers and feminists are then trotted out
to mouth the standard clichés of the divorce industry: parents must
"cooperate" and "put the children first," caring courts are now generous
to fathers, etc. "Their dad and I had read the divorce books and rehearsed
our speech about how none of this was their fault, that we loved them,"
she recounts. "All of this was true, but it seemed insufficient."

It was insufficient (by her own account, the children went berserk)
because it was not true. Love demands we put the needs of those we claim
to love before our own desires. If divorce proceeds from love, then the
word has become meaningless.

Fifteen-year-old Amy Harris, quoted in the Sunday Times, offers a scathing
rejoinder to Ms. Schrobsdorff's rehearsed speech: "Parents always say they
are not leaving because of the children. Is that supposed to make the
children feel better?" she asks. Amy continues:

Does that take all the guilt off the child's shoulder? No, it's all
rubbish. Children feel that they weren't enough to keep their parents,
that their parents didn't love them enough to keep them together. I know I
did not drive my father away, but I did not keep him either.
Newsweek offers no recognition that parents who oppose divorce in
principle are simply divorced without their consent, whereupon their
children (with everything else they have) are seized without any further
reason given. What Newsweek presents as cooperation "for the children" in
reality means "cooperate with the divorce if you ever want to see your
children again."

The mendacity is especially glaring regarding fathers. "Changes in
child-support laws, and a push by fathers for equal time, are transforming
the way this generation of ex-spouses raise [sic] their children," claims
the carefully worded headline. Yet, Newsweek provides no evidence of any
such changes; in fact, it concedes that "Most often, children still end up
living primarily with the mother" and that "moms are the official primary
residential parent after a divorce in five out of six cases, a number that
hasn't changed much since the mid-'90s."

One divorce lawyer claims that "most states have provisions that say
gender can't be the determining factor in deciding who is going to be the
primary custodial parent," but he does not tell us that such provisions
are ignored.

The magazine's account of child support is likewise distorted. Advertised
as providing for children who have been "abandoned" by their fathers,
child support is in reality the financial engine driving divorce, offering
generous windfalls to mothers who break their vows, while criminalizing
fathers with debts most have done nothing to incur and that are far beyond
their means.

"Most states have passed legislation that ties child-support payments to
how much time a child spends with the nonresident parent paying the
support," says Newsweek, commenting that "if a father spends more than a
given threshold of nights with his kids, he can have his child support
adjusted according to formulas that vary by state." No, what this means is
that he is less likely to see his children, because both the mother and
the state government will lose child support money. Both have a financial
incentive to reduce his time with his children as much as possible. Child
support makes children fatherless.

A lawyer from the American Academy of "Matrimonial" Lawyers claims that
men want custody half the time so that they can pay half the support. This
dishonest slur on fathers constitutes an open admission that child support
payments vastly exceed the cost of raising children.

Divorce destroys many more families than same-sex "marriage" - which
itself has arisen only because of the debasement of marriage through
divorce. It is time for the responsible media to expose the
unconstitutional divorce apparat. Otherwise, our professed concern for
marriage and the family will ring hollow.

This country deserves what it gets when the family structure is no longer
valued!