Facing Child Support, Man Joins the Jihad

By AMY FORLITI Associated Press

Abdifatah Ahmed struggled for years to make ends meet.

After losing his $15-an-hour job fueling airliners in Minneapolis, the Somali-American father of nine survived on low-wage jobs and public assistance. He complained about working hard, but never having enough money. His circumstances worsened when he was ordered to pay more than $700 a month to support three of his children — including one less than a year old.

Months later, he surfaced in Syria, where he went to fight for the Islamic State.

“I think since he lost his job, he was maybe never normal after that,” sister Muna Ahmed told the AP last fall.

“It’s unbelievable,” his friend, Farhan Hussein, said recently. “Where did this disease come from?”

Hussein said his friend seemed confused about life, and sometimes felt stressed out by the women with whom he had children: Minnesota court papers show at times he was paying child support to two ex-wives for five of his kids, as well as support for a sixth whose mother is not identified. He wasn’t the type to go to mosque or pray every day — instead, he went clubbing and even drank alcohol, Hussein said.

When he felt troubled, Ahmed might turn to his religion for a week or so at a time. But once the blues passed, he would be back to his old self — flirting with women, dressing sharply, listening to rap music, shooting hoops and lifting weights at a local gym, Hussein said.

He dipped sporadically into political discussions, speaking about the Palestinians, the civil war in Libya and conditions in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia where many Somalis live. But the continued atrocities against Syrian civilians committed by the Assad regime apparently made a deeper impression.

On Dec. 3, 2013, a post on his Facebook account showed pictures of mutilated kids: “Look what is happening in syria. Where is the UN when u need them. This is worse than libya you get it?”

A month later, it appears, Ahmed was in Syria himself.

“A muslim has to stand up for was right. … I give up this worldly life for allah and to save the ummah (community of believers) if that makes terrorist am happy with it,” he wrote in a Jan. 3, 2014 post.

Another post that same day contains a photo of him holding a rifle in one hand, and a book that may be the Quran in the other.

Alarmed, Hussein messaged Ahmed, urging him to come home. After ignoring his friend for months, Ahmed replied that “we’ve got to fight” for the caliphate.

Ahmed’s last Facebook posts, including one that says “having fun in jihad,” are dated last July 25.

The next month, a member of Ahmed’s family received a picture that appeared to show him dead, with a gunshot wound to the head. The State Department is working to verify reports of Ahmed’s death, but Hussein identified the person in the photo as his friend, who would have been 34 according to court records.

Family and friends interviewed by the AP said they don’t know what motivated Ahmed to go to Syria. Hussein said he may have been trying to escape financial troubles and the stress of being pulled in different directions by the women in his life.

“That’s the only thing I could think of that would (mess) his life up, and make him lose his hope,” Hussein said.

He added: “He was looking for paradise.”

The Gift Transformed Into a Debt

by Dalrock

Blessed is he who expects no gratitude, for he shall not be disappointed. –  W.C. Bennett

Back in 1852 the troop ship HMS Birkenhead sank in shark infested waters off the coast of South Africa. There weren’t enough lifeboats to save everyone, and the captain made the extraordinary decision to reserve them for the women and children aboard. The crew followed the captain’s order even though it meant his and many of their own deaths. This incredible example of men sacrificing for others has made what otherwise would have been an obscure shipwreck a famous event in history.

Even a century and a half later, women still understand the meaning of the profound sacrifice made by those brave men:

Men owe us.

A similar event occurred in 1912 when RMS Titanic struck an iceberg. Well over a thousand men stood aside and died so that mostly women (and a lesser percentage of children) could survive. Women understood the meaning of that sacrifice as well:

You got off easy. The women who survived are the ones who had to suffer. We didn’t ask you to do this for us anyway.

And of course:

Men owe us.

One of the videos I saw after the sinking of the Costa Concordia had an overweight American woman with a short haircut complaining:

It certainly wasn’t women and children first!

She said this in the form of an indictment, with the obvious expectation that all listening would see it as proof of an outrageous dereliction by the men on the ship. She and countless other women believe that since some men have volunteered to die in shipwrecks in the past, all men will forever have an obligation to do so. What men in the past did was an incredible act of graciousness; it has been met with an equally incredible lack of grace in return.

