Family dissolution


All forces claim support for human rights while ending them

    On the last day of 1998 as the New Year was fast approaching, President Clinton made a point of reaffirming his new "get tough" policy on dealing with deadbeat dads--or--to be more politically correct--deadbeat parents, as Clinton phrases it. Earlier in the year the president "announced a new child support crackdown aimed at the nation's most egregious child support violators."[1]

    The continuing breakup of the American family seems to be the focus of the president's most recent concerns and efforts to get tougher on that object of social loathing, the deadbeat dad. The government's concern, however, does not seem to be in preventing the dissolution of the family, but rather causing it.

    Included in the president's announcement was the proposal "to spend $46 million to identify, investigate, and prosecute these deadbeat parents. The president took this he released new evidence that his administration's child support efforts are working: child support collections have gone up a record 80 percent since he took office," the White House statement continued, "from $8 billion in 1992 to an estimated $14.4 billion in 1998." [ibid.]

    What is interesting about these figures is that they are not the original ones Mr. Clinton used. In a June televised press conference he originally claimed $34 billion has been collected, which the president later amended downward. That correction, however, did not stop feminist organizations. They still cling to the errant $34 billion figure--for obvious reasons.[2]


Political forces create new class of criminal

    The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 [3] states: "Whoever willfully fails to pay a past due support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State" is subject to criminal penalties. Note that this law creates a criminal class, not a civil class of offender and penalties. Public Law 105-521, as it is codified, makes debt a federal crime under U.S. statute. The "criminal" parent becomes a felon for any amount of delinquency, no matter how small, that is more than a year past due--or if that debt exceeds $5,000, for any period of time, no matter how short. Additionally, Washington has made it mandatory for all states to comply with specific guidelines for tracking and reporting the deadbeat dad or NPC (non-complying parent). [4]

    The entire deadbeat dad locator system, however, was clearly designed for far more than just locating fathers who have skipped out on their child support payments. Says Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, "...the law, however effective, is a dangerous extension of federal power that will ultimately be misused. Congress shot a blunderbuss, with every working American a target." [5]

    Because of the amount of executive influence being pumped into the "deadbeat dad" issue, one would naturally conclude that it is indeed a problem of immense proportions. Not so, according to numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    Would not those figures tend to give any thinking person a clear idea of where the father actually belongs in relation to his children?--perhaps with them?

    A Government Accounting Office (GAO) report claims that of those fathers who do not pay, two-thirds are delinquent because they simply do not have the money to do so. [ibid.] Punishment of this class of "deadbeat dads" has become almost proverbial in America--the father arrested and jailed for non-payment.

    This, along with the Support Recovery Act, as presented in a previous WINDS article, is strongly reminiscent of debtors' prisons of the 18th and 19th centuries and which still exist in Rhode Island and Wisconsin, but are virtually never used. It has long been a conundrum as to how one who has no money to pay (which, as mentioned, is the case in a significant percentage of non-paying fathers) can earn it while in prison.

    An American Indian, in the early 1800s, pointedly illustrated this absurdity when he said, after being thrown in debtor's prison for failure to present a quantity of beaver pelts as payment for a debt, "If I was put there to compel me to perform my agreement, my prosecutors have selected a poor place for me to catch beavers."

    The federal government eventually concluded that such incarceration was counterproductive and by 1833 abolished all debtors' prisons in its judicial system. Nearly all states soon followed this example.

    Why now is the federal government so anxious to reverse that decision and also intrude into territory previously reserved for state authorities?--so anxious that the president and Congress would put such legislative muscle into the effort?

    Washington, it appears, has subtly and masterfully created a system to destroy its greatest single enemy in the quest for total control of American morality and value systems. The greatest "enemy of the state" in this instance would be the traditional American family because it is that smallest of all autocratic units that is the principle determiner of morality, character and integrity in this nation.

