Articles are available for reprint as long as the author is acknowledged: Domenick J. Maglio Ph.D.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

PSEUDO PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY IS REPRESSING FREE SPEECH


PSEUDO PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY IS REPRESSING FREE SPEECH
By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist


America’s culture has been based on moral values and practices that worked for centuries. The founders studied past civilizations compiling what things led to the wellbeing of successful nations. Natural law and many biblical practices were recognized for their effectiveness over time.

Our modern society has rejected many of these traditional thoughts and practices moving quickly to supposedly scientific ones. The media has successfully marketed these pseudo scientific theories. Many of these notions sound reasonable but often are based on false assumptions that they plug into complicated and sophisticated studies that cannot be duplicated. This has happened throughout our child development and family practices leading us astray from good parenting. We have seen in a relatively short time an epidemic of bitter divorce and childhood mental disorders.

One modern psychological theory that quickly became a fad was “venting therapy.” This idea was incredibly well sold to the public but it did not have the expected results. A patient was supposed to vent his anger through loud rants, screaming and exhausting physical exercises including hitting objects. Punching pillows was supposed to extinguish the feelings of anger. The problem was that it did not work. It had the opposite impact that prolonged and increased the instances of angry outbursts.

Nevertheless it became part of the pop culture and has taken on a life of its own. Venting has metastasized into many new irregular offshoots. Many experts are promoting youngsters as young as preschool to express their anger issues. This is translated in the child’s mind to telling others including parents and other adults how the child is bothered by these adults. It encourages the child to think he is equal or superior to anyone disciplining him for inappropriate behavior. This results in blatant disrespect of others.

Some children’s self esteem becomes so inflated that they will tell their peers, teachers and parents how they specifically annoy them and the way these people should change their behavior.  These untested practices have seeped into our culture as infallible advice that produced more harm than good. These children are inadvertently being trained to be disobedient and become future oppositional defiant personalities.

As these self-absorbed children have gotten older, they have moved from controlling anger to controlling others rather than learning new social skills to get along with them. In universities the venting of one’s feelings has morphed into telling others how they should act, think and speak. Anything that hurts their sensitivities is called “micro aggression.” This could be as simple as how they feel walking into a room with others. If they feel uncomfortable hearing certain accents or seeing mannerisms or witness certain expressions on other’s faces these innocent people are seen as “guilty of micro aggression.” The pampered individuals expect others to be punished for making them feel bad. The self-important students want others to conform to their personal view of the world.

When these emotionally immature students become upset they want the comfort of “safe spaces” on the university campus. This area should only be for people who think and speak in the same way. It does not stop at making special provisions for their delusional power but they want to go much further.

These students demand the right to cut off speech of anyone who has the audacity to possess a different point of view. Their “cheering squad,” the progressive politicians and media, encourages them to continue to disturb and halt the speech of anyone expressing traditional values. These students throw objects such as pies at speakers. They even go onto the stage to physically intimidate and confront the speaker. The elite cowardly leaders of the university do not take a stand to end this student tyranny. Instead they act like innocent bystanders or they actually legitimize the repressive and un-American actions.

These American attacks on the most important institution of the free exchange of ideas should alarm all of us who believe in our freedom.

The marriage between pseudo psychology and highly sophisticated marketing is dangerous. It could result in mind control, groupthink and an enslaved, brainwashed society without any understanding of true freedom as it was erased from the minds of the people.



Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.
















Wednesday, April 20, 2016

TRUMP A MASTER AT BRANDING OTHERS AND HIMSELF


TRUMP A MASTER AT BRANDING OTHERS AND HIMSELF
By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Donald Trump is a charismatic celebrity personality. He is a billionaire who knows how to wheel and deal with the big boys, which makes him a consummate big businessman in our materialistic culture. Trump does not make any excuses for playing the crony capitalistic games. Proudly he says he has given millions of dollars to politicians of every persuasion to win favors. This bypassing of regulations, which hold other businessmen back from accomplishing their projects, does not affect him. Many of his followers view this corruption as a normal part of business although they hope he will change his habits as soon as he is elected.

Trump says he is financing his own campaign and cannot be bought. He fails to say once he is in power how is he going to recover from his horse trading addiction. His modus operandi has become a life long method of accumulating power and wealth.

Trump’s impromptu speeches show a wit and fearless entertaining ability of pointing out the absurdity of politically correct speech in dealing with critical issues facing all of us. The credit for opening up discussion on previously taboo subjects belongs to Trump’s engaging style of talking directly to the people. This style can be mean spirited toward anyone who poses a threat according to him. He does not argue the merits of his ideas but goes directly for the jugular. His ability for personal destruction of his opponents is masterful. The opponent’s strength is attacked making it a weakness by repeating a narrative that is not supported by facts.

Donald Trump can take a statement and twist it into a pretzel. He can make it mean something very different. In one of the first debates Cruz criticized Trump for his “New York values”. Over the years Trump has taken many liberal stances. In 1999 he had an interview with Tim Rusert justifying his support of abortion and gays in the military stating: “I live in New York City, in Manhattan, all my life so you know my views are a little bit different then if I lived in Iowa.” Trump attacked Cruz for having no respect for New Yorkers. This blatant change of Cruz’s statement from an indictment of liberal values to Cruz belittling New Yorkers changed the news cycle against Cruz. Trump had the audacity to reinforce his position by calling Cruz” a nasty guy” for degrading New Yorkers.

This technique of labeling his rivals: “Little Marco”, “Low energy Bush” and “Lying Ted”, have stuck. Other times he uses a sleight of hand by making an offhanded rude comment like the “the face of Carly Fiorina, Megyn Kelly’s blood shooting out where ever, Ben Carson’s psychopathic profile of a child molester and Cruz’s six affairs without a shred of evidence. These innuendos plant “the seed of doubt” about these people that has a real impact on how they are viewed. The attacks disappear as soon as the person stops being a challenge but the branding sticks.

His branding and marketing skills are also used to build up his celebrity mystique. ”I am the best negotiator”, “I will make America great again”, “My business products have been top notch and successful” as he displays his Trump brand water, meat, clothing and hotels while not mentioning that many of these items have failed in the marketplace. It is all about Trump, with no credit given to the staff that actually did the work.  He is an egotist who uses the word “I” incessantly.

Trump’s complaints of rigging the Republican primary against him because the rules are different in each state is an indictment of his ignorance of our political system. Our founding fathers threw roadblocks in the way of populist candidates. They set up the Electoral College on the national level and left the nomination of candidates up to the political parties and states. They understood total democracy led to chaos. Instead they chose a representative government to nullify large swings in the direction of the country caused by a cult of personality.

Mr. Trump’s threat of running on a third party and riots at the convention should be a red flag that he does not understand that electing a president is not the same as the coronation of a king. The power of charisma was the key factor in President Obama’s victory. His bypassing of the rules of law has been devastating to our system. Trump is coming from the same perspective as Obama except he chose to run on the Republican ticket. Trump and Obama are believers in large central government, personality power and behind the scenes deals to disregard the other two branches of power. They are both proponents of crony capitalism/a fascist state.

The voters who want an America based on the restrictions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Judaic Christian moral values need to look elsewhere than Trump.
They should look for a candidate who adheres and follows a steady and slow course dictated by the power of the three branches of government instead of the power of a charismatic personality as the president.

Branding of self and others is a powerful skill that should not determine the selection of a presidential candidate. In America presidents have come and gone but we have had stability by following our Constitution and the rule of law. Our republic is the difference between us and all other countries throughout history.

Let us not give up on our founder’s wisdom for a quick fix. Our nation has taken a radical, progressive fix of statism that has to be corrected over time to put us back on course. We should follow the compass that our founders set down for our greatness.


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

"I TRIED MY BEST" DOES NOT GET THE JOB DONE


“I TRIED MY BEST” DOES NOT GET THE JOB DONE
By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

In our permissive culture hardly anyone is held accountable. People do not want to get involved with correcting anyone else. It is less aggravating to accept an unacceptable excuse than to investigate the circumstance to decide if the person’s reasons for their actions were legitimate. Even if the authority figure arrives at the truth of the person’s behavior he still has to confront the individual. This responsible approach will tarnish the person’s reputation as a “nice guy,” which has become more important than doing his duty. This same issue of having to be a “nice guy’ to my child rather than do my duty as a parent is permeating the way we are raising our children.

Parents are busy working and socializing with their peers. The quality time they spend with their children is limited. When the children are mature enough to contribute to the family, modern parents do not make the time to teach them how to do the activity in an effective and efficient way. The parent assigns a task but does not follow up to show the child the correct way to do it. Afterward the child gives the parent an argument that he cannot do it.

The child is told by the parent or other adult to “just do your best” when the child says, ”I can’t do it. The parent or other adult unwittingly gives him a built-in excuse to do as little of the task as the child thinks he can get away with. The child hems and haws making one excuse after another for not doing a credible job. The parent becomes exasperated and ends the confrontation by saying “just do your best.” This becomes the child’s built-in fall-back position for everything he does carelessly. “I tried my best.”

Today’s children are being taught that making the simple statement: “I tried my best” gets them off the hook for not putting quality or effort into completing an assignment. The majority of parents and other adults conveniently feel the youngster is too young to be accountable. These parents are ignoring the responsibility to show the child how to do a good job to become a more skilled and competent individual.

The bar for doing a good job is lowered not out of kindness but rather the laziness of not dealing with work ethic training. The same excuse is used over and over again with no one mentioning “this is not anyone’s best,” “I will show you what you have to do for an acceptable job.” This training is an act of kindness. The parent, teacher or any other authority is being responsible by calling out the child’s game and  showing him what makes an excellent job. This begins the process of ending the child’s shenanigans.

The follow–up is the key to reversing a bad habit. “Do you remember you were supposed to do this next step and in this way? After you accomplish this then it will be necessary to do all the required steps to do an excellent job.”

When the child realizes he cannot talk his way out by doing a non-caring, sloppy job without getting significant consequences, the job begins to approach some level of acceptability. Only when he obtains a level of quality should he receive praise that he now has earned.

Quality work is developed by repeatedly doing something correctly through a best effort. “I did my best,” and other excuse games can be conquered by due diligence from a concerned adult.  The longer the game has been used, the harder it is to reverse. It is best to start the training as soon as possible, depending on the physical and mental capacities of the child. Much of the training should begin in the toddler stage.

Doing a quality job is a great gift to instill in a youngster. It changes the way a person attacks any activity and arrives at an excellent result. It forms a framework for the young person to evaluate the completion of any activity. It sets up standards and expectations that guide the person in tackling any endeavor from schoolwork to chores and later professional work and everyday projects.

A parent or other authority figure such as a teacher who accepts a child saying “I did my best” statement when he did not, is doing the child a great disservice. It encourages the child to believe that lying pays dividends. Additionally it convinces him that adults are not too smart or do not care enough to give the child “the time of day.”

Children quickly come to the conclusion that most adults, even parents are phony as they do not truly care. This assessment is a pathetic although correct appraisal of too many adults. Children look for strong authority figures who show their love through discipline. Being honest with children about their deceptive games is more time consuming than the adult taking over and finishing the task, which produces a slacker.

This “slacker” will be a parasite on the family and eventually on society.  In the long run teaching the child to honestly do his best will be a blessing for everyone. A productive individual benefits all of society while an excuse maker is a burden on all of us. Watch for excuse games and eliminate them for everyone’s sake especially the one using them.


Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

THE LUNACY OF WOMEN IN SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES


THE LUNACY OF WOMEN IN SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
By Domenick J. Maglio PhD Traditional Realist

Females in the armed forces go back to the American Revolution. There were some women like Deborah Sampson who pretended to be men in order to fight in the war.
Clara Barton went in the middle of an active battlefield to tend the wounded during the Civil war as bullets flew around her. WWI and WWII saw women in supportive roles and a few of them were nearby combat zones. From Vietnam to the Iraqi war women’s roles have expanded in wars that have no defined fronts. Modern female soldiers in computerized combat using drones or sophisticated aircraft have ample ability to perform the mission as well as men.

President Obama’s administration has been pressuring the military to open up opportunities for women in direct combat. Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, recently finalized former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta’s directive that stated all direct combat units will be available to women.  Females in all the Special Operations are close to becoming a reality.

Not everyone in the military thinks this is a viable idea. On April 4th, 2015 a survey of Special Ops troops found a majority of them believe that women do not have the ability to withstand the physical and mental demands of elite combat. These incredible men should know better than anyone else the reality of these operations. Not surprisingly test results of females versus men in physical comparisons have mysteriously been lost. There were two different sets of standards being used to evaluate them.

Even if females were able to meet the vigorous, high physical standards in large numbers there are many other crucial issues to be considered before going farther down this radical path.  The decision to put women in special operations is not just another progressive gender diversity program to demonstrate that women can do anything men can do.  The stakes are much greater than appeasing and increasing the feminist-voting block. It is placing women in dangerous and treacherous situations that can arise anytime, any place in the world where their physical differences make them more vulnerable than men.

The success of these special operations is vital to the survival of the nation. Physical strength and endurance, coupled with the ability to function under physical pain, mental stress, lack of food or shelter are crucial criteria to be measured in choosing the unit’s members. Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint-chiefs of staff, made a clearly political decision when he tried to get around mandating different physical standards for males and females. He did this in a conniving, PC manner. The general placed the burden on the individual Special Operations forces to show why lowering the physical standards for female accommodation should not take place. This was done instead of requiring the commander to demonstrate the positive reasons why females would be equal or an asset in accomplishing these strategic missions. This was a top-down decision making process.

Besides these important physical differences there are strong cultural, religious and moral values that complicate sending females to these high risk and high value assignments. The close quarters will create an emotionally heightened situation producing a strong attraction among the opposite sexes. The emotional dynamics of an all male special Ops groups would change drastically with the addition of females. Obviously, the natural attraction and possibly romance could cloud the decision making process in these very tight groups.

Strong feelings or open romances could endanger the lives of the unit members and the entire operation. This cannot be controlled with orders. On the home front the implications for the military spouses’ relationships will destroy the cohesiveness of the military community. This could be curtailed and modified by micro- psychological monitoring of the group dynamics but it would add an unnecessary problem to an already difficult situation.

The more subtle although strong instinctual and cultural value is the urge by men to protect females. This can have a disastrous impact on a military mission.
The potential rape and torture of females by the enemy would complicate the decision making and be used to break down soldiers to give intelligence information to the enemy in order to prevent it from happening or stopping it.

The preserving of Special Ops unit readiness, cohesiveness, morale and ability to successfully complete the mission should be the number one priority. Being an equal opportunity employer should not be a consideration. The president and his military leaders’ major responsibility is to protect America, not use social engineering to advance their domestic agenda.

The use of the military to foster gender equality is lunacy and puts our nations’ survival in jeopardy. Placing females in special operations should be reevaluated taking all the physical, emotional and mental factors into consideration from a military perspective not a domestic reelection one.




Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.















Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE DOING IT


I JUST DON’T FEEL LIKE DOING IT
By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Most of our youth are being raised in a protective bubble of cultural delusion. They do not think about their future since they know what it will be. Their future will be determined by what they want. As long as they believe hard enough, it will happen. In their minds it will definitely happen because their world is magical. They have instantly gotten what they want everyday since they were born.

Our affluence as a society has resulted in our children being able to obtain anything they want, which has created an entitlement mentality. These youngsters have moved further away from the natural laws of reality towards “fantasy thinking.”  This is due to the lazy, permissive, bribing way we are raising children.

In our modern culture fantasy thinking is becoming acceptable thinking. Youngsters playing video games as early as two to three years old foster our fantasy culture. They quickly learn they can wipe out a monster, choose a life of riches and become anyone they want to be. They can change their looks and even their gender. They do not have to earn anything; they just need to choose whatever they want.

Parents’ role model a similar fantasy existence by purchasing and doing thing they cannot afford via the credit card. Many parents are not following rational rules of reality by buying what they cannot afford. They impulsively purchase thus accumulating debt, which is ignored while the parents go on their merry way.

How could a child learn the importance of delayed gratification when he is seeing his parents disregarding reality? Most adults are increasing their debt and interest payments because they do not want to wait and save to get what they want. It appears to work for the parents persuading their children that this is the way reality works.

These parents are living an instant gratification existence. It is no wonder the children are not learning the concept that you have to work to gain what you want. Few adults are directly and personally teaching their children the work ethic. When the children say directly to their parents, “ I just don’t feel like doing it.” This expression is used even when asking a child to do such things as taking out the garbage, raking the leaves or washing the dishes.” Instead of getting into a confrontation, the parents just do it themselves. It is easier.

Whatever weak consequence they give for this outrageous comment is ignored. Any follow-through of a consequence is forgotten. The child believes he has won the battle and knows he can win any battle by acting as if the parent’s lecture never happened. Even an outright refusal is not seen as a disrespectful act. Although the parent loses the battle the ultimate loser is the child who becomes more dependent on the parent to service him.

In school the parents are more concerned about the child’s education than the child is. These parents attempt to micromanage the child’s daily behavior in school. They wind up doing a majority of the child’s homework and immediately intervene in any difficulty that he is facing even with the child’s peers.

The modern parent does not think the majority of the child’s problems in school are due to the lack of reality training.  “I just don’t feel like doing it,” is an arrogant and defiant statement.  Many things in life we do not because we want to do them. Instead we do them because they have to be done or we suffer the consequences that we like even less. Mowing the grass, doing laundry, cooking meals are just a few of the things adults do not want to do but complete them to create time for other things they do want to do.

These disregarded parents do not turn the tables on the child. This would teach the child an important lesson that if no one took care of the mundane chores everyone would suffer. Without parents training their children to do things they do not choose to do they are destined to be weak and dependent people.

“ I don’t feel like doing it,” should bring any parent into high alert. This should sound the alarm that the parent is way off course in raising their child. Parents should “man all battle stations” and command the child to rapidly learn, like it or not, that he will contribute to the family regardless of his selfishness.

This stance will put the child on notice that he has to change his attitude. Once he starts doing the necessary things to contribute, his competency level will rise enabling the child to become more independent towards becoming an adult.

“I will get the job done,” is a positive attitude that sets the child up for success. This self-talk will increase the parents’ chance of a positive experience with their child’s development. Parents will have to begin to lead them into success rather than be passive enablers of slackers.




Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.







Wednesday, March 23, 2016

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT KNOWLEDE-ANTIDOTE TO MEDIA INDOCTRINATION


HISTORICAL AND CURRENT KNOWLEDGE- ANTIDOTE TO MEDIA INDOCTRINATION
By Domenick J. Maglio PhD Traditional Realist

Our government schools have deemphasized teaching civics and history. Our children have limited knowledge of ancient civilizations, the American Revolution, the Constitutional Republic experiment, communism, fascism, socialism and capitalism. The knowledge of the past has to be studied to know that current events are being twisted.

The revision of past events to fit a template that undermines the accomplishments of America has become an art form of progressivism. These same people praise countries that promote more centrally controlled governments, which eliminate one by one the people’s freedoms. President Obama’s visit to Cuba did not condemn their human rights record. His policy of resetting the “reset button” with Russia and support of totalitarian regimes in the Middle East are a demonstration of the progressive view of foreign policies.

Progressives promote the first amendment for Marxist rhetoric while protesting violently against anyone who disagrees with their agenda. This again has been highlighted in the 2016 presidential primaries. The current election cycle of 2016 where shutting down of opponent’s speech is a rerun of the 1968 election.

From the perspective of intellectual elites, anyone who consolidates government power regardless of the ultimate results is held in high esteem. Josef Stalin, who killed 20 million people, was called “Uncle Joe.”  Che Guevara, who enjoyed torturing and killing the opposition, became “Che,” a worldwide pop culture hero. Mao Tse Tung was considered an “intellectual giant” by the progressive elites. The media has ignored these despots’ ghastly actions placing them on a pedestal while hiding the unenviable results of the Marxist doctrine.

Franklin D. Roosevelt enlarged the federal government during his four terms as president. He was given total credit for helping the US out of the Great Depression even though the economic evidence showed that it stayed depressed and was far worse in America then in Europe. The WWII victory, not President FDR’s socialistic policies, brought us out of the Great Depression. The graph of percentages of the unemployed from 1929-1945 clearly shows the Roosevelt policies did not bring back our economy.

Without studying the history of WWII people would not know the role Neville Chamberlain, England’s premier, played by his appeasement and faith in Adolph Hitler’s word. This did not prevent WWII; it only delayed the recognition of his explicit plan to rule the world as he laid out in Mien Kampf. The more Premier Chamberlain signed treaties, the greater grew his prestige and gave Hitler more time to prepare the brutal attacks on weakened nations. Similarly, the Obama administration continues to appease Iran’s leadership with deaf ears to the continuing daily threat of nuclear warfare with Israel and the United States while replenishing Iran’s treasury one and one half billion dollars.

Peace through negotiations without a strong military ends in defeat. Negotiating from a position of military power has increased the probability of victory if and when the negotiations break down. Understanding the logical and reality tested truth by the citizenry would have exposed President Obama’s “leading from behind” as a strategy for a future disaster. The world order is crumbling everyday. An aware and educated public is essential in keeping the government from going down the same path that led to WWII.

Knowledge is power. It takes effort from citizens to be aware enough to evaluate the accuracy of the initial reports and predictions as compared with what actually happened. When there is a great discrepancy between them the reliability of the particular media’s reporting and commentary needs to be questioned or eliminated as a reliable source of truth.

Different sources should be used to be most effective in making an accurate analysis of the particular outlet’s veracity. This awareness of the biased agenda of most media sources inoculates the person against media indoctrination. 

When the research process shows an obvious distortion of the facts, it should no longer be considered a free media but a pawn of the state that spews out propaganda to control public opinion and action. This process takes time and effort but it does pay great dividends to the citizens and the nation. The individual becomes a warrior for maintaining our freedoms not only for his generation but future ones.

True awareness of our increasingly corrupt governing process can save America from a disastrous take over from within. Any out-of-control, bloated government would eventually grow to a point where the resources needed to maintain it would consume the assets of its citizens. At this point it would enslave its citizens ending their rights and liberties as embodied in the constitution.

History has repeated itself throughout the ages. Without the knowledge of what happened in the past we are blind, without a compass to navigate our future course.


Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.






Wednesday, March 09, 2016

NO FAULT DIVORCE HAS BEEN A DISASTER FOR 46 YEARS


NO FAULT DIVORCE HAS BEEN A DISASTER FOR 46 YEARS
By Domenick j. Maglio PhD

Today a spouse can unilaterally dissolve a marriage without consent of the other spouse and without penalty. Since the adoption of no-fault divorce in California in 1969 and then throughout the nation marriage has lost its moral sanction and legal power. Presently marriage is the only type of contract where one of the parties, in this case a spouse, can nullify it without penalty.

Before no-fault divorce a married person had to prove the other spouse was unfit to remain in this binding sanctioned contract. Cruelty, adultery abandonment and the inability to have sexual intercourse were some grounds to end a marriage. As happens in most legal disputes people often lie to obtain the results they desire.

When trying to obtain a divorce, bickering and dishonesty tie up the courts. No-fault divorce was supposed to expedite clearing of the court docket. It did but went to the other extreme. Divorce became as simple as a $129 payment to a paralegal to terminate almost any marriage. The commitment to joining “until death do us part” became a meaningless ritual, a joke in the eyes of the law.

Not having to assign fault to either spouse was supposed to limit the need for perjury and demonizing of the other spouse. The change from establishing fault to no-fault was also supposed to eliminate these issues and lower the divorce rate. It didn’t. It just moved the blame game from the court directly to the home where the innocent children are dealing with parents that blame each other for everything. They often use every manipulative ploy they know, including lies, to win the favor of their children.

When the states adopted no-fault the divorce rate soared even though in 80% of marriages one spouse did not want to end the marriage. This change in the law had minimal impact on childless couples but a horrific one on marriages with children. 
Children of divorced parents often hear each parent bad-mouth the other and receive bribes to favor them.  They face different rules and expectations in each parent’s home. Often new parent relationships with others are thrust upon the child forcing him to confront social and emotional issues before being emotionally mature enough to deal with them.

Children of divorced parents suffer from the death of their family. The psychological effect of the child blaming himself for the divorce, the lowering of the family standard of living and the unhinging their structure and stability would be destructive for any child.  This takes its toll on children even when they have loving and conscientious divorced parents. Divorce is hell for children since they have no voice in the parent’s decision.

The no-fault divorce statute places the selfish interest of the individual spouse over that of the entire family. One spouse has the veto power to end the commitment to all the other family members without the approval of anyone else. This law has changed the marriage contract from a sacred one to a casual relationship of two people cohabitating until one decides to walk away.

The instituting of “no-fault divorce” has weakened marriage, the family and the fabric of America. The Bolsheviks were the first to facilitate divorce. They realized no-fault divorce would lead to the destabilization of the family making drastic changes to society more feasible.

The impact of no-fault divorce has been catastrophic. It has opened the floodgates to greater number of divorces but also has enticed many couples to skip marriage and go directly into living together. It has gutted the social and sacred obligation of raising healthy and successful adults for simply increasing the individual freedom of one spouse to do what he or she feels like doing at that moment. This is being done without considering the long-range consequences to others, foremost the children. It often causes a financial drain of resources that drops many females into poverty putting them on government assistance. It is increasing the chances of children having serious problems with mental disorders, the law, alcohol and drug issues and children out of wedlock.

There are some simple changes of the divorce laws that would bolster the institution of marriage, strengthening the family and society. By simply increasing the waiting period between filing for divorce and completing the process the rate of divorce has been significantly lowered.

In England and France there was a 5 or 6-year waiting period before divorce, which encouraged reconciliation between the couples. Until 2010 New York State was a “fault state” with a one-year waiting period. The change to “no-fault” in NY led to a significant increase in divorce. Currently some states require mandatory counseling courses before a divorce can be finalized. Other states decide which parent is the “reasonable-fit” parent. They receive 2/3 of the custody as well as 60-100% of the assets of the marriage. Just requiring both parents to consent to a no-fault divorce can lower divorce 50%.

The more a couple learns about the negative reality of most divorces the less likely they see divorce as a panacea. They begin to rely less on their feelings and more on rational thought when they know the results of divorce. Many dissatisfied couples realize they do not want to jump from the frying pan into the fire.



Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.