“Child support mom” (CSM), thief, daddy-welfare recipient, or financial dependent; which best describes Katie Holmes in using the courts to extort $10 million in “child support” from Tom Cruise over the next 12 years “for” daughter Suri? All of them.
First, if you’re thinking extort is a strong word, consider this; I suspect that Tom Cruise is not willingly paying Katie Holmes $10 million and that he’s doing so only under the threat or fear of a felony indictment for criminal nonsupport in California, or under the threat of having his reputation damaged pre-settlement. Please understand that I’m assuming that nonpayment is also a felony in New York as it is in Ohio.
So if it’s not willing on Tom Cruise’s part, and was in fact done under the threat or fear of the aforementioned, then he is being extorted, period. Disagree? Then please enumerate for me, valid moral reasons as to why Cruise should have to pay Holmes a sickening $10 million (or any money for that matter) for her to divorce him, take Suri out of his life, and thereby force him to finance the fleecing of his own daughter?
Why should any father have to finance the fleecing of their own children as 84% of us are nationwide? I have a novel idea, we dads will take full custody and you divorcing mothers or “child support moms” (CSMs) can pay us “child support.” I quote “child support” because studies show that in only about 30% of cases, the money is spent to support the custodial mother’s lifestyle and the child sees non of it. So it’s therefore anything but “child support.”
Better yet, we’ll forgo the child support in exchange for full custody. After all, most of us (70% nationwide), didn’t ask for divorce, it was the mothers who filed. And why not, when you know you can take the house, the car, the children and the father’s money all in one fell swoop? I’ll tell you why not, morals.
I have a better idea. Why didn’t Holmes agree to grant Cruise full custody as she demanded from him, and pay him “child support?” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander right? If an offer is said to be “good and acceptable” for one party in a settlement where both are standing on equal footing, then one can reasonably conclude that the same offer is good for the other party in that settlement right? Wrong! What’s “good, reasonable and acceptable” depends on your gender in this age where men and women are said to be equal.
In other words, if you’re the mother in a divorce, you know, the party generally telling the father, “me taking the kids, the house, the car and your money is the best offer you’re going to get” then what Cruise was offered is said to be “good and fair.” Take the same offer and switch the parties. Instead, imagine that Cruise is making the same offer to Holmes and you know what you’d hear from Holmes and most mothers? “I will in no way accept that offer! You can stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, it’s wholly unfair”…For a woman that is.
So why the difference? Why does Holmes, a supposed millionaire, get to reach into Cruise’s pocket, during a divorce settlement he didn’t ask for, and steal a $10 million wad of cash in the process? I’ll tell you why, because this has nothing to do with “child support” and everything to due with Holmes extracting “daddy support” from Cruise for the next 12 years because Holmes is quite incapable of supporting herself.
I’ll even go a step further and say that it’s possible, possible that Holmes only married Cruise so she could thereby lie with him and produce a child for the purpose of securing her retirement at the expense of Cruises loins. Stay with me on that, and as I divert from Ms. Holmes to explain some lesser known truths.
It’s a well known fact to any willing to recognize it, that there are legions of unscrupulous and immoral women worldwide who will stop at nothing in their attempts to become impregnated by a famous musician, baseball player, football player, basketball player and so on.
Such is done for the sole purpose of using their golden uterus to secure millions of dollars in “child support” from the aforementioned so that they can live in the lap of luxury and never have to work another day in their lives. Assuming of course that they ever worked a day in their life to begin with.
There are known and documented cases of women who have used a man’s semen to impregnate themselves without the knowledge nor the consent of the man with whom a sexual encountered occurred. Such has been done via retrieving discarded condoms after the fact, and after obviously having been used by the man with the intent of avoiding pregnancy.
Other women have pierced condoms with needles (and then gave them to a man) to become impregnated against his wishes and knowledge. Again, it’s done to deceive the man to acquire his sperm without his knowledge and consent so they can impregnate themselves. The means of deception are too numerous to mention, but the goal is always the same. For the woman to deceptively acquire a man’s sperm and impregnate herself without his knowledge for the sole purpose of collecting 18-26 years of “child support.”
When it comes to the State forcing a man to pay “child support”, how the recipient of that order was impregnated is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if a man was deceived and his sperm used without his knowledge or consent. If DNA proves him to be the father of a child, then he will be forced to pay the mother “child support.” Period, end of story.
So for all of you men who are sexually active and reading this, I strongly advise you to pay heed to what I said. Use only your own condoms, never leave your wallet or your condoms where your girlfriend can access them, and ALWAYS discard them yourself in a non-retrievable manner.
Honestly, my advice to all of you is to not engage in any kind of sexual encounter whatsoever, as even oral fluids have been retrieved by some women to impregnate themselves against a man’s wishes and without his knowledge after the encounter.
What I’ve described is nothing new, and is more common than most people think. And although it may be new to you, don’t think it can’t happen to you, because I suspect that every guy it has happened to has thought the same.
Ask your self if a few moments of sexual gratification are worth 18-26 years of financial destruction and imprisonment, because that’s the least amount of time you’ll serving time (financially) for “child support.” Also ask yourself if it’s worth 18-26 years (minimum) of servitude whereby a “family court” judge will mandate a good portion of your life for you.
If sexual gratification is a must for you, then may I humbly suggest that you practice self-control and thereby abstinence, or at least practice solo? I personally feel that abstinence is the best moral choice, but I’m not here to judge you, only to protect you and preserve your financial future.