    That ancient cabalistic blueprint that drives the globalist agenda states: "we shall destroy among the [nations] the importance of the family and its educational value...."[7] Not from this statement alone, but from observing the clear evidence of what is actually happening to families in America and the world, it is apparent that the forces of one-world government will not accept parental/family authority over children as greater than their own.

    This can be seen most clearly in the ease with which a child can be removed from its parent's custody. In nearly any state of this nation merely an accusation of potential child abuse, accompanied by no evidence, and made by almost anyone short of a wino in the street, to local child protective services can effect the removal of a child from its home for at least a day, if not longer. In a country whose constitution "guarantees" a presumption of innocence, it then becomes the responsibility of the parent to prove the negative--that they did not abuse their child--before custody will be returned to them. In some cases this is easy, in others, astonishingly difficult. The point being that a child may be legally kidnapped by the state for virtually any reason they care to give.

    It takes a village to wrest authority from parents, but what, one may ask, is the machine of choice for driving a wedge (stake?) into the heart of American families?

--Phyllis Schlafly

    The three decades beginning with the 1960's were the launching pad for the feminist or women's rights movement in America. And, it can be argued, the beginning of the end of biblically-based family values in this nation. During those times Gloria Steinam, feminist, activist, writer and founder of Ms. magazine was the most visible and forceful of those energizing the feminist movement. Her most erstwhile antagonist was, and is still, constitutional lawyer Phyllis Schlafly who consistently faced-off toe-to-toe with Steinam in the family vs. feminist arena, opposing virtually every area of the feminist agenda.

    The WINDS spoke with Mrs. Schlafly concerning the issue of this government's veiled attempts to break up the family as the primary educational power base in the nation.

    "When I fought the feminists in the 1970's," Mrs. Schlafly said, "it was fairly obvious that the government promoted the feminist view. Of course, they called themselves the Women's Liberation Movement. Well, what did they want to be liberated from?" she asked sardonically. "They wanted to be liberated from home, husband, family and children."

    The government's involvement in the social and moral disintegration of the American family, Schlafly says, "has been going on since the 1960's, with the added encouragement that legal services will now give a woman a free divorce.

    "I think that the worst thing that came of this was the no-fault divorce," Schlafly added. "The feminists promoted that back in 1960 with California being the first state and by the early 70's it had gone into every state. Of course, you had the feminists working for it, but I'm convinced that it passed in the legislatures so easily because you had some men who simply wanted to get out of their marriage. It then became the main cause of divorce.

    "The whole domestic violence operation helps to accomplish that; the legal services when they help her to a divorce; the housing allotments and the cash they offer when a girl wants to get out of her home and not have a husband, but just have a baby so she can get income from welfare."

    Another aspect of this increasingly pathological chunk of Americana is how easily government is able to separate families by using money as the wedge. It has been quite common that if a family fell on hard times, the state and federal welfare system presented a great encouragement for husbands to leave their wives and children, even if there were no real marital problems. By doing so, they became eligible for welfare money. It became a proverb of the times and such assistance would be terminated if it were found that the husband, employed or not, had returned to living with his family. In most cases, a boyfriend may live with a separated or divorced mother sharing her welfare, but if the husband moves back where he rightfully belongs, the money stops.

    These things, Schlafly says, are tailor-made for the splitting of families. Rather than encouraging a woman to put effort into making a troubled marriage work, the state (funded largely by monetary handouts from the federal government) will offer a woman a cheap and easy escape from the "till death do us part" commitment.

    "In our home we have family dinner table topics about political subjects," Schlafly said. "One such conversation centered around who was the worst president. I personally think it was Lyndon Johnson. The reason being that when he received a tremendous windfall of money because defense spending had dropped so dramatically, he used that money to target different elements of the population in order to develop a political base in exchange for federal money. Welfare expanded greatly because it became acceptable to receive government handouts. Prior to Lyndon Johnson, that was just not acceptable."

    The "great expansion" that took place under the Johnson Administration--his "Great Society" program--marks the time, Schlafly says, "when the character of the American people changed."

    The popular idea being foisted on Americans, that hard times require one to go begging to the government for assistance, does not bear up under historical scrutiny. During the hardest economic period of this nation's history, the Great Depression, it was considered dishonorable to receive government assistance. Government was simply not looked upon as a caretaker or substitute for one's own ability to provide for himself or his family. Families, black and white, stayed together in spite of the poverty. At that time the family unit was considered to be of far more value than material possessions or living conditions.

    "I grew up during the Depression," Mrs. Schlafly told The WINDS. "Even then," she confirmed, "it was not respectable to accept government handouts. But that was changed by the amount of money that became available during the Johnson Administration when there was this tremendous increase in all of the welfare programs under the Great Society. That's when we got all these entitlements. It made people believe they were 'entitled' to it, which then made it seem respectable."

Dollar sign  WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT?  Dollar sign

"It's the economy, stupid" -- W. J. Clinton

    As always, with those in the seat of power and global government, money is the great instrument of accomplishing any given goal. "If you look at the world from the liberal point of view," Phyllis Schlafly said, "they always want more money, more tax dollars. The problem they faced was that the American people had come to the point where they did not want to pay any more taxes. So where were they to get a new windfall of tax money? Well, it was really easy for them. They would just get all of the wives out of the home and into the workforce and suddenly they had a tremendous influx of federal tax revenue. This was a clear result of the feminist movement.

    "During those years the exodus of the wives out of the home served the purposes of a variety of groups. It served the feminists because they hate men and wanted to liberate women from the drudgery of the home and all these oppressive males who were dominating them.

    "Of course, when the wife enters the workforce, she does so at a tax rate that is added to her husband's so she ends up paying about half her income in taxes. This amounted to an enormous quantity of money for the government."

    Dr. Tony Evens, a nationally recognized black minister, chaplain for the NBA's Dallas Mavericks and head of the organization and syndicated radio program The Urban Alternative, is no stranger to the effects of government intrusion into the family.

    "Whenever you have a system that rewards you for not keeping your family together; that pays you not to have men in the home," said Dr. Evans in a taped interview with James Dobson's Focus on the Family, "you are devastating the thinking of a people."

    Dr. Evans focused insightfully on the fact that fear as a motivating factor is largely behind government programs. Fear that they will not gain absolute control over the populace.

    "If I were a racist," Evans said, "and I wanted to keep a people oppressed, I'd come up with a system of dependency that would keep them dependent upon me to provide their basic needs of life. Because as long as they look to me, then I could never be threatened by their ability to do something by themselves....That's what welfare has done," Evans continued. "It has created a cycle of dependency that has broken up our families, kept our men out of the home and created an attitudinal, ongoing mentality among our young people that productivity is not the way to get out of their situation."

    While Dr. Evans was referring primarily to black families, his observations hold true for all of society. It is as if the black community was being used as an initial proving ground to test the monstrous capabilities of the welfare machine.

    Star Parker, once drowning in "a life of drug abuse, crime, promiscuity, multiple abortions, and welfare dependency"[8] is now one of the most vocal of the black community's anti-welfare activists. Mrs. Parker heads the Coalition of Urban Affairs and has hosted her own conservative radio talk show in Los Angeles. She has appeared on ABC's Nightline, Larry King Live, ABC's 20-20, ABC News with Peter Jennings and had her views published in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and Reader's Digest, to name a few.

    "When you begin to look at what has happened on the community level," Parker says in the same interview with Tony Evans, "our hands have been tied. I keep hearing the Black Caucus; I keep hearing the NAACP say that our biggest problem is racism and poverty. But I look at our history and I say we've always had racism; we've always had poverty, but our families weren't devastated like they are today. We didn't see the crime we're seeing today. It has got to be more than that," Mrs. Parker observes, "so I look and I say it's that 'Great Society'--the government involvement."

