Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for July 16th, 2010

How many foundations, acronyms (CPR, MDRC, PSI), Federal $$ and Ivy League hotshots does it take to “screw” . . the Poor?

leave a comment »

INTRO (added 07/17)

For international visitors, or others who may not get the pun in the title:

There’s a common joke used to degrade people of certain ethnic — or professional — profiles, usually to insult the intelligence of the target group. It refers to screwing in a a lightbulb, something a child can do, and goes “How many ______s does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” and the answer is a clever twist on why it takes so many. ”

The word “Screw” has another off-color connotation, pun intended here.

In this case, it’s NOT a joke; the more I look, the more I feel the USA is screwed. By whom — read on. I experienced total devastation through this system, so far, and without committing a single crime. My “social” crime was not taking the low road, but the high road, out of a marriage that probably shouldn’t have happened, but did, and then my misplaced value on marriage (exactly what these people are promoting) resulted in my staying in just short of us becoming a statistic. There weren’t real other options, that I saw — welfare, and a battered women’s shelter with one toddler, and pregnant with another child? That wasn’t in my vocabulary or background – we were a WORKING family.

We didn’t fit — at all (nor do many women affected by religious-based violence) the target profile of these programs — AT ALL. I was full-time employed while pregnant, and gave birth to very healthy children, fully covered by insurance provided by my work, not his. By the second child, almost every infrastructure was shut down — for me — and came only through him, and he wasn’t very forthcoming.

Women are NOT going to be safe in their marriages, if the marriage goes sour or violent, or OUTSIDE them unless we can be safely independent without excommunication from our communities.

Society has to handle its love/hate relationship with the PAID wages of employed mothers (meaning, child care, school system, after care, a certain scenario. Because the public school system in this country discriminates against the poor, that also impacts their future) AND the UNPAID benefits nonworking mothers provide to their familis and children.

CORPORATIONS historically have cared about their profits first, and their employees second, until forced to do differently. This splits up families, obviously. SCHOOLS in the US are also a jobs basis and designed on the corporate model, the “employer” being the government (although that government gets its wages from the very parents and non-parents it claims to be serving and educating).

CHURCHES, MOSQUES and SYNAGOGUES also must deal with money matters, and typically exist (from what I understand) in the US as “nonprofit” tax-exempt corporations. They have mortgages and typically pay their leaders (although not always). Therefore when a financial conflict of interest arises because a prominent — or even just attending — father begins assaulting a daughter or a wife, the temptation will be to cover it up for the “greater good,” i.e., continuing the community, but sacrificing the individual’s rights or safety. Some readers will remember, this was attributed to why Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed – – because if he “rocked the boat,” the Romans might come in and make it worse for the Jews. Which, later, obviously happened.


As a woman who has seen the best and worst of a religion I adopted as a young woman because my own family was destitute of one, of a personal family identity outside one father’s professional profile (for the most part), I am quite willing to reject “religion” when it fails to practice what it preaches as I see my government, and its institutions have also utterly failed the people they preach about “serving.”

These foundations have utterly forgotten what the Declaration of Indepencence declares, and are mostly concerned about their own positions in life, and structuring a society to preserve their right to run others’ lives without their informed consent, and at their expense, too.

When a president cannot say the word “mother” along with the word “father” when describing “Families and Children,” and this president is held up as a role model and leader, women, and mothers of children, and the children ARE “screwed.” Linguistically, they are just sperm incubators, a delivery system for kids. We also get to now be scapegoats for society by either declining to marry, or leaving a marriage, yet the actual scapegoats are the society’s engineers, not the people who have become simply the gas in its (think) tanks or the blood in its veins.

It takes time to gestate and raise a child, and I think we are approaching the time when women are going to start saying NO! We will NOT produce babies for you to abuse, waste, or box up and become half-human order-takers and low-wage laborers, or young men and women to go fight your wars over land, oil, and the global economic system. If I participate in this happening, perhaps I will have in part helped compensate for having been unable to stop domestic violence they witnessed growing up, or divert and protect them from the INSANITY that took place the moment some professional, probably on the take either literally ($$) or by business referrals, knew how to “let the games begin” by getting our case into a custody battle.



This dates back 5 years.


(DOLLARS and SENSE logo here)

29 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 USA


Copyright © 2010 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

Dollars and Sense logo

Marriage Promotion, Reproductive Injustice, and the War Against Poor Women of Color



On December 22, at the stroke of midnight, Renita Pitts became a single woman. Renita is 44 years old, a mother of five with 14 grandchildren. She has been on and off of welfare for most of her life. After she had her fifth child, her husband brought crack cocaine into their house, telling her that it would help her lose weight. She became addicted and struggled for 13 years with that addiction. Throughout her marriage, Renita says, she was afraid to leave her house. “I couldn’t trust my husband with our children long enough to go to school. If I left for even an hour, he would have a full-fledged party going on when I came back,” she says. In addition to being a drug addict, Renita’s husband was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. She says they fought frequently, and she had to call the police again and again.

Renita and her husband separated shortly after she stopped using drugs and returned to college. She had also begun attending church. According to Renita, her husband “was insecure because of my security.” He gave her an ultimatum, saying she must leave school and stop going to church. When she refused, he left.

Despite the abuse and the drugs, Renita says, she felt many social pressures to stay married. Regardless, she says, “it was important not to have him in my life, constantly pumping me full of drugs.” She says the relationship had become so abusive that if she had stayed in it any longer, “someone would have ended up dead.”

With the help of California’s welfare program, Renita is currently enrolled in the African American Studies and Social Welfare departments at the University of California at Berkeley and works on social justice issues at the Women of Color Resource Center. She was happy to see her divorce finalized in December.

The life stories of Renita and many other women like her are not on the radar screen in Washington, however. Legislation that would promote marriage among low-income people is currently wending its way through Congress. The so-called “Healthy Marriage Initiative” includes a range of provisions designed to encourage women on welfare to get and stay married: providing extra cash bonuses to recipients who get married, deducting money from welfare checks when mothers are living with men who are not the fathers of their children, increasing monthly welfare checks for married couples, offering marriage and relationship education classes, and putting up billboards in low-income communities promoting the value of marriage. Several provisions specifically target Latino and African-American communities. So-called marriage promotion policies, such as those in the Healthy Marriage Initiative, have been touted by the Bush administration and enjoy wide bipartisan support in Washington. Many advocates, however, are concerned that, if the bill passes, it would become more difficult for Renita and domestic violence survivors like her to get a divorce and to survive without a husband.

Married Good, Single Bad

The administration’s point man for marriage promotion is Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services {HHS}, whose Administration for Children and Families {ACF} would run the initiative. In July 2002 Horn wrote, “On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy and stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor. They’re more successful in school, have lower dropout rates, and fewer teenage pregnancies. Adults, too, benefit from healthy and stable marriages.” Critics say Horn sees the wedded state as a cure-all for society’s ills, while ignoring the difficulties of promoting something as intensely personal as marriage. Horn and others in the ACF refused repeated requests for comment.

Marriage promotion legislation has its roots in the 1996 welfare reform act. This legislation ended welfare as an entitlement–it allowed states to deny assistance to fully qualified applicants, and resulted in the abrogation of some applicants’ constitutional rights. It also created a five-year lifetime limit for welfare recipients, denied aid to many immigrant communities, created cumbersome financial reporting requirements for welfare recipients, and set up work rules that, according to many recipients, emphasize work hours over meaningful employment opportunities and skill development. The legislation explicitly claimed promoting marriage as one of its aims.

When welfare reform was passed, Congress required that it be revisited in five years. The Healthy Marriage Initiative that Congress is considering today was introduced in 2002 as part of the welfare reform reauthorization package. Welfare–now known as Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)–was set to be reauthorized that year, but that reauthorization is now two years overdue.

In September, Senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) introduced a bill to reauthorize welfare for six months without overall changes, but with $800 million for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs over a two-year period. Sen. Santorum has been a strong proponent of marriage promotion. In an October 2003 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he promised to aggressively press for legislation that supported marriage between one man and one woman. “The government must promote marriage as a fundamental societal benefit. … Both for its intrinsic good and for its benefits for society, we need marriage.

{{Did these men, Senators, not take an oath of office similar to the President’s, to uphold and defend the constitution? If these Senators are so concerned about marriage, why don’t they socially shun, and hold conferences about, some of their cheating-on-their-wives colleagues, let alone former Presidents (let’s hope Obama has better sense than Clinton in that category)..?? ONE nation under God, and ONE set of Federal laws, and ONE set of the Bill of Rights for all. Government designing family life is the same as Government deciding religion, and as such is prohibited…}}

And just as important, we need public leaders to communicate to the American public why it is necessary.” The reauthorization bill has died in the Senate, but because of its strong bipartisan support, it is likely to be re-introduced. Sen. Santorum refused repeated requests for comment for this story.

Diverting Dollars

Although the debate about marriage promotion has focused on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, this is just one piece of the Bush administration’s pro-marriage agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services has already diverted over $100 million within existing programs into marriage promotion. These are programs that have no specific legislative authority to promote marriage. Some examples: $6.1 million has been diverted from the Child Support Enforcement Program, $9 million from the Refugee Resettlement Program, $14 million from the Child Welfare Program, and $40 million from the Social and Economic Development Strategies Program focusing on Native Americans, among others. Plus, another nearly $80 million has been awarded to research groups studying marriage.

One beneficiary is in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Healthy Marriages Grand Rapids received $990,000 from the federal government in 2003 to “facilitate the understanding that healthy marriages between parents is [sic] critical to the financial well-being of children, increase effective co-parenting skills of married and non-married parents to improve relationships between low-income adults who parent children, increase active, healthy participation of non-custodial fathers in the lives of their children, increase the number of prepared marriages among low-income adults, and decrease the divorce rate among low-income adults.” The program coordinates local public media campaigns plugging marriage as well as relationship counseling classes, many offered by faith-based providers.