I’ve searched the web looking for a copy of the video to share, but unfortunately I couldn’t find it. What I found instead was even more powerful however.  Sheila Gregoire wrote a post/syndicated column shortly after the Costa Concordia went down titled:  Women and Children First? – A Feminist Tragedy :

In the comments I’ve been reading on the news reports, people seem to agree that children should be given priority, but there’s a heated debate about the women. We’re equal, so why should a man lose a place to a woman? Why should a man have to help a woman when he’s in danger, too?

And, as disgusting as I find that question, it makes sense. In 1912 it was a different world. Personal responsibility was still the main ethos of the day. People took care of their neighbours; they did not wait for government to do it for them. And people had a code of honour that included helping others when you could.

Somehow we have lost that. It is no longer about honour and what we should do for others; it has become what others should do for us.

I assume the irony is lost on her that her response to men having shown incredible selflessness is to be upset that men might at times elect to take care of themselves instead of focusing on people like her. As I have written before, making chivalry mandatory or expected destroys the very concept. It isn’t just feminists who destroyed chivalry, but feminist-lite women who view themselves as traditional.

Even so it wasn’t Sheila’s blog post which really startled me, it was the comments from many of the women who read her blog.  Several of the women understood the issue and why men made different choices on that wreck than on certain shipwrecks in the past. But others took an attitude of incredible entitlement, assuming that men in general exist to serve them. Commenter Rachel started by explaining that men owe this to women because women’s lives are worth more than men’s:

Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.

She then describes how she rudely bumped into a man recently in an elevator because she assumed he would understand that she has a special right to exit elevators first, even though of course she is his equal:

That being said, I was just thinking of this topic last night. I was sharing an elevator with a man about my age. When the elevator stopped, I automatically started to get off and he almost ran into me! I am so used to men letting me get off the elevator first, it hadn’t occurred to me that he wouldn’t. Once I righted myself, I got thinking about it and why would he let me off first? I am his equal. I started to think if there was a scientific reason, and I could not come up with one. In fact, I thought maybe the man should go first to let him see if it’s safe (I’ve watched too much late night drama and seen too many people get attacked getting off elevators).

Even though the uppity man in the elevator didn’t know his place, she graciously suggests that there are times when it is acceptable for a man to enter a lifeboat:

The thought process led to thinking about the “women and children first” policy and I do still think that applies, unless the child who is getting on the life boat is only accompanied by his/her father. I think then the dad should be able to get on the life boat with his child(ren).

I want to back up and remind you that before 1852 there was no such expectation that men should stand by and drown in order to save women who in most cases are strangers. The sense of entitlement so many women now have because of acts of incredible selflessness by men in the past is astonishing.

Another commenter named Britiney who writes a blog called Consider the Lillies read Sheila’s post and it reminded her of a time recently when men she didn’t know failed to snap-to and be her personal unpaid valet. It happened when she exercised poor planning while taking her computer in for repair:

Along the same lines and under the heading of “Chivalry is dead” I had to take my computer to the repair shop last week. I took it to the Apple store in our local mall and, not knowing that there was a “secret” entrance close to the store, I lugged it all the way through the parking lot, and then all the way through the mall and then BACK because I decided to take it somewhere else. I don’t know how much it weighs, but by the time I got all the way back to my car I was nearly in tears because it was SO heavy and I was SO frustrated. And here’s my point: I cannot even tell you how many able-bodied young men I passed while I was carrying something that was OBVIOUSLY too heavy for me. When I finally got to my car I called my husband and told him that my boys will NEVER pass someone who needs help and not offer to help them. I was so disgusted that not one single man offered to help me! So so so sad. I can’t influence any of the men who passed me by, but I can certainly influence the 3 young men God has entrusted to my care and if I have ANYTHING to do with it, they WILL put women and children first!!!

It reminded me of a comment Hestia made on a previous post on this topic about a woman who saw a group of servicemen returning from active duty, and was upset that they didn’t volunteer to carry her load for her:

Basically here is a group of largely men who have been sacrificing on behalf of the nation (or so the story goes) who haven’t done enough for this pampered princess. So it seems to go not only with soldiers in particular but men in general when it comes to chivalry.

One thing men need to understand is that in the event that they make the kind of sacrifice women are demanding, not only will it lead to even more entitlement, but many women will still detract from the noble nature of your choice.

Commenter Amanda wrote:

Not to undermine your point, but when the Titanic sank, women and children were NOT put first. Sure, they started the evacuations like that, and there were men of honor, but there were also the men who locked the doors to the third class section so that those people wouldn’t take up lifeboat space, and the coward who pushed women and children aside in their haste to get into a boat.