    In a stunning illustration of the government's success in moving America toward a nonfamily-centered value system, Parker points out that "when you look at government intervention into suburban households, the white community illegitimacy rate today is where the black illegitimacy rate was thirty years ago when the government decided to get involved."

    "Another aspect of this," says Phyllis Schlafly, "is that you have for example a 16 year-old girl, and she's in school and doing poorly. She doesn't know who her father is and she's not getting along with her mother. Along comes Big Brother government and says, 'Hey, we can get you out of all this. We'll set you up in you own apartment. You'll have your own checks to cash, your own housing allotment, your own food stamps. The only thing you need to do to get all these goodies is to have an illegitimate baby.

    "This is the way the welfare system works."

    The WINDS: Do you actually believe that there are people in government who are consciously encouraging such things?

    Mrs. Schlafly: Yes, I do, because there are people who believe in income redistribution and the welfare system is a tremendous plan for accomplishing that.


    Recently, Man's Life, a subsidiary of Men's Health Magazine, reprinted a New York Times headline that said:

Study Exposes Domestic
Violence as Leading
Killer of Women

    "So the 'leading killer of women,' according to the Times, isn't breast cancer or car accidents. It's men."[9]

    That headline created a very effective, albeit very false, impression. The study referred to was very narrow in its scope and dealt with a segment of society that is at the very highest risk for such incidents--"black and Hispanic women living in impoverished and dangerous neighborhoods in New York City." [ibid.] Researchers would have found it extremely difficult to have chosen a more dangerous hunting ground for their statistics.

    The manner in which the Times presented the story illustrates well how the mind of the public is manipulated to believe a lie without actually being told one. Because of the sheer size and volume of the New York Times most people do not dig much beyond the headline and subheading to see what the truth really is. They merely read the headline that claims domestic violence is the leading cause of death in women. This impresses the reader with an easily assimilable "fact," like a sound bite, that is stored for quick retrieval when some mental or social decision on the subject is required--like how to vote.

    As a result of social research begun in the '70s, there have been several studies comparing men and women and focusing on who really initiates domestic violence.

    From that research the concept of the battered woman syndrome has taken quite a battering itself and has been shown to be quite different from what is usually presented in the media. In one such study conducted by Vanderbilt University and published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine [10], it was found during a study of 364 emergency room admissions that 39 percent were the result of domestic violence. The surprising result of that study was that, of that 39 percent, 51 percent were men who experienced physical violence from their partners and only 49 percent were women. The study concluded that "that women experienced significantly more past and present nonphysical violence, but not physical violence than men. [emphasis supplied] The men came out "winners" in that category (if one considers getting beaned by his wife as some strange form of "winning").

    Bert H. Hoff, in an article published by the Family Health Institute reveals that Washington "declares as official policy that 95% of the domestic violence is by men against women despite the many research reports that women are responsible for a quarter, a third, or even more of the domestic violence." In his presentation Hoff comments on what he calls "advocacy-based research," that is, research that is purposely slanted toward reinforcing or advocating the agenda of a particular group. In this case, the group generically is the women's rights or feminist movement.[11]

    In fact, a joint study by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,700 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States."[12]

    Rather than women being twenty times as likely to be victims of domestic violence, as is the "official" position of government, the actual numbers published by the government itself indicate ten times less than that or 2 to 1--and in most independently funded research the incidence is about evenly divided.

    But so vituperous are those who peddle their program of extreme female victimization, that University of New Hampshire sociologist Dr. Murray Straus, et al, who began investigations into wife battering in the 1970's, were made outcasts from the feminist community by their research on women's violence against men. When their book Behind Closed Doors, Violence in American Families [13] was published from that research, it became evident by the feminist's reaction that truth is clearly not what is desired by those who had before applauded their work.