And as one speaking from experience, trust me when I say that you’ll likely go bankrupt and be penniless (literally) for years and even decades to come. God forbid you fall behind in your payments, because if you do, then statistically speaking you’ll likely never recover financially after all of the interest and penalties that will be tacked on.
Back to Katie Holmes. I truly believe that there’s a possibility (albeit a very small one) that Katie Holmes may have married Tom Cruise with the sole intent of bearing his child so that she could then divorce him and steal away part of his fortune. Put aside your thoughts that I’m out there or looney for a moment and consider the following before you dismiss me as ludicrous.
Katie Holmes is much-to-do about nothing when it comes to acting. Her greatest claim to fame is Tom Cruise himself. “Mrs. Tom Cruise” is what she’ll always be most famous for. At her age, it’s not likely she’s going to experience some high-paying breakout whereby she suddenly becomes an incredibly famous and highly sought after actress that gets paid obscene amounts of money. By Hollywood standards, Holmes is low-rent. I don’t mean that disrespectfully, but rather in a salary sense. In other words, she’s cheap when it comes to signing her.
Ironically, Holmes is also an Ohio native. And if there’s one state that I’m familiar with when it comes to under-handed and deceptive tactics by “child support moms” (CSMs) it’s Ohio. That’s NOT an indictment of all of Ohio’s single moms, only those who are single child support moms by choice, and without just moral cause. In other words, the likes of Katie Holmes.
So Ms. Holmes, I personally wish to congratulate you on your thievery. Yes, I said thievery and that’s only in reference to your stealing (I said stealing too and in the same context) of $10 million dollars from Tom Cruise under the guise of “child support.”
Do you know what that makes you Ms. Holmes? To my knowledge, you are the highest paid “child support mom” aka daddy welfare mom who’s native to the state of Ohio. Do tell Ms. Holmes, what’s it like to not only steal $10 million from a father, but to also kick a father out of his daughter’s life as you have Mr. Cruise from Suri’s?
Truth be told, Mr. Cruise and I are very different when it comes to religion and political ideology. But where we’re similar is fatherhood, and it’s father’s (and noncustodial moms) that I defend. As a father of a daughter myself, I know what it’s like to be kicked out of a daughter’s life. I know what it’s like to not have any idea whatsoever what my daughter does day in and day out. I know what it’s like to have no say in a daughter’s life.
And worse, I know what it’s like to finance the fleecing of my own daughter. The fact is Ms. Holmes, you knew who Tom Cruise was before you married him. You knew and understood Tom Cruise’s religion before you chose to lie with him and bring a precious little girl into the world.
Yet you divorced him, stole (in my moral opinion) $10 million from him under the guise of “child support”, and worst of all, unilaterally took Suri out of his life while knowing what she means to him. I suspect that your attorneys forced Mr. Cruise to agree to financing the fleecing of his own daughter by hinting to the damage his reputation would take if he didn’t agree. That’s both cold and immoral, and it makes you no different than a common thief in my opinion.
It’s also my belief that you’re stealing $10 million from him in “child support” not just so that you’ll never have to worry about working another day in your life, but also because you know that you’re incapable of supporting yourself. Said otherwise Ms. Holmes, you’re incapable of standing on your own two feet and are wholly dependent on Mr. Cruise’s income to support yourself financially. To all those detractors from that last point, if you truly believe that I’m so off base, then I implore you to log in and post a rebuttal.
Any person with a shred of decency and with good morals would not use the auspices of supporting a precious and innocent child to steal $10 million from another loving parent. I use the word steal because in my opinion, “child support” in most cases is nothing more than one parent using an innocent child to steal money from another parent. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it morally right.
You Ms. Holmes are an affront to all good and loving single mothers who support their children equally. It’s simple, if you didn’t rely on Mr. Cruise’s money to make it financially, then you wouldn’t have demanded it. Any half-thinking person can conclude that the $10 million you stole from Mr. Cruise as “child support” is not going to be spent on Suri. It will surely be spent to support your lifestyle for the next 12 years at the expense of Suri and Mr. Cruise. Suri, because you’ve cheated her out of a father, and Tom, because you’ve cheated him out of daughter.
And the most vile, disgusting, and absolutely perverted part of it all, is that you are getting paid TEN MILLION DOLLARS to separate a loving father from his daughter, and will thereby destroy in an emotional manner, the lives of two people.
As I said earlier, you knew who Mr. Cruise was before you married him. Likewise, you knew full well what his religious beliefs were. Yet you divorce him and cite his religion, not abuse, not cheating, but religion as a reason to leave him and thereby force him to finance the fleecing of Suri.
With that said, I do believe that it’s entirely possible you married him with the intent of having a child with him so as to secure your own financial future by divorcing him. Additionally, I think your lack of value as a Hollywood actress supports that theory.
Whether my opinion expressed herein as it relates to you is right, wrong, or indifferent, one thing for certain is true; you Ms. Holmes are the “ten million dollar child support mom from Ohio.” You divorced yourself from Mr. Cruise Ms. Holmes, now divorce yourself from his money as any good and decent grown up mother would do. Go ahead Katie, divorce yourself from Tom’s income and thereby put your big-girl underwear on so that it can be said that you’re supporting yourself as any adult should and is expected to.
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights