CHILD SUPPORT UNDISTRIBUTABLE COLLECTIONS / CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTS:
“The Expanding Administrative Presidency” and both the Bachmanns = Lord, Help Us!
Disclaimer:
I drafted this earlier, posted separately on the Bachmanns (as I recall — I don’t go reviewing my own material much after it’s published!) and then decided to put up the draft. Currently, I am researching a different topic, how the Federal Government HHS/OCSE took control of the States via Welfare Reform of 1996, and forced all? of them to individually create a single, centralized “SDU” (“Statewide Distribution Unit”) for child support by the late 1990s or, basically, forfeit the federal grants to the states FOR welfare. This expansionist activity, though supposedly for the great cause of reducing welfare (HAS it?) — has resulted in state after state of pools of “undistributable” (so-called, probably true in some cases) millions which then earn interest for the states some of which I posted just recently.
In Auditing SOME of the counties in SOME of the states approximately ONCE per incident — the concern of the HHS/OIG/OAS (Office of Inspector General / Office of Audit Services) showed (expressed) no distress, alarm, or shocked outrage at the dishonesty of the states — particularly California & Texas — or ANY concern for the children who didn’t receive their child support — but EXCLUSIVELY reminded the states that, by not reporting right, they had failed to fork over the appropriate 66% of their take to the Feds.
How, apart from the weaponry, is that not basic “Mafia”?
(see next post — which looks at Tennessee, just for example…..)
I’m gradually concluding that this is a fathomless, bottomless that is, black hole of $$ extorted or garnished from parents, and diverted to the county, state and federal institutions (and/or privateers in the child support industry). WHO KNOWS how much went down there unless the reporting is validated, and examined? Not only did the OIG/OAS apparently wait YEARS to audit the effects of their new, major revamp of the child support systems in ALL United States (all 50 and I’m sure territories) — even though the states are to report quarterly! on two specific forms — but the OAS apparently hasn’t got the teeth, hasn’t followed up (that we can tell, so far) on what happened to big states like California, or Texas (let alone the rest of the counties in those states) that were caught red-handed but not red-faced.
That’s what happens when it’s “hirelings” guarding the goods — and not people whose money it actually is……
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SO, just because I think the information should be posted — here’s some more Bachmann information, in part for seeing what happens when you put religious zealots in government positions. I’m not reviewing it, just posting the draft forma here. I put some Bible in there for insight into how the religious mind justifies (this and that); if there’s something worse than abusing a person because of gender (or because it’s possible), it would be doing so and attempting to systematize and justify it in the name of one’s God, while practicing hypocrisy in personal life.
(Written earlier):
I wish I could retreat into books, or some new or former profession and not deal with these topics. However, I fear that we are about to (or have already) entered a seriously dark ages. This is no joke!
Why we must pay attention to government’s FORM — to restrict rampant religiosity.
BOTH THE BACHMANNS:
OK, Enough is totally Enough!
I’m not a Michelle Bachmann media junkie, although when I do hear, it’s disturbing in an Anne Coulter sort of way. However, when I heard her husband was running a Christian Counseling center, and that she’d voiced how women must be submissive to their husbands, I had to dedicate a post to this.
In part, because I know the significance from personal experience and a WIDE exposure to this mentality in evangelistic Christians immune to criticism or, say, correcting misstatement of historical fact.
One has to ask — who, then, will be running assuming (“God forbid,” given her stance) she won? The U.S. is not ready for a female President — not at least until the E.R.A. is passed — but if it were, would us choosing one that says “wives” (including herself?) must be submissive to their husbands — suppose her husband is a whacked-out zealot that suggests we go start a war on the infidels, as defined by his religion? Or other inane policies… Would she submit if her wisdom said, No?
MEET THE BACHMANNs…
“Michelle Bachmann Women Submit” (That’s the google search — take your pick!):
- Michele Bachmann’s husband shares her strong conservative values (Washington Post)
By Jason Horowitz, Published: July 5
LAKE ELMO, Minn. — In an interview last year with a Christian-radio talk show, Marcus Bachmann, a therapist who runs a faith-infused counseling center here, compared homosexuals to “barbarians” who “need to be educated, need to be disciplined.”
Dr. Bachmann’s strong anti-gay views would hardly be noteworthy outside of the suburban towns marked with water towers in the St. Croix Valley, except that his wife, Rep. Michele Bachmann, is suddenly the hottest commodity in the Republican presidential field. She has staffed up with professional consultants, but her husband of 32 years plays a central role. Dr. Bachmann, who recently called himself his wife’s “strategist,” has acted as her media planner, traveling assistant and even personal shopper. They share a bond born of a mutual religious awakening in high school and college, a deep faith in an especially conservative form of Lutheranism, and a common abhorrence of homosexuality.
“Their career in politics has always been about pursuing a social conservative agenda,” Larry Jacobs, a political scientist and longtime Bachmann watcher at the University of Minnesota, said of the couple. He said that Michele Bachmann’s initial race for the state Senate, in which she ousted a more moderate Republican, was “broadly over gay rights.”
- Then we hear from THIS Michelle that the African American family was better off under slavery than under Obama. (Perhaps she should consult with the current First Lady Michelle for a 2nd opinion….)
Bachmann pledge: Black families were better off during slavery than they are under Obama
By Mike Mullen Fri., Jul. 8 2011 at 3:19 PM Comments (15)(that’s not enough comments!!)
Michele Bachmann thinks that black families were better off during slavery than they are now.The pledge from Iowa’s conservative FAMiLY LEADER group that Bachmann signed yesterday is full of all kinds of wacky stuff — Shariah law! Porn! Protect soldiers from showering with gays! — but nothing more absurd than the clause about black family life.Not only is the statement that black families were more stable during slavery than today ridiculous and insulting on its face, it’s also already been proved inaccurate.In a section of the pledge meant to show that marriage is in a “crisis,” the first bullet point reads:“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
Even for Bachmann, this is shockingly ignorant. Let’s parse.
“African-American families”? As in the families that were broken up and sold to different slave owners?
“Two-parent”? Like the female slave and the white master who raped her?
“Household”? Do you mean the wood shacks out back where slaves lived?
It’s also not even true. The statement is footnoted to an academic paper called “The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review.”
Nate Silver actually went and read the paper, and then tweeted:
The “source” for the dubious statistic in pledge Bachmann signed comes from here. It refers to 1880-1910, not slavery.http://t.co/l5iR8WA
Oops. So, the pledge Bachmann signed was hugely insensitive, culturally ignorant and provably wrong. Yeah that sounds about right.Download and read the whole crazy pledge request by clicking here.
(note — the Logo: “The FAMiLY Leader” subtitle relates to federal grants streams: “Strengthening Families….” It’s out of Des Moines, Iowa. The Pledge is to not commit adultery, support the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA, i.e., oppose same-sex marriage), oppose ‘anti-women Sharia” (is there a PRO-women type of Sharia? Typical ignorance. Or, is it a pledge to oppose all sharia and in fact all other religions except Christianity (conservative….) in the public square?)
“The FAMiLY Leader” CEO is Bob Vander Plaats:
Homosexuality as “second-hand smoke.” and a public health risk.
Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum sign Bob Vander Plaats’ pledge
The State Column | Staff | Saturday, July 09, 2011
Republicans presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann announced Friday they would sign a controversial pledge s in support of traditional marriage sought by the Family Leader and it’s leader Bob Vander Plaats.
The pledge, which was offered to each Republican presidential candidate, is entitled, “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.”
(Guess they knew better than to try this on Democrats….)
My opinion: People who cannot be faithful to their (wives) cannot be — or less likely to be — faithful to their oaths of office. Both entail vows, at times. Stop voting to Promote Marriage if you Can’t Practice it yourself, I say. But that doesn’t change my opposition to the Bachmanns….
“A DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE UPON MARRIAGE AND FAMILY” — is a reversal of the sentiments in the Declaration of Independence, which is just used as a springboard to this PERSONAL agenda. It’s an outrage….It’s ludicrous. Unfortunately, such people don’t think so.
An aide to Ms. Bachmann said the congresswoman, who was the first Republican to sign the pledge, supported calls from the Family Leader, a group promoting conservative values. “She has been married for over 30 years and has a strong marriage and faith,” the aide told Politico.
Meanwhile, Mr. Plaats held a press conference touting his organization’s pledge.
If you are looking at being a leader of our great country….we would like to have you pledge personal fidelity to your own spouse and a respect for the marital bonds of others,” Mr. Plaats said Friday.
The Iowa Republican, who is quickly solidifying his reputation as one of the leading Republicans in Iowa, has already attempted to increase his presence within the Republican presidential primary race. Mr. Plaats sponsored a Republican presidential debate in Iowa earlier this year. Mr. Plaats said the signing of the pledge will be a requirement for future endorsement by the organization.
Earlier this year, Mr. Plaats raised eyebrows with his comments comparing homosexuality to second-hand smoke, saying that being gay was a “public health risk.”
Meanwhile, Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Santorum announced support for the pledge Friday, a number of additional Republican presidential candidates said they are considering whether to sign the pledge. Texas Rep. Ron Paul said he is considering signing the pledge, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty were noncommittal. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman’s spokesman Tim Miller told Politico the campaign has a policy of not signing any pledges. “He has been a clear supporter of traditonal marriage and will let his record speak for itself.
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/vander-plaats-peldge-sign-bachmann/#ixzz1RkEOzlUk
Gary Johnson, Republican candidate from New Mexico, claims they are giving Republicans a bad name. They are. Worse, Michelle is giving WOMEN a bad name, although I believe many of us will be able to distance ourself from her representations. Talk about turning the next round of primaries into a circus. ….Perhaps they are believing that all PR is good PR, even making a fool of onesself in public. But behind the religious fundamentalism is a sinister momentum, gaining ground.
Gary Johnson: Family Leader pledge gives Republicans a bad name
7:05 AM, Jul 10, 2011We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the ‘public’s pocket book.’
This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.
THE HISTORICAL PARALLEL MIGHT BE CROMWELL // Puritan England, practicing genocide on the dirty, Papist Irish Catholics, and sending them off into slavery, 1600s. Hate talk precedes (and justifies) hate actions.
While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.
The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012.
Who is Vander Plaats? Well — a “rightwingwatch” site gives a few indicators — the Governor of Texas is reaching out to him; he has sponsored prior presidential candidate debates,…after failing a run for governor of Iowa, he ran a campaign to get 3 Iowa judges kicked out on the basis of their position on homosexuality (?); funding by the AFA — American Family Association:
The Family Leader
Perry Reaches Out To Vander Plaats For Iowa Advice
Submitted by Brian Tashman on June 21, 2011 – 12:33pmAs Governor Rick Perry ponders a run for the presidency, it is already clear that he doesn’t mind working with the most radical of anti-gay leaders. Perry’s The Response prayer rally is hosted by the American Family Association, whose spokesman Bryan Fischer wants to see homosexuality criminalized, and former activists with The Call, a prayer rally that defended Uganda’s ‘kill-the-gays’ bill. Other individuals working with The Response include militantly anti-gay leaders Jim Garlow, Cindy Jacobs, David Bartonand David Welch.
Now, the Des Moines Register reports that Perry aides are reaching out to Bob Vander Plaats, the head of The Family Leader. Vander Plaats led the successful campaign to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who backed marriage equality and is closely linked to (and funded by) the AFA. Vander Plaats is also tied to an effort that likened being gay to being a cigarette smoker and once said that allowing equal marriage rights for gay couples threatened the system of private property and gun-ownership rights. One former adviser said that Vander Plaats is “obsessed with the gay marriage issue.”
Since Vander Plaats is a powerful Religious Right figure who has hosted presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain, it is no surprise that Perry is in touch with him:
A supporter of possible presidential candidate Rick Perry of Texas telephoned an Iowa conservative leader today, inquiring about the political scene in Iowa.
“They were asking questions, asking my take on Iowa, how things are lining up and also making sure I know they like Rick Perry,” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative advocacy group that’s hosting a presidential lecture series.
(this article has plenty of links, including to one stating that it was “thrice-married adulterer Newt Gingrich” that helped steer $150,000 to the campaign to oust the 3 Iowa judges who showed liberality on the marriage issue:
Gingrich also helped steer $150,000 to American Family Association Action to help defeat three Iowa State Supreme Court justices that ruled in favor of marriage equality. Along with ReAL, which is led by anti-gay activist Jim Garlow, and his support for the AFA, Gingrich has made overtures to other Religious Right groups and leaders including John Hagee, Bryan Fischer, Janet Porter, Liberty University,Liberty Counsel, The Family Leader and the Minnesota Family Council.
But will Gingrich’s financial influence, religious documentaries and appeals to prominent Religious Right figures translate to real support from activists who might be wary of backing a thrice-married adulterer? Fischer remains a skeptic, but Iowa’s Bob Vander Plaats, who coordinated the anti-judge campaign, is still grateful for Gingrich’s significant monetary aid:
Looking up corporate filings of ‘The Family Leader,” it shows 3 prior names? and a 1997 origin:
Searched: The Family Leader
Results 1 – 1 of 1
| Corp No. | Name | Status | Type |
| 213229 | THE FAMILY LEADER, INC. | Active | Legal |
Other businesses at this address, 1107 North Hickory, Pleasant Hill, IA (i.e., address lookup):
FAMILY POLICY COUNCILs (i.e., this is one) contain a reference to Focus on the Family — not EXACTLY aligned with them (at least, don’t ‘fess up to it):
(Focus on the Family is shockingly weak when it comes to domestic violence; it’s made mention in books on the issue….)
Since 1988, business and community leaders from across the nation have formed state-level organizations to invest in the future of America’s families. Each Family Policy Council conducts policy analysis, promotes responsible and informed citizenship, facilitates strategic leadership involvement, and influences public opinion. Many of these councils also perform community and statewide work to foster a movement to affirm families.
These councils are independent entities with no corporate or financial relationship to each other or to Focus on the Family. However, they have a uniform purpose: serving as a voice for the family and assisting advocates for family ideals who aim to recapture the moral and intellectual high ground in the public arena.
To find contact information for the Family Policy Council in your state, click the map below. To view the entire list of state family policy councils, simply scroll down the page.
I’d SAVE this link — it gives the (focus on the family-aligned — but not corporately identified with — groups in many states, perhaps all 50, I didn’t check) Might as well know who one is dealing with, should it come up:
http://www.redeemfamily.org/family_policy_council.html
The goal of this group (see banner) of which “The FAMiLY Leadership” (Michelle Bachmann being the first republican to sign onto its pledge) is “CHrist Only” (cf. Bush, “The Family”‘s “Jesus and nothing else.” philosophy, which has accommodations with dictatorships and murderers, tyrants, etc. as part f the authority needed to, well get “Jesus” at the center). What they are about is usurping the forms and places of authority in a country, or region — by whatever means — but for the noble goal of pushing (their) religion on the rest of us, because it’s obviously good for everyone. And heresies (such as the Declaration of Independence might tolerate) are bad for us.
OUR MISSION
1.) To share Christian based principles to youth and family that will liberate them from the cycle of destructive behaviors, abuse, conflicts, violence, and victimization;
2.) To offer spiritual guidance and hope by providing compassionate Christ-centered informations that is essential for their long-term personal transformation;
Notice the order. Actual, tangible “social services,” including crisis services — are 3rd & 4th, not 1st & 2nd. To qualify for federal grants (where it applies), they can’t just share the gospel directly, but in a transformative way, i.e., Christian-based principles, or “spiritual guidance . .. Christ-centered informations” essential for their long-termpersonal transformation.
3.) To provide them access to immediate help and supportive resources when they are in crisis through the cooperation of different agencies available within their community.
4.) To foster collaborations and partnerships with churches, government agencies and non-profit organizations within the community in order to make available social services the youth and family can utilize for their urgent needs;
The web-based platform enables this; yes, the web has transformed society and how it organizes itself, and weakened governmental protections (to individuals) while extending its reach (into individual lives).
5.) To distribute basic goods that will help assist their living conditions and alleviate their sufferings.
And, they are Trinitarians:
DOCTRINAL BELIEF
1.) We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
2.) We believe in the eternal deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Virgin Birth, in His sinless life, in His substitutionary death on Calvary for our sins, in His triumphant bodily resurrection from the grave, in His exaltation as Lord of all, and in His indwelling victorious life within His Body, the Church.
3.) We believe that all are lost apart from the saving grace of Jesus Christ and that salvation is by faith alone through the shed blood and regenerating Spirit of Jesus Christ.
4.) We believe that the true Church in composed of all those who have been born again through Him.
5.) We believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired and infallible Word of God to all mankind, the rule (canon) of all our faith and moral conduct.
They would approve of the Old Testament kill the gays and stone the adulterous (women, that is) — if they could get away with it. They FORGOT their own Jesus Christ treatment of the woman in their own gospel of John, saying, “whosoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” They may “believe” this about the Bible (no law against that), but let’s see the practice then, and a little humility!
This is impossible if they can’t read it straight. There is no “spirit of Jesus Christ,” — the word “Christ” as used refers to the anointing, or spirit in or on someone. (link to Phil 1:19, only place I could find the phrase; here’s the search; This is relevant because apparently this type of mentality (which the founders were not of — they were more Deists, as I posted recently — as were likely Tyndale, who translated most of the Bible into English, which these are not literate enough to read straight apparently; as was John Locke, on whose writings our Constitution had a strong influence, neither was Joseph Priestley, a researcher and discoverer who lost his laboratory and fled England because of his religious beliefs). Forgetting this, and forgetting the principles of Independence (in fact, mocking them) the FAMiLY and FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (and fatherhood, etc.) promoters in our century, are as inaccurate with their own theology as they are with OUR laws and governmental principles. They lack discretion and understanding — through lack of the habit of open discourse in their churches as well as we can see in idiotic public statements, in the context of personal hypocrisy (i.e., Michelle Bachmann rails on federal subsidies — EXCEPT to her own family’s business and her districts.
- 7.) We believe in carrying out the Great Commission of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ to evangelize the lost and to lift the burden from the poor, the afflicted, and the needy.
Then where are their miracles? How are they lifting those burdens? Are they doing what their great God did — or even told them to do?
But funding is coming from somewhere: Under “News”:
Post No. 1: Riverside County is launching a new and proven intervention program entitled Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). The purpose ofthis comprehensive program is to provide well-structured and multi-faceted intervention for youth within the trained foster care instead of spending their adolescence within the confines of group care and/or incarceration. Free in-house support and a monthly compensation of up to $2,000 is given monthly. Call Jennifer Vasquez (951)358-7144 or (951)358-6858. Mention referred by Emmanuel Youth and Family Mission Services, Inc.
Apparently “MFTC” was developed by the “Oregon Social Learning Center” and field-tested outside the United States; this mentions a Swedish study:
What more could confirm MTFC’s effectiveness? Although MTFC has been implemented in a large number of sites outside of the United States, where it was developed by researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Centre, it has not been subject to a randomized evaluation in these countries. This Swedish study is the first such trial to be published outside of the US.
The community-based treatment program works with specialized foster parents to provide antisocial young people with a structured therapeutic living environment. The treatment brings together the young person’s parents, school and social services. In Sweden, a social worker and the MTFC treatment team screened the young people for eligibility. The children had to meet a clinical diagnosis for conduct disorder and be at immediate risk for out-of-home placement.
Put forth by TFC Consultants, Inc., I’ll bet a nonprofit:
“Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: An evidence-based solution for youth with behavioral problems, their famlies and their communities.”
Mission
Founded in 2002, TFC Consultants, Inc., is dedicated to the implementation of community-based programs that are cost-effective and achieve positive outcomes for children, youth, and families. TFC Consultants, Inc., fulfills its mission by providing training, consultation and technical assistance to agencies, government entities and communities aiming to implement model-adherent Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) programs, by providing consultation and technical assistance to existing MTFC programs and by helping service providers, policy makers, and community leaders resolve issues related to the implementation of evidence-based practices.
(same terms we have become used to. History: The MTFC program model is rooted in studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s by Gerald Patterson and John Reid at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC).** Social learning theory and its principles form the basis for the MTFC model. Numerous research studies have been funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) at OSLC and elsewhere to identify key predictors of child and adolescent conduct problems, antisocial behavior, and mental health problems. More than 20 years of research in these areas led to the development of the MTFC model…..”Over the years, the original program model has been expanded to fit the needs of youngsters in all of the major publicly-funded child service systems (juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare). MTFC programs are now funded by multiple public agencies and organizations around the United States and in Europe. .)
**OSLC
Oregon Social Learning Center — I was here before, tracking a certain individual’s grants. Sounds entirely compatible with AFCC purpose — get people into group settings, and work on the transformations:
A History of the Oregon Social Learning Center
The Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) was started by a small group of researchers and clinicians interested in solving a major social problem, child antisocial behavior. For the past 30 years, two psychologists have formed the nucleus of the group: Gerald R. Patterson and John B. Reid. The individual and joint efforts of Patterson and Reid and their close colleagues set the foundation for what OSLC is today.
Click here for a BRIEF TIMELINE
The Development of Parent Training: The 1960’s (sounding familiar yet? AFCC pushing “parent education“) .
Patterson had been trained in traditional clinical methods such as projective testing and play therapy, but these did not seem to assist much in helping children with aggressive behavior problems. In contrast, the results of the marble box studies suggested that behavior modification had great promise for changing child aggressive behavior, and several professors at the University of Oregon (UO) guided Patterson in learning and applying behavioral analysis procedures.
In the early 1960’s, the new “social learning” group began a series of clinical studies with children, parents, and teachers. It was soon clear that parents and their day-to-day parenting behaviors were better targets for changing child aggressive behavior than direct clinical intervention with children, and the development of effective “parent training” techniques became the focus of the work.
Oregon Research Institute:
While the social learning group was getting off the ground, a new non-profit research center was incorporated in Eugene, the Oregon Research Institute (ORI). ORI was the brainchild of Paul Hoffman, an assistant professor from the UO psychology department who had been inspired by “think tanks” in the San Francisco area.
By the mid-1960’s, Patterson was disenchanted with the university world, and he left the psychology department and took his clinical research program to ORI. At ORI, work continued on the development of parent training methods as well as the development of measures of intervention outcome, such as child and family observational coding systems.
…At the social learning group’s newly opened clinic and research center, work continued on the development of interventions for a widening set of problems, including children who steal and parents who abuse their children. …
(Hang in here, keep reading, because this is leading to the local Marriage and Family Therapist territory):
A Multi-Disciplinary Research Center is Hatched: The 1980’s
Scientists Lew Bank, Patti Chamberlain, Kate Kavanagh and John Reid with Project Coordinators Irma August and Becky Higgins.After several years as an affiliate organization of the Wright Institute in Berkeley, California, and then as the Evaluation Research Group (ERG; a name inherited from Dick Jones), the group incorporated in 1983 as the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC).
What “The Wright Institute” does: (see link) — it is a path to employment in, among other places, the family court system, and other treatment outlets — it leads to a Psy.D.
The Wright Institute has been educating doctoral students in clinical psychology for over 40 years.
Our master’s program is designed for students who want a high-quality graduate education and prefer to attend classes on weekends only.
Whether you are already employed—in or out of a human service setting—or just beginning to re-enter the job market, our program will provide the necessary educational background and pre-graduate supervised experience for you to become a licensed marriage and family therapist (MFT) in California.
So, what are interlinked “Family Policy Centers,” including the “EYFMS” one above which advertised this post — doing trying to get into the Behavioral Modification and Parent Training fields? Those fields are straight clinical/forensic psychology in basis, and which do NOT have a Christian basis. The Christian worldview and premise are entirely different as to motivation, belief and practice. So what are so-called Christian groups doing in these behavioral modification based on experimentation fields?
In fact, the social learning theory is totally different from the evangelistic being transformed (or, “used” ) by the Holy Spirit (a personality of the Triune God, the other one having been born from the Virgin Mary, and the entire God-Family being noticeably absent any feminine members whatsoever) resulting in a radical ethical, behavioral change which a 3rd party (this Holy Spirit) is really responsible for — not the individual.?
THUS, THESE “Family Policy Organizations” organizations are not psychology-based in origin– they are “Focus on the Family” aligned (though careful to avoid “corporate or financial” ties). So what are they doing getting so involved in the social services arena (Now that Bush let more of them in?) Is from a genuine desire to provide the social services proceeding out of a love of humanity?
I’m going to say, NO. Based on the order of priority in their mission (not to mention practices) — the main purpose is to gain access to populations, sure, yeah, help them — but moreso, to “transform” them into Christ-centered Trinitarians and serve the same Great God Our Savior. They are simply utilizing pre-existing networks, and creating some more of their own, enabled by the laxity between proselytizing and social services that a former US President enabled — by Executive Order, not popular vote — in creating the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, to which President Obama has now given an additional goal (one of 4) of Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.
There is a fundamental illiteracy at the heart of so much of this. Maybe not in all areas of life, but when it comes to one of the critical ones: REASON — and HONESTY. What they believe, the Bible does not validate, or even mention by name; no textual or extreme literary skills are necessary to read things like this:
I Timothy 2: (EXHortation to pray for kings and those in authority)… 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 who willeth that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times; 7 whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
A mediator has to be positioned between two. Christ Jesus — a man, and the mediator between man and God. The mediator is not standing in the same position as God — that would defeat the entire monotheism central to the Jewish people that Jesus came from. Galatians 5:20 “20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one but God is one (Interlinear)
(SIMILARLY– in the Family Court Situation — the mediators SHOULD be neutral. However, they aren’t — and often, when subsidized by federal grants, and/or paid by the local County; they are going to go with the purpose of the federal grants, which is to increase noncustodial (Fathers!) parenting time — not to “resolve difficulties” but to produce an outcome with a pre-stated (i.e., pre-Judicial) end — not revealed to the custodial mother. Those court mediators are not functioning as mediators should, but as emissaries of the will of those who run the place — and that will is not stated in the courthouse, but in Federal Law relating to Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Access & Visitation)
In other words, I am issuing a warning, from both some texts (which others might not bother with) and from personal awareness, and I believe in the “Independence +3” post last week (sic), I made a good case, from historical context of our own country’s beginnings — that this TYPE of mentality will twist both the Bible, and the Constitution, and do so with a straight face. It is not a discursive reasoning process except on the surface; on the inside is no different than any other fundamentalist religion — whether Islam, or this version of Christianity, or Catholicism — any other territorial and aggressive group — it’s a surface-level commitment to the words, but an underneath clear intent to run with whatever the underlying agenda is.
Possibly what they have in common with the government programs is this subterranean (though not too far underground) intent to run things by gaining access to certain populations, in a power-based relationship, i.e., the “helping” function is actually a “power” function….
And this agenda will never be favorable or fair to EITHER women OR Gays/Lesbians, or the least bit apologetic that in illegal aggressions and suppressions of both, it’s OK to trample the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, or (see Bob Vander Plaats) get some financing to throw out three State Supreme Court judges who disagree with you, and tell the others to resign also.
(and, The Bachmanns, AND, the Family Leader of Bob Vander Plaats — AND the politicians clustering around this politico-theologico movement)
- That’s enough!
- A teenager in NJ has challenged her sent an open letter challenging Mrs. Bachmann to a civics debate:
Let’s check their businesses: a blog (or section) called “MINNPOTUS”
- Her husband’s therapy business is on the dole as the wife complains about Medicaid payments “swelling the welfare roles..”
NBC News: Bachmann’s husband gets big Medicaid payments
By Joe Kimball | Published Wed, Jun 29 2011 9:29 am
NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff has a story noting that while Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has “forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the ‘welfare rolls,’ the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005.”
According to the story, Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by her husband, Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, is:
“based in Lake Elmo, Minn., [and] describes itself on its website as offering ‘quality Christian counseling’ for a large number of mental health problems ranging from ‘anger management’ to addictions and eating disorders.”
Said the story:
“[T]he payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband’s clinic appear to contradict some of Michele Bachmann’s public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid.
The payments may be entirely legit. But then the wife ought to quit the hypocrisy. Also the family farm in the next-door state apparently is also subsidized:
Bachmann’s had her share of government aid
The fiscal conservative from Minnesota and 2012 presidential contender has benefited personally from federal funds and federal farm subsidies.
(photo caption: “Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) speaks at a conference in Minneapolis. Republican strategists warn that she needs to square her fiscal record with her public pronouncements. (Hannah Foslien, AP / June 26, 2011)”)Reporting from Washington—Rep. Michele Bachmann has been propelled into the 2012 presidential contest in part by her insistent calls to reduce federal spending, a pitch in tune with the big-government antipathy gripping many conservatives.But theMinnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state ofMinnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.And she has sought to keep federal money flowing to her constituents. After publicly criticizing the Obama administration’s stimulus program, Bachmann requested stimulus funds to support projects in her district. Although she has been a fierce critic of earmarks — calling them “part of the root problem with Washington’s spending addiction” — the congresswoman nonetheless argued recently that transportation projects should not be considered congressional pork.
Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received “one penny” from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.Publicly, Bachmann has objected strongly to federal farm payments.When she voted against the 2008 farm bill, a $307-billion package that would govern federal agriculture policy for five years, Bachmann declared that it was “loaded with unbelievably outrageous pork and subsidies for agricultural business and ethanol growers.” She was one of two nays cast by Minnesota’s eight-member delegation.Just a year later, however, Bachmann wrote to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, praising the federal government for helping prop up the prices of pig products and dairy by directly buying the commodities, a move that benefited her constituents.co. 2011 Los Angeles Times…
The LA Times does some good investigative reporting….
I know and still believe there are terrific men (single, married, or divorced) around, and I’d LIKE to believe there are Christian men who do not need religion to prop up ego, justify economically pimping their wives; who feed no need to force them to disappear as an individual into the family, and slap them down or around when they get uppity if these women disagree because that’s simply unwise and unfair.
When logic, or reason fails, certain men just fall back to the Adam/Eve relationship to justify their headship, not that they get this straight in context. Allow me, please . . . . .
Male and Female human beings together– Genesis 1:
How we got females (not including the male & female animals which had already been created….) — there being two accounts of creation: Genesis 1 details the 6 days of creation — man was made on the 6th day, “man” was made in plural, male and female together, and it doesn’t say from what, in which order, or From what. Then God took a well-earned rest. It is focusing on God’s speaking, and the setting in order of the world. This first version focuses on the 7 days of creation; “man” is more generic here, and no specific subordinate role assigned to women yet.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:
And, they were vegetarians: ” 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
NO INFERIORITY MENTIONED:
“31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Male and Female become Adam & Eve, “The Taming of the Femine” — Genesis 2:
(I find this easier to digest if one imagines the scene in which this was told, or recited — as oral history…. regardless of one’s faith or lack thereof in the book. Don’t just go blowing it off — because we live among religious people. To live meaningfully requires a viewpoint (see Viktor Frankl, “Man’s Search for Meaning” if you disagree. He survived concentration camps). Man is a religious animal; he seeks to assemble enough coherent meaning in the world to survive in it. Religion ain’t going anywhere soon. So might as well get a grasp on the outlook from both sides of the coin . . . . .
The 2nd account of creation has a different emphasis:
The chapters and verses weren’t added until the “Geneva Bible” — centuries after the originals; so we have this irrational division of Chapter 1 before the end of the subject, and Chapter 2 might more logically begin here:
Genesis 2:
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. . 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
[or see alternate rendering of the verse 4, generations, possibly “THIS is the account” (implying perhaps some alternate account was offered, but this is the official one….). A little more graphic detail on how things happened…..
“This the account [birth, generation — i.e., as in, generate] of the heavens and the earth. . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” nice and symmetrical at least…. A B B A form (heavens & earth….earth and heavens) AND (that the LORD God made) every plant of the field and every herb of the field before it grew.(or, sprouted)… Verse 5, Hebrew
Sounds like the Creative Force wasn’t going to get those plants sprouted before there was a gardener — man — to till the ground. And no rain yet. (OK…..)
The lead-in is going to describe how God made man. Put yourself around a fire, or in a circle, listening to the account from the authority figure… Because, here comes WOMAN. Eventually….
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Michelangelo, by contrast, has man at arm’s length, a fingertip away – the written account sounds more like, mouth to mouth resuscitation! The written account also sounds like God was down on earth, getting the job done; in fact a bit later (3:8) it described the Lord as close enough they had to hide from him: “(they) heard the voice of the Lord walking in the garden in the cool of the evening.” Evidently by Michelangelo’s time, God was not so approachable. Not to mention that ceiling was pretty high, also. (understandable, when one considers the pomp and ecclesiastical layers that had developed over the years, a great distance from Pope to Peasants.. with the Popes closest to God of course, and interpreting Him for the masses..)
http://kristenwishon.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/art-appetizer-the-creation-of-adam-by-michelangelo/
WordPress blogger notes: “In 1990, physician Frank Lynn Meshberger noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association “that the background figures and shapes portrayed behind the figure of God appeared to be an anatomically accurate picture of the human brain.”
Wow — yes, they do….(look at the outline). Is there a message in that? (The creative force that brought Adam to life emanates from the human brain?)..
No plural here, and so far, no females. Just one man. Now God had his gardner, it seems he was ready to make the stuff in the ground start growing, and two specific trees as well — and the stage is set for some ethics, I suppose — see?
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Where’s Mom? Where’s the Female? Where’s the woman? God did all that preparation for just the man? A whole lot of activity — the first woman just missed out on — Gd planted a garden, and put the an in it (who hasn’t done similar things as children; making an environment and sticking figurine/s in there, playing, imagining….) the trees started growing, especially those two that were’ going to hear more of…
Adam was awake; he’d received his work assignment, the first recorded words God spoke to humans (er — to Adam….), and it was, you may freely eat of every tree of the garden EXCEPT a certain one, and the day you do (if you do), you will surely die. ….So, here Adam is conscious, rational, capable of making choices, and given a fairly wide range of action — you’re free just don’t eat of that tree which will kill you — the same day you eat from it:
15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
OK, Adam has purpose, has boundaries, and has an active relationship with his creator.
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him
Forgive the irreverence, but this reminded me suddenly of someone adjusting a garment they’d just created. Step back, look at it — no, the hem is too long,something isn’t right. Was God not smart enough to figure this out up front? Or, having created man from the ground and feng shui’d the place, oops — something’s missing… It’s just plants and Adam. He needs to have other living, ambulatory creatures around for company….
Then (?) God figures out, his Adam shouldn’t be alone, so he brings by the various animals, which Adam gets to name. Adam actually gets to take initiative on his own. Eve didn’t get to help name the animals because she wasn’t around yet, evidently…
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;
For some unexplained reason, the LORD God tried out a bunch of animals to help his creation, Adam. Then He decides to make a woman, like this:
Genesis 2: 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Naming is power:
(by the way, that links to a Carole King/Celine Dionne/Shania Twain song on the topic):
Naming decides what characteristics will identify the named people/animals/situations — and which details will be ignored. It decides how to categorize; for example, we already say that Animals came before women when it came to companionship for them. God didn’t even consider making the woman (in this version) til various animals had been looked at and rejected as “help meet” for God’s first man….
“Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races.” (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)
“The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.”
Next, Adam is going to call woman a name. And guess what — pretty much that has gone on to date. Across the globe, it’s primarily men in government, in religion, at the head of the central banks (right?), I can’t speak for the UN, but in the USA, Congress is mostly men — and women were the last to get the vote, after freed male slaves, and there has been no “equal rights amendment.” In Saudi Arabia (last I heard) women couldn’t drive by themselves.
NAMING things represents power. This account (Genesis 2nd) of the heavens and the earth show clearly the subordination of women.
Over the years, and adding plenty of experiences, I have begun to believe that the subordination of woman’s status is the main purpose of this account of Genesis, the genesis of the world. Telling the story . . . . well here it comes — from “NAME” which is a healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood grantee:
Men Are from Dirt, Women Are from Men – Curriculum & Study Guide
Churches around the world {{yeah, like Uganda, where “NAME” was helping with the anti-gay, in fact, kill-the-gay campaigns}} are realizing that there is an answer to a serious problem—the breakdown of the family. Homes are being reunited, marriages are being restored, and childraasdfasden [(yes, the website does read “childreaasdfasden” — guess like me, they didn’t have a copyeditor or proofreader in the budget)] are being spared the terrible ravages of divorce.
NAME Centers are springing up all over the nation to fill this huge need created by broke[n] homes and generational vices. Churches implementing NAME Centers train couples to mentor other couples. This is done utilizing NAME’s unique training and certification system to prepare couples to biblically counsel other couples. These couples become the core of the local NAME Center.
As a result, churches are experiencing a decrease in divorce rates, less burden on the pastor for counseling, and strong, faithful families committed to the ministries of the local church.
Wait a minute! !!! This group is a federal grantee of Responsible Fatherhood funds, and it’s taking that money and helping recruit and train people to support the local CHURCHES? It was my impression this nonprofit was formed in order to receive the federal funding — not because it was around, and then, “oh my! — here comes that grants series”
So they are going to Biblically Counsel Men are from Dirt (ha, ha), but WOMEN (to this day) are from Men. Don’t mess with that, or you mess with God’s order…
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Leave a Reply