    "In the mid 1970's," says Dr. Straus, in an article entitled "Battered Men - The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence," "my colleagues and I made the disturbing discovery that women physically assaulted partners in marital, cohabiting, and dating relationships as often as men assaulted their partners. This finding caused me and my former colleague Suzanne Steinmetz to be excommunicated as feminists. Neither of us has accepted that sentence, but it remains in force. So when Salman Rushdie was condemned to death for his heresy," Straus continues, "we may have felt even more empathy than most people because we had also experienced many threats, including a bomb threat."

    One major cause of the apparently intentional disparity in domestic violence figures used by feminists and female victim advocates lies in the definition of what they are calling violence. They will label as violence such things as withholding money, shouting or demeaning, while reputable researchers of domestic violence factor in only actual physical violence. [ibid.]

FRACTURED STATISTICS (or "Cooking the Numbers")

    Dr. Richard Gelles, reportedly one of the leading and most controversial authorities on domestic violence and co-author with Dr. Murray Straus of the aforementioned the book Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family,[ibid.] has compiled a list of glaring inaccuracies, embellishments and outright lies about "battered women."

    Some of the disinformation or "factoids," as Dr. Gelles calls them, are:


Truth: "This factoid," Dr. Gelles states, "has been attributed to both Surgeon General Antonia Novello and the Centers for Disease Control....Unfortunately," he adds, "as good a sound bite as this is, it is simply not true....Linda Saltzman from the Centers for Disease Control tells all journalists who call to check this fact that the CDC does not recognize this as either their fact or a reputable fact."


Truth: "The March of Dimes actually reports that they know of no such study."


Truth: Gelles says that this "appears to be yet another fact from nowhere. The FBI has published no data that supports this claim. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports has no tables that report on prison populations, let alone a table or figure that breaks down prison populations by age of offender and relationship to victim. There are no Department of Justice reports that report on what number or percentage of young men kill their mother's batterer."


Truth: "This factoid," Dr. Geller claims, "was often used by Dr. Robert McAfee, past president of the American Medical Association. According to the FBI, Uniform Crime Statistics," the number over that five-year period totaled about half the number of American casualties in Viet Nam.


Truth: "The FBI reports that approximately 1,500 women are killed each year by husbands or boyfriends."


Truth: "An interesting factoid stated by Senator [Joseph] Biden, but one without any actual published scientific research to support it." [Senator Biden is best remembered for being forced to withdraw from his 1988 presidential campaign because it was revealed that he had plagiarized some of his work as a college student.]


Truth: Geller comments that this is "another great sound bite, but one not actually based on a verified count of either type of shelter."

    Will Rogers once said that real estate is the best of all investments "cause they ain't makin' no more of it." The government, it seems, has its own twist on that truth which plays the market to their advantage.

    It was earlier mentioned how Washington was successful in creating a wealth of tax revenue by making it a virtual necessity for wives to enter the work force. There has been one especially insidious method of accomplishing this.

    "It was around 1974 that we had a tremendous boom in the real estate market where prices shot up," said Phyllis Schlafly. "I see the major cause of that was the feminists pushing through the Equal Credit Opportunity Act which became federal law. Overnight that changed the policies of every bank in the country.

    "People don't think of homes in terms of the total buying price. They think in terms of what will their monthly mortgage payments be. Before that law the banks, in calculating mortgage payments, only factored in the income of the husband. They figured that in selling a house to a couple the woman would drop out of the workforce and have babies and, therefore, would not be a reliable income earner for the purpose of making mortgage payments.

    "When that law--the Equal Credit Opportunity Act--went into effect, they were required by federal law to consider her income when they determined whether or not they were eligible for a mortgage loan. So overnight all this money was available--huge quantities of money, everywhere. As a result, if you increased the amount of money a couple had available for their monthly mortgage payment by approximately fifty per cent, you also increased the size of the payment. Once they've got that mortgage to meet, the woman is locked into the workforce.

    "They increased, by an enormous amount almost overnight, the money available for home buying and if the money's available, the price is going to go up." Ipso facto--a totally artificial real estate market is created simply by getting the wife out of the home and into the workplace--then chaining her to that workplace for the sake of the mortgage.