After Sheila challenged her on the historical accuracy of this claim, Amanda replied with:

Well, it’s been a few years since I did all the reading I did on the Titanic, but I was pretty interested as a youngling, and the picture I got from the books was one of polite, subversive cowardice slowly escalating to outright anarchy and panic.

Understand that if you sacrifice yourself for women you don’t know that most women will simply take your act of ultimate selflessness as proof that men owe them. A significant number will also deny the bravery of your dying act.

“Deadbeat Dad” Ordered Not To Have Children

Right or wrong? Some say that creating more children is your God-given human right. But when you’re having a pile of kids with a bunch of women, that not only means you’re a walking STD time bomb, it also means that you’re irresponsible. A man in Wisconsin has fallen behind on his child support after having nine kids with six different women. This prompted the judge to tell the man that he cannot have anymore kids until he shows that he can provide for them.

Corey Curtis owes almost $100,000 in back child support, according to prosecutors in Racine, Wisconsin. Judge Tim Boyle told the highly fertile 44-year old man that he is disappointed that he doesn’t have the authority to order him sterilized, since he keeps having kids that he can’t and won’t take care of.

“Common sense dictates you shouldn’t have kids you can’t afford,” the judge said.

Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Sommers told the judge that he could do something to help keep Curtis from populating half the earth. She cited a 2001 case in the Wisconsin Supreme Court where the judge ruled that the defendant was not allowed to have children until he could prove that he was able to take care of them financially.

“I will make that a condition of the probation,” Boyle said. He then gave Curtis three years of probation. This means that if he has anymore children during his many nights of hot, random lovemaking with women who won’t make him wear a condom, he’s going to end up in jail.

“Judges, they make rulings,” Curtis said to WDJT-TV, “they make them kind of hastily. So, if that’s what he feels one of my conditions should be then I’m going to abide by it.”

The court ruled in the original case that the man’s Constitutional rights are not violated because he can still have kids as long as he pays child support. Some say that allowing judges to decide who can and cannot reproduce is a civil liberties problem. But others might say that Curtis, with nine children of his own, has done enough reproducing for a lifetime. This also fails to mention that his children are bound to suffer from the poor choices of their parents.

Find out more about the United Nations protocol for children and the Bradley Amendment on this website.

Are You A Victim of Exploitation?

Government Exploitation: Dads Are Dead Broke

Bradley Amendment Creates an American Subclass of Poverty

original article posted by Bo Watkin

Child Support System Treats Dads Badly

by Katrina Kollins

It’s funny how the fathers are told not to move out of their homes or to desert their children, but yet low-life women can move out, take the children, get custody and child support, live off our tax dollars by getting welfare and never have to get a job!

Then the fathers have to pay thousands of dollars to get to see their children and never get custody. But yet the fathers have to pay the bills left by these women, the mortgage, etc., and these bills are never considered when it comes to child support and these women get off scot free. Most of these women use the children for the money!

Support should be on a card like unemployment, and the women should have to have receipts for the children’s purchases. Pennsylvania’s child support court system is unbelievable when most fathers are the better parent, but yet our courts allow this to go on.  Never once are these women asked how they are going to help support these children.

Maybe the children aren’t abused physically but by God mentally they are; these women spend the day on their cell phones or the children spend the day in a car, but yet more fathers actually spend time playing with their children, reading to them, or just outside going for walks, etc.

Judges, this court system, need to grow a pair and finally stick up for these fathers! This has gone on way too long!

The Darkness of Societal Parental Alienation in Childcare

In our modern culture, parental alienation has become a scourge that has been largely supported by the government and family courts. This sociopathy has been considered “just a part of life,” which has crept into the entire scope of society. When it comes to childcare, it really is up to women to allow men into what has previously been their domain, especially as more and more women choose the marketplace to fulfill their lives. A great place to start is to get rid of exclusionary practices that cater exclusively to moms or that alienate parents and family from children in any way.

If you are connected with such a class, consider getting the name changed to one that is more welcoming, like “Toddler Time” or “Toddler and Me” — names that include not only dads but grandparents and other caregivers as well. It’s small changes like this that, over the long run, will help alter attitudes and perceptions about our roles as men and women in our society.

The Road to Good Intentions: Free Attorneys

Democrat Senator Joe Biden is working to employ new domestic violence legislation which portends to cost state and federal government millions and further prejudice the law against honest fathers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and Senator Biden is no exception.

Biden’s latest domestic violence bill is the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, which amends Biden’s Violence Against Women Act to create an extensive network of volunteer attorneys to help abused women. The attorneys would provide free legal help in forging divorce or separation agreements and in winning child custody.

S.1515 will do some good in aiding abused low-income women. The problem is that the bill will also greatly exacerbate the already widespread problem of false domestic violence claims being used to strip decent, loving fathers of custody of their children. Bill S1515 has a price tag of 55.5 million over 5 years. When Senator Biden was confronted with the cost of the bill, he said that he had not considered the cost. Mothers and teary-eyed feminist programmers would have you believe that no cost is too great for justice.

Naturally, there is no mechanism within the bill to distinguish between false accusations and legitimate ones. This remains the achilles heel of the entire system that continues to be ignored.

Fox zeroes in on 'Bad Dads'

Fox Network zeroes in on ‘Bad Dads’

Check out the dangerous and subversive mentality of this show…

After embracing the dark side of reality television with its marriage-busting hit “The Moment of Truth,” Fox’s newest project taps the power of its unscripted division for the forces of good.

The network has ordered a pilot from 3Ball Productions, in which an avenger of penniless single mothers hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support.

Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, functions as a sort of “Dog the Bounty Hunter” for tracking deadbeats. In the pilot, a financially destitute mom is contrasted with her wealthy ex-husband, who is living the high life. Durham confronts the man at his country club to shake him down in front his friends. It’s ambush reality TV — but for a noble cause.

“(Durham) calls them on the phone and gives them the chance to do the right thing,” said executive producer JD Roth (“The Biggest Loser,” “Beauty and the Geek”). “Of course, those calls are never met with anything but yelling. Then he goes into their life, finds out what kind of assets they have and makes their lives miserable — foreclose on their house, repossess their car. He will squeeze them until the women get paid.”

Roth sold the idea to Fox with the title “Deadbeat Dads.” But Fox president of alternative entertainment Mike Darnell famously concocts his own catchy titles for his shows. (“Nothing but the Truth” became “The Moment of Truth,” and “Do You Remember 5th Grade?” morphed into “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”) Darnell has rechristened “Deadbeat Dads” with the very-Fox working title “Bad Dads.”

Sluggish government agencies often fail to persuade financially liable fathers to pay child support. As of 2006, the nation’s cumulative uncollected child support stood at about $105 billion, according to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Last year’s federal budget cuts could make the problem even worse, potentially adding about $11 billion in uncollected child support over the next 10 years.

Durham’s National Child Support Center is one of several collection agencies that serve as a last resort for neglected single mothers. Some critics say such companies do more harm than good. Child support collectors have been accused of charging steep fees and using ultra-aggressive tactics. Durham bills his clients 34% of whatever he collects.

Roth counters that Durham’s clients typically feel so abandoned by the court system that they’re relieved to get any money at all. Plus, he said Durham is the only collector who extracts interest owed on the outstanding debt, so his clients often receive more money than if the absent dads had simply paid their bills.

As for the aggressive tactics, child support is not considered a debt per se, but an order of the court. Collectors are therefore not subject to following the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which regulates what tactics a collection agency can employ to collect a debt.

“I’m hoping that eventually this show changes how courts see deadbeat dads and how moms have to deal with it,” Roth said.

If greenlighted to series, “Bad Dads” will provide Fox a fresh take on the law enforcement reality show, a genre the network pioneered with such Saturday night staples as “Cops” and “America’s Most Wanted.”

“I’ve seen ‘Cops,’ and I want to watch more than a crack addict with his pants around his ankles running away from a police car,” Roth said. “These guys owe money, and they should pay.”

TO PROTEST THIS PILOT SHOW CONTACT GLENN SACKS WEBSITE.

Protest Fox’s New Reality Show ‘Bad Dads’ !

FROM GLEN SACKS

PLEASE SEND A PROTEST EMAIL BY CLICKING HERE

Fox recently announced its intention to launch a new reality show called Bad Dads. According to Reuters, in Bad Dads Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, “functions as a sort of ‘Dog the Bounty Hunter’ for tracking deadbeats…[Durham’s role is as] an avenger of penniless single mothers [who] hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support…

“In the pilot, a financially destitute mom is contrasted with her wealthy ex-husband, who is living the high life. Durham confronts the man at his country club to shake him down in front his friends. It’s ambush reality TV.”

According to Reuters, Durham will target fathers who are behind on their child support by “making their lives miserable — foreclosing on their house, repossessing their car. He will squeeze them…”

This news was brought to our attention by our friend at Killing Marriage for Votes.