It is precisely this emphasis on marriage as a cure for economic woes that worries many welfare recipients and advocates. According to Liz Accles at the Welfare Made a Difference National Campaign, “Marriage promotion is problematic for many reasons. It is discriminatory. It values certain families over others. It intrudes on privacy rights. The coercive nature of this is lost on a lot of people because they don’t realize how deeply in poverty people are living.” Accles says that adequate educational opportunities, subsidized child care, and real job skills and opportunities are the answer to the financial concerns of women on welfare. She joins many domestic violence counselors in saying that marriage education funded by government coffers and administered via faith-based providers and welfare case workers is at best a waste of taxpayer money, and at worst pushes women deeper into abusive relationships that may end in injury or death

{{including sometimes to the kids. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to us how THAT helps the welfare of children And now that’s it’s known this happening, why hasn’t the policy changed??!}}

In Allentown, Pa., a program called the Family Formation and Development Project offers a 12-week marriage education course for low-income, unmarried couples with children. Employment services are offered as part of the program, but only to fathers. In its application for federal funding, the program set a goal of 90% of the participating fathers finding employment. No such goal was set for the mothers. According to Jennifer Brown, legal director at the women’s legal rights organization Legal Momentum, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, “What we fear is that this kind of sex stereotyped programming–jobs for fathers, not for mothers–will be part of marriage promotion programs funded by the government.”

Experts at Legal Momentum are concerned that the administration is diverting scarce funds from proven and effective anti-poverty programs and funneling the money into untested marriage-promotion programs. They say there is little information about what is happening on the ground, making it difficult to determine what activities have been implemented.

Feminist economists point out that the mid-1990s welfare reform law served larger economic interests by moving women out of the home and into the work force at a time when the economy was booming and there was a need for low-paid service workers. Now that the economy is in a recession, the government has adopted a more aggressive policy of marriage promotion, to pull women out of the work force and back into the home. According to Avis Jones-DeWeever, Poverty and Welfare Study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “We are talking about putting $1.5 billion into telling women to find their knight in shining armor and then everything will be okay.”

Jones-DeWeever says the view that marriage creates more economically stable individuals is not grounded in reality. She notes that individuals are likely to marry within their own socioeconomic group, so low-income women are likely to marry low-income men. According to author Barbara Ehrenreich’s estimates, low-income women would need to have roughly 2.3 husbands apiece in order to lift them out of poverty. Jones-DeWeever points out that in African-American communities, there are simply not enough men to marry: there are approximately two and a half women for every African-American man who is employed and not in jail. In addition, many social policy analysts are quick to point out that in general, poor people are not poor because they’re unmarried. Rather, they may be unmarried because they’re poor: the socioeconomic conditions in low-income communities contribute to a climate in which healthy marriages are difficult to sustain.

Another criticism of marriage promotion comes from survivors of domestic violence and their advocates. Studies consistently show that between 50% and 60%–in some studies up to 80%–of women on welfare have suffered some form of domestic violence, compared to 22% of the general population. In addition, between 3.3 and 10 million children witness domestic violence each year. Domestic violence survivors say their abuse was often a barrier to work, and many have reported being harassed or abused while at work. Most survivors needed welfare to escape the relationship and the violence. Any policy that provides incentives for women to become and stay married is in effect coercing poor women into marriage. Many women on welfare, like Renita Pitts, say that their marriages, rather than helping them out of poverty, set up overwhelming barriers to building their own autonomous and productive lives.

According to Kaaryn Gustafson, associate professor of law at the University of Connecticut, policies that attempt to look out for women’s safety by restricting or coercing their activities are paternalistic and misguided. “The patriarchal model is really troubling. The gist is that if there isn’t a man in the house there isn’t a family. The studies of family well-being are all very problematic because you cannot parse out the issues of education, socioeconomic status, and other emotional and psychological issues that are tied up in who gets married and who doesn’t.”

Domestic violence ITSELF often is a reflection of a paternalistic attitude, and this DOES stem at least from faith communities. Moreover, we have to look at this United States which used to legalize slavery. Slavery is abusive and a paternalistic attitude justified it. I’ve “just” had enough of this! So, in effect, promoting marriage — both undermines individual civil rights, and duplicates the same attitude which justifies such violence towards a woman because she is a woman!

Reproductive Straitjacket

While marriage promotion as a federal policy began in 1996, many say it is only one part of a much larger system of control over, and sanction of, the sexual and reproductive freedoms of poor women and women of color. Another part of this system is child exclusion legislation, which has been adopted by 21 states. Child exclusion laws permit states to pay benefits for only one child born to a woman on welfare. Social policy experts say it is a response to the myth that African-American welfare recipients were having more children in order to get larger benefit checks. Such laws push women either deeper into poverty, or into abortions. In some states, a woman who chooses to have another child instead of an abortion may end up trying to raise two or more children on less than $300 a month.

Christie, who would like to use only her first name, is a single mother of two. She has been working, supporting her children and herself, and going to college. Since her first child was born, she has also been receiving welfare. While on welfare, she fought to get a college degree in general education; now she hopes to get a job as a Spanish language translator. During her time in college, her welfare caseworker told Christie to quit going to school and instead report to a welfare-to-work program. She says, “I felt that it was a punishment. Just because I was on welfare, they could make me quit school and come and sit in a room and listen to people talking about the jobs I should get. Most of the jobs that they wanted you to have were geared towards the lower poverty level where you stay in poverty and you can never climb the socioeconomic ladder. It’s like that’s your position and that’s where you have to stay.”

When Christie became pregnant with her second child, her caseworker told her she could not receive an increase in her benefit. This forced Christie into some tough choices. “My religion kept me from having an abortion. I worked after I had my daughter, because I felt like it was a mistake that I made, and so I tried to do what I could for my daughter.” Christie says this legislation penalizes women for having children, and creates an overwhelming sense of guilt that permeates low-income families. Rather than celebrating the birth of her daughter, Christie felt that she needed to work twice as hard to make up for her “mistake.”

When states began adopting child exclusion policies in the early 1990s, they were implemented under federal scrutiny. States were required to keep data about the financial status of affected families. These data showed that child exclusion policies resulted in women and children being thrust further into poverty. One of the more sinister effects of the 1996 welfare reform law is that it did away with the requirement that states monitor the outcome of child exclusion policies. Since 1996, states have been able to impose sanctions on families without paying any attention to the results.

According to a July 2002 report by the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-SNAP), a research and advocacy collaborative, child exclusion policies are directly correlated to a number of risks to the health and well-being of children. Infants and toddlers in families that have been sanctioned under the child exclusion provisions are 30% more likely to have been hospitalized than children from families who have not been sanctioned, and these children are 90% more likely to require hospitalization at the time of an emergency room visit. In addition, child exclusion sanctions lead to food insecurity rates that are at least 50% higher than those of families who have not faced sanction. The negative health and welfare impacts reported in the C-SNAP study increase dramatically with each year that a family experiences sanctions.

Proponents of child exclusion legislation, including many members of the Bush administration and a bipartisan array of senators and representatives, claim that women on welfare have no business bringing a new child into the world whom they cannot support financially.

The United Sates has a long history of regulation of poor women’s reproductive activities. From the forced sterilizations performed in low-income communities of color in the 1940s, 1950s, and even later, to state child services departments appropriating poor Native American children and giving them to upper-class white foster parents, many U.S. historians say that sexuality among lower-income communities of color has traditionally been viewed as something that should be controlled. The University of Connecticut’s Gustafson responds, “There is this idea that if you pay taxes you have the right to control those who don’t, and it smacks of slavery. There should be some scope of liberty that should be unconditional, and that especially includes sexuality and family formation.”

There’s no such respect for freedom and privacy under TANF. The program requires women to submit to a barrage of invasive questions and policies; TANF applicants must provide private details about every aspect of their lives. In California, for example, the application asks for the names of up to 12 men with whom a woman has had sexual relations on or around the time of her pregnancy. In San Diego county, before a woman can receive a welfare check, she must submit to a “surprise” visit by welfare case workers to verify that there isn’t an unreported man in the household, among other things.

One of the problems with all of these sexual and reproductive-based policy initiatives is that, according to Gustafson, they distract people from the actual issues of poverty. While TANF accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget, the hysteria surrounding whether and how to assist poor families with children has created an uproar about whether low-income women should even be allowed to have children.

Because the 1996 welfare reform law eliminated the concept of welfare as an entitlement, welfare recipients lack certain protections other U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. In effect, when you apply for welfare you are signing away many of your constitutional rights

Similarly, when a woman receives cash aid and food stamps after leaving a violent relationship, she signs over her right to collect child support to the local county. She is NOT, however, openly told that the U.S. Government is promoting marriage and some of the monies used to collect her child support are diverted into programs that may eventually help the man she just left get back into her life, or even get her children. In other words, we aren’t given full information to make a good decision at the time. This is VERy manipulative and in essence treat as her like less than adult.

For this reason, many advocates today are critiquing welfare through the lens of human rights rather than constitutional rights. International human-rights agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, afford women many universal human rights. “Those include access to education, access to reproductive choice, rights when it comes to marrying or not marrying,” says Gustafson. “When you look at the international statements of human rights, it provides this context, this lens that magnifies how unjust the welfare laws are in the United States. The welfare system is undermining women’s political, economic, and social participation in society at large.”

On September 30, Congress passed another extension of the 1996 welfare legislation. This extension contained no policy changes–for now. When Congress does finally reauthorize welfare, child exclusion policies and marriage promotion are likely to be hot-button issues that galvanize the debate. According to Liz Accles at the National Welfare Made a Difference Campaign, there are three steps to a successful welfare strategy. “Access. Adequacy. Opportunity. All three of these hold equal weight. You cannot have benefits so low that people live deeply in poverty. You can’t have good benefits that only a few people get access to. You also need to have opportunity for economic mobility built in.”

Although the marriage promotion bill was defeated this time, it continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support–including support from the White House now that George W. Bush has a second term. Welfare recipients and social policy experts are worried that whenever welfare reform is debated, politicians will deem regulating the reproductive activities of poor women to be more important than funding proven anti-poverty measures like education and meaningful job opportunities.

Sarah Olson is a contributing reporter for Free Speech Radio News and the National Radio Project’s “Making Contact.” She is also a mentor and journalist at the Welfare Radio Collaborative.

RESOURCES Joan Meisel, Daniel Chandler, and Beth Menees Rienzi, “Domestic Violence Prevalence and Effects on Employment in Two California TANF Populations,” (California Institute of Mental Health, 2003); Richard Tolman and Jody Raphael, “A Review of the Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence,” Journal of Social Issues, 2000; Sharmila Lawrence, “Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being: Issue Brief,” (Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2002); E. Lyon, “Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New Research and Its Implications,” Policy and Practice Paper #10, Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, (National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, 2000)

I looked up “Children Families and the New Federalism,” and on its database googled “domestic violence mediation” and found this:

Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt in Maryland (unreviewed)
Strategies for Addressing the Needs of Domestic Violence Victims within the TANF Program: The Experience of Seven Counties (unreviewed)
Assessing Effective Welfare-to-Work Strategies for Domestic Violence Victims and Survivors in the Options/Opciones Project (unreviewed)
Psychiatric Disorders Among Low Income Single Mothers: Mothers’ Well-Being Study (unreviewed)
CalWORKs Project (unreviewed)
Study of Screening and Assessment in TANF/WtW (unreviewed)
Women’s Employment Study (reviewed)
San Bernardino County (CA) TANF Recipients Study (unreviewed)
Multiple Impacts of Welfare Reform in Utah: Experiences of Former Long-term Welfare Recipients (unreviewed)
Tracking Closed Cases Under The TANF Program in Massachusetts (unreviewed)
Supporting Healthy Marriage (unreviewed)
Welfare-to-Work, the Private Sector and Americorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) (unreviewed)
Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration (reviewed)
Welfare-to-Work Grants Program Evaluation (reviewed)
Connecticut’s Jobs First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project (reviewed)

Let’s look at who’s behind Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration, which project took place over a 10-ear period, it says:

Investigator(s) Fred Doolittle (MDRC)
Virginia Knox (MDRC)
Earl Johnson (MDRC)
Cynthia Miller (MDRC)
Sponsor(s) US Department of Health and Human Services
Funder(s) PEW Charitable Trusts
Ford Foundation
AT&T Foundation
US Department of Health and Human Services
US Department of Labor
McKnight Foundation
Northwest Area Foundation
US Department of Agriculture
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Subcontractor(s) Abt Associates, Inc.
Domain Income Security/TANF
Status Completed (final report released)
Duration Jun 1991 – Jun 2001
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To implement and evaluate the Parent’s Fair Share Demonstration (PFS).
Program/Policy Description PFS centers on four core activities: employment and training services, peer support through group discussions focused on the rights and responsibilities of non-custodial parents, stronger and more flexible child support enforcement, and voluntary mediation services to help resolve conflict between the custodial and non-custodial parents. PFS is required for non-custodial parents (usually fathers) who are unable to meet child support obligations and have been referred to PFS by the courts.
Notes No notes reported.

And the findings, in brief:

Recent Findings in Brief

12/01/01: Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration: The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons From Parents’ Fair Share

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings

As a group, the fathers were very disadvantaged, although some were able to find low-wage work fairly easily. PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities. PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children. Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

Because I happen to be familiar with the contractor “MDRC” through prior research (i.e., looking around on the web….), I went to CPR (Centerforpolicyresearch.org) and simply typed in “Parent’s Fair Share.”

This is how many links came up:

Search Results

1 Projects – Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ProjectRelevance: 3006
Assist MDRC in design and implementation of a mediation component in the Parents’ Fair Share Demon…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/284/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:09:47 PM
2 PovertyRelevance: 2008
Many of CPR’s projects involve identification and assessment of programs to reduce poverty and…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/Poverty/tabid/262/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:33:25 PM
3 Incarceration and ReentryRelevance: 1004
CPR has done seminal work on child support and incarceration. As a result of CPR’s studies of …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/IncarcerationandReentry/tabid/263/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:20:48 PM
4 Projects – Child Support Strategies for Incarcerated and Released ParentsRelevance: 1003
Publicize information on the child support situation that incarcerated and paroled parents face an…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/378/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:51:44 AM
5 Court ServicesRelevance: 1003
CPR’s Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes have pioneered the development, implementation and ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/CourtServices/tabid/256/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:15:59 PM
6 Projects – Evaluation of Parents to Work!Relevance: 1002
Evaluation of a program to utilize TANF funds to deliver services to noncustodial parents involved…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/375/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:46:52 AM
7 Child SupportRelevance: 1002
CPR personnel have been leading researchers and technical assistance contractors for nearly ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/ChildSupport/tabid/255/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:09:46 PM
8 Projects – Task Order 38: An Assessment of Research Concerning Effective Methods of Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents with Child Support ObligationsRelevance: 1002
An analysis of child support issues concerning offender and ex-offender noncustodial parents. The …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/382/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:54:07 AM
9 Projects – Texas Access and Visitation Hotline IIRelevance: 1001
Evaluation to assess the effectiveness of a telephone hotline offering parents in the child suppor…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/294/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:21:13 PM
10 Publications – When Parents Complain About Visitation.Relevance: 1001

http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Publications/tabid/233/id/427/Default.aspx12/18/2008 3:46:12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

They do things like this:

Multi-Site Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Subcontract with Policy Studies Inc.

Contract with Office of Child Support Enforcement

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

1999 – 2001

Close Abstract

Multi-site evaluation of eight responsible fatherhood projects to assess various methods of outreach, client intake and service delivery to noncustodial parents in an effort to promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their children, and to assess the effectiveness of a management information system developed to for use at the sites.

or “MEDIATION INTERVENTIONS” (based at the Child Support Location) to get them more ACCESS to their children. . .. A whole other set of funding (HHS) is the “access visitation grants system.”

(CFDA 930597, I believe on TAGGS.hhs.gov) another thing I wasn’t told about in my custody issues.

MDRC, like PSI, like CPR, and others, are many of the organizations contracting out these programs. LESS highly publicized (but it’s out) is the court-based organization, AFCC giving awards to Ms. Pierson (of CPR), this organization also pushes mediation.

We are all in all moving quite towards a “planned economy,” whether or not we personally approve of it, or comprehend in just how many ways. LOOKING UP ONLY “Parent’s Fair Share” on the web, these came up:

Promising Practices Home

Operated by the RAND Corporation


For this amazing summary, with so many government agencies, quite an assemblage of persona (and backed by several foundations), done in 8 different areas, the bottom line is, it didn’t affect anyone’s bottom line! No significantly increased child support payments, and not much more involved fathers. Says so right here!:

  • Overall, from the perspective of the custodial parents, the net result of PFS did not produce a detectable change in their total income as a result of child support payments.
  • With respect to child contact, PFS did not lead to increases in the frequency or length of contact that noncustodial parents had with their children.

In fact, kind of the contrary:

  • For more-employable men, the program had little effect on average earnings and somewhat reduced employment among those who would have worked in part-time, lower-wage jobs.

Back to topTop

Hrere’s the MDRC site report on the Parent’s Fair Share:

The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration, run from 1994 to 1996, was aimed at increasing the ability of these fathers to attain well-paying jobs, increase their child support payments — to increase their involvement in parenting in other ways. These reports — one examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ financial and nonfinancial involvement with their children and the other examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ employment and earnings — provide important insights into policies aimed at this key group.

What it doesn’t say — we failed at both goals…

By the way, MDRC stands for Manpower Development Research Corporation. These Corps are sprouting up to work with the government (and foundations behind the government policies) to manage society.

From April 2010, Still coming up with “astounding” revelations (for how much$$?) about how life works:

Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships

What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

{{that depends on who “WE” is. One thing seems evident — that the four authors to this paper, below, are employed, or at least have some nice sub- sub-contracting work… Another thing “We” (women in my position) would have LIKED to know is that organizations like MRDC and CPR and PSI and others are (through HHS) making our lives harder, “for our own good” because we dared to collect child support at one point in time. In retaliation for this, our “exes” will be helped by the United States Government to stay on our tails for the rest of time, possibly.}}

No, SERIOUSLY now, as of April 2010, after a decade plus of family/fatherhood programs, what bright conclusions can be drawn?

As described in earlier articles, children whose parents have higher income and education levels are more likely to grow up in stable two-parent households than their economically disadvantaged counterparts.

WHO IS THIS MDRC? Now that some poor folk actually have internet access, we can find out who’s studying (us):

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.

The Board of Directors are the Cream of America, as follows:

Board of Directors
Robert Solow, Chairman
Institute Professor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mary Jo Bane, Vice Chair
Professor of Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Rudolph G. Penner, Treasurer
Senior Fellow
Urban Institute
Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Brookings Institution


Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty—he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

(SEE MY TOP ARTICLE, THIS POST – some people are not too happy about it!)

Encouraging Marriage Helps Everyone

Children & Families, Marriage and Family Formation, Social Issues, Social Norms

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Business Week

Higher marriage rates among the poor would benefit poor adults themselves, their children, and the nation. Although I do not support coercive policies to achieve higher marriage rates, I do favor marriage promotion programs conducted by community-based organizations such as churches and other nonprofit civic groups. The activities these groups should sponsor include counseling, marriage education, job assistance, parenting, anger control, avoiding domestic violence, and money management.
I also notice that creative solutions to making ends meet are not necessarily on the agenda here. For example, instead of funneling the “poor” in to poor jobs, low-wage jobs, how’s about helping THEM to start businesses and run them?
Or to get grants and pursue some of their dreams, possibly filling in a gap that someone from Harvard, MIT, or a sociologist might not see?
Does anyone besides me see the irony in having someone IN government coach someone else about money management ?? ?????

The Background of Europe, including A female Pope, a dead Pope and a whole lot of converts…

leave a comment »

I have been dealing (and blogging) on myths, and how to enforce them on a populace, when they aren’t inherently acceptable (or sensible) to that populace, it’s going to take WAR.

I’d been looking up “iconoclasm” and its relationship to Charlemagne. Charlemagne can be called “the father of Europe” in one sense, and in 800, he became “The Holy Roman Empire.”

A few posts ago — I believe on Independence, Fatherhood and Debt, I talked about some early American debates on which brand of Christianity the “founding fathers” really held. It wasn’t the mainstream kind. Well, Back up, say, 1,000 years and here’s Europe duking it out over this and that.

The site is “Long Waves of Time.” I found this page informative, and it’s certainly relevant now:

The alienation of the European people from their native cultures was accelerated during the times of Charlemagne and presaged what happened to the native people of the Americas and their indigenous cultures following the voyages of Columbus.

My point being, the mindset is habit-forming. Perhaps a change of theology and imagery, led by women, who are tired of seeing their kids chopped up, and their friends, or go off to war, might be able to change the culture. But we will have to boycott violent systems, and indoctrinating systems. It won’t be easy.

Charlemagne’s crusade against ‘heathens‘ took place in the course of his Thirty Years’ War (774-804) during which most of the indigenous cultures of Europe disappeared. The violence and atrocities of Charlemagne’s Thirty Years’ War include the executions of thousands who refused to convert to Christianity and resulted in deaths of about a half and in some regions close to two thirds of the pre-war population. During Charlemagne’s Thirty Years’ War, people who refused to be converted were executed. These executions took place in recurring waves, reaching its peak in 782 when Charlemagne executed in a single day over 4,000 Saxons who refused to convert to Christianity. During his campaigns against Saxony, in his conversations transcribed by his biographer Eginhard, Charlemagne often repeated that

‘Saxony must be Christianized, or wiped out.’

Carolingian Reformation

At the early years of the Carolingian Age, the lucid writings
of Venerable Bedes (672-735) and his followers provide insight into the general obscurity of these times. Venerable Bedes (672-735) wrote on various topics, such as history (Ecclesiastical History of the English People), orthography, grammar, and theology. Bede also composed a summary of the works of Roman naturalists. Bedes legacy was continued by Alcuin (c.735-804), the intellectual successor of Bede, who established a school at Aix-la-Chapelle with the classical curriculum of the medieval education: the seven liberal arts of grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. Alcuins students, such as Rhabanus Maurus, known for his poetry and De arte grammatica, carried Bedes legacy into the interior of Europe.

(r. 774-814)

The Carolingian Reformation proper commences with the ascent of Charlemagne (r. 774-814) who established the Holy Roman Empire in 800. The atmosphere of Charlemagnes times was told by Emmanuel Roidis in his 1866 novel Pope Joan. In 1960, the Roidis’ book was made into a movie by Lawrence Durrell. Joan was a female Pope who ruled the church between the pontificates of Leo IV (847-855) and Benedict III (855-858). Her name was expurgated from the Vatican records and the resulting gap was filled by the extension of the actual reigns of the adjacent popes. Joan studied in Athens and after her arrival to Rome she disguised herself as a male to get a job as a papal notary. After the death of Leo IV she was elected Pope. During a papal procession, she gave birth to a child. Her enraged entourage stoned both Joan and her newborn child to death.

{{and they even started putting a hole in the chair, so future popes could be gender-verified..}}

Historians of religious bent credit Charlemagne with great political, religious, and humanitarian vision. Other historians describe Charlemagne as religious fanatic. Bernard Bachrac characterizes Charlemagne as

‘a gluttonous and superstitious illiterate, or semiliterate,
who had a considerable capacity for brutality.
His accomplishments were due mostly to the ruthlessness
with which he treated any opponents.’

During the times of Charlemagne, the Byzantine Empire was rocked by the Great Iconoclasm Controversy. The Old Testament forbids making images (thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image), however, the New Testament does not reiterate this prohibition. In Greek, eikono-klasmos means image-breaking. This controversy between Iconoclasts and Iconolaters was among the early manifestations of the Old-New Testament doctrinal differences that later came into prominence during the Protestant Reformation. Charlemagne got involved when the Byzantine Empress Irene asked the hand of Charlemagnes daughter for her son. Charlemagne at first agreed, but when he learned that Irene does not support the Iconoclasts, he broke the engagement.

Saxony, 782

The alienation of the European people from their native cultures was accelerated during the times of Charlemagne and presaged what happened to the native people of the Americas and their indigenous cultures following the voyages of Columbus. Charlemagne’s crusade against ‘heathens‘ took place in the course of his Thirty Years’ War (774-804) during which most of the indigenous cultures of Europe disappeared. The violence and atrocities of Charlemagne’s Thirty Years’ War include the executions of thousands who refused to convert to Christianity and resulted in deaths of about a half and in some regions close to two thirds of the pre-war population. During Charlemagne’s Thirty Years’ War, people who refused to be converted were executed. These executions took place in recurring waves, reaching its peak in 782 when Charlemagne executed in a single day over 4,000 Saxons who refused to convert to Christianity. During his campaigns against Saxony, in his conversations transcribed by his biographer Eginhard, Charlemagne often repeated that

‘Saxony must be Christianized, or wiped out.’

During Charlemagne’s Thirty Year’s War, most of the Western Europe was converted to Christianity. Charlemagne, who signed documents as Carolus, Rex and Sacerdot, the King and the Priest, maintained a close collusion of the secular and ecclesiastical powers. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope Leo III as the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 and was canonized in 1165. The end of the Charlemagnes Empire can be characterized by the Cadaver Synod (896), the bizarre trial of Pope Formosus.

{{apparently there was some reasoning for it at the time. Good grief!!}}

The frequency of warfare during this period was high. Charlemagne’s empire rested almost entirely on the force and after his death and a prolonged civil war, the empire was divided (887) among his heirs into three areas, roughly corresponding to present France, Germany, and Italy, marking the end of this epoch.

And we know they’ve been free from war ever since . . . . . .



Ready to review the 7-lesson schoolteacher, from John Taylor Gatto?

The 7-Lesson Schoolteacher
                          by John Taylor Gatto
                      New Society Publishers, 1992

      Call me Mr. Gatto, please.  Twenty-six years ago,
{{Do the math...If you can...}}
 having nothing
better to do at the time, I tried my hand at schoolteaching.  The
license I hold certifies that I am an instructor of English language and
English literature, but that isn't what I do at all.  I don't teach
English, I teach school -- and I win awards doing it.

      Teaching means different things in different places, but seven
lessons are universally taught Harlem to Hollywood Hills.  They
constitute a national curriculum you pay more for in more ways than you
can imagine, so you might as well know what it is.  You are at liberty,
of course, to regard these lessons any way you like, but believe me when
I say I intend no irony in this presentation.  These are the things I
teach, these are the things you pay me to teach.  Make of them what you


The first lesson I teach is confusion.
Everything I teach is out of context...  I teach the unrelating of
everything.  I teach disconnections.  I teach too much: the orbiting of
planets, the law of large numbers, slavery, adjectives, architectural
drawing, dance, gymnasium, choral singing, assemblies, surprise guests,
fire drills, computer languages, parent's nights, staff-development
days, pull-out programs, guidance with strangers you may never see
again, standardized tests, age-segregation unlike anything seen in the
outside world...  what do any of these things have to do with each


The second lesson I teach is your class position.  I teach that
you must stay in class where you belong.  I don't know who decides that
my kids belong there but that's not my business.  The children are
numbered so that if any get away they can be returned to the right
class.  Over the years the variety of ways children are numbered has
increased dramatically, until it is hard to see the human being plainly
under the burden of numbers he carries.  Numbering children is a big and
very profitable business, though what the strategy is designed to
accomplish is elusive.  I don't even know why parents would allow it to
be done to their kid without a fight.

      In any case, again, that's not my business.  My job is to make
them like it, being locked in together with children who bear numbers
like their own.  Or at the least endure it like good sports.  If I do my
job well, the kids can't even imagine themselves somewhere else because
I've shown how to envy and fear the better classes and how to have
contempt for the dumb classes.  Under this efficient discipline the
class mostly polices itself into good marching order.  That's the real
lesson of any rigged competition like school.  You come to know your


The third lesson I teach kids is indifference.  I teach children
not to care about anything too much, even though they want to make it
appear that they do.  How I do this is very subtle.  I do it by
demanding that they become totally involved in my lessons, jumping up
and down in their seats with anticipation, competing vigorously with
each other for my favor.  It's heartwarming when they do that, it
impresses everyone, even me.  When I'm at my best I plan lessons very
carefully in order to produce this show of enthusiasm.  But when the
bell rings I insist that they stop whatever it is that we've been
working on and proceed quickly to the next work station.  They must turn
on and off like a light switch.  Nothing important is ever finished in
my class, nor in any other class I know of.  Students never have a
complete experience except on the installment plan.

      Indeed, the lesson of the bells is that no work is worth
finishing, so why care too deeply about anything?  Years of bells will
condition all but the strongest to a world that can no longer offer
important work to do.  Bells are the secret logic of schooltime; their
argument is inexorable.  Bells destroy the past and future, converting
every interval into a sameness, as an abstract map makes every living
mountain and river the same even though they are not.  Bells inoculate
each undertaking with indifference.


The fourth lesson I teach is emotional dependency.  By stars and
red checks, smiles and frowns, prizes, honors and disgraces I teach you
to surrender your will to the predestined chain of command.  Rights may
be granted or withheld by any authority, without appeal because rights
do not exist inside a school, not even the right of free speech, the
Supreme Court has so ruled, unless school authorities say they do.  As a
schoolteacher I intervene in many personal decisions, issuing a Pass for
those I deem legitimate, or initiating a disciplinary confrontation for
behavior that threatens my control.  Individuality is constantly trying
to assert itself among children and teenagers so my judgments come thick
and fast.  Individuality is a contradiction of class theory, a curse to
all systems of classification.


     The fifth lesson I teach is intellectual dependency.  Good people
wait for a teacher to tell them what to do.  It is the most important
lesson, that we must wait for other people, better trained than
ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives.  The expert makes all the
important choices; only I can determine what you must study, or rather,
only the people who pay me can make those decisions which I enforce.  If
I'm told that evolution is fact instead of a theory I transmit that as
ordered, punishing deviants who resist what I have been to think.

      This power to control what children will think lets me separate
successful students from failures very easily.  Successful children do
the thinking I appoint them with a minimum of resistance and decent show
of enthusiasm.  Of the millions of things of value to study, I decide
what few we have time for, or it is decided by my faceless employer.
The choices are his, why should I argue?  Curiosity has no important
place in my work, only conformity.

      Bad kids fight this, of course, even though they lack the concepts
to know what they are fighting, struggling to make decisions for
themselves about what they will learn and when they will learn it.  How
can we allow that and survive as schoolteachers?  Fortunately there are
procedures to break the will of those who resist; it is more difficult,
naturally, if the kid has respectable parents who come to his aid, but
that happens less and less in spite of the bad reputation of schools.
Nobody in the middle class I ever met actually believes that their kid's
school is one of the bad ones.  Not a single parent in 26 years of
teaching.  That's amazing and probably the best testimony to what
happens to families when mother and father have been well-schooled
themselves, learning the seven lessons.

      Good people wait for an expert to tell them what to do.  It is
hardly an exaggeration to say that our entire economy depends upon this
lesson being learned.  Think of what would fall apart if kids weren't
trained to be dependent:

{{NOTE -- you see now why I'm posting this?}}}


     The sixth lesson I teach is provisional self-esteem.  If you've
ever tried to wrestle a kid into line whose parents have convinced him
to believe they'll love him in spite of anything, you know how
impossible it is to make self-confident spirits conform.  Our world
wouldn't survive a flood of confident people very long so I teach that
your self-respect should depend on expert opinion.  My kids are
constantly evaluated and judged.  A monthly report, impressive in its
precision, is sent into students' homes to signal approval or to mark
exactly down to a single percentage point how dissatisfied with their
children parents should be.  The ecology of good schooling depends upon
perpetuating dissatisfaction just as much as commercial economy depends
on the same fertilizer.  Although some people might be surprised how
little time or reflection goes into making up these mathematical
records, the cumulative weight of the objective-seeming documents
establishes a profile of defect which compels a child to arrive at
certain decisions about himself and his future based on the casual
judgment of strangers.

      Self-evaluation, the staple of every major philosophical system
that ever appeared on the planet, is never a factor in these things.
The lesson of report cards, grades, and tests is that children should
not trust themselves or their parents, but need to rely on the
evaluation of certified officials.  People need to be told what they are

AND last, 


      The seventh lesson I teach is that you can't hide.  I teach
children they are always watched by keeping each student under constant
surveillance as do my colleagues.  There are no private spaces for
children, there is no private time.  Class change lasts 300 seconds to
keep promiscuous fraternization at low levels.  

Students are encouraged to tattle on each other, even to tattle on their parents.  

Of course I
encourage parents to file their own child's waywardness, too.  A family
trained to snitch on each other isn't likely to be able to conceal any
dangerous secrets.  I assign a type of extended schooling called
"homework", too, so that the surveillance travels into private
households, where students might otherwise use free time to learn
something unauthorized from a father or mother, or by apprenticing to
some wise person in the neighborhood.  Disloyalty to the idea of
schooling is a Devil always ready to find work for idle hands.  The
meaning of constant surveillance and denial of privacy is that no one
can be trusted, that privacy is not legitimate.  Surveillance is an
ancient urgency among certain influential thinkers, a central
prescription set down Republic, in City of God, in Institutes of the
Christian Religion, in New Atlantis, in Leviathan and many other places.
All these childless men who wrote these books discovered the same thing:
children must be closely watched if you want to keep a society under
tight central control.  Children will follow a private drummer if you
can't get them into a uniformed marching band.




2 years after Mr. Gatto wrote (or spoke) this, some significant actions happened nationwide. One, the Violence Against Women Act passed, 2 (or the other way round), the National Fatherhood Initiative formed, thereafter transforming the character of a major U.S. Executive Dept. agency.

1992-26 years = since 1966. He was describing a school system as he began to work in it 50 years ago.

It will take time to undo what is actually more than a century of such school lessons, and to individually and personally REVERSE all the bad lessons taught in them, which are still being echoed in other institutions — MOST of them — until til now now.

I hope this will illustrate why I am writing about the religion/government issue. We need to start drawing our own conclusions and writing our own theologie and social contracts.

WHY do you think a few years ago, some Los Angeles judges almost shut down homeschooling for several thousand children (I believe the # was 66,000 at the time)? As reported here:

California Judge Orders Homeschoolers into Government Education

Posted on February 29, 2008. Filed under: Culture,Education Idiocy,Nanny State,Socialism/Communism |

Unbelievable! Am I living in a communist country? I’m really starting to get scared about where we are headed in the US. We HAVE to fight it!!

Judge orders homeschoolers into government education
Court: Family’s religious beliefs ‘no evidence’ of 1st Amendment violation

Posted: February 29, 2008
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or “legally qualified” private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation’s homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.

“We agree … ‘the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.’”
The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation’s youth.
Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said “school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens.”
Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that “keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.”
The appeals ruling said California law requires “persons between the ages of six and 18″ to be in school, “the public full-time day school,” with exemptions being allowed for those in a “private full-time day school” or those “instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught.”

(note: unless the code has changed since I knew it, the phrase “valid state teaching credential” also had a phrase on someone “capable of teaching.” It may have been misquoted to further restrict who can teach, or it may have changed in the interim. BGut the author caught the similarity to Germanic education. )

The pretense is that if they were in school, abuse would not happen. Baloney. Abuse happens, kids get raped and bullied and abused at school. the “cloistered at home” may or may not have been the case with that family. Many schools have metal detectors and security issues also, they’re a different form of “cloistered.” Kids have been shot and killed in schools (Columbine, etc.) and terrorized under threats of it (google “lockdown.”)

HERE’s a similar case in New York, that (as article notes) sounds like a scene out of “Planet of the Apes.” It dates “back” to 2010

Homeschoolers Arrested in New York: Slavery Returns to Amerika

Kurt Nimmo

In a move designed to send a message to parents, a Montgomery County, New York, couple were arrested and ticketed for homeschooling their children and failing to register their them with the school district.

“Richard Cressy, 47, and Margie Cressy, 41, both of the town of Glen, never registered their four children or their home-schooling curriculum with the local school district, said the Sheriff’s Office,” reports WRGB, a CBS affiliate in Albany, New York. “The Superintendent of the Fonda-Fultonville Central School District confirmed the four children, ranging in age from 8 to 14, had not been registered with the school district for the last seven years.”

The couple may lose custody of their children. The case has been turned over to the Montgomery County District Attorney and the Child Protective Unit.

On his radio show today, Alex Jones said the arrest and demand that parents turn their offspring over to the state is like a scene out of Planet of the Apes. In the cult classic, apes hunt humans and intern them in a slave gulag. Police and the CPS are acting like apes on the hunt. Jones pointed out that there is no law in New York criminalizing homeschooling and the arrest was predicated on a color of law regulation.

Local and state governments around the country have moved to criminalize homeschooling and force children to attend dangerous public schools. In 2008 in California, an appeals court ruled that parents do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children.

Earlier this year, a German couple asked for asylum in the United States after the German government ruled that homeschooling their children was illegal. Uwe Romeike and his family moved to Tennessee after the state threatened to fine him and take away his children. Romeike, an evangelical Christian, objects to German school textbooks containing language and ideas that conflict with his family’s values

Provisions in the California Education Code require “persons between the ages of six and eighteen” to be in “public full-time day school,” or a “private full-time day school” or “instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught.” The 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles argued that “keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they could interact with people outside the family.” In other words, that court ruled that parents have no right to decide who their children interact with socially and that decision will be left to the state and bureaucrats.

The ruling dramatically affects more than 200,000 homeschooled children in California.

The California educational system is notorious for its pro-homosexual curriculum. Children attending California government schools are taught explicitly to avoid “discriminatory attitudes and practices” toward homosexuals in accordance with state laws that fund revised curriculum and unspecified “tolerance” programs, writes Julie Foster.

In addition to “tolerance” programs, public education emphasizes sex eduction (teaching children how to be promiscuous) and suicide and death education.

A study conducted in 2002 revealed that public schools are infested with drugs. Half of all teens — and 60 percent of high school teens — report that drugs are used, kept, or sold at their schools. Students at these schools are three times more likely to smoke, drink, or use illicit drugs than students whose schools are substance-free, according to the study.

According to officials in New York and California, parents have no right to protect their children from drugs or shelter them from sexual and social brainwashing contrary to their values.

As noted by Michael Farris, chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association, judges around the country are responding to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). “In the 2002 case of Beharry v. Reno, one federal court said that even though the convention was never ratified, it still has an impact on American law,” Farris explained on the LifeSiteNews website. “The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence.”

{{Pause to note, I am no fan of HSLDA or Mr. Farris; he has ignored and/or dropped the issue of wife-beating by Christian husbands as if it didn’t exist, and in general, of such Christian venues don’t pick it up, they shouldn’t be supported. They don’t want to clean out their own closets. However, that doesn’t mean the government one is any cleaner. It isn’t. This is how dogmatic doctrinairians fight each other. I say, let mothers have a say at cleaning up this mess. The FIRST thing we would do is Just Say No to boxing up our own kids from the time they are, mabye 3, til 18, and (if any young, black males live longer), thereafter in work cubicles or prison, whichever comes first. And then we are running around from cubicle to preschool to afterschool, to church, to mosque, to . . . .to . . . . (I forgot, I just ran out of breath….)…

The CRC was adopted by the United Nations in 1989 but not ratified by Congress. If passed, it “would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties – and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties – ‘the supreme law of the land.’ The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects,” writes Michael Smith for The Washington Times.

Many believe under Obama the treaty will eventually be signed and legally binding for millions of parents in the United States.

Article 29 of the CRC limits the right of parents and others to educate children by requiring that all such schools support both the charter and principles of the United Nations and a list of specific values and ideals (for instance, the “principle” of world government, the demonstrably bogus climate change agenda, population reduction, in short the entire globalist program).

“Every conceivable sphere of human activity is being analyzed and then planned for so that it will come under the ultimate control of the United Nations. It is becoming a world legislature, world court, world department of education, world welfare agency, world planning center for industry, science and commerce, world finance agency, world police force, and world anything else anyone might want — or might not want,” wrote Ezra Taft Benson in An Enemy Hath Done This.

The Copenhagen summit on climate change revealed that the United Nations is a front organization for the global elite and its transparent humanist facade will be done away with after world government is established. The United Nations, by and large, is a debating club for leaders and dictators of impoverished third world nations.

Charlotte Iserbyt, who served as Senior Policy Adviser in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education during the Reagan administration, has documented how public education is designed to dumb down children and prepare them for “socialism,” that it is to say a world government dictated by an elite who are not “socialist” in the commonly held sense of the word. For the elite, socialism is the perfect control mechanism.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Defining the world-1: Monotheism vs. Powerful, Wise Women

leave a comment »

When beliefs collide – –

Language is not precise, LANGUAGE is itself a tapestry of symbols which hopefully point to some common experiences, making communication possible. Collections of symbols are possible either through telling stories, and these are more vivid when our places in it, and PARTICULARLY the place of women versus men, are expressed in images, symbols, and myths that access the collective consciousness as expressed in art, architecture, dance, stories, and sculpture, music, (etc.) passed down through the centuries.

There’s practically none as pervasive as the image of the Snake or Serpent as the “bad guy.”

And in associating that serpent with the woman, Eve.  Bad serpent, bad Eve, bad Adam, a good God-Father is going to establish consequences and throw them out of the Garden for consulting another source of wisdom, for disobedience, and for failing to trust and submit.

That hierarchical pattern is bred into almost every oppressive government or faith.  It’s used in wars between Islam and Judaism, and Christianity.  Varieties of Christianity (and varieties within Catholicism, another breed entirely, almost) also war with each other.  Disgusted, some regimes attempt to eliminate “religion” but the entire concept of dogma, indoctrination, and enforced submission is what I call religion to start with.

I’ve had a lifetime full, and am ready to take a look at some other options to built-in destruction through being right all the time.

You should be too, unless you are truly independently wealthy and maybe have some assets not tied up in a paycheck, or for that matter in $$, or any currency tied to the $$.  Because we are talking about What Led to the Fatherhood Indoctrination (idiocy).  Til cloning and despite artificial insemination, it takes something from a man and something from a woman to make another human being.  And I don’t think a great replacement for breastmilk has been invented yet (in fact, substitutes have definitely contributed to problems, you can’t invent a better start to life than mother’s milk, unless it’s laced with other lethal chemicals, or too many stress hormones from, say, being in a war zone….).

Today, I have lost approximately 3,000 words of writing, and this is the scaled-back version, absent scripture references, commentary, and several initial images from art and mythology.

BUT (for what it’s worth) below is my narrative of CHANGE, and progressive shedding of old ideas that simply didn’t work in this life or for me, or my family, or my associates.

I am a Christian, and except for their treatment of women in general, I would be a feminist libertarian.  I’m a feminist because  common sense says there has to be antidote to the ongoing slaughter of women and a children for the “crime” of attempting to stay alive by separating from an abusive relationship.  THAT’s a Lose/Lose scenario for most of society, but there are most definitely some sectors of society that don’t care, because they profit from it.

It’s nearly impossible to get a coherent and proofread, thorough post out in a c ontext where til recently I didn’t have internet access except laboriously so.  This current laptop, great as it is, has its drawbacks (such as losing work…), yet I continue reading in these fields and networking with others going “through it.”  My conclusion seem to differ from mainstream, and my viewpoint as a mother, AND I have a B.Th., and extensive exposure to religious viewpoints, plus being raised, I’ll call it agnostic church attender, there’s a lot in there.  Unlike many Protestants, I actually respect Catholicism, for a number of reasons, but regardless of which viewpoint you take, the primary destruction seems to revolve around the role of women.

This narration, it’s to show the symbolic shedding of old myths as they prove fallible, and doing this is part of growing up.  I also see the inherent resistance to this in the systems I slithered through on the way to losing almost everything I consider valuable, except physical life and a bit of hope.

There is a “Defining the world-2” upcoming.  If I have to be subjected to even an awareness that the House (or Representatives) Ways & Means Committee is going to lend its ear to a whole panorama of reasons why things should continue ad nauseam as is to indoctrinate young men into how to grow up, after a public school system (in most cases) failed to incorporate the concept, and young mothers cannot choose, and in short, the experimentation is to continue until someone “gets it right” (and the kids who aged out of the system are now having their own kids), then I can put MY theories and anecdotal evidence, weaving in culture, religion, and some history & politics, up on the web.


I never expected a simple marriage to a Bible kinda guy would lead me (years later) to re-examine the entire concept of monotheism versus paganism. I’ve been “in the book” since I was an adult, and in a nontraditional enough way that looked at the history of the texts (i.e.., what got in, what was excluded), appreciated the art, language and music in it (particularly Psalms, which were probably sung originally, and often as the Catholics do still). My work put me around the eclectic varieties of faith and atheism, always seeking the common ground and how we could (whatever the task) work to elevate the excellence of whatever task was at hand, or to bridge the differences of semantics to some common project or understanding.

There s a whole lot of beauty and knowledge out there, and you CANNOT have a flat-screen, cartoon God or life with success, not in this century.

Or so I thought.

At least people of faith have their thoughts organized around a text (or so I thought). Atheists can call people of faith “stupid” (and do — see last post) and people of faith can, with their Bible, believe, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God!” We can all handle this IF the social contract includes that law as a boundary. Among the Ten Commandments are several that the U.S. (and state) Penal Codes reflect directly — Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury).

Or so I thought.

But, hey — after being yelled at, assaulted, put down, humiliated, degraded (in front of children), forced to beg sometimes for necessities (transportation, clothes at times) during the marriage, having bank account and credit shut down, having access to even WORK (getting there, getting back) be restricted, or whether the money I earned there could be even spent for personal necessities, having zero joint bank accounts (entire marriage), having the most valuable aspects of ME shut down because I as a PERSOn was not welcome in this marriage; having to repeatedly start something, and then either forced to stop it, or suffer retaliation for having succeeded, however minor the success, and all this gathering momentum year after year — and all of this being in the name of “head of the household” and having all of perhaps 2 total Bible verses (to justify this) quoted at me the entire time (and neither one, in context, does), I got out, turning to the “secular world,” concluding this was just a jerk with an inferiority complex bolstered by the worst (not the best) of religion, and a good dose of SECULAR (legal) help would make the difference.

“He was undereducated, he had a troubled past, he had mental health issues”. . I knew that these were not valid excuses, and (in order to survive) it didn’t matter why, it only mattered that this must stop (in our particular marriage, weapons were increasingly prominent towards the end, there were talks of suicide and fantasies of one or both of us dying. This was before I knew anything about “lethality assessments.” It wasn’t at all that technical, it was simply, I MUST get OUT! !!!

NOT for LONG. The next arena to take on was immediate family. I’d felt that lack of education was a factor, plus the particular religious group (see that “grasping” for reason? In life, we need some “WHY” to organize our WHAT WE DO’s and plan a future.”) They were educated, and they were not religious. Some of them had witnessed some of the worst of it. I had a restraining order, I had gotten outside of the faith communities (already realized while IN the situation that they were worse than useless — they were literally dangerous in the coverup, minimizing and trivializing situations that almost ended in blood. My relatives should’ve been on my side.

WRONG AGAIN. One or more of them was immediately opposed to the restraining order, educated and secular as they were (NB the one most adamantly opposed was male, and not a parent). Being busy rebuilding (work, especially) and repairing home and my own health, restoring relationships in the profession that had been targeted for shutdown the entire marriage, I put it on back burner, but made the internal changes: My family, not just the faith community, was more comfortable with me in abuse than out of it, change was NOT welcome, but a threat to the family dynamics. This was like a family heavily invested in keeping an alcoholic or drug addict on drugs.

Like a snake writhing out of its skin (see where this is heading?), I let that one go. In such such situations, time and money are short, and one cannot build a new business and life on shaky foundations. I let them go emotionally and mentally. In fact, I literally told them to get lost, get out, get a life, respect my boundaries.

They didn’t.

I found literature (a certain year), I believe by Lenore Walker, explaining how using the same abusive Power-Over dynamics on a woman leaving abuse was the exact opposite of what was needed. [[Note: the professional world STILL doesn’t get this one..]], mailed it to them, and went about my business.

Meanwhile, they went behind my back and about trying to stuff my wriggling, fresh, growing new self back into that old shell, that old dead format. I set boundaries, which were ignored. I was just about to play the legal card again, getting an anti-harassment order on a certain relative (the emotional blackmail was escalating, and the arguments behind it credulous. I knew the individual had no basis for believing the factually frivolous claims, which made them more frightening — how could such a person simply LIE at me against my will, especially having done nothing to stop or even verbally protest the original violence, which was severe, ongoing, and escalating. Serious injury did happen, although at one level, trashing the work history was worse, the economic issues.

Still, I had hope that with BOUNDARIES that some judge would give me, I could move on. I had internally filed, labeled, and changed where I put “faith community” and “family dynamic” and was with my rational mind going for the legal system’s help — after all, it’d helped me out the first time, right?

No, Wrong.

I went to renew the restraining order — and he filed for divorce and custody. [I know now that he was counseled to do this by his attorney. Some men may be savvy enough to figure this out, but mine wasn’t. Family court trawls for cases, and gets them in part by very poorly written restraining order / visitation orders, which come back because of teh built-in problems of the order itself. ..Current literature focuses almost exclusively on “the manipulative batterer” who supposedly outsmarts the courts, and the judges just don’t “see” the manipulation. That’s hogwash — the courts welcome it, the system breeds this, it keeps the game going.]

The case bounced into the family law system, and he asked for everything. I knew he didn’t even want the everything he asked for, couldn’t care for the kids himself, didn’t have steady enough work to support them. He had yet to even acknowledge hitting me, so I knew there was not going to be any “going back.” I still thought that there was some “reason” and I could get my life as a person, incorporating “mother,” obviously. I had already gotten my work life back, and the kids (despite all this) were doing very well with their schooling, in fact amazingly so (“amazing” what can happen when violence and the chaos that comes with it is thrown out of a home..People can function in their strengths, not in defense mode. Relationships within the home AND with outsiders are more honest. Nothing to cover up…)

He did not get everything — not custody, not me pay him child support. But what he DID get was threefold:

  • He got the restraining order renewal derailed, and
  • He got us in front of a mediator (separate this time), which was critical.
  • He got to derail — completely (lots of job loss around this hearing, at a time I was prospering, freelance, self-employed) – my life and change the balance back towards giving orders through the courts. this time, no family member sat in on the hearing, and no one from the family violence center that had helped me initially file a CIVIL restraining order (when a criminal one would’ve been more appropriate).

I changed again. I saw this mediator sit back and look at me like we were in a seance and looking at me could substitute for fact-finding. This was close to the truth, it eventually surfaced. rules of court were violated. Evidence submitted by him but not served in advance to me was on his desk and being considered. Photographic evidence (that many of the claims on the pleading were fraudulent) was with me, and turned down. I didn’t yet know the rules of court, I learned them later. But I knew the man I was sitting in front of was neither impartial nor did he give a crap about our kids, or respect me, although I probably was as educated (if not more) than him and a mother.

On the way back from mediation, literally shaking from the encounter (our kids had been brought in also, 10 minutes each. They read him like a book. He didn’t read them at all…) I stopped in a library and there, on display, was Lundy Bancroft’s book “Why does he DO that? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.”

Being at this time a mother, with custody and a life I valued, I was in need of explanation of HOW could this BE? (cf. Mary, the mother of Jesus, getting an announcement by the angel Gabriel, she was going to have a baby, although without intercourse. Go figure. The things Id just read, signed by my ex, had no more factual fathers in reality, but something Fabulous (pun intended — i.e., fables) was indeed conceived at this moment in the belly of the family court system, and in part in a mediator’s office.)

That was the summer I started really reading in the field of domestic violence. Mr. Bancroft’s book represented THE single male person I’d yet encountered who actually stated in public and in print that it was indeed wrong, to abuse a woman, and having worked with one of the first men’s batterer’s programs long ago, he was telling it like it is, including minimization, rationalization, and how sometimes the man is able to turn HER family against her (which I’d just experienced).

I have since wriggled out of THAT delimited view (and blogged on it). Though Mr. Bancroft is right, he is writing to professionals and for professionals, mostly. His book “The Batterer as Parent,” co-authored with (Peter Jaffe? Jay Silverman) is even cited on the county court system website, and is excellent. It clearly states that the relationship with the NONbattering parent should be supported, and watch out for undermining that parent’s authority, and watch out for kidnapping.