    One very baleful result in this, Schlafly points out, is that when the marriage is dissolved, the state looks at the standard of living the wife and children were experiencing before the divorce and establishes support payments by the father based on that unrealistically inflated two-income figure. For some reason, the government believes that it is some form of extreme venality or wickedness for a wife and children, but not the husband, to have to lower their standard of living somewhat, and places the burden of maintaining that standard on the father who cannot afford both and often lives in penury in order to make his support payments.

    "So you have all those factors at play," Mrs. Schlafly added, "and they are all working to the detriment of the family."

    It appears, by simple logic, that the government desires to dissolve the family but does not want to pay the expenses incurred. In many instances it appears that they engineer circumstances that take away a man's family, his wife and children, but force him to pay for their support without allowing him to receive any of the spiritual and emotional benefits that accrue to complete families. This is much like a thief who steals a car and demands that the original owner buy all the gas to operate it and then reimburse the thief for its maintenance and upkeep.

FATHER BASHING: A National Pastime

    When one looks at the cultured national attitude toward parents, and fathers in particular, with any insight it becomes obvious that disrespect is being engendered in an unprecedented manner and leaving its indelible mark on family and nation.

    Blatant and not-so-blatant attempts to weaken the authority of fathers in the American family are rampant in this society. To see this one need look no further than the advertising industry. Society is constantly bombarded with commercials that characterize the father as a barely functional imbecile where his children and/or spouse hold him up to thinly veiled ridicule for not knowing about some fact or product. The wife and children are pictured as the true intellectual authority of the household. The father is more and more frequently portrayed in the American family as a lump of slightly animated beef whose primary, indeed exclusive, role is to provide his family with the monitary means to purchase the product he, himself, is too stupid to recognize as desirable.

    This age of woman's (and more increasingly, children's) "rights" has given rise to an unprecedented corrosion and dissipation of the father's role in the family. At the same time, we have witnessed a terrifying rise in murders committed by children against other children, against their parents, and against themselves--suicide.

    It was not to fill excess space on those stone tablets that God included the Fifth Commandment to "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" with the added observation "that Thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord Thy God giveth Thee."

    Paul the Apostle, referring to that last part, calls it "the first commandment with promise" that life may be prolonged.

    When a society takes upon itself to devalue the honor and respect for parents by its children, it poisons the very well from which it drinks. When the government becomes the parent and the children are not taught respect for genuine parental authority, they will have no respect for any other authority or person. The result of this is that they will not "live long upon the earth."

    Senator Phil Graham recently stated that "the odds that a boy born in America in 1974 will be murdered are higher than the odds that a serviceman in World War II would be killed in combat."

    America can now clearly behold the consequences of its meddling with the God-ordained institutions of marriage and the family.

Letter of Interest on failure to pay child support.


  1. White House Press Release, June 24, 1998.
  2. Man's Life, 1997 Real Life Publishing LLC.
  3. Public Law 102-521: Child Support Recovery Act of 1992.
  4. Department of Health and Human Services/Office of Child Support Enforcement 19th Annual Report.
  5. "'Deadbeat Dad' Database Endangers Everyone", The Cato Institute, April 30, 1998.
  6. Man's Life,, 1997 Real Life Publishing LLC.
  7. Protocol No. 10 Para. 5.
  8. "A Star is Born", Today's Christian Woman, July/August 1997.
  9. "Abusing the Truth", Man's Life, 1997-98 Real Life Publishing LLC.
  10. Annals of Emergency Medicine, August 1997, Vol. 30, No. 2.
  11. Battered Men - The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, by Bert H. Hoff, Family Health Institute, 1998.
  12. National Institute of Justice/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Research Brief, "Prevalence,Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey," November 1998.
  13. Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., and Steinmetz, S.K., Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families, Doubleday, New York, 1980.

Submitted 02/01/99


Go to top

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This site is in the public domain.