So What? No one’s really acting on it, that I can see….And by listening to this, the cognitive dissonance increases. Women accept the experts instead of their abusers…we just switched masters of information and spin. I believe Mr. Bancroft’s motives are a lot more pure, but it’s still the same process – RECEIVING information about US rather than EXPRESSING the TRUTHS about us

Now that this kidnapping in our case (a few short years later) has actually happened, I have to conclude that this book didn’t make a difference in custody decisions in family courts, that I can tell. Mr. Bancroft is still conferencing, selling books and writing, as far as I know. He has started an organization helping women heal emotionally from ongoing legal abuse and devastation of losing contact with their children through the courts, which understandably will not run out of business any time soon. Women in my situation are unemployed, or their wages are garnished to below sustainable housing, and CERTAINLY below the ability to fight back in court.

I don’t CARE “Why He Does That” and I most certainly don’t want to crawl back inside the mind of an angry or controlling man (and there’s more than one in my life presently, despite attempts to ignore, cut off, change phone #s, and getting outsiders to tell them to stop. I doubt a court order would, it didn’t the first several times…). I already know what a Batterer is like As A Parent. Not much different than he was as a spouse — control freak, alternately neglectful, and unable to conceive of the children except as his satellite, or me as something other than “his wife,” although I never went back or let him stay or sleep in any residence since separation, ever.

We must ALWAYS continue to revise and re-frame our paradigms and understand the limitations of our own professional helpers, and our own culture. I will do this the rest of my life while the mind is functioning. Such considerations develop me as a person.

The IMAGERY for women doing this, renewing their lives periodically through shed skin (kind of reminds one almost of the menses) is the image of the snake. Kind of like nature, it renews itself seasonally, and without making a bid deal about it.

By contrast, institutions designed by men interfere with both nature and life, and attempt to encase it in concrete. They attempt to freeze-frame truth, write it down, dogmatize it, and inject it directly or (through the general ambience) onto large populations to get this thing “organized” and down to a science. Domestic violence is now a “field.” Fatherhood has “practitioners.” Psychology categorizes the aberrant, and with time and LOTS of money, someday, it will all be filed and No Child Will be Left Behind. For every function, there is an organization to address it, so the general populace need not worry, leave it to the experts.



NOW — I’m simply relating where it’s at now — I’m ready to re-evaluate the concept of Monotheism, the accuracy and reliability of this scripture that’s been my sourcebook of symbols, proverbs, directives, source of art, literature and understanding for centuries in the Western and Eastern worlds, and at the hearat of supposedly U.S. and Europe’s governments.

I don’t expect to abandon my faith, but deepen it. I no longer read the Bible as “mainlining thoughts from God,” although it resonates with me. I often look at it as from an unseen author who wrote or narrated this explanation of how life is. There is a sense in which truth will always resonate.

For example, the family law courts are “full of it” and will continue to be so. They are doing what they were designed to do — keep women in their place, but do it with a pretense of rationality and veneer of law. When we go in there seeking justice and look some of these court professionals in the face, read what they wrote, and see what happens, WE KNOW BETTER.

They are what they are. And they are where batterers run for solace and cover, and get it. They are where child molesters can continue to get access to children they have molested (not that all couples going through there have this, but we know many do) and they are where professions can be made on discussing the issues without solving them. Where calls to reform will produce books to be sold, and make the names of the writers. Like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, KISS, and any other superstar businesses, there is always collateral business. We have entirely forgotten that “ANY PR [public relations] is GOOD PR.”

They are where a man can steal kids through the court in an illegal manner (and have it justified) but a woman who does so will be more apt to go to jail for it.

They are where problems created BY government practices can generate more funding to supposedly correct those practices, with less and less accountability, thereby continuing to subjugate and enslave not just the litigants (talk about a waste of lives, talents, energies and time!), but anyone who helps fund it. AND, if you pay federal income taxes, you help fund it.

I’m sorry to say it this blunt, but if you send tithes or charity to a church, particularly I’ll say a Protestant church — you are endorsing this. It doesn’t “count,” it doesn’t balance out that perhaps your church even has programs for the homeless. How’d some of those people GET homeless? Even when it doesn’t always involve domestic violence (although it’s been already identified as a primary cause of homelessness for women & children), still, it’s a waste of taxpayer money. The taxpayers delegate the problems to the government that aren’t being handled by it, anyhow.

We have let too many people with other agenda label and structure our world, and have failed to properly audit the cultural air we are breathing. It will fall hardest on the poorest, but it’s going to take down the middle as well, FINANCIALLY.

If (since) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ALL degrade women because they are women, and they are primary in our culture, it’s time to take another look at how this happened and restructure our myths, PRIMARILY that people are logical and detached.

I already posted on the Pit of Despair (experimenting on monkeys by torturing them, as thbe scientist worked out his own depression on the animals), the Rosenhan experiment (where even trained psychiatrists couldn’t tell a real patient from a fake one, and once the test was exposed, they then saw a “pseudopatient” when looking at a real one. I have lived through more historical revisionism than I can stomach. Apparently most of my life didn’t happen, and my children have been trained and coached in this (while being totally separated from them).

Psychology is closer to a religion than a science, for the simple reason it’s not legal to experiment on people. This is done, but it’s still not legal. The legalization of this has been codified, practically, into the family law venue, but at its heart is the attempt to demonize women for protesting abuse. It’s origins are in Freud, and a lot of things we say are unacceptable, but we accept, if you think about it.

Well,, I’m willing to think about this issue between Eve and the Snake, and how although the “nonbelievers” say they don’t endorse it, they, like me, live in a world which has been essentially structured on certain myths, and in these myths, these stories, ALWAYS individuals, men and women, NEVER GROW UP. while primarily it’s women who supposedly know, this habit of thinking, this cultural air, always has SOME sector of people who are not as fully “developed” as us, or as perceptive, and need to be trained and drilled in the right way to grow up and think like those running the place.

This IS “The Road to Serfdom” and has been travelled before.

The Road to Serfdom is a book written by the Austrian-born economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek between 1940–1943, in which he “warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning,[1] and in which he argues that the abandonment of individualism, liberalism, and freedom inevitably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual. Significantly, Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism was a capitalist reaction against socialism, instead arguing that fascism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and the power of the state over the individual.

The Road to Serfdom is among the most influential and popular expositions of classical liberalism and libertarianism and remains a popular and influential work in contemporary discourse, selling over two million copies, and remaining a best-seller.[2][3]

In addition to looking at these economics, which libertarians are so prone to do (in fact, I see that Glen Beck has been promoting this book), I am also realizing it’s time – for me at least — to challenge the demeaning and collectively devastating imagery of women that procedes from the theology of the Bible. I’ve looked at “the Great Scramble” (dividing up of Africa by European powers). We seem to vaguely acknowledge, now even in a popular movie, “Hotel Rwanda” that the genocide in Rwanda had plenty of outside help, from European powers creating an artificially incited distinction between Hutu and Tutsi, then acknowledging it too late to stop the genocide.

Is it possible that the gender wars in the courts are similar in basis? And the gender wars in life have not helped men, or women. I would LIKE to address this, being of middle age myself, and having been stunned and astonished at what passes for “education” and “law” in this country.

WIKIPEDIA ON THIS BOOK (note, I just got it and am reading it. ):

John Maynard Keynes said of it: “In my opinion it is a grand book…Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement.”[10]

. . .Your greatest danger is the probable practical failure of the application of your philosophy in the United States.” [11] George Orwell responded with both praise and criticism, stating, “in the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.” Yet he also warned, “[A] return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state.”[12] Hayek’s work was influential enough to warrant mention during the 1945 UK general election, when according to Harold Macmillan, Winston Churchill was “fortified in his apprehensions [of a Labour government] by reading Professor Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom[13] when he warned in an election broadcast in 1945 that a socialist system would “have to fall back on some form of Gestapo.”


FEW, if ANY of the analyses one can read all over the web, and institutes, organizations, etc., talking about “the problems” have even a historical or an economic analyses of the problem. They can talk legal, they can talk psychological, they can talk gender, they can talk domestic violence, or child abuse, or father’s rights, but very seldom will they talk MONEY. Yet money is primarily what it’s about.

And few also talk about how this system is virtually a pathway to slavery for people in the country. Both parents, and children, are in “need” of education. Custody evaluators are in need of “education” Judges “just don’t understand. EVERYONE needs to be indoctrinated at everyone’s expense. They supposedly need this more than they need to have those unalienable rights, or due process, or any of the things described in the Bill of Rights.

HOW is that not a church? And who better than to confront the dogma in these issues than some of the people who have been treated like dogs in the process? While the rest of the pack is kept in basic ignorance, or a tightly won set of spin that’s so accepted, it’s enculturated.

U.S., U.S. CHRISTIANS v. Third World (Latin America, here) Christians, AND WAR AGAINST THE POOR, AND WOMEN:

Collections of symbolism indicate the religion, and we’d best learn to deal with some varieties of it. Or deal with upcoming Armageddon, whether we believe in it or not, enough people DO who could help make it happen.

There’s also the long-term, high-pressured, ongoing expensive trauma I describe in these pages on the family court system, but I am coming to understand it through a number of analogies. Only watching this happen, personally, and then witnessing others also go through similar process, could’ve alerted me to the larger, pervasive issues that cannot be continually quarantined. They aren’t even limited to the United States — neither bad policy through family court organizations (AFCC comes to mind), nor the financial impact of the increasing debt hitting the perpetually in distress sectors.

The term “LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT,” I know about this personally. The phrase “Financial Low Intensity Conflict” (“FLIC”) , I read in a book by Susan George about the Debt Crisis. Continual low-intensity conflict is still conflict, and is one of the worst aspects of the “cycle” of domestic violence. Because peace without a settlement that is mutually respected, is not peace. There is practically no peace available until someone is annihilated in this world view, and I’m talking about the world view that insists that men, any men, must dominate women, or they aren’t fully men.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Progressivism, “expertism” kind of blends together when you or your kids or associates are the target, and taking the repeated “hits.” All of the above “isms” can play both sides of the fence, some being more overtly destructive than others.

I looked up “Low Intensity Conflict” and got this, re: El Salvador, murder of Jesuit priests:

War Against the Poor: Low-Intensity Conflict and Christian Faith by Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer holds a Master of Divinity degree from Union Theological Seminary in New York and has lived in Central America off and on since 1982. He is author of Hunger for Justice and The Politics of Compassion, both available from Orbis Books. Published in 1990 by Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York 10545. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.


The murder of Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the invasion of Panama, the “war on drugs,” and changing East/West relations add urgent weight to our need to confront the U.S. strategy of “low-intensity conflict” (LIC).

Please bear with the change of “scope” of subject and read on. War is war, and it’s everywhere, and will be reflected in cultures of war also. The general concept is, making the target population (or person, religion, or gender, or political ideal) the ‘OTHER,’ which justifies the takeover, and suspending whatever internal social standards (among the “Uses”) might apply.

The collapse of undemocratic regimes in Eastern Europe and improved East/ West relations, themselves hopeful signs, have potentially disastrous implications for Third World peoples.

U.S. leaders began redefining the enemy as the organized poor in the Third World long before the recent changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Improving East/West relations will accelerate the trend of redirecting resources from the “defense of Europe” into new LIC strategies of Third World intervention. A recent document approved in December, 1989 by the Army’s chief of staff, General Carl Vuono, entitled “Military Operations in Low-Intensity Conflict,” describes the army’s new aggressive plans. A Newhouse News Service article states: “The U.S. Army, refocusing its attention away from Europe, is preparing for an aggressive new role in the Third World that ranges from non-military ‘nation-building’ in friendly countries to fostering sabotage and insurrection in ‘oppressive’ regimes. . . . The Army expects to become involved in the Third World ‘to a greater degree’ than ever before. . . .”

• Improving East/West relations increases the likelihood of an East/ West alliance against the South. Third World Christians, calling for the conversion of Christians in North America, have noted the danger: “Ironically, just when there is talk of more peaceful coexistence between East and West, our countries in the South experience increased hostile attacks from the West.”10

• The U.S. is desperately searching for enemies. The “threat of international communism,” which served as a cover for the defense of the U.S. empire, is being replaced with a new ideological garment. Enemies are now being defined as “terrorists” or in terms of “communist threats” that are regional (Cuba) or local (El Salvador, the Philippines). However, the most important ideological tool in the post-Cold War period is the “war on drugs.”

The “war on drugs” is serving as a cover for U.S. militarization in defense of empire. A letter from Catholic religious workers in Bolivia dated October 6, 1989 states:

We recognize the tremendous problem of the international drug trade and drug abuse. . . . But we join our voices with those Bolivians who say that the solution to this widespread, international problem is not sending military troops to production centers. . . . So why is the United States sending U.S. troops to Bolivia to “combat” drugs? Our analysis and that of many Bolivians is that the drug problem, a truly critical problem here and in the United States, is serving as a pretext for wider U.S. military presence and control on the continent of South America.

The parallel being, within the U.S. the violence against women / fatherhood wars is producing an unbelievably repressive system, administratively obscure and impoverishing. The “spin” is unbelievable, and the consequence — this system, I sometimes jokingly call the “Family Court Archipelago.” There are some indications that it has involvement in trafficking of children. CPS gets there too late, police get there too late, but the general theme will be everyone must be supervised, monitored, counseled (“therapy” i.e., reprogramming), and at times drugs recommended. We ARE the world’s largest per capita jailor, already, and these jails are disproprotionately full of young, black men. WHY?

Recently, a prominent organization (Family Violence Prevention Fund) was coming out on the side FOR the gun ban in Chicago, and guns represent personal self-defense, when understood and used legally, rather than feared and treated like poison. I have faced down more than one situation involving a gun, and it wasn’t with a stranger. But the other attrition is long-term trauma, and as they say here, “low intensity conflict. . . ” More from this particular site:

Repressing Democracy in the name of Democracy

George Will, celebrating the death of Marxism and chastising the “anti-Americanism” of progressive churches, declared that “Reagan’s way is affirmed again.” Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post noted with great pride that the United States is “in fact, more hegemonic in the world in 1990 than in 1950.” This of course is only a sampling. The tragedy is that Central America has become an equivalent of Tiannamen Square for the United States, in which the U.S. government and media collaborate to repress democracy in the name of democracy.

Finally, recent events underscore our spiritual crisis. The Latin American Council of Churches sent the following letter to Christians in the United States after the murder of the Jesuits:

How long? How long will the Christians and people of the United States have to contemplate the incongruity of its government . . . as it supports with over a million dollars a day another government that represses, kills bishops, religious workers, children, men and women, violates human rights, closes itself to dialogue and obstructs the pastoral task of the churches? . . . How long? In the name of the God of Justice, in the name of Jesus Christ, Prince of Peace, in the name of the Spirit of all truth: stop now!

The U.S. invasion of Panama prompted another letter challenging our racism and our nationalistic idols:

Now with Panama invaded, we Latin American Christians feel indignant when we hear the count on North American victims of an operation that was planned with evil intentions and hypocrisy, and yet nothing is said about the hundreds or thousands of Afro-Indo-Latin American lives . . . destroyed physically or psychologically by such an abominable adventure, which is a repetition of past crimes in Santo Domingo, Grenada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador . . . etc., in an endless list. We ask ourselves, then: How long will the Christian churches in the U.S. continue to tolerate, and in some cases even justify, these actions that not only violate the most basic human rights, but also the right that the weakest or smallest countries have to make their own decisions and to write their own history.16

Jon Sobrino, a Jesuit whose life was saved because he was visiting Thailand when his brother Jesuits were murdered in El Salvador, recently told Sojourners magazine: “You cannot be a believer in God today in this world if you do not take oppression seriously. . . . What is at stake here is faith and humanity. . . . I don’t know how you can be a human being on this planet today if this growing oppression and poverty is not your central Issue.”17 As Christians living in the United States, what is at stake in our confrontation with “low-intensity conflict” is the very essence and integrity of our faith and our claim to be human beings.

— Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer

March 15, 1990

We have got to be willing to re-evaluate and balance our theology and practice, rather than sitting complacently by while “expertise” is injected into us, our kids, ourselves, our institutions, and that includes religious ones. I have been astounded to watch (last decade, decade before) the atrocities and entrapment in my own home (and I’ve heard of worse) being “respected” because a male (perpetrating them) was there. He couldn’t have gotten away with this if someone else had protested. But they “respected” that “castle.”

Then, once I got “out,” the spin began, and revisionist history. Boy THAT gets you thinking. All I felt I needed was financial independence, and that was where the long-term and intense war took place, while the mouths were preaching something else. Unlike many women, I actually had the skill set and some of the contacts (amazingly), so other ways were devised to prevent me from controlling my own infrastructure. I watched this unfold with amazement.

I have been thinking about the Bible’s figurative language in forming the world, stating truths through systems of stories and symbols. People are symbolic and religious in nature, I don’t think this is going away soon. And however “rational” we are thought to be, rationalism being desirable in certain societies, i.e., a “rationally planned society,” there is the emotional edge.

Clearly, there’s SOMETHING about SERPENTS. WHY is a spiritual evil called “the serpent”? WHY, from the beginning (“Genesis”) was it so necessary to establish Adam as first, wise, talking directly to God, and not deceived, like Eve, by that nasty Serpent?

What was so evil and nasty about a certain animal species? It must have been the symbolism attached to it.


Why is the snake used as a symbol of evil?

Explained in the above site:

It was an important image in ancient pagan religions. The goddess Astarte, who represented the fertility of nature, was often portrayed with snakes. People saw the dead skins shed by snakes, and assumed that the snake had in some way died but then come alive again. They saw the seasons of the year following the same pattern: in winter all things died, but in spring Nature mysteriously sprang back to life. So the image of a snake was used in fertility rituals, especially those relating to the seasonal cycles.

To the Hebrew people, the snake was shorthand for polytheism and paganism, the natural enemy of Jahweh and monotheism.

You can’t stray far in Old or New Testaments without running into the paganism debate. Paul mocks the Athenians “whom you ignorantly worship, him I declare: God that made the world “winked” at your ignorance, but now commands everyone acknowledge Jesus Christ, because he’s appointed a day in which the world is going to be judged by him, and the assurance is the resurrection from the dead.

Giving life has always been a pre-occupation of religion. Most religions deal out the opposite, but women have been giving birth, forever. As far as I know….

One author (not Biblical) wrote, War was what men did while women were giving birth, raising children, developing agriculture and in general making life more civilized. Men, given technology, are going to figure out how to blow something up (case in point, look at history!).

Even the Prince of Peace is going to establish peace ONLY after everything is blown up and a new heavens and new earth made. Guess who is going to rule THEN? They crucified him (whoever did), and what goes around comes around. EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND CONFESS JESUS LORD.

ALL religions require submission and confession, and have a variety of ways of obtaining this. First, voluntary is best. Thereafter, force will do . . . .

VOLUNTARY submission is a social contract, or an individual contract. It has its place. I’m just getting a little tired of the theme, after all these years. So, I’m also willing to look (again) at the paganism debate, if it will make a significant difference in the world, especially the world I hope my children will outlive me in (and I plan to live a long time).

And along those lines, I have to address the innate hostility (overall, despite some significant departures) the whole Book, and the People of the Book, has towards women, symbolically.

I mean, in some places offspring, whether male or female, are referred to as “seed.” we’ve all had some anatomy by now, and (hopefully) know that even an ovum is larger than a sperm, and genetic inheritance comes from two parents, not just one (pre-cloning, that is). Sorry, but that’s insulting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~




NOT ONLY ARE THERE THROWAWAY KIDS, BUT NOW THERE ARE THROWAWAY ADULT WOMEN. I’ve seen it, I’ve lived it, and I’m very concerned for my daughters that they don’t see this, that their experience of this world has been war in the home, war after separation, and themselves as commodities. They watched their mother get thrown away on pretexts, are not fully informed of HOW this was done (i.e., the extent of the corruption in the courts, and the particular lies in our court case).

The “deification” of fatherhood and the elimination of “motherhood” is no laughing matter.

The wars over land and tribal issues between at least three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity (sic) and Islam are literally worldwide in scope and impact. There have been centuries of wars and bloodshed over which books get in that Bible, who represents God. Men have been burned at the stake and lived their lives as fugitives for simply translating it into the common language. I THINK it’s relevant. All women should understand this affects them, when a President doesn’t even mention women in his inaugural speech, and when he is pushing a “religion” defining health, defining education, defining “welfare” and defining healthy marriages, childhood, and fatherhood — off on the rest of us.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 16, 2010 at 1:05 pm

%d bloggers like this: